PDA

View Full Version : Which of these is a greater danger?



Geezah
06-13-2005, 04:15 PM
http://www.azstarnet.com/ss/2005/06/12/l79388-1.jpg
Matilda Gits lobbied to have this fence erected after 3-year-old Michael nearly drowned in the unpsupervised lake it surrounds.

A child is 100 times more likely to drown in a pool than be killed by a gun

They're pulled from backyard pools and bathtubs each year, tiny limp bodies, blue and not breathing.

A young life can vanish quickly under water. A survivor can endure a lifetime of disabilities. Either way, families are torn apart by an almost always preventable tragedy.

Standard summer companions in our desert climate, swimming pools can be deadlier for children than guns. A child is 100 times more likely to die in a swimming accident than in gunplay, writes Steven D. Levitt, University of Chicago economics professor and best-selling author.

Levitt analyzed child deaths from residential swimming pools and guns and found one child under 10 drowns annually for every 11,000 pools. By comparison, one child under 10 each year is killed by a gun for every 1 million guns, according to his research, outlined in a new book "Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side to Everything," which he co-wrote with journalist Stephen J. Dubner.

In part because they are so familiar, swimming pools are less frightening than guns, Levitt writes.

But the danger is clear - drowning is the leading cause of accidental death for children younger than 5 in Arizona and the second-leading cause of injury-related death nationally among children younger than 15.

Water kills an average of three children each year in Tucson and, even with proper fences, swimming lessons and caution, danger lurks.

"Living with a swimming pool in your back yard is like living next to the Grand Canyon," said Dr. Bob Berg, a pediatric intensive specialist at University Medical Center and a UA professor. "You should never feel comfortable there."

"It happened in blink of an eye."

Nothing can prepare a parent to pull a limp child from the water, wondering whether a moment of inattention has led to tragic, lifelong consequences.

On a February 2004 afternoon, Matilda Gits wheeled her 18-month-old son, Michael, in a wagon to a playground near a small lake in their East Side development. As Michael sat in the shade beneath the playground structure playing with wood chips, Gits leafed through her mail.

"When I turned around to check on him, he was gone," she said. "I didn't know where he was, but I knew I didn't have a lot of time to figure it out."

Gits looked toward the street, then toward the fenced pool on the other side of the playground. She still couldn't see her son, and started running toward the lake.

"I remember running, thinking I can't run this fast, then running faster," she said.

Michael was in the lake, under water. His lips were blue, his eyes rolled back in his head. Twelve weeks pregnant, Gits dived in, grabbed Michael from the water, slammed him on the back, and yelled, "Breathe!"

Michael started crying and neighbors called 911. Michael, now 3, is just fine, but the what-ifs still plague his mother.

After the accident, Gits pushed her neighborhood to install a fence separating the playground from the lake.

"I'm not irresponsible. If this could happen to me, it could happen to anyone. It happened in the blink of an eye," she said. "For a long time, when I'd drive down the street and hear an ambulance, I'd get sick to my stomach."

Preventable devastation

About 88 percent of children who drowned were under some form of supervision, according to a survey for the National SAFE Kids Campaign.

Small distractions such as talking to somebody, reading, eating or using the phone were a factor in most of the cases. The survey found parents are overconfident in their children's safety and abilities in water and need to be more active in supervising children.

"If something terrible really does happen, that's bad enough. If a child dies or is neurologically devastated, families don't get over it," said Berg, the UMC pediatrician. "Their life has been permanently changed in a way that's hard for most of us to believe.

"When a child dies, the devastation to a family is just overwhelming. That's true for almost all child deaths, but one of the things that's dramatic about car accidents and drowning is a few minutes before that, everything is fine. A minute later, that whole dream is shattered."

Medical costs for a near-drowning victim can be nearly $200,000 a year for long-term care and a child suffering brain damage may need millions of dollars in medical care, according to the National SAFE Kids Campaign. As many as 20 percent of near-drowning victims have severe permanent neurological damage.

There is a high divorce rate among parents who have had a child drown and many parents experience long-term psychological effects, Berg said.

Lingering effects

Lynne Gonzales knows all too well about the medical and psychological costs of a near-drowning.

In 1984, Gonzales' son Tony was 17 years old and nearly out of school for the summer when some friends pushed him into the deep end of a pool.

They didn't know he couldn't swim.

By the time they jumped in to save him, the damage had been done.

For the next 13 years, Tony lingered with severe brain damage from lack of oxygen.

"In some ways that has a much worse or longer effect than drowning," Gonzales said.

After the accident, Tony spent time in three hospitals and finally was admitted to a nursing home.

The years that followed, whether he was at home or a nursing home, Tony needed care around the clock due to a tracheotomy and a gastrotomy tube. His parents fought daily with insurance companies, all the while struggling to raise Tony's three younger sisters.

Tony's family is certain he recognized them, but he never spoke again. He could communicate by blinking his eyes, but it was inconsistent.

"There were moments of joy when Tony learned to sit, to stand, to swallow," said Gonzales, who moved to SaddleBrooke last year from Milwaukee. "If you worked closely with him you could see that much of his personality was still intact."

Tony needed around-the-clock nursing care and was at home for about six years after the accident. He died suddenly at a nursing home in 1997.

"You lose a part of your own future," Gonzales said. "You miss all those things that might have been."

The pain of a drowning or near-drowning is never-ending, said Dr. Barb Smith, a member of the Arizona chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Smith has dealt with several families who have lost a child to drowning.

"Families are devastated by it in a way they're not if they have a child who dies from leukemia or some other equally tragic event," Smith said. "What makes drowning different is it's always someone's fault. It's preventable and there's so much remorse about that."

Link (http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/news/79388.php)

It's all about what is seen as socially acceptable, the responsibility of owning a pool should be no diferent to owning a firearm.

coverteye
06-13-2005, 06:13 PM
Automobiles kill even more.....

fremen
06-13-2005, 06:52 PM
You are absolutely right! Swimming pools are just as dangerous. So maybe soldiers should be armed with inflatable children's pools instead of M-16's, or inflatable pools could be loaded on to B-1 or B-2 bombers, or even better, "pool-fields" would be just as deadly as rofl mine-fields, but would be more esthetically pleasing. rofl

Geezah
06-13-2005, 06:55 PM
You are absolutely right! Swimming pools are just as dangerous. So maybe soldiers should be armed with inflatable children's pools instead of M-16's, or inflatable pools could be loaded on to B-1 or B-2 bombers, or even better, "pool-fields" would be just as deadly as rofl mine-fields, but would be more esthetically pleasing. rofl

We're talking about legally held firearms, not M16s, but I'm glad you find it amusing that more children are killed by pools a year than firearms!

JoaMei
06-13-2005, 07:20 PM
Kids shouldnt be killed by guns at all, this would be the case if the US had strict rules how to store them.

Abolith
06-13-2005, 07:30 PM
Kids shouldnt be killed by guns at all, this would be the case if the US had strict rules how to store them.

We DO have strict rules on how to store them... but not everyone followes the rules. Hmmm maybe we should make a rule that says one must follow the other rules.

abncougar
06-13-2005, 08:06 PM
Kids shouldnt be killed by guns at all, this would be the case if the US had strict rules how to store them.

We DO have strict rules on how to store them... but not everyone followes the rules. Hmmm maybe we should make a rule that says one must follow the other rules.



BRILLIANT!!!
http://tinypic.com/5xmq92

Maj12
06-13-2005, 08:19 PM
Kids shouldnt be killed by guns at all, this would be the case if the US had strict rules how to store them.

Christ on a stick, why don't any of you knuckleheads understand the simple concept that criminals, by very definition, do not obey the law???

Simple enough f*cking concept to grasp...

fremen
06-13-2005, 08:34 PM
You are absolutely right! Swimming pools are just as dangerous. So maybe soldiers should be armed with inflatable children's pools instead of M-16's, or inflatable pools could be loaded on to B-1 or B-2 bombers, or even better, "pool-fields" would be just as deadly as rofl mine-fields, but would be more esthetically pleasing. rofl

We're talking about legally held firearms, not M16s, but I'm glad you find it amusing that more children are killed by pools a year than firearms!

What I find amusing is how gun nuts try to justify their anachronistic point of view by trying to find other bigger monsters to hide behind. How come in other developed nations swimming pools are a far greater threat than guns?

JoaMei
06-13-2005, 08:52 PM
A child is 100 times more likely to die in a swimming accident than in gunplay


Christ on a stick, why don't any of you knuckleheads understand the simple concept that criminals, by very definition, do not obey the law???

So kids finding a gun at home and playing with it are criminals? :cantbeli:

In germany you have to do some serious safety training before you can buy guns. And you have to proof you are reliable and need them for a certain purpose(Target shooting, Hunting...).
And YES nearly all gunowners here follow the rules for safe storage of these weapons.

Geezah
06-13-2005, 08:55 PM
You are absolutely right! Swimming pools are just as dangerous. So maybe soldiers should be armed with inflatable children's pools instead of M-16's, or inflatable pools could be loaded on to B-1 or B-2 bombers, or even better, "pool-fields" would be just as deadly as rofl mine-fields, but would be more esthetically pleasing. rofl

We're talking about legally held firearms, not M16s, but I'm glad you find it amusing that more children are killed by pools a year than firearms!

What I find amusing is how gun nuts try to justify their anachronistic point of view by trying to find other bigger monsters to hide behind. How come in other developed nations swimming pools are a far greater threat than guns?

You make about as much sense as bugalugs, more kids are killed a year by swimming pools than firearms.
Basically, no matter how you look at it, firearms are less of a threat to children than a swimming pools, you can try and put what ever twist you want on it but it doesn't change a thing!

Geezah
06-13-2005, 08:56 PM
A child is 100 times more likely to die in a swimming accident than in gunplay


Christ on a stick, why don't any of you knuckleheads understand the simple concept that criminals, by very definition, do not obey the law???

So kids finding a gun at home and playing with it are criminals? :cantbeli:

Just how often does that happen?

JoaMei
06-13-2005, 09:20 PM
Type "firearm accident kid" into google.

Oddbod
06-13-2005, 09:34 PM
A child is 100 times more likely to die in a swimming accident than in gunplay


Christ on a stick, why don't any of you knuckleheads understand the simple concept that criminals, by very definition, do not obey the law???

So kids finding a gun at home and playing with it are criminals? :cantbeli:

In germany you have to do some serious safety training before you can buy guns. And you have to proof you are reliable and need them for a certain purpose(Target shooting, Hunting...).
And YES nearly all gunowners here follow the rules for safe storage of these weapons.

The kids aren't criminals, however their Guardians ARE guilty of criminal negligence for letting them gain access to a firearm.

Accidental deaths caused by firearms are rare - even amongst adults & only a tiny factor in child deaths.

Don't be fooled by the HCI/Brady figures on "child deaths from firearms" as they include "children" up to the age of 18 or 21 depending on who the figures are aimed at. They also include the deaths of Gangbangers & those killed by the Police in the execution of their duty.

Oddbod
06-13-2005, 09:50 PM
How about this:

Fact: In 1996, there were only 21
accidental firearm deaths for children
under age 15. Contrast this with 40
kids under age five that drowned in
buckets and 80 that drowned in tubs
(i.e. parents could have prevented six
(6) times as many drowning deaths as
they could firearm deaths).98

Center for Disease Control, “Deaths: Final for 1998”, vol. 48 no. 11., July 24, 2000

Hot Lips
06-13-2005, 10:20 PM
Swimming pools don't kill kids.






Water does.



Hell no - H20! Hell no - H20! Agua - Just say no!

fremen
06-14-2005, 01:02 AM
I'm sure that somewhere in the Constitution of the United States is an ammendment guaranteeing a person's right to bear buckets and swimming pools. So there, that ends this pointless thread!

Sir Zach of R.
06-14-2005, 01:19 AM
Sup Hot Lips. :P

Bugalugs
06-14-2005, 03:05 AM
You are absolutely right! Swimming pools are just as dangerous. So maybe soldiers should be armed with inflatable children's pools instead of M-16's, or inflatable pools could be loaded on to B-1 or B-2 bombers, or even better, "pool-fields" would be just as deadly as rofl mine-fields, but would be more esthetically pleasing. rofl

We're talking about legally held firearms, not M16s, but I'm glad you find it amusing that more children are killed by pools a year than firearms!

What I find amusing is how gun nuts try to justify their anachronistic point of view by trying to find other bigger monsters to hide behind. How come in other developed nations swimming pools are a far greater threat than guns?

You make about as much sense as bugalugs, more kids are killed a year by swimming pools than firearms.
Basically, no matter how you look at it, firearms are less of a threat to children than a swimming pools, you can try and put what ever twist you want on it but it doesn't change a thing!

how many kids killed by nukes in history? I'll bet less than have been kiled by pools.......

lets keep pools legal, as long as theyre filled with nukes!

youre getting desperate Geezah. Its pathetic, but strangely fun to watch....

Bugalugs
06-14-2005, 03:08 AM
Swimming pools don't kill kids.






Water does.



Hell no - H20! Hell no - H20! Agua - Just say no!

Gold!

You get my vote for post of the year...... :hug:

Rifleman
06-14-2005, 05:12 AM
Hmm, let me think.

I have been a fire fighter for 15 years and have never been on an accidental shooting. I can think of 4 shootings that took the lives of innocent people, 3 were robberies, 1 domestic.

All of the rest fall under...

#1. Drugs. To many to remember.
#2. Police killing bad guys. Couple times a year
#3. Gay or Lesbo life style. (**** fights/ cat fights) Couple times a year.

As for suicide, some how they screw it up most of the time...even with a gun. :cantbeli:

I have never been on a child shot. (Younger than 16)

As far as kids drowning I have a couple of those a year. (2 so far this year)

Most of the harm I see to children is in fires and auto accidents. So many of them that I can not remember their faces after a month or two. The busy companies all across America have 3-4 working structure fires a day!

Since 9/11 there have been 750 fire fighters killed and 320,000 (you read that right) injured in the U.S.

So if you really want to make a difference in quality of life ban cars and require sprinklers in every structure. That my friends, ain't gonna happen. The government knows is would hurt the economy, and the Gov knows people need a cause to feel good/argue about.

So you have.
1. Education
2. Drugs
3. Poverty
4. Guns
5. Health Care

When we get those 5 solved, (never) then we can.............yea right...lol!

Bugalugs
06-14-2005, 05:49 AM
http://img61.echo.cx/img61/3083/outofnowhere3ms.gif (http://www.imageshack.us)

Graspol
06-14-2005, 07:38 AM
You are absolutely right! Swimming pools are just as dangerous. So maybe soldiers should be armed with inflatable children's pools instead of M-16's, or inflatable pools could be loaded on to B-1 or B-2 bombers, or even better, "pool-fields" would be just as deadly as rofl mine-fields, but would be more esthetically pleasing. rofl

We're talking about legally held firearms, not M16s, but I'm glad you find it amusing that more children are killed by pools a year than firearms!

What I find amusing is how gun nuts try to justify their anachronistic point of view by trying to find other bigger monsters to hide behind. How come in other developed nations swimming pools are a far greater threat than guns?

You make about as much sense as bugalugs, more kids are killed a year by swimming pools than firearms.
Basically, no matter how you look at it, firearms are less of a threat to children than a swimming pools, you can try and put what ever twist you want on it but it doesn't change a thing!

how many kids killed by nukes in history? I'll bet less than have been kiled by pools.......

lets keep pools legal, as long as theyre filled with nukes!

youre getting desperate Geezah. Its pathetic, but strangely fun to watch....


What a nutter,this Geezah! :bash: Comparing swimmingpools to guns is sooo far off. Kids have been killed by falling from stairs or other high objects etc. Wanna ban them too? Oh, and lets all ban the traffic too! :cantbeli:

Geezah
06-14-2005, 09:33 AM
Type "firearm accident kid" into google.

I prefer to use the CDC website,


Children:In 2001, 859 children ages 0 to 14 years died from drowning (CDC 2003). While drowning rates have slowly declined (Branche 1999), drowning remains the second-leading cause of injury-related death for children ages 1 to 14 years (CDC 2003).


Link (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drown.htm)

I'm unable to find anything that says that the age group in questions is more likely to die form a firearm reltaed accident over drowning. While you search please make sure you do not make the same mistake as the Brady Bunch and try and use the numbers aquired from gang related shooting involving the 14-21 age group.

Geezah
06-14-2005, 09:34 AM
Swimming pools don't kill kids.






Water does.



Hell no - H20! Hell no - H20! Agua - Just say no!

Hot Lips woot

Geezah
06-14-2005, 09:40 AM
You are absolutely right! Swimming pools are just as dangerous. So maybe soldiers should be armed with inflatable children's pools instead of M-16's, or inflatable pools could be loaded on to B-1 or B-2 bombers, or even better, "pool-fields" would be just as deadly as rofl mine-fields, but would be more esthetically pleasing. rofl

We're talking about legally held firearms, not M16s, but I'm glad you find it amusing that more children are killed by pools a year than firearms!

What I find amusing is how gun nuts try to justify their anachronistic point of view by trying to find other bigger monsters to hide behind. How come in other developed nations swimming pools are a far greater threat than guns?

You make about as much sense as bugalugs, more kids are killed a year by swimming pools than firearms.
Basically, no matter how you look at it, firearms are less of a threat to children than a swimming pools, you can try and put what ever twist you want on it but it doesn't change a thing!

how many kids killed by nukes in history? I'll bet less than have been kiled by pools.......

lets keep pools legal, as long as theyre filled with nukes!

youre getting desperate Geezah. Its pathetic, but strangely fun to watch....


What a nutter,this Geezah! :bash: Comparing swimmingpools to guns is sooo far off. Kids have been killed by falling from stairs or other high objects etc. Wanna ban them too? Oh, and lets all ban the traffic too! :cantbeli:

Me thinks you missed my point completely, while it may be hard to comprehend, there are those that want to ban firearms because of the threat to children, yet they choose to ignore that there are greater threats out there to the young than frickin firearms.

If it's all about protecting the young then we should ban pools, and while we're at it, ban alcohol, cars, push bikes even motor bikes. I've had more accidents(2) on motor bikes than I ever had with firearms, that's reason enough to ban them.

martinexsquaddie
06-14-2005, 09:56 AM
geezah
an accident with a firearm is much like with explosives or rock climbing or parachuting tends to be the last one you make :lol:
i think we need to find a way of spotting idiots and corralling them away from civillisation( maybe candada) rofl

Geezah
06-14-2005, 01:06 PM
Just got this off of the site I got the story from.


What is the leading cause of accidental death among children nationally?

Accidents involving motor vehicles.

The following statistics from 1981 forward are from the National Center for Health Statistics, while those prior to 1981 are from the National Safety Council. Compiled by the NRA-ILA:

In 2002, there were 60 firearm accident deaths among children in the United States. Today, the odds are more than a million to one against a child in the U.S. dying from a firearm accident. The firearm accident death rate is at an all-time annual low over all ages 0.26 per 100,000 population - down 92% since the all-time high in 1904.

Firearms are involved in 1% of deaths among children. Most accidental deaths among children involve, or are due to, motor vehicles (44%), suffocation (16%), drowning (16%), fires (9%), bicycles (2%), poisoning (2%), falls (2%), environmental factors (1%), and medical mistakes (1%).