On Sun, 30 May 2010 19:00:56 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On May 30, 5:49*pm, rangerssuck wrote:


I have an idea. You & I are about the same age. You keep guns in your
house, and I won't. Let's see who lives longer.

Read Freakonomics by Stewen Levitt and Stephan Dubner. It has actual
statistics on deaths by guns and deaths by swimming pools.


Dan

Really, what is the jest? I use to do pools, came close to death a
number of times in them. No water though, heat stroke.

SW

"Sunworshipper" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 May 2010 19:00:56 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On May 30, 5:49 pm, rangerssuck wrote:


I have an idea. You & I are about the same age. You keep guns in your
house, and I won't. Let's see who lives longer.

Read Freakonomics by Stewen Levitt and Stephan Dubner. It has actual
statistics on deaths by guns and deaths by swimming pools.


Dan

Really, what is the jest? I use to do pools, came close to death a
number of times in them. No water though, heat stroke.

SW

Dan is referring to a very curious statistic that Levitt came up with years
ago -- arguably, it's the report that made him famous -- that if one owns a
gun and a swimming pool, and has children, his children are roughly 100
times more likely to die by drowning in the pool than from being shot by the
gun.

If you pick apart his statistics, you see that he went for the most dramatic
fact that can be drawn from them. Nevertheless, swimming pools are dangerous
to young kids, in that parents only need to be inattentive for a few moments
for the kid to slip out of sight. In most households, the kids never get
their hands on the gun at young ages but they're in the pool on most nice
days.

As a former lifeguard, the statistic doesn't surprise me. I've had to pull
several kids out of the pool while their mothers were playing bridge or
jawing with the other country-club ladies. It's good for over-a-beer
conversations. It has shock value. Just be aware of the relative incidences
of contact before jumping to conclusions about it.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 30 May 2010 21:39:32 -0500, Sunworshipper wrote:

On Sun, 30 May 2010 19:00:56 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On May 30, 5:49*pm, rangerssuck wrote:


I have an idea. You & I are about the same age. You keep guns in your
house, and I won't. Let's see who lives longer.

Read Freakonomics by Stewen Levitt and Stephan Dubner. It has actual
statistics on deaths by guns and deaths by swimming pools.


Dan

Really, what is the jest? I use to do pools, came close to death a
number of times in them. No water though, heat stroke.

SW


Actually...people drown in swimming pools far far more than die by
gunshot accidents. Several times more.

in fact..it appears to be 20x more

http://volokh.com/posts/1205343824.shtml


Gunner

--


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

On Sun, 30 May 2010 22:57:34 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Sunworshipper" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 30 May 2010 19:00:56 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On May 30, 5:49 pm, rangerssuck wrote:


I have an idea. You & I are about the same age. You keep guns in your
house, and I won't. Let's see who lives longer.

Read Freakonomics by Stewen Levitt and Stephan Dubner. It has actual
statistics on deaths by guns and deaths by swimming pools.


Dan

Really, what is the jest? I use to do pools, came close to death a
number of times in them. No water though, heat stroke.

SW

Dan is referring to a very curious statistic that Levitt came up with years
ago -- arguably, it's the report that made him famous -- that if one owns a
gun and a swimming pool, and has children, his children are roughly 100
times more likely to die by drowning in the pool than from being shot by the
gun.

If you pick apart his statistics, you see that he went for the most dramatic
fact that can be drawn from them. Nevertheless, swimming pools are dangerous
to young kids, in that parents only need to be inattentive for a few moments
for the kid to slip out of sight. In most households, the kids never get
their hands on the gun at young ages but they're in the pool on most nice
days.

As a former lifeguard, the statistic doesn't surprise me. I've had to pull
several kids out of the pool while their mothers were playing bridge or
jawing with the other country-club ladies. It's good for over-a-beer
conversations. It has shock value. Just be aware of the relative incidences
of contact before jumping to conclusions about it.


100 times eh? Just by guessing I'd say at least 2:1 for the pool. And
that's just the kids under 5 who get next to one by themselves.

SW

On May 30, 10:57*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


If you pick apart his statistics, you see that he went for the most dramatic
fact that can be drawn from them. Nevertheless, swimming pools are dangerous
to young kids, in that parents only need to be inattentive for a few moments
for the kid to slip out of sight. In most households, the kids never get
their hands on the gun at young ages but they're in the pool on most nice
days.


Ed Huntress

Right. The actual numbers they came up with are about 6 million
pools in the U.S. and about 550 children under the age of ten drown
each year.

About 200 million guns and about 175 children under the age of ten
die each year from guns.

Where his statistics get a bit questionable is that most families have
only one pool, but most families with guns have more than one gun. But
even so you would think that with over three times as many deaths by
drowning, there would be a big hue and cry by Congress to ban pools.
( After banning cars and cigarettes, of course ).

Dan

" wrote:

On May 30, 10:57 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


If you pick apart his statistics, you see that he went for the most dramatic
fact that can be drawn from them. Nevertheless, swimming pools are dangerous
to young kids, in that parents only need to be inattentive for a few moments
for the kid to slip out of sight. In most households, the kids never get
their hands on the gun at young ages but they're in the pool on most nice
days.


Ed Huntress

Right. The actual numbers they came up with are about 6 million
pools in the U.S. and about 550 children under the age of ten drown
each year.

About 200 million guns and about 175 children under the age of ten
die each year from guns.

Where his statistics get a bit questionable is that most families have
only one pool, but most families with guns have more than one gun. But
even so you would think that with over three times as many deaths by
drowning, there would be a big hue and cry by Congress to ban pools.
( After banning cars and cigarettes, of course ).


Then they should ban all politicans, since their mistakes kill even
more people.

--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

"Sunworshipper" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 May 2010 22:57:34 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Sunworshipper" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 30 May 2010 19:00:56 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On May 30, 5:49 pm, rangerssuck wrote:


I have an idea. You & I are about the same age. You keep guns in your
house, and I won't. Let's see who lives longer.

Read Freakonomics by Stewen Levitt and Stephan Dubner. It has actual
statistics on deaths by guns and deaths by swimming pools.


Dan

Really, what is the jest? I use to do pools, came close to death a
number of times in them. No water though, heat stroke.

SW

Dan is referring to a very curious statistic that Levitt came up with
years
ago -- arguably, it's the report that made him famous -- that if one owns
a
gun and a swimming pool, and has children, his children are roughly 100
times more likely to die by drowning in the pool than from being shot by
the
gun.

If you pick apart his statistics, you see that he went for the most
dramatic
fact that can be drawn from them. Nevertheless, swimming pools are
dangerous
to young kids, in that parents only need to be inattentive for a few
moments
for the kid to slip out of sight. In most households, the kids never get
their hands on the gun at young ages but they're in the pool on most nice
days.

As a former lifeguard, the statistic doesn't surprise me. I've had to pull
several kids out of the pool while their mothers were playing bridge or
jawing with the other country-club ladies. It's good for over-a-beer
conversations. It has shock value. Just be aware of the relative
incidences
of contact before jumping to conclusions about it.


100 times eh? Just by guessing I'd say at least 2:1 for the pool. And
that's just the kids under 5 who get next to one by themselves.

SW

If you read Dan's follow-up post, you'll see what the actual totals are.
Your estimate is close.

--
Ed Huntress