San Diego Attorney Misleads Public in Editorial About Gun Accidents & Children

Opinion

San Diego City Attorney Misleads about Gun Accidents
San Diego Attorney Misleads Public in Editorial About Gun Accidents & Children

U.S.A.-(Ammoland.com)- On 26 July 2019, progressive City Attorney of San Diego, Mara W. Elliott had an article published in SDNEWS.COM. The article was grossly misleading. Politicians lie regularly. City Attorneys should be held to a higher standard.  In this case, Mara W. Elliot is acting as a politician, as she proposed the Safe Storage Firearms Ordinance. Here is a quote from the article. From sdnews.com:

Firearms are a leading cause of injury-related deaths among children, second only to motor vehicle injury deaths. Most of the 7,000 children killed and injured each year are shot are in their own homes. Most of these deaths happen when a child is playing with a gun, mistakenly thinking it was a toy or was unloaded or locked.

Mara Elliot emphasizes child deaths, but the number she references is for children “killed and injured.”  The number of children killed in unintentional shootings is a very small number. The CDC reports it with confident accuracy. In 2017, it was 95. Such deaths are exceedingly rare at 1.3 per million (.13 per hundred thousand).

The gun culture has done a tremendous job in reducing fatal firearm accidents. The rate of fatal gun accidents has been reduced by 94% since 1932.

The CDC does not list a number for non-fatal unintentional firearms injuries of children because their sample is too small to be accurate.

What Mara Elliot has done is a classic example of how to lie with statistics.

San Diego, Mara W. Elliott official Photo Wikipedia
San Diego, Mara W. Elliott official Photo Wikipedia

Most of the childhood firearm deaths are homicides. The CDC lists 919 homicides with firearms for children in 2017. The next highest are suicides, at 728.

Mara Elliot is not talking about those. From her article:

“Most of these deaths happen when a child is playing with a gun, mistakenly thinking it was a toy, or was unloaded or locked.”

The total unintentional injury deaths of children from all mishaps, in 2017, were 5,701, from the CDC.

  • Unintentional motor vehicular deaths of children were 2,510.
  • Unintentional deaths of children from suffocation were 1,308
  • Drowning deaths of children in 2017 were 808, according to the CDC.
  • Pedestrian deaths of children in 2017, (much overlap with motor vehicle accidents) were 386.
  • Unintentional injury deaths of children from other land transportation in 2017 were 158.
  • Unintentional injury deaths of children from firearms in 2017, were 95, from the CDC.
  • Unintentional injury deaths of children on bicycles were 89 in 2017 (much overlap with motor vehicle deaths)
  • Unintentional injury deaths of children, by falling was nearly as high, at 82.

Unintentional injury deaths of children, with firearms, were 1.7% of the total.

Elliot says, “studies show” that safe storage laws are highly effective at saving lives. She provides no reference to any such study?  I would like to see them. I quickly found a study that claimed safe storage laws did not reduce either juvenile accidental gun deaths or suicides. From crimeresearch.org:

It is frequently assumed that safe-storage gun laws reduce accidental gun deaths and total suicides, while the possible impact on crime rates is ignored. We find no support that safe-storage laws reduce either juvenile accidental gun deaths or suicides. Instead, these storage requirements appear to impair people’s ability to use guns defensively. Because accidental shooters also tend to be the ones most likely to violate the new law, safe-storage laws increase violent and property crimes against law-abiding citizens with no observable offsetting benefit in terms of reduced accidents or suicides.

Elliot also claims the Safe Storage ordinance will not infringe on gun owners right to carry weapons or to use them in self-defense. But devices that lock up guns are easy to fumble when under stress. Anti-Second Amendment activists often claim people will fumble with guns when they need them; they assume they will *not* fumble with gun locks when they need to remove them. Governor Parris Glendening fumbled with a gun locking device for over two minutes during the pressure of a press conference in 2000:

The footage shows Glendening at a Silver Spring news conference attempting to demonstrate the use of one of the locks his bill would require.

With the cameras running, Glendening tried in vain several times to remove the locking magazine from a 40-caliber Glock. He finally needed a reminder from police that he had to push a button to release the safety,

Unfortunately, the incriminating video seems to have disappeared from the Internet.

Elliot claims that child-proof caps on prescription drug containers saved lives.  But child-proof caps are not required to be used by law. They are required to be sold with medication. Gun locks are already provided with every retail gun sold. California has strict safety standards for the sale of handguns. The equivalent of child-proof caps for guns is already the law in California.

It beggars belief that homes without children be required to lock up their firearms, on the improbable possibility that some child might access a firearm there.

Californian's right to carry firearms is infringed by the state law allowing local officials to deny carry outside of the home. While a Hawaiian federal court has ruled such law unconstitutional, the Ninth Circuit has placed a stay on the ruling pending appeal. They will not hear the appeal until after the Supreme Court has ruled on another case out of New York.

If your firearms are required to be locked when you are away, because you are not allowed to carry them with you, then, instead of being able to access a firearm as soon as you get home, you will have to unlock them, and carry them on your person in your home. There are numerous instances where people access firearms that are not locked up, and defend themselves and stop crime, reported every year.  In addition, the law makes no accommodation for responsible children to use guns in self-defense or defense of others when there are no adults in the home. Under California law, unsupervised children under the age of majority, are not allowed access to guns. In one California case, two children were killed by a madman with a pitchfork, because their 14-year-old sister could not access the family guns:

Some of Jessica's siblings — Anna, 13; Vanessa, 11; Ashley, 9; and John William, 7 — were still in their bedrooms when Bruce broke into the farmhouse shortly after 9 a.m.

Bruce, who was armed with a pitchfork — but to whom police remain unable to attribute any motive — had apparently cut the phone lines. So when he forced his way into the house and began stabbing the younger children in their beds, Jessica's attempts to dial 9-1-1 didn't do much good. Next, the sensible girl ran for where the family guns were stored. But they were locked up tight.

Numerous cases of children using guns for defensive purposes are listed at this site.  Those are only the cases that are reported. Most defensive gun uses are not reported to the police or recorded in the media.

In some cases, locking up firearms for security makes sense. In other cases, it does not.

This appears to be a typical case of a consciously unarmed person attempting to impose their values on everyone else, by law. They see no cost to them because they do not own a firearm or intend to own one in the future. Any cost imposed on gun owners is acceptable because it is a cost imposed on someone else.

Most firearms owners are responsible, as seen by the extremely low rates of fatal firearms accidents.

For accidents involving children, firearms are about as deadly as bicycles.

It is hard to see how the proposed ordinance will have any beneficial effect. Those who pay attention to such things will be motivated to make their firearms less available for the defense of their home.  According to the CDC, there were 1,661 homicides of children in 2017.  17 times as many children were victims of homicide as died from fatal gun accidents. The CDC estimated firearms were used defensively, between 500,000 to 3 million times a year, in a study commissioned by President Obama.

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).

Those who decide to have their firearms more available, rather than locked up, will have yet another reason not to call the police into their home. If the police find an unlocked firearm, there is another reason for a gun owner to be prosecuted.

This makes the exercise of Second Amendment rights a bit more legally dangerous. It chills the exercise of those rights. That seems to be the intention.


About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30-year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

  • 8
    Leave a Reply

    Please Login to comment
    8 Comment threads
    0 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    8 Comment authors
    Busterfreewilloption31JPMCamotim Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    Buster
    Member
    Buster

    Unintentional child death by firearms is such a monumental problem that we must act NOW by imposing more gun control, yet it’s perfectly acceptable to murder a new-born infant?? And we’re supposed to believe democrat libtards give a hoot-n-hell about children???

    It’s libtard hypocrisy and insanity on full display.

    freewill
    Member
    freewill

    I think Dean W should write a counter point and send it in!

    option31
    Member
    option31

    Ca prosecutors and prosecutors in general fudge evidences all the time – it is rampant in CA – Kamala ” Heels up” Harris ring a bell? Prosecutors despite the popular believed myth do not work for us, the work for the government. Their is a big difference between us and government.

    JPM
    Member
    JPM

    She (an important fact) is a California (another important fact) Attorney (maybe the most important fact) and she’s lying? How is this a surprise to anyone and why should we give a rat’s patootie about anything she says or does?

    Camotim
    Member
    Camotim

    Figures don’t lie, but liars sure do figure.

    xring2245
    Member
    xring2245

    Leave it to an ignorant woman to put out something like this.

    Jeff
    Member
    Jeff

    I’m sure Mara Elliot knows how inaccurate her statements are. If she didn’t know they were true before publishing, she should have fact checked. The SD Times should have fact checked. But there is no excuse for her to not correct her article, no excuse except for the fact she doesn’t care about the truth. She has an agenda.

    Wass
    Member
    Wass

    Mr. Weingarten’s article is so good and convincing, that surely it or it’s facts will never appear in mainstream media.