If you are going to call bullshit on something, feel free to cite your source. However, regardless of what you think you're talking to, this source suggests that your claim of bullshit is bullshit. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2201761
This "scientific article" isn't worth the bits on the hard drive its written on. It uses simple propaganda techniques to manipulate CDC data to give the desired answer. Firstly it only measures up through 2020, even though well before the time of publishing more data was available, why is that? It is to do the number crunching as close to the bottom of the Covid lockdown curve for car accidents (more WFH/distance learning = less car accidents). Except, that alone doesn't give the desired result, so they have to change what the definition of what a child is to include 18 and 19 year old adults, but that STILL isn't enough, so they need to exclude 0 - 1 year old children. I would be ashamed to have that attached to my name, let alone have it published in a journal of medicine.
I don't have children so the statistics don't matter to me, but these casual armchair dismissals do a disservice to the institutions we try to hold to standards. Sorry that you (and apparently many others) don't feel that their work is adequate to meet your criteria.
Linking another website using the same tricks really doesn't really dismiss my point, and referring to my criticisms of the definition-gaming and timeline chopping as "casual armchair dismissals" amounts to nothing more than name calling. I'm sorry that you have misplaced your morality when it comes to telling the truth.
You (and cnn/everytown/giffords) use the word kids to imply toddlers are getting shot with glocks when a majority of those are "teen" gangbangers in chicago/baltimore/detroit/LA killing each other.
I wouldn't call the thing you are seeking truth. Why do you have to lie? Just say you want to ban guns.
Hahaha I do not want to ban guns outright(I will leave it as an open question whether I have guns in my own domicile). Why do you want to imbue my use of statistics with an agenda you think I support? I do think we should resume a strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment (specifically "well-regulated militia") if we want to claim an originalist view of the Constitution. And I am also in favor of regulating harmful substances so that humans can interoperate in society, while still allowing trained humans access to useful tools for manipulating the universe.
Furthermore, these humans that you choose to label as '"teen" gangbangers' also deserve compassion and the opportunity to live in peace.
Lastly, as a student of epistemology, I am acutely aware of the slippery nature of truth and dare not suppose to be the arbiter of Truth. But I suppose whatever I find, where I find it, will have to do. I'm more likely to find it in a Crackerjack box than this thread, however. (I do also take umbrage at being called a liar in this context too but I forgive you.)
The gun debate has been done to death (no pun intended). I'll leave with this.
> well-regulated militia
Regulated meant well supplied or well armed at the time the constution was written.
> I am also in favor of regulating harmful substances so that humans can interoperate in society, while still allowing trained humans access to useful tools for manipulating the universe.
DC vs Heller rejected the idea of an interest-balancing approach to Second Amendment. (right to bear arms vs harm to society). "The Second Amendment is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people". - SCOTUS
> these humans that you choose to label as '"teen" gangbangers' also deserve compassion and the opportunity to live in peace.
Then they can stop killing each other. I don't see why joe the plumber that lives in the suburbs should have his rights be infrigned because people in some other city choose to break the law. The problem isn't guns, its the people.
