`Guns don’t kill; bullets do,” says Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the New York Democrat, who wants to curb access to ammunition, not just firearms. He has plenty of disciples in the Chicago City Council, who last week made this the first city in the country to ban the sale of so-called handgun bullets. The measure goes beyond Moynihan’s proposal, which is simply to raise taxes on ammunition sales.
Ald. Michael Wojcik, who came up with the bill after seeing some suspected gang members buy shells over the counter, says the ban “will put a roadblock” in the way of local criminals. Of course, they already face an array of legal obstacles, which in the real world don’t even rise to the level of speed bumps.
Why it is necessary to ban ammunition for weapons that theoretically do not exist is one of those questions that only the impolite would ask. Ownership of a handgun is already illegal in Chicago, unless you registered it before the law took effect in 1983. Anyone who wants to buy ammunition of any kind in Illinois has to present a state-issued Firearm Owners Identification card, which is not available to minors (except with parental consent) or convicted felons-two groups that are over-represented in street gangs.
These regulations have not brought about peace and order. From 1982 (the last year before the handgun ban took effect) to 1993, the annual number of murders in Chicago rose from 668 to 850, increasing 27 percent as the city’s population was falling. Even more embarrassing for gun control advocates, the annual number of handgun killings more than doubled, from 254 to 551.
The latest bright idea was approved just one day after President Clinton signed a crime bill that outlaws 19 types of “assault weapons.” These fearsome guns were supposed to be a big cause of the crime problem, but apparently, no one wants to wait and see if the prohibition makes any difference before finding something else to legislate against. Assault weapons were last season’s rage; fashion has moved on.
Chicago’s new ordinance will probably be even less effective than the old laws, since bullets will remain available in abundance just across the city line. But it is no answer to say, as the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence does, that this merely proves the need for a national law. Neither Moynihan’s 50 percent tax nor an outright federal ban on certain types of bullets is likely to reduce the volume of violence.
Why not? If some bullets are banned, and the ban actually works, crooks will turn to guns of other calibers. Or they will find illegal supplies of ammunition. If we can’t keep drugs and people from being smuggled across the border, after all, it is absurd to think we can shut out tiny metal projectiles. Even if we could, criminals can easily make their own bullets using recycled materials. Millions of gun owners already do.
Anyway, the average felon doesn’t need a dozen fully stuffed bandoliers to conduct his business. A handful of cartridges will last a lifetime for most crooks-who, like police officers, rarely have to fire their weapons. Even a sharp reduction in the supply would have little impact on street crime.
For that matter, an empty pistol is nearly as effective for thuggery as a loaded one. Most robbery and rape victims don’t insist on checking the attacker’s clip before deciding whether to submit.
It may be pointless to mention the futility of anti-ammunition laws, since the rationale is that even if they don’t do any good, they can’t do any harm. But like most gun control regulations, this type has a strikingly perverse impact. It’s no barrier to bad people but a burden to good ones.
In the first place, most of the bullets classified as “handgun ammunition” are not made just for handguns. The city’s ban includes .22 and 9 mm cartridges, both of which are commonly used in rifles-something gun control advocates always claim they don’t want to restrict. So a lot of rifle owners who need ammunition will have to find a store in the suburbs.
Any ban or excise on bullets, says Northwestern University law professor Daniel Polsby, “is an almost perfect tax on the law-abiding.” That’s because the only people who use much ammunition are recreational shooters, who burn lots of gunpowder on targets or game. The guy who spends his Saturday afternoon plinking beer cans will suffer much more than the guy who spends his Saturday evening sticking up conventioneers.
That is no concern of the sponsors, who value pure motives above actual effects. Ammunition restrictions won’t work, but when they fail, they will not discourage the movement. They will merely prove to gun controllers the need for more gun control.
