It is an incredibly small number, but we all agree that the number of child drownings are not enough to ban backyard swimming pools. amirite?

In Australia every pool has to have a child proof fence. They are super strict about it. Drowning is still one of the biggest killers of small children but since the fencing came in it has dramatically decreased. When I see pools without fences on TV it makes me nervous haha

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Same rule for Canada too.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

There is no risk of drowning on your mini hockey ring.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Head injury, though.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

There is no rule for Canada. Each municipality makes their own by-laws. I only need my property line fenced at 5' with a self closing gate. There is no safety fence around my pool.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

I didn't realize. My parents had a pool dug for us when we were kids decades ago and they were required to have high fences. I just figured it was a standard rule in the building code.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Same rules in many American states. Larry david does not approve and based an entire season of cub your enthusiasm on it.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Same in California, idk about the rest of the US.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

We have a similar method in the US. But it tends to be enforced by lawsuits instead of laws

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Ah yes… the Litigious States of America.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

The law is that there has to be a fence around the pool, but a fence around your entire property also counts. That's why a lot of pools in CA don't have fences immediately around the edge of the pool.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Also the gates to the yard have to swing outward, auto close and the latching mechanism has to be above a certain height.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Australia is cringe

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Are you 12? Who speaks like that?

by Anonymous 1 year ago

American much? No wonder butthurt

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Same in France IIRC. Either a fence or a detector that sounds an alarm if something plunges in.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Huh, like a laser based motion detector or? I Googled and see a couple. I'd just never heard of it as a product before. Wonder how accurate they are...

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Or just floaters that trigger an alarm if the water moves. It works well for the few ones I've seen.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Very well-regulated. Locality rules about fences, door alarms and such. Children drowning in pools are such a liability that homeowners insurance rates are raised.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

That, or the incredible cost associated with fixing them in the case of a problem.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

And the insurance hike is the reason we swim in the stream that cuts through part of our yard. No pool, no danger, no danger, low insurance rates.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

It's totally preventable with proper supervision and safety precautions.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

There are, however, ***LOTS*** of regulations about swimming pools.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

The solution to children drowning is teaching them how to swim at a young age and to generally be safe around deep water. Sounds familiar.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Pools are dangerous without education and supervision, but they aren't weapons designed and optimized for killing things. Much harder to kill dozens of people in a pool on purpose. Bit of a difference there.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Unless you are in a The Sims world.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Okay, got me there

by Anonymous 1 year ago

What about vehicles?

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Well we can't leave kids and pets in a hot car in the pool now can we?

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Well you could... It just wouldn't stay hot.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Unless you had heating elements I guess

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Good point, perhaps there are ways to mitigate risks? Seatbelts, fences, speed limits... Idk

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Almost like a safety on a gun?

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Or restrictions based on age and criminal history.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

So again, like a gun?

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Sweet, now let's require practical tests and retests for licenses, mandatory insurance and loss of license for guns like cars.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

The vast majority of gun related deaths are intentional. It's different from cars, where most deaths are accidental.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Cars also have a main purpose that is _not_ destroying things.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Agreed. Except insurance.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

You don't think gun holders should be held responsible for misuse of their equipment? Interesting

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Yeah, so why do you keep down voting me if we agree?

by Anonymous 1 year ago

"Good point, perhaps there are ways to mitigate risks? Seatbelts, fences, speed limits... Idk" Seemed like a troll answer as to say there are laws to protect you in a car but not with a gun. It seems a common argument that there aren't gun laws when there are. My bad man guess I misread your tone.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Not necessarily. Have a bunch of people in the pool? Throw some high amperage into the water and boom, you got a massive bowl of human soup.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Ban high voltage electricity?

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Extended extension cords are the real problem. No one *needs* to power 3 devices 100' away!

by Anonymous 1 year ago

What about when you have 30-50 feral hogs that run into your yard... and they all wanna watch TV?

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Voltage doesn't kill it's amperage that kills. The higher your voltage, for the most part, the lower your amperage will be. If you have low voltage and high wattage, you will have high amperage, if you have high voltage and low wattage, you will have low amperage, and if you have somewhat equal voltage and wattage you will have essential 1 amp.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Thanks for the physics lesson, honestly did not know that!

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Eh, voltage is still what you want to be concerned about. If you come into contact with an exposed conductor, the rated amperage or power of the equipment will not be what flows through your body. The current through your body will be determined by the voltage of the equipment and the resistance that your body poses to ground. The resistance to ground will vary based on things like standing in a puddle of water, being in contact with structural steel, or even having open cuts on your skin. We can't control all of that through equipment design so lower voltage equipment is the better way to keep people safe.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

No problemo! But yeah, the risk of death range for Amperage is .1-.2 amps. If you have that run through you, you are almost guaranteed to die. But you could have full 220v run through you and be perfectly fine, just shaken up a little bit. With the 220v example, as long as the wattage isn't over 22watts, you are fine. The closer you get to 22 watts the more severe the injury will be. Like you can still die from side effects of taking high electrical currents under .1 amps, because your muscles will be spasming. I just giving this info when talking about electricity because a lot of people have misconceptions about electricity. Did you know that the freezing point, or the amount of electricity running through you to cause you to not be able to let go willingly, is only .005-.03 amps?

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Guns are currently the number one killer of kids in the United States (for other developed countries, it's not even close) So yes, we need some very aggressive regulation, regarding storage, permits, mandatory insurance, and safety classes.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Going directly by CDC data for ages 5-14 over the period of 2011-2020, the number one cause of death is cancers followed by traffic accidents. Firearm deaths are fourth.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

They are not. This is a lie. Unless you count eighteen and nineteen year olds as kids.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Caution, that statistic is probably taken from the CDC, which considers anyone from 1 to 18 years old to be a "child". We send people off to the military at 17 to be exposed to guns and train to kill in battle. Are they children too? I'd say 15 or 16 and under is a child. Considering we give 16 year olds the freedom to drive a metal box that weighs thousands of pounds at 70mph down the road. Actual number one killer of kids? Congenital abnormalities and Abortion.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Considering we haven't had a single US combat death in 2 years, something tells me that won't affect the childhood gun death rate....

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Yeah let's regulate them like we do drugs that'll work!

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Kind of, yeah. Although I personally don't agree with the lifestyle, I recognize there are legit reasons a person might want a firearm. But there should be soft regulations in place to push them toward responsible use. Like you should have to register your gun and be liable for any damage your gun causes. This would make people not want to buy giant arsenals they can't keep track of, and it would nudge people into buying gun safes. But like drugs, I think there are some weaponry people shouldn't have access to. I can imagine you don't want your next door neighbor mixing high explosives while your house and children's rooms are within the blast radius, right?

by Anonymous 1 year ago

A gun registry is a step towards confiscation. We already hold people liable for damage caused by their firearms. Who defines what's safe and what's not? To your point of "high explosives" you likely have enough explosives in/near your house to launch you into orbit.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

There shouldn't be "damage caused by their firearms." We are the only country in the world that worships guns. It's disgusting.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

There shouldn't be "damage caused my frying pans" either but here we are.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Logical fallacy.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

So is discounting an entire argument because of a fallacy

by Anonymous 1 year ago

That's not how that works, but ok.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

>A gun registry is a step towards confiscation. Yes. And confiscation has to happen sometimes. I know it's a dirty word in gun nut circles, but confiscation is warranted in cases of domestic abuse, unsafe use, frequent accidental discharges, or use in crime. >To your point of "high explosives" you likely have enough explosives in/near your house to launch you into orbit. No. I don't

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Innocent until prevent guilty And yes, you do. Gas lines, gas in your car, etc.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Let's say your mom is shot and killed in an altercation. The shooter is arrested, but your testimony is necessary to convict him. Because murder trials take a long time, he's held in jail without bail until the trial. This is to make sure he doesn't flee or attempt to intimidate or harm you. Despite the fact that he's technically innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This is called pretrial detention, and it's commonplace in America and every developed nation. I assume you're familiar with it and okay with it? This is something gun nuts are particularly weak on- grasping that rights are in balance, and for a civilized society, rights have to be carefully considered and weighed in respect to each other

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Oh, and I don't have natural gas. And gasoline is flammable, not explosive. Not surprised you don't know the difference though

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Like how kids should behave around cars and streets?

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Oh God, don't go off about this stuff. Conservatives already think we're going to break down their doors and take their stoves away. Now you're gonna have them thinking we're gonna cement their pools in the middle of the night.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

I wonder if you can mix some sort of crazy expanding cement foam and what's the biggest you can do the bubbles.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Canada banned baby walkers because of the number of incidents.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

And corded window blinds

by Anonymous 1 year ago

The US is very pro Darwin in this way. No fence ? No problem, figure it out kids and parents

by Anonymous 1 year ago

They exceed school shootings by an order of magnitude.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

2022 had 51 school shootings. 40 died, another 100 injured. 46k students were attending schools where shootings took place, with no statistics kept on number affected. 371 kids by drowning in pools. The death toll may be lower, but the number affected is MUCH higher.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

What if I told you about guns..

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Drownings are the leading cause of death for children under five. It's not an incredibly small number.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Assuming you're american, there haven't been enough schoolchild deaths to ban guns.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

People should have fencing and do not trespass signs up. but not everyone owns their homes so they can't put up a fence. Also just anything in general related to pools (tarps, chlorine, etc.) is overly expensive so people don't care much about it until it affects them.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Many states in the USA have barricade or enclosure requirements

by Anonymous 1 year ago

With your logic we ban cars because of car accidents

by Anonymous 1 year ago

I mean, yeah, but what's your point? There are other interventions we use that are much less strict, instead of something as heavy-handed as a ban. It's a bit of a false dichotomy to frame this as if we're doing nothing simply because we aren't choosing the most drastic option...

by Anonymous 1 year ago

More kids between 3 and 12 died of drowning in pools than died from COVID... or close to it iirc.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Here's a gun to cope with not having a pool

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Why would you go immediately to 'ban'? \~370 children die yearly in pools. TWICE that die from drowning in either bathtubs or bodies of water. You going to ban rivers?

by Anonymous 1 year ago

but many regions have a law requiring pools to be fenced off.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Just lost my son a little over 2 weeks ago, he was a little over 2 and a half. My mother in law was watching my 2 kids and my 2 nieces outside. She was leading them to bring them inside for a little bit but my son didn't follow. The pool ladder was left down and ended up climbing the ladder and jumping in. My wife ended up finding him. I was out of town for work. Worst call and hardest drive of my life.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

reminds me of a video i saw where neil degrasse tyson was talking about a dangerous chemical in a brand of ice cream. he said that the brand was in trouble because x amount of ice cream with that chemical will kill you, but he did the math and you would die from the sugar like ten times before the chemical affected you

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Cars have entered the chat

by Anonymous 1 year ago

We are putting our kid through ISR

by Anonymous 1 year ago