Hardeehar

I'm sorry, but the ability to defend myself and my family isn't a hobby. It's what gave my mother the ability to fend off a guy with a knife last year. You want her to fight him off with her bare hands in the parking lot? I had a friend who was almost gang raped by three men in an alley. She now carries a giant gun in her purse and you want her defenseless?

Not everyone has the luxury of police around the corner or to see guns as a hobby like you do. Especially the population of "children" you're referring to. Let me shed some light for you.

The fact is that these stats aren't a majority school shootings. These homicides are male inner city black ADULT youth who are given the worst cards in life and they have gotten zero attention. This is gang violence politicized.

The pandemic hit this population hardest and the facts show it here. Look at deaths from ALL types of things and it's gone up in this particular minority population. It's disheartening because it's been like this for decades and people are thinking it would be solved if only you could remove the guns.

The appropriate response is (if you're not already) supporting programs and services that help people who are suffering from poverty and mental health illness. Not making my family and friends defenseless.

Edit - My mother wanted to add that she also peppered sprayed the guy the week before. He came back.

I've been calling it 10

Canada... The longest con

Yeah, it's misleading. Especially considering the hot topic use of firearms.

Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, we can agree that data should be free of the organization present here. The discussion isn't helped by this interpretation of the interpretation and it surely needs helping.

I'm not arguing that though. I totally agree that any loss of life is wrong.

And the use of child in your context is different from the use of child in the context of this discussion.

I'm more interested right now in the obvious agenda.

I'm not saying that child death's aren't up or that we shouldn't do more to protect them but when citing data this way, I get the very strong feeling that it's being made to look worse than it is on purpose. The majority are from suicides and murder fatalities are extreme in the 18-19 year old bracket.

Why on earth does the metric include 18 and 19 year olds as children if not for making something look worse.

The dictionary defines a child as a person between birth and puberty. Or not having attained the age of legal majority.

It's similar to when a 10 year old gets shot by the police, and then the news conference later has the police referring the 10 year old victim as "a young man" instead of "the child". Does it not feel like they're trying to achieve something?

It's so weird to file 18 and 19 year olds under "children". Aren't 18+ already considered adults and their lifestyle is going to be more risky than an actual child in grade school?

If you kept it at actual "minors", I wonder how this data would look.

It's kind of like saying that car accidents are a major cause of death in children because they drive too fast.

Spot on

I'm okay with skeptical and verifying but he doesn't challenge all his guests equally. I'm not saying he should be perfect, but there are some really far out ideas that need more questioning before I'm personally satisfied.

Tell me how you'd enforce it?

It's easy enough to wash a generated text and AI text catchers don't work.

Is it really just an honor system?

What a weird ass comment.

Shes 19.

All people around this age think they're invincible.

Bakit NSFW?