List Archives

Sat, 13 Apr 2002 11:09:20 -0700 (PDT)

As the originator of this thread two days ago, please
allow me to make a few observations.  I'm afraid that
this has once again deteriorated into a melee of pro
v.s. anti gun control rhetoric.  That was not my
intention.  I hope that those of you who wish to
continue to discuss this vis-a-vis the Second
Amendment, the US Constitution, the Great Wars, The
Great State of Texas (hey, I grew up and trained
there, I know Texas, pal) etc, etc. would cease and
desist and take it elsewhere.  Yahoo has several great
forums on those and realted topics, as does MSN. 
Check them out.

As far as the press conference: I attended, and as
trauma director for the hospital in this senators's
district, was asked to make a brief statement. So I
told them about the things I know, like how many of
our gunshot victims are non-insured (>80%), or
unemployed, how much it costs to treat them (over
$30,000 per hospitalization), etc., etc.  Obviously, I
came out in favor of the bullet tax.    An interesting
fact that came to light (one of the reporters asked
the Senator about it): Don Perata has had numerous
threats on his life made since he first openly began
discussing this tax several months ago.  Hmmmm.....

I am struck and somewhat saddended by the tendency of
the anti-gun control advocates on this board (all
intelligent, rational individuals, I am sure) to
ignore the basic premise behind this tax proposal and
instead attempt to divert attention to the tangential
issues.  This isn't about revoking or limiting any
second amendments rights (if indeed one believes the
second amendment guarantees such a right, which many
do not - but that's ANOTHER issue entirely, so please
don't start it up again here).  

The aim of this tax proposal is to render financial
assistance to those community hospitals that are being
overrun with unreimbursed costs directly attributable
to gunshot injuries.  Paranoia will surely lead some
to interpret this issue differently.  That's a shame.
The fact that more people are injured from car crashes
in this country is true but UNRELATED.  As far as I'm
concerned, we should add another FIFTY DOLALR tax to
automobile, truck and motorcycle ownership that would
then be funelled back to the trauma centers to support
care and research of blunt trauma.  Same for alcohol
consumption.  The fact that in some states these funds
have perhaps not been used for their intended purpose
in no way diminishes the validity of the tax.  The
concept is valid, we just need to refine the
execution.  Don't throw the baby out with the
bathwater.

I have heard people argue that rather than tax
bullets, we should be issuing a bullet CREDIT - since
purportedly many more lives are saved each year from
law-abiding citizens PREVENTING death and injury with
their guns.  I have examined the evidence for this
conclusion and found it unconvincing and mostly
anecdotal.  The evidence against it (i.e. that
gunshots are frequent, and expensive) is well
established and irrefutable.

As for those who decry a tax becaus it unfairly
penalizes law-abiding gun owners, I say this:  Until
we can effectively isolate only the perpetrators of
these injuries and extract (yeah, right - good luck
with THAT) we must all share equally in the cost of
addressing this problem.  After all, I pay school
distict taxes yet have no children (not yet...the
twins are due in June).  I pay over 40 cents per
gallon in gasoline taxes but to my knowledge have not
created any potholes on the highway and drive less
than fifty miles a week (since I live three miles away
from the hospital and ride my bike as much as
possible).  And if the main reason to own and keep a
gun is for self defense, then surely none of us would
ever really fire one single bullet in our lives (most
law-abiding gun owners never use their gun for its
intended purpose) so a box of rounds should last a
lifetime.  Target practice?  Sure, that'll cost a few
more bucks over the years.  Five cents more per bullet
won't put anybody in debt.  And if owning a gun is
such an important, vital, and crucial right, then
surely this tax would NEVER keep one from exercising
it.  

It will be interesting to see where this proposal goes
here in California.  It will require a two-thirds
majority vote in the state legislature.  I have little
hope that the media will focus on the real issue - the
high cost of treating gun injuries and the deleterious
effects these injuries have on other facets of trauma
care.  The pro-gun lobby is vocal, well funded, and
well organized. Yet somehow, I remain hopeful. 
Stranger things have happened.

Thanks to all for your input and suggestions.

Caesar M. Ursic, M.D.
UCSF-East Bay
Oakland, California

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

List Archives

For your convenience, find the Trauma List Archive Below

Taxing Bullets-press conference update