A blog dedicated to the rational discussion of politics and current events.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Another PSA from Mayors Against Illegal Guns
It’s tough to focus our public discourse on reducing gun crime. But in the wake of the Tucson shooting, a quarter million Americans have come together to sign the petition to Fix Gun Checks and stop dangerous people from getting guns.
Yet even as momentum builds for critical, common sense reforms, 34 Americans are still murdered by guns every day. Now is the time to demand the nation’s attention and shine a spotlight on the need to fix our broken background check system.
That’s why Mayors Against Illegal Guns is launching a National Drive to Fix Gun Checks and raise awareness of gun crime all across the country.
We kicked off our effort this morning in New York, and our drive will take us to Tucson, AZ and back to Washington, DC. Along the way, we’ll gather signatures for the Fix Gun Checks petition and meet with elected officials who have pledged their support.
Watch the kick-off video and follow the National Drive to Fix Gun Checks on Facebook and Twitter.
Gun crime doesn’t put our families in danger in just one city or state. It’s a national crisis -- and it’s going to take a concerted effort from supporters like you in all 50 states to solve it.
That’s why the National Drive to Fix Gun Checks is so important. We’ll spread the word about fixing our broken background check system in communities across the country. And we’ll give victims of gun violence the chance to share their stories and make their voices heard.
On the side of the truck is a stark message that we’re taking from state to state: a live counter of how many Americans have been murdered with guns since the shooting in Tucson – a number that is now at 1,329. That toll will keep rising until we finally stop dangerous people from getting their hands on firearms.
Follow the progress of the National Drive to Fix Gun Checks:
We can’t wait around for our elected officials in Washington to get their act together. Let’s take this campaign right to their home states and show them that it’s time to Fix Gun Checks.
I'd like the anti-gun crowd to provide me two numbers regarding your ideal background check system: 1) the annual cost of the system, and 2) the estimated number of murders and suicides it will prevent. In other words, what is the cost per life saved per year?
How would this cost compare with potentially cheaper options like suicide prevention programs, or with doing nothing different?
Since you're proposing restricting our enumerated constitutional rights, you must have considered this question.
First of all MAgunowner, welcome to Penigma - you are another commenter who has come to us courtesy of mikeb302000's blog (so an additional tip of the hat to MikeB).
I don't have that information you requested on the annual cost of an ideal background check at my fingertips, but if I may request your patience, I will try to get a good figure for you after I fact check it.
You ask an excellent question about costs however, that actually rather neatly ties into something else I am in the process of writing, about the dollar figures used by the government in different departments and agencies to value a human life. Just off the top, here is one of the articles that address that value; http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/07/the-value-of-a.html (there are others).
For purposes of government regulation (and that can apply to law as well) the current value of a human life (a murder victim or suicide prevented) is, currently, between $6 million dollars and $9 million dollars EACH.
So, if I may be excused the callous nature of this computation for purposes of answering your question, whatever the figure for operating an ideal background check and enforcing it wouldn't have to save very many lives to justify its existence in terms of cost.
MAgunowner - does this adequately respond to your question, or did you need more? I'm trying to avoid too much research, to the point of losing effectiveness and focus.
The Cost of Firearm Deaths in the United States: Reduced Life Expectancies and Increased Insurance Costs
Jean Lemaire University of Pennsylvania - The Wharton School
Journal of Risk and Insurance, Vol. 72, No. 3, pp. 359-374, September 2005
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. Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: August 31, 2005 Suggested Citation
Lemaire, Jean, The Cost of Firearm Deaths in the United States: Reduced Life Expectancies and Increased Insurance Costs . Journal of Risk and Insurance, Vol. 72, No. 3, pp. 359-374, September 2005. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=782994
I appreciate your thoughtful response. However, I think the sentiment of Bloomberg and his supporters is "no matter the cost, even if it saves one life, it's worth it." (with a healthy dose of "it's for the children")
The cost/benefit issue, though, is begging the question of whether the Brady background checks have saved even one life at all.
I'm glad you found my initial rapid response thoughtful; I'm still trying to research a more complete answer but am getting hung up this morning on multi-tasking, including stuck on hold repeatedly with a local utility to resolve an issue, and.....trying to get rid of a mouse that ran across my foot.
Fortunately, I've never been one of those cartoon types to scream and stand on a chair. I'm not bothered by spiders, snakes or amphibians of any variety, mice or bats, etc. But it is...... distracting. Especially when mobbed by a pack of very large dogs who have decided they 1. desperately and immediately need to protect me from this tiny rodent(dog pile isn't just a web search option); and 2. they have all become mighty mousers, with rather hilarious results. (I applaud all prey drive in these very large sighthounds...but it's time to pick on something closer to your own size, dogs!)
So, if I might beg a bit more of your patience, I shall persevere (as best I can). However, if I might point out, you are asking me in effect to prove a negative - to prove that someone didn't commit murder or suicide. I cannot prove a negative.
I do believe however that I can provide some reasonable support that lives are being saved by gun regulation. It is posited by Harvard Economics Professor / author (Triumph of the City) Edward Glaeser for example, in reference to his book, in an interview with Jon Stewart on the Daily show. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-14-2011/edward-glaeser, who specifically references decreased rates of suicides because of guns being kept out of the hands of people who would commit suicide. The quotation/discussion is approximately 53 seconds in, where Professor Glaeser references decreased guns in the possession of "suicide prone" demographics, specifically in New York City - where Bloomberg is mayor. (One of the other things I'm multi-tasking is catching up on the tivod Daily shows from this week, LOL!)
Can you support, beyond the subjective impressions you have, your statement that Bloomberg and the other mayors actually have the sentiment you attribute to them? "However, I think the sentiment of Bloomberg and his supporters is "no matter the cost, even if it saves one life, it's worth it." (with a healthy dose of "it's for the children")"
Here is something I would like to see. How many of the gun homocides were committed with guns legally purchased where the person went through a background check? and if they did go through a background check was there anything in their record that would have prevented them buying a gun? It is one thing to say we need better background checks to prevent 10k homocides but it 8k of them are gang and drug related you will probably never eliminate more than 2k.
Yes, indeed, thanks to Mayor Bloomberg.
ReplyDeleteI'd like the anti-gun crowd to provide me two numbers regarding your ideal background check system: 1) the annual cost of the system, and 2) the estimated number of murders and suicides it will prevent. In other words, what is the cost per life saved per year?
ReplyDeleteHow would this cost compare with potentially cheaper options like suicide prevention programs, or with doing nothing different?
Since you're proposing restricting our enumerated constitutional rights, you must have considered this question.
First of all MAgunowner, welcome to Penigma - you are another commenter who has come to us courtesy of mikeb302000's blog (so an additional tip of the hat to MikeB).
ReplyDeleteI don't have that information you requested on the annual cost of an ideal background check at my fingertips, but if I may request your patience, I will try to get a good figure for you after I fact check it.
You ask an excellent question about costs however, that actually rather neatly ties into something else I am in the process of writing, about the dollar figures used by the government in different departments and agencies to value a human life. Just off the top, here is one of the articles that address that value; http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/07/the-value-of-a.html (there are others).
For purposes of government regulation (and that can apply to law as well) the current value of a human life (a murder victim or suicide prevented) is, currently, between $6 million dollars and $9 million dollars EACH.
So, if I may be excused the callous nature of this computation for purposes of answering your question, whatever the figure for operating an ideal background check and enforcing it wouldn't have to save very many lives to justify its existence in terms of cost.
Does this answer your question?
MAgunowner - does this adequately respond to your question, or did you need more? I'm trying to avoid too much research, to the point of losing effectiveness and focus.
ReplyDeletehttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=782994
The Cost of Firearm Deaths in the United States: Reduced Life Expectancies and Increased Insurance Costs
Jean Lemaire
University of Pennsylvania - The Wharton School
Journal of Risk and Insurance, Vol. 72, No. 3, pp. 359-374, September 2005
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.
Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: August 31, 2005
Suggested Citation
Lemaire, Jean, The Cost of Firearm Deaths in the United States: Reduced Life Expectancies and Increased Insurance Costs . Journal of Risk and Insurance, Vol. 72, No. 3, pp. 359-374, September 2005. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=782994
Here is another, perhaps less satisfying, but more recent article on the value of a human life saved.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.staradvertiser.com/news/20110217_Under_Obama_federal_agencies_raise_value_of_a_life.html
I appreciate your thoughtful response. However, I think the sentiment of Bloomberg and his supporters is "no matter the cost, even if it saves one life, it's worth it." (with a healthy dose of "it's for the children")
ReplyDeleteThe cost/benefit issue, though, is begging the question of whether the Brady background checks have saved even one life at all.
I'm glad you found my initial rapid response thoughtful; I'm still trying to research a more complete answer but am getting hung up this morning on multi-tasking, including stuck on hold repeatedly with a local utility to resolve an issue, and.....trying to get rid of a mouse that ran across my foot.
ReplyDeleteFortunately, I've never been one of those cartoon types to scream and stand on a chair. I'm not bothered by spiders, snakes or amphibians of any variety, mice or bats, etc. But it is...... distracting. Especially when mobbed by a pack of very large dogs who have decided they 1. desperately and immediately need to protect me from this tiny rodent(dog pile isn't just a web search option); and 2. they have all become mighty mousers, with rather hilarious results. (I applaud all prey drive in these very large sighthounds...but it's time to pick on something closer to your own size, dogs!)
So, if I might beg a bit more of your patience, I shall persevere (as best I can). However, if I might point out, you are asking me in effect to prove a negative - to prove that someone didn't commit murder or suicide. I cannot prove a negative.
I do believe however that I can provide some reasonable support that lives are being saved by gun regulation. It is posited by Harvard Economics Professor / author (Triumph of the City) Edward Glaeser for example, in reference to his book, in an interview with Jon Stewart on the Daily show.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-14-2011/edward-glaeser, who specifically references decreased rates of suicides because of guns being kept out of the hands of people who would commit suicide. The quotation/discussion is approximately 53 seconds in, where Professor Glaeser references decreased guns in the possession of "suicide prone" demographics, specifically in New York City - where Bloomberg is mayor. (One of the other things I'm multi-tasking is catching up on the tivod Daily shows from this week, LOL!)
Can you support, beyond the subjective impressions you have, your statement that Bloomberg and the other mayors actually have the sentiment you attribute to them?
"However, I think the sentiment of Bloomberg and his supporters is "no matter the cost, even if it saves one life, it's worth it." (with a healthy dose of "it's for the children")"
Here is something I would like to see. How many of the gun homocides were committed with guns legally purchased where the person went through a background check? and if they did go through a background check was there anything in their record that would have prevented them buying a gun? It is one thing to say we need better background checks to prevent 10k homocides but it 8k of them are gang and drug related you will probably never eliminate more than 2k.
ReplyDelete