Sunday, April 14, 2013

Pro-Gun Lie Number 129: Swimming Pools are More Dangerous for Kids than Guns


Every day, about ten people die from unintentional drowning. Of these, two are children aged 14 or younger. Drowning ranks fifth among the leading causes of unintentional injury death in the United States.1

Huffington Post 

In 2011, guns were used to murder 8,583 people living in the U.S., according to the most recent FBI data available. Among those murdered by guns, there were 565 young people under the age of 18, and 119 children ages 12 or younger -- the latter number nearly equivalent to six Newtown mass shootings. And these figures include only homicides. 

Free Public (quoting CDC)

CDC data show number of accidental firearm deaths for children under age 15 has gone back up to 62, a number that it was at in 2008. The 48 accidental deaths in 2009 was unusually low. A similar pattern also held for total accidental gun deaths for all ages: 2008, 592; 2009, 554; and 2010, 606. 

National Library of Medicine

An estimated 115,131 (95% confidence interval, 76,769-153,493) children and adolescents were treated for a nonfatal gunshot wound during the study period. The estimated annual rates of injury (per 100,000) were 2.0 (children 0-4 years old), 2.2 (children 5-9 years old), 15.4 (children 10-14 years old), and 106.5 (adolescents 15-19 years old). The ratios of nonfatal to fatal firearm-related injuries were 4.0 (children 0-4 years old), 4.4 (children 5-9 years old), 5.0 (children 10-14 years old), and 4.4 (adolescents 15-19 years old). An additional estimated 103,814 children (95% confidence interval, 69,223-138,405) were shot with a nonpowder firearm (BB or pellet gun). Boys 5 to 9 and 10 to 14 years old had the highest rates of injury related to nonpowder firearms, an estimated 36.2 and 99.8 per 100,000, respectively. Fifty-six percent of those 15 to 19 years old were assault victims. An estimated 48% of children and adolescents with powder firearm-related gunshot wounds and an estimated 4% with nonpowder firearm injuries were admitted to the hospital.

The lie is a tricky one because near-drowning injuries are rare and generally don't leave permanent damage.  Non-fatal gun injuries do. So, when the gun-rights fanatic says swimming pools kill more kids than guns, it's a carefully worded trick and not a very fair comparison.  Just ask that kid who's in a wheelchair for the rest of his life due to a spinal gun-shot injury.

Let's take the CDC number. They say for kids under 14, two drown every day.  That's about 700.

The kids in approximately the same age bracket who die from murder (119 in 2011 for 12 and under, so let's say about 150) and so-called accidents (48 in 2009) are about 200.   The National Library of Medicine, quoted above, says the ratio of fatal to non-fatal gun shot incidents is 1:4, which sounds about right.

That means dead kids (200) plus injured kids (200 * 4 = 800) total 1,000

That's swimming pools 700, guns 1,000.

So, the next time you hear one of the gun apologists claiming that swimming pools are more dangerous than guns, you can remind him that unless he's very careful how he words that ridiculous proposition, it's just not true.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.


  1. Mike,

    How about the fact that pools are not necessary and that people do die from there every year? That is not a lie. I have yet to hear the argument phrased in the way you put it here.

    The "what do you need x for" argument is from the pro-government camp and is collectivist in nature. When "pro-gun" people make the argument its a case of turnabout. Pools are not necessary, people die from them every year, but we keep the around anyway. Same goes for any number of items, devices, and "things". We do not want to ban those things too just becuase some people die from them.

    1. This is also absolutely correct. What is most important is that the citizens of the USA have chosen to include gun ownership as a core right. If people want to live in a gun free utopia they have the other 80% of the nations in the world they can move to instead of trying to change the core nature of the USA against the will of the 85 million gun owners (something which on its face sounds very daunting and scary but doesn't stop idiots like Billary from trying)

    2. Oh, bullshit. As is usual with the gun-nuts, there is an attempt to conflate all sorts of issues, then drag in conspira-loony muck about "collectivism."

      The fact remains that what people want is sensible gun control, to stop someone like Dylann Roof from getting a gun (which he used to murder 9 people in Charleston). Instead, frothers like you made sure there was a loophole in the background check law that allowed a gun dealer to sell a gun to a criminal just because the check took longer than X hours.

    3. Well said, Unknown. The Anonymous frother, as you called him, tried to overlook the fact that most of those 85 million gun owners strongly disagree with him and his fanatical idea of gun rights. And then there's the rest of the population.

    4. there have been 353 mass-shooting in the US so far this year. I haven't read about anyone bringing a swimming pool to school and drowning their classmates, or taking their pool to the local movie theater to drown people trying to watch a movie.

  2. Pro-Gun Lie

    . . . unless he's very careful how he words that ridiculous proposition, it's just not true.

    A statement that is true (regardless of how "careful" want must be with the wording) is neither a "Lie," or "ridiculous."

    Sorry, herbivore, but . . . You. Fail. Again (still?).

    1. What is that Philosophy? "A statement that is true is neither a lie or ridiculous."

    2. If that passes for logic, than the only plausible explanation is that Americans have begun to mate with vegetables, producing a generation of adult children with all the intellect of a cucumber.

      There is no other reason for such profound idiocy.

    3. soon we will have a little fat liberal lady interviewing people to determine weather or not they will rob a bank in the future. If they determine that they might, they will be sent to jail before they have a chance to do it. Guns are not something to just have, they are to protect yourself and your family. Once our guns are taken away, you will not be able to get them back when you find out that was a bad mistake. most liberals couldn't pour piss out of a boot when the directions are on the heel.

  3. Oops--that should have been "one must be," not "want." Sorry--proofreader needs more caffeine.

  4. The statement--more children die from drowning than from gunfire--is true. And as David pointed out, no one needs a pool. But notice your own conflation. You put gun deaths and injuries together. So lets put water-related fatalities and injuries together.

    According to the CDC (go to, for every one child who dies, five require "emergency department care," and half of those five have to be hospitalized afterward. Non-fatal drowning incidents often cause mental disabilities from memory loss to coma.

    So 200 die in a given year, while another 1,000 are seriously injured.

    That's 1,200 child deaths and injuries from swimming compared with 1,000 child deaths and injuries from guns.

    I'm sticking with the "water is more dangerous than guns" line.

    1. Greg, you're trying to be slick again. Where does it say the ratio of drowning deaths and near-drowning injuries is 1:4- And where does it say that ALL of them leave permanent damage?

      No, I'm afraid unless you limit it to deaths, period, guns are far more damaging to kids than swimming pools.

    2. The fact that those five injuries to every one death have to receive emergencey-room treatment and half of those require a hospital stay--in today's "patch 'em up and send 'em home" mentality--says that they're serious. Remember that not all gunfire injuries are serious or life threatening.

      I'll limit my numbers to the same type that you limit yours.

    3. Greg, your figures are off. You used 200 for drowning deaths instead of 700.

    4. Mikeb, it is painful, to the point of torturous, to read your twisted and convoluted responses.

      orlin sellers

    5. The people demand justice, the lion demands food. We need a scapegoat.........


      They are dirty, dirty I say, and they must be punished!

    6. Dang it, T.S., I misread the numbers. You're right--the total of child deaths and injuries is 1,700. It's even worse for Mikeb than I thought.

    7. Liar!

      "The Truth" consists of whatever we deem it to be. Computer-Trained Rednecks have no place in contradicting their betters.

      You must be punished.

      You are DIRTY!

    8. Looks like E.N. got moved to the DMZ to be Space Cockroach Junior's Cannon Fodder, and like the handle has been taken over by a barely literate 16 year old.

    9. Given the way all these sockpuppets talk, I think the lot of them are likely to be Jadegold. Consider:

      1. They're all idiotic.

      2. They're all arrogant.

      3. They all lack basic reasoning skills.

      4. They all substitute a volume of words for evidence.

      Yup, that's Jadegold.

    10. "You constantly tout gun accidents as proof that we need to get rid of guns "because they do more harm than good.""

      I'm not going to "chew you out," but please stop with these exaggerated misrepresentations of what I say. I do believe guns do more harm than good and that about half the gun owners should be disarmed for various reasons. But I believe in teh US responsible and qualified people should be allowed to own guns.

      So, no, I don't want everyone to give up their guns.

    11. Mikeb, I've explained to you before why we speak plainly about what your real goals are. I'll do it again. Will you addres what I say this time?

      1. You want so many restrictions and burdens placed on gun ownership that most people won't have the time and patience to follow the legal route.

      2. You want to make carry of guns available only to a select few--you've already admitted that celebrities and the wealthy are in that few, even though you claim to be a leftist.

      3. You want to limit the type, functionality, and capacity of guns.

      4. You want to make the rules for self defense so complicated and so biased in favor of the criminal that good citizens will hesitate ever to act--and will die as a result.

      Did you ever study calculus? When I integrate all your tiny goals, I end up with a picture of your overall plan.

    12. Mike, you say you don't want us to give up our guns, but then you post a story and call a hypothetical confiscation a win for your side.

      You are a liar, and you let your mask slip with that comment.

  5. Yeah, Mike, you're going to have to come up with a figure for non-fatal drowning injuries, otherwise you are the one who is being "tricky". Permenent brain damage is a real consequence for being unconscious for too long.

  6. Regardless of which way the statistics run, the fact remains that guns and pools are both dangerous. Both can be used to murder; both can cause horrifying accidental deaths; both give their owners enjoyment.

    You constantly tout gun accidents as proof that we need to get rid of guns "because they do more harm than good." (Don't chew me out saying "I don't want to ban guns! Look at my suggestions for controls!" I know what you've said, but the fact remains, when you tell us that guns do more harm than good and that we're deluded, etc. into having them, you're expressing an opinion that we should get rid of them, whether you want such legislated or not.)

    Maybe you would like to ban swimming pools and water sports, etc. to prevent accidental drowning. That would at least be consistent. However, if you are OK with swimming pools, sports, driving around in cars, etc., in spite of the accidental deaths these activities cause, then take a step back, stop hyperventilating, and you might just have an epiphany and realize that our acceptance of the dangers of gun ownership is not so unique.

    1. And both guns and swimming pools save lives, since swimmers get healthy and gun owners defend themselves. Mikeb will deny the number of the latter, but his denials are as worthless as his proposals.

    2. Swimming pools also provide a controlled environment to practice swimming- a skill which could save your own or someone else's life later down the road. Same thing for guns.

    3. But why should we allow you to do either? We invest thousands in medical costs, education, public works, and like things in the common person. Why should we risk our walking investments?

    4. I'm just going to call attention to E.N.'s latest inanity here, not to make fun of it, but to note that this is actually a view held by some philosophers, especially of the legal variety. You can actually find legal philosophers who's problem with murder is less about the taking of human life and more about the damage done by removing one of the state's cogs.

      Never underestimate the evil motivating some people.

    5. Murders have little practical difference to cattle rustlers. Both serve to remove our livestock.

  7. A gun can be used to FEED your family and be used to save you life in self defense against violent humans or violent animal attacks. A swimming pool can do none of those things. (but to be fair, you can learn to swim which could save your life too!)

    Guns are protected by the Constitution, pools are not. Even without the constitution, the right to live and defend life is understood as a "God given right" or a right we all have by birth.

    Its typically easier to secure firearms than to secure bodies of water. (pools, lakes, rivers) A gun in a holster is continually monitored by someone. An gun in a secure safe is unlikely to harm anyone.

    1. So what, I say, to all your points. The post was about the lying bullshit you guys keep spewing that pools are more harmful to kids than guns.

  8. Considering that there are an estimated 250 million guns in the United States (or more) guns have an absolutely incredible safety record. Over 99.9% of guns have never been used to harm someone. (so much for the claim that guns are "Death machines" Millions people use guns for target shooting, and no death is involved. I doubt that over 99.9% of swimming pools have never been related to injury or death.

    1. Twist it any way you like, but my post showed that guns do more harm to kids than swimming pools.

    2. twisting is the theme of the OP, alleging the word harm, when the " oft repeated" statistic is " pools KILL more kids than guns"
      So you're not really concerned about the biggest issue, death, and quibble over the flavor of injury, to indulge your irrational belief system. Plus, you're a distraction, guns are intended to be available in the hands of civilians to combat tyranical government. That means weapons parity with government forces. Troops all through American history took home their rifles, their war weapons. Only now, in the age of information, when we can all find out the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and Colin Powell's speech to the UN security council on Feb. 2003 was false, does the government fear an armed populace. get a clue.

    3. a pool can't be used as a tool to put food on the table, defend from a tyranical government, or used to defend life, family, and property from evil men. You're bickering about the flavor of injury attribution when the OP is the twisted morality. If pools KILL more kids than guns, then a sane, moral, logical argument for gun control needs to impose the same process for regulation of ownership of swimming pools.

    4. There are about as many cars on US roads as firearms, yet they cause about 4 times as many deaths annually. It seems as if cars are actually more efficient "Death Machines" than guns.

  9. So in other words, swimming pools are more dangerous than guns.

  10. Pools are killing hundreds of children a year, yet let's just ignore that and do nothing, and just go after guns because guns may be killing more and are just scary.

    Great argument.

  11. There are 270 million to 310 million guns in the United States (google), there are 10 Million swimming pools in the United States (USA Swimming and the National Swimming Pool Foundation). If guns were as deadly as pools, and we were using the same math (7 deaths a year per 10,000 pools) wouldn't that equate to 21,000 gun deaths a year.

    1. Your dishonest attempt at slanting the comparison is typical of the gun-rights fanatics. Why can't you guys argue straight up?

      Not many people have more than one pool, but most gun owners do have more than one gun. So comparing the total numbers of guns to pools is blatantly dishonest. Your point could have been adequately made by saying there are 60 million households with guns and 10 million with pools. But you couldn't resist the mendacious twisting of the facts in order to make your position stronger. Bravo.

    2. 60 million households with gun 10 million with pools. If your number are true ~700 kids a year drown there should be ~4200 accidental child deaths a year due to guns(700*6=4200). I'm trying to use real numbers, in this case yours, to find out where we should be focusing our efforts. And I imagine that you have reconsidered your statement "near-drowning injuries are rare and generally don't leave permanent damage" and realize that it is hurtful to parents of children who have "acquired" a permanent disability. I'm not calling anyone names, maybe instead of an honest, fact based arguments, you would rather emotional name calling, if so I'm out.

  12. Sorry but there are just as many if not more studies showing that having a gun in the house is far less dangerous than having a pool. You should try a little harder to not but the blinders on Mikey. By the way I site my source links because these are facts that didn't originate on Wikipedia -- or some other anti gun blog.

    from your favorite source.... the CDC (center for disease control by the way)
    The CDC reports that for 2010 (the latest year available), one single six-year old died from a gunshot. For all children younger than 10, there were 36 accidental gun deaths, and that is out of 41 million children. Perhaps most important, about two-thirds of these accidental gun deaths involving young children are not shots fired by other little kids but rather by adult males with criminal backgrounds.

    In other words, unless you send your child to play at a criminal’s home, she is exceedingly unlikely to get shot.

    Indeed, if you are going to worry about your child’s safety you should check into other, perhaps less obvious dangers lurking in the playmate’s house: swimming pools, bathtubs, water buckets, bicycles, and chemicals and medications that can cause fatal poisoning. Drownings alone claimed 609 deaths; fires, 262 lives; poisonings, 54 lives. And don’t forget to ask about the playmate’s parents’ car and their driving records if your child will ride with them: After all, motor-vehicle accidents killed 923 children younger than 10.

    Source : -- A child is a 100 times more likely to die in a swimming pool accident than from a gun being in the house.

    Sorry but again the facts simply never back you up

  13. I am always amused by the anti gun movement. They seem to live in a primitive world where inanimate objects impose their will on people. People who are not homicidal and would not ever commit a crime suddenly become homicidal when they pick up a gun. Tell me when you get a speeding ticket do you tell the officer that the car imposed its will on you? Do you go home to a straw hut and pray to a totem pole? somehow the anti gun lobby has been able to vilify guns -- why not cars or knives -- by the way some evil knives imposed their will on some otherwise law abiding citizens in China today -- 27 people were murdered and 109 injured by those evil knives. A tragedy by the way -- very sad.

    We should ban all sharp objects then human nature would some how change… those evil knives.

    The arguments against gun ownership simply never hold any water. Look at massachusetts gun laws -- the strictest in the nation. Yet the rate of gun violence is nearly twice the national average. If you take away guns then only the people who disobey the law will have them (that is why we call them criminals). Criminals are like jackals they will prey on the weak -- or the unarmed in the case of Bostonian s.

    1. You're so "amused" that you have to mischaracterize what your opponents say in order to successfully argue against them.

      "The arguments against gun ownership simply never hold any water."

      Is that what you really believe? So, for you, no gun laws is the way to go, zero laws, no restrictions of any kind?

    2. Is that what you really believe? So, for you, no gun laws is the way to go, zero laws, no restrictions of any kind?

      Sounds good to me--very shall not be infringed-ish.

    3. Alright Mike, you let this horse out of the barn lets see where it takes us.

      Lets start by talking about Gun controls crown jewel -- the gun control laws of Massachusetts
      Lets recap we have a law where the “evil” guns were taken away from the citizenry. According to gun control advocates that hailed the law as the “greatest achievement ever” we would soon all join hands and sing kumbaya. The effect was that the murder rate went up violent crime went up dramatically. This in effect was open season on the citizens of the great state of Massachusetts. You could almost hear the jackals licking their lips. Hundreds if not thousands of Massachusetts citizens will have to be murdered before the ‘social experiment’ of a law gets removed from the books.

      The streets were far less safe than they were before the law was enacted. who could have seen that coming ? well let me think anyone except for the people that believe that the source of the violence is the “evil” guns. “It these inanimate objects that cause the violence, if we just make it harder for law abiding citizens to own one then we will all be happy…..”

      Now lets contrast that with a city that is on the other end of the spectrum. The city of Kennesaw, Texas. Where every homeowner is required to have a firearm. Now according the the anti-gun lobby view this city should be tearing itself apart. I mean more “evil” guns must equate to more violence otherwise their (your) argument falls completely apart. What we find is that the incidence of violent crimes and property crime is far, far below the average for a town that size. Weird I guess the guns are just not “evil” in that town. So limited gun control regulations -- more armed citizenry -- means less violence not more. Why? Simple, jackals may be stupid but they do understand the concept of self preservation. Break into a home in that town and you will probably end up having an unfortunate encounter with a 12 gauge.

      So yes I am amused when I hear gun control advocates out ranting, fortunately for this nation most people are rational and don’t buy in to the “totem pole worshiping“ inanimate objects cause violence thing. So a simple review of the evidence shows that the argument for more gun control holds no and let me stress NO water.

      Need some more proof check these out. (ironically this is in the boston magazine maybe they are catching on)

      So if you really are ready to leave the straw hut stop believing in the inanimate objects cause violence thing….. I would be the first to welcome you into the rational world.
      No I am not a conservative, or a liberal. Like most people I value what works, and more gun control is the very last thing this nation needs.

    4. No wonder you're so fanatically deceived. You get all your information fronm Breitbart and The Blaze. Hahahahahaha

      The Boston Magazine link didn't work. Can you provide some proof of your claim that "The effect was that the murder rate went up violent crime went up dramatically?" Something a bit less biased than your usual sources, hopefully.

    5. Oh, and the Kennesaw you're thinking of is not in Texas. Besides, the whole thing has been debunked, if I remember correctly, based on their almost total lack of violent crime even before the crazy law.

  14. No guns,


    What’s more dangerous: a swimming pool or a gun? When it comes to children, there is no comparison: a swimming pool is 100 times more deadly.

    So there we have it. The liberal left caught lying again.

    1. Did you read my post or did you just have one of those knee-jerk pro-gun reactions to the mention of swimming pools? You have to count injuries.

  16. "No, I'm afraid unless you limit it to deaths, period, guns are far more damaging to kids than swimming pools."

    Not even close. I can't figure out if you're lying or just stupid.

    Just leave all options as their default and click "submit request"

    Now, let's analyze deaths cause for 3 age groups; 1-4, 5-9 and 10-14, shall we?

    Unintentional Death
    Drowning – 436
    Firearm – 25

    Drowning – 134
    Firearm – 11

    Drowning – 117
    Firearm – 26

    Drowning – 14
    Firearm – 43

    Drowning – 2
    Firearm – 58

    Drowning – 1
    Firearm – 107

    So right off the bat we see there are 704 deaths caused by drowning and 270 deaths caused by firearms. That means children under the age of 14 face a 160% greater chance from dying by swimming pool than dying by firearm.

    So right there, you’re done.

    When you look at unintentional deaths however your argument is even weaker. 687 accidental deaths from drowning and 62 unintentional deaths from firearms. This means than when it comes to accidental death a child 14 and under is ONE THOUSAND TIMES MORE LIKLEY to die from drowning than a firearm.

    Pull your head out of your ass Mike.

    1. It's embarrassing that you called me stupid. You obviously missed the entire point. No one is disputing that more kids drown in pools than are killed by guns. What I'm saying is you have to count the non-fatal injuries too.

      Is that clear enough for you?

  17. Mike, what part isn't clear for you? You're comparing swimming deaths to gun related injuries and deaths. That's not an equal comparison. You either compare swimming pool deaths to firearm deaths or swimming pool deaths and injuries to firearm deaths and injuries. Of course, when doing that, you won't be able to skew the results to fit your preconceived outcome.

    1. I didn't say we count gun injuries only. I said we count ALL deaths and injuries. When we do that it's clear that guns do more harm than swimming pools.

  18. Where in my post did I say you said to count gun injuries only? I'm beginning to wonder if you have the ability to read comprehensively. Regardless, let me break it down for you:

    Swimming pools:
    ~700 deaths per year
    ~1600 injuries per year

    ~200 deaths per year
    ~800 injuries per year

    It's quite clear which one is more hazardous to children.

    And before you try to discount my numbers for the pools, check this out:

    1. If you want any more of your idiotic comments posted don't fucking insult me.

      The reason it's idiotic is this. The CDC report considers nonfatal drowning incidents those which "received emergency department care for nonfatal drowning." Does that sound comparable to you to kids getting shot with a fucking bullet and not dying? Well I'll break that down for you. No, in most cases those treated in emergency rooms for NEAR-DROWNINGS go home that same day unharmed. To be fair you'd have to compare those to kids who experience near misses with gun fire.

      So, no, swimming pools do not do as much harm to the kiddies as the guns do.

    2. You keep redefining and backpedaling a whole awful lot, don't you?

      Here's some Mike B logic:

      - Guns kill more kids than pools, but that doesn't fit our narrative, so let's rephrase the statement and put it in the straw man's mouth: "Guns are more DANGEROUS than pools."
      - Near-fatal drownings are NEVER as bad as near-fatal shootings (Because the brain can go for DAYS deprived of oxygen and be just fine) so we're throwing those out completely.
      - So gun deaths + gun injuries > pool deaths + ???????

      Your logic would be admire by the Underpants Gnomes.

    3. There was no back pedaling, Jim. The title of the post was about "being more dangerous" and the discussion has been about causing harm not about the number of deaths.

      I didn't say non-fatal drownings are NEVER serious. I said most of them are not serious and the kid goes home from the hospital that very day unharmed. Kids that are shot are not so fortunate.

  19. I see this again and again from gun grabbers. The argument is changed to meet their agenda.

    The comparison is; Gun accidents involving children VS swimming pool accidents involving children. There is no way you can compare (gun) homicide to (swimming pool) accidents unless you can justify comparing apples and oranges.

    Sorry, try again.

    1. Please show us where someone was comparing gun murders to swimming pool accidents.

  20. Some FYI's along these lines: American Gun Deaths to Exceed Traffic Fatalities by 2015
    Death By Gun Now Higher In 10 States Than Death By Car
    States with Higher Gun Ownership and Weak Gun Laws Lead Nation in Gun Death- Louisiana, Mississippi, Alaska, Alabama, and Nevada Have Highest Gun Death Rates
    The Striking Relationship Between Gun Safety Laws and Firearm Deaths
    Refuting Gun-Enthusiasts’ Anti-Gun Control Arguments Part #1
    Refuting Gun-Enthusiasts’ Anti-Gun Control Arguments Part #2
    The Ignorant Rantings of Unreasonable, Irresponsible Gun Nuts
    The 4 Most Meaningless Arguments Against Gun Control
    Read more:
    10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down-Fact checking some of the gun lobby's favorite arguments shows they're full of holes.
    NRA Fires Back in Defense of Gun Myths-The gun lobby takes aim at Mother Jones for fact checking its favorite talking points
    Debunking 18 Pro-Gun Myths
    Debunking The 5 Dumbest Examples of Pro-Gun Rhetoric-
    Ten Arguments Gun Advocates Make, and Why They're Wrong- A guide to the debate we'll be having, or at least we ought to have
    Progun vs. Gunsense on Twitter
    12 rational responses to irrational gun arguments-With the gun control debate hitting a fever pitch, a handy how-to guide for dealing with gun rights extremists
    Gun Rhetoric vs. Gun Facts-We offer facts and context as a national gun-control debate intensifies.:
    Baseball Bats and Hammers Do Not Kill More People Than Guns-Why do people keep saying they do?
    The Ultimate Guide To The Gun Safety Debate
    Conservative Meme Fact-Checked — Deaths From Guns
    Dispelling The Right Wing Myth: ‘You Can Kill Someone As Easily With A Knife As A Gun…’
    Spoons, Frying Pans, Hitler And Other Really Bad Gun Analogies Gun Deaths vs. Baseball Bat Deaths

  21. Just look at the numbers of the study: from 1993-1997 218,000 Kids were injured by guns. Same time CDC says 20,000 pool and water related injuries.

    It's NOT. EVEN. CLOSE. Guns are WAY more dangerous than water.

  22. This is the classic response cycle you get when a gun-grabber is cornered in their own twisted take on a statistical argument. Eventually, they lash out with personal attacks, name-calling and swearing.

    If this is truly an argument about injury rather than death, just move the argument from swimming pools to ATV's. 35,000 to 40,000 kids under the age of 16 are injured on ATV's each year. Can you imagine how many of those are crippling, life-changing injuries? C'mon Mike, you can't ignore this since you care so much about the children!

    I'll accept your fervent gun-grabbing activism as true and just as soon as I see you petition for the banning of ATV's with 10x the ferocity of your gun-grab (since a conservative estimate is that ATV's do 10x the crippling harm to children).

    Unless you're willing to do that, your argument has nothing to do with saving children from life-altering injury and everything to do with promoting an irrational gun-grabbing agenda.

    1. This blog is about gun rights and gun control. We aren't talking about ATV injuries or people falling down the stairs. We're talking about guns. Sometimes we stretch out and point out the lies on your side, like swimming pools are more dangerous than guns.

    2. No. It is you that is stretching to make your point and lying to do so. You are using an assumption that more kids are permanently disabled by guns than by pools. It could be true. It might be true. But we can't assume it to be true.

      To the original point, there *is* data to show that more kids are killed by pools than by guns. There *is not* data to show that more kids are permanently disable by guns than by pools.

      So try again. But next time, use data rather than assumptions.

  23. "Roughly 5,000 children 14 and under go to the hospital because of accidental drowning-related incidents each year; 15% die and about 20% suffer from permanent neurological disability."

    Fix your pool injury data...the brain being deprived of oxygen for more than around 2 minutes causes permanent neurological damage. Pools are simply far more dangerous than guns when it comes to children. Your neighbors backyard pool is around 100x more likely to take the life of a child than your neighbors gun.

    1. Your "100x more likely to take the life of a child than your neighbors gun" is ridiculous. Did you read the post?

      I'm gonna repost it today.

  24. Pools do not kill any children (or adults) on net, as the health benefits dwarf the risk of drowning. I've done the math over on my personal blog, but to summarize, an average pool claims just over one day's worth of human life per year due to drownings, but it can make up for this by providing only about ten hours of moderate exercise per year.

    Obviously, the typical pool is used many multiples of this amount.

    1. Wow. That's an interesting take on it. How do you feel about defensive use of guns vs. their misuse?

  25. this is not right. guns incidents are more then drowning cases.

  26. As usual " facts " creep from their original " truth "

    It is true that a gun in the home is much less likely to result in the accidental death of a child than a swimming pool - All the rest is BS

  27. You have the numbers for gun fatalities, and you have the numbers for pool fatalities.

    When that doesn't prove your point, you add in non-fatal gun statistics.

    How about doing the same for near drownings, where victims are left with severe and permanent injuries?