Is gun violence a public health issue?

Because I do not know how to quote from more than one post, I copied & pasted & will comment;
ZHawk wrote: "I don't really know of a more violent way to end one's own life or the life of another than by gunfire."

My first inclination was to disagree with you and say I do...but, I'm going to disagree and say any way to end one's own life or the life of another that involves blood & body tissue is violent. Stabbing is no more violent than a gunshot or bashing their head in until their brains ooze out. Each has a different level of familiarity or maybe it is just getting the easiest weapon do perpetrate the violence.

Science Chic wrote: "Whenever anyone is murdered, it has an impact on society."

Yes, you are absolutely correct. And not just the generation that the victim was a member of. My sister's murder has so far affected four generations in my family. Furthermore, the ripples of this murder touched everyone that was part of the school system, part of the church, clients of my father's, clients of my mothers...even people that just read about it in the newspaper or saw a segment about it on the news.

The guns themselves are not a public health issue...the people that use them for violent purposes, to include armed robbery, even when someone is not shot are the public health issue.

You're right, Computer Breath. Perhaps I should have worded that particular phrase differently. I guess what I was trying to get at was how a gun makes a suicide that much more likely to be successful. My own personal experience with how my first wife carried out her own death clouded my judgement a little bit in making the statement I did.

That being said, I agree the gun, itself, is not a public health issue. The topic of this thread, however, focuses on the issue of "gun violence" as a public health issue. When you listed all the people, organizations, and communities that were affected by your sister's murder, I believe what you said kind of supports that assertion.

One of the difficulties in discussing an issue like this is in "breaking down" the various types of violence, in general. So, when trying to break the issue of "gun violence" down even further into specific types of gun violence, there is pretty widespread disagreement on whether some types of gun violence should even be included in studies and statistics intended to help determine whether or not it is a public health issue.

Personally, I'm a staunch advocate for including suicide by gun in gun violence statistics. And I'll be the first to admit my own personal bias in that regard. Others have told me I'm full of it on this stance. In the end, it really doesn't matter what others think in this regard. And I'd encourage everyone else to hold their own core values in the same light as you've done.

Thank you for your feedback. You've certainly given me further insight into my own personal emotions surrounding this issue.

This article attempts to show an inextricable intertwining between the public health issue and the economic impacts of gun violence.

But see, that is a platitude. Unless you have some magic way of removing every gun in the world, you will have gun violence. If you try to keep guns from law abiding citizens, you may reduce overall gun "violence" but you will increase the odds that those law abiding citizens will be harmed or kill by those who don't obey laws, and if guns weren't available, would use other means.

Evil people for all of history have killed people. Guns aren't the problem.

From the article

The U.S. Health and Human Services Department supplied total and average costs of shooting-related hospital stays, Miller said. The group estimates the cost of lost work -- even uncompensated household chores -- and future earnings with data from the Labor Department and Census Bureau, Miller said.

Dividing the $174 billion total by the number of guns in the U.S. -- 270 million as reported by the United Nations’ International Small Arms Survey -- the institute calculated the cost to society of each civilian-owned firearm in the U.S. at more than $644.

Absurd. This is someone with an agenda making an absurd point by giving partial data. They assume if all guns were gone, that imaginary # of $174 billion would be eliminated. Considering the article itself says approx 105,000 injuries/deaths due to guns, but they don't say how many were by police, or in self defense. They also don't break down each and every injury/death. Suicide? People have committed suicide forever. Guns don't "enable" suicide, as I am well aware from people I know who have chosen this way out. I know 2 people who tried with guns. Both failed. I also know 2 people who did it with other methods (jumping in front of a train, and jumping off the golden gate bridge)...both succeeded. It isn't the gun, it is the people. How many more people would have been killed or injured if they didn't have guns on their person on in their home?

Sorry you have such a horrible bone to pick with lawful gun owners, but a gun is the one thing that gives me a leg up on bad guys. Why do you think the biggest sector of new gun owners is women. It is the one thing that allows a 150# woman to not be raped/assaulted/killed by a larger man. I don't know why every woman doesn't get training and buy a gun. Bad guys would think twice if the majority of women they wanted to assault/rape were armed.

RenegadeCJ wrote: Sorry you have such a horrible bone to pick with lawful gun owners, but a gun is the one thing that gives me a leg up on bad guys.

Therein lies the fallacy. I don't have a horrible bone to pick with lawful gun owners. All I'm trying to get at is the possibility that gun violence is a public health issue, both in terms of impacts on families and communities emotionally and psychologically right alongside the economic costs associated with same.

I'm a gun owner. My kids all own guns, both rifles and handguns. I have a nephew that, at one time, owned a 50 cal. that was pretty much a cannon when fired. He's also a licensed gun dealer. I have a brother-in-law who's a lifetime member of the NRA and also a licensed gun dealer. His wife is also an NRA member and avid hunter. Those two and I have discussed this issue at length and they both tend to agree gun violence is an issue, but guns are tools. I agree with that position So, for anyone to say I have a horrible problem with lawful gun owners simply isn't true.

As far as the suicide thing is concerned, my first wife's first attempt was using pills to try and OD. She was unsuccessful. After that, I thought I pretty much had every other possibility covered as I'd stored our guns with others so there wouldn't be any possibility she could use them in another attempt. She could have used knives still in our home, but didn't. Instead, she planned out her excursion to a pawn shop where she successfully carried out her suicide in a public place with a gun she didn't even own. She tricked the pawn shop clerk into letting her "heft" the weapon while he turned his back to get the appropriate paperwork going. While he wasn't looking, she then loaded the gun with two cartridges she'd purchased separately in another location and had taken with her, fired one shot into a wall, and the next shot into her temple. She died instantly. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that her method of choice was to use a gun. Statistics also show that suicide by gun is way more lethal than with any other method chosen.

I'm not trying to argue the issue of gun control at all. I think that might be a misconception of some who've decided to contribute in this thread. I really don't know how to be any more clear on what the intent of what I started here might be. To equate gun violence as a potential public health issue with advocating for gun control is simply not my agenda. Rather, to try and come up with some kind of a viable way in which to address the issue of gun violence IS my agenda, whatever that may be.

ZHawke wrote:

RenegadeCJ wrote: Sorry you have such a horrible bone to pick with lawful gun owners, but a gun is the one thing that gives me a leg up on bad guys.

Therein lies the fallacy. I don't have a horrible bone to pick with lawful gun owners. All I'm trying to get at is the possibility that gun violence is a public health issue, both in terms of impacts on families and communities emotionally and psychologically right alongside the economic costs associated with same.

I'm a gun owner. My kids all own guns, both rifles and handguns. I have a nephew that, at one time, owned a 50 cal. that was pretty much a cannon when fired. He's also a licensed gun dealer. I have a brother-in-law who's a lifetime member of the NRA and also a licensed gun dealer. His wife is also an NRA member and avid hunter. Those two and I have discussed this issue at length and they both tend to agree gun violence is an issue, but guns are tools. I agree with that position So, for anyone to say I have a horrible problem with lawful gun owners simply isn't true.

As far as the suicide thing is concerned, my first wife's first attempt was using pills to try and OD. She was unsuccessful. After that, I thought I pretty much had every other possibility covered as I'd stored our guns with others so there wouldn't be any possibility she could use them in another attempt. She could have used knives still in our home, but didn't. Instead, she planned out her excursion to a pawn shop where she successfully carried out her suicide in a public place with a gun she didn't even own. She tricked the pawn shop clerk into letting her "heft" the weapon while he turned his back to get the appropriate paperwork going. While he wasn't looking, she then loaded the gun with two cartridges she'd purchased separately in another location and had taken with her, fired one shot into a wall, and the next shot into her temple. She died instantly. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that her method of choice was to use a gun. Statistics also show that suicide by gun is way more lethal than with any other method chosen.

I'm not trying to argue the issue of gun control at all. I think that might be a misconception of some who've decided to contribute in this thread. I really don't know how to be any more clear on what the intent of what I started here might be. To equate gun violence as a potential public health issue with advocating for gun control is simply not my agenda. Rather, to try and come up with some kind of a viable way in which to address the issue of gun violence IS my agenda, whatever that may be.

I see your point. From your personal experience, you have a very personal reaction to the use of a gun for suicide. Appreciate the background, which explains a lot.

Regarding guns as a public health issue, I have a problem with things becoming "public". Public health means govt control. Fat people are a massive public health issue...the costs to our society economically due to people being overweight is vastly higher than firearms. Yet our govt doesn't regulate it (although it has tried in some states).

Sometimes it just comes down to personal responsibility. I'm a believer in freedom, and that applies to lots of things that can be risky...guns, cookies, soda, smoking, etc. The govt should stay out of it, and let people live with their personal decisions. Life has risks.

Gotta cogitate on this a whole lot more before giving a response. Lots to think about. Lots to consider carefully before sharing any additional personal experiences.

Computer Breath gave me a LOT to consider in that regard by being honest and forthright about personal trauma. I always thought not sugar coating anything might help others understand how the struggle to cope continues long after the event fades into distant memory for most who aren't directly affected.

I think it's beneficial for people to share their experiences, as Computer Breath has done, to help others understand that everyone has experienced trauma in their lives of some sort. In fact, trauma is actually defined by Black's Law Dictionary as:

In medical jurisprudence. A wound; any injury to tlie (sic) body caused by ex- ternal (sic) violence.

Some have told me they can't begin to imagine what I've been through. I always try to let them know my personal experiences with trauma are no more and no less than their own. For example, how does one "compare" the loss of a child? Does it matter how that loss occurs? Personally, I don't think it does. The loss of a loved one before their time, no matter the cause, is simply a trauma far too many tend to suppress from what I've seen. So when people say to me they can't begin to imagine, I ask them to try, and to base their efforts on their own experiences with trauma. Don't know if that makes any sense, but it's something I will continue to try to do as long as I live.

Enough for now. Will cogitate and maybe post more later. Thanks for your feedback.

I for one greatly appreciate when someone shares an opinion based on their own personal experience, or in this case, trauma. It helps me to know where you sit, to understand where you stand.

RenegadeCJ wrote: I see your point. From your personal experience, you have a very personal reaction to the use of a gun for suicide. Appreciate the background, which explains a lot.

Regarding guns as a public health issue, I have a problem with things becoming "public". Public health means govt control. Fat people are a massive public health issue...the costs to our society economically due to people being overweight is vastly higher than firearms. Yet our govt doesn't regulate it (although it has tried in some states).

Sometimes it just comes down to personal responsibility. I'm a believer in freedom, and that applies to lots of things that can be risky...guns, cookies, soda, smoking, etc. The govt should stay out of it, and let people live with their personal decisions. Life has risks.

Have had some time to think about this a little bit more, and offer this in response:

You're right - I do, in fact, have a very personal reaction to the use of a gun for suicide. But, I also have a very personal reaction to the act of suicide, itself, too. That's probably as a direct result of my personal experience in that area. But it doesn't diminish the reaction one way or the other.

I believe personal reactions are normal to each individual and each individual's personal reactions to a given event are going to be different from anyone else's in similar situations. All one need do is look at what happens following virtually any disastrous, tragic life event. We all handle ourselves based on our own capabilities, both emotionally and psychologically, to do so. That's our new normal - a catchphrase that's caught on basically since the tragedy at Columbine High School.

All of the above really doesn't, nor is it intended to, actually address anything in particular. They are just personal observations of mine that I've concluded over a period of time since experiencing my own individual tragedies.

That being said, I also have come to my own individual conclusion that gun violence and/or gun safety, whichever is more preferable, is, in fact, a public health issue. On your assertion that the gun is not the public health issue, I agree. However, from my perspective the ongoing fatalities and injuries as a direct result of gun misuse cannot be denied as at least some kind of an issue. The ripple effects are enourmous and far reaching both from an emotional and psychological perspective and also from an economic perspective.

Personal responsibility aside, I don't think we can continue down the road of looking at this issue solely from a gun "owner" perspective either simply because some gun owners aren't always as responsible as we'd like them to be, and when they exercise their lack of personal responsibility, other's lives are irrevocably changed forever far too often as a result.

When the issue of personal responsibility, or lack thereof, begins to affect others in negative ways, what should be done? Cars have often times been used to make comparisons to gun ownership. For some time now, fatalities from gun usage have been getting closer and closer to automobile deaths according to the Centers For Disease Control statistics. The comparisons are used by both sides of the gun violence/safety issue to further their own arguments. So, I prefer not to use those kinds of comparisons at all. That then begs the question, again, of what can be done? Government may not, in fact, be the answer, as you've indicated. However, personal irresponsibility cannot continue to be excused as a rational choice for inaction either as far as I'm concerned. Far too many men, women, and children keep losing their lives to just let it be and to not try to address it somehow.

Again, I'm not pushing that "guns are a public health issue". Rather, I'm asking what can be done to address the issue(s) of gun violence and gun safety (added that in there for a little further clarification), particularly if, as you say, the government should just stay out of it? And, so as not to infringe on gun owner's right to keep and bear arms while acknowledging that others also have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

I simply see these issues of gun violence and gun safety as something people on both sides of the fence haven't been all too willing to discuss with each other except from very rigid perspectives of their own in the past. How do we get past that to be able to come up with something that will be agreeable to both sides and still be as effective as anything might possibly be?

A short video that talks about the things I was trying to explain in my previous post. In the video, there are lots of signs advocating for gun control, but the message given by the speaker mentions none of that. Rather, the speaker asks for dialogue.