US Drops to #49 in Life Expectancy

[sees_all1]

I don't know if this has been brought up, but I think the loose law on guns in the States might have something to do with this. I don't know the numbers, but doesn't America have like one the the highest gun crime rates in the world?

 

And isn't Japan's suicide about twice as high as the mortality rate due to guns? That doesn't stop them from claiming #1 on the average longevity.

There's probably about 10 different reasons I can think of that better explain life expectancy than the capitalism health-care nonsense in the OP.

[Dupin]

I don't know if this has been brought up, but I think the loose law on guns in the States might have something to do with this. I don't know the numbers, but doesn't America have like one the the highest gun crime rates in the world?

 

And isn't Japan's suicide about twice as high as the mortality rate due to guns? That doesn't stop them from claiming #1 on the average longevity.

There's probably about 10 different reasons I can think of that better explain life expectancy than the capitalism health-care nonsense in the OP.

Japan's suicide rate isn't about the gun laws (from what I've read), rather, it's a cultural thing. Suicide is much more acceptable and dishonor is avoided at all costs.

[obfuscator]

I don't know if this has been brought up, but I think the loose law on guns in the States might have something to do with this. I don't know the numbers, but doesn't America have like one the the highest gun crime rates in the world?

 

And isn't Japan's suicide about twice as high as the mortality rate due to guns? That doesn't stop them from claiming #1 on the average longevity.

There's probably about 10 different reasons I can think of that better explain life expectancy than the capitalism health-care nonsense in the OP.

Japan's suicide rate isn't about the gun laws (from what I've read), rather, it's a cultural thing. Suicide is much more acceptable and dishonor is avoided at all costs.

This.

 

@ the gun thing: yeah, the states has highest gun crime per capita, but I doubt it's at a level that could affect these stats.

 

@US paying higher prices for medicines: That actually may not be true - it tends to be the care that's more expensive. I read an article about it today, saying canadians actually often pay more for prescriptions drugs. Probably a lot of imports from the states so I guess that contributes...

[Bloodstain]

I don't know if this has been brought up, but I think the loose law on guns in the States might have something to do with this. I don't know the numbers, but doesn't America have like one the the highest gun crime rates in the world?

 

And isn't Japan's suicide about twice as high as the mortality rate due to guns? That doesn't stop them from claiming #1 on the average longevity.

There's probably about 10 different reasons I can think of that better explain life expectancy than the capitalism health-care nonsense in the OP.

Japan's suicide rate isn't about the gun laws (from what I've read), rather, it's a cultural thing. Suicide is much more acceptable and dishonor is avoided at all costs.

 

He didn't mean it was because gun laws, he meant Japan's suicide rate is higher than deaths attributed to fire arms in the USA

 

 

 

 

@US paying higher prices for medicines: That actually may not be true - it tends to be the care that's more expensive. I read an article about it today, saying canadians actually often pay more for prescriptions drugs. Probably a lot of imports from the states so I guess that contributes...

 

I've never paid more than like $60 for a prescription, and even then it was an optional thing. The only experience I have with American drug prices is what I've seen with Paxil, so it's pretty limited. But from what I saw, it's minimum 20 dollars more in the USA buying generic non-prescription paxil pills. Here it's $40 for a month of 10 mg without using insurance (with prescription), USA generic non prescription = $60 online

[obfuscator]

Yeah, I'm sure it varies based on the drug in question.

[Hamtaro]

Where'd magekillr go....

Probably making sure that his response will agree with what the DNC and his professors tell him to believe.

 

On-Topic:

On the issue of guns in the United States, if they were made illegal, criminals would still find ways to obtain them. This means that the only citizens with guns would be criminals, while we, the law abiding citizens, would have no means to defend ourselves from them. The only thing this would prevent would be a scenario such as "Kid X is bullied by kid Y. Kid X goes and grabs his dad's gun and shoots kid Y." I live near Detroit and these types of situations are rare even around here, so I'm pretty sure it's irrelevant.

 

I would argue that outlawing guns in America would only lead to more crime. If totally outlawed, criminals would obtain them via Mexico and sell them for massive profits throughout the country. This would lead to something similar ot prohibition. In this case, criminals would know that a family living in that "fancy house down the street" would be defenseless from a break-in (with the exception of the police who take no fewer than 15 minutes to arrive). Because of this widespread gun problem that would happen, most likely, police would take longer to arrive. It would just turn into an expensive government program to find and destroy guns. Double the awful.

 

However, I also believe better restrictions on guns should be in place (don't sell them to someone who just left prison, for example). It seems illogical that someone who already proved their willingness to break the law in the past should hold the ability to purchase a firearm. Obviously, laws such as that do exist, they're just not enforced... Now, you may sight Canada as an example as to why I'm wrong. Canada isn't bordered by a country virtually in anarchy at the moment. Also take into consideration that President Obama has already proved his apathy towards illegal immigration, meaning he would never support laws enforcing stronger border searches. While my family doesn't own any guns (nor do I plan on owning any), we do live in a fairly safe area. Those who actually need guns for safety (who live in dangerous areas), should have that ability.

[sees_all1]

On-Topic:

...

Those who actually need guns for safety (who live in dangerous areas), should have that ability.

 

That was the most off topic "on topic" post I've seen in a while ;-)

Anyhow, I read a statistic in "Arguing with Idiots" that Japan's suicide rate (per capita thingy) is higher than deaths due to firearms and something else combined. Either way, trimming 50ish years of the lives of less than a hundreth of a percent of the population isn't going to dramatically change the average life expectancy.

 

 

Something brought up in the OP suggested that premature babies also lower life expectancy. There is research that shows women that have abortions are more likely to give birth premature. There is other research that shows that women that terminate their first pregnancy are more likely to have breast cancer than those that don't. The science is based on how the breast develops in life and when pregnant (breast lobules have 4 stages of development; terminating a pregnancy stops lobules from maturing properly and are more prone to cancer) http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/maturity.htm

 

Anyhow, didn't want to bring that up because of the highly divisive nature of the subject, but cancer is another factor in lower life expectancy, much more-so than a for-profit health care system.

[dusqi]

Where'd magekillr go....

Probably making sure that his response will agree with what the DNC and his professors tell him to believe.

 

On-Topic:

On the issue of guns in the United States, if they were made illegal, criminals would still find ways to obtain them. This means that the only citizens with guns would be criminals, while we, the law abiding citizens, would have no means to defend ourselves from them. The only thing this would prevent would be a scenario such as "Kid X is bullied by kid Y. Kid X goes and grabs his dad's gun and shoots kid Y." I live near Detroit and these types of situations are rare even around here, so I'm pretty sure it's irrelevant.

 

I would argue that outlawing guns in America would only lead to more crime. If totally outlawed, criminals would obtain them via Mexico and sell them for massive profits throughout the country. This would lead to something similar ot prohibition. In this case, criminals would know that a family living in that "fancy house down the street" would be defenseless from a break-in (with the exception of the police who take no fewer than 15 minutes to arrive). Because of this widespread gun problem that would happen, most likely, police would take longer to arrive. It would just turn into an expensive government program to find and destroy guns. Double the awful.

 

However, I also believe better restrictions on guns should be in place (don't sell them to someone who just left prison, for example). It seems illogical that someone who already proved their willingness to break the law in the past should hold the ability to purchase a firearm. Obviously, laws such as that do exist, they're just not enforced... Now, you may sight Canada as an example as to why I'm wrong. Canada isn't bordered by a country virtually in anarchy at the moment. Also take into consideration that President Obama has already proved his apathy towards illegal immigration, meaning he would never support laws enforcing stronger border searches. While my family doesn't own any guns (nor do I plan on owning any), we do live in a fairly safe area. Those who actually need guns for safety (who live in dangerous areas), should have that ability.

 

 

US has a high murder rate: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita (3 times higher than the UK)

US has a high firearm death rate, which is correlated with % gun ownership: http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

 

I'm sure you think that's due to the "anarchic" country on your southern border, or immigrants, or poor people in gangs, or something else. But I think its because of all the guns.

 

In the UK the criminals have guns, but they rarely use them or even carry them because the vast majority of criminals don't actually want to shoot anyone. They may have some remaining morals, they probably do not want to be tried for murder, and they certainly don't want the police to go after them (because murders are important enough to investigate).

 

As someone without a gun, you do have a way to "defend" yourself - you call the police (who are trained to use guns) and perhaps they eventually catch them. Leave it to the professionals. People see too many movies where random hot girls are given a gun by the hero, and they end up saving the day by shooting the bad guy. People think they could be the hero.

[Guest Rob]

The only problem with calling the police, is that you need to:

 

Find a telephone

Dial 911

Explain what's going on

Wait for police to arrive (That would take about 10-15 minutes so far)

Hope they catch the bad guy

 

So, at least a 10 minute wait, we'll say. In the meantime, there's someone armed with a gun, who might want to kill you or somebody else. It takes them less than two seconds to aim and fire at someone's head.

[Bloodstain]

 

Wait for police to arrive (That would take about 10-15 minutes so far)

 

 

In my city a police response for the highest level of call is ~ 4 minutes

[jasignhagj]

I have to agree, gun control only works in a society where it's impossible to obtain guns.

[Skeptical]

That is a simply idiotic statement.

 

Sell fewer guns, to fewer people, with more restrictions = fewer guns available, which aside from hunting, have little in the way of legal use.

[Saru Inc]

That is a simply idiotic statement.

 

Sell fewer guns, to fewer people, with more restrictions = fewer guns available, which aside from hunting, have little in the way of legal use.

 

 

 

Apparently, it isn't an idiotic statement. You're assuming that criminals buy their guns from stores, which to be honest, if I'm going to be calling a statement idiotic, it isn't the above poster's.

[obfuscator]

Criminals don't buy their guns from stores..if there are no stores around.

 

Gun crime in Canada happens. It's low, precisely because it's a hell of a lot harder to obtain a gun illegally than it would be to buy it from a store legally.

[dusqi]

The only problem with calling the police, is that you need to:

 

Find a telephone

Dial 911

Explain what's going on

Wait for police to arrive (That would take about 10-15 minutes so far)

Hope they catch the bad guy

 

So, at least a 10 minute wait, we'll say. In the meantime, there's someone armed with a gun, who might want to kill you or somebody else. It takes them less than two seconds to aim and fire at someone's head.

 

2 seconds... which is still 2 seconds less than it takes you to get at your gun wherever you have it, aim and fire. Oh, that's right, you're the hero that can quick draw, aim at the head, and save the day.

[Alg]

2 seconds... which is still 2 seconds less than it takes you to get at your gun wherever you have it, aim and fire. Oh, that's right, you're the hero that can quick draw, aim at the head, and save the day.

If a guy's pointing a gun at you, he's as likely to let you stop and make a phone call as he is to let you get out your own gun.

What I still don't understand is what makes gun control any different from drug control. Look at all of the illegal drugs out there, and how easy it is to get them. What makes them any different from guns should they be banned?

 

Even with all our guns and gun crime, the life expectancy of the US is still around a year less than that of the UK, with an average of 79.01 for the UK and 78.11 for the 'States. If you want to blame that on one single factor, whether it's health care or gun control, feel free. It's more likely to be related to a combination of many factors, which may or may not include those two.

[Source]

[Hamtaro]

I have to agree, gun control only works in a society where it's impossible to obtain guns.

This.

[spoiler=Quote Chain]

Where'd magekillr go....

Probably making sure that his response will agree with what the DNC and his professors tell him to believe.

 

On-Topic:

On the issue of guns in the United States, if they were made illegal, criminals would still find ways to obtain them. This means that the only citizens with guns would be criminals, while we, the law abiding citizens, would have no means to defend ourselves from them. The only thing this would prevent would be a scenario such as "Kid X is bullied by kid Y. Kid X goes and grabs his dad's gun and shoots kid Y." I live near Detroit and these types of situations are rare even around here, so I'm pretty sure it's irrelevant.

 

I would argue that outlawing guns in America would only lead to more crime. If totally outlawed, criminals would obtain them via Mexico and sell them for massive profits throughout the country. This would lead to something similar ot prohibition. In this case, criminals would know that a family living in that "fancy house down the street" would be defenseless from a break-in (with the exception of the police who take no fewer than 15 minutes to arrive). Because of this widespread gun problem that would happen, most likely, police would take longer to arrive. It would just turn into an expensive government program to find and destroy guns. Double the awful.

 

However, I also believe better restrictions on guns should be in place (don't sell them to someone who just left prison, for example). It seems illogical that someone who already proved their willingness to break the law in the past should hold the ability to purchase a firearm. Obviously, laws such as that do exist, they're just not enforced... Now, you may sight Canada as an example as to why I'm wrong. Canada isn't bordered by a country virtually in anarchy at the moment. Also take into consideration that President Obama has already proved his apathy towards illegal immigration, meaning he would never support laws enforcing stronger border searches. While my family doesn't own any guns (nor do I plan on owning any), we do live in a fairly safe area. Those who actually need guns for safety (who live in dangerous areas), should have that ability.

 

 

1.

US has a high murder rate: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita (3 times higher than the UK)

US has a high firearm death rate, which is correlated with % gun ownership: http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

 

2. I'm sure you think that's due to the "anarchic" country on your southern border, or immigrants, or poor people in gangs, or something else. But I think its because of all the guns.

 

3. In the UK the criminals have guns, but they rarely use them or even carry them because the vast majority of criminals don't actually want to shoot anyone. They may have some remaining morals, they probably do not want to be tried for murder, and they certainly don't want the police to go after them (because murders are important enough to investigate).

 

4. As someone without a gun, you do have a way to "defend" yourself - you call the police (who are trained to use guns) and perhaps they eventually catch them. Leave it to the professionals. People see too many movies where random hot girls are given a gun by the hero, and they end up saving the day by shooting the bad guy. People think they could be the hero.

1. UK is knife crime capital As displayed in the article, if criminals don't have guns, they will find other weapons. In this instance, you may suggest simply banning knives. Well now you have a baseball bat/crow bar problem. Those get banned. Now you have a problem with some other weapon and it just goes on like that.

 

2. I don't blame immigrants for gun crime/murder. I mentioned Mexico because the government is at war with the drug cartels and losing. They have to focus the vast majority of their budget on said war and care very little about any smuggling into the United States. Similar to alcohol being smuggled into the U.S. during prohibition, guns would be smuggled in via Mexico. Criminals would pay top dollar for them and loot away. With an increase in crime, the likelihood of the police showing up within even an hour is unlikely. "Well just hire more police officers." I'm sorry, but we happen to be in a bit of a tight spot as it is here in Michigan. I don't think anyone here can afford any more taxes, especially unnecessary (in this case extra) ones.

 

3. Cool, but you're implying that hardened criminals (e.g. rapists/serial killers) have any morals.

 

4. Like I said, I live in a very low crime town (maybe 1 murder every 6 years?), so it would be absolutely unnecessary for my family to own any guns. Those that live, oh I don't know, in the city of Detroit (Detroit Police Response Time Criticized ) aren't so lucky...

[Skeptical]

Guns take more lives than they save.

 

Let's make a quick summary of some of the costs.

 

In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30,896 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,883; Homicide 12,791; Accident 642; Legal Intervention 360; Undetermined 220. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (CDC, 2006).

 

The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care. A 1994 study revealed the cost per injury requiring admission to a trauma center was over $14,000. The cumulative lifetime cost in 1985 for gunshot wounds was estimated to be $911 million, with $13.4 billion in lost productivity. (Mock et al, 1994)

 

And that doesn't even include crimes committed with guns. Every tried robbing a bank with a knife? It's a little bit less impressive. Ever tried to run away from someone without getting hurt? It's a heck of a lot easier if they don't have a firearm.

[sees_all1]

Guns take more lives than they save.

 

Let's make a quick summary of some of the costs.

 

In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30,896 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,883; Homicide 12,791; Accident 642; Legal Intervention 360; Undetermined 220. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (CDC, 2006).

 

The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care. A 1994 study revealed the cost per injury requiring admission to a trauma center was over $14,000. The cumulative lifetime cost in 1985 for gunshot wounds was estimated to be $911 million, with $13.4 billion in lost productivity. (Mock et al, 1994)

 

And that doesn't even include crimes committed with guns. Every tried robbing a bank with a knife? It's a little bit less impressive. Ever tried to run away from someone without getting hurt? It's a heck of a lot easier if they don't have a firearm.

 

Arguing with Idiots had a figure that countered this... I think it was nearly 700,000 crimes are prevented every year in the US because of gun ownership. There were quite a few stats in that book, they were all cited. I don't have it in front of me right now, but I'll post it when I do.

 

Anyhow, who cares (in this context). We're talking about life expectancy here. So, out of 300 million people, 31 thousand have their lives cut short by fire arms. That's insignificant. Say everyone that dies due to guns lose 50 years from their life. That brings the overall life expectancy down by less than 2 days. You'd get more life out of everyone by banning fries.

[Dupin]

Arguing with Idiots had a figure that countered this... I think it was nearly 700,000 crimes are prevented every year in the US because of gun ownership. There were quite a few stats in that book, they were all cited. I don't have it in front of me right now, but I'll post it when I do.

I don't want to contribute to the already over-abundant anti-conservatism here, but Glenn Beck's Arguing with Idiots is hardly a trustable source. How could you count the number of crimes prevented by guns? How could you even estimate, or decide which are prevented?

 

Guns are for killing, and that's the bottom line.

[sees_all1]

Arguing with Idiots had a figure that countered this... I think it was nearly 700,000 crimes are prevented every year in the US because of gun ownership. There were quite a few stats in that book, they were all cited. I don't have it in front of me right now, but I'll post it when I do.

I don't want to contribute to the already over-abundant anti-conservatism here, but Glenn Beck's Arguing with Idiots is hardly a trustable source. How could you count the number of crimes prevented by guns? How could you even estimate, or decide which are prevented?

 

Guns are for killing, and that's the bottom line.

Its not Glenn Beck I want to cite, its the primary source he uses. The book has about 25 pages of small print dedicated to sourcing its material, it was very well researched.

[Dupin]

Arguing with Idiots had a figure that countered this... I think it was nearly 700,000 crimes are prevented every year in the US because of gun ownership. There were quite a few stats in that book, they were all cited. I don't have it in front of me right now, but I'll post it when I do.

I don't want to contribute to the already over-abundant anti-conservatism here, but Glenn Beck's Arguing with Idiots is hardly a trustable source. How could you count the number of crimes prevented by guns? How could you even estimate, or decide which are prevented? Guns are for killing, and that's the bottom line.

Its not Glenn Beck I want to cite, its the primary source he uses. The book has about 25 pages of small print dedicated to sourcing its material, it was very well researched.

I appreciate him citing his information, but that doesn't make the primary sources reliable. You'll notice my questions were mostly addressing the original fact.

[Guest Rob]

The only problem with calling the police, is that you need to:

 

Find a telephone

Dial 911

Explain what's going on

Wait for police to arrive (That would take about 10-15 minutes so far)

Hope they catch the bad guy

 

So, at least a 10 minute wait, we'll say. In the meantime, there's someone armed with a gun, who might want to kill you or somebody else. It takes them less than two seconds to aim and fire at someone's head.

 

2 seconds... which is still 2 seconds less than it takes you to get at your gun wherever you have it, aim and fire. Oh, that's right, you're the hero that can quick draw, aim at the head, and save the day.

Having a gun wouldn't help much in that situation, I never said it would. It could, but a number of things could easily go wrong.

 

(And, to who posted earlier, I was basing that on where I live, which isn't close to a station. I probably should have used a city as an example, as most people live in city.)

[dusqi]

1. UK is knife crime capital As displayed in the article, if criminals don't have guns, they will find other weapons. In this instance, you may suggest simply banning knives. Well now you have a baseball bat/crow bar problem. Those get banned. Now you have a problem with some other weapon and it just goes on like that.

 

I think guns are special because of the ease with which someone can kill someone else (intentionally or by mistake). It's relatively difficult to do with a knife.

[Bloodstain]

3. Cool, but you're implying that hardened criminals (e.g. rapists/serial killers) have any morals.

 

Hahahahahahhahahaa