Freakonomics: Guns V Swimming Pools

Tokamak · June 29, 2006, 05:48 PM

I found an interesting statistic in the book Freakonomics.

If you own a gun and a swimming pool, your child is 100 times more likely to die in the swimming pool than by the gun.

Swimming pool death likelyhood: 1 in 11,000.
Gun deaths likelyhood: 1 in more than 1,000,000.

TimRB · June 29, 2006, 06:08 PM

Interesting statistic, but wrong interpretation. You can't infer any given child's chances of gun or swimming pool injury from stats like this.

Tim

rhgunguy · June 29, 2006, 06:50 PM

You can't infer any given childs chances, no. But it does present a good counter point to the gun-grabbers who say guns in homes are deadly. I for one am going to call my congressman and demand a Backyard Pool Ban. It will call for pools to be low capacity(less than 1000 gallons), and require that they have no more than two of the following:water slides, diving boards, large filters and pool chairs.

Dusty Dan · June 29, 2006, 06:59 PM

You forgot the background check and waiting period before legal installation of your low-capacity ground-mounted cooling device. Don't forget to have the environmental-impact study done,too. Don't want to push some obscure species of endangered termite out of its natural habitat.

Tokamak · June 29, 2006, 07:44 PM

"Interesting statistic, but wrong interpretation. You can't infer any given child's chances of gun or swimming pool injury from stats like this.

Tim"

Sure you can. The odds of a child dying by gun are 1 in over 1000000 and 1 in 11,000 by swiming pool.

croyance · June 29, 2006, 08:26 PM

No it isn't, since the numbers are used to dumb down the issues and to gloss over relevant factors. Simply - things do not exist in a vacuum outside of word problems.

This stat, along with the hospital one, has been posted about every three to four months.

TimRB · June 30, 2006, 10:13 AM

"Sure you can. The odds of a child dying by gun are 1 in over 1000000 and 1 in 11,000 by swiming pool."

I'm sorry I was so terse with my original response. I should have explained my reasoning. Anyway, there are two problems with these statistics as presented:

1) What do they mean in the first place? For example, does the "1 in 11,000" number mean that for every 11,000 pools there will be a fatality? If so, how often? Or does it mean that for every 11,000 pool accidents, one will be fatal? There's no way of knowing what they're talking about.

2) You can't know, with any reasonable degree of certainty, the risk any given child has without examining that child's circumstances. Is he a high school swim team star? Is he an overweight couch potato who smokes dope and drinks beer all day?

Depending on the answer to 1 above, you might be able to make the statement that more kids die in swimming pool accidents than gun accidents, but even then (if you're in an argument with a gun-grabber) you'd better be prepared to answer questions about how you know that.

Tim

Wyo Cowboy · June 30, 2006, 10:30 AM

Quote:

No it isn't, since the numbers are used to dumb down the issues and to gloss over relevant factors. Simply - things do not exist in a vacuum outside of word problems.

Sure they do... just ask the Brady Bunch and the "national media". They're the experts.

roscoe · July 5, 2006, 12:10 AM

Quote:

1) What do they mean in the first place? For example, does the "1 in 11,000" number mean that for every 11,000 pools there will be a fatality? If so, how often? Or does it mean that for every 11,000 pool accidents, one will be fatal? There's no way of knowing what they're talking about.

2) You can't know, with any reasonable degree of certainty, the risk any given child has without examining that child's circumstances. Is he a high school swim team star? Is he an overweight couch potato who smokes dope and drinks beer all day?

That is not what statistics try to do. His point is that it is more dangerous (by a factor of 100) to own a pool than a gun, other factors being equal. Those other factors are not equal in any given circumstance, but the numbers still are useful when determining personal risk factors.

In other words, if you have a pool and guns (and kids), you need worry far more about the pool unless you have some special mitigating circumstances. If your kid is a suicidal teen boy, worry about the gun, but otherwise, worry about the pool, and the statistics will bear that out.

The general statistic is still valid for the gross general population whose kids fit into the middle of the curve.

June 29, 2006, 05:48 PM	#1
Tokamak Senior Member Join Date: January 3, 2006 Posts: 264	Freakonomics: Guns V Swimming Pools I found an interesting statistic in the book Freakonomics. If you own a gun and a swimming pool, your child is 100 times more likely to die in the swimming pool than by the gun. Swimming pool death likelyhood: 1 in 11,000. Gun deaths likelyhood: 1 in more than 1,000,000.

June 29, 2006, 06:59 PM	#4
Dusty Dan Member Join Date: May 24, 2006 Location: stupid-hot Phoenix, AZ, USA Posts: 89	You forgot the background check and waiting period before legal installation of your low-capacity ground-mounted cooling device. Don't forget to have the environmental-impact study done,too. Don't want to push some obscure species of endangered termite out of its natural habitat. __________________ Have a nice day unless, of course, you've made other plans.

June 29, 2006, 07:44 PM	#5
Tokamak Senior Member Join Date: January 3, 2006 Posts: 264	Sure you can. "Interesting statistic, but wrong interpretation. You can't infer any given child's chances of gun or swimming pool injury from stats like this. Tim" Sure you can. The odds of a child dying by gun are 1 in over 1000000 and 1 in 11,000 by swiming pool.

June 29, 2006, 06:08 PM	#2
TimRB Senior Member Join Date: May 18, 2004 Posts: 1,029	Interesting statistic, but wrong interpretation. You can't infer any given child's chances of gun or swimming pool injury from stats like this. Tim

June 29, 2006, 06:50 PM	#3
rhgunguy Senior Member Join Date: March 7, 2006 Posts: 1,058	You can't infer any given childs chances, no. But it does present a good counter point to the gun-grabbers who say guns in homes are deadly. I for one am going to call my congressman and demand a Backyard Pool Ban. It will call for pools to be low capacity(less than 1000 gallons), and require that they have no more than two of the following:water slides, diving boards, large filters and pool chairs.

June 29, 2006, 08:26 PM	#6
croyance Senior Member Join Date: March 30, 2001 Posts: 3,604	No it isn't, since the numbers are used to dumb down the issues and to gloss over relevant factors. Simply - things do not exist in a vacuum outside of word problems. This stat, along with the hospital one, has been posted about every three to four months.

June 30, 2006, 10:13 AM	#7
TimRB Senior Member Join Date: May 18, 2004 Posts: 1,029	"Sure you can. The odds of a child dying by gun are 1 in over 1000000 and 1 in 11,000 by swiming pool." I'm sorry I was so terse with my original response. I should have explained my reasoning. Anyway, there are two problems with these statistics as presented: 1) What do they mean in the first place? For example, does the "1 in 11,000" number mean that for every 11,000 pools there will be a fatality? If so, how often? Or does it mean that for every 11,000 pool accidents, one will be fatal? There's no way of knowing what they're talking about. 2) You can't know, with any reasonable degree of certainty, the risk any given child has without examining that child's circumstances. Is he a high school swim team star? Is he an overweight couch potato who smokes dope and drinks beer all day? Depending on the answer to 1 above, you might be able to make the statement that more kids die in swimming pool accidents than gun accidents, but even then (if you're in an argument with a gun-grabber) you'd better be prepared to answer questions about how you know that. Tim