by Tia Will
On July 3rd, Davis Patch reported that an 11 year-old boy was transferred from Antioch to UCDMC following an accidental shooting. Witnesses said he sustained a gunshot wound to the lower chest while playing with friends. Fortunately, it would appear that it was a non-life threatening injury and he is anticipated to recover fully.
Now, before readers start launching comments that Antioch and Davis are so different that this is not worth discussing, I would present a few examples of violence from our own community within the past few years.
- A beating severe enough to result in intensive care and a prolonged recovery for the victim
- Two senior citizens stabbed to death in their home
- A child drowned by her mother
Violence, like accidents, is not limited to any one community or socioeconomic group.
While it is true that there have not been any recent gun related injuries of which I am aware in Davis, I believe that gun injuries whether intentional or accidental can occur anywhere.
I believe that despite the relatively strong gun laws on the books in California, there is still much that we can do to protect our children, and all members of our community from gun injury, both intentional and accidental.
One such measure currently moving through the legislature is SB 53. This bill would require ammunition sellers be licensed by the California Department of Justice, and for ammunition purchasers to pass a background check. Licensed ammunition vendors would be required to verify that buyers have passed a background check by submitting information electronically to the Department of Justice.
We often hear the comment “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. This is true as far as it goes. What it does not take into account is that sometimes children shoot other children or themselves without intent. In this circumstance, the loaded gun enables them to do what would otherwise not occur. We also hear the “horse is out of the barn” argument that there are so many guns in the community that limiting them is useless. However, a gun, without ammunition is harmless unless used as a bludgeon. Proposing the same limitation on ammunition as is currently in place for guns simply moves us one step closer to the prevention of unintended gun injuries as well as preventing ammunition from falling into the hands of those who are already determined by current law to be ineligible for legal ownership of firearms.
As a doctor whose primary concern is the health and safety of all members of our community, I urge anyone interested in public safety to consider supporting this quite modest measure – which would have the effect of limiting the purchases of ammunition in the same way as the purchases of guns. This is not a request to ban guns, which I oppose for constitutional reasons. It is a request for a modest measure that can prevent gun injury, both accidental and intentional, by limiting who has access to ammunition.
If you agree, your support could entail writing a letter to your legislators or the governor. It might involve talking with your neighbors or your children’s friends about the issue of prevention of gun injuries. It could be a post on the Vanguard or writing letters to the editor. You could join me in requesting that the city council and other city leaders write letters or opinion pieces supporting this measure.
Regardless of your position, I invite you to join the conversation and share your thoughts about the policy implications of SB 53. The more voices we hear in the community, the deeper and broader the conversation. With more perspectives comes the chance for new ideas to increase the opportunities to promote a culture of safety that will better safeguard both our children and all members of our community.
Thanks Tia for bringing the topic and bill to our community’s attention. I am completely supportive of all we can do to limit acccidental and purposeful gun violence, espeically involving children but also involving those with mental illness.
Not being a gun owner I am naive about the ramifications of this bill and what it might do to limit violence. What positive outcomes do you see from the limiting of ammunition. What types of violence could be curbed by background checks and slowing the process of buying ammunition?
Again, thanks for raising the topic; Happy Fifth!
Thanks Tia for bringing the topic and bill to our community’s attention. I am completely supportive of all we can do to limit acccidental and purposeful gun violence, espeically involving children but also involving those with mental illness.
Not being a gun owner I am naive about the ramifications of this bill and what it might do to limit violence. What positive outcomes do you see from the limiting of ammunition. What types of violence could be curbed by background checks and slowing the process of buying ammunition?
Again, thanks for raising the topic; Happy Fifth!
Hi SODA
Good questions. Especially since I think that all too often the issue of how we protect both the lives of members of our community and the constitutional right to bear arms devolves into a shouting match of simplistic slogans for what are actually complicated issues of seemingly conflicting rights.
SB 53 says makes no changes at all to current California gun policy. What it does is to bring into alignment the current regulations regarding ammunition sales with the current regulations regarding gun sales. Namely it requires ammunition sellers be licensed by the California Department of Justice, and for ammunition purchasers to pass a background check. Licensed ammunition vendors would be required to verify that buyers have passed a background check by submitting information electronically to the Department of Justice.
One example would be that if an individual is currently prohibited from purchasing a weapon for say a previous felony conviction for a crime in which a gun was used, that individual would also be prohibited from purchasing ammunition. Garen Wintermute, a UCD ER physician and expert on gun injury prevention, has been quoted as saying “Guns don’t kill people, bullets do”.
So to answer your question, what benefits do I see this bill as having ?
1) It will make it more difficult for those who should not, but do have access to guns, to obtain the actual harmful
item, the bullets on their own. Currently criminals or others determined to be ineligible for gun owner ship can
go to a Big 5 or WalMart and purchase ammunition with no questions asked. This bill would stop that.
It does not interfere with the purchase for those legitimately entitled to purchase firearms.
2) It will stop individuals who are currently unlicensed from profiting from the sale of the actual lethal component of a weapon, the bullet.
3) The weapon itself can be used repeatedly thus providing some sense to the argument that “there are too many out there” for regulation to do any good. This argument cannot be used for ammunition. Once the bullet is used, its lethality is expended. Lowering the amount of ammunition available to those who could cause harm, could potentially save lives. I anticipate that the largest impact of this bill would not be on accidental shootings, but on intentional shootings. However, I see both as laudable goals.
Good answers and they make sense…..I like the quote about bullets. Thanks again.
Hi SODA
Good questions. Especially since I think that all too often the issue of how we protect both the lives of members of our community and the constitutional right to bear arms devolves into a shouting match of simplistic slogans for what are actually complicated issues of seemingly conflicting rights.
SB 53 says makes no changes at all to current California gun policy. What it does is to bring into alignment the current regulations regarding ammunition sales with the current regulations regarding gun sales. Namely it requires ammunition sellers be licensed by the California Department of Justice, and for ammunition purchasers to pass a background check. Licensed ammunition vendors would be required to verify that buyers have passed a background check by submitting information electronically to the Department of Justice.
One example would be that if an individual is currently prohibited from purchasing a weapon for say a previous felony conviction for a crime in which a gun was used, that individual would also be prohibited from purchasing ammunition. Garen Wintermute, a UCD ER physician and expert on gun injury prevention, has been quoted as saying “Guns don’t kill people, bullets do”.
So to answer your question, what benefits do I see this bill as having ?
1) It will make it more difficult for those who should not, but do have access to guns, to obtain the actual harmful
item, the bullets on their own. Currently criminals or others determined to be ineligible for gun owner ship can
go to a Big 5 or WalMart and purchase ammunition with no questions asked. This bill would stop that.
It does not interfere with the purchase for those legitimately entitled to purchase firearms.
2) It will stop individuals who are currently unlicensed from profiting from the sale of the actual lethal component of a weapon, the bullet.
3) The weapon itself can be used repeatedly thus providing some sense to the argument that “there are too many out there” for regulation to do any good. This argument cannot be used for ammunition. Once the bullet is used, its lethality is expended. Lowering the amount of ammunition available to those who could cause harm, could potentially save lives. I anticipate that the largest impact of this bill would not be on accidental shootings, but on intentional shootings. However, I see both as laudable goals.
Good answers and they make sense…..I like the quote about bullets. Thanks again.
Oh no! This law will put a crimp in CA State Senator Leland Yee’s little side business.
I hope so, if he is ever convicted of that. The law should apply equally to everyone.
I think the hypocrisy of Democrats Senator Leland Yee escapes Ms. Will.
“Yee has been a champion of sunshine (last week, the Society of Professional Journalists NorCal gave him a James Madison Freedom of Information Award for defending the California Public Records Act) and gun control, last year getting three such bills signed into law. SB 755 expands the list of crimes that would disqualify and individual from owning a gun, SB 374 prohibited semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines, and SB 53 made background checks a requisite step in purchasing ammunition.”
http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2014/03/26/yee-had-reputation-political-corruption-even-federal-indictment
BP
My article had absolutely nothing to do with Leland Yee.
I believe absolutely in equality under the law. If and when Leland Yee is convicted, he should be treated the same as anyone else convicted of the same crime.
I am in no way defending or excusing any hypocrisy on the part of Leland Yee or any one else convicted of any crime. I fail to see how this is relevant to my article except as a red herring to try to turn this into a politically instead of safety motivated issue.
It’s fine if you want to discuss that, but it is irrelevant to my article and should be called out as such.
Oh no! This law will put a crimp in CA State Senator Leland Yee’s little side business.
I hope so, if he is ever convicted of that. The law should apply equally to everyone.
I think the hypocrisy of Democrats Senator Leland Yee escapes Ms. Will.
“Yee has been a champion of sunshine (last week, the Society of Professional Journalists NorCal gave him a James Madison Freedom of Information Award for defending the California Public Records Act) and gun control, last year getting three such bills signed into law. SB 755 expands the list of crimes that would disqualify and individual from owning a gun, SB 374 prohibited semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines, and SB 53 made background checks a requisite step in purchasing ammunition.”
http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2014/03/26/yee-had-reputation-political-corruption-even-federal-indictment
BP
My article had absolutely nothing to do with Leland Yee.
I believe absolutely in equality under the law. If and when Leland Yee is convicted, he should be treated the same as anyone else convicted of the same crime.
I am in no way defending or excusing any hypocrisy on the part of Leland Yee or any one else convicted of any crime. I fail to see how this is relevant to my article except as a red herring to try to turn this into a politically instead of safety motivated issue.
It’s fine if you want to discuss that, but it is irrelevant to my article and should be called out as such.
Wouldn’t requiring an I.D. along with an expensive background check be considered too onerous and racist for our state’s poor and people of color?
BP
“Wouldn’t requiring an I.D. along with an expensive background check be considered too onerous and racist for our state’s poor and people of color?”
Same answer. I believe in equality under the law.
Once again the hypocrisy escapes you, Democrats want to demand background checks and all kinds if ID to buy ammunition, which is a constitutional right, but say it’s racist and too onerous to require an ID to vote.
BP
Again, no hypocrisy is escaping me. I am not defending any “Demorcratic” position.
I am arguing in favor of a simple measure that I believe has the ability to save lives.
I would be arguing for it if it had been put forward by a member of the Republican Party, or the Green Party, or any other party. For the reasons that I listed for
SODA, I believe that this is good legislation. My purpose is safety, not partisanship.
Wouldn’t requiring an I.D. along with an expensive background check be considered too onerous and racist for our state’s poor and people of color?
BP
“Wouldn’t requiring an I.D. along with an expensive background check be considered too onerous and racist for our state’s poor and people of color?”
Same answer. I believe in equality under the law.
Once again the hypocrisy escapes you, Democrats want to demand background checks and all kinds if ID to buy ammunition, which is a constitutional right, but say it’s racist and too onerous to require an ID to vote.
BP
Again, no hypocrisy is escaping me. I am not defending any “Demorcratic” position.
I am arguing in favor of a simple measure that I believe has the ability to save lives.
I would be arguing for it if it had been put forward by a member of the Republican Party, or the Green Party, or any other party. For the reasons that I listed for
SODA, I believe that this is good legislation. My purpose is safety, not partisanship.
There is a saying that worrying about any risk less than that of being struck by lightening is a waste of effort… or at least an indication that any attention should be focused on the general and not the specific.
We all know that statistically there are many things in life with greater risk of harm than guns. Yet we accept many of those things as just being part of life.
I agree that gun safety should be a constant pursuit; but guns are here to stay in this country, and those attempting to exploit each and every tragic gun-involved event to try and eliminate guns should be shouted down for their extremism and futility.
Good point Frankly, with cars being a major cause of death in CA maybe our Democratic legislators should come up with some kind of background check before bad drivers or unlicensed illegals can put gas in their car. After all, a car without gasoline is harmless.
Car and drive licensing requirements go well beyond anything we have for guns.
Do you have to go through a background check in order to buy a car?
Not to order a car, but to operate it. First you have to get a driver’s license. Second you have to get auto insurance, the cost of which is based on your driving record. In fact, both a driver’s license and insurance use a form of instant background check.
Did you know that the risk of being struck by lightning has declined over the years, probably due to safety awareness? Seems that might apply to guns as well.
So long as you plan to shout down extremists on both sides of the gun issue, fine. There are plenty.
Cars are here to stay too, but we have implemented a whole host of laws from seat belts, safety standards, road tests, drinking laws, cell laws, etc. to make sure they are safe as possible.
Frankly
I agree completely. Some statistics for comparison.
According to the CDC, lightening strikes per year in the US have steadily declined for both men and women from over 100 for men in 1968 to just over 20 in 2010.
Compare these numbers with the 32,351 firearm deaths in 2011, of which nearly 20,000 were suicides.
So I am clearly free and clear of the less than lightening strike argument ; )
What I would like to see is your definition of “extremist”. If you consider an extremists someone who is trying to ban all guns, I would agree. I would feel the same way about anyone attempting to ban all automobiles.
But I am not arguing for any ban at all. I am arguing for basic safety regulations much as we have adopted for guns and for cars. I would not define this as “extreme” but would be interested in your definition so that we could compare.
Just as I would call an extremist anyone who wanted to ask for a background check in order for someone to buy gasoline for their car I would also say the same thing for anyone asking for a bakground check to buy ammunition.
BP
Fair enough. Then clearly we are working with such differences in the definition of
“extremist” that we would not be able to further the conversation in that direction.
An alternative direction for the conversation would be :
1)Are you comfortable with the current rate of gun related injuries in our country that you feel that no further efforts at reduction are warranted. If your answer to this question is “yes” then we are at an impasse since my answer is a definite “no”.
2) If your answer is “no”, then perhaps you could post your ideas about better ways to reduce gun related injuries than what is currently proposed.
Suicide is a complete separate topic. Guns are not the root cause of suicide. The solutions for suicide are largely contained within the education system and the healthcare system… two systems that are inadequate.
People kill themselves with sleeping pills, alcohol, razors, bridges, etc… should be increase regulation for those things too?
I lost three immediate family members due to suicide by gun. Their salvation wasn’t gun regulations. And I bristle a bit at the exploitation of suicide to help the anti-gun activist achieve their agenda.
Frankly
I think you fail to appreciate that some people are sincere in meaning the words that they say and write. Not every one who writes something with which you disagree is out to “exploit” tragedy. Sometimes an example is just that, an example.
I tend to bristle ( although not as volubly as you do) at the implication that I am not sincere and that my words are not exactly what I have posted but part of some nefarious agenda that I must be part of because I am identified as a liberal.
Dear Frankly,
The number of suicides by firearm dwarf the closest rival. The number of suicides by firearm in 2011 (the last year with full records) was 19,900. Suffocations was second with 9,913, poisonings (drugs and non-drugs) 6,664, falls 908, etc.
Those of us who see suicide as a public health problem have seen interventions about the means people use for suicide as effective. Changes in the availability of Tylenol in Britain reduced suicides by poisoning. Substitution of natural gas for coal gas in Britain also reduced suicides. Bridge barriers in this country and Canada have reduces suicides at particular bridges. The Golden Gate Bridge will probably reduce it’s annual suicide total with the nets now proposed and approved.
This is not about banning guns. You and others are correct, guns are here to stay in the U.S. Those of us who work in suicide prevention want to see reasonable regulations that reduce the danger of firearms in the hands of those who would use them against themselves. Trigger locks, gun safes, background checks, etc. These are reasonable and promote public health.
As in all public health problems, the ways to reduce suicide include – as you note – both the healthcare system and the education system and other systems. Transportation systems (warning signs along train tracks and overpasses rather than at-grade crossings), highway systems (bridges) with barriers to jumping, and others.
“The Golden Gate Bridge will probably reduce it’s annual suicide total with the nets now proposed and approved.”
No doubt, but after spending $76 million who’s to say the people that would’ve committed suicide on the bridge won’t just kill themselves in some other capacity?
Frankly
“those attempting to exploit each and every tragic gun-involved event”
In my opinion, this was not exploitation, nor did it turn out to be a tragic gun involved event. As I stated, it was a relatively minor injury with anticipated full recovery.
The reason for mentioning it was due to its proximity and timing since I had just been criticized for writing an article that some commenters felt had nothing to do with Davis since we do not have open carry here.
I felt that citing a case in close proximity ( Antioch approximately one hour away from Davis) and in time ( 7/3) would illustrate that such events can and do occur very close to home.
I also have a very different point of view from yours about prevention. While there are many risks in our lives that we can have little control over, I feel that we have the responsibility to identify and minimize those risks that are within our control. Certainly, the ability to apply equally the restrictions that we have chosen to apply to guns to ammunition is within our control.
I do not see this as an extremist position.
I do see this as reasonable injury prevention, much the same as I see seat belts in cars. Again, I would like to hear your definition of “extremist” as it applies to gun injury prevention.
Frankly: There is a saying that worrying about any risk less than that of being struck by lightening is a waste of effort… or at least an indication that any attention should be focused on the general and not the specific.
I find it interesting the way you use the chance of being struck by lightning argument to dismiss arguments. The chances of being struck by lightning are significantly greater for someone who hangs out on a mountaintop in the middle of every lightning storm that pass through. His choice? Perhaps.
But there are also folks who have greater risks of death, perhaps by firearms, because of circumstances not necessarily in their full control. The cool thing for you about living in Davis is that such things are more easily, “not my problem”.
Someone that hangs out on a mountain top is taking greater risks. Personal responsibility.
If you really want to help prevent accidental death, you should better regulate bathtubs and pools.
Pool safety is regulated in California. http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/environhealth/water/Documents/RecHealth/SwimmingPoolSafetyAct.pdf
There is a saying that worrying about any risk less than that of being struck by lightening is a waste of effort… or at least an indication that any attention should be focused on the general and not the specific.
We all know that statistically there are many things in life with greater risk of harm than guns. Yet we accept many of those things as just being part of life.
I agree that gun safety should be a constant pursuit; but guns are here to stay in this country, and those attempting to exploit each and every tragic gun-involved event to try and eliminate guns should be shouted down for their extremism and futility.
Good point Frankly, with cars being a major cause of death in CA maybe our Democratic legislators should come up with some kind of background check before bad drivers or unlicensed illegals can put gas in their car. After all, a car without gasoline is harmless.
Car and drive licensing requirements go well beyond anything we have for guns.
Do you have to go through a background check in order to buy a car?
Not to order a car, but to operate it. First you have to get a driver’s license. Second you have to get auto insurance, the cost of which is based on your driving record. In fact, both a driver’s license and insurance use a form of instant background check.
Did you know that the risk of being struck by lightning has declined over the years, probably due to safety awareness? Seems that might apply to guns as well.
So long as you plan to shout down extremists on both sides of the gun issue, fine. There are plenty.
Cars are here to stay too, but we have implemented a whole host of laws from seat belts, safety standards, road tests, drinking laws, cell laws, etc. to make sure they are safe as possible.
Frankly
I agree completely. Some statistics for comparison.
According to the CDC, lightening strikes per year in the US have steadily declined for both men and women from over 100 for men in 1968 to just over 20 in 2010.
Compare these numbers with the 32,351 firearm deaths in 2011, of which nearly 20,000 were suicides.
So I am clearly free and clear of the less than lightening strike argument ; )
What I would like to see is your definition of “extremist”. If you consider an extremists someone who is trying to ban all guns, I would agree. I would feel the same way about anyone attempting to ban all automobiles.
But I am not arguing for any ban at all. I am arguing for basic safety regulations much as we have adopted for guns and for cars. I would not define this as “extreme” but would be interested in your definition so that we could compare.
Just as I would call an extremist anyone who wanted to ask for a background check in order for someone to buy gasoline for their car I would also say the same thing for anyone asking for a bakground check to buy ammunition.
BP
Fair enough. Then clearly we are working with such differences in the definition of
“extremist” that we would not be able to further the conversation in that direction.
An alternative direction for the conversation would be :
1)Are you comfortable with the current rate of gun related injuries in our country that you feel that no further efforts at reduction are warranted. If your answer to this question is “yes” then we are at an impasse since my answer is a definite “no”.
2) If your answer is “no”, then perhaps you could post your ideas about better ways to reduce gun related injuries than what is currently proposed.
Suicide is a complete separate topic. Guns are not the root cause of suicide. The solutions for suicide are largely contained within the education system and the healthcare system… two systems that are inadequate.
People kill themselves with sleeping pills, alcohol, razors, bridges, etc… should be increase regulation for those things too?
I lost three immediate family members due to suicide by gun. Their salvation wasn’t gun regulations. And I bristle a bit at the exploitation of suicide to help the anti-gun activist achieve their agenda.
Frankly
I think you fail to appreciate that some people are sincere in meaning the words that they say and write. Not every one who writes something with which you disagree is out to “exploit” tragedy. Sometimes an example is just that, an example.
I tend to bristle ( although not as volubly as you do) at the implication that I am not sincere and that my words are not exactly what I have posted but part of some nefarious agenda that I must be part of because I am identified as a liberal.
Dear Frankly,
The number of suicides by firearm dwarf the closest rival. The number of suicides by firearm in 2011 (the last year with full records) was 19,900. Suffocations was second with 9,913, poisonings (drugs and non-drugs) 6,664, falls 908, etc.
Those of us who see suicide as a public health problem have seen interventions about the means people use for suicide as effective. Changes in the availability of Tylenol in Britain reduced suicides by poisoning. Substitution of natural gas for coal gas in Britain also reduced suicides. Bridge barriers in this country and Canada have reduces suicides at particular bridges. The Golden Gate Bridge will probably reduce it’s annual suicide total with the nets now proposed and approved.
This is not about banning guns. You and others are correct, guns are here to stay in the U.S. Those of us who work in suicide prevention want to see reasonable regulations that reduce the danger of firearms in the hands of those who would use them against themselves. Trigger locks, gun safes, background checks, etc. These are reasonable and promote public health.
As in all public health problems, the ways to reduce suicide include – as you note – both the healthcare system and the education system and other systems. Transportation systems (warning signs along train tracks and overpasses rather than at-grade crossings), highway systems (bridges) with barriers to jumping, and others.
“The Golden Gate Bridge will probably reduce it’s annual suicide total with the nets now proposed and approved.”
No doubt, but after spending $76 million who’s to say the people that would’ve committed suicide on the bridge won’t just kill themselves in some other capacity?
Frankly
“those attempting to exploit each and every tragic gun-involved event”
In my opinion, this was not exploitation, nor did it turn out to be a tragic gun involved event. As I stated, it was a relatively minor injury with anticipated full recovery.
The reason for mentioning it was due to its proximity and timing since I had just been criticized for writing an article that some commenters felt had nothing to do with Davis since we do not have open carry here.
I felt that citing a case in close proximity ( Antioch approximately one hour away from Davis) and in time ( 7/3) would illustrate that such events can and do occur very close to home.
I also have a very different point of view from yours about prevention. While there are many risks in our lives that we can have little control over, I feel that we have the responsibility to identify and minimize those risks that are within our control. Certainly, the ability to apply equally the restrictions that we have chosen to apply to guns to ammunition is within our control.
I do not see this as an extremist position.
I do see this as reasonable injury prevention, much the same as I see seat belts in cars. Again, I would like to hear your definition of “extremist” as it applies to gun injury prevention.
Frankly: There is a saying that worrying about any risk less than that of being struck by lightening is a waste of effort… or at least an indication that any attention should be focused on the general and not the specific.
I find it interesting the way you use the chance of being struck by lightning argument to dismiss arguments. The chances of being struck by lightning are significantly greater for someone who hangs out on a mountaintop in the middle of every lightning storm that pass through. His choice? Perhaps.
But there are also folks who have greater risks of death, perhaps by firearms, because of circumstances not necessarily in their full control. The cool thing for you about living in Davis is that such things are more easily, “not my problem”.
Someone that hangs out on a mountain top is taking greater risks. Personal responsibility.
If you really want to help prevent accidental death, you should better regulate bathtubs and pools.