csbrown28
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 6, 2013
- Messages
- 3,102
- Reaction score
- 1,604
- Location
- NW Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
It would be more accurate to equate the number of children in homes with firearms to the number of children that get into a car every day.
Another fun statistic to look at is drowning deaths, specifically in swimming pools. According to the CDC:
Children: Children ages 1 to 4 have the highest drowning rates. In 2009, among children 1 to 4 years old who died from an unintentional injury, more than 30% died from drowning.1,2 Among children ages 1 to 4, most drownings occur in home swimming pools.2 Drowning is responsible for more deaths among children 1-4 than any other cause except congenital anomalies (birth defects).1 Among those 1-14, fatal drowning remains the second-leading cause of unintentional injury-related death behind motor vehicle crashes.1
Seeing as how there are far more guns in the US than there are swimming pools, I'd have to say it's downright irresponsible to let your child even get near one! A swimming pool, that is.
Actually, it's still not a fair comparison. The quote I responded to talked about children in cars and compared them to children handling guns.
If we're calling a child someone under under 6, how many children under 6 handle a loaded firearm without supervision? I hope not many, so to compare 10's of millions of children that get in cars or go near pools to the comparative few thousands of children that handle a loaded weapon and try to say that pools or cars are more dangerous isn't a fair comparison.
It would be like comparing children that have a car in the home but never actually drive in it. If we're comparing children that have access to a pool, or drive in cars, we can only compare that to children who actually handle a firearm.
Last edited: