Huffington Post
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.
This sounds like a good argument for total bans and confiscations.
What do you think?
So, is this a sign that you've "evolved" to that position now? Or that you're beginning to evolve that way?
ReplyDeleteAs for the postulation--no. An attempt at a total ban and confiscation would cost far more than that.
No, I haven't evolved on that one - not yet at least.
DeleteNot yet eh. The fact that you would leave that as a possibility for future evolution is why we do not trust you when you say that you only want to disarm 50% of us and that you support our right to own guns as long as we are responsible and pass the right tests.
DeleteNo, that's not why you don't trust me. You're like an little boy who hates to be told anything. You don't want the government doing it and you certainly don't want me doing it. That, plus you probably have serious doubts as to which half of the 50% divide you'd fall into.
DeleteIf you could get your ego out of it and if you really were a safe and responsible gun owner, I wouldn't be the one pushing this stuff, you would.
Nonsense, Mikeb. Government is not our parents. To think that it is only serves those who wish to overreach in their power. And we know that arbitrary power is rarely used in a manner that respects the rights of the people.
DeleteAh, so when Greg says that you would set the bar so high that most people couldn't meet it, and that you would probably deny him a gun, he knows that you would let him have one and is lying. However, when I oppose what you want to do, it's because I know I would probably fall into the 50% who would be disarmed.
DeleteSo, basically, if we say you're going to disarm us, we're lying, and if we worry you're wanting to disarm us it's because we are in the target group.
Thanks for that clarity.
Yes, Greg is lying through his teeth when he says my proposals would bar nearly everyone.
DeleteMy crack about your falling into the wrong 50% wasn't really serious. You do recall that I've often said you and the other commenters are probably responsible and safe gun owners. My point has always been that there are too many others who are not and you keep trying to protect them.
Sorry, but you've used the "It's just a Joke" defense too many times and on too many subjects.
DeleteYour comment where you said that I wasn't a safe and responsible gun owner was made as a serious reply to me. You then tried to change it to a joke after I pointed out your inconsistency.
And if it was just a joke, then it was a diversionary tactic to take attention away from the fact that you left yourself room to "evolve" into a position where you favored complete confiscation of guns.
Neither way out looks very good for you.
According to Kaiser, the total healthcare expenditure in the U.S. in 2010 was $2.6 trillion. So no, this is not an argument for total bans and confiscations.
ReplyDeleteIn their $37B figure they included "the economy"- probably some lost wage estimate to bolster the total by a large factor. Did they even consider if someone else did the job and gained a wage?
DeleteWhat's that percentage, Greg? I think it's a bit higher than your usual less-than-1%-percent arguments. Am I right?
DeleteBasic arithmetic, Mikeb:
Delete3,700,000,000/2,600,000,000,000 comes out to around one tenth of one percent.
Read the post again. The $3.7 billion was IN ADDITION to the $37 billion.
DeleteThis is why you're known as a liar and a slick-Willie type con artist.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/05/news/economy/AAA_study/
ReplyDeleteAccording to AAA, traffic accidents cost the US over $164 billion each year - four times that of firearms. Sounds like a good argument for total bans and confiscations right?
Not before you ban an confiscate cigarettes and fatty foods (each over $100B). Cars and guns at least have good uses.
DeleteBut it is for the children....
DeleteSome one's math is wrong. In the article Mike B posted, the cost for gun related injuries is 3 point 7 billion dollars and AAA says that injuries caused by car crashes cost us 164 billion. That means that car related injuries cost 44 times what gun related injuries cost.
DeleteJust wanted to point that out.
Actually, Mike the genius, the $3.7 billion was in addition to the $37 billion. Reread it.
DeleteThe difference between this $40 billion each year and the higher cost of car accidents is that due to regulations, controls, strict laws and insurance requirements the car-related costs have already been reduced about as much as possible without interfering with our modern lives too much. Not so with the gun-related costs. We haven't even begun to attempt bringing them down yet. That's what gun control is all about. We should try it sometime.
DeleteO.K., so 40 billion/2.6 trillion is 1.5 percent. But you keep forgetting that all types of violence has dropped significantly over the last several decades. That's while our population has grown. We're already bringing down costs and don't need to violate the rights of good citizens.
Delete"O:K:" Is that all you have to say. No admission that you were trying to slip one over on us and got caught?
DeleteMikeb, stop being an asshole. I misread the numbers. But I then corrected it. What were you saying about playing gotcha?
DeleteNow address the main point of what I said.
You mean your favorite straw man of violating the rights of good citizens? My proposals would not do that, not if they're truly good citizens.
DeleteMikeb, you lately have been reminding us of your demand for a may-issue system for gun ownership--not carry, ownership. Name one other right that you would tolerate the government having arbitrary power to exercise.
DeleteGreg was closer to being right the first time. You can’t use the $40B number as a fraction of all health care costs ($2.6T), because the $40B number includes the nebulous secondary costs to the economy. Maybe they are calculating a dead guy’s potential career wages until retirement and added it to the total, which is wrong for so many reasons. The article doesn’t say how much the direct cost is, and instead hides it by adding it with a number that is likely an order of magnitude more. What’s really fishy about it is that they show us the direct cost of injury care and that comes out to a tenth of the cost of deaths (when you add in the “cost to the economy”). One would presume that the direct health care cost of a death is less than the cost of treating someone who is badly injured (funerals are cheaper than surgery/recovery), plus we know that the amount of fire-arm injuries far outnumber the amount of deaths (though many of those injuries are minor). The direct cost on gun death on the healthcare system would be near or below that $3.7B number, don’t you think?
DeleteIt's not a right, Greg. In spite of what the Court said in Heller and what you guys desperately are trying to hang onto, it's not a right any more than owning a car is.
Delete