arma virumque cano (et alia)
When the Brady Campaign spokeswoman quoted the CDC stat she quoted it correctly- that eight children and teens are killed. But they dropped the "and teens" part when they published it. That makes it blatantly misleading, especially because that's the bulk of the deaths. I really hate when people combine two figures as a way of boosting what they are trying to emphasize.
I was missing you for a while. Glad you're back. But, as Anonymous says in his following comment, quibbling about how the dead bodies are counted is pretty shabby. I agree with you that they should have kept it to kids aged 17 and less. The numbers would still have been sufficient to make a good point and petty whiners like you would have been deprived of a nit to pick.
Yeah, you’re the first thing to go when my life gets busy. I’ll probably drop off again this week.It’s not nitpicky to point out that the “teen” category is the bulk of those deaths, while they are clearly emphasizing the children. It’s like if they publish a stat that says:30,000 children die each year from gun violence!!!And we say, “bullshit”.To which they answer, “it’s true. 30,000 kids… and teens and adults [mumble mumble]… die each year from guns.”Really. Why not throw the adults in there too?
No, it's nothing like that. They're not counting everyone including adults and calling them children. They're counting children and teens. Another way to look at it is when an 18-year-old dies by gun violence his parents are devastated. To them he is indeed a child, their child. But you don't have any compassion for that or for them, as long as you can dispute what gun control folks say.
Suggesting that a 19 year old is someone's child and is suddenly no longer one at 20 isn't logical. And using that for a criteria for making a study accurate of not dooms future studies using this mind set as becoming as the VPC's inflated numbers that they come up with. Failing to hold the advocates on your side of the argument accountable for publishing bad data doesn't help when you jump on gun rights advocates for doing the same.
You're right about all that.
Politifact sort of missed out on one important fact. That is that 18 and 19 year olds aren't children, they are in actuality adults. If they are male, they are required to register for the draft, they are automatically tried as adults for crimes they commit, and they can even legally purchase firearms. Now at one time, the CDC published statistics with one of the age ranges being (I believe) 15-19. No idea why they chose that, but it sort of combined children and adults in the data. But with the advent of the CDC's database for injury statistics, there is no limitation in choosing your variables. Using what I would call accurate variables, that is legally defined children being between 0 and 17 years old, we see the total drop more than 50% to 7,035, still a very sobering number and still indicative of a serious problem, however, using the original number serves to support peoples now ingrained skepticism of gun control advocacy groups' credibility. As for throwing a volunteer under the bus for making a typo, why didn't one of the other volunteers notice and correct it? You think this explanation would be accepted at an NRA event?
I agree completely, counting kids 17 and under would have "still a very sobering number and still indicative of a serious problem." But, I don't really see a great loss in credibility in using the larger number which in some places was referred to as "children and teens."
"But, I don't really see a great loss in credibility in using the larger number which in some places was referred to as "children and teens." When I think of teens, I think of my son and daughter, who both try to sell me on their adulthood, but even they have to smile when I laugh at them. 18 and 19 year olds are the ones I train for combat, and while we trust them with automatic weapons and explosives, we say they cant have a beer. Not the same at all. And you can tell by looking at the photo you posted that they aren't pushing the image of 18 and 19 year olds. Definitely pushing the little kid image with the shoes. Though there is a parallel with military memorial services.
Yes, it was slanted in their favor. But I don't call that losing credibility. I call that a fairly ineffective arguing tactic, but their point remains.
Again, why throw the teens in there. Why not just count the kids. Wouldn’t their point still remain?
Yes it would. But since we agree on that, their point remains either way.
My apologies, I forgot to include a cite for my CDC data. Here it is,http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe
The gun loons proving they are gun loons by complaining about how the dead bodies are counted.Legal age differs from State to State. Just as Minnesota's legal drinking age is over 18.
Legal age for alcohol, nationwide, is 21. Thanks, Ronnie Raygun.
Mike, it seems that Politifact has revisited this issue and changed their rating to mostly false. A refreshing development that they are willing to make such a correction when presented with the facts. Kudos to Politifact for their dedication to accuracy."Editor’s Note: We rarely find it necessary to re-examine a PolitiFact Oregon fact-check, but this was an exception. Our original fact-check, based largely on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found that a claim by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence was Mostly True. However, readers brought significant new information to light that we thought warranted a new analysis -- and ultimately a new ruling. We are committed to finding the facts even if they emerge after we’ve published.""PolitiFact Oregon obtained a breakdown by age from the CDC’s online database and found that about half of all youth gun deaths — 7,223 of 14,258 — are 18- and 19-year-olds. The same goes for unintentional injuries, roughly 46 percent of which — 7,479 of 16,172 — are 18- and 19-year-olds.Remove those two years from the calculation, and there are an average of 4.76 unintentional injuries each day and 3.85 deaths.That is significant given the use of the word "children" in the Brady Campaign’s display, along with a chalkboard and shoes suited to children younger than 12. In addition, people 18 and older are legally considered adults. They are allowed to buy guns and ammunition without parental consent, and are solely responsible for crimes they commit using those weapons.""But including 18- and 19-year-olds, who are not "children" under legal and other definitions, significantly skews the numbers, making the problem seem much worse than it is. Because the group’s claim contained an element of truth but ignored critical facts that would give a different impression, we rate it Mostly False."http://www.politifact.com/oregon/statements/2014/jun/27/brady-campaign-prevent-gun-violence/do-average-nine-children-day-die-united-states-gun/
The bodies continue to mount up while you argue word terms and try to point out that makes the situation different. A gun loon debate tactic. Are there few less dead if we count the bodies your way?
Anon, you and others on this site often call gun rights advocates to task for putting out incorrect information and you think doing so is completely ok. However, when gun rights advocates using such media gun rights mouthpieces such as CNN and Politifact does the same thing it becomes a "gun loon debate tactic"? Politifact decided that their credibility was more important that any short term PR win. That is quite admirable of them. CNN has even made that decision recently in regards to Everytown's inflated school shooting numbers. These gun control advocates need to take a look at the "studies" they release because if they keep it up, they will continue to lose credibility.
BS.If you noticed (after 100's of comments) I abhor any use of statistics to try and define gun shot deaths, which you always do. Making you a true scum bag. Arguing some study used a false age so of course those deaths don't really count. BS. YOU are the one using that kind of shit argument, which only proves what a gun loon you are. Please show me where I called you out for incorrect information. I call you out for trying to use statistics to lessen the reality that people died. So if a study included a 19 year old in their child study, you claim the whole study and its conclusions are bogus. BS. The person is still dead and there is still a problem with children getting killed by guns. The fact that you need to twist words to defend gun shot deaths, is despicable. 30,000 gun shot deaths a year, which your side calls a lie because a majority of those deaths are suicides. BS. A person who kills themselves with a gun, is a gun shot death. You use your deceit to classify it any way you want as long as you can make it sound not quite as bad. It's disgusting the emphasis you put on the way the dead bodies are counted; as if counting the dead bodies your way means it wasn't so bad they died. Thanks for lying again about what I didn't say.
Anon, if you look way up at my very first comment, you'll see that I state that even using the more accurate figures, it still shows a serious problem. You are correct that the age or situation doesn't change how dead they are. However, either making stupid mistakes, or easily discovered lies (not sure and don't care which) only hurt the credibility of the group who did the study. And that won't help come up with any solutions that might reduce these sobering numbers. These studies have seemed to have gotten progressively more sloppy and now even outlets that used to support this issue find themselves in a position where if they don't say something, their credibility will suffer. Hopefully they can somehow turn this around and perhaps recover this lost credibility by maybe getting someone to proofread these studies.
The one without credibility is the one using scum tactics such as using figures to count bodies, then claiming some study is counting bodies wrong, so their study is bogus when claiming a gun problem. Have I ever tried to prove your statics are incorrect? Have I ever used statics to prove you are incorrect? Any statics Mike uses you say are incorrect, even if they come from a source you usually approve of. Trying to make a "gotcha" point from statics over dead bodies is despicable. We all know statics can be twisted to mean different thing, even using the same statics; and that's why it's a failure at defining anything. But we still have the dead, which could be cut if reasonable regulations were used, which you refuse to do apparently because your twisted statics say those regulations won't help. BS.
"The one without credibility is the one using scum tactics such as using figures to count bodies, then claiming some study is counting bodies wrong, so their study is bogus when claiming a gun problem. " So what I'm getting is that both Brady/VPC/Everytown AND I have no credibility? After all, aren't the groups I just listed the first to start counting bodies? I'm just asking them to count accurately.
Which makes you one of the scum I described.
But, wasn't there a point in which they said "kids and teens?" That would have been accurate, right?For the rest, I have agreed with you all along. The Brady people who referred to this as just children made a stupid mistake. They gave you all the ammunition you need to scoff at the whole report. Isn't the half that comes from kids 17 and under enough to give you pause?