24 ms·

Discussing gun policy with a friend, I mentioned the Freakonomics statistic that having a pool on your property is 100 times more dangerous for your child's wel

Discussing gun policy with a friend, I mentioned the Freakonomics statistic that having a pool on your property is 100 times more dangerous for your child's welfare than having a gun in the house. If you really want to see a certain subset of your friends squirm with cognitive dissonance, mention this. (I hope this doesn't start a flame war. The reason I bring up this particular example is because guns seem so ridiculously evil, while having a pool seems like every child's dream, yet the numbers tell a very different story in terms of perceived vs. actual danger.) Edit: I regret posting this; but I won't delete it so people know the context of the replies. Sorry HN!

twiceaday 14y ago
Define dangerous.
- arbus 14y ago
  dangerous as in death by drowning vs death by shooting http://www.freakonomics.com/books/freakonomics/chapter-excerpts/chapter-5/ http://www.freakonomics.com/books/freakonomics/chapter-excer...
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
kkowalczyk 14y ago
The flaw in this argument is that guns and pools have very different uses. You can't swim in a gun. Guns have no useful purpose. The fact that pools are more dangerous doesn't justify owning a gun, so there is no "cognitive dissonance" here. You don't want a gun in your house regardless of any other dangers that exists, just like you want to child proof the house. You want a pool for the same reason you want a bicycle: it provides lots of benefit. Ultimately we make a choice that the benefit of the pool or the benefit of a bicycle for the child is greater than the risk. We can't eliminate all the risk. We can eliminate unnecessary risk (like guns).
- icelancer 14y ago
  > Guns have no useful purpose Home defense, hunting, on-person defense for women in unsafe areas, etc. But yeah, continue on your screed. Let's not let facts get in the way of a good diatribe.
  - simonh 14y ago
    People with guns are more likely to get killed than people who are unarmed. OK, lets looks at the facts. At least, the facts available despite the NRA's diligent shutting down of as much research into the role of guns in American society as possible. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fa... • A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater. Although Myth I also refer to you to: #7: Guns make women safer.
    - icelancer 14y ago
      The vast, vast majority of the "research" posted in that post is anecdotal and irrelevant. Just because assault "victims" (did they control for gang-related violence? for obvious malicious intent? etc) had a higher rate of being shot doesn't mean guns are useless. Same with the "fact" that guns in the home are linked to suicides and assaults and not legitimate home defense. OK? Yeah, that's obvious. But that doesn't control for the fact that many people who purchase guns use them completely responsibly. I understand you think it's a bad idea that on average, gun crime happens. But none of the "evidence" you posted presents a slam-dunk case for repealing the 2nd Amendment and probably many others (unreasonable search and seizure and the like). None of this even factors into the whole intent of allowing citizens to own weapons, which is worth a fair amount.
    - notdrunkatall 14y ago
      I learned long ago that 90% of motherjones articles are trash. They are the online liberal equivalent of FOX news.
  - 14y ago
bluthru 14y ago
Pools are for swimming. Food is for eating. Cars are for transporting. All of those things can be hazardous. Guns are for "safety", but they actually decrease safety: http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lots-of-risk-ambiguity/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lots... http://www.iansa.org/system/files/Risks%20and%20Benefits%20of%20a%20Gun%20in%20the%20Home%202011.pdf http://www.iansa.org/system/files/Risks%20and%20Benefits%20o...
- nawitus 14y ago
  >Guns are for "safety", but they actually decrease safety: Well, that's just like, your opinion man. Other people have other uses for guns, like recreational shooting. Kinda like motorcycles increase traffic deaths but are hobbies for some people, and useless to others.
  - Tloewald 14y ago
    Yes but motorcycles tend to kill their riders not other people.
rorrr 14y ago
A lot more people die from gunshots than people drown, even if you count all drownings, not just pool-related (in the US, of course). You cherry-picked one child-dangerous item in the house. Yay for "logic".
- NoPiece 14y ago
  If you look at children 14 and under, 390 drowned, and 376 died by firearms, including accidents, murders and suicides. And if you only look at accidental firearm deaths, there were 62 for children 14 and under, and 123 for 20 and under. Pools really are dangerous, even compared to guns. Using Consumer Product Safety Commission 2008 numbers for drowning, and the anti-gun group Children's Defense fund numbers for firearm deaths. http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Newsroom/News-Releases/2012/New-CPSC-Data-Show-Child-Drownings-In-Pools-and-Spas-Still-A-Leading-Cause-of-Death/ http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Newsroom/News-Releases/2012/New-CPSC-... http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/protect-children-not-guns-2012.pdf http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publicat...
  - pbreit 14y ago
    Your pool deaths are inflated. The 390 is over 3 years 07-09. And gun deaths spike after age 14 where I presume pool drowning a continue to fall. Further, guns lead to very large injury numbers which I'm guessing greatly exceed pool-related injuries even more. Pools aren't that dangerous.
    - vellum 14y ago
      The 390 is the annual average number for those 3 years, not total. According to wonder.cdc.gov, for ages 0-14, there were 334 pool deaths in 2008 alone.
      - pbreit 14y ago
        You're right on the pool death numbers being an average. But I'm still not sure you're point has been made.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
> Discussing gun policy with a friend, I mentioned the Freakonomics statistic that having a pool on your property is 100 times more dangerous for your child's welfare than having a gun in the house. That is nonsense, the way Freakonomics got that 100x more dangerous figure makes absolutely no sense. Don't get me wrong - pools likely are more dangerous than guns. I'm just arguing that they aren't 100x more dangerous than guns. In 2008 there were 376 deaths of "children" (aged 14 and below) by gun. In the same year there was 791 deaths by drowning (all sources). So drowning is is roughly 2x as dangerous as guns but that is drowning from ALL sources, so that doesn't imply that pools are 2x more dangerous as guns since that ignores other sources of potential drownings (e.g. boats, bathtub, etc). This data is all from the CDC's own web-site (http://wonder.cdc.gov http://wonder.cdc.gov). What the Freakonomics guys did was take the above numbers and then use the total number of guns and total number of pools, and then abuse those statistics in order to try and get this 100x more dangerous figure. In interviews he has essentially said he is a pro-gun advocate so that is something to keep in mind too... As I said at the start, drowning is MORE dangerous than guns (2x). It is just not 100x more dangerous unless you're trying to measure the danger level of each individual gun rather than by measuring the risk to a fixed population (i.e. the danger from the average US child's perspective).
- pervycreeper 14y ago
  >In 2008 there were 376 deaths of "children" (aged 14 and below) by gun. In the same year there was 791 deaths by drowning (all sources). You should really be using the number who were killed by a gun kept in their home for this comparison. Also, there are other ways to die in a pool aside from drowning.
  - UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
    Even if what you suggest made sense it would still not come close to 100x more dangerous. Even if we were REALLY generous and called it 3x more, we're still not even in the same universe. Plus as I said, the drowning statistics above are a huge over-estimation as they don't give individual breakdowns of the context of the drowning (e.g. pools, boats, bathtub, etc).
Tloewald 14y ago
I think the stat that got me was staircases (we had a particularly nasty one in our house at the time). That said, it doesn't mean that gun control isn't a good thing, just that there are other things to consider. And I'll never look at a domestic staircase the same way again.
alvarosm 14y ago
Dude, risk/reward. The reward for having a pool is tons of fun, exercise, comfort... Besides you can't go to statistics for gun safety: either you handle them safely or not: you are not a xx% safe statistic.
bjhoops1 14y ago
But does this take into consideration the children that are saved from drowning in an intruder's pool by the presence of their own pool? The only thing that stops a bad guy with a pool is a good guy with a pool.
iliis 14y ago
Thanks for a rather nice example :) Actually, it's somewhat meta for me: While I didn't squirm that much in the fireplace example, I'm a bit surprised by the amount of 'squirming'/'flaming' shown in this thread. I don't want to believe it. I want HNers to be able to discuss the topic at hand (confronting your own dilusions) instead of falling into the trap warned twice of (by OP and you).
MartinCron 14y ago
I regret posting this; but I won't delete it so people know the context of the replies. Sorry HN! Even if the statistic isn't bulletproof, and even if some of the discussion this sparked hasn't been of the caliber we've come to expect from HN, I don't regret that you posted it. It's an interesting thought experiment.

twiceaday 14y ago

Define dangerous.

arbus 14y ago
dangerous as in death by drowning vs death by shooting http://www.freakonomics.com/books/freakonomics/chapter-excerpts/chapter-5/ http://www.freakonomics.com/books/freakonomics/chapter-excer...
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

kkowalczyk 14y ago

The flaw in this argument is that guns and pools have very different uses. You can't swim in a gun. Guns have no useful purpose. The fact that pools are more dangerous doesn't justify owning a gun, so there is no "cognitive dissonance" here. You don't want a gun in your house regardless of any other dangers that exists, just like you want to child proof the house. You want a pool for the same reason you want a bicycle: it provides lots of benefit. Ultimately we make a choice that the benefit of the pool or the benefit of a bicycle for the child is greater than the risk. We can't eliminate all the risk. We can eliminate unnecessary risk (like guns).

icelancer 14y ago
> Guns have no useful purpose Home defense, hunting, on-person defense for women in unsafe areas, etc. But yeah, continue on your screed. Let's not let facts get in the way of a good diatribe.
- simonh 14y ago
  People with guns are more likely to get killed than people who are unarmed. OK, lets looks at the facts. At least, the facts available despite the NRA's diligent shutting down of as much research into the role of guns in American society as possible. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fa... • A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater. Although Myth I also refer to you to: #7: Guns make women safer.
  - icelancer 14y ago
    The vast, vast majority of the "research" posted in that post is anecdotal and irrelevant. Just because assault "victims" (did they control for gang-related violence? for obvious malicious intent? etc) had a higher rate of being shot doesn't mean guns are useless. Same with the "fact" that guns in the home are linked to suicides and assaults and not legitimate home defense. OK? Yeah, that's obvious. But that doesn't control for the fact that many people who purchase guns use them completely responsibly. I understand you think it's a bad idea that on average, gun crime happens. But none of the "evidence" you posted presents a slam-dunk case for repealing the 2nd Amendment and probably many others (unreasonable search and seizure and the like). None of this even factors into the whole intent of allowing citizens to own weapons, which is worth a fair amount.
  - notdrunkatall 14y ago
    I learned long ago that 90% of motherjones articles are trash. They are the online liberal equivalent of FOX news.
- 14y ago

bluthru 14y ago

Pools are for swimming. Food is for eating. Cars are for transporting. All of those things can be hazardous. Guns are for "safety", but they actually decrease safety: http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lots-of-risk-ambiguity/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lots... http://www.iansa.org/system/files/Risks%20and%20Benefits%20of%20a%20Gun%20in%20the%20Home%202011.pdf http://www.iansa.org/system/files/Risks%20and%20Benefits%20o...

nawitus 14y ago
>Guns are for "safety", but they actually decrease safety: Well, that's just like, your opinion man. Other people have other uses for guns, like recreational shooting. Kinda like motorcycles increase traffic deaths but are hobbies for some people, and useless to others.
- Tloewald 14y ago
  Yes but motorcycles tend to kill their riders not other people.

rorrr 14y ago

A lot more people die from gunshots than people drown, even if you count all drownings, not just pool-related (in the US, of course). You cherry-picked one child-dangerous item in the house. Yay for "logic".

NoPiece 14y ago
If you look at children 14 and under, 390 drowned, and 376 died by firearms, including accidents, murders and suicides. And if you only look at accidental firearm deaths, there were 62 for children 14 and under, and 123 for 20 and under. Pools really are dangerous, even compared to guns. Using Consumer Product Safety Commission 2008 numbers for drowning, and the anti-gun group Children's Defense fund numbers for firearm deaths. http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Newsroom/News-Releases/2012/New-CPSC-Data-Show-Child-Drownings-In-Pools-and-Spas-Still-A-Leading-Cause-of-Death/ http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Newsroom/News-Releases/2012/New-CPSC-... http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/protect-children-not-guns-2012.pdf http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publicat...
- pbreit 14y ago
  Your pool deaths are inflated. The 390 is over 3 years 07-09. And gun deaths spike after age 14 where I presume pool drowning a continue to fall. Further, guns lead to very large injury numbers which I'm guessing greatly exceed pool-related injuries even more. Pools aren't that dangerous.
  - vellum 14y ago
    The 390 is the annual average number for those 3 years, not total. According to wonder.cdc.gov, for ages 0-14, there were 334 pool deaths in 2008 alone.
    - pbreit 14y ago
      You're right on the pool death numbers being an average. But I'm still not sure you're point has been made.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

UnoriginalGuy 14y ago

> Discussing gun policy with a friend, I mentioned the Freakonomics statistic that having a pool on your property is 100 times more dangerous for your child's welfare than having a gun in the house. That is nonsense, the way Freakonomics got that 100x more dangerous figure makes absolutely no sense. Don't get me wrong - pools likely are more dangerous than guns. I'm just arguing that they aren't 100x more dangerous than guns. In 2008 there were 376 deaths of "children" (aged 14 and below) by gun. In the same year there was 791 deaths by drowning (all sources). So drowning is is roughly 2x as dangerous as guns but that is drowning from ALL sources, so that doesn't imply that pools are 2x more dangerous as guns since that ignores other sources of potential drownings (e.g. boats, bathtub, etc). This data is all from the CDC's own web-site (http://wonder.cdc.gov http://wonder.cdc.gov). What the Freakonomics guys did was take the above numbers and then use the total number of guns and total number of pools, and then abuse those statistics in order to try and get this 100x more dangerous figure. In interviews he has essentially said he is a pro-gun advocate so that is something to keep in mind too... As I said at the start, drowning is MORE dangerous than guns (2x). It is just not 100x more dangerous unless you're trying to measure the danger level of each individual gun rather than by measuring the risk to a fixed population (i.e. the danger from the average US child's perspective).

pervycreeper 14y ago
>In 2008 there were 376 deaths of "children" (aged 14 and below) by gun. In the same year there was 791 deaths by drowning (all sources). You should really be using the number who were killed by a gun kept in their home for this comparison. Also, there are other ways to die in a pool aside from drowning.
- UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
  Even if what you suggest made sense it would still not come close to 100x more dangerous. Even if we were REALLY generous and called it 3x more, we're still not even in the same universe. Plus as I said, the drowning statistics above are a huge over-estimation as they don't give individual breakdowns of the context of the drowning (e.g. pools, boats, bathtub, etc).

Tloewald 14y ago

I think the stat that got me was staircases (we had a particularly nasty one in our house at the time). That said, it doesn't mean that gun control isn't a good thing, just that there are other things to consider. And I'll never look at a domestic staircase the same way again.

alvarosm 14y ago

Dude, risk/reward. The reward for having a pool is tons of fun, exercise, comfort... Besides you can't go to statistics for gun safety: either you handle them safely or not: you are not a xx% safe statistic.

bjhoops1 14y ago

But does this take into consideration the children that are saved from drowning in an intruder's pool by the presence of their own pool? The only thing that stops a bad guy with a pool is a good guy with a pool.

iliis 14y ago

Thanks for a rather nice example :) Actually, it's somewhat meta for me: While I didn't squirm that much in the fireplace example, I'm a bit surprised by the amount of 'squirming'/'flaming' shown in this thread. I don't want to believe it. I want HNers to be able to discuss the topic at hand (confronting your own dilusions) instead of falling into the trap warned twice of (by OP and you).

MartinCron 14y ago

I regret posting this; but I won't delete it so people know the context of the replies. Sorry HN! Even if the statistic isn't bulletproof, and even if some of the discussion this sparked hasn't been of the caliber we've come to expect from HN, I don't regret that you posted it. It's an interesting thought experiment.