Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Carrying a gun around makes them feel empowered. They feel as though the world is out to get them, that minorities are out to get them -- take their jobs, take their rights -- and they don't want to feel like a victim. So having weaponry around makes them feel less like a victim and more like a force to be reckoned with.>> Yes, I think it is that combined with a fear of the unknown "other". The people most heavily armed tend to live in small towns and rural areas where Black people are virtually unknown (like SW Missouri). All they know about Black people is that there are a bunch of them in St. Louis and Kansas City, and both those cities have high crime rates. Those living in large cities (like Minneapolis) see them and deal with them routinely and therefor do have the same level of fear.
Originally Posted By Ivan55 Who is this skinnerbox calling me a white guy? I DONT KNOW YOU AND YOU DONT KNOW ME
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Forget gun control. Ain't going to happen. But we need to recognize that guns cost our society a lot of money in increased law enforcement and public safety and healthcare costs. Recognize the need to train as many people as possible on safe gun handling. We need to approach guns the same way we approached tobacco. It is a public health issue with tremendous costs to society. Tax gun sales, tax ammo sales, tax powder sales, just like we tax tobacco sales. Smokers pay the financial burden that exercising their right to smoke has on the rest of us. Use the taxes to fund safety programs, to offset the cost to police departments and courts and hospitals, and to increase public health resources so we can identify the crazy people who are likely to murder others. We aren't banning guns. We aren't registering guns. We aren't restricting gun sales. We are just recovering some of the costs that we incur because they are so widespread in this country.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>We need to approach guns the same way we approached tobacco. It is a public health issue with tremendous costs to society.<< Which is why the NRA currently has Obama's Surgeon General nominee tied up in Senate Confirmation Hell. He said as much, that guns are a public health issue. The NRA and their minions didn't like that one bit.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Yep. And any time anyone so much as proposes a STUDY to find out just what the public costs are of gun violence, the NRA makes sure it never gets funded.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<She's a very angry white woman.>> And damned proud of it!! 8^P And if the troll isn't white, then he's one of the most convincing Oreo trolls I've ever seen.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox We all pay the price in our society for this gun fetish out of control. Emotionally, spiritually, and especially financially. We all pay for it in rising healthcare costs. And the taxpayer gets stuck with the cleanup bill every time some lunatic goes on a shooting rampage. And the NRA is in the center of it all.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Well, I don't care much for either angry men or women. But I have to give you credit... you have learned to moderate some of your posts. As I've gotten older I've learned just how counter-productive anger is... it consumes a lot of energy for nothing. I've also become increasingly opposed to ANY type of negative touch... I can't even swat my puppy on the butt when she pees on the carpet right in front of me. I just can't. The older I get the less sense I see in anger or any type of violence.
Originally Posted By utahjosh I'd like to see the actual impact of gun violence to heathcare costs. I'm sure it's some, but it's got to be a tiny percentage of health care services in general.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I won't argue the point because I don't have the stats. But I believe that the "gun culture" in the U.S. is responsible for a large amount of non-gun physical and emotional violence, which takes a huge toll on health care costs.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "I'd like to see the actual impact of gun violence to heathcare costs. I'm sure it's some, but it's got to be a tiny percentage of health care services in general." I think if it was truly small, the NRA would welcome a study showing that. Instead they block any attempt to fund any such study.
Originally Posted By oneyepete << I can't even swat my puppy on the butt when she pees on the carpet right in front of me. I just can't. The older I get the less sense I see in anger or any type of violence.>> As I have gotten older I find I can't bend over to swat his butt, so I just give him a swift kick!
Originally Posted By TomSawyer You can use a CDC tool at <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://wisqars.cdc.gov:8080/costT/ProcessPart1FinishOutServlet">http://wisqars.cdc.gov:8080/co...tServlet</a> to find out how much firearm deaths cost in 2005 - the last year that they collected the data. For the 30,694 firearm related deaths in 2005, the direct medical cost was $112,837,000 for the year.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip At first I found that expense ridiculously low... only $3,676 per person. When I was hospitalized for three nights due to respiratory failure, my bill was over $25,000. The low cost for firearm related deaths must be a reflection of the great majority of victims dying immediately, with no resulting medical expense at all.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>the direct medical cost was $112,837,000 for the year.<< That's just the medical? So I assume that doesn't include all the other costs, such as economic impacts on employment, family costs, law enforcement costs, government expenses, etc. I mean, I'm far from an expert, but I can imagine just a sliver of the expenses if someone dies from a gunshot wound. You have the medical expenses. Then there's law enforcement, who even have to get involved if it's a suicide. There's the family impact, who have to pay funeral costs, absorb the costs of the loss of income from the deceased, etc. Companies have to replace workers who die, and sometimes they've invested significant costs in training; hiring someone is expensive. A gun death almost always equates to an unexpected death, which means serious legal entanglements involving attorneys, courts, etc. The government has to process paperwork - social security records have to get updated, etc. If a person survives a gunshot wound, there's likely even more medical costs. There's work benefits, such as short-term disability, being retrained for another job if they can no longer perform their current job, etc. All the people doing that have to get paid. All those services and fees have to be covered. Based on the medical costs alone, we're looking at astronomical costs because of gun violence.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Other economic impacts are estimated at about $36 billion a year, ecdc. At least for 2005. I think you're right, RT - most gunshot victims are what we called DRT - "Dead Right There." I'd expect that the majority of victims died before any major medical interventions happened, and only a few of those who survived long enough to get to the hospital made it out of the ED.
Originally Posted By Ivan55 Funeral costs? Do you know how stupid you sound? EVERBODY WILL DIE BE IT BY BULLET OR OLD AGE. oh my god that was just too stupid of you to say. Once a person is born there will be a funeral cost for him either at age 3 from a gun or at age 100 from heart attack.
Originally Posted By Ivan55 Let me spell it out since you don't get it. Everyone gets a funeral, just a matter of when. Thus, the cost to die is always there....EVEN IF GUNS WERE NEVET INVENTED.
