Why does this topic never comes up when comes to guns?

The Public Health Cost of Gun Violence

The high figure underlines the need to treat gun violence in the U.S. as a public health issue as well as a law enforcement challenge, according to physicians and advocacy groups contacted by The Crime Report.

Gun Violence Costs Americans $5.6 Billion In Medical Bills Every Year

According to a Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study, nonfatal gun injuries and gun-related deaths cost the United States $5.6 billion in medical spending every year, and an additional $64.6 billion when accounting for the lost productivity that stems from gun-related violence:

How Guns And Violence Cost Every American $564 In 2010

the numbers are too burdensome on the mind, and on the wallet, to ignore and deserve a place in the on-going debate over what, if any, regulations should come.

Are people really OK with these numbers? Should gun manufacturers be held liable for these injuries? How about gun owners?

Why should people who want nothing to do with guns be paying out of their own pockets to cover these bills for others?

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
Should people who want nothing to do with guns be paying out of their own pockets to cover these bills for others?

You can make pretty much the same argument for anything; alcohol, automobiles, various foods, etc.

It is NOT effing 'Gun violence'.

Guns do not get up all on their own and go around shooting people all by their lonesome.

Besides that LAW thats says we can't murder each other says we can't.

So WHAT 'gun violence' ?

Most of that cost comes from bad people having guns, not from regular citizens. Gangs have guns, those guns will still be there if they take ours away. If the people who rob us know we can't have a gun, this will cause an acceleration in crime. Sometimes they do not want witnesses to finger them.

If they got rid of medicines and doctors we would save a lot more money than that. Medical mistakes cause a lot of money to be spent. But doctors still help a lot of people.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

Fantastic!!! Think of all the money we could save by taking guns away from everyone...

Uh oh....wait a minute....we gots a problem Houston.

I'll tell you what Onslaught2996....

When you get all these obese people skinny, and not costing us money...I'll consider your proposal of giving up my gun.

Report from 2013 of the yearly cost to America of obese people...

Since 1960, the number of obese Americans has tripled. What? Tripled, yes!! And six times more Americans are now extremely obese than 50 years ago. Unfortunately, everyone is paying for this obesity epidemic. How much? Here are 10 shocking numbers related to the costs of obesity:

$190 billion -- That's the amount of added medical costs every year that are estimated to stem from obesity-related problems. It’s nearly 21% of total U.S. health care costs.
105% -- According to a study conducted by the Brookings Institution, this is the increased amount that obese Americans pay for prescription drugs compared to individuals who aren't obese.
$3.4 billion -- Cars are burning around 938 million gallons of gasoline per year more than they would if Americans weighed what they did in 1960.
$164 billion -- The Society of Actuaries estimates that U.S. employers are losing this amount in productivity each year due to obesity-related issues with employees.
$6.4 billion -- Every year, this amount is estimated to be lost due to employee absenteeism related to obesity.
$1 billion -- U.S. airlines are consuming an extra 350 million gallons of fuel per year due to overweight passengers.
$14.3 billion -- This is how much childhood obesity costs the U.S. each year, according to a published study from the Brookings Institution.
$62 billion -- Medicare and Medicaid are spending nearly this amount every year on obesity-related costs.
$66 billion -- Columbia University researchers say that if current trends don't change, annul obesity-related medical costs in the U.S. could increase this amount by 2030.
$580 billion -- The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation predicts that annual economic productivity loss due to obesity could hit this staggering amount by 2030 unless the current situation changes.

- See more at: www.phitamerica.org...

Get busy Onslaught...that's a lot of fat to get rid of...

Des

a reply to: Onslaught2996

Why should people who want nothing to do with guns be paying out of their own pockets to cover these bills for others?

People are paying out of their own pockets every time they dial 9-11 to call the 'good' guys with guns to shoot the 'bad' guys with guns.

They 'don't' want anything to do with guns ?

Hmmmm.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Most of that cost comes from bad people having guns, not from regular citizens. Gangs have guns, those guns will still be there if they take ours away. If the people who rob us know we can't have a gun, this will cause an acceleration in crime. Sometimes they do not want witnesses to finger them.

If they got rid of medicines and doctors we would save a lot more money than that. Medical mistakes cause a lot of money to be spent. But doctors still help a lot of people.

The comparison is closer to nuclear technology being used, rather than doctors making mistakes. Doctors making mistakes cost money because of insurance and litigation.


Nuclear technology can be used to create weapons of mass destruction, and therefore are discouraged for certain countries to develop nuclear technology because it could be "used for the wrong reasons".

Just like a gun can be manufactured for security or hunting, or other sportsmanship, it can be diverted by the criminal element.

What is funny is that the same people who call for 2nd amendment protection will also call for sanctions against Iran for seeking nuclear technological development for energy and medical needs.

Nuclear materials can be used for both medical technologies and power generation, so it's the best comparison. The US will tell countries it cannot pursue nuclear technology, while it can be used for both these positive things, yet will not quell its arms creation when its own borders suffer greatly from it.

a reply to: boncho

Yours is a better comparison than I did. It fits the situation better.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

Well ignoring the overwhelming overpriced healthcare in America that is a result of the free market being eliminated completely in that sector(HMOs, you #ing piece #s)...

More money is spent on health issues resulting from obesity than from guns.

Alcohol.

Tobacco.

Bad driving.

Cancer(probably caused by many of the above problems).

Stress.

Lack of access to healthcare.

The reason the cost of "guns" is never brought up is because it is irrelevant. It is a right of American citizens and whether some law breakers decide to use them to harm other people is irrelevant to whether MY rights are taken away.

Just like some idiot on a cell phone who's drinking and driving should not determine MY ability to drive.

Get it?

Or some fat idiots heart disease that was caused by years of stuffing hamburgers and ho hos into their mouths should not determine my right to be able to eat a cheese pizza every six months.

See?

Now then.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

Sigh is right because anyone paying attention to current world events don't want to see this country turned in to a 'caliphate' where they are currently banning guns at the moment.



Accidents happen EVERY DAY in this country by worse things.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

Common sense answers this one.

'Nuff said. And all around stars to every one that gets it.

a reply to: Destinyone

When you can point out where I said take your guns, then I may work on that issue..

I am saying for the health care costs..should people who want nothing to do with guns be paying for something that is a direct result of those guns.

Should gun manufacturers be held responsible for these injuries?

They have held tobacco companies responsible in the past for diseases caused by cigarettes, even though the cigarette did not get up and force its way into peoples mouths.(that one was for you NEO..).

a reply to: Onslaught2996

OK . . . Why isn't this ever brought up by the media when sensationalizing every "gun" incident in America?

Gun Homicide down 49% since 90's - public unaware

Why isn't the CDC touting the drop in "how much gun violence costs us" since the 90's? Because, that information would be the antithesis of the governments agenda.

Why is it that the public is led to believe that gun violence is "out of control" or at some all time high, when it has been dropping for the last 20 years? Or that the "all time high" for gun violence coincided with the ban on "assault weapons" and semi-auto handguns?

Why isn't the fact that the number of "school shootings" has remained relatively constant since 1985, according to the Dept. of Education's own statistics, ever brought up?

Fox said that since homicides are on the downswing in general, the overall shape of the graph wouldn't change much if you changed the definition of a mass shooting to, say, three victims or more. There isn't even any upswing in the number of school shooting victims, at least based on the Department of Education's own official statistics (PDF).

Mass shootings are not on the rise
DOE report on school shootings

Do some research and think for yourself . . . The CDC and FBI's own statistics does not match their rhetoric on this issue. But, all those who live in fear just keep gobbling up the propaganda.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

So Constitutional Rights have a price tag now?

Awesome!

How much does my 1st Amendment cost?

a reply to: Onslaught2996 We lost our society when we started to ban things based on health care stats. It is only time before they try to go down the list banning everything to the most extreme extent. You are a polluter cause you go aroung exhaling carbon all over mother earth. time

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
They have held tobacco companies responsible in the past for diseases caused by cigarettes, even though the cigarette did not get up and force its way into peoples mouths.(that one was for you NEO..

).

Tobacco companies also participated in a knowing deception of the public by advertising that not only was their product safe, it was good for your health.

Firearms manufactures are not promoting their products for anything they are not designed to accomplish.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
a reply to: Destinyone

When you can point out where I said take your guns, then I may work on that issue..

I am saying for the health care costs..should people who want nothing to do with guns be paying for something that is a direct result of those guns.

Should gun manufacturers be held responsible for these injuries?

They have held tobacco companies responsible in the past for diseases caused by cigarettes, even though the cigarette did not get up and force its way into peoples mouths.(that one was for you NEO..

).

Should car manufacturers be held responsible for drunk driving fatalities?

Should Frito-Lay be held responsible for obesity?

Should Coke or Pepsi be held responsible for the cost of diabetes care?

Also, tobacco companies were held liable for purposefully misrepresenting (lying) about the "dangers" of cigarettes . . . not because they are "harmful". Have gun manufacturers ever claimed that guns were not dangerous and will kill someone if you shoot them?

A little critical thinking goes a long way . . .

a reply to: solomons path

The real kicker we should be asking is why since gun violence has decreased has the costs from gun violence skyrocketed?

No really?

Shouldn't there have been a 49% decrease in the amount of money spent on gun related healthcare?

Wait why do stitches and pellet removal cost 1k?

What?

I think we are ignoring the real issue here.

a reply to: OrphanApology

Wait why do stitches and pellet removal cost 1k?

1. Fiat currency
2. Government regulation.
3. Lack of a 'free market' where the more people competing to brings goods and services to market the cheaper the cost to the consumer.