“Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.” – Janet Reno, former U.S. Attorney General

“No law ever written has stopped any robber, rapist or killer, like cold blue steel in the hands of their last intended victim.” – W. Emerson Wright

Almost like clockwork, the recent sniper shootings have once again caused a flurry of cries for tacit measures of gun registration and control, despite the non-sequitirs these calls invoke.

Naturally, the first instinct of proponents of ballistics registration (i.e., tracking the unique markings made by the rifling within a gun upon a bullet when it is fired) is to cast their case in terms of the pragmatic versus the ideological, i.e., spinning their case as one of pragmatic measures to protect the public embattled with an ogreish band of ideologues at the NRA who oppose any encroachment on the right to bear arms.

To appease such critics, let’s look at the efficacy of “ballistics tracking.” What is perhaps not unexpected is that because the proposal of ballistics tracking proves little different in practice than full-out gun registration, the same logistical hurdles apply.

First, consider the matter of the estimated 200 million guns currently present in America — for any proposed system of registration to work, this requires all existing guns to be tested and registered in addition to all newly manufactured guns — otherwise, said system proves impotent to track any guns made before tracking was required. Naturally, this isn’t a problem with rational, law-abiding citizens, but then, rational, law-abiding citizens aren’t the cause of gun violence — it is the criminals who could care less about the law who are. Thus, it is impossible to track any existing guns in the hands of criminals in the present.

Consider then the more extreme scenario where unregistered guns are confiscated and only registered guns may be sold — clearly, if the so-called “assault” weapons ban is instructive for anything, it is in that criminals are not obtaining their weapons through legitimate channels. Were this the case, one would expect automatic rifles to simply disappear from the streets over time, yet clearly as even the most strident gun control supporter would concede, this hasn’t been the case. Instead, criminals simply import their weapons through the black market, obtaining guns from smugglers and criminal syndicates.

Beyond the failure to address the problem of violence, registration poses other significant civil liberties issues, namely that of privacy. Indeed, it is somewhat startling to hear ardent opponents of privacy abominations like a national ID card advocate tracking the quantity and type of weapons each individual in America possesses.

A natural objection would be that unlike a person’s medical or financial records, a person’s firearms may be used to injure or kill others. Yet this idea turns the very concept of presumption of innocence on its ear — by assuming that the simple act of gun ownership makes one a criminal suspect, perhaps then we should monitor the sale of alcohol and pay-per-view sports for their connection to domestic violence. The simple act of possessing a firearm harms no one directly — like alcohol, it is in how it is used that determines whether or not an individual will be harmed. To assume otherwise violates the fundamental tenets of innocence until proven guilty.

Likewise, registration logically lends itself to talk of gun confiscation. Consider the agenda of those who propose measures like registration: Their end agenda is not simply to lower gun crime, but to outright eliminate legal gun ownership to begin with.

It should be disconcerting then to any law-abiding citizen when such ideologues demand to know where all of these despised instruments are — after all, these are the individuals who have expressed no qualms about seizing these instruments when the political opportunity arises. What other good reason then should these individuals be given this type of knowledge? To do such would be tantamount to allowing the fox to guard the hen house.

Despite the fresh face that new technology has brought to the case, the debate about the proper role of arms in the hands of citizens remains fundamentally unchanged. Just remember — the same ballistics tracking being used has only identified the weapon used in the crime, not the actual killer.

Steve Skutnik

is a graduate student in nuclear physics from Ames.