this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
211 points (96.5% liked)

News

23644 readers
2432 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Cry all you want big boy, the science is on the side of us non-brainwashed, rational people who understand the need for actual gun regulation in a civilised country.

Too bad the US hardly qualifies to that group any more. Third world level literacy rates, so many homeless that human shit is an actual issue in supposedly civilised cities, and firearms as the leading cause of death for children.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/darreonnadavis/2023/10/05/firearms-now-no-1-cause-of-death-for-us-children---while-drug-poisoning-enters-top-5/

There's a literal mountai in the of evidence showing that all you need to do to start facing this problem is reasonable nation-wide gun regulation. Something everyone knows works and something that you won't find science against, because gun regulation being the answer is as clear to most people as is the fact that the Earth is round, not Flat.

But you will find Flat Earther crazies who won't believe in the science even when their own science proves that they are indeed wrong.

You're emotional. You get so angry when you're reminded that you go against science because you don't have the balls to actually use your own brain.

https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html

And you having "shot guns" doesn't make you an expert on guns

Oh yeah no, it doesn't bear any rationale to this argument. It's just there because gun nuts always default to the "you're just afraid of my pew-pew sticks, that's why you support gun regulation". Nah. I love guns, they're fun. But you know what I care more about than loud bangs? That children don't have to live in fear of some incel fucktards charging into their school with a pimped out AR15 with a bumpstock.

There's literally not a single peer reviewed study that concludes that less gun control is better, for anything.

But I'm sure the lack of science won't stop you, just like it doesn't stop Flat Earthers.

You're really just here to prove my point about the willfull ignorance of nuts like you. So... thanks, I guess?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Did your literacy study control for people who are ESL or resident non-english speakers (legal resident or illegal)? Most of those literacy studies are actually kinda racist, just fyi. In your fervor to call Americans stupid you may want to not be racist while you do it.

Btw, turns out around around 44% of Aus adults don't have the literacy skills required for every day life https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/4228.0main+features992011-2012

So they're stupider by your metric, I suppose, and idk what their immigrant population looks like so idk if they have a similar "problem" (really less of a "problem" than you'd think actually, they get by ok) with Spanish-only speaking people.

Btw firearms aren't the leading cause of death for children, that study included "children" who are full grown ass 18-19yo adults involved in gangs and took place in 5 cities known for their gang problems, iirc it was NYC, LA, Baltimore, Chicago, and Philly. It also took place during the pandemic when the real leading cause of death would have been deflated, because it's car crashes, and if they're mostly staying home for zoom classes it cuts down on car crashes. Gang activity waits for no pandemic, people need money and other people need to lose theirs to drug addiction, business was booming during the pandemic for dealers, not to mention we still have an opiate epidemic we're dealing with which also overlapped the pandemic (we've been in it for like 15yr now.)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Btw firearms aren't the leading cause of death for children, that study included "children" who are full grown ass 18-19yo

What's the age at which you can legally be served alcohol — an adult beverage — in the USA? Is it above 19, perchance?

Do you know how fucked you have to be to say that "no it's all bullshit, our children only have gun violence as a leading cause of death if you include the older children, so there's actually nothing to worry about, no problem".

You guys repeat the same pathetic bullshit everytime, and just like I said, you never have any science. At least the Flat Earth people are making up models of their fictional bullshit but you're not even capable of that.

https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

Like I said, unfortunately for you, we rational people have all the science backing us up. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

18+ is legally considered an adult, but I do agree that it's bullshit to have the middle ground, I think they should be able to drink. Doesn't change the fact that they're legally considered adults.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Doesn't change the fact that they're still kids.

Probably a reason the limit is 21, yes? Perhaps something about still being a developing human being?

And you're really gonna die on the hill of "we have no issue since only if you think of all teenagers as kids would this even be true"?

This is what I mean with the "always the same shitty propaganda, never any science.

So boring.

Teenagers are kids.

Also

https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

Like I said, unfortunately for you, we rational people have all the science backing us up. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Those "teenagers" are selling heroin and crack in organized gangs (crips, bloods, piru, GD, sureños, etc) and shooting each other over it, especially in the cities the study took place in which are known for their gang and drug activity. Guess what, heroin is illegal for "children" to buy as well, but they get it just fine, that is the issue and that is why nobody takes that stupid study seriously.

Anyone familiar with the situation knows that study was bunk and had bad methodology, idk why you continue to shill for it but you do you lol.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Again, the same "talking points".

At least Flat Earthers try to make their own science. You lazy gun nuts literally repeat three NRA talking points on repeat.

So for you, it's acceptable if children die if they're in their late teens and were involved with anything illegal.

That's quite barbaric viewed from the rest of the world, really. Just like corporal punishment in general. But you also have the whole private prisons industry thing so... Ew.

"Our children are dying to gun massacres we could easily prevent but I like my toys and can't think for myself so I'm gonna keep spreading the things I heard on NRA.tv"

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If they decide to enter a gang war, yes, they're in a separate category from some kid just going to math class, because of the inherent dangers in gang warfare. Is this really that hard for you to understand? That choosing to shoot people for taking "your" crackheads comes with inherent dangers, such as being shot at in return by the guys taking your customers? You think calculus and Cartel meth labs are the same? Never seen a mathlete cut off enemy mathlete's heads personally, but maybe you have a video I haven't seen like Funkytown but for debate team?

It's not corporal punishment for a crip to shoot a blood, it's called "murder" which is a "crime." I literally know a fuckton of gang members because of where I grew up, it's a poor choice to enter and the ones that don't quit the life are destined to die "in the line of duty" (read: trying to kill someone illegally because they're wearing the wrong color shirt.) They chose that life.

You gonna go door to door in the heart of the hood and take guns from gang members who already aren't legally allowed to have them? Be my guest lol, there's 600,000,000+ guns be sure to get them all.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

More crying, more bullshit NRA propaganda, zero science.

Exactly the same with gun nuts, always.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Yes yes adult "children" who are legally considered adults are children, and the NRA is the sole reason they're considered adults at 18. Boo hoo. Whatever lol

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

In the rest of the world, saying "boo-hoo, whatever" to child massacres you could prevent simply by accepting the scientific consensus is viewed as less than civil.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You use many words to say nothing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

You ignore everything. Perhaps you're actually so delusional you don't realise you're willfully ignoring something? Here are simple words for you:

Gun control works as surely as antibiotics do.

https://www.businessinsider.com/science-of-gun-control-what-works-2018-2

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Says the guy who thinks the NRA decides who is legally considered an adult in the US. Idk what to tell you dude 18-19yos are legal adults and the sooner you accept that fact the better it'll be for your own mental health. I hate to do this, but I'm going to have to block you also for your own mental health, you're unable to stop repeating the same talking points, seek help, for real.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

See how you need to use the qualifier "legal" there.

Why is that?

Is it because you too understand that teenagers aren't in fact fully grown human beings.

Remind me, what's a word for a human being when they're still growing to the state they are when they're in their adulthood? A cid? Khildren?

"I'm gonna have to block you" <-- ofc you will, all you gun nuts hate listening to facts and reality, because it conflicts with everything you believe in.

You annoyed to be living in a third world country? There's a really simple solution that would make it so that children are less likely to be slaightered, but you refuse to accept it because you're too lazy to read actual science.

Gun control works as surely as antibiotics do.

https://www.businessinsider.com/science-of-gun-control-what-works-2018-2

Within the US, gun violence varies widely. Age-adjusted firearm homicide rates range from a high of 14.4 per 100,000 in Washington, DC, to a low of 1.1 per 100,000 in New Hampshire. Washington, DC’s rate is similar to those of Brazil and Jamaica, which rank ninth and tenth globally. New Hampshire’s rate is similar to that of Chile. Even though New Hampshire has the lowest rates of age-adjusted firearm homicides in the US, its rate is still three times greater than the highest rate in Europe – Cyprus, with 0.36 deaths per 100,000.

https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/insights-blog/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/america-mass-shooting-gun-violence-statistics-charts

https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

"Seek help"

For what, exactly? Do you know what this tells me. It tells me you're projecting. Which means I've made you very mad indeed by noting how there's literally no science on your side and that you live in a shithole. Guess it's you who needs help. People are offering it, but you're too brainwashed to accept. As your former (and possibly future) president would say: "SAD!"

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Science isn't on your side. Science is pretty quiet on ethics and human rights.

We pay a cost for all of our rights. None of them are free or without a body count, even if only in opportunity cost.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

Like I said, unfortunately for you, we rational people have all the science backing us up. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Show any science backing up anything saying gun control wouldn't help with the violence issue. Or is your argument now "I'm willing to allow children to be massacred on a weekly basis in practice with the excuse to allowing it to continue will perhaps serve a purpose for some fictional scenario I've been fantasising about"?

Because letting children die instead of just using sensible gun regulations like most of the world is a must in case you need to try another jan 6th, huh?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The science supports the effectiveness of rights violations? Neato. I'm sure we could find other 'science backed solutions' if we don't consider rights in the analysis.

There are things we can do to address genuine root causes of different types of firearm-related violence. Banning guns, leaving all those young people in horrible situations because you refuse to analyze the situation and patting yourself on the back sounds about right, though.

Because letting children die instead of just using sensible gun regulations like most of the world is a must in case you need to try another jan 6th, huh?

It's possible to disagree with someone without being a dick. Try it some time.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

The science supports the effectiveness of rights violations?

Do you honestly think everyone having access to a firearm is a fundamental human right?

Because… it very much isn’t.

For more about those, you can read on

https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/human-rights

And here, in a listed format, and you’ll very much notice the absence of being armed.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/universal-declaration-of-human-rights/

Let’s take article 3 as an example of a fundamental human right.

Everyone has the right to life (and to live in freedom and safety).

Do you think the US would manage to better protect that right if they accepted the actual science on the issue, rhe one which proves people would be safer and there’d be less gun violence if reasonable regulation was instilled on a national level?

Hope this helps, because people like you need to be helped so we can help ensure better fundamental human rights in the US.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

"big boy"

I agree guns in America must change, but you don't do yourself a service by using schoolyard name-calling. Especially when he called you emotional lol

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

That's what people have to do when they transparently have no actual knowledge of the regulatory landscape they're trying to wade into lol. The same kind of idiot who actually believes it when some politician tells that that a complicated problem has an easy solution.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Cry all you want big boy, the science is on the side of us non-brainwashed, rational people who understand the need for actual gun regulation in a civilised country.

I'm not the one crying, the 2nd isn't going anywhere, and neither are my firearms. More and more people on the left are arming themselves, and the gun control types are becoming a smaller and smaller group. The support you think you have is basically on echo chambers like reddit and here.

Too bad the US hardly qualifies to that group any more. Third world level literacy rates, so many homeless that human shit is an actual issue in supposedly civilised cities, and firearms as the leading cause of death for children. https://www.forbes.com/sites/darreonnadavis/2023/10/05/firearms-now-no-1-cause-of-death-for-us-children---while-drug-poisoning-enters-top-5/

First, I'm all for social programs, ending the war on drugs, mental health, single payer healthcare and increasing our funding to education.

Second, firearms is not the leading cause of death for children. It was during covid because of how many people weren't driving and how depressed people got from being stuck inside and not being able to socialize.

There's a literal mountai in the of evidence showing that all you need to do to start facing this problem is reasonable nation-wide gun regulation. Something everyone knows works and something that you won't find science against, because gun regulation being the answer is as clear to most people as is the fact that the Earth is round, not Flat.

Tell that to mexico or Brazil, you also forget that all the places you love to claim have lower gun violence are places with social support for their citizens.

But you will find Flat Earther crazies who won't believe in the science even when their own science proves that they are indeed wrong.

Not even in the same ballpark.

You're emotional. You get so angry when you're reminded that you go against science because you don't have the balls to actually use your own brain.

Lol yea... I'm the angry one here.

https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html

Doesn't seem to be loading for me

Oh yeah no, it doesn't bear any rationale to this argument. It's just there because gun nuts always default to the "you're just afraid of my pew-pew sticks, that's why you support gun regulation". Nah. I love guns, they're fun. But you know what I care more about than loud bangs? That children don't have to live in fear of some incel fucktards charging into their school with a pimped out AR15 with a bumpstock.

The problem here is, you don't seem to care that kids die, just how they die. Most murders happen with handguns. In fact, murders with ar15s are so rare they're just included into all rifle deaths, because they're statistically pointless.

There's literally not a single peer reviewed study that concludes that less gun control is better, for anything.

That's not how the second amendment works, it's not there to reduce our violence. It's there to stop a tyrannical gov....one of which seems to be coming more and more everyday. Do you just ignore the shit that's coming out of trump and his ilks mouth?

But I'm sure the lack of science won't stop you, just like it doesn't stop Flat Earthers.

Statistics are what I look at. Which is why you thinking another bumpstock or AWB would do anything is hilarious.

You're really just here to prove my point about the willfull ignorance of nuts like you. So... thanks, I guess?

Yes I'm the nut.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

People like them reek of the sheltered-liberal-20-year-old mindset of "the system is almost perfect, is we just make a couple of tweaks here and there it'll be fine." As if firearm restrictions alone will address socioeconomic ossification, the lack of meaningful state protection of vulnerable populations, deep resentment of minorities in homogenous, conservative areas, etc. Whining about how dumb people who hate guns less than they do are lets them get away with not doing the difficult work of addressing deep-rooted structural injustices. Fucking weak.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Works literally everywhere where reasonable gun regulation has been implemented on a national level.

https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

Like I said, unfortunately for you, we rational people have all the science backing us up. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You follow narrative, we follow science.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No, no it doesn't. Everywhere that has gun control also has social safety nets... everywhere they have gun control and no safety nets, its bad. Brazil and Mexico.... please explain those two countries which have very high firearm homicides but the gun laws there basically ban civilians from owning firearms.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

No, no it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

Refusing to believe science, asserting your bullshit as more credible than Harvard and Oxford.

Always the same.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

My facts are from actual facts. As I asked before, please tell me why Brazil and Mexico has worse gun crime than the USA, but has basically banned civilian ownership?

Your "science" isn't anything more than emotional bullshit.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What you're doing is crying a lot, denying the actual studies which have been done in, among other countries, Brazil.

You've never read a single one, because people like you never do. Instead you think your making aa good case by calling Harvard and Oxford studies "emotional bullshit" while thinking the garbage you pull out of your arse are "facts, my facts are real facts".

You seriously think you're gonna "debunk" large peer reviewed studies by the world's most esteemed universities by going "b-b-but w-what about B-Brazil..?!" (It's called whataboutism, a rather childish propaganda tactic.)

Since the studies are too hard for you to read:

Within the US, gun violence varies widely. Age-adjusted firearm homicide rates range from a high of 14.4 per 100,000 in Washington, DC, to a low of 1.1 per 100,000 in New Hampshire. Washington, DC’s rate is similar to those of Brazil and Jamaica, which rank ninth and tenth globally. New Hampshire’s rate is similar to that of Chile. Even though New Hampshire has the lowest rates of age-adjusted firearm homicides in the US, its rate is still three times greater than the highest rate in Europe – Cyprus, with 0.36 deaths per 100,000.

https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/insights-blog/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/america-mass-shooting-gun-violence-statistics-charts

https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

You're never going to admit you're wrong, no matter how bad it gets in your shithole of a country. Why is that? Wouldn't it be better to admit how fucked up it is, to start fixing it? Or do you just like living in an unsafe shithole?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What you're doing is crying a lot, denying the actual studies which have been done in, among other countries, Brazil.

Where do you seem me crying? I'm not the one crying about guns, and screaming "think of the children"...you anti-2a groups are literally emotionally driven and actually do cry a lot about gun rights.

You've never read a single one, because people like you never do. Instead you think your making aa good case by calling Harvard and Oxford studies "emotional bullshit" while thinking the garbage you pull out of your arse are "facts, my facts are real facts".

I've read all of these studies, they're all designed to show that guns magically make people more violent and we should ban them completely. This isn't news. The facts I use are from statistics from the FBI, statistics don't lie.

You seriously think you're gonna "debunk" large peer reviewed studies by the world's most esteemed universities by going "b-b-but w-what about B-Brazil..?!" (It's called whataboutism, a rather childish propaganda tactic.)

These studies aren't actual studies, they're collections of data that are correlationed to make gun ownership look bad. And I'm not the one that continually brings up other nations that have safety nets and gun control and say "what about this euro nation"...

Since the studies are too hard for you to read:

Within the US, gun violence varies widely. Age-adjusted firearm homicide rates range from a high of 14.4 per 100,000 in Washington, DC, to a low of 1.1 per 100,000 in New Hampshire. Washington, DC’s rate is similar to those of Brazil and Jamaica, which rank ninth and tenth globally. New Hampshire’s rate is similar to that of Chile. Even though New Hampshire has the lowest rates of age-adjusted firearm homicides in the US, its rate is still three times greater than the highest rate in Europe – Cyprus, with 0.36 deaths per 100,000.

Cool, thanks for proving my point. Gun laws in Brazil are some of the strictest in the world, yet they have the same firearm homicide rate as DC does... sounds like the laws banning people from owning firearms aren't working.

https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/insights-blog/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/america-mass-shooting-gun-violence-statistics-charts

https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

You're never going to admit you're wrong, no matter how bad it gets in your shithole of a country. Why is that? Wouldn't it be better to admit how fucked up it is, to start fixing it? Or do you just like living in an unsafe shithole?

O... you're not even from the USA...my shithole country is my country, worry about your own.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The facts I use are from statistics from the FBI, statistics don't lie

How would the FBI have any data on nationally implemented gun control? Perhaps by reading studied from Oxford and Harvard.

What you're doing again is crying instead of having any science on your side, even your "FBI facts."

This "argument" is exactly what I meant when I was calling for a gun nut to come show their insanity.

You have a tantrum, deny the science and then say things like "sounds like their policies didn't work", when you still refuse to ACTUALLY READ the study and can't provide anything against it.

Cry cry cry. Zero science. Like always.

Yeah, see I'm from an actual first world country, we have good education, so I understand empathy and how interconnected the global community is. But you don't even care about your own children getting massacred. How utterly disgusting.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

How would the FBI have any data on nationally implemented gun control? Perhaps by reading studied from Oxford and Harvard.

ROFL the FBI provides the numbers to the public lol they do not get shit from oxford or Harvard lol fucking hell... I don't even know why I'm arguing with you. You're not even from here lol

What you're doing again is crying instead of having any science on your side, even your "FBI facts."

Lol

This "argument" is exactly what I meant when I was calling for a gun nut to come show their insanity.

Lol

You have a tantrum, deny the science and then say things like "sounds like their policies didn't work", when you still refuse to ACTUALLY READ the study and can't provide anything against it.

Yea ok mr "the fbi gets it's numbers from Oxford and Harvard" ROFL

Cry cry cry. Zero science. Like always.

Lol

Yeah, see I'm from an actual first world country, we have good education, so I understand empathy and how interconnected the global community is. But you don't even care about your own children getting massacred. How utterly disgusting.

O no the emotional bullshit shines. You keep to your side of the pond and I'll keep to mine.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Second, firearms is not the leading cause of death for children. It was during covid because of how many people weren't driving and how depressed people got from being stuck inside and not being able to socialize.

Look up the definition of children used here. Also look at suicide and homicides as part of that larger number. There's a lot of context that points to the fact that the root cause (obviously) isn't the tool, but the system the tools exist in.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yep, they include usually all the way to 19 years old as a child.