Previous Post
Next Post


It seems like every couple months, another report surfaces that tries to make the argument that the existence of a firearm in a home endangers the lives of children. The first one I debunked was a report from the New York Times published almost two years ago, and while the name of the organization publishing this “shocking report” may be different, the facts of the matter remain the same. This time the Brady Campaign has published a report titled “The Truth About Kids & Guns” that tries to make the same old arguments. While the numbers presented might be enough to shock low information voters into following the rallying cry for gun control the report basically debunks itself. Shall we begin? . . .

From the opening paragraphs of the report:

Based on the most recent available data, in 2011 there were 2,703 child and teenage firearm deaths in America. That’s seven of America’s youth killed every day. These youth were shot in different ways by varying intents—some were murdered, some unintentionally shot themselves or were unintentionally shot by another, and others died by their own hand. All were tragic and should lead to public outcry about the continuous threat gun violence poses to our nation’s youth.


This is a public health crisis. These deaths are preventable. Most parents bring a gun into the home legally with no intent of doing harm. Many think they’re doing their family a service by offering protection. Yet it is these guns that cause the majority of gun deaths and injuries. A gun in the home is a significant risk factor for homicide, suicide, and unintentional shootings.

This is the thesis that the report is trying to prove — that innocent children are being “gunned down” by heartless gun owners every day. But there are some major problems with their evidence, and the cracks are easy to spot for those who haven’t been blinded by the rhetoric.

The very first claim that the Brady Campaign makes — that “gun violence” is a public health issue — is a belief shared only by 12% of the American population. It is, by definition, an extremist and fringe viewpoint, but one that is the keystone of their entire narrative. The end goal of the Brady Campaign is a complete ban on firearms and confiscation of those already in circulation, and their tactic is to paint “gun violence” as a public health issue.

In order to get others to buy into that belief and therefore their dream of civilian disarmament, they need to convert Americans to their cause. What follows in the report is an attempt to twist numbers and cover up inconvenient facts to make their premise seem plausible, when in fact it couldn’t be more wrong.

Moving past the first page, we start to see why their numbers are so large in terms of “children” killed with guns.

In 2011, 2,703 young people, ages 0-19, were killed by gunfire in the United States. More than half of these deaths, 61% (1,651), were homicides, 32% (850) were suicides, and 5% (140) were caused by unintentional gunfire (see Figure 1). Approximately 16,700 more youth suffered nonfatal injuries, many of which resulted in serious lifelong consequences.

What the Brady Campaign wants you to imagine when they spout the figure that “2,703 children” were killed with guns is that these are small defenseless children being mercilessly cut down. They want that image of a crying 8-year-old girl in a pink princess dress being shot to death to be the first thing you think of, which causes an immediate reaction. They are banking on the idea that people will have that emotional response, and then use their emotions to make up their minds instead of applying any actual logic to the situation.

To back up their “shocking” numbers, they provide a handy graph.


The intended reaction for the reader is that if firearms are involved with that great of a percentage of homicides in children, then obviously something needs to be done. If we can just remove the guns, we can eliminate all of those murders. It’s so obvious! But life doesn’t work like that — guns are used in the majority of homicides because they are convenient, not because they are the only tool available. The vast majority of suicides in children are committed with things other than guns, so obviously there are ways to kill kids without the use of a gun. The question is how many of those murders would you stop if you removed the firearms, and to figure that out you need to dig deeper into the data.

A few pages later, the report outlines who is actually being killed.


I think you see where I’m going with this.

Personally, I’m of the opinion that someone who has been deemed old enough by the state to operate a car (a deadly object responsible for more deaths every year than all firearms fatalities combined) is no longer a “child.” And I’m damned sure that people 18 and over aren’t even considered minors by the state anymore. And yet, in order to pad their numbers and make the figures shocking enough to support their conclusions, the Brady Campaign needed to include those people between the ages of 16 and 19. Because as a matter of fact, the vast and overwhelming majority of firearms related homicides involve victims  14 years old and over.

The reason the majority of these homicides are in the 14+ age range is simple: gangs and gang violence. These homicides aren’t the result of a legal gun owner deciding to use their firearm against a child — these are “children” who have been drawn into the gang lifestyle and who are paying the price for it. Even the Huffington Post admits that 80% of the murders in Chicago are gang related (cities, by the report’s own admission, are where the most “child” murders take place, dropping to near zero in the countryside), so therefore 80% of these murders (or more) should logically fall into that category. It’s no wonder that Louisiana and Illinois (home to New Orleans and Chicago) rank as the two top states for “child” homicides according to the study, two states with gang problems.

The Brady Campaign rejects the idea that these homicides are committed by criminals, and instead soldiers on with the narrative that these homicides are committed by legal gun owners — or guns acquired from a house where a legally owned gun exists. To support their conclusion, they turn to the old chestnut of school shootings.

The next three pages are devoted to school shootings, which are high profile events that lead to a statistically insignificant number of deaths. Don’t get me wrong, these deaths are tragic, but in the grand scheme of things school shootings represent such a small percentage of even the deaths among “children” presented by this report that it hardly is worth our time to discuss them. However, the Brady Campaign devotes a full 10% of their report to a category involving less than 0.004% of annual deaths even among their chosen age group (12 deaths per year annually, on average).

The reason they want to focus on these incidents is that they are scenarios which are well studied and support their conclusion, namely that firearms used in homicides come from households where they were legally purchased.


This right here is the real point of the “report” from the Brady Campaign. Their entire argument is that guns are too dangerous to have since most people leave them unlocked and kids can get their hands on the guns. And then, obviously, kids will play with them and pull the trigger. They base this off a single study, whose methodology was dubious at best and presented the gun in this situation to the child as if it were a toy to be played with.

Kids die from guns, the Brady Campaign claims. Kids will pull the trigger on a gun if they find it, they claim (with dubious integrity). There are 1.7 million unlocked guns in the US, they claim (all unsubstantiated). Therefore, since all the guns are unlocked, kids will die. The obvious solution isn’t training the kids to not touch guns, or talk about “safe storage” laws, or even further research. The solution from the Brady Campaign is that we need to eliminate guns.

The truth is that while school shootings are high profile events with lots of media coverage that perfectly fit the narrative of the Brady Campaign, the fact of reality does not match the image presented in the report. The Brady Campaign wants you to come away with the impression that these homicides were committed using guns procured from unlocked gun cases, but the reality is that roughly 80% of the deaths are gang-on-gang violence with one criminal killing another criminal, all using guns that even the Huffington Post admits are illegally procured. Adding one more onerous law that restricts the Constitutionally protected rights of American citizens will do exactly nothing to prevent the murders that this report uses as evidence, as legal gun owners (as always) are not the problem.

The Brady Campaign is pulling out all the stops. With public opinion dead set against their agenda and sliding further in opposition each and every day, they have to resort to “shock” reports like this to mobilize their base and attract more gun control extremist crusaders. But anyone with half a brain and five seconds spent actually reading the report can see that while the truth is buried on the pages, the conclusion doesn’t match the facts presented. It makes about as much sense as using the American Civil War as evidence to support eliminating gluten from your diet.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Are those the nine scariest pictures of kids and guns NBC could find? Except for the baby (and the grimacing girl about to mace the photographer), I see kids having barrels of fun and smiling from accomplishment. Try again, NBC.

    • They probably just scoured the internet looking for young kids with guns and had difficulty finding pictures with negative connotations.

    • Click on the graphic and it takes you to a story about guns made for kids. The photos are from the Cricket website.
      I think the can in the girl’s hand was her target, not a self-defense spray.

  2. Classic example of ex hoc, ergo propter hoc:

    1.7MM children live in homes with loaded, unlocked firearms. 2,700 teenagers are killed every year by guns. Therefore, unlocked guns in the home lead to teenagers killed by firearms.

      • If by some stretch of the imagination these numbers were completely connected then by having a gun in the home with kids there is a 0.15% chance that a “child” would die. I’ll be generous and say 60% gang-related instead of 80%…comes to 0.06%. Take out just 18-19 and that number is basically nil.

      • Funny, that reminds me of a South Park episode about child abduction, it ended up saying that parents were the most common perpetrators in child abductions, so the parents sent their kids away “for their protection”

    • That was the first thing I noticed too…. 1,7 million supposedly unlocked guns ‘just lying around’ and ‘nearly’ 20,000 injuries. That is ‘nearly 1 in 100 children getting injured per year.

      While that one in one hundred is a terrible thing for the one shot, it hardly seems like something that requires so much butt-clenching and teeth-gnashing overall.

      • But even then: there’s no evidence that those claimed 20,000 “injuries” happen in those 1.7MM homes with loaded, unlocked firearms.

        It is far more likely that the proportion of injuries in those homes is commensurate with the proportion of deaths in those homes – in other words: the vast majority of the injuries are happening in gangland, not in the average NRA member’s home.

  3. Such a crock of liberal baloney! Both of my girls learned gun safety at an early age. My younger daughter had her own Chipmunk .22 at age 8, and a Winchester 9422 Annie Oakley commemorative for Christmas after she turned 10. And they’re still here to tell of it.

  4. The bigger issue is, both gun and anti-gun sides make money off this issue. Neither side wants a true solution to the problem.

    There are solutions to the problems, but no one wants to see gun violence corrected by those solutions.

    I’m sick of the whole mess!

    • Except that 1.) one side doesn’t intentionally make money off of corpses and 2.) one side in fact does want a solution to the “problem”. The other side does not.

      Here’s a hint, Chief: the side I just described is ours and not theirs.

      There is absolutely no way of confusing, distorting, contorting, twisting, gerrymandering, controverting, converting, obfuscating, obscuring or in any other way, shape, or form or on any other conceivable level whatsoever showing, displaying, portraying, showcasing or otherwise explaining this “issue” in any other way other than that — and in that way alone.

      We are right and they are wrong.

      THE END.

    • Sooo…just exactly what are your statist solutions. This “problem” with kids and guns is liberal BS and the NRA, GOA, and others are genuine grass roots organizations and not astro turf like Bloomies sock puppet Soviet Socialist organizations. One big “solution” to the “problem” is for the gun control freaks to start enforcing some of their stupid laws versus slapping the “children” on the wrist and putting them back on the streets. The other solution is to get rid of the silly “gun Free Zone” signs and enclaves. As far as all that good gooey “Gun Control” goes, it just screws over honest citizens.

    • There are solutions to the problems, but no one wants to see gun violence corrected by those solutions.

      The solution is simple: deal with violent criminals, and violent crime will go down.

      Stop the catch-and-release program that starts with juvies, and ends up with multiple-felony murderers continuously getting unleashed on the law-abiding public.

  5. The Brady putzes are quickly becoming irrelevant. If Sarah and her team of clods want to keep that sweet Joyce Foundation cash coming, they need to go full Gruber. Hence, they are presenting this clumsy tissue of lies.

  6. Cars kill far more people and kids, yet bring up the idea of banning cars and the world will scoff at you. Somehow the tradeoffs are known to be worthwhile by all concerned. No doubt there are some nuts who thinks cars are evil and should be banned, but I doubt there are many among the Brady Bunch et al.

    Yet bring up the lives saved by guns, and they go all batshit ignorant, hands over eyes and ears, la-la-la-la-la-la0I-can’t-hear-you.

    They need to move their hands from eyes and ears to mouths.

  7. At 17 years of age, you can join the military (with parental consent). I wonder if any vets under the age of “20” was used in this report.

  8. “But anyone with half a brain and five seconds spent actually reading the report can see that while the truth is buried on the pages, the conclusion doesn’t match the facts presented.”

    Low information ambivalent sheeple don’t have the will to exercise their ‘brains’, only eyes and an insatiable desire to be led. Hence this Brady “report”.

    • To clarify; imaging and propaganda, that’s what sheeple remember.

      With the anti-gun media promoting the anti’s cause at every opportunity, this kind of report fits right in with the rhetoric being disseminated for public consumption. That the report exposes it’s own discrepancies reveals the confidence the antis have that only the rhetorical veneer will be seen – and believed – by those who believe whatever is put in front of them without critical examination..

      With the media being so anti-gun, it is an uphill battle for us.

  9. If they’re so worried about the safety of children, why not go after the top killer of children first?

    Of course we all know the answer to that.

  10. Career politicians clearly can’t get the job done. That is either self-serving side.

    Though, I will admit the Republicans are a bit better than the Liberal Left. But neither side really enforces the laws of the land, regardless of what they say. Look at their actions not their words and promises.

    Maybe we should get rid of all career pols and try anew. What do you think?

  11. I’ve found the most effective rebuttal to such mathematically based propaganda is what I refer to as Fundamental Question #1: If what you claim is true, then why isn’t the number at least 5 times higher since govt figures say there are approx 300 million guns of all types available to Americans? In the 15+ years I’ve used that approach it to date hasn’t failed to thoroughly discombobulate anti-2A/pro-thug/pro-dictatorship cultists &, more importantly, gets others wondering about the cultist’s veracity after seeing/hearing said cultists obviously desperate (& increasingly looney) attempts at extracting themselves from that insidiously nasty logic trap. Also quite effective is Fundamental Question #2: If what you claim is true, then why have gun involved crime/injury/death rates been falling rapidly for the past 10-15 years despite the steady increase in gun sales during that same period? And that question’s backed up by articles from reliably anti-2A media sources like the NY Times/WaPo/CSM/similar that cite govt/’expert’ stats. Once those 2 are employed the cultist usually tries to discredit said sources leaving him/her open to exposure of their own use of same as ‘authoritative’ often causing the cultist to melt down & begin engaging in unbridled vituperative recrimination.

    And we know what happens in the minds of the onlookers after that, don’t we, which is why such as Piers Morgan/similar refuse to participate in open & fair debates/discussions of the topic.


Comments are closed.