In fairness, they edited everyone's answers. As I mentioned when I approved my comment, they really leaned into the locked AND UNLOADED part of my approach.
If you note that the leading cause of death of children 1 to 9 years old is accidents, and then you are told the leading cause of death for 10 to 17 year olds is firearms, well you might start to associate that latter age group with bad behavior of various kinds, even illegal activities. And that would simply NOT help with the propagation of propaganda.
I guess I should have taken what I said and made it more dramatic for effect. The answer to Mastio's question is readily available, though it is unfortunate that he didn't receive a more clear and direct answer from the folks at Johns Hopkins. It does convey a sense that they are trying to hide something.
David... thanks for publishing your full answers. One word response...AWESOME! We're incredibly fortunate to have you publishing in this area. Very much looking forward to seeing you the end of this month! Keep up the great work. It's very much appreciated!
No wonder they did not want to publish your entire answer! Great answer .
In fairness, they edited everyone's answers. As I mentioned when I approved my comment, they really leaned into the locked AND UNLOADED part of my approach.
You might be interested in this article from April. I found it entertaining. It deals with facts behind question 2, and the obfuscation of those facts by people with an axe to grind. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/i-tried-to-solve-the-great-gun-mystery-at-the-bloomberg-school-of-public-health-it-didnt-go-well-opinion/ar-AA1GwCX8
If you note that the leading cause of death of children 1 to 9 years old is accidents, and then you are told the leading cause of death for 10 to 17 year olds is firearms, well you might start to associate that latter age group with bad behavior of various kinds, even illegal activities. And that would simply NOT help with the propagation of propaganda.
I guess I should have taken what I said and made it more dramatic for effect. The answer to Mastio's question is readily available, though it is unfortunate that he didn't receive a more clear and direct answer from the folks at Johns Hopkins. It does convey a sense that they are trying to hide something.
David... thanks for publishing your full answers. One word response...AWESOME! We're incredibly fortunate to have you publishing in this area. Very much looking forward to seeing you the end of this month! Keep up the great work. It's very much appreciated!