I said even if it’s up to 17 it’s misleading. A lot of those 16, 17 year old shooting victims are gang members being shot in shoot outs. Which is a fundamentally different problem from a 9 year old being shot. And lumping those things together does a disservice.
Teenagers are still children. They don’t have developed brains. Also take into account that teenagers are growing up more slowly than they did in the past. It is not disingenuous to put them together in the same statistic.
Commenter below mentions that the statistic used is Americans under the age of 18. They are not adults mentally or legally. They are children.
Just like quarterly profits the peak of human society aims for a high score every single time. Numbers must go up. ALL NUMBERS must go up. Always. Capitalism is the best.
He doesn’t care. The “they include 19 year olds” is just the talking point he’s been taught when those figures are mentioned, because sometimes they’re described as “children”, rather than “children and teenagers”, which means they can attack the data as misleading.
There’s no concious thought behind it, it’s just trigger and response. That’s why they’ll say the same things even when the data is correctly described.
When they do try and come up with their own excuses, they’re usually terrible. I’ve genuinely had one argue that “17 year olds aren’t teenagers” by claiming that when the word “teenagers” was coined, it was only supposed to mean 13 and 14 year olds and we were somehow being dishonest for using the definition that absolutely everyone in the entire world works with.
But they don’t need their arguments to make sense or their lies about keeping people safe to come true because they intend to drag the conversation out forever.
Unfortunately for them, the kids who grew up among the school shootings will vote one day and they’ll have no issue removing the second amendment entirely.
How does trying to prattle on about not liking grouping 17 year olds together with 9 year olds a pro-gun argument? That would only even vaguely make sense if your stance was “yeah, but 17 year olds deserve to get shot and killed”
Oh I understand now, you think the 17 year olds don’t count because they’re black. Here I was thinking you were reprehensible.
I guess you haven’t looked into how many of those 17 year old statistics took their fathers poorly secured gun (that was for “keeping his family safe” of course) and blew their brains out in the living room.
Let’s hope the poor innocent gun didn’t get scuffed or scratched when it fell to the floor since it’s clear what was more important.
I wonder how many of them used to be “responsible gun owners” who taught their children to “treat guns with respect”, not knowing they were teaching their kid how to load and fire the round that would kill them?
Oh well, I’m sure it will never happen to you and I’m sure those fathers never thought it would never happen to them.
There’s no need to be coy – even the most deeply stupid Americans know what terms like “gang members”, “thugs” and “urban crime” are innuendo for, because deeply stupid Americans are the target demographic.
If you want to get upset at people saying it out loud, you’re going to have to dig up Lee Atwater and throw a tantrum at his rotting, cancerous corpse.
Honestly it’s pretty disingenuous to lump children and teenagers together, especially if talking about all the way to 17 or even 19
Removed by mod
I said even if it’s up to 17 it’s misleading. A lot of those 16, 17 year old shooting victims are gang members being shot in shoot outs. Which is a fundamentally different problem from a 9 year old being shot. And lumping those things together does a disservice.
well first you coulda just checked yourself.
second, why? a 16 year old shooting other 16 year olds are children killing, that is still a problem related to guns
Your whole comment is based on those two words doing a lot.
Good luck trying to convince people kids are in gangs. They won’t listen.
Hi, Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz.
Haha.
Wtf?
Teenagers are still children. They don’t have developed brains. Also take into account that teenagers are growing up more slowly than they did in the past. It is not disingenuous to put them together in the same statistic.
Commenter below mentions that the statistic used is Americans under the age of 18. They are not adults mentally or legally. They are children.
24 year olds don’t have developed brains either. What’s your point?
Absolutely it is
The data referenced in that quote is linked in the article. When following the link, it specifies “Americans under the age of 18”
Full info: The Gun Violence Archive
Americans under the age of 18 killed or injured by gunfire since 2014:
2014: 2,861
2015: 3,378
2016: 3,820
2017: 3,982
2018: 3,543
2019: 3,825
2020: 5,159
2021: 5,705
2022: 6,170
2023: 4,319 [in 235 days]
Just like quarterly profits the peak of human society aims for a high score every single time. Numbers must go up. ALL NUMBERS must go up. Always. Capitalism is the best.
He doesn’t care. The “they include 19 year olds” is just the talking point he’s been taught when those figures are mentioned, because sometimes they’re described as “children”, rather than “children and teenagers”, which means they can attack the data as misleading.
There’s no concious thought behind it, it’s just trigger and response. That’s why they’ll say the same things even when the data is correctly described.
When they do try and come up with their own excuses, they’re usually terrible. I’ve genuinely had one argue that “17 year olds aren’t teenagers” by claiming that when the word “teenagers” was coined, it was only supposed to mean 13 and 14 year olds and we were somehow being dishonest for using the definition that absolutely everyone in the entire world works with.
But they don’t need their arguments to make sense or their lies about keeping people safe to come true because they intend to drag the conversation out forever.
Unfortunately for them, the kids who grew up among the school shootings will vote one day and they’ll have no issue removing the second amendment entirely.
deleted by creator
The last time I saw a difference between an 18-year-old, a 17-year-old, a 16-year-old, and a child younger than that was when I was 18
So you’re saying a 17 year old is the same as a 9 year old?
Not literally, but they are definitely both children
I love how these brainless talking points from rightwing morons stick out on lemmy. It makes it so easy to know who to block with a single comment.
Because there can’t possibly be left wing people who would rather not cede our guns to the government. Nope. Must be right wing
Regardless of whether you are left or right leaning, the talking point is a rightwing baby.
Stupid is as stupid does.
How does trying to prattle on about not liking grouping 17 year olds together with 9 year olds a pro-gun argument? That would only even vaguely make sense if your stance was “yeah, but 17 year olds deserve to get shot and killed”
Removed by mod
“17 year olds are old enough to die to gun violence”.
“17 year old gang members killing each other is a different problem from 9 year olds being shot and shouldn’t be lumped together”. Crazy, right?
Oh I understand now, you think the 17 year olds don’t count because they’re black. Here I was thinking you were reprehensible.
I guess you haven’t looked into how many of those 17 year old statistics took their fathers poorly secured gun (that was for “keeping his family safe” of course) and blew their brains out in the living room.
Let’s hope the poor innocent gun didn’t get scuffed or scratched when it fell to the floor since it’s clear what was more important.
I wonder how many of them used to be “responsible gun owners” who taught their children to “treat guns with respect”, not knowing they were teaching their kid how to load and fire the round that would kill them?
Oh well, I’m sure it will never happen to you and I’m sure those fathers never thought it would never happen to them.
Lol wtf? What the shit are you talking about?
There’s no need to be coy – even the most deeply stupid Americans know what terms like “gang members”, “thugs” and “urban crime” are innuendo for, because deeply stupid Americans are the target demographic.
If you want to get upset at people saying it out loud, you’re going to have to dig up Lee Atwater and throw a tantrum at his rotting, cancerous corpse.
This is probably the stupidest comment I’ve ever read. Are you suggesting it’s impossible to talk about gangs without it being racist?