Gun Violence and Life Expectancy in the US

[DanTex]

I was reading an article discussing the fact that the US lags behind other wealthy nations in life expectancy, and it occurred to me that gun violence might actually be a contributor to this difference, since other wealthy nations have tiny amounts of gun violence compared to the US. And it turns out that, while it doesn't account for the entire gap (1.7 years for males and 2.6 years for females), guns do make a noticeable dent in the life expectancy of Americans: the average American life is shortened by 104 days due to gun violence -- 167 days for males and 31 days for females. For black males, the effect of gun violence is a staggering 362 days of reduced life expectancy. In other words, a black male born in the US can expect to lose, on average, a full year of life to gun violence.

Why so high? Well, to start with, the number of annual gun deaths in the US (suicides, homicides, and accidents) is around 30,000. Already, this is a pretty big number -- by comparison, the total number of US lives lost in Vietnam is around 60,000, and the worst single year of Vietnam for the US was around 16,000 lives lost.

But, compared to other common causes of death, such as cancer or heart disease, gun deaths tend to occur at much younger ages, so the amount of life lost per gun death is much greater. So, by comparison, although lung cancer kills about 160,000 people each year, eradication of lung cancer would increase life expectancy by just 197 days, less than twice as much as eradication of gun violence. Here's a chart showing the reduction in life expectancy due to various causes of death.

Cause of death Reduction
Lung cancer 197
Motor vehicle accidents 161
Breast cancer (Females) 145
Firearms 104
Colon cancer 67
Poisoning 66
Prostate cancer (Males) 47
Suffocation 39
Falls 25
Drowning 17
Fires 13

The chart comes from this study, which includes a bunch of other statistics.
http://www.upenn.edu/ldi/issuebrief11_2.pdf
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/papers/1294.pdf

[Remmah2]

1. A great idea. One minor problem.

Get the guns away from the violent criminals first. Lock up the violent criminals who utilize other forms of physical violence.

No problem.

[Remmah2]

2. PS: Study funded by Joyce Foundation

Absolutly no bias there.

[Hoyt]

3. Better than studies funded by right wing groups like NRA, those who profit from guns, etc.

[permatex]

4. I get it

studies funded by anti gun org. are ok but not by pro gun org.. Not much bigotry there.
I don't trust studies from either group, I try to look for studies from non partisan org. like the FBI UCR stats. they're pretty reliable.

[Hoyt]

7. Taking raw data from say the FBI, and putting your biased spin on it is not a "study."

[permatex]

9. Putting word in my mouth again huh?

I don't put spins on studies, show me one link where I've done that.
You on the other hand do nothing but spin.

[Tejas]

15. Some RWers here live to MAKE SHIT UP

I eagerly await Hoyt's links to your spin of mass destruction!

[Starboard Tack]

33. It's not about bigotry

Studies should be scrutinized in light of who sponsored them, but also in light of who stood to profit the most. Studies by the FBI or any governmental agency should also be taken with a pinch of salt. They are not unbiased.

[rl6214]

22. NO, not any better, just the same

Your bias is blinding you

[hack89]

5. Half those gun deaths are sucides

so it is more accurate to talk about the impact of mental health on live expectancy.

The suicide rate in America is twice the murder rate yet there is no mention of suicide in your list.

There are two nearly equal components of gun death in America - crime and suicide. Why don't we concentrate on the root causes instead of the tools?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States

[slackmaster]

6. Rather odd that they would refer to firearms as a "cause" whereas other categories are diseases...

...or accidents.

About half of firearm-caused deaths are actually suicides, the rest are mostly unlawful homicides (i.e. crimes.) Rates of death from violent CRIME drop rapidly after about age 24, but suicide rates tend to go up with age.

Roll your own query at WISARS: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

[Hoyt]

8. Don't just focus on deaths -- consider shootings, intimidation, spousal abuse with guns, etc., too.

[permatex]

10. While your at it

consider deaths with objects other than guns, intimidation with objects other than guns, spousal abuse with objects other than guns, etc., too.

[slackmaster]

11. The topic of the thread is life expectancy

Please take your bigotry somewhere else.

[Hoyt]

13. Gun violence too. I think Gungeon is the proper place to express my "bigotry" toward guns in public.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

14. The gungeon, yes. But this particular thread has a spefic topic and your comments are disruptive.

Start your own thread if you want to discuss the effects of gun ownership on extraneous metrics apart from life expectency.

[slackmaster]

20. Why not start your own thread and make it about guns in public?

Rather than pissing in everyone else's punch bowl.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

28. On a hunch...

...I checked. He hasn't started any threads, ever in this group back to 6 December 2011, unless I made a mistake. :headscratch:

[4th law of robotics]

21. When discussing life expectancy those things don't matter

being scared =/= being dead.

[Lizzie Poppet]

12. Interesting info, and I'll take a closer look at the study.

I've a background in evaluation of research methodology, so I'll have a bit of an insight into what they've presented. Assuming sound data collection methods (I presume the study was peer reviewed before publication), it would indicate that death by firearm is in the top five, a result that doesn't surprise me.

However, I'd point out that since a bit more than half of firearms-related deaths per annum are suicides, it's a bit misleading to attribute these to "gun violence." While suicide can be considered "violent" in a way, I think the term "gun violence" has strong connotations of harm inflicted by one person on an unwilling victim. I tend to urge considering suicides and murders separately in most statistical analyses relating to firearms, as there are many more differences than there are similarities between them.

In addition, people need to be aware of the effect of vastly differing exposure to risk factors when applying data such as this to their personal situations. For example, as a non-smoker who lives in a place with relatively clean air, my risk factor for lung cancer is already rather low. the "eradication of lung cancer" mentioned above wouldn't have as large an effect on my life expectancy as it would for the average person. Similarly, I'm not at a particularly high risk for firearms-related homicide (I live in a city with a fairly low murder rate, etc.). I'm probably at a higher risk to die by a vehicle accident (avid cyclist...and a lot of drivers suck). Just a word of caution on directly applying these kinds of stats...

[sarisataka]

24. Please do and let us know

I see a few issues immediately. The studies acknowledge the difference between firearm homicide and suicide but when comparing to other causes they combine them to pad the numbers.

I also note that heart disease and other causes of death stemming from US obesity seem to be ignored. I would think those totals could eve surpass the cancer numbers.

[DanTex]

25. The statistical methodology should be pretty non-controversial.

Also, I don't think that chart is a list of top causes of deaths, they just picked firearms and a few others for the sake of illustration. The top cause of death is heart disease, which doesn't appear on the chart.

Whether suicide is "violence" is a matter of terminology. Yes, suicides are different from homicides, but there is a good amount of research indicating that gun availability is a significant factor contributing to suicide rates, meaning that if all of the guns suddenly vanished, suicide rates would go down. This is because guns provide an easy and lethal means of suicide. This is not to say that all gun suicides would be prevented -- of course there would be some substitution with other means. And, although most people who attempt suicide and survive ultimately don't die from suicide, there are some people who really are determined to end their lives, and for those people the lack of lethal means will at best delay their suicide. Still, for the sake of addressing the question of how much life expectancy is lost due to guns generally, it makes sense to include all firearm deaths in the total.

Finally, you are right that the risk exposures are not uniform across the population. But again, from the point of view of public health, I'm not sure this matters. For instance, as a man I have a much lower risk of developing breast cancer than a woman would, but that doesn't affect my judgement of the severity of breast cancer as a health problem.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. Countries with little to no firearm ownership have very high suicide rates.

Japan has a higher rate than we do, and almost no civilian ownership of firearms. This 'report' unfairly lumps all US suicides with a firearm into the 'gun violence' category, disproportionally representing gun violence as a risk factor for death. Those deaths should remain in a comparable category, such as SUICIDE, not gun violence, so they may be compared to suicide rates in nations have anywhere from lots, to no gun ownership.

[GreenStormCloud]

16. They are NOT randomly distributed.

Most murder victims are themselves criminals, usually in the drug trade. Avoid being a criminal and a person can avoid your misleading statistic. For law-abiding people guns save more innocent lives than are taken by law-abiding people.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

17. I think, given the context of the study (life expectancy) that firearm-suicides should be separate.

If firearms are not present, then there is valid cause to argue that accidental firearm-deaths or firearm-homicides would certainly decline. However the gun is not the root cause of firearm related suicides - that is a mental health issue. To argue a firearm suicide death would not have happened if firearms were not available is disengenious since suicide deaths of other means are so very common as well.

Suicidal people extremely intent on suicide (past the "cry-for-help&quot would be those who use guns... it's an extremely effective & convenient method. There are other, perhaps even more effective, methods of suicide that merely lack convenience. However, someone with such extreme intent would likely be undeterred by the lack of convenience of say jumping off a bridge/building. Removing firearms from these people does NOT alter the life expectancy impact of these suicides...

Without somehow factoring in gun-suicides that would have occurred via other means or somehow providing quantitative evidence showing suicide deaths which would have used guns actually do cease without firearm access... it becomes disengenious to lump gun-suicides into the general pool of gun deaths. IMO, gun-suicides (or any other item-related suicide) shuold be placed into a collective suicide group.

[DanTex]

26. There is plenty of evidence that gun availability is a significant contributing factor to suicide.

The Harvard School of Public Health has a website about this, with statistics, explanations, links to studies, etc.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/

Firearms are the most lethal and most common method of suicide in the U.S. More people who die by suicide use a gun than all other methods combined. Suicide attempts with a firearm are almost always fatal, while those with other methods are less likely to kill. Nine out of ten people who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide later.

Every U.S. study that has examined the relationship has found that access to firearms is a risk factor for suicides. Firearm owners are not more suicidal than non-firearm owners; rather, their suicide attempts are more likely to be fatal. Many suicide attempts are made impulsively during a short-term crisis period. If highly lethal means are made less available to impulsive attempters and they substitute less lethal means, or temporarily postpone their attempt, the odds are increased that they will survive. Studies in a variety of countries have indicated that when access to lethal means is reduced, both the means-specific suicide rate and, very often, the overall suicide rate decline.

To explore the research on each of these concepts in greater depth, click here:

Many suicide attempts occur impulsively during a crisis.
Intent isn't all that determines whether an attempter lives or dies; means also matter.
90% of attempters who survive do NOT go on to die by suicide later.
Access to firearms is a risk factor for suicide.
Firearms used in youth suicide usually belong to a parent
Reducing access to lethal means saves lives.

[gejohnston]

27. question I have

is how did the researcher determine gun ownership rates? I'm guessing they looked at the most rural and just assumed. Using the number of permits and registrations, one could make a reasonable estimate in New York or Mass. Wyoming and Alaska, just assuming.
Which brings another problem. Suicide rates are higher in rural areas. That is equally true in rural US and Canada, with high gun ownership rates, as it is in UK and Japan, where it is just the opposite.
When stricter gun laws were passed in Australia and Canada, the suicide rates did not drop. Suicide rate by firearm did, since guns were less available. Self hangings increased to make up the difference.
It looks like they are looking at a symptom and not addressing the underlying problems.

Edit to add: That said, If you have a loved one that could be suicidal, by all means secure any guns, ropes, etc. Looking at this page at face value, I support this idea.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/gun-shop-project/

[GreenStormCloud]

29. So your solution is to take guns away from everybody?

No thanks. I will take my chances that I will not desire to commit suicide. If I ever do decide to end my own life I will breathe pure nitrogen. Easy, fast, painless and no mess.

[ManiacJoe]

30. One of the problems with these summaries is the phrasing of things.

"Access to firearms is a risk factor for suicide."

This this supposed to mean (a) "Access to firearms is a risk factor for attempting suicide", or (b) "Access to firearms is a risk factor for succeeding at suicide" ?

It seems obvious to me that (b) is the correct conclusion. However, the way I read it, it always seems like the authors imply (a).

[Euromutt]

31. Then there's the inherent problem with the term "risk factor"

"Risk factor" means no more than that some statistical correlation was detected between an attribute of the subject and something nasty that happened to him; it doesn't necessarily mean a causal relationship exists, or even if it does, that it is a unique one. Fact is, suicide rates in many wealthy developed countries are comparable to or indeed higher than the American suicide rate, so evidently, firearms are merely one means out of many to the end of suicide. The rest of world seems to manage to off itself just as readily by means of hanging, jumping in front of trains, off bridges and other high places, etc. (all of which are about as lethal as firearms as means of suicide).

[Starboard Tack]

35. No, You're right, it's (b)

Access to a firearm makes it very easy. So there's a very high success rate. About the same as jumping off the Golden Gate bridge.

[hack89]

36. The sucide rate has held steady as the number of guns has skyrocketed.

which I think reflects the incidence of mental illness, depression and other reasons that people kill themselves.

We have reduced the rate of gun violence without restricting gun rights - we can do the same for suicide rates.

[GreenStormCloud]

18. They have a false assumption.

They assume (page 2, close to the bottom) that if guns are eliminated that murderers won't find other means. That assumes that the mafia, and drug gangs will become peaceful. My little town has had four drug murders in the last few years, two by stabbing, two by bludgeoning.

[GreenStormCloud]

19. Both studies funded by the Joyce Foundation. N/T

[ileus]

23. Guns just keep on killing people...more fake numbers.

[Euromutt]

32. Seems to me this horse stumbles right out of the gate

Despite recent gains, the U.S. remains behind most other affluent countries in life expectancy. Even within the U.S., the gap between the life expectancies of Caucasians and African-Americans remains significant.

The hypothesis that rates of firearm ownership--at least, legal firearm ownership--play a significant role in this disparity runs into trouble right off the bat, because the available evidence, to the best of my understanding, indicates that rates of legal firearm ownership among African-Americans are lower than among Caucasians. It's difficult to account for illegal firearms ownership, of course, but that tends to go hand in hand with criminal activity, and if African-Americans are more likely to be involved in criminal activity (or at least a subset, to wit young, urban male African-Americans), this is readily explicable by income inequality. And from higher levels of poverty among blacks it would also follow that they have inferior diets, inadequate health care, and all the other reasons why poor people tend to die sooner than rich people.

This study smells like a search for data to support a predetermined conclusion.

[Common Sense Party]

37. What is the difference in obesity rates between the U.S. and other countries?

Especially in young people?

That's probably a much bigger factor than the relatively small number of gun deaths compared to the huge population.