Yes. According to the CDC. Not including fatalities. Ah. Drownings wasn't working out, so you go with something else. Our exposure to cars is pervasive. Every single person in the USA, from baby to adult, is exposed to motor vehicles multiple times. Walking, driving, riding our bikes, we are in or around cars and trucks. There are over 250 million registered passenger vehicles in America representing just about every household. We see them literally everywhere, and even if you don't own one, you are almost guaranteed to be in or on one during the course of your day. Also, remember that bikes and public transportation are often included in the stats.
In contrast, according to lklawson, there are about 52 million households with guns, and the vast majority of US citizens go weeks, months or even years without seeing a firearm drawn.
If you consider context and the degree of exposure, I'd argue that it's at least comparable. Either way, it's interpretation. You're definitely entitled to yours.Nope. You guys brought up drowning. The link wasn't even to statistics. Rather, it was an op/ed piece on pools verses guns. I'm simply pointing out that if you compare drownings and near drownings to gun fatalities and injuries, you're actually twice as likely to get shot as to be involved in a drowning or near drowning incident. I'm trying to go out of my way, in other words, to put the statistics you bring up into something approximating equivalent context.
Thanks for that. But come on. Your report from the CPSC was from 1976. As a result of reports like that one most homes can't get homeowners insurance unless the pool has been built safely. New homes with pools have specific materials involved, no longer have diving boards, no longer have "deep" ends, and conform to a laundry list of specifications designed to significantly reduce the number of drownings and near drownings. And they've worked.
But whether they worked or not, this actually supports my point considering that a person's pool IS insured under their homeowners policy.Gun problem? Don't overstate my case here. I'm not suggesting that we have a gun problem. I'm just suggesting that, if a lawful gun owner carried liability insurance, if someone is injured they wouldn't have to sue to try and receive compensation to pay for the expenses related to, you know, getting shot.Very interesting, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the subject.And it may just come down to this. You have a strongly held opinion. To be honest, I don't. I have an idea... a thought that occurred to me a few years ago. I've seen actual statistical information that supports it, and you have yet to show me anything that leads me to believe otherwise.