The Tremendous Cost of Gun Violence

[mikeb302000]

http://www.ktvu.com/news/29350999/detail.html">KTVU.com reports what to me seem like very conservative numbers when calculating the cost of gun violence.

In an attempt to calculate the total costs associated with fatal and non-fatal gun-related injuries, researchers considered costs associated with criminal proceedings, lost productivity, medical care, and suffering and decreased quality of life experienced by victims.

Each non-fatal gun injury was found to cost society around $46,000 and fatal injuries cost an estimated $6.4 million, according to the report.

"Using these parameters, the cost of the 36 fatal and 133 non-fatal firearm injuries to youth in San Mateo County from 2005 to 2009 will total $234 million over time," the report said.

That's impressive enough, especially when you multiply it with the national figure. Then you're talking more than $5 billion per year.

But, doesn't the figure used seem a bit on the low side. I find it hard to believe that calculating the effect on family and considering the loss of future earnings, in addition to the immediate and more obvious costs like emergency room services and in many cases surgical operations, I find it hard to believe the $46,000 average would cover it.

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2009/12/cost-of-gun-violence.html">Laci once provided us with what seems to me a more realistic calculation.

They also state that when lost productivity, lost quality of life, and pain and suffering are added to medical costs, estimates of the annual cost of firearm violence range from $20 billion to $100 billion. According to the National Center for Disease Control, the cost of firearm fatalities is the highest of any injury-related death. In fact, the average cost of a gunshot related death is $33,000, while gun-related injuries total over $300,000 for each occurrence.

My calculations bring us in at about $30 billion, and that's year in and year out. What's your opinion? Are these staggering numbers enough to get the attention of people? Maybe the 30,000 deaths a year has become nothing more than a statistic, like Stalin said. People may have become inured to this, as terrible as it is. Perhaps they need to think about the cost, given the economic mess the country is in, maybe this is the way to get through.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[Turbineguy]

1. But what's the cost

of not living in fear?

[Fresh_Start]

8. not sure that gun owners are the people that aren't living in fear

maybe their fear is mildly reduced by gun ownership...but its those who don't feel the need for guns who are probably not living in fear.

[mikeb302000]

20. thanks for a refreshing voice of common sense. nt

[rl6214]

29. Why, because it parrots yours?

[rl6214]

30. It's got nothing to do with fear, it's got to do with the RIGHT

to keep and bear arms. I know many people that carry daily, as do I and none of us are afraid of anything. We carry because the law says we have the right to and because we all have the mindset that we should be prepared for any event.

[ileus]

39. So what does fear have to do with gun ownership?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

54. Im not so sure about that....

...after all, they seem pretty damned afraid of those who do own firearms.

[friendly_iconoclast]

57. Some are, some aren't. The ones that are afraid of *legal* gun owners puzzle me.

Legal gun owners aren't much of a problem, illegal gun owners are less of a problem than they used to be- yet it's the legal ones that they want to restrict.

[SteveM]

42. Not living in fear, here. nt

[gravity556]

2. Blah blah blogspam.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

Perhaps on the link you can show the class where you get the 30,000 number from.

Though really, an illegal gun owner like yourself hasn't got much credibility whilst bemoaning illegal guns. How much does alcohol use cost the US each year? What about drunk driving? Or morbid obesity? How many billions a year get spent in unrecovered medical costs due to illegal aliens?
What about the 50 thousand plus people killed every year in motor vehicle accidents?

[Katya Mullethov]

10. And of that 50 thousand killed

A lot of them would have benefited from wearing a helmet .

[rl6214]

31. I think the OP couild benefit from wearing a helmet.

:rofl:

[mikeb302000]

21. I don't know what you mean by

questioning the 30,000 number. Do you want to argue that suicides don't count as gun deaths?

About my past experience with guns reducing my "credibility whilst bemoaning illegal guns," why would that be? You guys often mock gun control folks who have never had gun experience as not know what they're talking about. I know what I'm talking about, and that's a problem too???

You other points about alcohol and medical costs have nothing to do with this discussion. It's about guns.

[rl6214]

32. It's always you gun criminals, you illegal gun owners that favor gun control

Why is that?

[RSillsbee]

45. It has nothing to do w/ your past experience

It's your past criminal activity

[Atypical Liberal]

50. Suicides don't matter to me.

Do you want to argue that suicides don't count as gun deaths?

A person bent on suicide is going to commit suicide, guns or no.

Furthermore, I'm not going to allow people who commit suicide to be used as a basis for public policy that affects everyone else.

[gravity556]

55. Well, you keep touting 30 k, showing that you didn't even bother looking at the link I posted

or if you did, you didn't understand how to read it. How many of those gun injuries are caused by piece of shit criminals shooting each other over a corner to sell drugs? How many of those are from little shitbag thugs who try to rob people and when they get told no, they shoot their victim? Hell, the laws didn't stop you, mikeb302000 from owning guns illegally. What law would have prevented you from doing that? Oh, that's right, you're a "good" criminal, not one of those icky "bad" criminals. So, why did you lose your second amendment rights? Drug crime? Assault with a deadly weapon? Assault with greivous bodily harm? Brandishing? Misdemeanor DV, leaving you a prohibited possessor vial the lautenberg amendment?

You DON'T know what you're talking about. Even though you loudly proclaim that you're a supergenius with guns and gun laws, you repeatedly demonstrate your ignorance.

Plus most folks don't give much creedence to the words of self admitted criminals. Sorry, it's just that people who break laws for fun and profit tend to be rather mendacious. Maybe if you came clean, and actually learned about the realities of what the gun laws actually are rather than what you imagine them to be, and stopped advocating for disarming law abiding citizens, you would get a warmer reception. Particularly since pro-rights folks tend to have an independent streak in them that automatically identifies bullshit and false intentions.

You state in one post that (and I'm paraphrasing here) you realize that some law you proposed wouldn't have an effect on crime and would only inconvenience law abiding gun owners, but who cares, since disarmnament is your ultimate goal.

Of course, you keep tripping over the truth in an effort to support the lies, and you wonder why nobody takes you seriously?

[RSillsbee]

3. I've always heard it was the criminals who favored gun control

now I believe it.

[DanTex]

4. Criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig estimated the annual cost at $100 billion.

http://books.google.com/books?id=3xi31fs1y-oC

[LAGC]

9. Yeah, but what's the cost of non-gun violence?

How many people are beat to within an inch of their lives because they had no gun to defend themselves with and had to endure a severe beating? Broken bones, torn ligaments, etc.

I imagine the cost would be much higher if we got rid of all guns used in self-defense.

[GreenStormCloud]

5. Take the guns away and people wil still be violent.

They will just use clubs, knives, fists, feet, etc. Why don't you try adding up the TOTAL cost of violence. By guns help keep me from being a victim, so I will keep them.

About half of those 30K are suicides. Take their guns away and they will just take pill, or hang themselves, or any of a thousand other ways to kill themselves.

Unrec.

[DanTex]

11. "Take their guns away and they will just take pill, or hang themselves..."

Actually, the studies show that you are wrong here, that having a gun around actually increases risk of completed suicide. Here's a brief summary:

The empirical evidence linking suicide risk in the United States to the presence of firearms in the home is compelling.3 There are at least a dozen U.S. case–control studies in the peer-reviewed literature, all of which have found that a gun in the home is associated with an increased risk of suicide. The increase in risk is large, typically 2 to 10 times that in homes without guns, depending on the sample population (e.g., adolescents vs. older adults) and on the way in which the firearms were stored. The association between guns in the home and the risk of suicide is due entirely to a large increase in the risk of suicide by firearm that is not counterbalanced by a reduced risk of nonfirearm suicide. Moreover, the increased risk of suicide is not explained by increased psychopathologic characteristics, suicidal ideation, or suicide attempts among members of gun-owning households.

The article also goes into reasons why this is the case. For example, suicidal impulses can often be fleeting, so the availability of means to commit suicide can mean the difference between life and death. Also, guns are more lethal than other forms of attempting suicide.

[GreenStormCloud]

14. Yes, we all know that guns radiate a hypnotic field...

...that says, "Use me. Kill yourself." and they play the tune from the movie M*A*S*H) at a subliminal level. :sarcasm:

[gravity556]

16. So a gun happens to be an effective tool for suicide.

It's fast, it's painless, but that same person with that same urge walking down the sidewalk and decides to be one with the Excursion. Only problem is, there's a good chance it won't kill instantly, meaning excruciating pain and fear before shock sets in, and medicos are good enough to keep Suicide Sam alive. Costing hundreds of thousand dollars, with the likely result being a repeat attempt.

Suicide is a shitty thing to do to your loved ones, but sometimes, it appears to the suicide that they are being relieved of a burden. That said, why should my rights be abrogated because there are suicidal people, anymore than your 4th amendment rights should be nullified because there are folks out there cooking meth and hiding kiddie porn. I'm not implying that you personally do either of those, but I wanted to make sure my point was clear.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fascisthunter]

6. but guns are so essential for life

:sarcasm:

[RSillsbee]

7. Not really

but they are nice to have if you're into freedom

[PavePusher]

18. For some victims of crime, they are.

Do you dispute this?

[mikeb302000]

23. nice avatar nt

[fascisthunter]

35. thank you... I use it with pride

peace

[SteveM]

43. Fascists favor gun prohibition.

;-)

[gejohnston]

12. you asked for my opinion

San Mateo County Health Officer Scott Morrow said there are pockets of the county that resemble a "war zone," where gangsand gun violence are inescapable aspects of daily life for young people, mostly at-risk boys.

The 22-year-old mother wept in front of a photo of her son, Izack, who was killed when two gunmen allegedly fired up to 15 gunshots into the family car in a case of mistaken identity.

Gang wars. Mostly gangsters killing other gangsters. California has strict gun laws. Regardless of gun laws, urban dwellers tend not to own guns, so the real issue is gangs fighting over market share. Like I said before, bong owners are more responsible for gun violence than the NRA.

That's impressive enough, especially when you multiply it with the national figure. Then you're talking more than $5 billion per year

What exactly did you multiply?

Laci once provided us with what seems to me a more realistic calculation.

Who in the hell is Laci? Seems to me, well I really don't care what Laci pulls out of her ass reads at Huff post.

But, doesn't the figure used seem a bit on the low side. I find it hard to believe that calculating the effect on family and considering the loss of future earnings, in addition to the immediate and more obvious costs like emergency room services and in many cases surgical operations, I find it hard to believe the $46,000 average would cover it.

Actually it seems a bit on the high side because most of these future earnings are mostly in the underground (nontaxable) economy.

My calculations bring us in at about $30 billion, and that's year in and year out. What's your opinion? Are these staggering numbers enough to get the attention of people? Maybe the 30,000 deaths a year has become nothing more than a statistic, like Stalin said. People may have become inured to this, as terrible as it is. Perhaps they need to think about the cost, given the economic mess the country is in, maybe this is the way to get through.

Since most of those are suicides, which would have happened anyway, you have no idea what you are talking about. What is my opinion? Does your employer know that you are using UN time and machines for your own pet projects instead of what they hired you for?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rl6214]

33. Unless of course his project is part of a UN project.

Sitting there with his blue helmet on so he dosen't hurt himself.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. And what of the savings for the 60-100,000 lawful defensive gun uses per year?

Per the Department of Justice.

[mikeb302000]

24. thanks for not quoting Kleck on that one

The more realistic figures for DGUs are also skewed, I'm afraid. You see, when one has a run in with a bad guy and uses his gun to save the day, many times it was not really necessary, many times it was actually aggressive and sometimes even criminal. But, never ever has one of those guys admitted it. How could they? Even in the extreme case of killing a bad guy, could you ever imagine the gun owner admitting perhaps he acted too quickly?

So, even the most reasonable figures of DGUs are bullshit. Sorry there's no proof for this, you have to use your common sense and of course be honest about it.

[mvccd1000]

27. You're right; they are skewed.

Just not in the direction you presume. While it's pretty safe to say that somewhere close to 100% of gun injuries or deaths are reported (and therefore counted in statistics), I'd venture to guess that probably less than 25% of defensive gun uses are counted. Why? Simple; the gun doesn't have to be used to prove a deterrent. If it wasn't used, why report it?

I've posted numerous times of my dad closing up his restaurants and doing cash deposits after midnight, and one night in a deserted shopping center someone decided to lurp around outside his store while he was collecting the cash. He noticed this before he left and pretended to go through his pockets looking for keys. In the process, he removed his holstered pistol from his coat pocket and set it on the counter. By the time he put things back in his pockets and went out the door, the person was no longer creeping around outside. Defensive gun use? Absolutely. Reported anywhere or counted in any statistics? Nope.

Subtract several thousand dollars in cash from your "cost of gun use" for that incident alone. (Or much more if he been injured or killed while being robbed.) Multiply that by 10s of thousands of times and I think you'll come up with a net savings, not a net cost.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. "many times it was actually aggressive and sometimes even criminal"

Well, of course, since there are lots of convictions on this point, the number..oh wait. That's LAWFUL defensive gun uses. In which, no Prosecutor felt a need to file any charges. The victim's testimony isn't the only piece of evidence relied upon, and only about 1,000 of those lawful DGU's involve a death, so there is an aggressor left alive to testify about the victim's behavior.

So no, the only 'skewing' is in the lawful DGU's that never get reported.

[gejohnston]

38. Right you are right

making things up off the top of your head while complaining about a real criminologist doing real science. I will certainly take that over your "common sense". Kleck is not the only one that put the number in the millions.

What is perhaps too quickly? Oh that is right, you live in a country that prosecutes people for defending themselves. Italy has no tradition of the enlightenment nor of English common law.

[ileus]

41. well considering most all gun owners are criminals we'd expect that line of thinking.

[SteveM]

44. "no proof," "use common sense," and "be honest about it?" Jeeez. nt

[Straw Man]

52. In a nutshell.

So, even the most reasonable figures of DGUs are bullshit. Sorry there's no proof for this, you have to use your common sense and of course be honest about it.

Because any "honest" person with "common sense" would agree with you, right? With this theory for which you have no empirical support, but which you somehow believe in your bones to be true.

You've got to be joking. It's Logical Fallacies 101 up in here, all day, every day.

[gravity556]

56. Wow! You have the second sight?

You know for a fact that DGUs are illegal? Do they hurt anyone? Other than an idiot criminal who doesn't take a hint, but that saves the economy about 36k a year in incarceration costs. Or do you expect a DGU to go like a spaghetti western where the guy in the white hat waits for the black hat to draw first? Because that's a good way to get yourself killed. And the standard for a justified shooting is for the victim (not the assailant, I know how you get those confused, particularly when the piece of shit assailant ends up cold meat) is fear of imminent great bodily harm or death. There is no requirement to let the bad guy get the first punch/shot/stab in.

And I don't know about you, but I'm a pretty laid back kind of person, right up until the point that someone threatens me with violence. Then they get pepper sprayed and will find themselves with a gun in their face. Any sudden reaching on the part of the assailant, any continued advancement toward me, any further threats made and I am going to defend myself. The only people who think that DGUs are bullshit are the pro-criminal safety loons. You know, the fools who say "Just comply and give him what he wants...." Fuck that noise-if he wants money and a watch, he can go get a fucking job.

So define how a DGU that doesn't result in the death of the crook is criminal? In AZ, defensive display of a firearm in response to a threat to life and limb is a perfectly legal part of the force continuum. And in fact, may even help the victim should he find himself in court.

"Well, your honor, he said gimme your wallet and your watch and he hinted that he was armed. I drew my weapon, told him that I was in fear for my life, told him to take his hands out of his pockets and get on the ground, and he rushed me. He had to be crazy, particularly since I was already pointing my legally carried firearm at him. I didn't know if he had a weapon or was going to try and take mine away from me, so I fired two rounds, but he kept coming, so I fired 3 more. I was terrified"

So please elaborate how a DGU that is within state laws is somehow illegal? I'll give you a little while, since you have to go and actually read some state laws on self defense...

[ileus]

17. So are we talking about good guys being the victim, or useless criminals?

[Francis Marion]

19. 130 MILLION people: first disarmed, and then murdered

in the twentieth century. A low estimate. I think it's more like 170 million.

That is the real 'gun' problem: when people who need them don't have them.

3,600 to 4,700 people murdered every day of the twentieth century, usually by their own government.

Before people get bent out of shape on US gun violence- and yes, we all should decry US gun violence- where is the due consideration for human suffering by world standards, and a sense of gun control history?

In this country, where things are (usually) uneventful by world standards, we have to really get out the microscope to perceive systemic flaws.

All systems have flaws. Our system balances the human right of self defense as a countermeasure against the inhuman prospect of genocide.

'Never again,' is what history shouts to us. And not here, not as long as we're armed.

[mikeb302000]

25. hey Swamp Fox, quit repeating the bullshit you've

heard others say. It's been debunked.

What's your point anyway. You're expecting a tyrannical US government to take your guns away so it can murder you and your family.

Get a grip, man.

[rl6214]

34. Of course because it dosen't fit your agenda, it's bullshit

And what's with the "Swamp Fox"?

If it's been debunked, prove it, don't just throw that claim out there.

"What's the point"? Ask any of the jews during WW2 that were murdered what the point is. Ask any of the victims of Pol Pot or Saddamm Huesein what the point is. Maybe check with any of the skinheads anywhere in the US what their point is. I'm sure they would love a gun ban. You know they would abide by it for sure while leaving their enemies disarmed.

[gejohnston]

48. Revolutionary war commander

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Marion

[Iktomiwicasa]

36. Guess what, Mikey?

It happened to my own people.

[PavePusher]

46. It may be a waste of time trying to provide empirical evidence to mikeb#s.

He appears to be factose intolerant, with a very high evidentiary rejection factor as well.

Such are the symptoms of Wilfull Ignorance and Deliberate Self-Hysteria. Perhaps one day, medical science will find a cure.... Until then, you might as well take him off the Reality-transplant recipient list. The operation would fail, and the patient would still live.

[Iktomiwicasa]

53. Before undertaking a...

Reality Transplant, a Cranial-Rectal extraction needs to be performed.

[Remmah2]

58. You forget, death by government "is" the #1 killer of humanity.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

democide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

[Francis Marion]

59. It can't happen here?

Why not? There's nothing sacred about the North American land mass which makes violations of human rights impossible.

It ALREADY HAS happened to:
American Indians.
Blacks. Slave codes, the precedent for modern gun control, were drafted to disarm blacks.

It COULD HAVE happened to:
Japanese Americans. Fortunately, adequate food and medical care were provided to the people held behind American barbed wire for years.

If you would care to compare facts on the well-known murderous reality of the 20th century, let's do that.

You first. What's your tally for the number of murdered humans during the twentieth century? Give a figure. But will you allow facts to change your mind?

I don't expect a tyrannical American government to manifest. I don't expect to get cancer, either. Don't expect my house to burn down. But I have medical insurance, several fire extinguishers, and a phone to call the fire dept.

Study history. Disarmament is just too risky.

[jmg257]

60. I wonder what would have happenned to the Japanese interns if they were well

armed and decided to fight back. Think it would have turned out better for them?

At what point do you go from trusting your govt to figuring you are better off shooting at them.

[Francis Marion]

61. It was bad, but could have been worse.

If they had known what was happening to people held in concentration camps in Russia, Germany, and central Europe, they might not have behaved as they did.

Armed resistance here would have been crushed as the many Native American wars ended in the previous century. An Asian insurgency couldn't have hidden itself among the people here. But unlike Armenians, Jews, Ukranians, Central Asians, at least while armed a genocide-receiving people would have had means of resistance, and could have forced the aggressor to pay a high price to exterminate them. Just as a handful of Jewish fighters managed to do in the Warsaw Ghetto once they obtained a small number of firearms. Some escaped and survived like Marek Edelman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek_Edelman

The choices Americans made allowed a peaceful, years-long breach of human rights. Our Establishment did not sicken, work, or starve the Japanese concentration camp inmates to death. Japanese Americans were well and truly loyal to our country and chose to obey the government.

Here's the thing: the Establishment could easily have implemented fatal policies toward the imprisoned Japanese Americans, had they simply chosen to do so, and for everybody in those camps, self defense was no longer a viable choice upon disarmament. Japanese Americans chose to put up with the injustice, trusting the system.

How many Jews followed that same path, pushing aside warning instincts in favor of fatal rationalization, unmerited trust.

Japanese Americans chose to prove, by their behavior, just how wrong the Estalishment was about their loyalty. When given a chance to fight, their young men left their families behind in the camps and enlisted in combat units. Not a bunch of clerks; these guys were part of the sharp end, they bled and distinguished themselves, preserved their family honor and pride as Americans for all to see.

Solzhenitsin wrote that gulag inmates bitterly recalled the lost opportunities to interfere with their abduction and mistreatment by their own government. That the inmates, while free, did not kill the secret police as they made their rounds. After all, the People far outnumbered the organs of state security. But people yielded to their system and were picked off one by one. People disappearing every night into a death institution.

[ileus]

40. anything in the name of gun control is acceptable to some.

[Glassunion]

26. You forgot another 45 billion per year.

The amount of money we spend fighting a bullshit war on drugs. That very war and prohibition that is the sole motivation for the vast majority of murders and other crimes annually in the country...

[rl6214]

28. Maybe you could provide some financial help with the proceeds

from your blog? Still not gonna click on your blind link to your blog.

As far as your math, is that in US dollars or in italian lira?

What's the cost to us US citizens caused by auto accidents? I'm sure it is much much higher but that dosen't fit in with your antigun agenda so you won't even address that. This does fit in with the antigun zealot agenda so you are going to push that all you can.

Unrec for the usual reasons.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Atypical Liberal]

49. Newsflash! Violent crime is costly!

Newsflash! Violent crime is costly! Story at 11!

It costs even more when good people have no means to defend themselves from violent criminals.

[petronius]

51. Here's a link to the actual report:

http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/Attachments/bos/pdfs/District%204/Youth%20Gun%20Violence/YouthGunViolenceRPRT2011.pdf

Projects like this can be interesting in a comparative sense, but I have two general concerns. First, the 'willingness to pay' methodology is an attempt to translate intangibles into economic terms, but I think there's a real pitfall in treating the results as 'real' dollars. There's insight into the relative importance of the item being studied - e.g. crime events, infrastructure, environmental protection - but it doesn't necessarily follow that the dollar figure arrived at will/would ever exist in anyone's bank account or bottom line. Or in anyone's tax bill.

Second, it strikes me that, very often, fixed costs are subsumed and assigned to the issue of interest. Whether or not a crime occurs, for example, the hospital will still exist (and be paid for), the police will still be on the street, the courts will still be in session, and so on...