Correspondence

Restricting the Sale of Ammunition

N Engl J Med 1994; 331:1238-1239November 3, 1994

Article

To the Editor:

If Dr. Casscells's letter (June 23 issue)1 is representative of how physicians think about handguns in this country, then I am shocked by the lack of common sense in our profession. Do we really believe that criminals buy their ammunition at Wal-Mart?

Restriction of the sale of handgun ammunition to shooting clubs, police, and the Secret Service will not solve the problem and will create an even larger one. (Remember what happened when liquor was outlawed?) The hard-working, law-abiding citizens who believe in the principles that our country was founded on will be affected, not the criminals. A huge black market for ammunition will develop just as such a market is now developing for handguns and the approximately 19 so-called assault weapons that have been banned.

Dr. Casscells, if you wish to give up the only means of protecting yourself and your family, it is your right to do so. But please do not try to decide for the rest of us who do not wish to give up that protection. I can only tell you that possession of and willingness to use a handgun saved me from certain rape and possible murder. My assailant would not have been frightened of mace, pepper spray, or a nightstick.

The media brainwash us all to believe that guns are bad. I would like to hear the good things for a change, because I know there are many instances in which gun owners have saved their own lives and the lives of their loved ones.

I am one physician who is proud to be a member of the National Rifle Association.

Sandra K. Brooks, M.D.
400 N. State of Franklin Rd., Johnson City, TN 37604-6094

1 References

1. 1

   Casscells W. Should ammunition be restricted? N Engl J Med 1994;330:1834-1834
   Full Text | Web of Science | Medline

To the Editor:

I agree with Dr. Casscells's opinion regarding the need to control violence involving guns, but not with his proposed methods. An effort to restrict something as small and portable as ammunition is fraught with difficulties. Firearms themselves are larger and less numerous than ammunition and therefore easier to regulate. In addition, most of the firearms-related carnage in America today is caused not by gun owners who use larger amounts of ammunition, such as sportsmen and sportswomen, but by those at the other end of the spectrum, the “amateur” gun owners who use small amounts of ammunition but are not versed in gun safety and proper respect for lethal weapons. A focused solution would place the burden on the segment of the population causing the problem.

A reasonable approach to the problem is to levy a substantial tax on all new firearms, perhaps according to a scale based on muzzle velocity, caliber, magazine size, and so forth. This single step would have several advantages. First, market forces would ensure that the price of a firearm purchased on the street would increase, making a black-market purchase a greater financial burden. Second, even weapons obtained by theft would be more likely to be sold for profit than used irresponsibly. Third, the market value of all privately owned firearms would increase, thus decreasing the tendency to own multiple weapons and shrinking the market for new firearms. Fourth, because of the increased market value of firearms, owners would take greater precautions against their theft or casual misuse. Fifth, the effect on the serious sportsman or sportswoman who is already paying a premium for a few high-quality firearms would be minimized. Sixth, market forces would squeeze out the cheap, casual weapons being sold on the street, and there would be less negative publicity about guns in general. Finally, the revenue generated by a tax on new firearms would help offset the cost of administration.

It makes sense to work with market forces rather than against them. A ban on firearms or ammunition is unrealistic and would guarantee the presence of a black market controlled by the criminal element. The problem is too serious to be ignored or wished away. However, we must be wary of unintended consequences.

John Tornow, M.D.
Pharmacoeconomic Center, Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234

Author/Editor Response

Dr. Casscells replies:

To the Editor: Dr. Tornow makes some good arguments in favor of increasing the tax on firearms, but what about the tens of millions of guns already out there, many of them in the hands of criminals or potential criminals?

Dr. Brooks is concerned about the potential for a black market if ammunition were regulated, but I expect there would still be less ammunition sold, because of the deterrent effects of high prices, fines, and the inconvenience posed by the lack of retail outlets.

There are no good data on the number of times that gun ownership has resulted in the saving of lives rather than the taking of lives. Certainly there are many anecdotes that differ from the experience of Dr. Brooks, instances in which pepper spray was effective or in which the victim's gun was seized and used against the victim.

New York Senator Daniel P. Moynihan has introduced a bill calling for a steep increase in the tax on ammunition, and I believe doctors should support this bill in the interest of saving lives and reducing the health care costs that result from shootings.

Ward Casscells, M.D.
University of Texas-Houston Medical School, Houston, TX 77225