A Call to Action from the Nation's Nurses in the Wake of Newtown

PMFB-RN, RN · Jan 5, 2013

, their controls have been successful, with a 43% decrease in gun-related deaths.
.

*** I have learned not to expect answers to questions from you but I thought somebody else might chime in. Has there been an increase in non-firearms related deaths in the same time period? Common sence would tell me that in at least some cases some other weapons have been subsituted for firearms. Also of the 30,000 gun related deaths claimed how many were legitimate legal cases of self defence or police shootings?

Laws are only that, laws. By definition only the lawabiding people pay attention to them. Any particular gun law only effects those least likely to commit crimes with firearms.

Banning particular firearms based on cosmetic fetures does nothing to reduce their availabiliety. We know this from the example we have on the 1994-2004 national so-called assault weapons ban.

I would really like to hear ideas from those who are on the other side of this issue on how availablity of certain firearms might be achieved.

InfirmiereJolie · Jan 6, 2013

((HM-8406, here is the proof regarding the shortening of American's life spans as a result of firearm deaths))

"The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 2005, Vol. 72, No. 3, 359-374

THE COST OF FIREARM DEATHS IN THE UNITED STATES:

REDUCED LIFE EXPECTANCIES AND INCREASED

INSURANCE COSTS

Jean Lemaire

ABSTRACT

The United States remains far behind most other affluent countries in terms of life expectancy. One of the possible causes of this life expectancy gap is the widespread availability of firearms and the resulting high number of U.S. firearm fatalities: 10,801 homicides in 2000. The European Union experienced 1,260 homicides, Japan only 22. Using multiple decrement techniques, I show that firearm violence shortens the life of an average American by 104 days (151 days for white males, 362 days for black males). Among all fatal injuries, only motor vehicle accidents have a stronger effect. I estimate that the elimination of all firearm deaths in the United States would increase the male life expectancy more than the total eradication of all colon and prostate

cancers. My results suggest that the insurance premium increases paid by Americans as a result of firearm violence are probably of the same order of magnitude as the total medical costs due to gunshots or the increased cost of administering the criminal justice system due to gun crime. (pg 1)

CHANGES IN LIFE EXPECTANCIES

The reduction in life expectancy, in days, due to firearm deaths, for the different groups and causes of death, is found in Table 2. The average American loses 103.6 days of life due to firearm deaths, including 45.9 days lost to homicides and 52.3 days to suicides. The average white male loses 5 months, the average black male nearly one full year. Noteworthy is the huge impact of homicides for black males (nearly 300 days) and suicides for white males (over 100 days).

To place these effects in context, I calculate reductions in life expectancy due to other injuries and cancers in 2000, for an average American, using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2003) and the National Cancer Institute (2003). Among all fatal injuries, only motor vehicle crashes, with 160.5 lost days, have a larger effect than firearm violence (Table 3). Life expectancy reductions due to major cancers, as well as the percentage of Americans who die from each cancer, are presented in Table 4. This table provides the increase in life expectancy that would result from a total eradication of cancer. Cancers reduce the life expectancy of Americans by 2.25 years, with lungs by far the deadliest site. The effect of firearm violence for males, in terms of reduction in life expectancy, is much higher than the combined effect of all colon and prostate cancers. The elimination of all firearm deaths would increase the male life expectancy more than the eradication of all colon and prostate cancers. (pg 7)

DISCUSSION

Firearm Deaths Partially Explain the Low U.S. Life Expectancy

This study estimates the years of life lost to firearm deaths in the United States,

and the contribution of these deaths to the gap in life expectancy between the

United States and other affluent countries. In 2000, the U.S. male life expectancy was 74.1 years, compared to an average (weighted by population) of 75.8 years in the other 34 richest countries in the world. The United States thus suffers from a life expectancy gap of 1.7 years. My calculations show that 166.8 days or 26.86 percent of this gap can be explained by the disproportionate number of U.S. firearm deaths. For females, the U.S. life expectancy of 79.5 years lags 2.56 years behind the average female life

expectancy of the other 34 richest countries. Firearm deaths, reducing the life of the average U.S. female by 30.5 days, explain just 3.3 percent of the gap.

Within the United States, 256.6 days, or 10.6 percent of the life expectancy gap between white and black males of 6.6 years is due to firearm homicides. This is consistent with a previous study that found that 14.1 percent of the racial disparity in life expectancy for males was attributable to homicide by any means (Potter, 2001). Firearm homicides explain much less of the racial disparity in life expectancy for females, accounting for just 1.3 percent of the gap. Excess firearm suicides among whites reduce the racial disparity in life expectancy by 2.1 percent for males and 0.6 percent for females. (pg 8)

Firearm Injuries Have Not Been Taken Into Account

My calculations consider only firearm deaths and do not account for the increased mortality rate of individuals who survive serious firearm injuries. For example, about 11,000 new cases of spinal cord injury are reported each year, 24.5 percent of them the result of violence, primarily gunshot wounds (National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center, 2001). The life expectancy of a 20-year old who survived at least 1 year post spinal cord injury is reduced by 6.3 years in case of paraplegia, 11.3 years in case of low tetraplegia, 15.4 years in case of high tetraplegia, and 25.7 years in case of ventilator dependency. Since these reductions (and comparable ones from other injuries such as severe head trauma) have not been taken into account, the loss in life expectancy

attributable to firearms may be slightly underestimated.

....CONCLUSION

My findings suggest that the U.S. life expectancy would improve significantly with effective interventions to reduce firearm deaths. These deaths account for 26.86 percent of the U.S. males’ excess mortality when compared to peer nations, and 8.7 percent of the racial gap between black and white males in the United States. Although a causal link between the availability of firearms and the rate of firearm deaths has not been proven definitively, a body of U.S. and international studies has consistently shown a strong correlation between firearm availability and homicide (Wiebe, 2003; Kellerman et al., 1993; Miller, Azrael, and Hemenway, 2002; Cummings et al., 1997). As policymakers seek to reduce racial disparities in life expectancy in the United States, and raise U.S. life expectancy to the levels of peer nations, the potential impact of reducing the availability of firearms should be considered. In the United States, about 80 percent of firearm homicides (and about 70 percent of firearm suicides) are committed using a handgun, making this type of firearm a reasonable focus for

intervention. " (pg 14)

TABLES

http://www.fox.temple.edu/cms/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/JeanLemaire.pdf

So guns are the reason for shorter life expectancy in the US rather than Big Macs and our processed food addiction? Come on, be serious.

TopazLover, BSN, RN · Jan 6, 2013

I am not that sold on statistics. Are we counting war firearms? Do we include all the females killed in DV? Somehow I think there is a self -fulfilling prophecy in these stats. I do understand that I look at anecdotal rather than numbers crunching. I just find these stats nothing more than an insurance company doing their own creative work based on their policy holders or those who might be able to sue for losses. Certainly the stats written do not reflect my area.

I am quite middle of the road about guns.

InfirmiereJolie · Jan 6, 2013

You just used Ad Hominem, Red Herring, and Poisoning the Well...

However, as you can see above, homicides and suicides (over half, nearing 16,000) (which neither are classified as "self defense," which is actually far more unusual than has been claimed by false sources, i.e., they are primarily used for murders and purposeful deaths, and are certainly not usually police shootings, which I have seen to be extremely low overall, in the 10's or 100's) are the primary and cruel causes of firearm-related deaths...

Also, it is false to suggest only those with a criminal history are the perpetrators of these crimes. In fact, most do not have a previous criminal history. (Interesting.)

Australia discovered this back in the 1990's when they were formatting their gun legislation.

[h=3]Firearms and death in Australia[/h]"It has been estimated that 84 per cent of victims in mass killings between 1987 and 1993 were killed by a licensed gun holder, while 86 per cent of the victims were reportedly killed by a person with no recorded history of violent crime or mental illness.(6)"

The recent mass killing at Port Arthur, Tasmania, which left 35 people dead has sparked understandable concern about firearms in Australia. It is important to remember, however, that firearms are also significant contributors to deaths by accident, suicide and in individual killings - in particular, domestic homicides. Firearms are important contributors to death and injury in two ways. First, in terms of their availability and second, because they are lethal. The National Committee on Violence concluded: The vast majority of firearms homicides are unplanned and impulsive, and in all likelihood would not occur if such a lethal weapon were not to hand. The availability of a firearm in these circumstances makes death a far greater likelihood, for research has demonstrated that the death rate for victims assaulted by guns is several times that of those assaulted with lethal intent by knives or other weapons.(7)

International experience appears to support this finding and the view that the amount of violent death in the community is related to gun ownership. One study, based on a sample of 18 countries concluded:

Substantial correlations were found between gun ownership and gun-related as well as total suicide and homicide rates. Widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potentially lethal instruments less often when more guns are available, but more guns usually means more victims of suicide and homicide.(8)

After Port Arthur - Issues of Gun Control in Australia â€" Parliament of Australia

*** I have learned not to expect answers to questions from you but I thought somebody else might chime in. Has there been an increase in non-firearms related deaths in the same time period? Common sence would tell me that in at least some cases some other weapons have been subsituted for firearms. Also of the 30,000 gun related deaths claimed how many were legitimate legal cases of self defence or police shootings?
Laws are only that, laws. By definition only the lawabiding people pay attention to them. Any particular gun law only effects those least likely to commit crimes with firearms.
Banning particular firearms based on cosmetic fetures does nothing to reduce their availabiliety. We know this from the example we have on the 1994-2004 national so-called assault weapons ban.
I would really like to hear ideas from those who are on the other side of this issue on how availablity of certain firearms might be achieved.

TopazLover, BSN, RN · Jan 6, 2013

Most murderers only do it once unless contracted. Those rarely get caught. Most of that degree of violence is emotional and personal. To claim they would not have happened if a gun were not available denies the knife deaths, blugeonings, running someone over with a car, etc. Most of these aare also emotional murders. What we are currently seeing with the massacres is something different. I doubt we have any stats that really address what we are seeing. We have seen poison gas used in some places, England pops to mind quickly.

As I said, I am middle of the road about guns. I do not think there is one answer. I think LaPierre presents the NRA as knuckle draggers and fools. I know most are neithr. i think they are the people who can put pressure on the NRA, LaPierre and the gun lobby to be reasonable. Those who are advocating keeping the laws as they are or making less government interference need to offer something. There is a need for compromise. Compromise is when both sides are unhappy and can live with it.

PMFB-RN, RN · Jan 6, 2013

You just used Ad Hominem, Red Herring, and Poisoning the Well...

Whatever. I will be interested in your point of view when you decide to engage in an honest discussion and stop name calling and refusing to answer any questions about your own position.

InfirmiereJolie · Jan 6, 2013

I am not subject to your questions or what you want me to do. This is a public forum where I can post whatever, wherever I want to and when I want to. If you don't like it, you do not have to answer.

You can cherry pick what you want to discuss while ignoring the blaring facts and statistics which completely obliterate your position, then continue to do so and claim I am not giving a response. People though can completely see what is being written and can see your side has been 100% incinerated, if they have an open mind, that is.

((((BTW, the rest of the post which was chopped up in my quote he conveniently left out was...

"However, as you can see above, homicides and suicides (over half, nearing 16,000) (which neither are classified as "self defense," which is actually far more unusual than has been claimed by false sources, i.e., they are primarily used for murders and purposeful deaths, and are certainly not usually police shootings, which I have seen to be extremely low overall, in the 10's or 100's) are the primary and cruel causes of firearm-related deaths...

Also, it is false to suggest only those with a criminal history are the perpetrators of these crimes. In fact, most do not have a previous criminal history. (Interesting.)

Australia discovered this back in the 1990's when they were formatting their gun legislation.

[h=3]Firearms and death in Australia[/h]"It has been estimated that 84 per cent of victims in mass killings between 1987 and 1993 were killed by a licensed gun holder, while 86 per cent of the victims were reportedly killed by a person with no recorded history of violent crime or mental illness.(6)"

The recent mass killing at Port Arthur, Tasmania, which left 35 people dead has sparked understandable concern about firearms in Australia. It is important to remember, however, that firearms are also significant contributors to deaths by accident, suicide and in individual killings - in particular, domestic homicides. Firearms are important contributors to death and injury in two ways. First, in terms of their availability and second, because they are lethal. The National Committee on Violence concluded: The vast majority of firearms homicides are unplanned and impulsive, and in all likelihood would not occur if such a lethal weapon were not to hand. The availability of a firearm in these circumstances makes death a far greater likelihood, for research has demonstrated that the death rate for victims assaulted by guns is several times that of those assaulted with lethal intent by knives or other weapons.(7)

International experience appears to support this finding and the view that the amount of violent death in the community is related to gun ownership. One study, based on a sample of 18 countries concluded:

Substantial correlations were found between gun ownership and gun-related as well as total suicide and homicide rates. Widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potentially lethal instruments less often when more guns are available, but more guns usually means more victims of suicide and homicide.(8)

After Port Arthur - Issues of Gun Control in Australia â€" Parliament of Australia"

I hope for the person who posted above that the substitution effects are null and void, based on false assumptions and been dis-proven over and over again in numerous studies. The most used weapon in homicides: guns.

Out of ALL countries listed previously (where there are SIXTY FIVE (65!) countries which have lower gun-related deaths... America has more guns, and less strict laws, than the 65 BETTER countries in terms of managing their gun-related deaths. We were #10 in terms of severity of gun deaths (embarrassing on the world stage), behind ALL 1st world countries and many developing countries as well. Many guns are even smuggled out of America to wreck havoc in other countries, as seen in Canada.

Whatever. I will be interested in your point of view when you decide to engage in an honest discussion and stop name calling and refusing to answer any questions about your own position.

HM-8404, BSN, RN · Jan 6, 2013

Here is a fact many anti-gun folks like to ignore

In Hospital Deaths from Medical Errors at 195,000 per Year USA

It appears guns are less deadly than Obamacare.

PMFB-RN, RN · Jan 6, 2013

I am not subject to your questions or what you want me to do. This is a public forum where I can post whatever, wherever I want to and when I want to. If you don't like it, you do not have to answer

*** Yes thank you for pointing out the obvious in a most condecending manner as you have often done during this discussion. While I would think it so obvious as to not need pointing out that you are not subject to my (or apperently any) questions, your name calling, condecending manner of writing, and failure to engage in honest dialog destroys your credabiliety.

I offered the comments to help you. I believe you have valuable imput to offer. If you could just put them together in some coherent way that could be followed and in some way were related to other parts of the discussion.

InfirmiereJolie · Jan 6, 2013

Medical Error is a world-wide problem and has no relationship with gun control laws or the number of guns owned.

"One reason for the observation that system-wide progress in patient safety is slow is that compliance even with simple and inexpensive interventions such as hand disinfection remains low [36] and the penetration of evidence-based safety practices has been quite modest and often needs years of change [46]. It is surprising that this slow and fractious progress seems to be to some extent accepted by health policy leaders and clinicians, given the safety epidemic and the widespread perception of medical error in the general public. For example, in a recent citizen survey conducted in eleven high-income countries, one out of ten citizens reported medical or medication error [47]. However, this rate varied widely between countries (range: 5% in the UK, 11% in Switzerland, 13% in the US, 16% in Norway). "

David L. B. Schwappach^a,b, Dieter Conen^a

^a Swiss Patient Safety Foundation, Zuerich, Switzerland

^b Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Switzerland

Swiss Medical Weekly, SMW - Swiss Medical Weekly -Â 22802216

Remember, Switzerland - which trains its citizens (each young adult male) to be soldiers by law and has 28% gun ownership, and astronomical suicide and domestic violence rates (even more victims by assisted suicide groups and climbing.. 748 exactly..) - is the outlier of the EU which is usually used to argue against any gun laws.

Here is a fact many anti-gun folks like to ignore
In Hospital Deaths from Medical Errors at 195,000 per Year USA
It appears guns are less deadly than Obamacare.

TopazLover, BSN, RN · Jan 7, 2013

Here is a fact many anti-gun folks like to ignore
In Hospital Deaths from Medical Errors at 195,000 per Year USA
It appears guns are less deadly than Obamacare.

ACA is just coming into the picture. it really cannot be blamed for stats 10 years old. It could be a good reason for needing to be implemented, who knows.

I don't think either situation, medical error or gun deaths, is one to brag about.

Esme12, ASN, BSN, RN · Jan 7, 2013

This is one of those polarizing issues that there is no real middle ground.

Allnurses supports lively debates as long as everyone is respectful of each other and each others opinions. We a;so ask to please refrain from name-calling...... This is divisive, rude, and derails the thread.

Our first priority is to the members that have come here because of the flame-free atmosphere we provide. There is a zero-tolerance policy here against personal attacks. We will not tolerate anyone insulting other's opinion nor name calling.

Our call is to be supportive, not divisive.

We can disagree without being disagreeable.

A Call to Action from the Nation's Nurses in the Wake of Newtown

Nurses: Do You Support a Call to Action in the Wake of Newtown + other shootings