A Call to Action from the Nation’s Nurses in the Wake of Newtown - Page 16
Register Today!-
Dec 31, '12 by InfirmiereJolieTyvin, I was raised by a single parent and never smoked, never drank, never broke the law... received many awards in school "Star Student, ect" never bullied anyone (as far as I know), good to my friends and others, was involved in sports, dance, and many other EC's, worked since 14 in various part time jobs, graduated and went to college with scholarships.... got a 4.0 in college, took leadership positions in student organizations, volunteered, ect. All it takes is one good person (you actually do not need two)... or better yet, one's OWN will, determination, ambition, and hard work.
Single parenthood has nothing to do with well... anything (negative that is). The president was practically raised completely by his mother, practically a single parent from the get-go. There are many with this same story. Even more dramatic... I know people who had practically no parents at all and are doing just fine on their own. I can think of examples where people decide to not follow their family's footsteps. Why does this happen? Clearly it's due to a person's own free will - their ability to make their own choices of how they are going to live their lives. People control themselves and their actions. They are their own keepers. It is "I can because I want to" not "I can because someone tells me I can."
Genetics, home life, socioeconomic situation, geographic location (in America i.e.,) has nothing to do with what path a person ultimately chooses for themselves - it is their own free will and self-control. It is their choice.
(on separate subject in post, last par)...Actually, if you look at research on it... people are LESS likely to sadly and impulsively (which it usually is, contrary to some belief) make a snap decision when guns are not accessible. They also have a higher survival rate if they try. Pg 10 by Jean Lemaire, The Journal of Risk and Insurance... "The unavailability of a firearm then would reduce the fatality rate of firearm suicides from 96.5 percent to 22.42 percent [overall] for males, and from 96 percent to 5.99 percent [overall] for females" http://www.fox.temple.edu/cms/wp-con...eanLemaire.pdf (note, he is taking into account other methods and substitution).
This is like putting seat belts into a car.
((At least the American Nursing Association, Canadian Federation for Nursing Unions, and the Nurse/Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy recognize this and are making a difference re D.C. lawmaking))
Quote from tyvinWe can have all the rules and what not in our society on how kids do this and that; what makes them violent, which generation is better, how guns are bad, etc... but ultimately it starts with the parents at home. With over 50% of kids growing up in single parent families what leads to the center of the problem is clear to me.
Is it the video games or is it a coincidence that the divorce rate and teenage pregnancy was on the rise at the same time more or less? Also, the fact that more parents are reluctant to let their kids play outside unsupervised for fear of never seeing them again with all the disappearing children on the increase. Young kids coming home to empty houses due to parent/parents working.
Is crime on the rise or is it now with advanced technology in place how we are able to hear about every gruesome crime at the exact time it happens just by turning on the TV, radio, or computer? 50 years ago unless we were related to the family members or in the state we wouldn't have heard of nearly any of the stuff we do today.
It isn't just this generation or the other but all generations had parents trying to act like friends to their kids instead of actual parents. I believe it started witht the increasing divorce rate. Everyone has their opinions and everyone has their own particular soapbox but that doesn't make the next persons any less important. It starts in the home with the aid and access to education of mental health for everyone, including kids (right along with drug and alcohol education), and taking responsibility for each one's children.
With over 70% of all gun deaths attributed to suicide (InfirmiereJolie) that is very telling. It tells me that gun control isn't the issue; the issue is mental health and home life. You know if they didn't have a gun they would have more then likely killed themselves in another way. Mental health has always taken a back seat to most things, it's time to bring it to the front of the room. When listening to the POTUS promoting his health care bill, I never heard him speak about mental health.
It's time.
Quote from KyrshamarksThis is exactly why guns are harmful - they propel an "all or nothing" attitude... 100% success or 100% failure, alive or dead... false dilemma fallacy... as seen in this post.Well as a nurse all I have to say on this is the day they come for my guns is the day I end up dying more than likely. I will fight anyone that tries totake them away from me. Thankfully though that will not happen as NONE of my guns are registered and I do own quite a few guns including the oh so scary M 4 Bushmaster in bothlong version and theshortversionthat is considereda pistol. Even scarier I own a preban Uzi That is full auto. I even have silencers for a couple of my pistols as well as for the Bushmaster.
p.s they all are (gasp!) kept loaded
People are so blind, they cannot see it... There has to be something done. At 30,000 gun-related deaths a year this adds up to 2,370,000 deaths (times 79, 2012-1933) since 1933 (first year it was recorded). This is as large as to be called genocide... a strong and suitable word for a horrific, atrocious amount.... When people look at this number or anything related to gun-deaths, they just bat their eye, as if it was nothing. Any statistics, any graphs, any facts, any comparisions to ourselves to countries around the world.. the 65 countries leading us in managing this, goes in one ear... and out another...
Also, re: registration... In Canada all long guns are required to be registered... this is one thing the Canadian Federation of Nursing Unions is strongly supporting in the previous post with persuasive and masterful ethos, pathos, and logos.aknottedyarn likes this. -
Jan 4 by Wile E CoyoteQuote from InfirmiereJolieAh ,the lovely Canadian gun registry. Perhaps you'd be interested to know that the gun registry has been dismantled due to it's resounding failure and unjustified expense.r)
Also, re: registration... In Canada all long guns are required to be registered... this is one thing the Canadian Federation of Nursing Unions is strongly supporting in the previous post with persuasive and masterful ethos, pathos, and logos. -
Jan 4 by HM-8404Quote from InfirmiereJolieInteresting information. Am I the only one that noticed something the top countries, including the US, have in common? Two things actually. They all have major drug problems and they also have major gang problems.Congratulations! America is ranked #65 out of SEVENTY FIVE (75) listed countries... making it have the 10th highest amounts of gun-related deaths, just behind El Salvador, Jamaica, Honduras, Guatemala, Swaziland, Columbia, Brazil, Panama and Mexico!!!! And BEHIND EVERY 1st WORLD COUNRY, ALL of Europe, and almost all of our trading partners what success!
El Salvador 50.36 50.36 NA NA NA 2009 OAS 2011[1] Jamaica 47.44 47.44 NA NA NA 2009 OAS 2011[1] Honduras 46.70 46.70 NA NA NA 2007 OAS 2011[1] Guatemala 38.52 38.52 NA NA NA 2009 OAS 2011[1] Swaziland 37.16 37.16 NA NA NA 2004 UNODC 2006[1] Colombia 28.11 27.10 0.87 0.14 NA 2009 UNODC 2011 [2] Brazil 19.01 18.10 0.73 0.18 NA 2008 UNODC 2011[3] Panama 12.92 12.92 NA NA NA 2010 OAS 2011[1] Mexico 11.14 10.00 0.67 0.47 NA 2010 UNODC 2011[4] United States
10.2 3.7 6.1 0.2 0.1 2009 OAS 2012[5][6] (10th place in HIGHEST number of gun-related deaths.What a horrifying embarressment on the world stage and sad for our poor people!)
Philippines 9.46 9.46 NA NA NA 2002 UNODC 2002[7] South Africa 9.41 NA NA NA NA 2012 UNODC 2012[8] & Stats SA[9] Montenegro 8.55 2.06 6.49 NA NA 2009 WHO 2012[10] Paraguay 7.35 7.35 NA NA NA 2000 UNODC 2000[11] Nicaragua 7.14 7.14 NA NA NA 2007 OAS 2011[1] Argentina 5.65 3.00 2.01 0.64 NA 2001 2008 UNODC 2011[12] Canada 4.78 0.76 3.72 0.22 NA 1992 Krug 1998[13] Zimbabwe 4.75 4.75 NA NA NA 2000 UNODC 2000[11] Serbia 3.90 0.62 2.81 0.18 0.29 2010 WHO 2012[10] Finland 3.64 0.26 3.34 0.02 0.02 2010 WHO 2012[10] Switzerland 3.5 0.52 3.15 0.10 0.07 2010 OAS 2011[1] Costa Rica 3.32 3.32 NA NA NA 2002 UNODC 2002[7] Uruguay 3.24 3.24 NA NA NA 2002 UNODC 2002[7] Croatia 3.01 0.57 2.35 0.07 0.02 2010 WHO 2012[10] Barbados 3 3 NA NA NA 2000 UNODC 2000[11] France 3.00 0.22 2.33 0.05 0.41 2009 WHO 2012[10] Austria 2.94 0.18 2.68 NA 0.08 2010 WHO 2012[10] New Zealand 2.66 0.17 2.14 0.09 NA 1993 Krug 1998[13] Estonia 2.54 0.30 1.57 0.07 0.60 2010 WHO 2012[10] Slovenia 2.44 0.05 2.34 NA 0.05 2010 WHO 2012[10] Belgium 2.43 0.29 1.96 0.01 0.16 2006 WHO 2012[10] Malta 2.16 0.48 1.68 NA NA 2010 WHO 2012[10] Peru 1.87 1.87 NA NA NA 2009 OAS 2011[1] Israel 1.86 0.94 0.71 0.03 0.19 2009 WHO 2012[10] Republic of Macedonia 1.04 0.45 0.42 0.08 0.08 2011 WHO 2012[10] Luxembourg 1.81 0.60 1.00 NA 0.20 2009 WHO 2012[10] Norway 1.78 0.04 1.72 0.02 NA 2010 WHO 2012[10] Portugal 1.77 0.48 1.09 0.02 0.18 2010 WHO 2012[10] Czech Republic 1.76 0.12 1.39 0.10 0.15 2010 WHO 2012[10] Slovakia 1.75 0.18 0.94 0.39 0.24 2010 WHO 2012[10] Lithuania 1.61 0.24 1.00 0.03 0.33 2010 WHO 2012[10] Georgia 1.54 0.23 0.09 1.00 0.23 2009 WHO 2012[10] Greece 1.5 0.59 0.84 0.04 NA 1994 Krug 1998[13] Sweden 1.47 0.19 1.20 0.06 0.01 2010 WHO 2012[10] Denmark 1.45 0.22 1.16 0.04 0.04 2006 WHO 2012[10] Latvia 1.43 0.18 0.94 0.04 0.27 2010 WHO 2012[10] Bulgaria 1.35 0.23 0.87 0.14 0.11 2011 WHO 2012[10] Italy 1.28 0.36 0.81 0.08 0.03 2009 WHO 2012[10] Kuwait 1.25 0.36 0.06 0 NA 1995 Krug 1998[13] Iceland 1.25 NA 1.25 NA NA 2009 WHO 2012[10] Germany 1.10 0.06 0.94 0.02 0.08 2010 WHO 2012[10] Moldova 1.04 1.04 NA NA NA 2011 WHO 2012[10] Australia 1.05 0.09 0.79 0.02 0.15 2008 UNODC 2011[14] Ireland 1.03 0.36 0.56 0.04 0.07 2010 WHO 2012[10] Kyrgyzstan 1.01 0.53 0.07 0.28 0.13 2010 WHO 2012[10] India 0.93 0.93 NA NA NA 2000 UNODC 2000[11] Hungary 0.85 0.13 0.72 NA NA 2009 WHO 2012[10] Cyprus 0.83 0.24 0.48 NA 0.11 2010 WHO 2012[10] Uzbekistan 0.68 0.58 0.03 NA 0.08 2005 WHO 2012[10] Spain 0.63 0.15 0.42 0.05 0.01 2010 WHO 2012[10] Netherlands 0.46 0.20 0.24 0.01 0.01 2010 WHO 2012[10] Taiwan 0.42 0.13 0.12 0.11 NA 1994 Krug 1998[13] Belarus 0.38 0.38 NA NA NA 2002 UNODC 2002[7] Ukraine 0.35 0.35 NA NA NA 2000 UNODC 2000[11] United Kingdom 0.25 0.04 0.17 0.01 0.02 2011 WHO2012 [10] Poland 0.26 0.02 0.12 0.02 0.09 2010 WHO 2012[10] Singapore 0.24 0.07 0.17 0 NA 1994 Krug 1998[13] Romania 0.20 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.01 2010 WHO 2012[10] Hong Kong 0.19 0.12 0.07 0 NA 1993 Krug 1998[13] Mauritius 0.19 0 0.09 0.09 NA 1993 Krug 1998[13] Qatar 0.18 0.18 NA NA NA 2000 UNODC 2000[11] South Korea 0.13 0.04 0.02 0.05 NA 1994 Krug 1998[13] Japan 0.07 0.02 0.04 0 NA 1994 Krug 1998[13] Azerbaijan 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.02 NA 2007 WHO 2012[10] Chile 0.06 0.06 NA NA NA 2002 UNODC 2002[7]
10.2 (ours) vs the lowest .06 (Chile)... which makes ours ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY (170) TIMES HIGHER! And while the entire European Union (500 million people and 27 countries) had only 1,260 murders by guns... the United States (only 300 million compared to 500 million) had 10,801!!!!!! http://www.fox.temple.edu/cms/wp-con...eanLemaire.pdf That is nearly 10 times higher.
Why would Sweden, Finland, Qatar, etc have a lot of gun deaths, they don't have the same social problems as us. They don't have armed gangs killing each other over turf to sell their drugs. But we do, just like Mexico and Colombia. Yeah, banning guns would solve that problem in a week or two.
Did you also notice how old some of these statistics are? They go back as far as 1993.Last edit by HM-8404 on Jan 4 : Reason: added info - Jan 4 by HM-8404Quote from InfirmiereJolieDo you realize using your own number of 30,000 gun deaths a year that equates to 0.01% of the population? I wonder how many of those 30,000 were killed in the commission of a criminal activity, i.e. gang bangers killing each other off?Tyvin, I was raised by a single parent and never smoked, never drank, never broke the law... received many awards in school "Star Student, ect" never bullied anyone (as far as I know), good to my friends and others, was involved in sports, dance, and many other EC's, worked since 14 in various part time jobs, graduated and went to college with scholarships.... got a 4.0 in college, took leadership positions in student organizations, volunteered, ect. All it takes is one good person (you actually do not need two)... or better yet, one's OWN will, determination, ambition, and hard work.
Single parenthood has nothing to do with well... anything (negative that is). The president was practically raised completely by his mother, practically a single parent from the get-go. There are many with this same story. Even more dramatic... I know people who had practically no parents at all and are doing just fine on their own. I can think of examples where people decide to not follow their family's footsteps. Why does this happen? Clearly it's due to a person's own free will - their ability to make their own choices of how they are going to live their lives. People control themselves and their actions. They are their own keepers. It is "I can because I want to" not "I can because someone tells me I can."
Genetics, home life, socioeconomic situation, geographic location (in America i.e.,) has nothing to do with what path a person ultimately chooses for themselves - it is their own free will and self-control. It is their choice.
(on separate subject in post, last par)...Actually, if you look at research on it... people are LESS likely to sadly and impulsively (which it usually is, contrary to some belief) make a snap decision when guns are not accessible. They also have a higher survival rate if they try. Pg 10 by Jean Lemaire, The Journal of Risk and Insurance... "The unavailability of a firearm then would reduce the fatality rate of firearm suicides from 96.5 percent to 22.42 percent [overall] for males, and from 96 percent to 5.99 percent [overall] for females" http://www.fox.temple.edu/cms/wp-con...eanLemaire.pdf (note, he is taking into account other methods and substitution).
This is like putting seat belts into a car.
((At least the American Nursing Association, Canadian Federation for Nursing Unions, and the Nurse/Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy recognize this and are making a difference re D.C. lawmaking))
This is exactly why guns are harmful - they propel an "all or nothing" attitude... 100% success or 100% failure, alive or dead... false dilemma fallacy... as seen in this post.
People are so blind, they cannot see it... There has to be something done. At 30,000 gun-related deaths a year this adds up to 2,370,000 deaths (times 79, 2012-1933) since 1933 (first year it was recorded). This is as large as to be called genocide... a strong and suitable word for a horrific, atrocious amount.... When people look at this number or anything related to gun-deaths, they just bat their eye, as if it was nothing. Any statistics, any graphs, any facts, any comparisions to ourselves to countries around the world.. the 65 countries leading us in managing this, goes in one ear... and out another...
Also, re: registration... In Canada all long guns are required to be registered... this is one thing the Canadian Federation of Nursing Unions is strongly supporting in the previous post with persuasive and masterful ethos, pathos, and logos.lindarn likes this. - Jan 5 by InfirmiereJolieHM-8404, according to the National Gang Center of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, gang-related homicides only count for about 2,000 (12%, meaning a ginormous 88% of gun-homicides are by those who are not gang members) out of all homicides (and 15,000 of all homicides are gun-related, meaning nearly all homicides are by gun). Even with all of these gang-related homicides being theoretically gun-related (some statistics show they nearly all are by gun as well, as overall), this is only 2,000 out of the 30,000 gun-related deaths... meaning merely .06% of gun-deaths are gang-related.
Even if gang-related violence was completely 100% eliminated, there would STILL be 28,000 gun-related deaths per year. Computing from the time gun-related deaths were first published (1933), with the subtraction of the substitution of gang-related firearm homicides.... this would still horrifyingly... add up to 2,212,000 gun-related, un-called for, cruel deaths... still an atrocious genocide and an abomination against humanity... a strong word for a large, devastating amount.
Source:
Measuring the Extent of Gang Problems "The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2006 to 2010. During the same time period, the FBI estimated, on average, more than 16,000 homicides across the United States (www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls). These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 12 percent of all homicides annually."
Also, most of those statistics are from 2012 and 2011. I see none on the list I gave which are from 1993. If one looks at the research, while other countries have implemented considerable regulation and control early on, lowering their numbers of deaths and increasing their life-spans (we fall far behind on overall life-span as well.. Jean Lamaire is keen on this having, partly, to do with our revolting number gun-related deaths... as he wrote in the Journal of Risk and Insurance), we have failed to do anything, accounting for nearly static, epidemic numbers in comparison.... an embarrassment on the world stage and catastrophic for our people.
Quote from HM-8404Interesting information. Am I the only one that noticed something the top countries, including the US, have in common? Two things actually. They all have major drug problems and they also have major gang problems.
Why would Sweden, Finland, Qatar, etc have a lot of gun deaths, they don't have the same social problems as us. They don't have armed gangs killing each other over turf to sell their drugs. But we do, just like Mexico and Colombia. Yeah, banning guns would solve that problem in a week or two.
Did you also notice how old some of these statistics are? They go back as far as 1993.Quote from HM-8404Do you realize using your own number of 30,000 gun deaths a year that equates to 0.01% of the population? I wonder how many of those 30,000 were killed in the commission of a criminal activity, i.e. gang bangers killing each other off?
Quote from Wile E CoyoteIn Canada, this was a partisanship issue (by a minority party at this... which remarkably was elected), controversial and heated, half or more of the country is against it. The registration could be replaced shorty by a majority, not minority, party (already it is being an issue for the opposing side)... Most importantly, healthcare professionals (such as the Canadian Federation of Nursing Unions) and law enforcement are completely against the changes. Contrary to this post, according to statistics attained by the Canadian Federation of Nursing Unions, in their letter to the Canadian Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, their controls have been successful, with a 43% decrease in gun-related deaths.Ah ,the lovely Canadian gun registry. Perhaps you'd be interested to know that the gun registry has been dismantled due to it's resounding failure and unjustified expense.
"In April 2010, CFNU [Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions] joined Canadian healthcare organizations, such as the Canadian Association for Adolescent Health, the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, the Canadian
Paediatric Society, the Canadian Public Health Association and many others in releasing a joint statement on the gun control and the long gun registry.
Why? Because over the years, members of the health community have fought for stronger controls
on firearms.
Why? Because of the staggering burden of preventable gun death and injury: almost 1400
Canadians died of gunshots in 1991, close to half the number killed in automobile crashes.
The vast majority of firearm deaths in Canada are not gang related but occur when an ordinary
citizen becomes suicidal or violent, often under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or during a
personal crisis such as marital breakdown or job loss. We also know that when firearms are
available, domestic homicides are more likely to involve multiple victims and end in suicide.
We are therefore encouraged to see positive results since the latest waves of legislative reforms. In
2005, there were 818 firearms related deaths in Canada. This represents an astonishing decrease of 43% of all gun deaths since 1991.
Health organizations fought to pass improvements to the law in 1991 as well as in 1995. Scientific research shows that progressive controls on firearms have resulted in a reduction in firearm death and injury. Canada’s law has been cited as a model of effective legislation worldwide, particularly
in combating violence against women. It is also consistent with global norms including the
recently announced European Firearms Directive which establishes uniform standards for all
European Union countries and includes the registration of all firearms.
As health professionals, we know the importance of investing in prevention, whether in road
safety or prevention of infectious diseases. It is true that one cannot easily measure prevention, but we can certainly measure the effects of ignoring it. To our knowledge, six different coroners’
inquests recommended the licensing of gun owners and registration of all firearms. Indeed, our
daily practice informs us of the very real risks associated with firearms and of the value of a strong gun control law.
Health and safety is a key concern of our work as a union as well as our work as health
professionals.Ensuring health and safety is about identifying and mitigating risk. We know that registration reduces risk of firearm related injury and death.
As nurses, as women, as trade unionists, CFNU urges the Senate Committee to recommend
against the passage of Bill C-19."
The Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, another portion from the letter sent to the Canadian Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs http://www.nursesunions.ca/sites/def...ch_28_2012.pdf
Even with this change (strongly against health professionals' and law-enforcements' recommendations and urges for the laws continuity)...Canada still has more restrictive laws than the USA.
"[Prime Minister of Canada Stephan] Harper said it's worth remembering that Canada has a stronger, stricter gun control system than exists in the United States, even without the long-gun registry.
"We will not change the basis of this system. Actually, we have reinforced certain parts," he said.
Harper said Canada continues to require gun licences and that handguns and restricted weapons be registered.
"We will keep this system that works." Canada's gun controls 'work,' Harper says in wake of Newtown - Politics - CBC News
All other firearms in Canada still need to be registered, even with these changes. - Jan 5 by HM-8404Quote from InfirmiereJolieHM-8404, according to the National Gang Center of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, gang-related homicides only count for about 2,000 (12%, meaning a ginormous 88% of gun-homicides are by those who are not gang members) out of all homicides (and 15,000 of all homicides are gun-related, meaning nearly all homicides are by gun). Even with all of these gang-related homicides being theoretically gun-related (some statistics show they nearly all are by gun as well, as overall), this is only 2,000 out of the 30,000 gun-related deaths... meaning merely .06% of gun-deaths are gang-related.
I said in the commission of a crime such as a gang banger. You say MERELY 0.06% of gun deaths are gang related. If 0.06% is considered merely what do you consider 0.01%?
Even if gang-related violence was completely 100% eliminated, there would STILL be 28,000 gun-related deaths per year. Computing from the time gun-related deaths were first published (1933), with the subtraction of the substitution of gang-related firearm homicides.... this would still horrifyingly... add up to 2,212,000 gun-related, un-called for, cruel deaths... still an atrocious genocide and an abomination against humanity... a strong word for a large, devastating amount.
In your 80 year example how many people were killed by tobacco, alcohol, or automobile accidents? I guess guns just look more scary than a bottle of Miller Lite, or a Chevy Malibu.
Source:
Measuring the Extent of Gang Problems "The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2006 to 2010. During the same time period, the FBI estimated, on average, more than 16,000 homicides across the United States (www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls). These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 12 percent of all homicides annually."
Also, most of those statistics are from 2012 and 2011. I see none on the list I gave which are from 1993. If one looks at the research, while other countries have implemented considerable regulation and control early on, lowering their numbers of deaths and increasing their life-spans (we fall far behind on overall life-span as well.. Jean Lamaire is keen on this having, partly, to do with our revolting number gun-related deaths... as he wrote in the Journal of Risk and Insurance), we have failed to do anything, accounting for nearly static, epidemic numbers in comparison.... an embarrassment on the world stage and catastrophic for our people.
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. -
Jan 5 by PMFB-RNQuote from InfirmiereJolie*** 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?, their controls have been successful, with a 43% decrease in gun-related deaths.
.
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. - Jan 5 by InfirmiereJolie((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
Quote from HM-8404So guns are the reason for shorter life expectancy in the US rather than Big Macs and our processed food addiction? Come on, be serious.Last edit by InfirmiereJolie on Jan 5 : Reason: formating, info - Guide
Jan 5 by aknottedyarnI 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. - Jan 5 by InfirmiereJolieYou 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.
Firearms and death in Australia
"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 – Parliament of Australia
Quote from PMFB-RN*** 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.
