What Does Gun Violence Really Cost?

[Jim M]

The clown car has just arrived.

It's always a pleasure to have you anyway.

 

[Monkey]

Is self defense 'murder'? Is a LEO killing a bad guy 'murder'?

Hmmmm.....

How about if I planned to commit suicide using a gun, but shot myself in self defense? Where does this fall in my gun insurance policy?

 

[Jim M]

Is self defense 'murder'? Is a LEO killing a bad guy 'murder'?

Hmmmm.....

How about if I planned to commit suicide using a gun, but shot myself in self defense? Where does this fall in my gun insurance policy?

The insurance companies Darwin Award for the year.

 

[Rockdog]

AT LEAST 760,000 DEFENSIVE GUN USES A YEAR.

Did Mother Jones do that obviously important cost-benefit analysis as part of their "study"?

If you know how many, you must know the approximation of cost shouldn't you?

Whats the lives of your wife and children worth? Mine are worth everything in the world.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

No change. Same old, tired game.

As a right-to-die supporter, I believe our right to life includes the right to destroy our own lives and that right implies a choice about how to go about it.

I just don't buy the idea that society SHOULD prevent a person like Phil Bolger from killing himself as he did. Whether we can is another question, and I don't believe we can, but I don't think we should even if it could somehow be made to work.

I'm going to assume that most people who commit suicide use legal firearms to accomplish their goal. If that is true, then they would have had insurance covering the weapon. If not, then gun companies should carry blanket insurance that covers the cost.

I don't see how gun companies can be held responsible for criminal misuse of their products.

Do we insure other things that people use to kill themselves? Who would be the beneficiary of Phil Bolger's policy, anyway? And what were the "costs to society" of his death that needed to reimbursed to... well, someone?

Tom Ray,

We hold car companies responsible, there is no reason why gun companies should be exempt from some level of responsibility.

Cite some examples of holding car companies responsible for the criminal misuse of their products.

 

[Guest]

Total annual cost of gun violence: $229 billion, 33,000 deaths and 80,000 injuries ...

Mother Jones spent 6 months calculating the total cost of gun violence in America. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/true-cost-of-gun-violence-in-america

No one should have to surrender or have to be threatened with the loss of their guns. Just as people who do not own guns should have to bare the cost of guns used improperly. That $229 billion should be charged directly to the people responsible for creating the cost, not to those who do nothing to create it.

I assume you read this little tidbit in that article?

Each year more than 11,000 people are murdered with a firearm, and more than 20,000 others commit suicide using one.

Kinda change$ the whole game now, donut?....

No change. Same old, tired game.

As a right-to-die supporter, I believe our right to life includes the right to destroy our own lives and that right implies a choice about how to go about it.

I just don't buy the idea that society SHOULD prevent a person like Phil Bolger from killing himself as he did. Whether we can is another question, and I don't believe we can, but I don't think we should even if it could somehow be made to work.

I'm going to assume that most people who commit suicide use legal firearms to accomplish their goal. If that is true, then they would have had insurance covering the weapon. If not, then gun companies should carry blanket insurance that covers the cost.

Why should there be insurance for people who commit suicide? In fact if anything, the govt should be paying the family for all the lifetime cost the quitter just saved the tax payers.

 

[Spatial Ed]

Ammo tax to cover the cost of violence. That way we can at least get the self murderers to pitch in before they off themselves.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Must be the guns.

But what about the suffocation violence and the poison violence?

All suicides

• Number of deaths: 41,149
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.0
• Cause of death rank: 10

Firearm suicides

• Number of deaths: 21,175
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 6.7

Suffocation suicides

• Number of deaths: 10,062
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.2

Poisoning suicides

• Number of deaths: 6,637
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 2.1

They add up to 16k people, far more than are killed by the type of gun violence that is inflicted by others. Almost as many as self-inflicted "violence" using guns.

We obviously need plastic bag control just to start. How much financial responsibility should plastic bag manufacturers take? Or do people usually use ropes? Are we going after the rope moguls for being merchants of death?

 

[jocal505]

You are wanking and mis-representing again, Tom. Show us hard plastic bag fatality numbers which compare to this mess:

Yr Tot Deaths Injuries Total Shot

2000 28,663 75,685 104,348

2001 29,573 63,012 92,585

2002 30,242 58,841 89,083

2003 30,136 65,834 95,970

2004 29,569 64,389 93,958

2005 30,694 69,825 100,519

2006 30,896 71,417 102,313

2007 31,224 69,863 101,087

2008 31,593 78,622 110,215

http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2013.pdf

'09-'13 Gun Deaths Injuries Gun Casualties

2009 31,347 66,789 21.68/100K 98,136

2010 31,67219 73,505 23.7 105,177

2011 32,16318 73,833 23.97 105,996

2012 31,326 10.18 81,396 25.87 112,722

2013 33,383 84,258 26.81 110,700

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe>

GUN FACT #5; NONGUN OWNERS TAXED $5 BILLION/YR FOR GUN OWNERS' HOBBY

Posted OCT 24 2012 by NGAC in BLOG,

COUNTERINTUITIVE GUN FACTS,

WHAT THE NRA DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW

[SIZE=10.5pt]Over $5 billion tax dollars are used each year to cover the cost of U.S. gun homicides. Non-gun owners’ tax dollars pay the lion’s share of this cost. This makes no sense; gun owners should pay 100% of this cost.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]([/SIZE]Note:[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]Each gun [SIZE=10.5pt]homicide costs $400,000 tax dollars. On average, there are 12,000 U.S. gun homicides each year at a cost of $5 billon tax dollars.[/SIZE]

Supporting cost data provided to media on request.)

[SIZE=10.5pt]The NRA and gun owners will shout and rant that it is not fair for law-abiding gun owners to be paying for the cost of criminal and gang banger gun violence. But that misses the point.[/SIZE]

If I do not own a car, my tax dollars are not used to pay for the cost of car driving deaths and accidents. [SIZE=10.5pt]Law-abiding drivers pay for them through their [/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]insurance[/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]. Additionally, their premiums have a built in excess to cover costs generated by illegal drivers who do not have insurance.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]What makes the NRA’s and gun owners’ position even more outrageous is that they oppose and defeat any law that would make it harder for criminals and gang bangers to get guns; this causes far higher rates of gun violence—and consequently far higher tax payer costs.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]The NRA relentlessly protects gun industry sales to the criminal market. [/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]Studies[/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt] show sales to criminals represent minimally 25% of annual gun industry sales. Making sure criminals have guns allows the NRA to increase industry sales; their cynical marketing says everyone must be carrying a gun at all times to protect themselves from armed criminals.[/SIZE]

A fair solution to cover the cost of gun violence would be for the law-abiding gun owners to carry insurance as do the law-abiding car drivers. Further, there should be a tax on gun and bullet purchases.[SIZE=10.5pt] The gun owners want the pleasure of owning their guns but do not want the responsibility of covering the cost of gun violence. That is patently unfair to the law-abiding citizens who do not own guns and have no interest in gun-related activities.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Over the last 20 years, $100 billion tax dollars have been used to pay for the cost of gun homicides. It is high time for this cost to be fully transferred to the proper party—the gun owners.[/SIZE]

Pasted from <http://gunvictimsaction.org/blog/2012/10/gun-fact-5-non-gun-owners-taxed-5-billion-annually-for-gun-owners-hobby/>

 

[jocal505]

The clown car has just arrived.

NGS, you got run over by that clown car a few times.

And Tom Ray hadto let you swing in the wind,I remember.

Come back, please, when you have presentable fact-based research.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

I'm sure it's not just the plastic bags. As I said, there's probably a good deal of rope violence out there. We need to hold ALL those companies responsible for what individuals did with their products, right? Because otherwise it seems you're just singling out the guns are are concerned with them, not with the thousands of other suicides.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Do ^you^ even read the stupid shit you post?

[SIZE=10.5pt]([/SIZE]Note:[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]Each gun [SIZE=10.5pt]homicide costs $400,000 tax dollars. On average, there are 12,000 U.S. gun homicides each year at a cost of $5 billon tax dollars.[/SIZE]

Supporting cost data provided to media on request.)

If we give MR CLEAN a pink flag they'll give him the data.

 

[Happy Jack]

Depends what cartridge your guns are chambered for.

http://ammoseek.com/ is good resource to figure the real cost with

http://www.ammospy.net/works too

 

[jocal505]

AT LEAST 760,000 DEFENSIVE GUN USES A YEAR.

Did Mother Jones do that obviously important cost-benefit analysis as part of their "study"?

Cite your quotes, you phony. These numbers are preposterous, and do not face examination well.

You should know better than to post unsubstantiated crap on this forum.

[SIZE=12pt]Kleck concludes his article by saying we “have not offered any new criticisms” and, like Dr. Hemenway before us, do “not once cite the one thing that could legitimately cast doubt on our estimates[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]—better empirical evidence.” However, had he read the[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]second page[SIZE=12pt] of our column, he would have seen that the entire point of our article was to highlight new empirical evidence debunking Kleck’s claims.[/SIZE]

Here are the facts Kleck missed: According to his own survey more than 50 percent of respondents claim to have reported their defensive gun use to the police. This means we should find at least half of his 2.5 million annual Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs) in police reports alone. Instead, the most comprehensive nonpartisan effort to catalog police and media reports on DGUs by The Gun Violence Archive was barely able to find 1,600 in 2014. Where are the remaining 99.94 percent of Kleck’s supposed DGUs hiding?

It would be disappointing to see any professor relegated to using falsehoods and ad hominem attacks in a desperate attempt to preserve the tattered remains of his thoroughly repudiated research. Yet, such tactics are particularly deplorable when they are used in service of a gun-worshipping culture that regularly generates tragedy on a massive scale

Pasted from <http://www.armedwithreason.com/defensive-gun-use-gary-kleck-misfires-again/>

 

[jocal505]

Please see my L.A. Times article I posted upstairs. Kail authorities not only KNOW the names of the 20,000 convicted felons that have guns right now, but the majority of their addresses. But supposedly Sukramento 'can't' find $20 million bucks laying around to hire more LEO's to go pick them up. Which is complete and total bull shit......

Thanks for your support, Rick. We agree on your proposal to face this. These marginal individuals show high-risk factors in their behavior.

Your public statement supporting the collection of their weapons may be termed "gun grabbing" by some...but your proposal is both reasonable, and evidence-based.

federal and state policy recommendations , December 2013.

Such risk indicators include

--being subject to a temporary domestic violence restraining order,

--having been convicted of a violent misdemeanor,

--having two or more driving-under-the-influence convictions in a five-year period, and

--having two or more controlled-substance convictions in five years.

What Works: Policies to Reduce Gun Violence

The use of a gun greatly increases the odds that violence will lead to a fatality: This problem calls for urgent action. Firearm prohibitions for high-risk groups — domestic violence offenders, persons convicted of violent misdemeanor crimes, and individuals with mental illness who have been adjudicated as being a threat to themselves or to others — have been shown to reduce violence. The licensing of handgun purchasers, background check requirements for all gun sales, and close oversight of retail gun sellers can reduce the diversion of guns to criminals. Reducing the incidence of gun violence will require interventions through multiple systems, including legal, public health, public safety, community, and health. Increasing the availability of data and funding will help inform and evaluate policies designed to reduce gun violence.

Pasted from <http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/gun-violence-prevention.aspx>

 

[Jim M]

Cite some examples of holding car companies responsible for the criminal misuse of their products.

Isn't that the reason why we have insurance for auto accidents in the first place? The manipulation of tort law made it necessary to provide some kind of reparation for injury caused in accidents. Gun manufacturers have been able to hold off product liability lawsuits for a long time, insurance would address some of the issues that guns create.

 

[Jim M]

It's pretty simple really. And ridiculous. Kali continues to make legal gun purchasing and ownership both onerous and costly (ergo punishing us responsible firearm enthusiasts)---but refuses to follow the law and remove the guns from those they KNOW can not legally own them. Sukramento and Cali are poster children for hipocrisy....AND are basically aiding and abetting felons. I for one hope that none of these 20k-plus convicted criminals do not use their guns to harm or kill someone....but if they do their blood will be on Kali's hands......

What is up with that situation? the link you cited was from 2012 -2013 certainly something has happened in that time? or not?

 

[Jim M]

Not too sure but I'll dig into a bit more later. I hate to keep harping on that situation....but I honestly think it's pretty f'ng important. Given how anti-gun Kali is.

Agree?.....

Agree 100%.

 

[hanleyclifford]

Thought I got away from the anti gun nutters.

 

[hanleyclifford]

BS - link an explosion of an Atomic 4.