3 ms·
Perhaps a valid point that Freakonomics had bad methodology in this instance, though this is similariy bad: > So drowning is is roughly 2x as dangerous as guns
by aneth4 14y ago
Perhaps a valid point that Freakonomics had bad methodology in this instance, though this is similariy bad:
> So drowning is is roughly 2x as dangerous as guns
Drowning kills 100% of people who drown, so it's certainly more dangerous than guns.
Replace drowning with "pools" and there might be something more reasonable to compare, though hard to know what should be compared.
- sukuriant 14y ago> Drowning kills 100% of people who drown, so it's certainly more dangerous than guns. I heard from a person that had to go through helicopter rescue training that they're, in their course of training, required to drown at one point; and then, after drowning, are brought back up and revived. Drowning may kill a large percentage of the people that drown, but it's not a guaranteed death-sentence.
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago>Drowning kills 100% of people who drown, so it's certainly more dangerous than guns. // Being shot to death kills 100% of people who are shot to death. I don't think you have a valid point.