|
In this article I will be talking about a current event that demonstrates how certain politicians and groups use misleading words to push a certain narrative to further their anti-Second Amendment agenda. Before moving on, let me just say that the job of elected leaders is to protect the freedoms and rights of the people they represent from government overreach, along with working to the betterment of their constituents. In short, making the community or area they represent a better place while preserving freedoms and rights. The priority is the people, not themselves or their agendas. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. There are many elected leaders who hold certain offices or positions that tirelessly work to their own benefit. To be fair, this is not a problem that is exclusive to a specific party, state, or even country. There are elected leaders all over the world who work to the benefit of themselves, instead of the people. In most cases their motivation is the following or a combination thereof:
Many elected leaders are known for their fancy talk and emotional speeches. Often these speeches are “compiling” and help steer a narrative in a certain direction based on their energy and words. The energy is usually part of the show, but the words tell the true story of intent. Verbiage is very important and often used to intentionally mislead people by saying specific words that are similar, interchangeable, or just overlooked. It is important to understand that when this happens, it is not by accident, but by design, in most cases. The curator of the statement carefully selects a specific word or words to create an emotional response. The definition of the word does not fit the context of the statements, but the intention is not on the definition, but the word itself because of the emotional value that word can provide. When this happens, the curator of the statement knows full well what they have done, but they do not care because the statement was never intended to be factually correct, just emotionally appealing. They also know that willfully ignorant people will defend the statement even when it is pointed out that the verbiage was incorrect and the information is factually wrong because those same people will stay something to the extent of, “but the message is still the same”. That’s like me saying, math is important, 2 plus 2 is 5 and then someone says I am wrong and then I say, but the message is still the same, math is still important!
Let’s break down his statement starting with the first sentence. “Gun violence is the leading cause of death for children in America”. That is not true. He used the word “children”. Maybe by accident or as a generic term to describe a young human, but most likely the word was selected by design. When the word “child” is used, it typically makes the listener/reader mentally picture an incent and playful young human. This could cause an emotional reaction when associating death, more specifically a gun related death to that visual image of the child, leading to outrage and/or anger from the listener/reader. This outrage and/or anger is not focused on the person or actions responsible for the death, it is focus on the object (gun) highlighted and associated with the death. It is important to understand the word “children” he used and the context in which he used is not as matter of fact as he stated. I’ll break this short, but powerfully misleading sentence down. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the American Medical Associations (AMA) age designations are as follows [source 2]:
It should be noted there are many different age levels and definitions of the word child as it pertains to age. Some definitions and groups use the word child when describing a human from birth to 18 years of age. Some use the word child from birth to 10 years of age all the way to 15 years of age. Adolescents is typically the definition given to a young human who is between the age of 10-18. Again, some definitions and groups set the adolescent ages in different ranges. For instance, the American Medical Association (AMA) use an adolescent age range from 13-17 years of age, Johns Hopkins [source 3], when describing gender differences and biological changes, uses an adolescent age range 13-18 years of age, and the World Health Organization (WHO) [source 4] uses an adolescent age range from 10-19 years of age. The World Health Organization has a larger breath of coverage and might use 19 years of age as the adolescent cut off because the age of majority (the age at which an individual has legal control of their person, actions, and decisions) is higher in some countries than it is in most states within the United States. It is important to note that within the United States 18 years of age is when an individual is legally considered an adult. (age of majority), therefore they do not fall into the “children” category. There are only three states where the age of majority is higher. Those are [source 5]:
Anyway, as we can see, verbiage is very important, and the lack of correct verbiage can make the meaning and message of a statement different. He did not say gun violence is the leading cause of death for children, adolescents, and teenagers or young adults, he only said children because that would spark a more emotional response from people than the larger age gap would. Him including the other age groups would cause further questions and potentially lead to the failure of an emotional response to his vague word usage. Again, this is not about truth and facts, this is about emotions. You cannot debate facts with an individual who argues with emotions. If this statement was about truth, he would have made it truthful. Meaning, he would have included other important and descriptive words to correctly cover the age groups represented in the study he quietly references. He would not have only used the word child in his statement as it is factually inaccurate. I am assuming the “data” he is “referencing” is from a letter published to the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in April of 2022 [source 6]. In this letter it states the leading cause of death among children and adolescents (defined as person 1 to 19 years of age) in 2020 was firearm-related injuries. In this letter it specifically uses the words children and adolescents, which is why it was important to cover the age groups earlier. Although death caused by firearm-related injuries is up, this letter does not focus on the causes themselves. All these deaths are tragic, but understanding the causes give more context to the numbers and the problem. Included in those numbers are:
Suicide: There is a very high probability that an individual who used a firearm to commit suicide would have still committed suicide if a firearm was not an option. These are individuals who were intent on taking their own life, regardless of the means in which it was done. Meaning, when they are ready, they will find a way to do it whether it is falling from a high structure, overdosing on medication, using a sharp object, using a firearm, or intentionally putting themselves in a situation where they will probably be killed. Homicide: Firearm-related assaults where the intent was great bodily harm or death are most frequently committed by people between the age groups of 15-35 years of age in the year 2020 [source 7]. Gang related or affiliated assaults would be included in this number. Recent gang data is not as prevalent or in some cases as detailed as older data, but I would image the statistic are still relevant today. [source 8] [source 9] [source 10] The largest age range commonly associated with gangs are individuals 15-24 years of age. The majority of their members are within that age group. Individuals 15-17 years of age is commonly referred to as “youth gangs” and individuals 18-24 is commonly referred to as “adult gangs”. The average age of a gang member is 17-18 years of age [source 11]. This is relevant because of the statement made by Hakeem Jeffries where he attributes firearm-related death to children only, when in fact, adolescents and young adults (18 years of age or older) are being factored into those numbers. When you look at individual deaths from firearm-related injuries between the age group of 1-14 years of age [reference source 7 again], those numbers are dramatically lower than those that would include the adolescent and adult age range used in the New England Journal of Medicine letter. Ironically enough, gang related and gang affiliated deaths from firearms-related injuries of individuals who are 17, 18, and 19 years of age are also included in those numbers within the letter and would be part of the “children” statement made by Hakeem Jeffries. Accidental: As mentioned before, accidental, or negligent death from firearm-related injuries is also included in those numbers as it should be, but it is important to understand there was no specific intent to cause great bodily harm or death. It was a series of unfortunate events that lead to it. The same is true when a newborn, infinite, child, adolescent, or adult dies from any other accidental or negligent means. So, if firearm-related injuries are not the leading cause of death for children, by definition, what is? According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), accidents (unintentional injuries) are the leading cause of death in children [source 12]. The CDC separates the child health data into three age groups:
The top three leading causes of death for children 1-4 years of age is:
The top three leading causes of death for children 5-9 years of age is:
The top three leading causes of death for children 10-14 years of age is:
Under adolescent health [source 13] on the CDC website, the top three leading causes of death for adolescents 15-19 years of age is:
According to the definition and data, the statement made by Hakeem Jeffries of, “gun violence is the leading cause of death for children in America” is not correct. Either he is intentionally deceiving the American people, or he is ignorant on this topic. Either way, it is a problem because he is actively using his position to limit and reduce the freedoms and rights of the American people using lies and ignorance. Freedom is not free, but once it is had by the people, it is continually chipped away at by individuals who desire to take back that freedom. Typically, this is done using lies and the justification is safety. For your safety, “insert the lie”. Hakeem Jeffries is that individual chipping away at your freedom using lies to reduce your Second Amendment Right in an effort to make you “safer”. He is not the only person pushing this lie though, which to me, shows that there is specific intent to deceive the American people on this topic because it is a talking point regurgitated by so many individuals. Almost as though it is a coordinated attack in an effort to make this lie become “truth” by continually saying it. (to view videos of politicians saying the same or similar lies, use the source links at the bottom of this article or watch the Intuitive Defense Current Events E3 also located at the bottom of this article). Getting back to the tweet posted by Hakeem Jeffries, more specifically the second sentence, “Yet right-wing extremists in the House voted this week with the NRA to make it easier to kill innocent Americans” I believe the vote Hakeem references is the repeal of the pistol stabilizing brace rule H.J. Res. 44 (House Joint Resolution 44) [source 14] which is sponsored by Rep. Clyde Andrew (R-GA) and passed the House by a vote of 219-210 on June 13, 2023. Anyway, nothing within the text of H.J.Res. 44 makes it easier to kill innocent Americans. The focus of H.J. Res. 44 is to overturn the new pistol stabilizing brace “rule” put out by the ATF in January of 2023. The pistol stabilizing brace is a piece of plastic that does not dramatically alter the way a pistol functions or fires. If you want to learn more about that “rule” or a pistol stabilizing brace, we discuss it in our Current Events episode 1 video which is linked in the description of this video. Hakeem is being emotionally dramatic because he is an emotional person, not a logical person. He also associates a YEA vote (in support of) for H.J. Res. 44 as a “right-wing” extremist ideology. Making it sound as though some radical faction of individuals which is comprised of only “right-wing” people are in support of repealing the new ATF pistol stabilization brace “rule”. There is an estimated 20-40 million pistol stabilizing braces owned by American citizens. I personally know individuals who affiliate as a demarcate, liberal, or libertarian who exercise their Second Amendment Right through firearms ownership. Those same individuals also own or have owned an AR style pistol equipped with a pistol stabilizing brace and do not agree with the new ATF “rule”. Seeing as how they themselves said they are not affiliated with the Republican Party or even on the “right”, how do they fit into this “right-wing extremist” category mentioned by Hakeem Jeffries? It would seem to me that Hakeem uses emotionally charged verbiage to lump a large group of people together in a very specific category in an attempt to paint a certain picture using only the broad strokes of a paintbrush. The best way to understand a painting is through the details. You know what broad stokes leave out? The details? If Hakeem Jeffries was a rational person, he would concentrate on the details. Emotional people use broad strokes and vague statements. I don’t know about you, but I do not want elected official or leaders making decisions or creating law based on feelings and emotions, because those are subjective. I want them making decisions or creating law based on facts and logic. My ConclusionIn my opinion, emotional people have a hard time debating or explaining their opinions, principles, and ideas because those are founded in emotions, which can change with the wind. This is typically why they tent to yell or be quickly and wildly accusatory of others because emotions are all they have. They cannot debate facts because they do not have logic. They also want to be a part of the latest trend or support the latest thing because of the emotional appeal or the “virtue” that is comes with it. That’s a lot of wishy-washy shit that causes leaders to make poor and uninformed decisions that can potentially affect (usually negatively) hundreds, or thousands, or millions of people. It’s kind of ironic that he mentioned children in his tweet. You know whose entire world is emotions? Children. Children are very emotional creatures. Children operate on emotions; adults should operate on facts. If Hakeem Jeffries truly cared about the lives of children, he would act like an adult. Anyway, the verbiage and the lies associated with it might seem like a small issue and not worth the hassle of identifying or even calling out, which is exactly what freedom grabbing people like him want you to think. The small issues are used to drive larger narratives meant to deprive you of something. They do not need to take all your freedoms and rights at one time using force when they can coerce you into freely giving away your freedoms and rights over time. As I have said before, as it pertains to your freedoms and rights, the Second Amendment protects the rest. There is a reason why the power-hungry elitist politicians, leaders, notable figures, and certain groups are always going after the Second Amendment. It has nothing to do with your safety as an individual, it has to do with the safety of their agenda, whatever that may be. If they can take away your freedom and right to effectively protect yourself (a gun), then it is easier to take away your other freedoms and rights. Throughout history, governments who seek more power and control also sought disarmament of it’s people. Don’t ingest the lies served to you on a platter of emotions and think you are better off without a specific freedom or right. If you give them an inch, they will take a mile. Hakeem Jefferies and other individuals like him are just asking for an inch of your freedoms and rights at the moment. Pro tip: Don’t sacrifice your freedoms and rights for the illusion of safety. In the eyes of the government, and as it relates to your freedoms and rights, you will never be safe. They will always find a new danger that requires you to give something else up in order to remove the fear.  Video Version of This ArticleThank you for reading this article. We hope it was informative. If so, please share it with others and don't forget to leave a comment below!
- Intuitive Defense -
"TRAIN. ACT. LIVE." Related Articles
Sources
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
ArticlesOur goal is to provided accurate, informative content on current events, guns, training, and other topics. Categories
All
Archives
August 2024
|
RSS Feed
