The Cost of Gun Violence

Laci again provides us with a thought-provoking post.

I was curious as to how much this "Freedom" and "right" costs the American public and found John Rosenthal's December 15, 2009 post Health Care Costs and Gun Violence. He's a businessman, not a public health professional, but even being in business would give him an ability to assess the costs. He gives the figure that:

On average, guns kill or wound 276 people every day in America. Of those, 75 adults and 9 children will die. In the US there are more than 30,000 deaths and over 100,000 injuries related to gun violence each year.He also states that:

According to the Public Services Research Institute in 2008, firearm homicide and assault cost federal, state and local governments $4.7 billion annually including costs for medical care, mental health, emergency transport, police, criminal justice and lost taxes. They also state that when lost productivity, lost quality of life, and pain and suffering are added to medical costs, estimates of the annual cost of firearm violence range from $20 billion to $100 billion. According to the National Center for Disease Control, the cost of firearm fatalities is the highest of any injury-related death. In fact, the average cost of a gunshot related death is $33,000, while gun-related injuries total over $300,000 for each occurrence.

What's your opinion? Do you find those numbers compelling? What's Laci's conclusion?

Rights come with responsibilities. I think that the sale of firearms, ammunition, reloading supplies, and other gun related items should be heavily taxed to defray the cost to society since it is society that must bear the burden of their "right". But why should society be burdened and why has society allowed itself to be burdened by those who claim this right, yet are not willing to shoulder their responsibilities?

If they can't exercise their right in a responsible manner, then this right should not exist in the matter of public interest.

I wish I'd said that.

Death Penalty in Review - 2009

The New York Times reports on a fascinating phenomenon taking place in the administration of capital punishment.

Death Sentences Dropped, but Executions Rose in ’09

More death row convicts were executed in the United States this year than last, but juries continue to grow more wary of capital punishment, according to a new report.

Death sentences handed down by judges and juries in 2009 continued a trend of decline for seven years in a row, with 106 projected for the year. That level is down two-thirds from a peak of 328 in 1994, according to the report being released Friday by the Death Penalty Information Center, a research organization that opposes capital punishment.

“This entire decade has been marked by a declining use of the death penalty,” said Richard Dieter, the executive director of the group.

It must mean that each year there are fewer people on death row than the year below. But killing them off doesn't seem like the right way to do it. If the use of capital punishment is declining as reflected by the sentences handed down, the incidents of carrying out those sentences should also decline. Hopefully we're heading towards abolition and these guys who are being executed in increasing numbers won't be around to have their sentences changed to life without parole.

The sentencing drop was most striking in Texas, which averaged 34 death sentences a year in the 1990s and had 9 this year. Vic Wisner, a former assistant district attorney in Houston, said a “constant media drumbeat” about suspect convictions and exonerations “has really changed the attitude of jurors.”

Whatever the reason for the sentencing drop in Texas, doesn't the fact that it went from 34 to 9 indicate that some of those 34 got a bad deal? Isn't that a sort of proof in and of itself? If in 2009, the juries decided in 25 or so capital cases that a life sentence was the right punishment, what does that say about the ones who received the death penalty before?

I say the administration of capital punishment is so broken it should be halted immediately.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

New York Helps Indiana

WishTV.com reported on the appointment of Frank Straub as Public Safety Director of Indianapolis.

Straub has a doctorate in criminal justice. He became commissioner of Public Safety in White Plains, New York in 2002.

Before going to White Plains, Straub was a special agent with the United States Department of Justice. He was also the New York Police Department's Deputy Commissioner of Training, responsible for developing and implementing the New York City's Police Department-wide, first-responder training.

Deputy Chief of Staff Robert Vane told 24-Hour News 8 police will be on board with the selection of Straub because of his experience.

Vane said, “At the same time as the attacks as the September 11th attacks at the World Trade Centers, commissioner Straub was a member of the executive staff of New York City Police Department and in charge of training. New York has a population of about 8 million.”

This could be of enormous importance in the struggle to stem the flow of guns from Indiana to other states like Illinois and New York. The Indy Star had this as one of Dr. Straub's priorities:

Controlling gun trafficking

"My own personal perspective is we have way too many guns on the street and way too many people that own guns," Straub said, adding there is no clear national policy dealing with guns.

"The policy has to start at the federal level and then work its way down to the states and to the local level. Until we control the flow of guns between states . . . you have a problem."

Did it take a New Yorker to come in there and say that? What's wrong with the State of Indiana that something as obvious as this has to be pointed out by an outsider? Of course the pro-gun crowd, threatened by Straub's common sense observations, do not see it that way.

Roberta X says "Dr. Straub doesn't look to be likely to fit in." Caleb cites the Constitution in reference to Straub's assertion that there "no clear national policy."

I guess time will tell how well Dr. Straub fits in. And perhaps Caleb will stop pretending that he doesn't understand what is meant by the "national policy." The obvious idea is to get all the States on the same page as far as interpreting the Constitution. Heller, so often cited as a gun-rights victory, left the door wide open for reasonable restrictions which, some people think need to be applied everywhere.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Assault Weapon Use by Criminals on the Rise

USA Today reports on the increase in assault weapon use by criminals. Via Southern Beale.

Criminals increasingly are choosing high-powered firearms such as assault weapons, a new survey of 166 U.S. police agencies shows. Nearly 40% of the departments reported an uptick in the use of assault weapons, according to the Police Executive Research Forum, a law enforcement think tank.

In addition, half reported increases in the use of 9mm, .40-caliber and 10mm handguns in crimes — among the same types of weapons that police use. The survey offers one of the broadest indications of officers' concerns about the armed threat from criminals involved in murder, assault and other weapons-related offenses.

I like the comment by Southern Beale about this.

Nobody could have anticipated that allowing the federal assault weapons ban to expire in 2004 would have resulted in criminals’ increasing use of assault weapons.

Who indeed could have anticipated such a thing?

The two sides in the gun debate were represented in the USA Today article.

National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam says officers' concerns are largely misplaced: "The real issue is the high-caliber criminal, not the high-caliber firearms." He says repeat offenders are overwhelming the system and could increase as states send fewer to prison to cut costs.

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, says the high-powered weapons endanger officers. If police say there's a problem, "public officials should be listening."

Now, I admit I have a soft spot for Paul Helmke. As a short time resident of Fort Wayne Indiana, the city which he presided over as mayor, I've always felt a connection with him. But, in the light of that tired old NRA line about "guns don't kill people, people kill people," I think Paul makes great sense when he urges lawmakers to listen up when police departments are talking.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

What Obama Should Do

Via The Existentialist Cowboy.

Obama should get off his butt and insist upon war crimes trials of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condo Rice. That Iraq had WMD was a bald faced lie to justify the seizure of Middle East oil fields! Ergo --every Iraqi death following is one count in a WAR CRIMES INDICTMENT on the scale of those charged to Adolph Hitler and high mucky mucks in the murderous Third Reich.

Zappadan Festival 2009 - Day 14

Via NIMBIN TELEVISION

The Likelihood of Lethal Threat

We often hear the expression "lethal threat" in gun discussions. Almost everyone seems to agree that "lethal threat" is the major criterion, among others, for determining whether a defensive gun use is justified. But, how frequent do these occur?

My contention is they are not frequent at all, and here's how I arrived at that.

Without offering autobiographical details, I can safely say I've been around the block a few times. I've lived in a number of places, some of them not so savory. I've associated with many different types of people, some of them not so savory. I've been in some of the most dangerous places in North America, Harlem, Newark and Tijuana. I'm 56 years old, and looking back, do you know how many incidents of lethal threat to myself or someone in my vicinity I've seen? None, not a single one.

The problem is however, I have experienced first-hand about 10 or 20 situations that could have been interpreted as such. If I had always carried a concealed weapon and had always been prepared to protect myself and others from serious danger, there would have been bloodshed on a number of occasions, not one of which, I now see, truly merited that response.

This is the problem with concealed carry permits. The folks who have them, for the most part are not capable of making the lightning fast decisions which are necessary in a critical situation. They will err on the side of caution, not wanting to endanger their own lives, and they will get away with it especially if the only other witness is a wounded or dead criminal.

A good example is Caleb who writes Gun Nuts Media. When confronted with a knife-bearing criminal, he diverted the man's attention, drew his gun and the would-be mugger ran off. My hat's off to Caleb for demonstrating exactly the restraint and cool-headed response that was called for, nothing more. But how many gun owners can do that? What if the threat had been slightly greater? What if Caleb had shot the guy dead?

So, my conclusions are these. DGUs are rare and legitimate DGUs are even rarer.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.