
I tried to solve the great gun mystery at the Bloomberg School of Public Health. It didn't go well
You wouldn't think it would be hard to get the world's leading gun violence researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health to tell you what the leading cause of death is for children. At least, you know, if it actually was firearms.
While the school's report, Gun Violence in the United States 2022, says over and over again that guns are the leading killer of children and teens age 1-17, it never says what the leading killer of children not including teens is.
It isn't like they don't think the results for children are important. You have to wait all the way to the bottom of the first page of the report for them to define what they mean when they say children (age 1-9) and teens (10-17), but they never quite get around to saying what kills those kids age 1-9.
That made me curious, especially when I learned this month that the Ad Council was launching a multimillion-dollar, multiyear public service campaign telling parents that their kids are in danger because guns are the number one killer of children(!) and teens.
This is important. It matters whether what they are going to tell parents is actually true.
Today, according to Ad Council polling, only 26% of Americans know guns are such a danger to kids. But the Ad Council, which brought you the 'Smokey Bear' campaign about forest fires and the 'Crying Indian' campaign about littering and receives hundreds of millions of dollars in leftover ad space for its nonpartisan efforts every year, wants to fix that low number.
The Ad Council's educational videos and ads, which you can see on YouTube any time you want, tend to linger on children and teens at the younger end of that scale. The ads include images of children on a playground, young children in doctor offices who still use child safety seats, grade-school kids debating gun violence, a crib wheeling through a hospital hallway and parents planning play dates.
Where does the Ad Council get the idea that guns are mowing down these young children all over the country? Its webpage cites the Bloomberg School of Public Health Center for Gun Violence Solutions over and over.
Answer on first page of report
So as I mentioned, I called and emailed them to get an interview and get clarity about exactly what was killing children ages 1-9. That was a week ago.
The first thing officials did was dispute that they had said anything about children age 1 to 9. 'I am not quite sure where the age range you're mentioning is coming from,' wrote their PR guy, a former TV journalist. So I told him it was hidden on Page 1 of the 22-page report.
After that, he quickly scheduled a video call the next day with Silvia Villarreal, listed as the first author on the study I was asking about. 'Fabulous,' I wrote.
The next day rolled around and the Bloomberg folks canceled the call with Silvia because some other people at the Center for Gun Violence Solutions were unexpectedly 'out of the office.' I said I could interview Sylvia 'any time next week.' In the meantime, their PR guy promised, 'we will get you the data needed for your story this morning.'
Hours passed. I inquired about where the data was. More time passed and then an email came. It included nine bullet points with factoids from the report about children, but not the answer to my simple question: What is killing children ages 1 to 9? Not helpful.
So I tried asking the question again. No response that day or over the weekend or Monday.
I sent an email to the dean of the Bloomberg School of Public Health, Ellen J. MacKenzie, and the co-leaders of the Center for Gun Violence Solutions, Joshua Horwitz and Cassandra Crifasi.
'I have a simple question for the authors of your report Gun Violence in the United States 2022, released in September 2024, yet they have canceled interviews to talk about it and simply refused to answer it,' I wrote them. 'It seems to me that this does not meet your standards for academic integrity, transparency and basic honesty.'
No response.
Escorted out by campus security
At this point, I was, well, miffed. It just so happened that I was going to Delaware to visit my wife's family, so on Tuesday, I got in my rented BMW and drove three hours to the Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.
When I got there, I emailed the PR guy and the dean and the two gun research directors that I was there and eager to meet with any or all of them to ask my question.
No interview this time either, I was told. 'We have to follow our school's guidelines for media visits to the building,' the PR guy wrote me. 'Hadn't I already done that?' I thought to myself. But as I sat there in the multi-story lobby of the School of Public Health, it turned out I didn't have time to ruminate. Two very polite and very plump ladies from campus security complete with official looking badges came to escort me from the building.
I headed back to the school's garage, walking by red banners that said in big white letters, 'BLOOMBERG SCHOOL PROUD TO BE IN PUBLIC HEALTH.' This was surely a proud day for the Bloomberg School, I thought.
When I got to the car, I received another email. If I wait another week, they might be able to give me an interview, but not a soul in the place is available before that.
I had another thought. Surely there is somebody else at the Bloomberg School who knows what kills kids ages 1-9. Sure enough, there was another research group, The Center on Injury Research and Policy. I emailed them, and in a matter of hours, they gave me the answer.
I'll give you one guess what that is. You're right – not guns. Not even close. Mishaps with things other than guns, such as drownings, falls and car accidents, are the big killers.
Maybe that is why, given a week, the world-renowned experts at the Bloomberg School of Public Health Center for Gun Violence Solutions couldn't answer a simple question about what is killing our children.
It is not that they didn't know. It is that they didn't like their own answer.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Army's image of power and flag-waving rings false to Gen Z weary of gun violence − and long-term recruitment numbers show it
The U.S. Army will celebrate its 250th birthday on Saturday, June 14, 2025, with a parade in Washington, D.C., in which about 6,600 soldiers and heavy pieces of military equipment will roll through the streets. The parade aims to display the Army's history and power. 'It's going to be incredible,' President Donald Trump recently said. Trump's 79th birthday also occurs on June 14. Despite the festivities, however, the parade will occur amid bleak times for the U.S. military, as it experiences a multiyear decline in recruitment numbers. In the face of a pandemic and a strong civilian job market, the Army, Air Force and Navy all missed their recruitment goals in 2022 and 2023. In 2022, the Army missed its quota by 25%. In 2024, the U.S. military met its recruitment target, which supports the argument that the bump is not due to Trump, as recruitment levels began to rise again before his reelection. But in some cases, the U.S. military has met its recruitment goals by lowering target numbers. And as a scholar of terrorism and targeted violence, I believe a close reading of available data on military recruitment suggests U.S. gun violence may be largely to blame for the lack of interest in joining the military. Regardless of one's personal politics, the data on U.S. gun violence makes for painful reading. Almost 47,000 Americans died from gun-related injuries in 2023. In 2022, there were 51 school shootings in which students were injured or killed by guns. And gun injuries are the leading cause of death for Americans between ages 1 and 19. Data about the perceptions of gun violence is equally staggering, especially among American youth between ages 14 and 30. Four out of five American youth believe gun violence to be a problem, and 25% have endured real active-shooter lockdowns, according to data compiled by Everytown for Gun Safety, where I serve as a survivor fellow, the Southern Poverty Law Center and American University's Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab. Moreover, these perceptions have considerable impacts on youth mental health and their sense of safety. Studies have linked concern over school shootings among adolescents with higher rates of anxiety and trauma-related disorders. As Arne Duncan, who served as President Barack Obama's secretary of education during the Sandy Hook tragedy, said in 2023: 'Unfortunately, what's now binding young people across the country together is not joy of music, or sports, or whatever, it's really the shared pain of gun violence – and it cuts through race and class and geography and economics.' In the past couple of years, polls taken of Generation Z youth, born between 1997 and 2012, suggest mental health and mass shootings are among the most important political issues motivating this band of voters. Gun violence, in other words, is a national security emergency, undermining the U.S. government's ability to protect its citizens in their schools, places of worship and communities. As former Marine Gen. John Allen wrote in 2019: 'Americans today are more likely to experience gun violence at home than they might in many of the places to which I deployed in the name of defending our nation.' Accordingly, gun violence has undercut American patriotism, corroding the U.S. government's soft power within its own borders. Generation Z, termed by some as the 'lockdown generation,' is often derided as less patriotic than its predecessors. Also, the belief in American exceptionalism is dropping among millennials, born between 1981 and 1996. That perception is combined with less confidence in U.S. global engagement and the efficacy of military solutions. American culture has long inspired military service, with recruits seduced by action movies and promises of heroic returns to the U.S. But American culture today is being rewired into one of suffering, pain and victimhood. Gun violence destroys youth tolerance for the violence that defines a career in the U.S. military. Internal U.S. military surveys of young Americans show that 'the top three reasons young people cite for rejecting military enlistment are the same across all the services: fear of death, worries about post-traumatic stress disorder and leaving friends and family — in that order.' Generations already suffering a shattered sense of safety and place do not see the military as a viable option. The explanations the U.S. Defense Department gives for dismal recruitment levels focus on the younger generation's supposed lack of backbone or hatred of America. Republicans, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, have blamed alleged 'wokeness' for low recruitment levels. And the Trump administration's statements about improving recruitment numbers over the past several months overlook both a late Biden-era surge after a pandemic slump as well as the reality that numbers remain depressed due to military services repeatedly lowering their recruitment goals. Very rarely are introspective questions publicly debated today about the objective attractiveness of military service or the appetite for violence among young people. The problem, I believe, is not that young people are insufficiently patriotic – it's that they have already been fighting a war, daily, for their entire lives. In reversing the slide in recruitment, then, the military could improve its sensitivity to these important concerns. Highlighting the range of careers within the services that do not involve front-line combat and physical danger could encourage more reluctant would-be recruits to volunteer. Mental health support also could be made an essential element of military training and lifestyle − not a resource only for those bearing the hidden side-effects of life in the ranks. Encouraging those suffering from treatable mental health issues to seek meaning in service could also boost recruitment numbers. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Jacob Ware, Georgetown University Read more: The US military has cared about climate change since the dawn of the Cold War – for good reason Lafayette helped Americans turn the tide in their fight for independence – and 50 years later, he helped forge the growing nation's sense of identity A field guide to 'accelerationism': White supremacist groups using violence to spur race war and create social chaos Jacob Ware is a gun violence survivor and serves as a Survivor Fellow at Everytown for Gun Safety.


Indianapolis Star
an hour ago
- Indianapolis Star
Indy shows how protests 'can (and should be) done' during NBA Finals, police union president says
An anti-ICE protest that drew hundreds merged with an NBA Finals game that pulled thousands to downtown Indianapolis, all while millions were watching a city pushed into the national spotlight as the Pacers took on the Oklahoma City Thunder. And the whole thing went off without serious issue. While basketball fans lined up to file into Gainbridge Fieldhouse about 7 p.m. June 11, people chanted outside the arena to protest federal deportations, first staging at the corner of East Georgia and South Pennsylvania streets before marching a few blocks, occasionally blocking traffic. "Last night showed (protests) can be done safely and without violence," cheered Indiana police union leader Rick Snyder in a statement to media. He vowed police "will always protect the Rights of Americans to peaceably assemble and petition their Government for redress of grievances." 🚨INDY FOP STATEMENT ON PROTESTS DOWNTOWN'As Constitutional Law Enforcement Officers we will always protect the Rights of Americans to peaceably assemble + petition their Government for redress of night showed it can be done safely and without violence.' #FOP The Indianapolis demonstration remained nonviolent, in contrast to anti-immigrant protests in Los Angeles, where a city-wide curfew was implemented after days of clashes between law enforcement and agitators. Just before 7 p.m. June 11, about a dozen protesters handed out flyers and signs to passersby. The crowd grew as the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department's officer presence also increased. A speaker pointed toward basketball fans during anti-deportation speeches, prompting at least two people to yell "Go Pacers!" and a short chant of "USA." Indianapolis police were seen carrying pepper ball guns, less-than-lethal weapons that shoot balls designed to burst on impact and release pepper powder. None were fired. In a speech, one organizer told protesters not to antagonize law enforcement. An organizer said the crowd was a thousand people at its peak, while Indianapolis police put the count at about 500 based on drone footage and crowd density. Indianapolis police urged protesters toward the sidewalk as the group marched downtown. At one point, law enforcement moved crowds so an ambulance could pass. Marching ended on East Georgia Street around 8:30 p.m. "IMPD, KKK, IOF, it's all the same!' the crowd chanted, referring to the Ku Klux Klan and Israeli Occupation Forces. "I prefer crushed ICE," read one sign referring to Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who facilitate deportations. Snyder said he applauded law enforcement agencies and Indianapolis residents for showing how peaceful assembly "can (and should) be done." Hours before the protest, images and rumors circulated online indicating ICE raids may have occurred near 42nd Street and Richelieu Road in Lawrence. On June 11, IndyStar reporters spoke with neighbors in the area who confirmed law enforcement activity. The owner of a self-serve laundry in the area also said they caught video of law enforcement in the area. A since-deleted social media post shared around 7:30 a.m. depicted several photos of men wearing vests that said "Police ICE."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Are Robots The Answer To China's Aged Care Crisis? Beijing Launches Massive Trial To Test If Machines Can Cook, Clean And Console The Elderly
Are robots the solution to China's growing aged care problem? The Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology has announced a large-scale trial program to test whether intelligent machines can provide not just physical assistance, but also emotional support for its expanding senior population. What Happened: The ministry has invited private companies with proven track records in elder care to apply for the initiative. Firms must have robust environmental, credit, and safety records to qualify. Selected participants must develop at least 200 robots and deploy them across 20 test sites within two years of approval. Trending: Maker of the $60,000 foldable home has 3 factory buildings, 600+ houses built, and big plans to solve housing — The robots will be evaluated on a wide range of abilities, including cooking, cleaning, and fall prevention, to feeding, lifting, and assisting with going to the toilet, and outdoor mobility. In addition to physical support, the Ministry has also called for building machines capable of "anti-wandering and anti-falling" features for dementia patients and tools that can identify early symptoms of cognitive decline. They are also looking for robots that can hold conversations in various dialects, read books and newspapers, and even place video calls to family members. Described as "intelligent communication companion service robots," these machines are expected to counter loneliness and act as possible substitutes for pets. Why It Matters: While the ministry does not explicitly call for humanoid design, the features described are most closely associated with human caregiving. Tesla Inc. (NASDAQ:TSLA) CEO Elon Musk, in an article for China's cyberspace authority in 2022, floated an idea somewhat similar to what the ministry is looking for: 'Perhaps in less than a decade, people will be able to buy a robot for their parents as a birthday gift,' he wrote, referring to Tesla's humanoid robots currently in month, Musk shared his belief that humanoid robots will start impacting countries' GDPs in "4-5 years." He weighed in on the massive amounts of power humanoid robots will require to function to the height of their capabilities. Musk has also asserted that Optimus, his company's humanoid robot, is capable of learning tasks simply by watching YouTube videos, much like humans can. Nvidia Corp. (NASDAQ:NVDA) CEO Jensen Huang has suggested that Optimus might be the first humanoid robot to reach both mass production and advanced technical capability. "I think this is likely to be the next multi-trillion-dollar industry," he said. Recently, Nvidia unveiled Isaac GR00T, labeled as "the world's first open, fully customizable foundation model for humanoid robots, enabling generalized reasoning and skill development." Read Next: Are you rich? Here's what Americans think you need to be considered wealthy. If there was a new fund backed by Jeff Bezos offering a 7-9% target yield with monthly dividends would you invest in it? Photo courtesy: Shutterstock UNLOCKED: 5 NEW TRADES EVERY WEEK. Click now to get top trade ideas daily, plus unlimited access to cutting-edge tools and strategies to gain an edge in the markets. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? This article Are Robots The Answer To China's Aged Care Crisis? Beijing Launches Massive Trial To Test If Machines Can Cook, Clean And Console The Elderly originally appeared on Sign in to access your portfolio