It's somewhat demeaning and antagonistic to accuse downvoters of being offended without some line of reasoning given. My guess is that the implication of your parent post is that the article is wrong to compare those numbers. Since there's nothing else in the curt reply, it seems to ignore the disturbing facts of the matter - a wrongness perhaps greater, in some readers' opinions, than the clickbaity headline, which is at least defensible in that it illustrates that child gun deaths have surpassed some arbitrary value, i.e. the numbers are large and rising (supposedly - I'm comparing the implied message of the headline to the implied message of your parent post, not commenting on the actual numbers on child gun deaths).