The staggering social costs of gun violence in the US

This was a good interview about a Mother Jones article on the indirect costs of US gun violence: http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201504300930

The author's team performed an established economic analysis to estimate the total costs of gun violence - not just the direct costs of law enf., ER visit, and justice/penal system processing, but also lost productivity and diminished quality of life from long-term disability, incarceration, and death (affecting not just the victim but their family, workplace, and community). The article estimates that of the ~30K gun murders each year, on average it costs America $500K each. Add to that the ~80K cases/year of serious injuries from guns, and the total price tag is over $200B/year. That is 1/3 the value of Apple's stock, and more than US medicine spends on obesity each year. It's freaking huge.

But we're not talking about this because the NRA and others make the data so hard to access. And if people do try to study it (like the CDC and Harvard School of Public Health and Obama's recent nominee for Sgn. General), the gun lobby paints them as gun-control activists with a political agenda. Conservatives want to cut waste and spending left and right (social programs, research, etc.), but somehow the military and guns are exempt?

BTW - the study also found a correlation between states with weak gun laws and higher gun violence costs per capita (LA, WY are the worst, while HI and MA are some of the best - also with stricter gun laws). It's a no-brainer to us, but the 2nd Amendment crowd clings to the myth that more guns make you safer. They might also argue - what about the economic savings from all the crimes prevented by conscientious citizens with guns? Well there's just no data to support that claim, if it's even true (which is doubtful). You're much more likely to hurt yourself or a loved one than prevent a crime with your gun.

----

This is pretty heartbreaking stuff about the effects of violence on Oakland's youth:

http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/04/29/violence-causes-ripple-effects-for-thousands-of-oakland-students

For a kid who turned 18 this year in Oakland, he or she lived through 111 kids getting killed in that city, not to mention the trauma that caused for everyone else. At least Alameda County is deploying more mental health resources for them now - but really this is an issue that no kid should have to deal with. Especially if they're under 10, children often can't deal with the difficult emotions generated from experiencing violence, so their ability to learn is impaired and they may lash out in negative ways.

----

NPR did a story based on this article and the most persuasive outcome, to me, was that there needs to be science and data applied to this stuff.  One of the guests was talking about the idea that if you even ask for data you are anti gun.  That there is this all or nothing approach.  Why wouldn't the dates show all the loves being saved if guns are great?  Couldn't we also find that, for example, people with lots of gun training have better outcomes related to fun violence?  It seems weird to assume data can only be anti gun.

----

Agreed. I guess it's like climate change and cop racism issues - if one side of the argument is confident in their position, they should have no problems whatsoever with full data transparency. When you are "trying to hide something" and suppressing info, that is a tell-tale sign that your argument has a problem. Actually if those folks really love gun rights and "freedom", then they should welcome data transparency to help improve gun use and gun culture in America (like a majority of NRA members favor better background checks, but NRA leaders don't). Or do they think that everything is OK? Don't they know that the most successful (legit) companies and gov'ts in the last 50 years are obsessed with data to help them succeed and improve?

Bottom line, the gun industry/lobby's only goal is to sell more product. Gun ownership in the US (as % of households) is on a huge decline since WWII, partly driven by urbanization, less interest in hunting, and I would like to believe social progress. But the # of guns in circulation may have gone up, so someone is buying them. There are fewer gun owners now, but they own more guns (and more deadly ones) per capita. Police departments upgrade their guns more frequently, and lord knows where their used guns go (I think there are accounts of cartels/gangs using former US police firearms).

So to accomplish their goal, the gun lobby has to oppose anything that would potentially hurt sales, and of course social costs data is a big threat. And when the costs are so obvious (even without hard data), they pull the freedom and liberty card. Sure guns are destructive, but the costs are "worth it" because we have to sacrifice to keep the communists from taking our freedoms. We have to tolerate the side-effects of guns because I need to protect my family from the bad guys. And when it's poor/black people shouldering most of the costs, it's easier to ignore - until incidents like Columbine and Sandy Hook happen, which affected affluent whites and jarred the nation.

I use data to put food on the table, so I'd like to think that I have some sense of "data ethics" and best practices. When the pro-gun side decides to actually use data in their arguments, I can honestly say that they are the worst in terms of ethics and rigor. Total intellectual dishonesty (or maybe ignorance). I have not read any NRA white papers (if there are any non-laughable ones), so I am basing my judgment mostly on the sound bites you hear in the gun debate.

Examples:

• "Chicago has strict gun laws, but they still have plenty of gang violence and murders, so gun laws don't work!" Because we don't have borders. Thugs just have to buy a gun 30 miles away in easier places like Indiana, and then drive back to the city to shoot someone.
• 
  
• "Since the Brady Bill/Assault Weapons Ban expired, there have been fewer mass shootings, so assault weapons in the hands of 'the good guys' is an effective deterrent." Not enough sample size to assess a trend, and what defines a "mass shooting"? Public mass shootings are fortunately still pretty rare (it's much more common for someone to slaughter their family in a private residence). But Mother Jones and Harvard ran a statistical analysis to handle rare events, and they concluded that mass shootings are actually more frequent after the loosening of gun laws. Of course correlation is not causation, but it invalidates the pro-gun claim.
• 
  
• "Guns don't kill people; people kill people - address the mental health and anger issues instead." But guns kill people A LOT more effectively than a knife or bare hands. Yes there will always be a baseline level of violence and murder intent in any society, but if you restrict access to the murder tools, people won't be able to carry them out as effectively. Look at AUS/UK vs. US. Fairly similar culture, demos, etc., but we have all the guns and murders. Canada is an exception (many guns, few murders), but there will always be outliers.

Student suicides at Gunn High in Silicon Valley

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201501290900

3 student suicides this academic year (one was a recent alum), and 9 since 2009. Most of the cases had some element of stress/pressure to meet very high academic expectations. I didn't hear the whole program, but an interesting comment from a former teacher said a peer counseling class and less stressful vocational courses (like wood shop) were recently eliminated to make room for more AP courses.

The school is considering modifying the class schedule and homework levels, but I think those are just band-aids. Failing to meet the sometime ludicrous and frankly perverse expectations/goals in that community is not an indication that the student is a failure at life and should die. I would hope that the rabid competition and obsession to achieve (or fit some template of what success looks like) do not overwhelm students and make them forget that there are other ways to feel happy and successful in this life. That message has to start with adults, who should encourage balance over excess and set healthy examples that Silicon Valley Values are not the only values in the world.

Ethics and young people

NPR had some good stories about this today.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/ed/2014/07/14/331346884/for-most-kids-nice-finishes-last

Should universities consider student EQ in admissions, not just the typical achievements? Those skills can be important for career and life success too, not to mention better leaders and a healthier society. As my favorite president Teddy R said, "To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society" (emphasis mine).

This comes on the heels of a $7B federal fine on Citi for all sorts of professional/ethical violations associated with its MBS business (as usual, no one goes to jail). The fine is a tax-write off and about 7 months of profits to Citi - hardly a trip to the woodshed.

---

What should it mean to "be a man"?

http://www.npr.org/2014/07/14/330183987/the-3-scariest-words-a-boy-can-hear

BART police "execution"

I was out of town when this happened, but friggin' A...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKy-WSZMklc

That is some messed up NYPD shit there. Who the heck is in charge of training BART cops anyway? Are they even subject to oversight and IA like the other cops? I guess they're one step up from Blackwater. But the video clearly shows the 2 other officers had the young man pinned down, he wasn't struggling (at the time of the shooting), and didn't seem like a danger to anyone. But the third just takes out his weapon, aims, and fires point blank in the back - for no valid reason that I can discern. It doesn't appear accidental. What was he thinking with all the witnesses around? My coworkers said that the BART police confiscated as many cell phones/cameras as they could find on people in the vicinity, supposedly for "evidence" (or cover-up?). But moot point, since some leaked to the press anyway.

And we wonder why urban minorities don't really trust police.

--------

http://www.ktvu.com/video/18426902/index.html

Take a look at this video. I looks as if one officer was off to the side talking on the radio, while officer Mehserle (the shooter) and another officer pinned the young man down. It is evident that the officer pinning the young man near his head moved up and away before the shot was fired as if expecting a stun gun shot and moving clear so as not to be secondarily tased. You can see the stupid look on Mehserle's face immediately after the shot, as he looks up and down at what had just happened.

I agree there's no valid reason to shoot the guy, even stun gunning the guy seems excessive. I disagree with your assertion that this does not appear to be accidental.

Now I'm not gonna defend this in anyway shape or form aside from saying this looks accidental. It's poor judgment anyway you cut it. It's bad protocol to have officers have stun guns near their firearms... most departments have them place it opposite their pistol on their non dominant side facing the opposite direction. As far as taking cameras from witnesses... hell who knows what standard operating procedure is on that one, but it does look suspicious.

This incident certainly doesn't help police win over urban minorities, but this incident looks like officer incompetence, lack of training, and poor protocol rather then the "white cop kills urban/minority youth" reaction this is getting on the streets of Oakland.

--------

But as far as I know, isn't a stun gun much lighter than a handgun? It's like reaching for a wood pencil at your desk and accidentally picking up a Mont Blanc - you should know the difference. I guess in the "heat of the action", maybe he just got confused. But I'm not sure if that "excuse" makes it any better, since there is an ongoing controversy about police over-use of stun gun submission that actually turns out to be more lethal that the manufacturers or cops claim.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/06/11/national/a114135D39.DTL

-------

Yeah, I mean I agree with Juan that it was probably accidental and the cop wasn't looking to whack the kid. But you know in the navy how the officers repeat orders all along the chain of command to make sure that it was correct before executing? Isn't that to make sure the end result is proper and intentional? Captian: all ahead full, 2nd in command: all ahead full roger, helmsman: roger all ahead full, and then finally he puts the boat in gear. I believe surgical teams do similar stuff in hospitals, obviously because mistakes are too costly (and yet they still happen, but anything to reduce them is desirable). So would it have been so hard for Mehserle to tell his partners, "I am planning to tase the suspect, I am drawing my taser now, I am preparing to fire." And the onlooking cop could actually verify that he was holding his taser and not his Glock, instead of just looking away and hoping for the best.

I have no idea what the effed up "rules of engagement" are for cops (or BART rent-a-cops), but maybe there needs to be some major overhaul to verify the use of force before actually using it. I know if a perp draws a weapon on you or other emergency situation, your life comes first and you just have to react based on your training (seen "Burn After Reading"?), but if the officers are in no hurry and under no immediate threat, one person shouldn't unilaterally have the right to use his weapons when and how he/she wants. That is a violation of the public trust, because obviously we are unarmed and at their mercy.