Bad gun control

[PonderThis]

If you shoot at a sign and the bullet passes through and kills some housewife doing the dishes a mile away, you don't really know it, do you?

[PonderThis]

A number of interesting statistics in this article. It's an especially interesting comparison between Seattle, WA and Vancouver, Canada. Statistically comparable cities in every way except for the gun figures: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/artic...cleid=1214

Insurance, Life Expectancy and the Cost of Firearm Deaths in the U.S.
Published: June 15, 2005 in Knowledge@Wharton

"Despite its status as an advanced industrial nation, the United States has some unusual characteristics. For example, while its health care system is the most expensive in the world, its citizens are neither healthier nor do they live longer than citizens in other countries. In addition, while the U.S. is considered among the safest countries, deaths from gunshot wounds are staggeringly high. In 2000, the U.S. recorded close to 11,000 firearm homicides and more than 16,000 firearm suicides. The European Union -- an area with a population approximately 25% higher than that of the U.S. -- reported fewer than 1,300 firearm homicides for the same year. In Japan, the number was 22. [The EU figures pre-date the 10-country expansion which took place on May 1, 2004.]

Jean Lemaire, a professor of insurance and actuarial science at Wharton, argues that these facts should be looked at in tandem. In a recent paper entitled, "The Cost of Firearm Deaths in the United States: Reduced Life Expectancies and Increased Insurance Costs," to be published in the September 2005 issue of The Journal of Risk and Insurance, Lemaire works through the medical and financial impact of firearms on American society. The results are eye opening.

Researchers who study firearm violence in the U.S. come at their subject from a number of perspectives, including the most obvious -- medical costs. Yet it is the other costs that are "more difficult to quantify," Lemaire writes. "They include the cost of public resources devoted to law enforcement, private investment by individuals in protection and avoidance, lost productivity of victims and changes in the quality of life, limits on freedoms to live or work in certain places, restrictions on residential and commercial location decisions, limitations in hours of operations of retail establishments, emotional costs to the forced adaptation to increased risk, and the cost of pain and fear."

Reduced Life Expectancy

The flashpoint in the long-running argument in the U.S. over the regulation of firearms is the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Gun control advocates read the amendment as permitting regulation of firearms possession; gun rights advocates read it as enshrining in law an individual's unfettered right to own guns.

While sensitive to the political context of the gun control versus gun rights debate, Lemaire stresses that what his work provides is data. For example, he cites a study from 2000 which estimates that the aggregate cost of gun violence in the U.S. is approximately $100 billion annually, or about $360 for every American. Given his background as an actuary, Lemaire has focused his research on life expectancy and insurance costs. His paper is based "on facts. It's an exact calculation designed to bring some more light into the debate.... I am providing figures that no one can disagree with," he says, acknowledging, however, that people "can certainly disagree about what we do with these figures."

Lemaire calculates how much time Americans lose off their lives as a result of gun violence and how much more they pay in insurance costs as a result. What is striking about both costs is how unevenly they are distributed throughout the population. According to Lemaire, all firearm deaths in 2000 -- that is, both homicides and suicides -- reduced life expectancy by an average of 103.6 days. Broken down by race and gender, however, there are notable gaps in how various groups fare. Men lose between five and six times more days than women: 166.8 versus 30.5. African-American men lose more than twice as many days as white men: 361.5 versus 150.7. The most significant gap, logically enough, combines these racial and gender differentials: There is more than a tenfold difference between days lost by African-American men (361.5) versus days lost by white women (31.1).

Lemaire calculates the annual insurance costs which can be ascribed to firearm-related deaths at billions of dollars. He cites statistics from a 2001 study by the American Council for Life Insurance which suggest that, at the end of 2000, there were 148 million group and 35 million individual term life insurance policies in force in the United States, as well as 125 million group and 8 million individual whole life policies, yielding a combined total annual premium income of just under $130 billion.

Having previously calculated the discounts for both term (9.87%) and whole life (1.89%) policies if firearm deaths were eliminated from the equation, Lemaire estimates that the annual insurance cost of firearm violence in the U.S. is $4.9 billion. However, "this calculation overstates costs," he writes, "as the mortality of insured lives markedly differs from population mortality." Lemaire goes on to note that since homicide disproportionately impacts the young, and since life insurance is rarely purchased by or for people under 25, the current actuarial tables already "discount" homicide simply by virtue of demographics.

Even paring the increased insurance costs down to compensate for those factors, he continues, they are probably still in the same general range as the estimated $2 billion to $2.3 billion in total annual medical costs for gun-related injuries or the increased cost of administering the criminal justice system due to gun deaths -- including incarceration costs -- estimated at some $2.4 billion.

To put things in an epidemiological context, Lemaire points out that "among all fatal injuries, only motor vehicle accidents have a stronger effect [than firearm deaths]." Further, the numbers show that "the elimination of all firearm deaths in the U.S. would increase the male life expectancy more than the total eradication of all colon and prostate cancers."

The Substitution Effect

One objection to the idea that reducing firearm deaths would increase life expectancy and reduce insurance costs is the argument that guns are simply a means to an end -- and that people who are intent on violence, either toward themselves or others, will find a way to achieve that objective with whatever tools are available. This is called the substitution effect. "I don't believe that Americans are necessarily more violent than the Japanese or the Europeans," Lemaire says, "and certainly the history of the 20th century shows a lot of violence in other countries. I don't think violence is in the genes of the American people."

Japan "certainly provided more than its share of violence in the 20th century," he continues, "but at the dawn of the 21st century, Japan is among the safest countries in the world: Zero guns in Japan means zero crimes. It bears mention that Japan also has an extremely low rate of thefts, burglaries, etc., a counterweight to the argument by pro-gun people that guns at home reduce burglaries."

He cites a number of studies which show that, in the area of homicides, there is little or no substitution effect. One such study done in 1988 contrasts Seattle, Wa., and Vancouver, British Columbia - two cities nearly identical in terms of climate, population, unemployment level, average income and other demographic characteristics. But as a result of far stricter gun laws in Canada he writes, only 12% of Vancouver's inhabitants own guns, compared to an estimated 41% of Seattle residents.

The study finds "that the two cities essentially experience the same rates of burglary, robbery, homicides and assaults without a gun," Lemaire writes. "However, in Seattle the rate of assault with a firearm is 7 times higher than in Vancouver, and the rate of homicide with a handgun is 4.8 times higher. The authors conclude that the availability of handguns in Seattle increases the assault and homicide rates with a gun, but does not decrease the crime rates without guns, and that restrictive handgun laws reduce the homicide rate in a community."

In the case of suicide, Lemaire notes, there is greater evidence of a substitution effect. "Reduced availability of one method," he writes, "may prompt an increase in other methods. Some despondent individuals contemplating suicide may attempt to take their life by another means if a firearm is unavailable. Indeed, in [places like] Japan and Hong Kong, suicide rates exceed the U.S. rate despite strictly limited access to firearms. Less than 1% of suicides in these countries are committed with a firearm ...." Lemaire goes on to say that "the introduction of assumptions that I believe are appropriate to estimate the substitution effect hardly change the number of days lost due to guns: from 103.6 to 95.8 for the average U.S. citizen."

Future Lines of Inquiry

Lemaire is not clear what use will be made of his data. Japan, he notes in his paper, has approximately 50 handguns, mostly the property of athletes who compete in international shooting competitions. The best estimate is that there are more than 250 million guns in America. It is extremely unlikely that the U.S. is going to move to confiscate guns, he says.

He does see potential opportunities, however, in the area of how insurance companies can better price, and perhaps more equitably distribute the cost of, the risks associated with guns. "There is some evidence," Lemaire says, "including evidence from the Penn School of Medicine, that just owning a gun significantly increases your chance of dying -- even when you control for variables like neighborhood, education, and so on."

[tvguy]

If you shoot at a sign and the bullet passes through and kills some housewife doing the dishes a mile away, you don't really know it, do you?

That's a criminal act. Why should I have to pay for the consequences of someone committing a crime.

[PonderThis]

Because statistically, a certain percentage of gun owners do shoot at signs. If you doubt that, just look at signs on any road that goes through the mountains, and then get back at us about how good gun owners do at self-policing themselves on this sort of thing.

[tvguy]

Because statistically, a certain percentage of gun owners do shoot at signs. If you doubt that, just look at signs on any road that goes through the mountains, and then get back at us about how good gun owners do at self-policing themselves on this sort of thing.

Good grief you keep saying the same thing. So freaking what if a certain percentage of people who buy bullets commit crimes???
How in the hell does that make me responsible to pay? If you HONESTLY want to compare buying bullet insurance to auto insurance then you can throw away all of those gun statistics mostly from criminals and suicides and then put up the ACCIDENTS that results from firearms.

[PonderThis]

Well, good grief. It's obvious I pay for somebody else's insurance losses through my premiums whether I had an insurable loss happen to me or not too. That's the nature of that sort of thing. Not every cigarette smoker will die of lung cancer either, but they all get taxed. I think you're the one being pig-headed here.

If you want a hobby that incurs hidden costs to all, even if only a minority of users cause that, I don't see any problem whatsoever with making them all pay. It's only fair.

[tvguy]

just look at signs on any road that goes through the mountains, and then get back at us about how good gun owners do at self-policing themselves on this sort of thing.

This is some shallow thinking Ponder. You see signs with bullet holes put there by a tiny fraction of irresponsible and probably immature kids or drunks and you simply connect that with "gun owners? ?? And based on that you make the decision that "gun owners" don't do a good job on policing themselves??

Biased much? Seriously if that's the best you can come up with you should have just taken a break and not posted anything.

[orygunluvr]

Ponder salivates at the deaths of people caused by individuals not unlike himself.

[PonderThis]

Well, so far you're in favor of society sucking up the costs of paying for uninsured gunshot victims, too. I'm only in favor of sticking the costs where they seem most equitable to me, and that's you guys that insist on shooting your guns. It's certainly not my hobby, it's yours. You should be paying the consequences of this insane American fascination with firearms, not me. Quit trying to shift your burdens on to me then.

[tvguy]

'PonderThis' pid='225224' dateline='1345436259']
Well, good grief. It's obvious I pay for somebody else's insurance losses through my premiums whether I had an insurable loss happen to me or not too. That's the nature of that sort of thing. Not every cigarette smoker will die of lung cancer either, but they all get taxed. I think you're the one being pig-headed here.

No I'm not being pig headed, I make valid important points and you ignore them or you are too dense to understand.
Your auto insurance does not pay for people committing criminal acts. That's what you want gun owners to pay for.

Cigarette smokers all do something to their body that has been proved to be harmful. That's not true at all with owning a gun. The vast majority of gun owners don't cost society anything and the ones who do are mostly criminals.

Pigheaded ? yeah to ignore these points I would say yes you are very pigheaded

If you want a hobby that incurs hidden costs to all, even if only a minority of users cause that, I don't see any problem whatsoever with making them all pay. It's only fair.

My "hobby" as you put it is a freedom guaranteed by the constitution. Having a weapon to protect myself and loved ones is not a hobby.

Your comment doesn't make sense If you want a hobby that incurs hidden costs to all

My gun ownership has no hidden or any other cost to society. That's the part you don't seem to get. On the contrary the sales of guns and ammo has pumped billions of dollars in to conservation of our wildlife and habitat.

This idea makes no sense. Why not tax all dog food to pay for the ignorant pit bull and other dog owners who make their dogs aggressive and are negligent?

[PonderThis]

It won't take too many more of these gun massacres and gun tragedy's before the will of the people clamors for this. I'd be willing to bet on it, personally. The court of public opinion is where this will be decided, and to your displeasure you're not going to be on the winning side, no matter how illogical it appears to you.

[Larry]

Repealing (or "modifying") the second amendment is inevitable for the "tranformation" of America to be completed. If Obama gets a second term, Ponder will be correct, but not for the reasons he thinks.

[tvguy]

Repealing (or "modifying") the second amendment is inevitable for the "tranformation" of America to be completed. If Obama gets a second term, Ponder will be correct, but not for the reasons he thinks.

Obama hasn't done anything to take away our rights as gun owners. As a matter of fact I have read that he has done more in his term favor of gun rights than Bush ever did.
Not only that but the paranoia spread by people like you Larry has made gun sales go through the roof.
He also never reinstated the assault rifle ban. His stand on guns has always been sensible to me. he says he he will protect our right to own them but we should do more to keep them from people who shouldn't have them.

[tvguy]

It won't take too many more of these gun massacres and gun tragedy's before the will of the people clamors for this. I'd be willing to bet on it, personally. The court of public opinion is where this will be decided, and to your displeasure you're not going to be on the winning side, no matter how illogical it appears to you.

I'd be willing to bet on it, personally.

OK then put your money where your mouth is. How much do you want to bet and by when exactly will this tax be imposed?

[TennisMom]

No. You expect anyone who buys a box of ammunition to help pay for a crime someone else committed? As if somehow I should share the cost to society caused by criminals?
I don't see a comparison to tobacco which is a harmful drug that affects not only the user but people who breath the second hand smoke. There is no way to smoke tobacco responsibly with out causing harm.
But with ammunition ( bullets) probably 99% of them cause no harm.
BTW I don't think it is right to have such high "sin" taxes on tobacco.

Some people smoke all their lives with no consequences. They still pay ten bucks for a pack of cigarettes. Anyone who smokes assumes risk for their fellow smokers in the form of sky-high 'sin' taxes on cigarettes. Bullets cause high rates of death and injury. The only differences is that with bullets it is more immediate.

Anyone who buys a pack of cigarettes pays for cancer research and associated health costs of that illness, whether or not someone is sick or they themselves have it. Taxes on alcohol probably go a long way toward costs associated with traffic deaths and damages. Bars can be sued if they send a drunk out to the parking lot with keys in hand. The drunk may get home safely. If not, the bar owner assumes the risk. Is that risk worth it?

Again, the same logic applied to bullets should prevail. A crime may not have been committed YET, but when one is, the costs associated with it can be stratospheric. Why should my insurance rates go up because you choose to use a very dangerous item, even if it is for target practice? You, as a gun user, should assume costs associated with a dangerous hobby. Non-drivers don't pay into a fund in case someone has an accident. Non-gun users should be given the same consideration. People who smoke pay higher insurance rates. Shouldn't those who own guns do so also?

OK first of all I would like to know how much if anything you pay extra in insurance the medical cost of people who get shot.

We ALL pay into the same insurance pool. If you don't ski and your neighbor does, your payments go into the costs of his care when he breaks his leg on the slopes. We don't protest because it doesn't happen as often as, say, cancer caused by cigarettes or injuries caused by bullets. If Gabby Gifford were a private citizen with health insurance, believe me, you paid for her care with your premiums. They don't set aside the money you've paid into the pool just for you.

What about government search and rescue teams? Should hikers or mountain climbers pay a tax on their equipment because a small percentage get lost?

That is an issue that comes up from time to time. Some people have been asked to help offset costs associated with their rescue. When an ambulance goes to your house, YOU pay for it, or your insurance does. That means my contributions go toward YOUR ambulance. That is just how it works.


Who pays for an extended hospital stay in extensive care for a bicycle rider when he/she wrecks? Should we tax bicycles?
I could make dozens of examples where people do things that result in injury or death.

I'm sure you could. I doubt if bicycle injuries and death rates are even close to those associated with firearms, however. It wouldn't surprise me if insurance companies won't cover costs for a bike rider in an accident who wasn't wearing a legally-required helmet.

People who smoke pay higher insurance rates. Shouldn't those who own guns do so also?

Wow TM there is a glaring obvious difference. People who smoke CAN"T smoke without increasing their chance of being ill and costing society money.

Not true. I had a friend who smoked all through a pregnancy and the baby was fine. WAs that worth the risk? Not to me it wasn't. I also have relatives who smoked cigarettes into their nineties with no ill-effect. Worth the risk? Not to me. Cigarettes are poison. Anyone willingly ingesting it are taking a risk. Those who chose to take that risk should pay for it. Guns are inherently dangerous. Those who chose to keep one should assume the risk. I don't have a gun but if you get shot, my insurance contributions go into your care. If I don't drive a car and you get in an accident, all the other car owners' premiums go into paying for damages. I don't have to pay because I don't own a car (theoretical, of course).

Not the same at all for people who own and shoot guns. Of all the friends and relatives I have that own and shoot guns NONE of them have ever cost society any money.

Perhaps not. But they are still engaging in risky behavior by owning a firearm.

Taxes on alcohol probably go a long way toward costs associated with traffic deaths and damages. Bars can be sued if they send a drunk out to the parking lot with keys in hand. The drunk may get home safely. If not, the bar owner assumes the risk. Is that risk worth it?

I'm not sure of your meaning, Yes a bar owner can be negligent... and?

If the drunk driver got home safely, then the bar tender caught a lucky break. Was it worth the risk? Should he have taken the keys JUST IN CASE the drunk got into an accident? Should someone quit smoking because of the warnings, or take the chance he/she may be one of the lucky ones? Who assumes that risk?





Alcohol is regulated and taxed by the government because the abuse of alcohol and the costs to society have to be thousands of times higher than what these occasional shooting sprees cost Americans.

Only if you or your family are not victims of those 'occasional shooting sprees' that occur with such frequency in this country.

Guns may be sacred to some but they are a bane to our society. Gun owners who firmly believe they have a right to keep their weapons should put their money where their mouths are and PAY extra for their indulgence. Bullets should be taxed at a high rate. It won't stop the shooting sprees but we can make it more difficult for those so inclined, as well as compensation for victims.

[PonderThis]

It won't take too many more of these gun massacres and gun tragedy's before the will of the people clamors for this. I'd be willing to bet on it, personally. The court of public opinion is where this will be decided, and to your displeasure you're not going to be on the winning side, no matter how illogical it appears to you.

I'd be willing to bet on it, personally.

OK then put your money where your mouth is. How much do you want to bet and by when exactly will this tax be imposed?

Means I won't be investing my retirement stock portfolio ($50 worth) in Smith & Wesson.

[tvguy]

TM...Guns may be sacred to some but they are a bane to our society. Gun owners who firmly believe they have a right to keep their weapons should put their money where their mouths are and PAY extra for their indulgence. Bullets should be taxed at a high rate. It won't stop the shooting sprees but we can make it more difficult for those so inclined, as well as compensation for victims.

Owning a gun is not an indulgence. It's a right guaranteed to all Americans. I have the right to own guns and protect myself and my family.

The fact that YOU call gun ownership an indulgence as if it's the same as stuffing my face with ice cream shows how far you have distanced yourself from reality and no offense TM but it screams ignorance.

I don't live in an area anywhere close to being as safe as where you live. I DO NOT indulge myself by wanting to be able to defend myself from home invasions or meth heads.

I understand that you think that all gun owners are responsible for what criminals do with guns.
I don't agree but I get where you are coming from.

But for you to actually think owning a gun is some kind of indulgence is absurd.

[Larry]

[TennisMom]

Well, good grief. It's obvious I pay for somebody else's insurance losses through my premiums whether I had an insurable loss happen to me or not too. That's the nature of that sort of thing. Not every cigarette smoker will die of lung cancer either, but they all get taxed. I think you're the one being pig-headed here.

If you want a hobby that incurs hidden costs to all, even if only a minority of users cause that, I don't see any problem whatsoever with making them all pay. It's only fair.

This is exactly the point I am trying to make.
I've paid car insurance for decades but never had an accident. Does that mean I don't have to pay premiums? Heck no. All drivers assume risk when they get behind the wheel. Similarly, all gun owners assume risk by owning a firearm.

[TennisMom]

Owning a gun is not an indulgence. It's a right guaranteed to all Americans. I have the right to own guns and protect myself and my family.

There was also a time when you had a right to own a slave. That right was a necessary evil to get the southern states to sign on to the Declaration of Independence. The right to own a gun was guaranteed because we needed a militia to fight against the British forces in the 1700's. I don't see too many 'redcoats' around these days, do you?

The fact that YOU call gun ownership an indulgence as if it's the same as stuffing my face with ice cream shows how far you have distanced yourself from reality and no offense TM but it screams ignorance.

You have a right to your opinion, of course. I'm not saying your guns should be taken away. I'm saying that if you wish to own something which can cause great harm, even if you aren't the one causing it, you should pay for that privilege, like driving a car. You assume risk by owning a car, same as a gun. That risk is paid for in the form of higher insurance premiums. Perhaps Home Insurance rates for gun owners should go up rather than imposing a high tax on bullets....?

I don't live in an area anywhere close to being as safe as where you live. I DO NOT indulge myself by wanting to be able to defend myself from home invasions or meth heads.

I understand that you think that all gun owners are responsible for what criminals do with guns.
I don't agree but I get where you are coming from.

But for you to actually think owning a gun is some kind of indulgence is absurd.

Again, that is your opinion. Mine still stands.