The bullet exploded like a fragment from the past, piercing his
present and laying waste to the future he envisioned. It tore through
Jerome Graham’s back, wrecked his spleen, damaged his pancreas and
kidney, and left him paralyzed from the waist down.

And while the direct medical consequences of that gunshot fired a year
ago in East Baltimore end there, the full force of its destruction has
reverberated more broadly, encompassing Graham’s friends, his family,
his community. It has carried into the American health care system,
while confronting American taxpayers with costs reaching hundreds of
thousands of dollars.

Before he was shot last year, Graham, 33, supported his wife and three
children by working as an electrician. Barring a medical miracle, he
will never walk again, greatly complicating his ability to earn a
paycheck. Since the shot went through his body, he and his family have
come to rely on government programs like Medicaid, Social Security and
subsidized housing.

In the American conversation, discussion of gun-related violence
generally centers on the tragic loss of life or permanent injuries
that result. But beneath these headline-grabbing, life-shattering
facts are costs measured in vast numbers of dollars.

Firearms-related deaths cost the U.S. health care system and economy
$37 billion in 2005, the most recent year for which the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention attempted an estimate. The cost of
those who survive gun violence came to another $3.7 billion that year,
according to the CDC.

More than a year after the shooting, Graham still needs at least one
more surgery and he'll require lifelong medical care and other
assistance because of his disability. Graham spent three months in
Johns Hopkins Hospital and other facilities after being shot. Multiple
surgeries were followed by recoveries and rehabilitative therapy.

"I actually got a hospital bill for two-hundred-and-something thousand
dollars," Graham said. If his new disability didn't qualify him for
Medicaid health benefits, "I would probably be paying on those bills
for the rest of my life." Instead, the United States and Maryland
taxpayers who finance Medicaid are shouldering the cost.

On 3/28/2013 12:10 PM, jps wrote:

The bullet exploded like a fragment from the past, piercing his
present and laying waste to the future he envisioned. It tore through
Jerome Graham’s back, wrecked his spleen, damaged his pancreas and
kidney, and left him paralyzed from the waist down.

And while the direct medical consequences of that gunshot fired a year
ago in East Baltimore end there, the full force of its destruction has
reverberated more broadly, encompassing Graham’s friends, his family,
his community. It has carried into the American health care system,
while confronting American taxpayers with costs reaching hundreds of
thousands of dollars.

Before he was shot last year, Graham, 33, supported his wife and three
children by working as an electrician. Barring a medical miracle, he
will never walk again, greatly complicating his ability to earn a
paycheck. Since the shot went through his body, he and his family have
come to rely on government programs like Medicaid, Social Security and
subsidized housing.

In the American conversation, discussion of gun-related violence
generally centers on the tragic loss of life or permanent injuries
that result. But beneath these headline-grabbing, life-shattering
facts are costs measured in vast numbers of dollars.

Firearms-related deaths cost the U.S. health care system and economy
$37 billion in 2005, the most recent year for which the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention attempted an estimate. The cost of
those who survive gun violence came to another $3.7 billion that year,
according to the CDC.

More than a year after the shooting, Graham still needs at least one
more surgery and he'll require lifelong medical care and other
assistance because of his disability. Graham spent three months in
Johns Hopkins Hospital and other facilities after being shot. Multiple
surgeries were followed by recoveries and rehabilitative therapy.

"I actually got a hospital bill for two-hundred-and-something thousand
dollars," Graham said. If his new disability didn't qualify him for
Medicaid health benefits, "I would probably be paying on those bills
for the rest of my life." Instead, the United States and Maryland
taxpayers who finance Medicaid are shouldering the cost.


What's your relationship to this poor fellow?

On 3/28/13 4:41 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:10:35 -0700, jps wrote:

that gunshot fired a year
ago in East Baltimore


Maryland has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. They must
not really be that effective I guess.


Strict? What's strict about them? Maryland's gun laws have never
interfered with my purchasing guns or target shooting.

On Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:47:55 PM UTC-4, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/28/13 4:41 PM, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:10:35 -0700, jps wrote:


that gunshot fired a year
ago in East Baltimore


Maryland has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. They must
not really be that effective I guess.



Strict? What's strict about them? Maryland's gun laws have never
interfered with my purchasing guns or target shooting.

They *shouldn't* interfere with a law-abiding person's ability to purchase or shoot guns. Is there a reason Maryland's strict laws would have interfered with *your* activities?

Point is, no law will ever prevent a lawbreaker from breaking the law. After all, it's against the law to not pay your taxes and debts, but many fail to do so anyway, right?

On 3/28/13 8:14 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:47:55 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/28/13 4:41 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:10:35 -0700, jps wrote:

that gunshot fired a year
ago in East Baltimore


Maryland has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. They must
not really be that effective I guess.


Strict? What's strict about them? Maryland's gun laws have never
interfered with my purchasing guns or target shooting.

... But you can't walk out the door with a loaded pistol, mandatory
year in jail. You can't even carry a handgun in the car unloaded
unless you can prove you are going directly to or from a dealer, your
personally owned business, shooting range or other legal place to
shoot. If you stop at the grocery store on your way home, they can
throw your ass in jail.

Handguns are supposed to be registered with the state and private
sales are outlawed.

Pistol buyers are supposed to have a training certificate.

There is a magazine size limit (20)

How did that work out for the guy in Baltimore?


I have a carry permit and can carry a loaded pistol. However, the permit
is up for renewal soon, and I doubt I'll bother. I only shoot targets.

I don't have a problem with any of Maryland's gun laws, nor do I have a
problem with the Governor's proposal to make the laws even tighter.

The "training certificate at the moment is a farce. You get one by
watching a video at a gun dealer's.

Wow. A magazine limit. Wow. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

On 3/28/2013 3:41 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:10:35 -0700, jps wrote:

that gunshot fired a year
ago in East Baltimore


Maryland has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. They must
not really be that effective I guess.


Duh, gun laws are only obeyed by law abiding citizens.

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:41:18 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:10:35 -0700, jps wrote:

that gunshot fired a year
ago in East Baltimore


Maryland has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. They must
not really be that effective I guess.

The facts are a bit more nuance that making the case either way on
strict gun laws, except it seems with regard to carry permits. Those
cause more problems.

http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

In article , says...

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:41:18 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:10:35 -0700, jps wrote:

that gunshot fired a year
ago in East Baltimore


Maryland has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. They must
not really be that effective I guess.

The facts are a bit more nuance that making the case either way on
strict gun laws, except it seems with regard to carry permits. Those
cause more problems.

http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

Why doens't the article pick a date and compare all scenarios using the same time period?

On 3/29/2013 7:06 AM, BAR wrote:
In article , says...

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:41:18 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:10:35 -0700, jps wrote:

that gunshot fired a year
ago in East Baltimore


Maryland has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. They must
not really be that effective I guess.

The facts are a bit more nuance that making the case either way on
strict gun laws, except it seems with regard to carry permits. Those
cause more problems.

http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

Why doens't the article pick a date and compare all scenarios using the same time period?


Because they have a political agenda... There should be a site out there
dedicated to getting the facts out, but it's not this one

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:09:46 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:

On 3/29/2013 7:06 AM, BAR wrote:
In article , says...

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:41:18 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:10:35 -0700, jps wrote:

that gunshot fired a year
ago in East Baltimore


Maryland has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. They must
not really be that effective I guess.

The facts are a bit more nuance that making the case either way on
strict gun laws, except it seems with regard to carry permits. Those
cause more problems.

http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

Why doens't the article pick a date and compare all scenarios using the same time period?


Because they have a political agenda... There should be a site out there
dedicated to getting the facts out, but it's not this one

Well, you have a stupid agenda, but we don't hold it against you
because you ARE stupid.