我國刑法第186條至第187條，有關槍砲等危險物品並未有殺傷力規定，直至1983年新增槍砲彈藥刀械管制條例時，才將槍砲殺傷力作為處罰之構成要件，惟具體鑑定方法與鑑定標準並未規定，相關機關對於殺傷力各自表述，司法院最後以超越法律解釋範圍，定調為「在最具威力的適當距離，以彈丸能穿入人體皮肉層之動能」，而我國槍砲殺傷力鑑定實務係沿用日本槍砲管制法令，以空氣槍殺傷力20 J/cm^2動能作為火藥槍殺傷力之標準，在這一連串的不適當解釋與操作下，近來卻發現越來越多窒礙難行之處，不得不改以性能法鑑定，卻產生更多爭議。本文從第二部分以立法沿革為開端，從刑法危險物品管制，到制定槍砲彈藥刀械管制條例時，首創殺傷力要件、制式與非制式槍砲分類、模擬槍問題，彙整相關重要的立法背景事件及司法院解釋，至後續修法作業之影響範圍，並比較2020年修法前後，實務運作的差異，藉此分析立法及槍砲管制的真義，其實並不是殺傷力要件，而是槍砲的危險性。第三部分，對我國槍砲彈藥刀械管制條例中有關殺傷力鑑定程序，以文獻探討法、比較法研究現行槍砲鑑定實務中，鑑定需求的發生、鑑定方法及鑑定結果對法院的拘束力問題；一切都在法令未規定的前提下，鑑定方法所得結果發生適用上的邏輯謬誤，例如以動能法所測定的殺傷力數值究竟是彈藥殺傷力？抑或是槍砲殺傷力？透過性能法鑑定槍砲內彈道特性完整，所得槍砲具有殺傷力結論，邏輯上是否太過跳躍？或應採取日本現行法，具體明定規定空氣槍、火藥槍之鑑定有所不同，適用空氣槍的動能法，或火藥槍的性能法，回歸槍砲管制之處罰在於抽象危險犯。第四部分則以上開論述為基礎，提出本文看法及建議，回歸槍砲彈藥刀械管制條例抽象危險犯的本質，廢止槍砲殺傷力要件、制式或非制式、重新定義槍砲等規定，拋磚引玉，促使相關機關重視槍砲管制法制完備。

In Articles 186 to 187 of the Criminal Law in Taiwan, there is no regulation on the lethality of guns and other dangerous items. It was not until 1983 when the Controlling Guns, Ammunition and Knives Act was added that the lethality of guns was taken as a constituent element of punishment. The identification of methods and standards are not stipulated. Relevant agencies express their own lethality. The Judicial Yuan finally went beyond the scope of legal interpretation and set the tone as "at the most powerful and appropriate distance, the kinetic energy of the projectile can penetrate the human skin and flesh layer". In Taiwan, however, the appraisal practice of guns follows the Japanese gun control laws and regulations, and uses the air gun lethality 20 J/cm^2 kinetic energy method as the standard for the lethality of gunpowder guns. Under this series of inappropriate interpretations and operations, it has been found to more and more obstacles that are difficult to implement, and the "performance method" has been replaced for identification, but more disputes have arisen. This article starts with the legislative history in the second part, from the control of dangerous goods in the Criminal Law to the gun regulations, the creation of lethality requirements, the classification of standard and non-standard guns, and the issue of imitation guns, and summarizes relevant important legislative background events and major issues, and explanations of the Justice of the Judicial Yuan, and in terms of the scope of influence of subsequent law amendments. By comparing the differences in practical operations before and after the law amendment in 2020, and analyzing the true meaning of legislation and gun control, it is not the element of lethality, but the danger of guns. With regard to the lethality appraisal procedure in Taiwan's firearms regulations, The third part will research the occurrence of appraisal needs, appraisal methods and the binding force of appraisal results to the court. All under the premise that the law does not stipulate, the results obtained by the identification method are logically fallacious in application. For example, the lethality value measured by the kinetic energy method is the ammunition lethality or the lethality of guns? Is it logic jumping to conclude that the guns have lethality by using the performance method to identify the integrity of the internal ballistic characteristics of the guns? Should we adopt Japanese law specifying the identification of air guns and gunpowder guns, and apply the kinetic energy method of air guns or the performance method of gunpowder guns, and return to the basis of gun control law's abstract dangerous crimes. The fourth part is based on the above discussion, puts forward the opinions and suggestions of this article, returns to the essence of abstract dangerous crimes in the gun control law, abolishes the requirements of gun lethality, standard or non-standard, and redefines guns, etc. Reminding authorities to pay attention to the completeness of the gun control law.