These numbers are too real. We. Need. Change.

[ffr]

Link to tweet

These numbers are too real. We. Need. Change. #NeverAgain

[gejohnston]

1. the numbers are not real

statistically, a kid has a greater chance of dying of a brain injury on a high school football field than getting shot (12 high school football players per year on average vs 10 K-12 students per year on average).

[ffr]

2. That's a red herring distraction fallacy.

If you claim the numbers are not real, what numbers do you have to refute them?

[gejohnston]

3. no, that is a comparison.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring#Logical_fallacy

to answer your question
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/school-shootings-are-extraordinarily-rare-why-is-fear-of-them-driving-policy/2018/03/08/f4ead9f2-2247-11e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html?utm_term=.820116a32def

[ffr]

5. That's your second red herring distraction. You said the numbers weren't real.

To distract from your assertion, does not address substantiating your claim: the numbers are not real

Let me put it to you this way. If I were to claim that the numbers weren't real, but then went off on a tangent about something that doesn't substantiate my claim, then I'm simply arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm not backing up my claim that the numbers aren't real? Do you see that?

So my question to you would be, okay, you refute the numbers are real, what numbers do you have that refute them? Are the numbers inaccurate? Explain.

Welcome to D.U.

[krispos42]

8. Your numbers aren't real.

Unless your claiming that kids are ONLY killed in schools.

[ffr]

14. That's another straw man fallacy

I have made no such claim or proposition.

If you wish to rebut the OP, please post appropriately. Calling me out for something I have not said gives the appearance you want to take your argument with the OP claimant with me. I have no association with them. I am not a co-author of their data.

[krispos42]

19. You did make a claim, and it is false

It is false because somebody that you are using as a reference, your citation, to support your proposition, that person took the TOTAL homicide number and put them on a picture that claimed it was student deaths in school.



The title of your original post is, and I quote:

"These numbers are too real. We. Need. Change."

That is not a quote of somebody else, those are your words.

Then, you post a couple of pics from somebody's Twitter feed to support your proposition. That also becomes part of your proposition because you are using it to support your title and proposition.

Here's your OP in case you forgot.



Now, do you think that if you were quoting NRA propoganda you could slide by with "I make no such claim"?

[gejohnston]

9. I did refute them

read the WaPo article.
BTW, try to talk your kid out of playing high school football.

[krispos42]

4. Your assertion is that 7,182 students have been killed in schools since 2012

It is 2,268 days from January 1st, 2012 to today, March 18th, 2018.

Your assertion, therefore, is that 3.17 students were murdered in US schools PER DAY for the last six years.

Well, that's bullshit. You're wrong and you're displaying and propagating falsehoods.

According to the CDC, 6,649 children between the ages of 5 and 18 were murdered in the years 2012 to 2016. That's 3.46 per day for those years. That's combined, that's everything.


Quite obviously, somebody found the TOTAL number of kids murdered in those 2,268 days and photoshopped it onto the picture of the footwear being laid on the Capitol lawn. And then they claimed it was the number of students killed in US schools.

This is unbelievably false propoganda. You should delete the OP and apologize.

[rgbecker]

10. Actually the OP never made any "assertion" about murdered students per day.

This instead seems to be your "assertion."

If you can't figure out what the OP is posting, even though it is presented with a picture to keep your attention, I suggest you just leave it stand for others, who arn't so debilitated, to take in and think seriously about.

[krispos42]

11. No, the person made an assertion about 7,182 students killed in schools over 2,280 days

I just did the math.

The OP is posting, at minimum, glaring errors.

Are you supporting his/her assertion that 7,182 students have been killed in schools since 2012?

[ffr]

24. Who are you talking about? "No, the person made an assertion"

Who is "the person?"

[krispos42]

26. You.

See, that's you posting a subject line, then that's you posting citations and references for your subject line.


Or did somebody else do that?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. Just to clarify...

...In your reply does your use of "OP" mean original post or original postER?

[ffr]

17. Original post, as in the context that this is a forum. n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

22. I reiterate the position of krispos42

The OP (meaning post and/or poster take your pick) is posting, at minimum, glaring errors.

Actually this is a group here on the DU site.

What is the difference between a forum and a group?
Forums:
Forums are created by the DU Administrators only.
Forums are general interest, and permit a broad range of viewpoints. Disagreement is the norm in forums.
Members may not subscribe to forums.
Members may be blocked from a forum by the DU Administrators, but not by the forum hosts.
Blocked members may not post in a forum -- but they are able to alert abuse in that forum. Only members who have posted in a particular forum may be blocked from that forum.

Groups:
Groups can be created by either the DU Administrators, or by regular DU members.
Groups sometimes serve as safe havens for members who share similar viewpoints or interests.
Members may subscribe to groups, and have them listed on their "My Subscriptions" page.
Members may be blocked from a group by its hosts, or by the DU Administrators if no hosts are assigned.
Blocked members may not post in a group or subscribe to that group -- but they are able to alert abuse in that group. Only members who have posted in a particular group may be blocked from that group.

[ffr]

12. That's a straw man fallacy. I have made no such proposition as you are claiming I have.

1) Your assertion is that 7,182 students have been killed in schools since 2012....2) blah, blah, blah

In 1, you claim I have made an assertion that is in fact the claim of someone else, and 2 you go on about shooting down your straw man.

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent

Here are more numbers according to Newsweek:

At that rate, the number of children killed by guns since Newtown would be about 6,825. But an analysis by the fact-checking site Snopes of the the Center for Disease Control and Prevention data—which the American Academy Pediatrics cited in its report—found that this figure may be low.

According to Snopes, a review of deaths for children 17 or younger for years 2013 to 2016 (2017 was not yet available), found 5,683 firearms-related deaths, or an average of 1,421 per year. Extrapolated over the five-year and three-month period, the tally is about 7,460, Snopes found.

[krispos42]

15. You posted the picture and said the numbers are "too real"

That is your proposition. You took somebody's assertion and supported it; ergo it is your proposition.

Denying that it is your proposition is gaslighting.

And you're disproving your own post with your own reply:

According to Snopes, a review of deaths for children 17 or younger for years 2013 to 2016 (2017 was not yet available), found 5,683 firearms-related deaths, or an average of 1,421 per year. Extrapolated over the five-year and three-month period, the tally is about 7,460, Snopes found.

That is a total. The picture you posted and support (making it your proposition) it taking a total and then claiming it is the number of students killed IN SCHOOLS.

It is false.

[ffr]

18. Again, another straw man. No I didn't. Did you click the tweet? That's what the tweet said.

[krispos42]

20. You made a statement and posted a tweet in support.

You make a proposition and cited evidence.

[ffr]

23. You're are doubling down on your straw man? Citing what someone else claimed as the source

does not tie me into what they claimed. I'll let you figure it out.

[krispos42]

25. Yes it does because you posted it as a citation to your proposition

That is, the subject line of your own OP.

[Straw Man]

30. He/she is apparently now disavowing all the content of that post.

It's all reposted, with no original content. So why post it in the first place?

[krispos42]

31. The person in question is now banned from the Group...

...so I think the discussion can be laid to rest.

[krispos42]

6. And I'm backed up with facts. Here's a rapid-response screen capture

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. Perhaps this is the right place for this

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/mar/16/blog-posting/facebook-post-incorrectly-says-7182-students-were-/

It’s been more than five years since Sandy Hook, so the display featured 7,000 pairs of shoes. That total includes children who are killed at home, in neighborhoods, and by suicide.

Far fewer children have been killed in schools.

The estimate for 7,000 child gun deaths traces back to a June 2017 study by Pediatrics, a peer-reviewed journal. It found that 1,300 children die from gunshot wounds every year. The study looked at children from birth to 17 years of age.

...

There isn’t one uniform way of tracking school shootings and deaths, but no matter which what you look at it, the 7,000-figure isn't accurate.

My male bovine excrement meter is blinking.

[ffr]

21. You may be onto something. The claim doesn't appear accurate as it relates to school shootings

Here are more numbers according to Newsweek:

At that rate, the number of children killed by guns since Newtown would be about 6,825. But an analysis by the fact-checking site Snopes of the the Center for Disease Control and Prevention data—which the American Academy Pediatrics cited in its report—found that this figure may be low.

According to Snopes, a review of deaths for children 17 or younger for years 2013 to 2016 (2017 was not yet available), found 5,683 firearms-related deaths, or an average of 1,421 per year. Extrapolated over the five-year and three-month period, the tally is about 7,460, Snopes found.

It's low as it relates to children killed by firearms (~7,460), but it's not entirely specific to "students killed in U.S. schools."

I agree with your conclusion.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

28. I certainly may

The CDC records a total number of 5-18 year old persons killed with a firearm from all of 2012 through the end of 2016 to be 5,501.
( https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html )

I have also run the numbers for 5-18 year old persons killed with a firearm due to "legal intervention" which is 82. This mean that of the 5,501 5-18 year olds killed in violence by a firearm, 82 were shot by police. All of those numbers are for everywhere not only school property.

[rgbecker]

16. How many people were killed by bridge collapses during those years?

You can almost be sure that more money will be spent to keep bridges from collapsing starting now compared to what is going to be spent keeping kids from dying in the our schools, on our streets and in their homes.

(Just another red herring for those that can stomach them.)

[dlk]

27. The NRA Should be Classified as an Enemy Combatant Organization

Their "religion" is a misreading of the Second Amendment. Their greed and selfishness are directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans and the statistics would no doubt show that the NRA's policies have killed more American children than all of the other known terrorist organizations combined. We need to redirect the resources of the war on terror to the homegrown variety.

[Straw Man]

29. Sorry.

Their greed and selfishness are directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans and the statistics would no doubt show that the NRA's policies have killed more American children than all of the other known terrorist organizations combined.

Directly responsible? Certainly not by any legal standard, and arguably not by any ethical/moral standard. Spare us the outrage. There is no argument for outlawing the NRA that doesn't fly squarely in the face of the First Amendment.

[gejohnston]

32. What you are really saying is

"I don't like democracy when it doesn't go my way, and the first amendment shouldn't apply to people who disagree with me". It is the same nonsense right wingers spewed when Obama wanted to appoint some lawyer who represented Westly Cook in an appeal.
or as lawyer/ethics blogger Josh Marshall points out:

Condemning and demonizing an advocacy organization because one does not agree with or dislikes the position it advocates is, in my view, exactly like condemning a lawyer for effectively representing an unpopular client—and a lot of ignorant Americans do that, too. Citizens have a right to have an effective organization promote their views and opinions in the court of public opinion, just as citizens have a right to have a competent attorney to represent their interests in a court of law. Attacks on this principle are unsustainable, unethical, and undermine democracy.

https://ethicsalarms.com/2018/02/26/cnn-vs-the-nra-ethically-its-no-contest/

Also, groups like ISIS and Al Qaida, the Irish Republican Army, Red Army Faction, KKK, has killed (and some continue to) kill children. That is why teachers are armed in some countries (especially girls schools in places like Pakistan). Just because the children are not American, does not mean they don't exist.

You are advocating for attacking the first and second amendments.