If the injuries and deaths from gun violence in the United States were caused by a virus, the country and its political leaders would be in full crisis mode. The questions would be about how we stop this epidemic and prevent its recurrence.

On average, more than 108,000 people (including 17,000 children and teens) are shot in the United States each year, resulting in more than 30,000 deaths and 75,000 injuries. These numbers dwarf what we saw globally with the Ebola crisis, and far exceed what we might be anticipating from the Zika virus.

We believe that if you strip away the political rhetoric in this uniquely heated presidential election season and the long-standing ideological hysteria, on both sides of the argument, there are solutions where the vast majority of gun owners and gun safety advocates can find common ground.

The California model for dealing with the epidemic of gun injuries is an excellent example of good policies that don’t interfere with gun ownership, but create controls that have resulted in a 56 percent drop in gun violence from 1993 to 2010, including suicides. California requires passing a firearms safety certificate exam; mandates all private sales of guns to go through licensed dealers, and a 10-day waiting period, among other provisions that help prevent guns from falling into the hands of criminals, terrorists or people with serious mental disorders. Bills in the Legislature would further toughen the rules.

Eliminating gun ownership is not the goal; reducing gun violence is.

So what does this all mean for the 2016 presidential election?

Donald Trump favors the status quo, but doesn’t believe in “gun free zones” such as schools or shopping malls. He labors under the impression that with everyone carrying weapons, any citizen could stop a lone shooter or a terrorist, a notion dismissed as a nightmare scenario by many of the nation’s law enforcement leaders.

Bernie Sanders supports many gun control measures, but continues to insist that gun manufacturers should not be held accountable if they sell any kind of assault weapon to anybody with cash and a license who uses such weapons in a shooting spree or an act of terror. This idea flies in the face of common sense — and it is offensive to the families who have lost loved ones to senseless violence.

Hillary Clinton supports and respects the rights of citizens to own guns, but with conditions on what is available to be purchased by people who are not part of the military or a legitimate law enforcement agency. And she firmly believes that manufacturers should be responsible for the safety and appropriateness of what they sell. That jibes with what the vast majority of Americans believe and that is why, on this hot button issue, the former secretary of state and U.S. senator deserves the support of Californians in the battle for the White House.

Irwin Redlener is a pediatrician and a professor of health policy and management at Columbia University. Robert Tannenhauser is an attorney.