I have just had a chance to read the following comments in a previous posting, in which (1) I asked “tracer” to clarify the following sentence from him, and (2) I pointed out that his comparison of the kids incidence rate in houses with guns and ones with swimming pools does not support any opinion of gun control.

(1) 네, per capita로 비교해서 보았을 때 미국의 crime rate이 훨씬 높다는 뜻이었습니다.

Then, would you show me the numbers that support your above assertion?

(2) 수영장과 총기에 관한 데이타는 clown님이 지적하신 exposure rate를 당연히 반영한 결과입니다. 즉, 총기를 가진 집과 수영장을 가진 집의 숫자가 같을 때, 수영장을 가진 집에서 사고가 더 많이 일어난다는 것이지요.

It appears that “tracer” did not properly read the “exposure” in my context. The term exposure was used to indicate chances to access them. The number of houses between the two conditions is irrelevant. I meant that, in order to be a fair comparison, the time kids can access to one is exactly equal to that of the other. Which side has bigger chances of being killed among two groups: the first group in which 1,000 kids can access guns for 10 hours each, and the second group in which the equal number of kids can access swimming pools for the same length of time each?

I also said about “intended purpose.”
Guns are solely designed/devoted for killing or damaging.
What else alternative use they may have? Hitting nail heads?

Unlike guns, motor vehicles, swimming pools have their primary usage, i.e., transportation, sports.

For most civilian, guns are dispensable while cars are indispensable.

The above is thinking points, not my conclusion.

clown
173.66.182.x

tracer/

그전에도 올렸지만 캐나다가 per capita 총기 보유수는 미국보다 더 많다는데 강력 총기 사건은 미국이 비교할 수 없을만큼 많지요.

Simply out of curiosity, I wonder why you are comparing the absolute numbers while in the premise only the relative numbers are suggested?
If your expression is correct, I can explain the cause: Because the United States have “비교할 수 없을만큼” bigger population than Canada.

Or perhaps you meant that “그전에도 올렸지만 캐나다가 per capita 총기 보유수는 미국보다 더 많다는데 [per capita] 강력 총기 사건은 미국이 비교할 수 없을만큼 많지요”?

참, freakonomics에 보면 총기를 보유한 집에 아이를 놀려보내는 것 보다 수영장을 보유한 집에 아이를 놀려보내는 것이 확률상 훨씬 위험하다지요.

This is quite similar to the assertion that the number of people killed by motor vehicles are much bigger than that of those killed by guns, both annually.
Of course the above comparison itself can be true. But if one uses this comparison to support his opinion on the gun control, he should know it would not be a good example.
To be a fair comparison, the time in which the children are exposed to the gun in the house must be the same as the corresponding time for the swimming pool.
Normally, children have far bigger chances to be exposed to the pool than the gun – this is the cause.

Guns are “designed to” kill or injure people (or some animals), thereby more effectively killing people.
With a knife or fork, Seung-Hui Cho could have killed such many people, including himself, within such limited time as he actually did, without even being trained? 2010/03/08
00:21:05

…

tracer
198.74.38.x

clown님/
수영장과 총기에 관한 데이타는 clown님이 지적하신 exposure rate를 당연히 반영한 결과입니다. 즉, 총기를 가진 집과 수영장을 가진 집의 숫자가 같을 때, 수영장을 가진 집에서 사고가 더 많이 일어난다는 것이지요.

네, per capita로 비교해서 보았을 때 미국의 crime rate이 훨씬 높다는 뜻이었습니다. 제가 정확히 표현하지 못했네요.

…