3 ms·

cars kill thousands of kids, recommend fewer cars swimming pools kill a thousand, recommend banning swimming pools drugs kill a thousand, make drugs illegal wit

cars kill thousands of kids, recommend fewer cars swimming pools kill a thousand, recommend banning swimming pools drugs kill a thousand, make drugs illegal with huge jail terms. wait, that doesn't work. why are there thousands of kids handling guns fine without accidents in rural areas and thousands getting killed by a few hundred in urban areas. it's much more complex than just fewer guns, no private pool ownership, etc.

enraged_camel 7y ago
Neither cars nor swimming pools are weapons designed to kill. Nor are most drugs.
- ryeights 7y ago
  >The fact that guns are “designed to kill people,” while swimming pools aren’t, is beside the point. Such word games can be played both ways: A gun is designed to save your life when no other tool will do the job. Swimming pools are just for fun. (Sam Harris)
ip26 7y ago
The CDC is way ahead of you https://www.cdc.gov/features/healthyswimming/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/features/healthyswimming/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/motor-vehicle-safety/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/motor-vehicle-safety/index.ht...
- stevenicr 7y ago
  I think it's great they are helping to educate about safer ways to engage with swimming sports and driving. They could do the same with guns.. but I guess we instead rely on the NRA, NSSF, and a few others.. some hunter's education classes that some places offer and the very few schools that teach these things. I do not see the CDC recommending less pools, or less cars, unlike their 'conclusion that less guns would mean less kid problems' - so maybe they are way ahead of themselves. I am all for more education the better, and as it would not affect me personally - ban swimming pools, get a special license to have more than 10 gallons of water, and if someone breaks one of the top 4 bullet points from the CDC on safe swimming, then make them a felon and take away other rights. Won't bother me, and it will make the world a safer place for many kids. /not-serious, don't take it too seriously, just sayin' for thoughts sake
marticode 7y ago
Cars are heavily regulated. They have a visible registration plate on them, with a unique number associated to the owner. Operating one requires to be a license given after a test on both theory and operation. They need to be insured. All these are actually enforced by police. If you are arguing for all this to be equally applied to guns (as would be fairly rational) then congratulation, you are pro-gun control.
- stevenicr 7y ago
  no - not at all - you are moving the goalposts from deaths of children and inanimate things that 'cause them' - to "all these things people have to do to drive cars" - that makes it even worse actually.. if you apply all that stuff to gun control - you see that there are still plenty of deaths caused by them, and plenty of people getting them, and using them illegally. the point was banning a thing because a few people use it improperly is not the way to go with something so important as guns - which are more important than cars.. maybe, maybe not with drugs depending on health conditions, certainly more important than swimming pools. we already have more gun control than is needed, what we need is more education and more resources.
  - bagacrap 7y ago
    It's a pretty blatant false equivalency, after all cars are designed for transportation and only happen to be deadly weapons, whereas guns have no other purpose but to put holes in things. That said I'm cool with banning personal automobile ownership too. Two friends have died from them. I'd take the train for the rest of my life to undo that.
    - stevenicr 7y ago
      it's certainly not going to be equal 100 100, but from my personal experiences it's something that jumps out as a similar type of tool / misuse / ban possible / restrict. I have been seriously injured due to a large truck being misused, and calling for a ban of all cars would be one thing, saying that restrictions to that only 4 cylinder vehicle are available to citizens with other requirements could be a thing. I think lots in America would laugh at not being able to own an 8 cyl for example, only military or civil servants. I'd like to go more into that, but I think to be more honest and equal about the rest of you comment, need to move to that more. "guns have no other purpose but to put holes in things" - it's easy to point to this, and it's kind of true, but it's not really true. many guns are made and sold and used just for skeet shooting or hunting (yes technically that's putting holes in things) and similar. However most guns in America are used as a deterrant. Guards at courthouses, armored car guards, citizens with guns, etc. Every day hundreds of thousands of times a day, guns are used as a deterrent. The deter rapes and robberies and complete tyranny, and invasion every day. Without them we would certainly have more rapes, robberies and murders. In a fictional world of tradeoffs, I might take trains vs cars to bring some people back from the grave as well. I am sorry you have lost friends that way. With that in mind, I also consider that without guns more people that we know and care for might have also met early ends. I have witnessed many semi-violent situations that only de-escalated because there was immediate threat of people with guns changing the situation, sometimes it was cops arriving to a scene, other times it was not.

enraged_camel 7y ago

Neither cars nor swimming pools are weapons designed to kill. Nor are most drugs.

ryeights 7y ago
>The fact that guns are “designed to kill people,” while swimming pools aren’t, is beside the point. Such word games can be played both ways: A gun is designed to save your life when no other tool will do the job. Swimming pools are just for fun. (Sam Harris)

ip26 7y ago

The CDC is way ahead of you https://www.cdc.gov/features/healthyswimming/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/features/healthyswimming/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/motor-vehicle-safety/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/motor-vehicle-safety/index.ht...

stevenicr 7y ago
I think it's great they are helping to educate about safer ways to engage with swimming sports and driving. They could do the same with guns.. but I guess we instead rely on the NRA, NSSF, and a few others.. some hunter's education classes that some places offer and the very few schools that teach these things. I do not see the CDC recommending less pools, or less cars, unlike their 'conclusion that less guns would mean less kid problems' - so maybe they are way ahead of themselves. I am all for more education the better, and as it would not affect me personally - ban swimming pools, get a special license to have more than 10 gallons of water, and if someone breaks one of the top 4 bullet points from the CDC on safe swimming, then make them a felon and take away other rights. Won't bother me, and it will make the world a safer place for many kids. /not-serious, don't take it too seriously, just sayin' for thoughts sake

marticode 7y ago

Cars are heavily regulated. They have a visible registration plate on them, with a unique number associated to the owner. Operating one requires to be a license given after a test on both theory and operation. They need to be insured. All these are actually enforced by police. If you are arguing for all this to be equally applied to guns (as would be fairly rational) then congratulation, you are pro-gun control.

stevenicr 7y ago
no - not at all - you are moving the goalposts from deaths of children and inanimate things that 'cause them' - to "all these things people have to do to drive cars" - that makes it even worse actually.. if you apply all that stuff to gun control - you see that there are still plenty of deaths caused by them, and plenty of people getting them, and using them illegally. the point was banning a thing because a few people use it improperly is not the way to go with something so important as guns - which are more important than cars.. maybe, maybe not with drugs depending on health conditions, certainly more important than swimming pools. we already have more gun control than is needed, what we need is more education and more resources.
- bagacrap 7y ago
  It's a pretty blatant false equivalency, after all cars are designed for transportation and only happen to be deadly weapons, whereas guns have no other purpose but to put holes in things. That said I'm cool with banning personal automobile ownership too. Two friends have died from them. I'd take the train for the rest of my life to undo that.
  - stevenicr 7y ago
    it's certainly not going to be equal 100 100, but from my personal experiences it's something that jumps out as a similar type of tool / misuse / ban possible / restrict. I have been seriously injured due to a large truck being misused, and calling for a ban of all cars would be one thing, saying that restrictions to that only 4 cylinder vehicle are available to citizens with other requirements could be a thing. I think lots in America would laugh at not being able to own an 8 cyl for example, only military or civil servants. I'd like to go more into that, but I think to be more honest and equal about the rest of you comment, need to move to that more. "guns have no other purpose but to put holes in things" - it's easy to point to this, and it's kind of true, but it's not really true. many guns are made and sold and used just for skeet shooting or hunting (yes technically that's putting holes in things) and similar. However most guns in America are used as a deterrant. Guards at courthouses, armored car guards, citizens with guns, etc. Every day hundreds of thousands of times a day, guns are used as a deterrent. The deter rapes and robberies and complete tyranny, and invasion every day. Without them we would certainly have more rapes, robberies and murders. In a fictional world of tradeoffs, I might take trains vs cars to bring some people back from the grave as well. I am sorry you have lost friends that way. With that in mind, I also consider that without guns more people that we know and care for might have also met early ends. I have witnessed many semi-violent situations that only de-escalated because there was immediate threat of people with guns changing the situation, sometimes it was cops arriving to a scene, other times it was not.