Cry me a (chlorine) river

Mr. President, drain this pool!

Mr. President, drain this pool!

The NYT is out with a front page story today announcing with great fanfare that half of the 250 accidental deaths of children each year are unreported.

How about what the CPC calls “the leading cause of death for young children?  390 deaths for children under fifteen? If it saves the life of just one child, shouldn’t we ban residential swimming pools? Doesn’t that carnage merit front page coverage on its own?

Or is there some other agenda at play here?


Filed under Uncategorized

7 responses to “Cry me a (chlorine) river

  1. Walt

    Dude –
    The article states the vast majority of these accidental drowning’s are black and Hispanic children. They make up 75% of the floaters.

    But it is not the pools fault. Don’t these kids know that you can’t swim with big screen plasma TV or a bunch of hub caps under your arms? As far as I know, water isn’t racist.

    So maybe we adopt a progressive solution, and just drown more white kids so the numbers even out? Then we treat everyone the same. LIBTARD UTOPIA!!

    There may be some money in a line of lead shoes for young white swimmers. Francis can probably get us Federal funding.

    Your Pal,

  2. db

    Small point, but swimming pools are designed to swim in and guns are….well designed for something else.

    • Self defense, among other things. But the point of the NYT article was to demonize guns by counting children’s deaths. If that’s the yardstick, and if the point is to warn people of a danger to children, we should be seeing scary sories about pools, not guns.

      • db

        Haven’t taken a look, but we may find more State laws mandating kid pool safety than similar for guns. Maybe not….but wouldn’t surprise me.

  3. Anonymous

    Pools are dangerous too. They aren’t designed to kill people, however. But in any case, they are regulated too– fences are required, owners are liable for accidents. Same should go for deadly weapons.

    • Negligent acts of any kind are always actionable. What you are, perhaps, confused about is the Connecticut anti-gun crowd demanding a law that requires a separate liability policy for gun owners. No such insurance exists because, among other reasons, a negligent act with a firearm (unsafe storage allowing a child to obtain possession, for instance) are already covered. The point of the anti-gun people is to impose as many burdens on gun owners as possible and thereby discourage ownership. Thus, they, and their political allies like Blumenthal, want to impose a $300 ?- $500? $1,000? No one knows) charge each year for an illusory liability policy, annual registration of firearms, etc. etc.
      These gun confiscators are, of course, to try every political gambit they wish, subject to constitutional limitations, but don’t fall for their line that they’re just trying to impose “common sense restrictions”. They aren’t.

  4. combining water AND guns… well….