The Hidden Cost of Gun Violence

[mikeb302000]

http://www.insidebayarea.com/top-stories/ci_19323763">The Oakland Tribune reports

For every gun-related death in Oakland each year, there are five or more cases of survival. From 2006 to 2010, Alameda County Emergency Medical Services transported 2,486 survivors of gunshot wounds, an average of 487 per year. However, hundreds more are taken to hospitals by friends, drive themselves or seek treatment elsewhere, making an exact countywide tally difficult to determine. Dr. Greg Victorino, head of Highland's Surgical Trauma Center, said that of the 3,829 cases of gunshot wounds seen at Highland from July 2001 to July 2011, 3,298 survived -- roughly 86 percent.

The majority of these cases involve the uninsured, which means tens of millions of dollars of medical bills are being passed on to the taxpayer year after year in the county and across the East Bay.

We've posted previously about this, http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2009/12/cost-of-gun-violence.html">here and http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2009/04/increasing-gun-violence-in-united.html">here, but I think it continues to be an overlooked part of the picture.

What's your opinion? Is the awareness of this aspect of gun violence still a bit too low? This article mentions "tens of millions of dollars," but according to some other reports it's much higher than that.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.
http://www.mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[msongs]

1. does that include the huge costs of police forces needed to corrall gun owners? nt

[gejohnston]

2. Since the gun owners you most likely think that

needs to be corralled are not the ones causing the problem, much more. Gun owners as in us, are not the problem, it is gangsters fighting over some bong owner and coke head's last buck.

[Oneka]

6. Any other groups

of citizens here in the USA that you
might feel that the police need to "corrall"?

As a gun owner I don't feel the need to be corralled, thanks but no thanks.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. of course...

...you mean the cost of bans and confiscations, right?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

8. Are you being sarcastic?

You do know gun ownership is legal right? You are doubtless aware that such activity by a police department would be blatantly illegal, and quite probably, suicidal for the cops who attempted it?

[rl6214]

51. So now you say "gun owners" need to be "corrall(ed)"?

[SteveM]

77. Good question. LEOs expend lots of $ "corralling" thugs and crims...

Get the thugs and crims out of the picture, then the "hidden costs" may shrink tremendously.

I doubt that LEOs corral the average gun-owner; they don't have to since owning guns is legal.

[hack89]

3. Looks like a serious violent criminal problem

perhaps the answer is to refocus the criminal justice system away from non-violent crimes like drug possession and concentrate on violent crime. That should keep those crimes stats falling at a nice steady rate.

[ileus]

4. Sounds like we need to get the death rate up to save money.

I was going to recommend only allowing civilians use of FMJ's but that would just wound more people.

[iverglas]

5. I know cost estimates have been done for the US

but I happened to be reading some for Canada for work last night.

http://www.agencelanaudiere.qc.ca/ASSS/Publications/Armes%20Feu%20Memoire%20Comite%20SECU%20DSP%20Prj%20loi%20C-19%20VFinale%202011-11-14.pdf
- second paragraph on page 7

I apologize that it's in French only; I offer a translation:

According to a study by Miller (1995), the estimated total cost (including direct care and lost productivity) associated with firearms injuries was $6.6 billion in 1991, and increased to $9.1 billion in 2009 adjusted for inflation (RCMP 2010).

Now that is all firearms injuries: self-inflicted, accidental, criminal. But it's a huge amount of money: $9.1 billion in 2009 is not far off $300 for every Canadian resident.

By contrast, the firearms registry had a start-up cost of under $1 billion and costs under $100 million/year to operate -- all aspects of it, not just the registration of long guns. The registry is actually used for things, like the thousands of queries a day by police to check firearm licence and possession status for various reasons. The "operating costs" are the costs of delivering services, just like for any other government program.

Anyhow, the same report I paraphrased above, which is by public health directors in Quebec and submitted to the parliamentary committee considering the long-gun registry legislation, points out that firearms deaths and injuries have declined enormously with the gradual introduction of various gun control measures since 1977; coincidence? No more reason to say yes than no. But if it plays any role at all, the savings in the costs of gunshot injury and death way more than make up for the costs of the registry.

Imagine what firearms injuries must cost the US economy if they're costing Canada that much.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. How many are 'victims' and how many encoutered an occupational hazard?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

10. Most of the "victims"...

...encountered an occupational hazard. Sure, all the news stories make such a big deal over the innocents who are killed by a drive by or the lover's spat turned violent, but the bulk of the killings are one oxygen thief killing another. I don't consider a criminal killing another criminal worth getting upset over.

I don't remember where I read it, but for one year, someone pulled all the criminal on criminal violence out of the stats (virtually all of it drug related) and discovered the US had an absurdly low overall murder rate.

[iverglas]

11. what does that have to do with the subject of the post?

The subject of the post is the costs to the economy - the taxpayers - of firearms injuries.

[one-eyed fat man]

12. When one drug dealer shoots his competition

they should stamp "DNR" on both their foreheads. I wouldn't waste a dime on taking them to the hospital. They could fill a niche in the ecology. Let the dopers and drug users pay for results of their drug use. Their money keeps the crime and corruption afloat.

[iverglas]

14. I presume that wasn't intended as a reply to my post

That's what I get for being last in line.

[RSillsbee]

76. Is this picture real? NT

[AtheistCrusader]

21. I have another idea to curb the costs.

End the drug war.

It will take ages for the crime to come down, because they have a cash stockpile with which to move into other 'industries', just like the bootleggers did at the end of prohibition, but we gotta start somewhere.

Dry up the illicit drug market, dry up the lions share of the crime, and the unlawful gun use that comes along with it.

[spin]

13. I agree that the criminal misuse of firearms is very costly ...

But it is also a fact that only a tiny percentage of the 300,000,000+ firearms in civilian hands are ever misused.

However it should be our goal to reduce gun violence by better law enforcement and by improving existing gun control measures that are proven to have value such as the NICS background check.

We do need to focus efforts on reducing the straw purchase of firearms and the smuggling of illegal firearms into the inner cities. This may mean more boots on the ground and stronger penalties for those caught engaging in such activities.

Anyone caught carrying an illegal weapon who has a record including convictions of committing violent felonies should face a LONG prison term.

We should also consider legalizing some drugs so as to take the profit motive out of smuggling and dealing in them. Our War on Drugs has been and will continue to be a total failure and the we money we waste in the effort could be used far more effectively to reduce violent crime in the United States.

[montanto]

15. Seems like the "part of the picture" that "continues to be overlooked"

is the factual evidence that people here continue to post in response to your argument. Open your eyes. The vast majority of gun violence in this country is perpetrated by gangsters against gangsters. (why should I have to lose my rights for that?) The majority of gun crimes are linked to other crimes in action. (I'm not a criminal, but I should lose my rights because of that.) Look at the evidence that you have provided. Oakland is infamous for its gang activity. Gangs don't provide gangsters with insurance, thus the uninsured "victims" of which you speak. Imagine for a second that your beloved crusade should be realized. Now there are no guns. Not even in the hands of gangsters. Do you really think that gangsters wouldn't find other ways to kill or injure other gangsters? Its part of their economy. In your fantasy world would the taxpayer not have to pay to fix up a stabbing victim, or those who have been beaten with a baseball bat? You only ever look at "guns" as first cause. What about providing jobs and rehabilitation to underprivileged peoples and communities? As Father Greg Boyle at Homeboy Industries (gang rehab and intervention) says, "Nothing stops a bullet like a job." What about proactive responses to this issue instead of reactive responses? Why do you need to propose a rescission of rights for millions for a dubious if not spurious benefit for hundreds? Look at Turkey: Turkey is a murder capital of the world. There they kill one another with guns at about the same rate per 100k that we do, but their murder rate over all is hundreds of times higher than ours. If they don't have a gun, they beat each other to death. When will you push to outlaw human nature? (In the face of resource scarcity, people fight). Why don't you push for real change? Your hobbyhorse is not only annoying, it so completely over looks the real issues that it makes you sound either ignorant or heartless.

[iverglas]

22. shoot yourself in the nose to spite the gangsters

You're still paying the costs of the firearms injuries, no matter how much irrelevant "evidence" you throw at that fact.

Do you really think that gangsters wouldn't find other ways to kill or injure other gangsters?

Actually, yes. I think that they would not find ways to kill and injure people from inside fast-moving cars, to kill and injure bystanders to their violence, to kill whomever they end up killing when they're too far away or too vulnerable to use anything but a gun.

And I think that anybody who denies that unrestricted access to firearms, which is precisely what the situation is in the US, is not the condition precedent for huge numbers of the deaths and injuries in question is just trying too damned hard, and failng.

[montanto]

55. I know I'm still paying the costs. Thats my point.

No matter how much magical thinking one employs, thugs will find ways to kill and injure other thugs. Even in the absolute absence of firearms, people will find a way, as I suggested with the Turkish stats. True, if all guns disappear overnight, innocent victims of gang killings would virtually disappear as well. I'm all for it. Problem is who has the magic to make them all disappear? Until such time, I'm keeping my guns.

In 2009 there were 1972 murders in California, 1360 of which were firearms related (612 other methods). 80%, or 1577 of the total murders were gang related, and 90%, or 1224 of the gun related murders were also gang related. So, out of nearly 40 million Californians we have a 4.9 per 100k murder rate overall, 3.9 per 100k of is gang related. 3.4 per 100k firearms murders, of which 3.1 per 100k is gang related. So, as a Californian, and a non-gangster, my chances of being shot by a non-gangster are astronomically low at .3 per 100k. Not a huge number.

[iverglas]

57. oh, it's just all about

you.

Does "gang-related" exclude bystanders? You might want to check.

Never mind the families and communities where the killer and killed live, of course. Just count the bodies. The effects of 1224 gang-related firearm homicides in a year on them is of no concern.

The direct costs of each shooting really just aren't the sum total of the costs.

[mikeb302000]

46. actually, I don't think that's true about the gangster on

gangster violence accounting for the "vast majority" of it. Are making shit up and passing it off as "factual evidence" or are you simply repeating what some other gun person made up?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

48. I remember seeing something to that effect...

but i read a lot so the exact source is unknown. Either way, I dont think anyone is passing it off as fact so much as their opinion.

In my case, I'll freely admit I could be wrong and it isnt the case at all. Unless or until I can find the actual evidence, I will not presume to state it is a fact.

Contrast this of course with much of your information...you know - where you pass off pure opinion as hard evidence...

[rl6214]

52. "Are making shit up and passing it off as "factual evidence" "

AAAAAAAhahahahahahahahaha

Did you just actually ask that question?

Pot meet kettle.

[montanto]

56. Making shit up? Nope.

You can check government violence stats sites. 80% of all crime is gang related in California. 80% of statewide murders are gang related in California. 90% of gun crime in L.A. county is gang related. Now if the .gov sites are run by the NRA, I didn't know it, and I apologize. Also, if 80% of anything is not a vast majority of that thing, I stand corrected. Still, I think that not talking about restorative justice for people who commit these violent crimes, not talking about effective gun control considering where the guns that gangsters use come form, and only talking about restricting and rescinding the rights of legal owners is shallow and myopic. Poverty, ignorance, and lack of opportunity are the real causes of violence. I noticed that no one took up me up on that part of my argument.

Peace.

[iverglas]

58. expand?

"not talking about effective gun control considering where the guns that gangsters use come form"

[Union Scribe]

16. Google ad = GLX laser sight.

Lol.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

17. That's just on yours.

Google ads are driven by your internet history.

Mine, for example, are almost exclusively motorcycle related.

[ileus]

19. Mines a dodge ad right now.

[Union Scribe]

25. I guess that explains all the re-fi and loan ads, too.

Google must have seen my checking account :P

[ileus]

28. Now mines showing BMW's....humm.

[RSillsbee]

31. Mine's a Zwinky (WTF is a Zwinky?) w/ a camel toe.

I'm gettin' a little nervous

[ileus]

18. A drop in the bucket compared to crime in general.

[Remmah2]

44. I wonder if people consider the impact of crime on global warming?

Look at all the security lighting out there and embodied energy in security systems/equipment. Lots and lots of electricity used to hopefully keep burglars/rapist/home invaders/robbers out of places they need not be.

At the soup kitchen I work, some people volunteer once and don't come back for fear of being mugged (tough neighborhood, nothing to do w/the soup kitchen clients.)

None of it has to do w/guns either.

[Simo 1939_1940]

20. Until pro-restriction proponents Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig

decided to take the goalposts off the field, their study (NSPOF) confirmed that there are high numbers of defensive gun uses every year. What would the cost to society have been had the victims who protected themselves were deprived of doing so? A question that pro-restrictionists interestingly have no interest in pursuing.

http://www.tscm.com/165476.pdf

[Starboard Tack]

39. Do you think that waving a gun is a progressive way to solve disputes?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

42. Uh - no.

Waving a gun is called "brandishing" and is a stupid way to resolve a dispute. Its also illegal.

Of course, this has been said time and time again, and you continue to ignore it, so don't let this time affect you either.

[Starboard Tack]

66. Brandishing constitutes much of DGU stats.

[gejohnston]

67. I don't know where you live

but in Florida, as I understand it, it is brandishing only if it is not a defensive action. There is pulling it for no reason, which is brandishing. Responding to a threat that dissipates without a shot is not.

[Starboard Tack]

70. I'm sure there is always a reason. How valid a reason, one can only wonder

[gejohnston]

74. to clarify

with valid reason. Brandishing is a legal term for doing so without valid reason.

[Simo 1939_1940]

68. And your citation for this is forthcoming, yes? NT

[Starboard Tack]

71. There are members of this forum who have claimed the effectiveness

of pulling a gun on potential thieves, sometimes after they posed any threat to life. There are others who have declared that shooting people for breaking windows is legitimate DGU. Some have declared their willingness to shoot anyone, including cops, who might try to legally confiscate their weapons. Where do you fit?

[Simo 1939_1940]

72. "Where do you fit?" Let's stay on topic - shall we?

Your anecdotal "evidence" from this forum notwithstanding, all of the major DGU studies make a point of excluding episodes of gun brandishing that aren't related to a credible threat from inclusion into the DGU count. So you either lack the most fundamental knowledge relating to the subject matter we're discussing in claiming that many (irresponsible) episodes of brandishing can be described as DGU's, you are being purposefully dishonest, or you are using language recklessly. Where do you fit? No credible threat by legal standards = no DGU. Simple as that.

As far as where I draw the line before I discharge one of my weapons at an intruder -- it's too late and there are too many variables to get into that right now. Suffice it to say that any defensive gun use would be confined to the immediate vicinity of my home, since I live in the faux-progressive corrupt issue state of California -- not to be confused with the True Blue states directly north.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

75. Pulling a gun on a criminal

with the intent to use it is NOT brandishing. Your ignorance notwithstanding.

Yes, I would shoot someone who was breaking the window in my home. Not a kid who obviously put a baseball through it for example, but some douchenugget standing there with a crowbar busting my window open is probably not coming over for a cup of tea.

Anyone who attempted to confiscate my firearms would not be doing so legally unless and until the entire Constitution is repealed, and as such, would find themselves on the receiving end of my guns for as long as I had ammunition - or i got killed. I say that with no reservation or false bravado. A badge and an illegal law does not give someone the right to disarm me.

[PavePusher]

59. If they are trying to kill me?

Are you fucking serious?

[Starboard Tack]

69. There are all kinds of disputes that don't involve someone trying to kill you

People wave guns around to stop people stealing or even ogling their property.

[PavePusher]

73. If someone is "waving a gun around", they are presenting a threat of deadly physical force.

And I would respond to it as such. The response may include numerous possible actions, up to and including deadly force, in defense.

[Simo 1939_1940]

62. Where did I suggest that "waving a gun" is a progressive

way to solve disputes?

As I have said to other pro-restrictionists -- thanks so much for aiding our cause with your dishonorable BS! Here - please have a :pals:

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

26. will no one rise to the bait?

Aww.

:eyes:

[Remmah2]

45. Cause gun control smells like dead fish. nt

nt

[iverglas]

63. well Uncle Omar sure does!

:rofl:

Can I spot 'em, or can I spot 'em.

C'mon, admit it, you guys all did too. "Ban all guns! Melt them down!" That one wasn't even trying. None of you actually believed that act, you wuz just playing along, right?

Sadly, it seems that the complete oeuvre of Uncle Omar may have been consigned to the ash bin. So, sorry: no linking to that particular example of a mad gun-grabber for youze!

[ileus]

30. The police can't be trusted with pepper spray, much less guns.

[Starboard Tack]

40. Very true. So disarm the cops and we'll all carry pepper spray.

[ObamaFTW2012]

32. Great idea!

Now you just need to convince 80,000,000 people to just give up 250,000,000 firearms that range in value from $50 to $300,000 each, and if they aren't receptive to your proposal you only have 800,000 LEO's nationwide to rely upon to persuade the gun owners to give up their firearms without a fight, and that doesn't take into consideration the fact that only a fraction of those police officers are on duty at any given moment, and a fraction of those on duty are involved in patrol and enforcement duties.

Good luck!

[Starboard Tack]

38. If we confiscate them all, why would the police still need them?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

43. How do you propose to do that?

Sure, the cops may confiscate SOME of them, but I promise you, the state will run out of people willing to try to take them long before the people run out of bullets.

[Starboard Tack]

65. I don't.

[PavePusher]

61. Who-o-o-shhhhhhh...... n/t

[iverglas]

41. fish!

Are you going to have them stuffed and mounted?

Cannibalism isn't nice!

:rofl:

[PavePusher]

60. Are you volunteering your services for the collection details going door-to-door?

Good luck with that....

[jmg257]

24. I think the focus should be on stopping violence in general. Don't let your gun obsession make you

narrow-minded.

Deal more effectively with violent criminals, and you should be able to positively affect all types of violence, and their associated costs.

With 1.3 million violent crimes annually, there should be a few ways to have an impact.

[iverglas]

27. there should be a few ways to have an impact

If only somebody knew what they were, eh?

People seem to have been trying this and that all over the globe for at least a couple or three millennia ... and still there are crime and criminals.

Traffic engineers and city planners got a little smart a while back and started actually designing roads to make it difficult for people to speed.

I wonder what would happen if people designed something to make it difficult to commit crimes ...

Or heck, we could all just wait for the US to elect Bernie Sanders president and the rest of the world to fall into step and then we could all live in milk and honey, and peace and love.

Yes, there are small-scale projects that make the life of crime more difficult in small areas for short times; they are often expensive and difficult to maintain in terms of community commitment and involvement. And at least a significant number of the criminals really don't go poof; they go somewhere else. I live in the neighbourhood where the hookers went when life was made unpleasant for them in somebody else's neighbourhood.

Deal effectively with violent criminals ... or make it difficult for them to access the "tools" that are essential to their trades?

[ileus]

29. I know we chop everyones hands off.

maybe just the index finger and thumb...

[Oneka]

33. "I wonder what would happen

if people designed something to make it difficult to commit crimes ..."


Somebody has... here it is.....

[Simo 1939_1940]

34. Sorry, Oneka - that will never do.......

........because it's one of those evil plastic semi-automatics that can pass undetected through airport security.

[Oneka]

37. Rachel ?

is that you???


:sarcasm:

[Simo 1939_1940]

64. Oh damn.......I've been outed!!

:-)

[hack89]

35. Retool the criminal justice system

rationalize US drug laws (legalize and treat as a public health issue) and stop filling up the courts and prison with drug users. Focus the police and prosecutors on violent crime of every kind. No plea bargains, longer sentences for using guns, just hammer the hell out of violent criminals. I think that would work better than taking away my guns. And it would have the benefit of a smaller prison population and less drug related criminal activity.

[mikeb302000]

47. you're right of course, but focusing on violent criminals

is already being done. We should also focus on the easy availability of guns. It's not an either/or deal.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

49. Gun control as a means of addressing crime...

...is akin to noticing a speeding problem on a certain road and dropping the speed limit to 10MPH...

[rl6214]

53. "We should also focus on the easy availability of guns. "

WE? Don't you mean YOU because WE would indicate you are here in the US. WE all know you aren't so you must be talking about italy, right?

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[rl6214]

50. But if guns were just made to kill, many of them are failing miserably.

"We've posted previously about this, here and here,"

WE'VE posted previously? Those are links to your blog. There is no "WE" there at all. Quit posting blind links to your blog and misrepresenting them as something else.

"This article mentions "tens of millions of dollars," but according to some other reports it's much higher than that."

Throwing shit out there again without actually linking to the reports?

Unrec for the usual reasons.

[Atypical Liberal]

54. There is no doubt that crime is expensive.

There is no doubt that crime is expensive. But this is no excuse to take rights away from law-abiding people. We are already footing the tax bill. Why deprive us of our Constitutional rights, too?

When you said:

"After the military I owned guns both legally and illegally over a period of about 15 years."

How expensive was your admitted crime? Do you think in addition to paying for your crime with my tax dollars I should also pay for your crime by giving up my Constitutional rights? Why am I supposed to pay for the actions of criminals such as yourself?