Gun Violence Costs U.S. Health Care System, Taxpayers Billions Each Year

[onehandle]

Source: Huffington Post



The bullet exploded like a fragment from the past, piercing his present and laying waste to the future he envisioned. It tore through Jerome Graham’s back, wrecked his spleen, damaged his pancreas and kidney, and left him paralyzed from the waist down.

And while the direct medical consequences of that gunshot fired a year ago in East Baltimore end there, the full force of its destruction has reverberated more broadly, encompassing Graham’s friends, his family, his community. It has carried into the American health care system, while confronting American taxpayers with costs reaching hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Before he was shot last year, Graham, 33, supported his wife and three children by working as an electrician. Barring a medical miracle, he will never walk again, greatly complicating his ability to earn a paycheck. Since the shot went through his body, he and his family have come to rely on government programs like Medicaid, Social Security and subsidized housing.

In the American conversation, discussion of gun-related violence generally centers on the tragic loss of life or permanent injuries that result. But beneath these headline-grabbing, life-shattering facts are costs measured in vast numbers of dollars. Firearms-related deaths cost the U.S. health care system and economy $37 billion in 2005, the most recent year for which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention attempted an estimate. The cost of those who survive gun violence came to another $3.7 billion that year, according to the CDC.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/gun-violence-costs-health-care_n_2965248.html

[Crunchy Frog]

1. This is why it should be mandatory for all gun owners

to carry insurance that would cover the costs of whatever mayhem their weapons might be used for.

[hack89]

2. No insurance covers criminal acts

it would be fine for accidents but since accidents are relatively rare (about 2% of deaths), the cost would be a pittance. I took out a rider on my home insurance and the cost was extremely low.

[Robb]

3. Companies can insure themselves against criminal behavior

...perpetrated by their own employees.

One can purchase insurance against anything an insurer is willing to underwrite.

[hack89]

5. But the insurance companies can say no if the risk is too high

or if there is insufficient profit.

What insurance company is going to leave themselves open to be liable for another Sandy Hook?

And how will this pay for criminal gun violence done by people who cannot legally own a gun? They certainly will not be buying insurance.

[Robb]

7. Manufacturers could bear that burden

until such time as their weapon is in the hands of a lawful owner, who would then become responsible.

Who would imagine anyone would insure the Vatican? Yet they do. This is not an insurmountable problem; the market will even solve the logistics.

[hack89]

10. Insurance will not cover individuals for intentional criminal acts

you can't make them do it. Because then it opens them up to liabilities well beyond guns. Car insurance for example - my insurance specially states it will not pay for criminal acts.

I can't imagine that you will find any insurance company that will offer such insurance.

And what is your plan for the 300 million guns in circulation right now? Criminals will have all the guns they need and those guns will never be in the hands of someone with insurance.

[Kolesar]

13. ^RW/NRA talking points, that's *what*...eom

[hack89]

15. So show us a single insurance company that will cover individual criminal acts.

surely you can, give the certainty of your post.

[Kolesar]

21. ^Mister Obtuse has entered the forum...eom

[hack89]

22. I will take that as a no. nt

[Hoyt]

81. No, you should take it as being the point. No insurance company is going to insure all the nut jobs

who are into guns. The risk is too great, as you say.

Heck the NRA does not allow most folks to carry guns inside their headquarters. Gun shows and stores require guns to be unloaded. Maybe they know -- or admit to -- something most gun cultists aren't willing to admit.

[hack89]

82. So why are we talking about insurance when you say it won't happen?

I had no problem getting insurance - must mean I am not a nut job. Good thing to know.

[Hoyt]

86. You don't have insurance that covers you if you shoot someone who doesn't deserve it.

You should be required to have it. If it is not available at an affordable price, well tough.

[hack89]

87. Insurance companies do not insure criminal acts

period. And they never will. So you just need to get over it and find something else to fret over.

[Hoyt]

90. We'll, you can be required to post a bond. Lots of ways to make gun cultists cover

The very real cost to society from their bad gun habit.

[hack89]

92. When you find a way to make criminals posts bonds, let me know. nt

[Hoyt]

93. Criminals have gins because you guys make it easy for them.

Enjoy your lethal weapons.

[hack89]

94. ok. nt

[guninsuranceblog]

88. Insurance can cover intentional acts

Lots of kinds of insurance pay innocent third parties for intentional or criminal acts by third parties. For car insurance it depends on the state. In Mass. they pay in Texas they don't. You home fire insurance will pay your bank if your torch your house. Of course in that case you go to jail and if you still have anything the insurance company will sue you to get their money back.
More examples on guninsuranceblog

[hack89]

14. You are suggesting a traditional insurance model, correct?

whereby insurance companies would use demographic data and crime statistics to create actuarial tables that quantify risk. Which would mean that me, a white middle aged man with a graduate education living in a low crime area and a long history of responsible gun use would pay significantly less than a young man living in a high crime area.

That is what you are suggesting, right? Which raises the interesting point - what percentage of that high risk group do you think will actually purchase insurance? Especially since it would be so expensive for them? And if the cost for those in that high risk group is prohibitively expensive, don't you think you have some constitutional issues to deal with, especially if the impact falls disproportionally on certain classes of people or on people that live in certain areas?

[Crunchy Frog]

71. If guns are so inherently risky

that no company would insure against the damage they might possibly cause, then maybe people shouldn't have them. If they're as low risk as people here keep saying, then the risks of a Sandy Hook are so small that the costs shouldn't be too great if they are spread out among enough people. Airlines are insurable despite the occasional crash that kills dozens or hundreds of people.

As far as violence committed by someone who can't legally own a gun, well, they must have acquired the gun from somebody who could. Let the person to whom the gun is legally registered carry the insurance.

[hack89]

72. They will insure against accidents or negligence, not deliberate crime

I had no problem getting liability coverage for my guns - it just doesn't cover crimes.

Car insurance is no different - it will not pay out for crimes. Airlines are also insured for just for accidents.


Guns are not registered in America. Criminals have a vast pool of unregistered, untraceable guns to choose from.

[freshwest]

122. If a person can't get insurance, they shouldn't be allowed to own.

Can't drive a car without proof of insurance, no matter how high the cost, so I say the owner can pay. If they can't pay for the losses, they can't afford to own.

[hack89]

123. You are missing the point.

gun insurance will be dirt cheap because it will only cover accidents - just like car insurance does. It will not be expensive because insurance companies do not have to cover the expense of deliberate criminal acts. Just like car insurance.

I have liability insurance on my guns - it is dirt cheap.

[freshwest]

124. What kind of agency covers it? And what did you have to prove to get it?

What were the medical limits, including liability, disability, and death - $100,000? Could they have denied you coverage and is there a high risk pool like auto insurance?

My car insurance is dirt cheap because I've never been at fault in an accident, but it's sufficient it needs a monthly payment to remind me of what what ownership entails. Others pay several times what I do, some forego driving. Insurance is required for the license, for the purchase and operating a motor vehicle.

What company is offering this and is it legally required where you live at point of sale?

[hack89]

125. It is an umbrella liability policy from the company I get all my insurance from.

The amount is adequate to most conceivable accidents. They could have denied it - like any insurance they decide if I am not too risky to insure. It is not legally required. No state requires liability insurance for guns. I just did it in case there ever was an accident.

[freshwest]

126. Sounds like car or homeowners and not what I'm talking about. If it doesn't cover at the limits

that operating a vehicle does, and isn't specific to damages and is not required, it's not adequate to start taking the cost of billions of dollars of damages both the public and private sector are whitewashing for the gun industry now. If they are proud of their product, they should offer the insurance themselves. And it should be as costly as malpractice.

[hack89]

127. You are not making much sense here

you can't force companies to pay for the criminal acts of others. And you can't force individuals to pay for the criminal acts of others. This is basic law.

The public and private sector are whitewashing the costs of many harmful products. Alcohol, tobacco, and unhealthy food come immediately to mind. Why are they getting a free ride?

[freshwest]

128. I'm not in the mood for this. Have a nice weekend.

[hack89]

129. Same to you. nt

[cosmicone]

89. Just don't call it insurance

Call it healthcare surcharge and collect it on every sale of a new or used firearm. Then cover the medical expenses of the victims from this surcharge.

[hack89]

91. Why not put that burden on those that shoot other people?

what's wrong with holding people responsible for their actions?

[cosmicone]

115. Because most of them are losers

kill themselves or commit suicide by cop.

Guns should have a dangerous item surcharge to pay for all the mayhem they cause. We levy truckers for the damage they cause to the roads. We tax cigarettes for the excess health care costs. We tax alcohol for the damage it causes.

Why not guns?

[baldguy]

97. Why are you afraid of being forced to be responsable?

With 30,000 deaths from firearms each year, it's not like gun owners are taking their responsibilities seriously as it is.

[hack89]

98. I have liability insurance for my guns.

it is not hard to get and cheap as hell. I am just pointing out that no insurance company will pay out for deliberate criminal acts. If I accidentaly hurt someone then they will have their medical bills paid for.


How does insurance stop suicides, which make up the majority of gun deaths? And how are you going to insure violent felons that shoot people?

[baldguy]

104. And how much of your premium goes to fund the medical costs of gun violence Americans pay for?

[hack89]

107. That is not how insurance works.

it is not that hard to understand.

I am responsible for my actions - I have ensured I can meet those obligations.

[hack89]

23. This would raise billions for the NRA

can you imagine what a competitive advantage a NRA endorsement would give an insurance company - certainly worth a health percentage of the proceeds.

And when the NRA negotiates a substantial discount for its members, just think what the NRA's memberships numbers (and membership fees) would be.

The NRA and insurance companies working together to make money - is this what you really want?

[Crunchy Frog]

73. I'm fine with that

as long as it leads to gun owners taking financial resoponsibility for the damages caused by their weapons of choice. I really don't care who the system is administered by as long as they follow the law and meet their responsibilities.

[hack89]

75. But it won't work the way you want if insurance companies treat gun owners like other customers

Insurance companies would use demographic data and crime statistics to create actuarial tables that quantify risk and therefore how much each gun owner must pay. Which would mean that me, a white middle aged man with a graduate education living in a low crime area and a long history of responsible gun use would pay significantly less than a young man living in a high crime area.

Which raises an interesting point - what percentage of that high risk group do you think will actually purchase insurance? Especially since it would be so expensive for them? And if the cost for those in that high risk group is prohibitively expensive, don't you think you have some constitutional issues to deal with, especially if the impact falls disproportionally on certain classes of people or on people that live in certain areas?

And we still have to address the issue of criminals that will not pay for insurance. Who pays their share?

[Remmah2]

51. Should knife and hammer owners have insurance?

How about people that brew their own beer and wine?

[Crunchy Frog]

74. How much risk is associated with them?

How costly are they to taxpayers, and how do those costs compare with their positive economic contributions?

Maybe these questions should be researched, and if it's discovered that they are indeed very costly to society then insuring them might be a good idea.

[hack89]

78. Knives kill four times as many people than assault weapons

If you are looking for a point of reference.

[Remmah2]

85. Drunk drivers kill nearly many people as those murdered by guns too.

Many drivers are also not insured.

[baldguy]

99. You are lying.

http://sbcoalition.org/2011/04/gun-violence-and-the-census-sobering-statistics/

Homicides by Weapon Used, 2000-2008

Totals, 2000-2008; % of total

Handguns; 65,581; 51%
Rifles; 3,791; 3%
Shotguns; 4,356; 3%
Other firearm not specified or type unknown; 820; 1%
Firearms, type not stated; 11,564; 9%

Firearm subtotals; 86,112; 66%

Knives or cutting instruments; 16,547; 13%
Blunt Objects; 5,782; 4%
Personal Weapons; 8,220; 6%
Poison; 106; 0%
Explosives; 43; 0%
Fire; 1,093; 1%
Narcotics; 408; 0%
Drowning; 150; 0%
Strangulation; 1,281; 1%
Asphyxiation; 948; 1%
All other; 9,051; 7%

All other weapons subtotals; 43,629; 34%

Total, all types; 129,741; 100%

-----------------------------------

I swear, is your Official NRA Big Book Of Comebacks left over from pre-Internet days?

[hack89]

100. Knives 13% Rifles 3 %. You just proved my statement.

and of course assault weapons are just a subset of rifles.

Did you even think before you posted?

[Robb]

4. People who build in flood zones are expected to pay their own way.

Yet we let the bill for this be carried by people who have never even touched a firearm.

How sensible.

[hack89]

6. Except all tax payers subsidize Federal flood insurance

The program was originally intended to pay for itself, but since Hurricane Katrina, it’s been heavily in debt. As of March 2011, the NFIP owes $17.8 billion, and Irene will only add to the costs, particularly as New York and New Jersey have heavy concentrations of federal flood protection. The NFIP’s fiscal troubles have prompted the Government Accountability Office to put the program on its “high risk” list, urging reforms to help balance its budget and “limit taxpayers exposure.” Such concerns have motivated fiscal hawks like Taxpayers for Common Sense and the Heartland Institute to go as far as calling for an end to the federal program, which is up for renewal Sept. 30. On the other side of the issue, the National Association of Realtors has lobbied hard for more funding, arguing that it’s vital for development and home ownership.

But the argument over spending and debt obscures a larger concern: Why are we subsidizing the building of homes in flood-prone areas?

A significant chunk of flood insurance is offered at federally subsidized rates in areas vulnerable to natural catastrophes. A quarter of participants pay below “full-risk” rates, many of whom receive a subsidized or “grandfathered” premium, according to the GAO. As a result, more Americans have moved into low-lying, flood-prone areas since the creation of the NFIP. And the taxpayers have had to cover the risks, which often means additional aid to disaster-struck areas.

It would be possible to continue the program without continuing the subsidy: In March, the GAO suggested various changes to the program to put it on better footing. One of them was “charging premium rates that fully reflect risks.” This would probably mean insurance rate hikes. But it might also mean fewer people moving into flood-prone areas, and less taxpayer support for those who do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/should-we-subsidize-flood-prone-homes/2011/08/29/gIQApl5pnJ_blog.html

[Robb]

8. That's a two year-old article.

Times are changing.

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/03/26/5295028/fema-head-federal-flood-insurance.html

[hack89]

12. Good. nt

[Scalded Nun]

9. Raise some of the money

through taxes on guns, ammunition, powder, shells, etc.

Just like they did for cigarettes.

Like cigarettes, let the 'users' pay towards the ultimate results.

[hack89]

16. There are significant Federal taxes on guns and ammo - it goes to environmental projects

I have no problem spending that money on medical care.

[SunSeeker]

25. How much, in actual dollar figures, do these "significant" taxes bring in?

And are you referring to special taxes just for guns and ammo, or ordinary sale taxes like on any product?

[hack89]

27. I am constantly surprised how little many gun controllers know about our present gun laws.

or maybe not.

[SunSeeker]

33. I am asking you for a dollar figure for what you mean by "significant" and you resort to insults.

Your standard m.o., just like you couldn't state how many jobs were created by the gun "jobs boom" in your LBN propaganda post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=434371

[hack89]

36. You asked a question you should have known the answer to. nt

[SunSeeker]

39. Come on hack, you didn't just make shit up did you?

How should I have known what YOU meant by "significant" taxes? How much in significant taxes do guns and ammo generate for the federal government? Hmmmm?

[hack89]

41. You asked if there was a special tax on guns and ammo? Remember? nt

[SunSeeker]

43. No, I asked "How much, in actual dollar figures, do these "significant" taxes bring in?"

See post #25. I didn't ask what IF they were taxed. I asked how much we get. And you know it.

[hack89]

44. About $3 billion annually in excise and business taxes.

I know it is not enough to cover the total cost. I just pointed out that there is revenue from Federal taxes that can be diverted to medical care.

[SunSeeker]

50. Ah, so you WERE making shit up.

That $3 billion in excise and business taxes (if that figure is right...you offer no links) is the same that is attached to any other manufacturer of product--not ones that cost us over $40 billion a year and untold human misery.

As the article states, "Firearms-related deaths cost the U.S. health care system and economy $37 billion in 2005, the most recent year for which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention attempted an estimate. The cost of those who survive gun violence came to another $3.7 billion that year, according to the CDC."

[hack89]

52. What did I make up? I just said there was tax revenue that could be diverted.

nowhere did I say that it would cover those costs.

So what tax would you place on cocaine, heroin and other things that people kill other people over? Or does criminal activity cost American society anything at all?

[SunSeeker]

53. You said, "There are significant Federal taxes on guns and ammo - it goes to environmental projects"

See your post #16. So how much goes to environmenmental projects? What dollar figure did you have in mind when you said "significant"?

[hack89]

56. You are trying too hard here

my point is that there is a fairly sizable chunk of tax revenue being collected from gun and ammo companies that could be spend on medical care. I had no dollar amount in mind. I was not imply that it would cover all the associated costs. Just that the federal government has money on hand they can divert.

[SunSeeker]

61. "I had no dollar figure in mind" = "I made shit up"

And what is this "fairly sizable chunk of tax revenue"? The same tax revenue that comes in from any other business and product? That is already spoken for in the federal budget.

How much comes in just from that 10% tax you cited?

[baldguy]

101. He's making shit up.

The most was less than a half billion dollars.

http://www.ttb.gov/firearms/faet-faqs.shtml

How much Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax does TTB collect?

Fiscal Year, Amount Collected (in thousands of dollars)

1991 $85,636
1992 $142,927
1993 $171,294
1994 $212,929
1995 $186,585
1996 $161,031
1997 $149,090
1998 $164,789
1999 $187,977
2000 $197,840
2001 $175,959
2002 $204,967
2003 $193,420
2004 $216,006
2005 $225,813
2006 $248,744
2007 $287,836
2008 $312,622
2009 $452,692
2010 $360,813
2011 $344,262

--------------------------------

hack may not know that people can actually look this stuff up.

[SunSeeker]

103. LOL. Yeah, I think he forgot he wasn't posting in the gungeon. nt

[hack89]

113. So what did I make up?

that there are 10% taxes or that there is tax revenue that can be spent on medical care?

[baldguy]

114. Post # 44: "About $3 billion annually in excise and business taxes."

You pulled that number out of your ass, and I proved you were wrong.

[hack89]

116. You showed me the excise tax. Now show me the business tax.

having a hard time with reading comprehension to night?

[baldguy]

117. It's your number. You prove it.

Or don't you know how to use the Google machine?

[hack89]

118. So you were lying when you said I made things up.

in reality you have no idea if I am correct or not. You have an interesting choice to make - do you double down on being a jerk and risk looking stupid when I post a link or do you just wait patiently until I decide it is time to post my link.

[baldguy]

119. I noticed you've offered no proof yet.

[hack89]

120. You doubling down? nt

[MoclipsHumptulips]

95. I am surprised how much gun nuts

know nothing about anything but guns.

or maybe not.

No liberal or progressive values, just right wing gun nut NRA lies.

[hack89]

96. ok. nt

[SunSeeker]

106. Welcome to DU, MoclipsHumptulips!

Although we are infested with gungeoneers, it can be a pretty nice place. And we can always use more folks like you.

[hack89]

30. Special tax - 10% for guns, 11% for ammo.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=da87ffa9b2924a35e09fe68f68fe7ce3&rgn=div5&view=text&node=27:2.0.1.2.6&idno=27

[SunSeeker]

32. And how much does that bring in?

I am guessing it is not even close to the $3.7 billion in costs to taxpayers mentioned in the article. But you obviously had a figure in mind when you said "significant." What is it?

[hack89]

35. I know it is not enough. Never said it was.

just pointing out that there is a federal tax on guns and ammo so there is money that can be diverted to health care.

[SunSeeker]

55. Try answering the question. nt

[hack89]

58. $ 3 billion nt

[SunSeeker]

62. That is what you said came in from regular federal income/excise taxes.

How much does that 10% tax you cited bring in?

[hack89]

63. $500 million nt

[SunSeeker]

65. Link(s)?

[hack89]

66. Sure

https://www.google.com/search?q=google&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial&client=firefox-a

[SunSeeker]

67. I know the link for Google. Where do you get that $500 M figure? nt

[DallasNE]

20. Exactly

The current tax must be a pittance. The Newtowm shooter took 300 rounds with him to the school and fired 154 rounds -- with just the Bushmaster. And add a steep tax to the magazines. Also, I'm sure there is no tax today on private sales and that is a huge loophole, especially with straw purchases.

[SunSeeker]

26. +1

[hack89]

31. 10% for gun, 11% for ammo.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=da87ffa9b2924a35e09fe68f68fe7ce3&rgn=div5&view=text&node=27:2.0.1.2.6&idno=27

[Remmah2]

45. What % tax are the dope, heroin, crack dealers paying?

What is their cross connection to violence with guns?

[hack89]

47. It's not about violent criminals - its about evil gunz. nt

[DallasNE]

68. Spare Parts Are Not Taxed

The Newtown shooter had 10 30-round magazines so 9 of those would have been untaxed. Also, there is an exemption for small dealers that import weapons. Dealers that do no exceed 50 weapons a year. Buy your weapon at Wal-Mart and the tax applies but buy it at a gun show and it depends on the dealer -- even the honesty of the dealer. The dealer could work with multiple importers and get around the 50 weapon limit, it would seem. Odd too that a Glock has a lower tax than a shotgun or deer rifle. I would not oppose an addition tax based on certain features such as semi-automatic action, high capacity magazines and cop killer bullets.

[hack89]

69. I would rather tax the criminals that are shooting people

but I guess concentrating on those responsible is asking too much.

[IveWornAHundredPants]

76. Unless the criminals are going directly to the popgun factories and stealing them from there,

there was a legal purchaser involved in the train of events leading to the criminal firing that gun. That legal purchaser therefore enjoys some measure of complicity, as unwitting as it may be. Sure, that may not seem quite fair to you, with a heavy tax on a gun that's just going to get stolen anyway being a case of injustice heaped upon injustice, but consider this: life's not fair.

[hack89]

77. No - a straw purchaser is a criminal too. And criminals do steal guns from homes.

so logical fail there.

[IveWornAHundredPants]

79. I know criminals steal guns from homes.

That's exactly what I was saying. And the poor gun owner who was unwilling to store his guns properly, or who was willing and was just unlucky enough to be victimized by a criminal committed enough to carry off his entire gun safe or whatever, should have to help shoulder the cost even more than they already do. I acknowledged that this will not always seem fair, but pointed out that life does not always seem fair.

[hack89]

80. Very seldom is a legal gun owner involve

Turns out that criminal acts of various sorts are how guns get into the hands of criminals

In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.

The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street.


The report goes on to state that "over-the-counter purchases are not the only means by which guns reach the illegal market from FFLs" and reveals that 23,775 guns have been reported lost, missing or stolen from FFLs since September 13, 1994, when a new law took effect requiring dealers to report gun thefts within 48 hours. This makes the theft of 6,000 guns reported in the CIR/Frontline show "Hot Guns" only 25% of all cases reported to ATF in the past two and one-half years.

Another large source of guns used in crimes are unlicensed street dealers who either get their guns through illegal transactions with licensed dealers, straw purchases, or from gun thefts. These illegal dealers turn around and sell these illegally on the street. An additional way criminals gain access to guns is family and friends, either through sales, theft or as gifts.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

So explain to me why I am responsible for the criminal actions of others? You don't really care do you - all gun owners are borderline criminals to you.

[IveWornAHundredPants]

83. We're talking about heavy taxes on guns and ammo.

The straw purchasers pay the taxes.
The corrupt gun owners pay the taxes.
The legal gun owners who store their guns in such a way as to allow theft pay the taxes.
And then all the rest of the gun owners pay them too. This is the part I referred to as perhaps not appearing quite fair. But we all have unfair things to deal with in life, don't we?

As for thinking all gun owners are borderline criminals, well, it's more like I think you've just chosen to camp out a little closer to the border than I would myself. You've decided to really, really like a particular object that criminals also really, really like, and moreover strongly covet for themselves. A certain risk and cost comes along with whatever it is you get out of owning popguns.

[hack89]

84. Fortunately it is all a pipe dream.

Like most gun control fantasies. Have a good evening

[SunSeeker]

24. Not some of the money, ALL of the money. Tax them enough to cover the costs to taxpayers. nt

[hack89]

29. Lets do the same for alcohol and tobacco while we are at it.

tobacco kills ten times as many people per year as guns.

[SunSeeker]

37. So you agree?

And yes, we should tax big tobacco/distillers to pay for the cost of their products to society.

[hack89]

38. If you can get it though Congress and the Supreme court then I will willingly pay. nt

[SunSeeker]

40. LOL. Well your right wing buddies won't be there forever. nt

[hack89]

42. How many decades have repukes been expecting Scalia and his buds to overturn Roe v Wade?

as we saw this week, the SC does not believe in rapid change.

[SunSeeker]

48. Scalia is getting old. nt

[hack89]

49. Boy - that really went over your head. nt

[SunSeeker]

54. I see you never miss an opportunity for an insult, even when your insult makes no sense.

Scalia was appointed young, but he is now getting old. We just need one of them to leave. And if it was up to Scalia, Roe v. Wade would have been overturned long ago. But the swing votes kept that from happening. The swing vote went with the right wingers on that ridiculous 5-4 Heller ruling re-interpreting the 2nd Am. The SC right wing majority has no problem with rapid change when it suits their corporate benefactors, as they demonstrated in that and Citizens United.

[hack89]

57. The point being that the composition of the court is no indication of what they will do.

anti-abortion extremist thought that a conservative court would result in the end of Roe v Wade. It didn't happen. You think a more liberal court will result in the end of Heller. History says don't hold your breath.

[Remmah2]

46. I'd say ban alcohol.

But I don't think I'd like some people after they sobered up.

[valerief]

11. If only emergency rooms had more guns, this never would happen.

logic of gungeoneers

[rurallib]

17. mark for later

[Doctor_J]

18. This is more than offset by the jobs it creates

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=434371



Economic disaster, public health plague, political 3rd rail...I wish I could think of one single upside to offset all of the downside

[onehandle]

19. Fail Gungeoneer fails hard. nt

[SunSeeker]

34. K&R

[indepat]

59. Such small prices to pay for the joy, liberty, and freedom to pack heat and be able to blow others

away, even on a whim, even with assault weapons which can fire more rounds per minute that American machine guns used during WWII. The right to bear arms is absolute and those who lose their lives, liberty, freedom, and right to pursue happiness by reason thereof, read my lips: tough, get over it, or so the RW MEME goes.

[Kingofalldems]

60. Time for a special tax on guns

[jpak]

64. Gun nuts love their stupid guns more than they love human life

yup

[baldguy]

102. As long as it's other people's children, anyway.

[CBHagman]

70. If we're willing to confront the effect of bad diets, lack of exercise, smoking...

Last edited Thu Mar 28, 2013, 11:00 PM - Edit history (1)

...and other forms of behavior on the health care system, then we ought to consider firearms as well.

[ellisonz]

105. 104 posts in this thread and I can see like 20

Must be an awful lot of denialism going on in this thread

[onehandle]

108. Same here. Gungeoneer fail as usual I would imagine.

Glad I can't see it.

[ellisonz]

112. Yep.

100 billion dollars. That is the annual cost of gun violence in America according to the authors of this landmark study, a book destined to change the way Americans view the problem of gun-related violence.

Until now researchers have assessed the burden imposed by gunshot injuries and deaths in terms of medical costs and lost productivity. Here, economists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig widen the lens, developing a framework to calculate the full costs borne by Americans in a society where both gun violence and its ever-present threat mandate responses that touch every aspect of our lives.

All of us, no matter where we reside or how we live, share the costs of gun violence. Whether waiting in line to pass through airport security or paying taxes for the protection of public officials; whether buying a transparent book bag for our children to meet their school's post-Columbine regulations or subsidizing an urban trauma center, the steps we take are many and the expenditures enormous.

http://www.amazon.com/Gun-Violence-Studies-Public-Policy/dp/0195153847/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1364515946&sr=8-1&keywords=the+cost+of+gun+violence

That's in 1990s money. GUNGEON LOGIC = FAIL

[Skittles]

109. aw, it's just the usual paranoid gun nuts

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[SunSeeker]

110. Yeah, it's pretty hilarious when hack gets nailed for making shit up. nt

[ellisonz]

111. What a surprise!

[davepc]

121. So end the War on Drugs already