Washington Post
It turns out that gun violence isn't just a public safety issue—it's also extremely expensive for taxpayers.
The
total national hospital costs associated with firearm assault injuries
ballooned to almost $700 million in 2010, according to a new analysis by The Urban Institute. And the
bulk of those costs—almost three-quarters of them, to be more
precise—aren't being paid for by the perpetrators, victims, or insurance
companies, but rather by the American public.
"Most of this cost
is paid for by the public, either through public insurance programs
such as Medicaid or as uncompensated care for the uninsured," the
Institute said in its report. "In a time of restricted public resources,
these findings suggest that significant public resources could be saved
or redirected if effective gun-violence prevention strategies could be
identified."
And the direct medical cost of smoking is 133 billion dollars per year, 190 times as much. Perspective.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/?mobile=nocontent
What does that have to do with this?
DeleteThe tobacco companies were sued (and lost) for the harmful effects their product had on society. Fine with me if we sue gun makers for the harmful effects their products have had on society.
DeleteI think he was showing that the cost to the public does not make a convincing argument on whether or not something is legal. I imagine that injuries from car wrecks are also a significant cost to the taxpayer but we still let people drive even if they have had an accident.
DeletePerspective, Mike. Gun injury costs are a drop in the bucket compared to other medical expenses like cigarettes, alcohol, cars, motorcycles, sports, etc. So even if gun control did work to reduce gun injuries (which we know it statistically hasn’t in the past), no one is going to notice because these other costs overwhelm it by orders of magnitude. If you’re going to address this as a money issue, then you have to look at the big picture. It’s like Mike Tyson trying to avoid going broke so he cancels HBO instead of cutting back on the entourage or getting rid of the Bengal tigers. Beside, you are forgetting about substitution once again. I know, I know, knives are less lethal, but they are still going to have to go to the hospital when they get stabbed. You’ve always said that substituting other weapons would save lives, but it’s not going to save hospital costs because surgery, recover, and rehab are more expensive than going straight to the morgue.
DeleteYour perspective argument is self-serving bullshit. You'd do anything to take the focus off guns.
Delete" So even if gun control did work to reduce gun injuries (which we know it statistically hasn’t in the past)"
We have never had proper gun control so your supposed statistics are worthless.
At least we have minimal tests required to show a capability to drive a car. Not so with guns.
DeleteHmm, I would call focusing on the thing that's 0.01% of the total cost, "self-serving bullshit".
DeleteAnd what about my point about stabbings? If you're going to address this as a cost issue, you have to look at the cost of violence as a whole. You like to postulate that with "proper gun control", you'd have fewer fatalities because some of those violent fatalities would turn into treatable injuries. Sure, if that happened, it would be a good thing, but how does that save on hospital costs?
Most states have tests to carry a gun. But you guys don't seem to be happy with that.
DeleteWhat tests? Please specify.
DeleteOnly four states have constitutional carry that doesn't require some sort of CCW class/test.
DeleteTS, the gun injuries vs. stabbings is more bullshit. Multiple stabbings are rare. Multiple shootings are daily.
DeleteYour twisting and lying knows no bounds. Stabbing wounds would not replace gun shot wounds one for one even if all the guns disappeared. So,no.the hospital costs would not be the same. Nice try.
About the tests for carry permits, they're a joke. That's not screening. They don't do much at all to ensure the folks who get the permits are qualified to responsibly handle guns.
DeleteFor some reason TS you refuse to tell me about the so called tests. That's ok typical gun loon avoidence of a question.
DeleteDo you really need me to instruct you on how to google "CCW test"? It's no wonder you feel so reliant on training.
DeleteThen don't compare it to driver's test, which are also "a joke". Nearly everyone gets their license, including the crappy drivers.
DeleteActually, people often have to repeat the driver's test before getting their license. I don't think that's true of the carry permit.
DeleteYou say that as if it would satisfy you. You don't want some people to have to take a test twice. You want them to fail, and never be granted their license, right?
DeleteThanks for proving again you obviously don't know what the hell you are talking about. No surprise.
DeleteYes, indeed, I would like the qualifications for a carry permit to be so strict that many - the unqualified - do not qualify. You're the one who brought up the driver's license test, which was another stupid remark of yours which I'm sure you'll never ever admit was a mistake.
DeleteI didn't bring up driver's license tests- anonymous did. And I responded to it. Don't be so quick to call my remarks "stupid" when you're not even paying attention to the thread.
DeleteRight TS and you are full of BS. One doesn't even have to pass an eye test for a gun license, but then you gun loons think blind people should be able to get one. Laughable.
DeleteSorry, TS, you followed up on the driver's license idea with a stupid comment. I showed you why. Can you admit it was stupid now?
DeleteAnonymous even followed up with more evidence of how stupid it is. You not only have no eye exam for a carry license, you approve of fucking blind people owning and using guns.
You guys don't want a licensing system like we have for cars. It’s easy and everyone gets one, including the crappy drivers and dumb drivers. That’s what we have for CCW licensing and you guys bitch and moan about it.
DeleteYou just posted a story of a blind person successfully defending himself. They have more challenges, but no, I don’t advocate disarming them and leaving the vulnerable even more vulnerable. You say they can’t even own a gun. Why do we let blind people own cars, Mike?
TS is being silly again. After all, it's really pretty hard to compell someone who doesn't smoke to smoke. With guns, it's much easier to create a victim out of someone who doesn't wish to be shot.
ReplyDeleteAnd, as was pointed out, the tobacco industry was sued and had to pay out hundreds of billions to the states. And as a result, the tobacco industry has to fund PR campaigns against smoking and still can be sued on an individual basis; a case in FL about 3 months ago just cost Phillip Morris about $24B.
Moreover, those who smoke pay higher taxes and enjoy higher insurance premiums.
None of that had anything to do with my point that the costs of smoking is 190x that of guns. This headline tries to give the impression that guns are a major medical cost to society. It isn't. It comes out to 0.018%.
DeleteI'm getting worried about TS. His arguments used to make more sense. This cost of smoking is just the latest of several really inane comparisons from him.
DeleteAnd I suppose if I point out how this cost amounts to $2.25 a year per citizen, you also wouldn't get what I'm talking about, and call the point "inane".
DeleteDo I think smoking should be illegal? Sure.
DeleteYou also omit the fact that the indirect costs of gun violence (lost productivity, greater security and law enforcement, etc.) make it as costly as tobacco use.
You also omit the fact the NRA is using the tobacco industry's playbook. Tobacco companies knew for years--decades--that the intended use of their product was harmful. What did they do? They dumped a lot of money on politicians, sought to ban studies and research, and attacked those who acknowledged smoking was bad. Sound familiar?
The NRA has never said that bullets aren't harmful.
DeleteWhen you factor in all the indirect costs for tobacco, that doubles yet again. its still roughly 200x more. The $133B from the CDC was direct medical cost.
Jade: “You also omit the fact that the indirect costs of gun violence (lost productivity, greater security and law enforcement, etc.) make it as costly as tobacco use.”
DeleteJust to be clear, you are saying though the direct costs are $700M, the indirect costs are $132.3B (making it as costly as the number I quoted). If that same ratio holds for indirect cost of tobacco, then the total cost is over 25 TRILLION dollars per year for smoking. Wow! If we ban smoking, we can erase the national debt in nine months, but let’s just focus on guns instead.