In 2010, 209 children from age 1-12 died from gunshots(including accidents).
In 2010, 723 children from age 1-12 died from drowning.
Should we remove swimming pools from society, to save those children? Would it be worth it to save just one child?
Swimming pools kill more kids than guns huh? Probably we need more guns to pertect them kids innit kun?
I'm trying to be serious here. Why are we more concerned with kids who die because of guns, and not as concerned with so many more kids who die because of pools?
We aren't. In most states pools are more heavily regulated than guns.
Since it isn't working though, why not remove the pools?
You are making a straw man argument.
A fence and locked gate is the best way to protect everyone. And a gun safe and trigger lock would have a similar effect. Which is why I accept the parallel and think both protections should be mandatory.
Does putting a fence and a locked gate prevent kids from drowning all the time?
If not, what do we do about the ones who still die?
Besides, a gun safe and trigger lock is a different topic, with its own negative consequences.
A child proof fence and child supervision would prevent every drowning caused by unsupervised falls into the pool.
If the child drowns as they are watching, that is the parents responsibility, not the community's.
I also do not think that the existence of one stupid and avoidable way to die means we have to be "fair" and legalize the keeping of assault rifles, rabid weasels and cyanide covered lollipops.
Instead we should do the best we can in every area, as the opportunity arises.
Requiring supervision doesn't mean the child will be supervised. That's the point. Just because we have rules doesn't mean those rules will always be followed. If the rules aren't working, how far should we go to save one child's life?
If you look at a society, and see Cause 1 responsible for 100 children's deaths, Cause 2 responsible for 500 children's deaths, and Cause 3 responsible for 4,000 children's deaths, why is there more outrage about Cause 1 than Cause 3?
Intention. Trying to be serious? LAWL That would be why you need to hide behind a fake user name and avatar.
Just because I understand the risk of putting personal information on the internet has nothing to do with this.
Are you not concerned about the children dying?
Why not try and answer his point, instead of going off on a straw man tangent about fake user names?
Neither swimming pools or guns killed anyone.
Every summer I am revolted by the expected news reports of a kid drowning in a pool. It is one of the most important responsibilities a parent can have. Many deaths occur at parties, where all the adults are standing around talking and drinking, assuming someone else was looking after the kids. No they shouldn't be banned, but parents or guardians need to get their acts together.
I love the way the gun lobby diverts logical discussion by coming up with silly arguments.
In Australia, there was a similar mass shooting in 1996. As a result, the government banned semi-automatic weapons. Civilians still have guns - they just can't have semi-automatic ones. We haven't had another massacre since 1996. Doesn't that sound like a simple solution, which still allows citizens to hold the kind of guns envisaged by your Founding Fathers?
This isn't a diversion, it's a different topic. I only included the stats on gun deaths to give a sense of comparison for the number of children who drown every year.
I'll discuss guns with you in one of the gun threads.
Why do you assume the illegality of semi-automatic weapons is the reason that no other attack took place? I assume you have proof that that is the reason.
Because no other measures were taken to prevent them, and we can see how mass shootings have continued (and escalated) in America, where nothing was done.
I think the timing of this post is incredibly insensitive. How many of those children were held under water until they drowned?
So children who drown aren't as important as children who are murdered? THAT is insensitive.
This whole 'sensitivity' thing makes no sense. This discussion isn't harming anybody. It's actually a good time to have it, because we are all thinking about the value of human life, especially children.
Everyone is still hurting from this... at least those of us with a heart.
I was not saying that and you know it.
Comparing swimming pool deaths to gun deaths is a false analogy. So let me make your analogy more accurate in the form of a question:
If you knew of some swimming pools that were designed and built specifically for the purpose of drowning people as efficiently as possible (including children), and some of these pools had been used to drown children, would you want them to remain open? Even if the number of deaths caused by them was much less than the number of deaths caused by something else.
And by the way, what's your data source?
Rather I would remove children from swimming pools if must go to extremes.
We should require they always be fenced and that parents supervise children within the fence. Which most states do.
Y'know, like a gun safe and trigger lock--but compulsory.
It's more logical to look at percentages. What fraction of children who had guns aimed at them died from gunshot wounds, and what fraction of children who entered a pool drowned?
How about, what fraction of children who were in the vicinity of guns?
Really, it doesn't matter what the fraction it is... does the fraction matter to those 723 dead children?
It matters to your argement that pools cause more deaths than guns. My point which you failed to grasp is that the opposite is actually true if you look at death rates per encounter.
Guns cause more deaths than pools because a greater fraction of people die after having a gun aimed at them than die after entering a pool.
Guns cause more deaths per encounter.
Pools cause more deaths.
You can't change the totals by using a percentage.
I could just as easily say, what percentage of times a gun fires a bullet does it kill a child? I bet that's a lot lower than what percentage of times a pool is used does a child die. It doesn't matter though, more children die from drowning than from guns.
Your last paragraph, amended for a pool:
"What percentage of times does a pool kill a child if the child walks by it?"
You have a talent for making straw man arguments, I've noticed.
And for a gun:
"What percentage of times does a gun kill a child if the child walks by it?"
Looks like a tossup to me as the answer is a flat zero both times.
I would rather not amend the sentence to be illogical, but if you insist:
"what percentage of times a pool fires water does it kill a child?"
The comparison is unfair because if a bullet does not hit a child it won't kill them, but if the child is not in the pool it won't kill them either.
No, which is why I stand by my original statement, as the second one does not logically compare a gun's hit % to a pool's hit %.
First, I suspect if you were to include children ages 13-17, your numbers would look vastly different.
Second, children are undoubtedly exposed to pools on a much more frequent basis than they are to guns. As you said in another thread, statistics are meaningless unless you control for variables.
Third, I've never heard anyone complain that their freedom is being curtailed because they're required to put a locked fence around their pool. Most people understand that responsibility comes with pool ownership and are glad to take measures to prevent loss of innocent life, unlike some selfish gun owners who balk at any kind of sensible regulations.
1 - It would be different, but I'm most concerned over small children who have no real faculties for protecting themselves.
2 - I'm not talking about rates. I'm talking about raw numbers. It doesn't matter what the rates are, but the rate of how many times a gun is used or how many times a pool is used compared to how many times it kills a child, I'm certain the pool deaths would be more common. Again, in a discussion about totals, the rate isn't relevant.
3 - But our restrictions aren't working. This is supposed to be about drownings, not about guns.
If outlawing firearms keeps them off the streets then we should do the same with drugs.
Tussin made an excellent point. It is most certainly about rates and percentages. The percentage killed per encounter or per incident is relevant because it points to the destructive potential of the thing being measured.
If 90% of people who do X die, but only 5% of people who do Y die, which is more dangerous, X or Y?
You say "Oh, but what if that 5% represents many more people than the 90%?" All that means is that if an equal number of people did both, then the tables would turn, and X would be the more dangerous thing, both in proportional AND absolute terms.
So if there were an equal number of "child-gun encounters" as there were "child-pool encounters", then voila, more kids would be dead from guns. Incidentally, the agenda of the NRA and other gun promoters is precisely that--to have guns more pervasive in daily life. But I digress.
We must look at rates.
Here's another one for you. 100% of people who take cyanide die. How many people actually died from cyanide poisoning last year? Probably only a handful. So clearly cyanide is a lot less dangerous than a swimming pool, right? Jaxson, do you see how ridiculous this line of thinking is?
Quick question: who is richer, China or Italy? Well, China has a much larger economy--i.e. more dollars than Italy. So Chinese must be richer than Italians, right? Wrong. Because the rate of poverty is much higher in China than in Italy. It's about rates.
If 100% of people who drink a gallon of bleach die, and that comes out to be 1 person a year, then is that a more important topic than something where 1% of people who do X die, and that comes out to 1000 people per year?
People are free to drink gallons of bleach on their own accord.
Unless someone is weaponizing cyanide or swimming pools, I think guns are a bigger threat to individual freedoms.
Well lets see, guns were used in the American Revolution and other wars in our country. You may have noticed our military are issued weapons and not noodles. Was that a serious question? I was robbed once at gunpoint and when the robber started to leave I retrieved my weapon and took my money back and held the person until the police could get there. You see the police are not around when you need them.
The use of a weapon in war hardly makes it an ensurer of freedom. Or should I put nuclear bombs in that same category?
The fact that you were robbed "at gunpoint" should alarm you to its potential in threatening individual freedoms.
Good for you. Did you really need a semi-automatic weapon with a large clip to do that? Or was a hand gun just fine?
Banning assault weapons might not stop people killing, but it would reduce the number of innocents they could kill at one time.
So if they kill the same amount of people, but at a slower rate, it's okay then?
How would a gun with a smaller clip kill the same amount of people?
I would also think it logical that a slower killing rate would naturally result in a lower death count.
It's highly unlikely they would kill the same amount of people - because the slower the rate, the more likely it is that help will arrive.
In the recent massacre, if that boy's mother had had just a handgun instead of an assault rifle, how many people do you think he would've been able to kill?
No, that proves my point, actually.
It's not about the rate. Cyanide isn't a huge problem, even though 100% die.
The causes that kill the most children are the most important causes to look at.
Not if there are countless more children who are not harmed by that cause.
Look, millions of people die from car accidents. Why isn't there an uproar over that? Because we know that, relative to the vast number of car rides that happen every day constantly, it's negligible. The same cannot be said of guns.
Your odds of getting killed in a car accident, on a "per-event" basis are vastly lower than getting killed by a gun, on a "per-event" basis.
This is because a gun is built solely for the purpose of killing quickly and efficiently. A car is built for the purpose of transportation.
If cyanide was as prevalent in the lives of children as guns or swimming pools then yes, there would be many more deaths, and we would need to address that more seriously. Why is it not so prevalent? Precisely because it is controlled and regulated.
So if I understand we should have a homicide rate equal to the amount of firearms in this country?
So, fewer children who die from causes that are a higher incident rate are more important than more children who die from causes that are a lower incident rate?
And you ignored my argument about how often guns are used, but you keep bringing up rates.
I guess you just care more about 200 children than 700 children?
"fewer children who die from causes that are a higher incident rate are more important than more children who die from causes that are a lower incident rate?"
When it comes to public policy, yes. If you want to talk about personal experience of each family, then every individual is precious. So statistics don't matter anyway.
The rate matters for public policy, and this is why car accidents are not a major public policy concern.
"And you ignored my argument about how often guns are used, but you keep bringing up rates."
I wasn't aware you made any such argument. If your point is that guns aren't used as often, then why would you want to make the problem worse by having more gun use?
"I guess you just care more about 200 children than 700 children?"
Obviously a straw man and offensive. You and I disagree on various things, but I would have expected better from you.
Ok, I just disagree. I think the raw total is more important.
If 1 kid dies a year from cyanide(100% death rate), then I don't think that should be our number one priority.
I said what I said because your arguments indicate that the rate is more important than the total, so the 200 are more important than the 700. It's just an extension of your argument. If you don't like it, then maybe you have a problem with the argument. You should be focusing, not on guns, but on things that kill kids 100% of the time, regardless of how many actually die.
I apologize for interrupting this conversation, but Jax you know the percentages per event are the true numbers and averages used in statistical information. Second, comparing pools to guns is also an apples to oranges arguement and you know this as well, a ridiculous comparison.
If you believe the raw total is more important, then you should be focusing all of your energies on car accidents. Tens of thousands of people are killed in car accidents each year. Multiple times more than the number killed by guns or swimming pools combined. Therefore you should be expending multiple times the amount of energy on car accidents as on guns or anything else. You can't have it both ways. The fact that you choose to spend so much time and energy defending guns indicates your political bias.
Obviously, if only 1 or 2 people die from something, it's not that big of a deal, no matter the rate. It becomes a public issue when hundreds of people every year die, or more.
No, Jaxson, it is not an extension of my argument. It is a demonstration that when push comes to shove, you need to resort to offensive and outlandish remarks because the facts and reason do not support your argument.
Final point: why do so few people die from cyanide? Because cyanide is well-regulated and restricted in its use. Why do so few people die from guns? Precisely because guns are regulated and restricted. If, as the NRA (and I assume you as well) want, guns were not regulated nearly to the degree that they are, then the raw number of deaths from firearms would skyrocket. And then what would you say? When guns were worse both proportionally and absolutely?
Aging is a bigger cause of death than car accidents, but I agree otherwise.
Unfortunately there is not much the law can do about that, lol! If only...
I didn't say drownings were a bigger problem than car accidents. This is just a thread about drownings. We can talk about cars elsewhere if you want.
I defend guns for a different reason, so it doesn't indicate a bias as you suggest.
Who sets the limit for how many deaths are 'important'? You said hundreds, so if only 199 kids were shot and killed every year would that no longer be important? I'm really not following your logic here.
And yes, it was an extension of your argument, until this post where you changed your requirements. You said the rate was more important than the total, which means that the group with the lower rate and higher total is less important than the group with the higher rate and lower total. It's perfect logic stemming from your statements.
Final point. When states loosened gun laws to let people carry around everywhere, did homicide rates skyrocket? Nope, they went down. When the assault weapon ban ended, did rates skyrocket? Nope, they went down.
The real thrust of this thread, as per your OP, is about public safety, so that is the issue I'm concerned with.
I won't get into the relationship with homicide rates here, there's plenty of evidence out there to contradict your position that guns go hand-in-hand with safety. And I am in the middle of writing a hub on that, probably post that in a few days.
"Who sets the limit for how many deaths are 'important'? You said hundreds, so if only 199 kids were shot and killed every year would that no longer be important? I'm really not following your logic here."
Then just take a step back and try to grasp the larger point I'm making. It's not about a specific number, but rather a general range.
If 1,002 people die from X, and 1,003 people die from Y, which is worse? Well, technically Y is worse, but that seems a rather dumb calculus, don't you think? They're both pretty bad. Bean counting is pointless. It makes a lot more sense to look at general totals. They are equal, for all intents and purposes.
You are trying to twist my arguments with this "requirements" mumbo jumbo. I've been talking about general trends, patterns, risks. That's what public policy is about. If you really did not understand my earlier statements, voila, I have clarified them for you.
Have the last word if you want.
"Look, millions of people die from car accidents. Why isn't there an uproar over that? Because we know that, relative to the vast number of car rides that happen every day constantly, it's negligible."
I would have to disagree with that statement. The reason there isn't a bigger uproar is that we want cars, or at least the vast majority of Americans do.
An awful lot of Americans don't want other people to have guns, so the uproar is not so easily ignored. If a majority of the people didn't want cars in the country, you would find a huge uproar to begin the process of getting rid of all cars. Limit them physically to 40 MPH, impose additional restrictions, limit them to a 2 person capacity, etc. Just like guns, you would find ever increasing pressure to outlaw them.
I doubt that. People see cars every day, and they use cars every day, so they understand on some level that cars are not that dangerous, on a proportional basis.
Cars are built to transport. Transportation contributes to economic activity, leisure, job creation, creativity, and countless other social goods. Guns are built to kill. Killing contributes nothing to humanity, in fact it takes away from humanity (except in the rare instance of self defense).
I stand behind what I said. If the majority of citizens hated cars as much as guns are hated we would seen a growing list of reasons to outlaw cars. It's the way people seem to be made; if I don't like it you can't have it.
cars use valuable petroleum resources
cars are dangerous and cause deaths
drunks use cars to kill with
the energy to build cars could be used better elsewhere
cars allow criminals to escape
cars require massive expenditures in roads
roads destroy the landscape.
The list of reasons goes on forever, and doesn't need to be true or to make sense to be used as a reason to outlaw cars. Any more than the idea that guns kill people is used to outlaw guns. They are usually an excuse, not a reason
Yes, I think the intended use of the object definitely comes into play, as does a person's control over their own life and the situations they put themselves in. Pools are intended to be used for recreation, exercise and cooling off in hot weather. Deaths that occur are in pools are accidental or negligent at worst, with the rare exception of someone drowning another intentionally. Pools are not murder weapons. Pools cannot be hidden under an overcoat, snuck into a crowded building and used to intentionally murder a large number of people within minutes.
If I choose to allow my child to swim in a pool, it is up to me to be responsible and watch him like a hawk so that he does not drown, make sure that he has learned to swim well, has safety equipment, etc. I have a certain level of control over the situation. However, when it comes to a deranged individual with an assault rifle, someone can murder my child even though I am right there with him being a responisble parent, and even though I have not put him in a statistically dangerous situation, such as at school. Murderers with assault rifles take away any control that we have over our own lives and the young lives we are responsble for. Pools do not.
Do the benefits outweigh the disadvantages? In both cases, yes. And both cases need lifeguards.
Nope. Just add more laws for both. You are giving more fuel to "Lawyers" to drum up some laws that pass in the middle of the night in local municipalities.
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.