Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

I’m not misrepresentating you as you do a good job of it by yourself as is , you’re throwing stats about like confetti ar a wedding and I’m trying to sort the chaff from the wheat Why does the word “so “ rankle with you so much ?Maybe the U S has a problem with adults supervising children at swimming pools ?There’s that reference to “ so “ again yet you seem to start a lot of your statements with “ You “ why’s that ?I happen to agree that we have a cultural drink problem over here you are the reverse as in you state yous do not have a gun problem but a gang problemBut you’re claiming a gun problem is a gang problem, while my analogy seems consistent with your position It concerns me that parents in the U S cannot effectively supervise children around swimming pools The Freakonomics data is open to further analysis which I will address later My piece provided a link C D C data My piece provided a link to C D C data My piece provided a link to C D C data What point are you trying to make as all your doing is throwing stats about the place you originally said .......The chances that a gun in the household will correlate to an unintentional shooting that I fatal or non-fatal is .000329, still just over 3 in 10,000.On the other hand, about 16% of homes have swimming pools. With 9,816 non-fatal drowning related incidents and another 4,425 fatal drowning related incidents, the chances that having a swimming pool will correlate to a fatal or non-fatal drowning is .000707 or just over 7 in 10,000. That means that a swimming pool in the household is more than twice as dangerous as a gun in the household..........Your whole point is swimming pools in the house are more dangerous than a gun in the house and that’s it ?But if guns were not in the house in the first place that means the chances of death and accidents are lessened even more , less guns , fewer accidents , homicides and suicides by guns in the house Let’s cut to the chase your position as stated by you is this , Studying your figures your position seems clear , your assertions are swimming pools in a house are more effective at killing minors than guns ; and that the in the U S yous do not have a gun problem but a gang problem ; also you own a gun for defensive reasons If you own a gun for defensive reasons it’s to protect yourself from other gun carriers but guns are not the problem , how does that work ?Why are all minors in the U S not wearing rubber rings before getting into a swimming pool for ” defensive “ reasons ?You stated the chances of getting bitten by a dog were higher than a gun related incident , do you wear padding for defence against dog attacks or does your gun serve this purpose ?How are 70, 000 injuries and 22, 000 suicdes by gun a gang problem ?You admit swimming pools are very effective at ending life as are guns so you have no problem with more guns in the U S as it’s not a problem ?Incidentally I understand figures perfectly and I never moved the goalposts we are debating guns after all , you want to totally narrow the debate into swimming pool deaths amongst minors in the home v gun deaths amongst minors in the homeRegarding Freakonomics and Levitts piece ,From B.A. wordpress1. It compares the number of homes with pools with the number of guns. The problem is that while almost all homes only have one pool while most homes with guns have more than one gun. When you look at households with pools versus households with guns and then do the comparison the numbers change. The chances of a child dying by gun increases from 1 in a million to 1 in 250,000. Still well below that of pools, but coming closer.2. There have been several more recent studies strongly indicating that not all child deaths by gun get reported as such. They are often reported as just suicides or homicides. What this means is that the CDC data that Levitt used for his study may be seriously undercounting the number of gun deaths among children.It would be nice if the anti-gun control groups were not so afraid of what further research would show and would allow further research to happen in order to clarify these questions. But no, they continue to obstruct and deny funding for this much needed data and research.3. Other factors may be at play than just the safety of guns and pools – which is a risk of any straightforward comparison like this, it doesn’t really give us the reason for the difference in numbers. In this case it could be that:a. Most parents consider guns more dangerous than pools and so guns are usually hidden away from children. If guns were left lying around and had the same level of supervision that pools do, then there is a good chance that children dying by guns would increase to the level of pools or possibly surpass it. Or possibly not. Intuitively I know it would increase. What is uncertain is the amount.b. Given what I just wrote, then the simplistic comparison done by Levitt is really not valid. A better comparison would be a comparison of one activity when it is properly supervised and when it is not properly supervised against another activity when it is properly supervised and when it is not.I eagerly await the results of such a study. I have a strong feeling it is only going to make that elephant the anti-gun control crowd is so studiously ignoring even bigger and stronger.