Friday, September 13, 2013

Taxpayers Shoulder Bulk Of Gun Violence Costs, Study Finds

Hospitals in the U.S. spent $630 million in 2010 treating the victims of gun violence -- everything from minor gunshot wounds to injuries that required days-long stays -- and public funds provided most of that money. The Medicaid costs of gun violence alone that year amounted to approximately $327 million.
Notably, the report found that the average cost of a hospital visit for a gun violence victim is $14,000 more than that of the average hospital stay, due to the severity of the injuries often involved.
Lawmakers could significantly shrink these costs by making firearms less widely available, Howell said.
“This is a preventable cost. If more could be done to prevent these firearm incidents, then the cost will go down,” Howell said. “Society is paying for this, very few of these people have private insurance.”
The Senate voted down a gun control bill earlier this year, despite widespread public support.
gun violence chart
The true economic cost of gun violence is much larger that what hospitals are spending on care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that gun violence deaths cost the U.S. economy $37 billion and gun injuries $3.7 billion in 2005, the last year the public health agency conducted an analysis. In addition, taxpayers often end up footing the bill for social services for gun violence victims, as well as building the expensive hospital trauma units needed for their treatment.


  1. I've pointed out the cost of the imaginary "right" as one of the reasons it is spurious: why would anyone want something which is a public detriment to be a right?

    OTH, a well-regulated militia was seen as a bullwark against the establishment of a standing army (large military apparatus).

    The founders were well aware of ancient history (Roman and Greek) and knew that tyrants wanted a large military.

    In the exact sense, a tyrant is an individual who arrogates to himself the royal authority without having a right to it. This is how the Greeks understood the word 'tyrant': they applied it indifferently to good and bad princes whose authority was not legitimate. [Rousseau, "The Social Contract"]

    IOW, if "Chief" Kessler wants to kill tyrants, then the next time he needs to make sure it's lethal shoots himself.

    1. "OTH, a well-regulated militia was seen as a bullwark against the establishment of a standing army (large military apparatus)."

      Which is why Laci wants to restrict the applicability of the second amendment to the national guard--a creature of Federal Law, the members of which are federal soldiers along with their militia duties.

    2. Tennessean, your ignorance of the US constitution is amazing--as it is not me who holds this belief. Not to mention that you like making idiotic comments.

      Maybe you need to go and reread what I wrote and try to understand it.

      But it's not me who came up with this--it's actually in the Constitution.

      Article I, Section 8, clause 16 not only gives congress the power to arm the militia, but it also gives it the authority to organise it. And given that the Supremacy clause (Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution) states that "the Laws of the United States which shall be made" according to the Constitution are the Supreme Law of the land, that means that if the Congress says the National Guard is the milita: Tough shit, pal, it's THE MILITIA.

      I'm not going into the usual bullshit about 10 USC 311 and the unorganised miltia, but that is the equivalent of saying having a draft card makes you a member of the US military.

      So, unless you are seriously suggesting the dismantling/radical reorganisation of the United States Military, then you are out of luck.

      Even then, you have got to be willing to be enrolled (enlisted) to claim the right.

      As Joseph Story said in his Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§ 1890:

      And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.

      Bottom line--if you have a problem with something being "a creature of Federal Law"--then you really have a problem with the US Constitution.

      Try and get your head around that one, Tennessean.

    3. Wow, Laci. A bunch of insults to my intelligence and non-sequitur citations and comments. I hope you do better than this when you show up in court.

      As for what I was talking about, look at the history of the National Guard. It's not hard to find information regarding its status and founding.

      The Congress has the authority to arm and organize the militia, and to call them up to federal service for 2 causes: suppressing insurrection and defending the nation.

      Fights over sending the militia outside the U.S. repeatedly resulted in a well established principle that the militia could not be sent to fight foreign wars. This led to the creation of the National Guard whose members would be federal soldiers who could be sent overseas as well as organized militiamen.

      Hence, by trying to limit the Second Amendment to the Guard, you are limiting that right to the Federal Military--the exact thing you say the clause was to counterbalance.

      Considering your willful ignorance of this history it's not surprising that you refuse to deal with some legitimate arguments against you and close with an improper interpretation of the plain language of Joseph Story.

  2. I get around it thusly, Laci: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say the right of the government. Nor does it say the right of the state. It's the right of the people.

    On the question of tax payers paying for gun violence, how about we make criminals pay for their acts? Yes, we must have taxes to pay for the justice system, but we should make those who break the law contribute as much as we can squeeze out of them.

    1. I guess not having legal knowledge is the reel way that you are able to get around it, Greg. There are rules of interpretation in law, which I have mentioned many times before.

      You can believe whatever you want, Greg, I cannot change your mind. In fact, I notice that you are pretty much of an expert on many topics--in your own mind.

      in fact, I notice that you enjoy showing off your ignorance.

      Would I be safe in assuming that you are also a chess grand master? Who needs rules! You move the pieces whatever way you want.

      The problem is that to properly offer a legal opinion, you need to be admitted to the bar. Or at least have some knowledge of how the law actually works. Again, that doesn't stop a lot of people from offering wrong opinions.

      Anyway, The problem is that it isn't just the "criminals" who have negligent discharges or firearms accidents.

      But, again, you show your ignorance, Greg.

    2. Problem is, Greg, if I were to spend my time correcting your ignorant remarks, I wouldn't have too much time for anything else.

      But, keep 'em coming, since you are always good for a laugh in you pathetic way.

    3. Well, a bunch of arrogant preening, but no real defense against Greg's argument here. Granted, you've tried to refute his interpretation in the past, but those "refutations" have been pitiful exercises in making up legal arguments and using verbosity to try to obfuscate the plain meaning of the text and the very precedents you cite.

      Some gun controllers buy into your arguments from ignorance of the law and confusion, but you make them from a position of knowledge and understanding, spinning them out of deliberate misrepresentation of law, precedent, and history.

    4. Another good reason for single payer health care in the USA. If the rich enjoy paying for these bills, let them. Half the people in the US don't make enough money to qualify to pay federal taxes. I guess those who have enjoy paying for those who do not, otherwise they would change the way we pay for these expenses.

    5. Yes, we know you had a negligent discharge, Laci. But if it takes special training to misread plain English, perhaps you should re-evaluate that training.

    6. I should also add that Greg is the perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    7. Laci, you keep mentioning that effect, but you should consider it in reference to yourself. But consider this: You said above that Congress can declare whatever it wants to be the militia. You've said in the past that courts decide what rights we have. The fact is that Congress and the courts are deciding things my way right now. If they have the arbitrary power that you claim, on what basis can you make an argument that they're wrong?

    8. Greg is the poster boy for the lying I'm a professor NRA lobbyists ass hole crowd. Quite a large group.

    9. Oh yes, there's a huge group of fake people online claiming to be NRA members and professors--whole tens of em.

      This Jim seems to have nothing better to do than to make things up about people and try to drive them away.


    1. As our pro-gun commenters never tire of pointing out, more guns resulting in more GUN murders is meaningless. I agree with that. Where we part ways is when they try to say more guns DOES NOT result in more murders.

      The simplest proof is that the majority of murders, about two-thirds, is committed with guns. Therefore, more guns must mean more murders.