Previous Post
Next Post


TTAG reader RW writes:

Brave New Films has been very active on social media lately, promoting their pro-gun control videos. They contradict themselves repeatedly by presenting gun show numbers that are different on their facts page and posts, and many of their facts come from the Everytown group which you all regularly rebut, debunk, and correct. “Women are 500% more likely to be killed if their abuser has a gun.” One quote in particular caught my notice . . .

I belong organizations that engage in fundraising on behalf of victims of violence and take such things very seriously. The true information on this and any other peripheral information is important to me as a female gun owner who cares about self-defense, violence avoidance when possible, and assistance for victims when violence can’t be avoided.

This site which I have always believed to be relatively well researched and balanced in presentation rarely mentions weapons of any kind other than this article, which states that men are much more likely to be threatened with deadly weapons than their female counterparts in domestic violence situations.

This link is the supposed source of the 500% quote above. Clicking through I found this:

Abuser’s use of a gun in the worst incident of abuse was associated with a 41-fold increase in risk of femicide after control for other risk factors, this effect apparently mediating the effects of abuser’s access to a gun, which was no longer significant.

And . . .

For example, our analysis and those of others suggest that increasing employment opportunities, preventing substance abuse, and restricting abusers’ access to guns can potentially reduce both overall rates of homicide and rates of intimate partner femicide.

And an interesting tidbit neutral on the gun-control topic . . .

A victim’s access to a gun could plausibly reduce her risk of being killed, at least if she does not live with the abuser. A small percentage (5%) of both case and control women lived apart from the abuser and owned a gun, however, and there was no clear evidence of protective effects.

I also believe the conclusion of this article or ones like it from the American Journal of Public Health is potential a factor in healthcare providers taking an increased interest in firearms ownership among their patients, but I’m flabbergasted and confused by the 500% statistic and how it might have come from this article. An article that appears to say firearms either cause 41 fold increase or an insignificant risk compared to the control group, according to the single sentence that mentions the risks of guns directly.

This is just one statistic from a long list of possible misinformation blasted across the net with regularity and pretty graphics the last few days.

Thanks and please keep up the good work.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. In spite of the obvious fact that none of the gun grabbers are the least interested in any woman’s safety – or man’s for that matter – the “solutions” they keep coming up with are simply impossible to achieve, even with the most totalitarian lockdown on control. And even if they actually promoted anyone’s ultimate safety.

    Which tells you all you really need to know about their actual goals and motives: Totalitarian control.

    In reality, each individual is responsible for his/her own safety (and that of their dependents), whether they are effective or not – which is nobody else’s business. The ultimate authority to defend ourselves and engage in mutual defense is not in the least subject to some external utilitarian judgment.

  2. I wonder how many staff at Brave New Films are giggling at the irony of their house title paired with the content of their product.

    Unless of course it was actually a handbook and not a warning.

  3. I generally don’t bother with reading or even listening to gun control items. Haven’t yet to come across a single one that didn’t use some ridiculous irrational logic and bogus sourced statistics. I believe there are far better ways to spend my time. If someone expresses anti-gun opinions to me personally, occasionally it is worthwhile try to educate them if they are rational. If they are ruled solely by their emotional response to the world around them, trying to enlighten them is just going to be a waste of time, since the very next emotional appeal will send them off in a different direction.

  4. Brave New Films is a 501(3)(c) whose sole product are overly dramatic little propaganda shorts heavy on emotion but short on substance. Their reason for existence is to catch the attention of credulous rich liberals looking for a place to send their yearly charitable contributions. They are parasites leaching money away from true charities who do more that just tweet a hashtag or sign a petition.

    • True enough, but the people who would send money their way aren’t gong to spend it on worthwhile charities anyway. If it wasn’t these people, it would Greenpeace, or World Wildlife Fund, or some spotted owl nonsense.

    • Lois Lerner must have been out the week that application came thru. I’m sure she would have blocked it.

  5. If all of these SJW’s would mind their own damn business, and focus all of their SJW time and energy inward, the world, or at least their immediate environment would be a much better place.

    Didn’t anyone’s mothers ever tell them to not worry about what other people are doing and focus on what they are doing? And to stop being a damn tattletale on the time?

    • The SJW movement is the aftermath of America’s appendix suddenly rupturing. We beat back 40+ years of joint Cuban/KGB disinformation campaigns, but there were simply too many barbarians pounding at the gates to stop them all. A few got by, festered in academia, and now we have this mess. I will admit though, it is fun watching some of these whackjob professors get crucified by their students for not being revolutionary/emotionally compromised enough.

  6. Femicide???! WTF. They come up with a term for everything.

    What is it when a woman kills a man? Masculinicide?

  7. What is this “femicide” they speak of? Oh that’s right “womyn” are being rewarded with their own classification in “crime terminology”, hell it’s not like the common term “homicide” was “sexist” now if we were taking “manslaughter” it would be a different story.

    “Segregation”, from the all “male” to the all “Moslem” public schools segregated by “sex” in NYC, you just gotta love the Liberals/Progressives for bringing it back in vogue.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here