There are few proverbial “third rails” in academic medicine. In this issue of JAMA Pediatrics, we published an article that touches 2 of them: media violence and guns. Given the stakes, we accepted the article only after multiple iterative reviews and careful attention to the rigor of the science and data analysis. Still, we are aware that critics will seek flaws in the science and take issue with the conclusions. Before delving into the implications of the article, we start by revisiting some unassailable statistics. First, the US population owns more guns per capita than any other country in the world.¹ More people die per capita from guns in the United States than in any other country.² And, most germane to this article, 7 children and adolescents die every day in the United States from guns. Second, media violence is pervasive. The last time a comprehensive review of movies was done, 100% of G-rated films contained violence.³ That assessment, made in 2000, surely underestimates the situation today given the increase in media violence⁴ and the advent of newer forms, including virtual and augmented reality games as well as social media posts of real-world violence.

学术医学中很少有众所周知的“第三轨”。在本期《JAMA儿科》中，我们发表了一篇涉及其中两个的文章：媒体暴力和枪支。考虑到风险，我们只有在经过多次迭代审查并认真注意科学和数据分析的严格性之后，才接受本文。尽管如此，我们知道批评家将寻求科学中的缺陷，并对结论持怀疑态度。在深入研究本文的含义之前，我们先回顾一些毫无疑问的统计数据。首先，美国人均拥有枪支的人数超过世界上任何其他国家。¹在美国，人均死于枪支的人数比其他任何国家都多。^2个而且，与本文最相关的是，美国每天有7名儿童和青少年死于枪支。第二，媒体暴力无处不在。上一次对电影进行全面审查时，G级电影中有100％包含暴力。³鉴于媒体暴力事件的增加⁴和新形式的出现，包括虚拟和增强现实游戏以及现实世界暴力的社交媒体帖子，2000年进行的评估肯定低估了今天的局势。