In Chad Hayward’s letter on Oct. 21, regarding gun fingerprinting (matching a fired bullet to a specific firearm) and national gun databases, I believe that he is making some false assumptions about the realities of gun-related crimes.

He states, “If such a database existed, firearms used in crimes can be tracked down far quicker than they are now.”

This statement suggests that the firearms in question would be subject to these measures. The fact is, most guns used in crimes are not obtained legally, and their ‘owners’ would certainly not have them voluntarily registered.

I can think of no group that would benefit from a national database other than a government that plans to disarm law-abiding citizens. The simple matter of the vast number of stolen and otherwise illegal guns makes the effectiveness of such a database to combat crime questionable.

Even if an entirely foolproof method of “fingerprinting” guns was available, and all firearms manufactured starting tomorrow were so equipped, there would still be nearly 200 million guns (only counting those legally owned, Police Foundation Survey) in America without this feature.

It would be many years before the number of “fingerprinted” guns owned would approach that of standard ones. Even at this 50/50 ratio, that leaves a gigantic pool from which criminals can draw.

For there to be any but a trivial chance that the weapon used by the Maryland sniper be of the “fingerprinted” variety, this method would have to have been implemented decades ago!

I am not saying that there will never be any instance where these methods could help catch a criminal, but I believe their overall contributions to crime fighting would be negligible.

Ryan B. Peterson

Senior

Electrical Engineering