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.
Pool safety is regulated in California. http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/environhealth/water/Documents/RecHealth/SwimmingPoolSafetyAct.pdf
Not specifically related to Will’s article but within the arena of gun rights issues, since it has been a topic of public discussion:
How should people respond to open-carry gun-rights activists?
Add to that, once you leave the premises, you can call 911 and report an unknown situation involving firearms. They may be good guys, they may be bad guys. Let the men and women with badges figure it out.
Not specifically related to Will’s article but within the arena of gun rights issues, since it has been a topic of public discussion:
How should people respond to open-carry gun-rights activists?
Add to that, once you leave the premises, you can call 911 and report an unknown situation involving firearms. They may be good guys, they may be bad guys. Let the men and women with badges figure it out.
wdf1
Thanks for posting this link. Although it does not relate directly to this morning’s article, it has relevance to my previous post about Target’s Corporate Policy on weapons. The update from that is Target has subsequently and completely reasonably rescinded its open carry policy in Texas and informed it’s customers that they are no longer welcome to bring their openly carried weapons into Target stores.
The NRA had initially also criticized the advocates of Open Carry and then under pressure from what I would call
“extremists” ( those demanding the right to carry and rally for Open Carry everywhere including the infant supplies isle of Target) issued an apology to them and said that henceforth they would focus only on the second amendment rights.
I completely agree with your advise when faced with someone other than a police officer carrying a gun.
Leave immediately, don’t stop to pay, and call 911. The life you save may be your own or that of a member of your family. Luckily, this does not apply to us here in California where do not allow open carry.
wdf1
Thanks for posting this link. Although it does not relate directly to this morning’s article, it has relevance to my previous post about Target’s Corporate Policy on weapons. The update from that is Target has subsequently and completely reasonably rescinded its open carry policy in Texas and informed it’s customers that they are no longer welcome to bring their openly carried weapons into Target stores.
The NRA had initially also criticized the advocates of Open Carry and then under pressure from what I would call
“extremists” ( those demanding the right to carry and rally for Open Carry everywhere including the infant supplies isle of Target) issued an apology to them and said that henceforth they would focus only on the second amendment rights.
I completely agree with your advise when faced with someone other than a police officer carrying a gun.
Leave immediately, don’t stop to pay, and call 911. The life you save may be your own or that of a member of your family. Luckily, this does not apply to us here in California where do not allow open carry.
Reading this reminds me of the late great Johnny Carson. As best as I can remember he said California is like a bowl of granola. What isn’t fruits or flakes is nuts.
That Johnny Carson was a smart man and talked the truth.
Reading this reminds me of the late great Johnny Carson. As best as I can remember he said California is like a bowl of granola. What isn’t fruits or flakes is nuts.
That Johnny Carson was a smart man and talked the truth.
Clem
Interesting. That is exactly how I felt about the Open Carry advocates with their weapons strapped across their chests in Target stores in Texas !
El Paso has the most carry permits per capita and one the highest gun ownership per capita statistics… and the lowest crime of any big city in America.
Yes. Evidently that is because El Paso has a very high immigrant population, including a very high illegal immigrant population.
http://reason.com/archives/2009/07/06/the-el-paso-miracle
I would not go there Don, since most of the states with high immigration are generally also gun-friendly states.
The armed natives keep the invaders in check.
There seems to be evidence that high-immigrant communities along the border are low-crime. There seems to be evidence that gun-owning non-immigrant communities along the border are low-crime. There is no evidence that “the armed natives keep the invaders in check.” Much of the crime appears to be related to the drug trade.
Clem
Interesting. That is exactly how I felt about the Open Carry advocates with their weapons strapped across their chests in Target stores in Texas !
El Paso has the most carry permits per capita and one the highest gun ownership per capita statistics… and the lowest crime of any big city in America.
Yes. Evidently that is because El Paso has a very high immigrant population, including a very high illegal immigrant population.
http://reason.com/archives/2009/07/06/the-el-paso-miracle
I would not go there Don, since most of the states with high immigration are generally also gun-friendly states.
The armed natives keep the invaders in check.
There seems to be evidence that high-immigrant communities along the border are low-crime. There seems to be evidence that gun-owning non-immigrant communities along the border are low-crime. There is no evidence that “the armed natives keep the invaders in check.” Much of the crime appears to be related to the drug trade.
All firearms and ammunition companies and those who make accessories for them, should completely stop all sales to California and especially to the numerous law enforcement agencies in our state.
This would put tremendous pressure on the sleazy liberal politicians to reconsider in their ridiculous ideas or risk getting booted out of office, or have huge numbers of the MORE highly educated residents and their companies moving away to more gun friendly states like Texas or Florida.
If large numbers of the middle class taxpayers leave California and take their dollars with them, who will pay for the social programs that are keeping the millions of welfare gamers, gang members, illegal invaders, and other parasites from going on the rampage? The Follywood liberals are incredibly wealthy but relatively few in number compared to the middle class and they will be stripped bare and devoured by the ravenous masses if they stay in their beloved People’s Democratic Republic of California as it’s currently run. They will even have to pay smugglers to bring in ammunition from other states for the bodyguards who protect them. I’ll bet most Follywood liberals own guns but just don’t admit it…
Governor Moonbeam may have to build a wall around California to keep his subjects in the state, just like his Marxist idols did in East Germany or face the same fate as France’s King Louie XIV back in the revolution days.
Clem
Well that is certainly a different point of view…and I did ask for them. I think that this might well be classified as falling within the aphorism “be careful what you ask for” ; ).
I also would consider it somewhat off topic, perhaps a little unrealistic and certainly a minority opinion, but I do thank you for sharing since that is what the Vanguard is all about.
All firearms and ammunition companies and those who make accessories for them, should completely stop all sales to California and especially to the numerous law enforcement agencies in our state.
This would put tremendous pressure on the sleazy liberal politicians to reconsider in their ridiculous ideas or risk getting booted out of office, or have huge numbers of the MORE highly educated residents and their companies moving away to more gun friendly states like Texas or Florida.
If large numbers of the middle class taxpayers leave California and take their dollars with them, who will pay for the social programs that are keeping the millions of welfare gamers, gang members, illegal invaders, and other parasites from going on the rampage? The Follywood liberals are incredibly wealthy but relatively few in number compared to the middle class and they will be stripped bare and devoured by the ravenous masses if they stay in their beloved People’s Democratic Republic of California as it’s currently run. They will even have to pay smugglers to bring in ammunition from other states for the bodyguards who protect them. I’ll bet most Follywood liberals own guns but just don’t admit it…
Governor Moonbeam may have to build a wall around California to keep his subjects in the state, just like his Marxist idols did in East Germany or face the same fate as France’s King Louie XIV back in the revolution days.
Clem
Well that is certainly a different point of view…and I did ask for them. I think that this might well be classified as falling within the aphorism “be careful what you ask for” ; ).
I also would consider it somewhat off topic, perhaps a little unrealistic and certainly a minority opinion, but I do thank you for sharing since that is what the Vanguard is all about.
Frankly
“I agree that gun safety should be a constant pursuit”
If you do not like the current proposal, SB 53, I would be interested to hear your specific reasons for believing that it is bad policy.
More importantly, since you also believe that this should be a “constant pursuit”, what are your specific recommendations ? I think it would be very refreshing for you and I to be on the same side of an issue. I would certainly be supportive of any suggestion that would have a chance at reduction of gun related injuries.
Frankly
“I agree that gun safety should be a constant pursuit”
If you do not like the current proposal, SB 53, I would be interested to hear your specific reasons for believing that it is bad policy.
More importantly, since you also believe that this should be a “constant pursuit”, what are your specific recommendations ? I think it would be very refreshing for you and I to be on the same side of an issue. I would certainly be supportive of any suggestion that would have a chance at reduction of gun related injuries.
Here’s a Chris Rock routine that was inspired in part by the Columbine HS incident. I don’t necessarily agree with some comments he makes, but he has some humorous riffs on making bullets prohibitively expensive. That section starts at ~3:19.
Chris Rock on gun control and expensive bullets
PS — That link above is generally “NSFW”, Not Safe for Work.
Here’s a Chris Rock routine that was inspired in part by the Columbine HS incident. I don’t necessarily agree with some comments he makes, but he has some humorous riffs on making bullets prohibitively expensive. That section starts at ~3:19.
Chris Rock on gun control and expensive bullets
PS — That link above is generally “NSFW”, Not Safe for Work.
Frank Lee, you should be struck by lighting for suggesting something so blasphemous!
Alan Miller
Be careful what you wish for. The lightning might strike him while one of those substandard rail cars is passing through downtown ! There goes the neighborhood !
Frank Lee, you should be struck by lighting for suggesting something so blasphemous!
Alan Miller
Be careful what you wish for. The lightning might strike him while one of those substandard rail cars is passing through downtown ! There goes the neighborhood !
Sadly, I think this will just have the effect of creating a large black market for ammunition, and opening up another lucrative market for organized crime (drugs and bullets–gotta love the combo!). Also, many will just ask a friend of theirs (who has passed a background check) to please buy him a few bullets on his next trip to the gun shop.
Sadly, I think this will just have the effect of creating a large black market for ammunition, and opening up another lucrative market for organized crime (drugs and bullets–gotta love the combo!). Also, many will just ask a friend of theirs (who has passed a background check) to please buy him a few bullets on his next trip to the gun shop.
tribeUSA
Those are certainly potential issues. Your thoughts on what would be better ?
tribeUSA
Those are certainly potential issues. Your thoughts on what would be better ?
Tia–strengthening measures to keep guns from getting into the hands of the mentally ill/unstable.
Of course the devil is in the details here–I’m not a mental health professional and don’t know how best the current laws could be better strengthened/enforced.
And of course a sufficiently determined/cunning mentally ill person could always find a way to get a gun illicitly, e.g. theft (the Sandy Hook madman broke into his moms locked guncase)or the black market.
So I concede this is a very difficult issue; and I don’t have the answers–but when crafting the law; it is critical to consider what effect the law might have in the real world, including unintended consequences related to the myriad ways of getting around laws (don’t underestimate human ingenuity!) that attempt to ban something for a group of people which may have a large market demand!
Tia–strengthening measures to keep guns from getting into the hands of the mentally ill/unstable.
Of course the devil is in the details here–I’m not a mental health professional and don’t know how best the current laws could be better strengthened/enforced.
And of course a sufficiently determined/cunning mentally ill person could always find a way to get a gun illicitly, e.g. theft (the Sandy Hook madman broke into his moms locked guncase)or the black market.
So I concede this is a very difficult issue; and I don’t have the answers–but when crafting the law; it is critical to consider what effect the law might have in the real world, including unintended consequences related to the myriad ways of getting around laws (don’t underestimate human ingenuity!) that attempt to ban something for a group of people which may have a large market demand!
“•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”
And this article is about making bullets harder to purchase?
Trains crash into things; therefore there should be no speed limits for cars. Got it.
No Don, more like:
Trains crash into things; therefore there should be tighter speed limits for cars.
Sometimes seemingly unrelated factors can have profound effects in certain situations. If there were tighter regulations regarding speed limits for cars approaching railroad crossings, there might indeed by fewer crashes of trains into cars trying to beat the train through the crossing ; ).
B.P. Instead of being an armchair quarterback, you seem to be an armchair journalist. You second guess David & his hard working staff, at every turn. Maybe you should go back to school, get a degree in Journalism or Law or Political Science, and start your own tea-party-ish blog. Your comments pose no real solutions to any of the problems discussed on this blog.
Thank you.
I often times agree with David, more than you might think. I’m allowed my opinions, just as you’re allowed your’s. We will often clash because I happen to come at things from a conservative viewpoint where you and others come at it from the liberal side. Should this exclude me from voicing my opinion? Should you have to get a degree in journalism and start your own liberal-acorn-ish type blog in order to post on this blog? Please enlighten us on all your problem solving posts, I’ve seemed to have missed those.
Thank you.
Your posts are snarkier, more mean spirited than other conservative opinions. Maybe it’s just my life experiences, but I sniff a verbal bully. Try a little more kindness in your writing. Sugar catches more flies than vinegar, B.P.
It’s not so much your opinion that bugs me. It’s how you present your opinion.
I think you just see my posts as snarky because you don’t agree with them. Your posts often come off as snarky to me too. Maybe you should change your style so that it doesn’t bug me.
Geesh… if you think BP is a snarky, you should read my stuff.
I agree with BP. D.D., I make you out to be a bit overly sensitive and maybe a passive aggressive bully in your own right.
One thing you and others should give consideration to is the level of challenge to challenge the liberal progressive worldview without causing hurt feelings.
Maybe getting blasted by those on the left and their media pals for being:
– Greedy
– Uncaring
– Mean
– Intolerant
– Woman haters
– Homophobic
– Racist
– Cling to our guns and religion
– Destroyers of the environment
– Racist
Need I go on?
Frankly
“Need I go on?”
No, especially since you are omitting one important distinction. You have openly stated that you like “rough and tumble” conversation and that you think we should all be thick skinned and less sensitive as you portray yourself.
Therefore, it seems that you would not mind these epithets if applied to you. Some of us may be thinner skinned and so would and do object to name calling for ourselves and others. Should our opinions not be met with as much respect as you would like for yours ?
“•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”
And this article is about making bullets harder to purchase?
Trains crash into things; therefore there should be no speed limits for cars. Got it.
No Don, more like:
Trains crash into things; therefore there should be tighter speed limits for cars.
Sometimes seemingly unrelated factors can have profound effects in certain situations. If there were tighter regulations regarding speed limits for cars approaching railroad crossings, there might indeed by fewer crashes of trains into cars trying to beat the train through the crossing ; ).
B.P. Instead of being an armchair quarterback, you seem to be an armchair journalist. You second guess David & his hard working staff, at every turn. Maybe you should go back to school, get a degree in Journalism or Law or Political Science, and start your own tea-party-ish blog. Your comments pose no real solutions to any of the problems discussed on this blog.
Thank you.
I often times agree with David, more than you might think. I’m allowed my opinions, just as you’re allowed your’s. We will often clash because I happen to come at things from a conservative viewpoint where you and others come at it from the liberal side. Should this exclude me from voicing my opinion? Should you have to get a degree in journalism and start your own liberal-acorn-ish type blog in order to post on this blog? Please enlighten us on all your problem solving posts, I’ve seemed to have missed those.
Thank you.
Your posts are snarkier, more mean spirited than other conservative opinions. Maybe it’s just my life experiences, but I sniff a verbal bully. Try a little more kindness in your writing. Sugar catches more flies than vinegar, B.P.
It’s not so much your opinion that bugs me. It’s how you present your opinion.
I think you just see my posts as snarky because you don’t agree with them. Your posts often come off as snarky to me too. Maybe you should change your style so that it doesn’t bug me.
Geesh… if you think BP is a snarky, you should read my stuff.
I agree with BP. D.D., I make you out to be a bit overly sensitive and maybe a passive aggressive bully in your own right.
One thing you and others should give consideration to is the level of challenge to challenge the liberal progressive worldview without causing hurt feelings.
Maybe getting blasted by those on the left and their media pals for being:
– Greedy
– Uncaring
– Mean
– Intolerant
– Woman haters
– Homophobic
– Racist
– Cling to our guns and religion
– Destroyers of the environment
– Racist
Need I go on?
Frankly
“Need I go on?”
No, especially since you are omitting one important distinction. You have openly stated that you like “rough and tumble” conversation and that you think we should all be thick skinned and less sensitive as you portray yourself.
Therefore, it seems that you would not mind these epithets if applied to you. Some of us may be thinner skinned and so would and do object to name calling for ourselves and others. Should our opinions not be met with as much respect as you would like for yours ?
I moved to Arizona a few years back, not long after the Giffords shooting at a Safeway ess than 20 miles from my new home. I have been to more gun vioence prevention rallies than I care to remember. I’ve been to prayer vigils & have spoken to the Tucson victims family members. One of whom lives in Davis. It is heartbreaking.
The U.K. gets by just fine, without their citizens being armed to their teeth with guns.
Mental health issues are a real problem in America.
I personally spoke with John McCain about this issue. (He happened to stop for lunch in a cafe where I was eating, and took the table next to me. I couldn’t let that opportunity slip away!) We discussed gun violence prevention, among other things. He is bi-partisan on this issue.
Republicans, Dems, Green Party, Independents, etc. need to stop our bickrering and get something done. Our President’s health iinsurance reforms would help the mentally ill get treatment. it is a baby step in the right direction.
Rest in peace, Tucson victims. You will never be forgotten.
“The U.K. gets by just fine, without their citizens being armed to their teeth with guns.”
If you consider the the fact that the U.K. has the highest crime rate in the world is getting by just fine.
I moved to Arizona a few years back, not long after the Giffords shooting at a Safeway ess than 20 miles from my new home. I have been to more gun vioence prevention rallies than I care to remember. I’ve been to prayer vigils & have spoken to the Tucson victims family members. One of whom lives in Davis. It is heartbreaking.
The U.K. gets by just fine, without their citizens being armed to their teeth with guns.
Mental health issues are a real problem in America.
I personally spoke with John McCain about this issue. (He happened to stop for lunch in a cafe where I was eating, and took the table next to me. I couldn’t let that opportunity slip away!) We discussed gun violence prevention, among other things. He is bi-partisan on this issue.
Republicans, Dems, Green Party, Independents, etc. need to stop our bickrering and get something done. Our President’s health iinsurance reforms would help the mentally ill get treatment. it is a baby step in the right direction.
Rest in peace, Tucson victims. You will never be forgotten.
“The U.K. gets by just fine, without their citizens being armed to their teeth with guns.”
If you consider the the fact that the U.K. has the highest crime rate in the world is getting by just fine.
B.P.,
Please site your sources that prove the U.K. has THE highest crime rate in the WORLD.
Thanks.
B.P.,
Please site your sources that prove the U.K. has THE highest crime rate in the WORLD.
Thanks.
B.T.W.
Thank you very much, Tia. This was thoughtful and well written.
B.T.W.
Thank you very much, Tia. This was thoughtful and well written.
A real life illustration that supports my view:
Last year I was riding the BART to San Francisco airport after a wonderful visit with my daughter. I was starting to realize she is safe and doing fine in the big city. Just before my stop, two twenty-something young men got into a big, loud argument. They started to shove one another. All of a sudden the smaller man reached into his hoodie pocket. He pulled out pepper spray, and told the bigger man to get off the BART or he’d get sprayed. The man got off the BART at the next stop.
If the young man had a gun, he may have just waved it around, like the pepper spray. Or he may have shot the gun. The pepper spray would have hurt the surrounding passengers and the bigger young man, but no one would have died that morning.
True story.
A real life illustration that supports my view:
Last year I was riding the BART to San Francisco airport after a wonderful visit with my daughter. I was starting to realize she is safe and doing fine in the big city. Just before my stop, two twenty-something young men got into a big, loud argument. They started to shove one another. All of a sudden the smaller man reached into his hoodie pocket. He pulled out pepper spray, and told the bigger man to get off the BART or he’d get sprayed. The man got off the BART at the next stop.
If the young man had a gun, he may have just waved it around, like the pepper spray. Or he may have shot the gun. The pepper spray would have hurt the surrounding passengers and the bigger young man, but no one would have died that morning.
True story.
I grew up around guns. My dad had a gun in our home, and when I lived in the country in Oregon, we kept a Winchester in our home. I’ve shot rifles, but never a pistol. I changed my opinion over the years. Today there are no guns in my home. I would not let my children go to homes in Davis if the parents admitted they kept guns in their home. (I asked.)
A co-workers’ young daughter died in an accidental gun shooting. Another co-worker’s brother placed his hunting rifle into the trunk of his car and accidentally left one bullet in it. Stupid? Yes. But accidents happen because they are accidents. He shot himself but did not die.
The parents of the Tucson shooter suspected their son had serious mental health issues, but never guessed his medical conditon so severe that he would take another life.
Guns are so prevalent and so dangerous that ee must do something big, and bold.
I’m paraphrasing Gabby Giffords’ remarks about gun violence prevention: “…be bold, be courageous.”
D.D.
“I would not let my children go to homes in Davis if the parents admitted they kept guns in their home. (I asked.)”
I am so glad that you brought this up. I also asked prior to letting my children go to their friends homes until their age placed them beyond my control. i found the first conversation a bit awkward. Others, less so as the first mother that I asked thanked me and indicated that would prompt her to do the same. I also had been very direct in conversation with my children that if they saw a gun at a friends house, they were to call me immediately to come and get them. This is probably one of the simplest means to protect your own children from accidental gun injury. It was a bit remiss to leave it out of my article.
I grew up around guns. My dad had a gun in our home, and when I lived in the country in Oregon, we kept a Winchester in our home. I’ve shot rifles, but never a pistol. I changed my opinion over the years. Today there are no guns in my home. I would not let my children go to homes in Davis if the parents admitted they kept guns in their home. (I asked.)
A co-workers’ young daughter died in an accidental gun shooting. Another co-worker’s brother placed his hunting rifle into the trunk of his car and accidentally left one bullet in it. Stupid? Yes. But accidents happen because they are accidents. He shot himself but did not die.
The parents of the Tucson shooter suspected their son had serious mental health issues, but never guessed his medical conditon so severe that he would take another life.
Guns are so prevalent and so dangerous that ee must do something big, and bold.
I’m paraphrasing Gabby Giffords’ remarks about gun violence prevention: “…be bold, be courageous.”
D.D.
“I would not let my children go to homes in Davis if the parents admitted they kept guns in their home. (I asked.)”
I am so glad that you brought this up. I also asked prior to letting my children go to their friends homes until their age placed them beyond my control. i found the first conversation a bit awkward. Others, less so as the first mother that I asked thanked me and indicated that would prompt her to do the same. I also had been very direct in conversation with my children that if they saw a gun at a friends house, they were to call me immediately to come and get them. This is probably one of the simplest means to protect your own children from accidental gun injury. It was a bit remiss to leave it out of my article.
Not convinced that requiring background checks by purchasers and licensing of sellers of ammunition would solve much of anything. You can currently order anything including 50 caliber rounds and armor piercing rounds online and both FedEx and UPS will be happy to deliver it to your door. Given that we currently have over 90 guns/100 residents in this country I think it is similar to thinking about putting a smoke detector in the barn after it has already burned to the ground. For the record I am very much in favor of very strict gun control measures.
Not convinced that requiring background checks by purchasers and licensing of sellers of ammunition would solve much of anything. You can currently order anything including 50 caliber rounds and armor piercing rounds online and both FedEx and UPS will be happy to deliver it to your door. Given that we currently have over 90 guns/100 residents in this country I think it is similar to thinking about putting a smoke detector in the barn after it has already burned to the ground. For the record I am very much in favor of very strict gun control measures.
WesC
I agree that this is a small step, not a panacea. And although I am aware that online purchases are available, some people still buy their ammunition from brick and mortar stores such as Big 5. Another factor that I did not consider, but which your comment brought to mind for me is the factor of timing. A purchase at Big 5 is immediate with the ammunition in your hand as soon as you walk out the door. There is at least a waiting period for your online purchases. If anything, this may be a minor argument for the regulation of in person ammunition purchases since it takes away the “impulse” unlicensed purchase. Maybe someone other than me will recall the Simpson’s episode and Homer’s reaction when informed that there was a waiting period for his weapon….”But I’m angry now ! “
WesC
I agree that this is a small step, not a panacea. And although I am aware that online purchases are available, some people still buy their ammunition from brick and mortar stores such as Big 5. Another factor that I did not consider, but which your comment brought to mind for me is the factor of timing. A purchase at Big 5 is immediate with the ammunition in your hand as soon as you walk out the door. There is at least a waiting period for your online purchases. If anything, this may be a minor argument for the regulation of in person ammunition purchases since it takes away the “impulse” unlicensed purchase. Maybe someone other than me will recall the Simpson’s episode and Homer’s reaction when informed that there was a waiting period for his weapon….”But I’m angry now ! “
“I agree with BP. D.D., I make you out to be a bit overly sensitive and maybe a passive aggressive bully in your own right.”
Nope.
“I agree with BP. D.D., I make you out to be a bit overly sensitive and maybe a passive aggressive bully in your own right.”
Nope.
Note: Off topic discussions about national events have been and will be removed.
Note: Off topic discussions about national events have been and will be removed.
BP. still waiting for your stats to back up your statement re: the UK.
BP. still waiting for your stats to back up your statement re: the UK.
BP
“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?”
Some may, but RD recently shared some data with me that indicates that this is the minority, not the norm.
Perhaps he will post it when he has a little more time. Ironically enough, he is busy with some suicide prevention
material at the moment.
BP
“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?”
Some may, but RD recently shared some data with me that indicates that this is the minority, not the norm.
Perhaps he will post it when he has a little more time. Ironically enough, he is busy with some suicide prevention
material at the moment.