From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@together.net)
Date: Thu Mar 04 1999 - 15:11:51 MST
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> > Eric Ruud [ejruud@ucdavis.edu] wrote:
> > >I refuse to believe that
> > >a bathroom is more dangerous than a gun, which is what you seem to be
> > >suggesting.
>
> <mark@unicorn.com> wrote:
> > Many, many more people are killed in bathroom accidents than
> > gun accidents... that's reality.
>
> You both are right. There is no contradiction in your claims.
>
> Bathrooms are much safer than guns. The rate of bathroom accidents is
> much less than gun accidents. Using a bathrooms is less likely to
> result in an accident than using a gun. Bathrooms are used safely much
> more often than guns are used safely.
This is yet to be determined. It also depends on what you define as 'gun
use'. I say since it is a deterrent device, any time it is within close
enough proximity to be available for quick deployment for defensive use, it
is being used. Eric seems to think that its only being used when it is
actually being fired. He also ignores the fact that when a gun is actually
either brandished or fired, it is in a situation fraught with a prexisting
danger that the gun has no bearing on, only in that it can change who the
danger becomes applied to. Being faced with an attacker with a knife you are
far more likely to be killed if you do not have a gun, while the attacker is
much more likely to be killed if you have a gun. The two deaths are not
equal in my mind, while anti-gunners count them as if it does not matter who
dies and who lives. This is obviously fraudulent science they are engaged
in.
> However:
> Bathrooms are used much more often than guns. More people use bathrooms
> than guns. There are more bathrooms than there are guns. Everybody
> must use the bathroom multiple times per day, while not everybody is
> involved in a gun incident or activity multiple times per day.
Lets see, there are 200 million guns in the US, posessed in 60 million homes
(for 3.3 guns per home). There are less than 100 million households in the
US, with an average of 1.25 bathrooms per house. Thus there are fewer
bathrooms than guns, although the guns are owned by fewer people than those
who own bathrooms. Because there is universal bathroom ownership, all
understand the benefits of bathroom ownership, are comfortable in their
bathrooms, some even like their bathrooms, they even sleep in their
bathrooms, and some even collect bathroom fixtures as hobbies, it is hard to
get people to admit that their bathrooms are more dangerous than, say, a
gun. They are emotionally attached to and invested in their bathroom. They
could never imagine that their bathroom could be turned against them, betray
them in such a way as to seriously injure or kill them or others. They think
that the right to ones bathroom outweighs the potential risks, if there are
any.
Since only 60%+ of households own guns, the remaining 40% or less who do not
own guns don't seem to develop the same sort of feelings about guns like
they already do with the bathrooms they own. However, if bathrooms were
subject to the same sort of regulations that exist and that anti-gunners
would like to see, we would have the following:
A) most states would outright ban public restrooms, or mandate that only
people who have undergone background checks can use them. public restrooms
are one of the highest risk public locations for violent crime.
b) there would be a waiting period and a background check by national FBI
(Federal Bathroom Inspectors) computer system before a person could purchase
a bathroom or bathroom fixture. If you called a plumber over to fix your
sink or toilet, would would have to go through the same process before you
can use your bathroom again.
c) states would require that all people who wish to use a bathroom must take
and pass a bathroom safety course.
d) the federal government would pressure bathroom fixture manufacturers to
provide toilet and shower locks with every purchase.
e) anti-bathroom lobbyists would push for laws mandating that toilets be
manufactured such that only their owners could use them, that they not
really flush all that well (true enough), and that you couldn't flush
goldfish down them any longer.
f) people who were attacked by assailants in bathrooms would sue the
manufacturers of the bathroom fixtures for being in the room and because the
assailant bashed the victim's head against the sink.
g) Democratic Party controlled cities across the country would file lawsuits
against fixture manufacturers for the health costs imposed on the cities by
slippery tiles and shower stalls, and sinks that were too hard when a person
hit their head on them.
h) convicted persons will never be allowed near a bathroom and if they are
found in one, it will be a federal felony.
Now, in this theoretical society, only 60 million of the 100 million
households would actually have bathrooms, so you would get the following
reactions:
a) those people without bathrooms would say:
1) why does anybody need a bathroom anyways?
2) why would anyone need more than one?
3) an outhouse is all you really need. Automatic flush toilets are just too
out of control and complex and dangerous. Law abiding citizens have no need
of such technology.
4) I feel perfectly comfortable just hunkering down and crapping anywhere in
public. Its much safer than using public bathrooms. Especially out in the
country, there really isn't a need for bathrooms, there is so much wide open
space there.
5) bathrooms are just built to be dangerous
6) well the Europeans have no bathrooms, they haven't had any since the
Nazi's took them away in the 30's so it must be good to not have bathrooms,
as those Europeans are obviously far more culturally and socially superior
and advanced over us. They don't even wipe themselves. Thats really cool.
7) the Australians have banned all bathrooms, so it must be a good thing.
They just crap all over the rabbits down there.
8) the Japanese have never been allowed to have bathrooms, which is why they
have those great martial toilet arts of hand to hand crapping.
There will also be those bathroom owners who won't admit to owning
bathrooms, for fear of the outrage from their liberal peers. Men won't tell
their wives that there actually is a bathroom in the house. Many bathroom
owners will buy into the bathroom control memetic hype, thinking:
1) "Well, I know that I'm responsible enough to handle my own bathroom, but
I don't trust anybody else in one."
2) "Some people just should not be near bathrooms."
3) "its those automatic flush toilets that give all bathroom fixtures a bad
name."
When someone asks to use your bathroom, you will first decide whether you
know them well enough, then you will bring them into the bathroom, go
through all of the fixtures, making sure none are loaded, and ensure that
the person knows how to use them all.....
> Although the chance of an accident per use is lower with a bathroom than
> with a gun, there are more total bathroom accidents than gun accidents.
> Bathroom accidents are more frequent than gun accidents. In total,
> bathroom accidents are statistically more likely than gun accidents.
> Statistically speaking, a person is more likely to have an accident in
> the bathroom than to have an accident with a gun.
>
> Each side seems to be assuming that these conclusions are incompatible,
> and therefore that the other side must be lying. There are no
> incompatibilities here, and neither side is lying.
not quite lying, but it depends on what your definition of the word 'is'
is.......
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:15 MST