Correspondence

Private Arsenals and Public Peril

N Engl J Med 1998; 339:565-566August 20, 1998

Article

To the Editor:

In your editorial “Private Arsenals and Public Peril” (May 7 issue),1 you state, “Kits to convert semiautomatic weapons into fully automatic machine guns should be outlawed.” In fact, the availability of automatic weapons (i.e., machine guns) has been severely restricted and registration of ownership has been required since the National Firearms Act of 1934, which subjects violators to 10 years in federal prison and a $10,000 fine. Under this law and subsequent rulings of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms of the Treasury Department, these penalties are incurred not only by those possessing complete weapons, but also by those possessing merely the parts necessary to convert a weapon into a machine gun, even if the parts are not assembled and even if all the necessary parts are not present. In other words, if the kits you refer to exist, they are in themselves violations of the act, and anyone possessing them would be subject to the full penalty, even if he or she possessed only the kits and not the guns for which they are intended.

David C. Stolinsky, M.D.
1200 N. State St., Los Angeles, CA 90033

1 References

1. 1

   Kassirer JP. Private arsenals and public peril. N Engl J Med 1998;338:1375-1376
   Full Text | Web of Science | Medline

To the Editor:

You advocate sweeping new limitations on the ownership of firearms . . . and erroneously conclude that high-powered weapons are “of no value for hunting.” That is as absurd as saying insulin is of no value for treating diabetes mellitus. State wildlife departments throughout the country require the use of high-powered rifles for big-game hunting to prevent wounding of animals by rounds that lack sufficient kinetic energy for clean kills. Having hunted most of the species of big game in North America, I can assure you that high-powered rifles are essential to hunting and are specifically designed for the sport. . . .

Mack Barham, M.D.
3418 Medical Park Dr., Monroe, LA 71203

To the Editor:

Your splendid editorial is “right on.” I would like to address one aspect of the dynamics involved that was not covered. What we are seeing is the fulfillment of the aggressive drive. Before actual perpetration these are manifestations in fantasy, dreams, and humor and vicarious gratification through stimuli from the media. These are more passive than active phenomena. The first enhancer of activation has been access to video games; this precedes access to weapons much of the time.

We are also witnessing a lowering of the age of the perpetrators of crimes arising from the sexual instinct — i.e., a rising incidence of juvenile cases of sexual abuse.

Carl F. Needles, M.D.
1955 Merrick Rd., Merrick, NY 11566

To the Editor:

Should weapons be safely secured and not left unattended? Of course they should. Anyone who is qualified to own a handgun or any weapon should bear the responsibility of making sure that it does not fall into the hands of someone who would misuse it. . . . You cannot legislate correct human behavior. As long as people want to kill other people, murder will continue. I think we would be much more successful in reducing the national and worldwide murder rate if we put our resources into trying to raise citizens in an ethical and moral atmosphere. We need to teach our children right from wrong and raise them in a culture that does not glorify violence, sex, and outlaw behavior. If someone wants to kill someone else, he or she will find a way, whether it be with a gun, a knife, a rock, or a piece of rope. Our children are murdering one another because of the influences of the society in which they are raised.

Calling for the banning of semiautomatic handguns after the murder of children in a school is an easy, knee-jerk reaction. Working toward responsible parenting and citizenship is a hard job that will bear much greater fruit in the long term.

John L. Adami, M.D.
5136 N. Croatan Hwy., Kitty Hawk, NC 27949

To the Editor:

. . . All parties to the gun-control debate would do well to concentrate their attention on more difficult but far more relevant issues, such as generating more good-paying jobs for the underclass, an issue that is at the very heart of the violence problem. We cannot ignore dying cities, inequality, deteriorating family structure, and all the pervasive economic and social consequences of a history of slavery and racism. Severe drug laws have not altered the supply of drugs, Prohibition spawned lawlessness, and it is foolish to think that banning weapons will solve any problems. “Child-proofing” guns is not an adequate approach to safety, since any safety device can be defeated. What we need to do is “gun-proof” every child. Guns are neither inherently good nor inherently bad. All guns can launch a projectile, all guns can kill. It is the behavior of people that we should seek to control. There is no question that a gun culture does exist. The single most accurate predictor of whether a person owns a gun is whether his or her father owned one, which means that owning a gun is a tradition transmitted across generations. The existence and characteristics of the American gun culture have implications that are rarely appreciated. Restrictions are viewed as the systematic destruction of a valued way of life and as a form of cultural genocide. . . .

Lionel Ehrenworth, M.D.
469 Morris Ave., Elizabeth, NJ 07208

To the Editor:

. . . I do believe that our United States is the last, greatest hope that the world has to move toward a just and prosperous future. Recognizing that other violent people will always threaten us, whether they are criminals or unprincipled politicians, my view of the utopian society is that every family should have a “military-style” firearm and should have the discipline, wisdom, and good fortune never to have to use it.

Floyd L. McIntyre, M.D.
76 Airline Rd., South Dennis, MA 02660

To the Editor:

I want to thank you and offer well-deserved commendation for your forceful and thoughtful editorial on gun control. Most persons in public roles have not had the courage to address the pernicious nature of high-powered weapons in episodes of childhood violence, such as the shootings in Jonesboro, Arkansas. As you eloquently stated, guns are not the direct problem, but the shootings could not have occurred if the two boys had not had access to high-powered weapons. Unfortunately, additional shootings have recently occurred in my own state, once again involving high-powered firearms. Although the causes of these disastrous events are exceedingly complex and the solutions are difficult to identify, these limitations should not detract from meaningful discussions about the role of firearms in violent crimes.

P. Barton Duell, M.D.
Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, OR 97201-5732

Author/Editor Response

Dr. Kassirer replies:

I stand corrected by Dr. Stolinsky. Dr. Barham points out that high-powered semiautomatic rifles are appropriate weapons for hunting, and I take his word for it, but I think he would agree that such weapons need not have high-capacity ammunition clips.

Drs. Needles, Adami, and Ehrenworth make the same points that many commentators did after the Jonesboro shootings — namely, that many social and psychological factors contribute importantly to children's violent behavior. I have no doubt that exposure to violence in films, television, video games, and rap lyrics has a profound influence on children. I agree that we must give a high priority to correcting these social problems. As Dr. Duell points out, however, one cannot deny that the easy availability of unlocked, high-capacity firearms to emotionally labile young people virtually invites tragedy.

Jerome P. Kassirer, M.D.

Citing Articles (1)

Citing Articles

1. 1

   Kristin Lyle, Tonya Thompson, James Graham. (2009) Pediatric Mass Casualty: Triage and Planning for the Prehospital Provider. Clinical Pediatric Emergency Medicine 10:3, 173-185
   CrossRef