4 ms·
>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
by 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 agoEven 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).
- chimi 14y agoWhat he said does make sense. Your numbers are incomplete. You're saying "All firearm deaths" which include drive-by's, hunting accidents, etc. If you can't break down the numbers to ONLY those children who died from a gun that was stored in their own house and children who died in a pool in their own back yard, then you aren't making valid assessments of the multiple at all. It's simple math.
- baudehlo 14y agoThat's exactly what he's saying though - that the Freakonomics article does NOT break the numbers down sufficiently, for either Drownings nor Gun Deaths. As such the 100x figure they came up with is bogus. And yes, the Maths is simple. But gathering the right figures to plug into the Maths is hard.