The point is that it’s ABSURD to compare the two. It’s typical pivoting and false equivalency in this shameful discussion that only occurs in America and not in any other developed country.
Let me pose this question, @roethlisburger – would you rather your 8 year old fell into a pool? Or be shot by a handgun? Which do you think would be less lethal?
Assuming they didn’t know how to swim and no one was around capable of rescuing them, a gunshot would be less lethal. Single gun-shot wounds to the body have an 80%+ survival rate.
Oh, I get it. Your child would only be shot once. Phew! So, handguns in schools are just fine. Gotcha.
You’re pushing it @katliamom Don’t think that’s what he meant.
Oh, are you now going to mansplain what he meant?
If the only purpose for having swimming pools was to provide opportunities for death by drowning, maybe I could see the pool ownership/gun ownership equivalency argument. But since the sole purpose of guns is to inflict catastrophic bodily injury or death…
If doctors advocate swimming for its potential mental and physical health benefits, I guess they should also tout being shot as having similar benefits. Makes sense, right? 8-|
Not sure why you guys are even arguing about the swimming pool analogy. It’s clearly a false equivalency, a type of logical fallacy that’s used by people unable or unwilling to argue the actual point. Chocolate bars are bad for you, chocolate bars are snacks, therefore snacking on spinach Is bad for you. See how that works?
Next somebody will start talking about how people slip and die in bathrooms, therefore we should regulate bathrooms if we want to regulate guns. Or you can flip the script and come up with your own ridiculous logical fallacy, like nuclear bombs are regulated therefore guns (and swimming pools) should be too.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
We’ve moved well past the original post. Closing.