Thinking outside the ammo box

A provocative thought experiment from a new friend, David Work, Executive Director Emeritus of The North Carolina Board of Pharmacy.

Whenever a bizarre killing occurs from gunshots such as the recent events producing two deaths and a wounded physician at John Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, we see predictable comments in the media. One group claims that more gun control laws are needed and the other says that guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

Wrong! Bullets kill people.

If we treated ammunition with just the same kind of restrictions that apply to legitimate Controlled Substances or Prescription Drugs, I believe the number of deaths due to gunshots in this country would be greatly reduced. A federal requirement that all ammunition must be ordered in writing with a specific quantity by a licensed Physician would certainly put a stop to mentally distressed people such as Paul Pardusin in Baltimore obtaining easy access to bullets. This kind of provision also would have intercepted the killers at Columbine High School in Denver.

I asked a physician friend for an opinion about this procedure and was surprised at the reply. Since most gun owners are men, who are notorious for their reluctance to visit physicians, this plan would have the extra added public health benefit of getting men into the health care system. This could identify such conditions as hypertension or diabetes that need early treatment.

It also would not require a huge bureaucracy to administer nor any new taxes. The average citizen could obtain the prescription with a quick trip to the family doctor so it would not be unduly burdensome. It would also avoid many genuine confidentiality issues and should be easy to implement. There would, of course, need to be some exemptions for the military and the police but that could be worked out.

The phrasing of the Second Amendment to The United States Constitution ,“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the Security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is a prime example of a convoluted and disconnected statement put together by a committee. One can easily parse this out to subcommittees on militia, security and guns. Actually, there were several different versions of the concept debated in the House and Senate and the adopted language is obviously a compromise.

Remember that this was developed during a time when the normal firearm was a Musket that could only be fired one shot at a time. This required that a man pour a black powder mix of Charcoal, Sulfur and Potassium Nitrate down the gun barrel followed by the tamping of a cotton wad and finally a metal ball which was shot from the gun after the powder was ignited. The shooter needed to be careful not to point the barrel downward or the ball could accidentally roll out of the barrel. Nobody could have envisioned the variety of guns and ammunition available today.

The principal described in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution began as a state security matter. Changes in our society including the development of new weapons and ammunition combined with a much more dense population present a very different environment today. It is difficult to believe but the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were both written by candlelight as electric lighting had not yet been invented.

As society has changed so have our needs. We definitely should consider measures different from the standard background checks, waiting periods and other similar criteria. A nontraditional approach certainly seems justified and requiring a Physicians order for ammunition is a reasonable, non threatening and prudent approach that I believe is worth the effort.