The science is settled, and who doubts the objectivity of federally funded scientists?

US has lowest life expectancy of wealthy nations because of too many guns stored unsafely at home

The United States has far more violent deaths than any other wealthy nation in part because there are so many residents who own guns and store them in unlocked places in their homes.

The lax gun rules are a major contributor to the low life expectancy rate that Americans have compared to their global counterparts. 

A new report reveals that of the 17 wealthiest countries, American males have the lowest life expectancy of 75.6 years and their female counterparts are the second lowest in the rankings coming in at 80.7 years.

‘With lives and dollars at stake, the United States cannot afford to ignore this problem,’ said the report from the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine.

The distinguished scientists who released this “study” are all members of the federally funded National Academies, “Where the Nation Turns for Independent, Expert Advice”, so let’s see what they’ve found, shall we? Hmm – In Merry Old England, where guns and even pocket knives are banned, men live to the ripe old age of 78.3 years while American males die off from poorly secured guns at such a dramatic pace that their life expectancy drops allll the way to 77.9! All that death, all due to guns. So sad.

And how is it that guns are to blame for the average American woman’s shortened life span of just 80.7 years? Until these scientists went to work, gun deaths were considered to be a largely male phenomenon, male-on-male violence. Thanks to our federal tax dollars, we now learn that there’s a heretofore unknown epidemic of gun violence perpetrated against women!

Getting back to that low life expectancy for males, do you remember when that “fact” was cited by liberals as proof of our uncaring society and the need for increased health care and even pre-natal care because of all the babies who died prematurely? Turns out our concern was all for naught – it’s been guns doing the harm and not, as social scientists have maintained, poverty. Think of the money we can now save eliminating all the trillion dollar social welfare programs we’ve been funding in a futile attempt to raise the  life expectancy of drug addicts and 15-year-old grandmothers! Wow.

If this garbage had been put out by the Brady/Giffords anti-gun lobby, who’d care? It’s their sponsors’ money being used for propaganda not. But these are federal institutions playing Sandy Hook, pretending to be providing sober, careful research  and using our money to do it. I’m offended.

Life expectancy chart

24 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

24 responses to “The science is settled, and who doubts the objectivity of federally funded scientists?

  1. Al Dente

    It seems most gun deaths are criminal vs. criminal, so keep it up boys.
    Also, I don’t think the proliferation of anti-depressants with warning labels that say “may cause thoughts of suicide” is helping out much. The long-term effects of so many drugs are unknown.

  2. AJ

    More from Pravda:
    ‘Americans never give up your guns’

    “These days, there are few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bear arms and use deadly force to defend one’s self and possessions.

    This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles.

    Various armies, such as the Poles, during the Смута (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor….”

    http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/

  3. Anonymous

    black on black inner city violence committed with illegal hand guns bringing down the avg i suspect

  4. AJ

    Are the celebrities pushing the NWO agenda evil or just plain stupid? After saving the planet from the illuminati in Lara Croft Tomb Raider, turncoat Angelina Jolie joins them in their attempt to take over the world.

    ‘Angelina Jolie Conscripted To Sell Genocidal ‘Humanitarian Intervention’ War Doctrine’

    http://empirestrikesblack.com/2012/02/angelina-jolie-conscripted-to-sell-genocidal-humanitarian-intervention-war-doctrine/

  5. Peg

    Being an optimist, I always like to look at the sunny side of a story. Once again, Obama comes to our rescue. If you note, this study states it is a comparison of wealthy nations…. At the rate that we are going, after 4 more years of Obama at the helm, odds are good we will no longer be a wealthy nation! When contrasted with the mediocre nations of the world – think how we’ll shine then! :)

  6. TheWizard

    I can think of few things as worthless as a locked up, unloaded weapon.

  7. Libertarian Advocate

    I could swear Mikey Bloomturd was pushing 32 ounce sodas, salt and junk food as the source of our rapidly declining life expectancy rates. All of a sudden it’s guns? Wow, these clowns make Orwell’s Ministry of Truth look like pikers.

    Hey, Jay Carney, what’s the price of chocolate today?

  8. Zoltan

    If the US removed the top 5 Democrat cities I’m sure the US would rank better than most countries. Democrats have done wonders for Baltimore Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia and Los Angeles.

    We need Democrat control more than anything.

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

  9. Dollar Bill

    Interesting that right wing lunatic Alex Jones can appear on CNN, and go postal with Piers Morgan, threatening an armed insurrection if the govt tries to outlaw semi-automatics. If a Muslim had said the same thing, CF, you and your audience would be branding him a terrorist, sending his sorry ass to Gitmo, or droning him by now. Yet, in these Randian precincts, Jones, a complete nutjob who says OKC and 9-11 were inside jobs, receives a worshipful welcome. Funny that.

  10. Libertarian Advocate

    Dullard: FYI: Many on the Randian side see Jones as a statist agent provocateur.
    As for the “droning,” complain to your brown deity about that.

    Note to Walt: No, he’s not a purveyor of women’s lingerie.

  11. Dollar Bill

    Alex Jones is proof positive why gun control is so painfully necessary. If that lunatic is the face of your movement, a guy who has no business being anywhere near a loaded weapon, then heaven help us all. And anyway, as we all know, murder rate in the US is four times that in the UK. 4.8 vs. 1.2 per 100,000. Take that in your pipe and smoke it.

  12. WorthyChief

    The gun control debate is nothing more than a smoke screen used by politicians (liberal) to divert the attention of “the herd” (us) from the real issues we face today.

  13. David Smith

    A little fourth grade arithmetic.

    Please feel free to speak up if you think I did the math wrong.

    Compared to Japan (guns = zero) the US (guns = a lot) the US has to knock off .0526 (82/77.9)- 1 of its population in any 77.9 year period. W a population of 300,000,000 that gives a number of 15,789,000. Since this is over a 77.9 year time period, that works out (15,789,000/77.9) to over 200,000 gun deaths a year.

    Compared to England .005 (78.3/77.9) -1. Again w the US population, you get 1,500,000 extra deaths per 77.9 year life expectancy, or very close to 20,000 extra deaths a year.

    Would someone like to comment on the numbers? How ’bout two numbers that differ by 10X from the same cause?

    • FBI reports 8,583 deaths by guns (almost entirely handguns, not rifles, “assault” or otherwise), 400 of which were found to be justifiable homicides by the police and 260 justifiable homicides by private citizens defending themselves or others. So just under 8,000. Does that answer your question, which I don’t really understand?

      • David Smith

        The study supposedly claims a lot of the difference in life expectancy is due the US high gun ownership. What the math does is show our gun murder rate would have to be incredible for that to be true.

  14. pulled up in OG

    “Agenda”

    Why don’t you ask The Daily Mail? : )

    The National Academies press release for this report never mentions gun or firearm. The report brief from the Institute of Medicine is ~1300 words, mentions firearms once, alongside smoking, alcohol and seat belts.

    http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=13497

    http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/US-Health-in-International-Perspective-Shorter-Lives-Poorer-Health/Report-Brief010913.aspx

    Institute of Medicine chart: Causes of Death for U.S. Men Before Age 50

    http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/US-Health-in-International-Perspective-Shorter-Lives-Poorer-Health/Figure-1.aspx

    Do you expect a ~300 page report on premature death in the US to ignore guns entirely? It’s a free download, check it out.

    Which brings us to “bogus”.

    • Libertarian Advocate

      puiOG: funny to see Cold War style tradecraft in use today. Plant a story in the foreign press, then reference back to it for your nefarious purpose. It worked well in the days of no Internet when fact and source checking could take weeks to months. In the meantime the story you want out IS out.

      Today, the game has changed dramatically; what the bad guys rely on is lazy readers. But that alone is not enough because as we now all know, all it takes is one or two tenacious bloggers to go after them on their BS. It’s why the statists despise the Internet.

    • David Smith

      I spotted at least two items that were completely bogus. Although from dishonesty or inability to fact check is a good question.

      The one on infant death: Are the people who fudge these “statistics” aware that most countries do not count an infant death until after about 3 days? Cuba, oh Cuba and it wonderful health system, does not count an infant death until the child has been registered with the party. Usually about 2 months.

      Draw your own conclusions.

      • pulled up in OG

        Cuba?

        “The panel’s analysis compared health outcomes in the United States with those of 16 comparable high-income or “peer” countries: Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmarrk, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.”
        ——————————

        ‘Cross-national variation in infant mortality rates is partly affected by differences in how countries register preterm births. In the United States, Canada, and Nordic countries, preterm neonates who often have low probabilities of survival are registered as live births, thereby increasing the mortality rate relative to countries that do not include preterm neonates among live births.”

        HOWEVER, a quick glance at “Deaths per 1,000 live births” shows:
        Sweden leading all 17 “peer” countries
        Finland 3rd of 17
        Norway 4th of 17
        Canada 16th of 17
        United States last, 17th of 17.

        Conclusion: we still suck.

  15. Hu Nhu?

    Cough! (bullshit)