Remember the “missing children” craze of decades past? Photos of moppets appeared on milk cartons, and the numbers of supposedly “missing” kids were so high cooler heads eventually began asking questions and it was quickly discovered the numbers “activists” were pushing were nonsensical, their methods and data political rather than replicable. Perhaps the activists had good intentions, perhaps not, but as Americans realized they were being hoaxed, the milk carton photos disappeared.

We’re well into the process of discovering just how badly we’ve been hoaxed by gun control cracktivists. The latest comes from Gabriel Gifford’s anti-liberty/gun group which is lauding “research” purporting to show one in 15 Americans have “survived” a mass shooting. In other words, some 7% of the population, nearly 24 million people, have been directly involved in a mass shooting, loosely defined as an incident in which four or more people were shot. 

Graphic: X Screenshot

These figures were derived from a survey of 10,000 people, a survey, not independent, verifiable, research that sampled data from multiple, reliable sources, but a survey of only 0.00293% of the population. This is the expansive definition used in the survey:

Being present at the scene of a mass shooting or sustaining a physical injury from the event, whether by being shot, trampled, or experiencing another injury during the incident.

It’s worse than even that definition might suggest:

The survey gave the Surveyed wide-ranging choices to choose from when deciding if they qualified as being “present on the scene,” from actually being shot to simply being able to “hear the gunfire.”

At the Parkland attack, the killer was present in only one three-story building on a widely spread campus of 13 separate buildings. Given the survey definition, respondents at Parkland could claim “survivor” status even if they weren’t in that building. Just being on the Parkland campus would qualify. And at Parkland, many in that building were in no danger, nor were they aware of the killer. From the first to the last shot less than six minutes elapsed.

The study locations included shopping outlets and concerts or outdoor events which also may be very misleading because the vast majority of people in these locations during the time of an incident although able to “hear” a gunshot may not have been near the actual site. In a concert situation you could have anywhere from 20,000 to 50,000 or more people in attendance while only a small number of people may be affected by a so-called mass shooting, but under the criteria of the study could claim to have had ‘direct exposure.”

The study also apparently ignores the human tendency to want to be a part of some notorious event in even the most tangential way. Oh yeah, I was there. One would reasonably believe to be a “survivor” of a mass shooting one would need to have been in actual physical danger or even injured and recovered from their wounds. Mere proximity to an attack when one was never in danger wouldn’t qualify. It’s rather like being within 20 miles of a tornado, suffering no injury or property damage, yet claiming “survivor” status.

Locations where the study by David C Pyrooz claims 7% of the U.S. population were present on the scene of a shooting included the following:

*12.38% bars and restaurants

*12.09% schools

*11.51% shopping outlets

*11.05% concerts or outdoor events.

*34.69% of locations were vaguely listed as “a neighborhood.”

Even in a bar or restaurant, many patrons would likely have never been in danger, and the survey apparently does not differentiate between gang shootings or arguments among people who know each other that devolved into gunfire. Such events are very different from a stranger walking into a place intent on killing as many innocent strangers as possible. The rest of the places Pyrooz cited are large enough to ensure most people present were never in actual danger, and likely weren’t aware anything was happening, though in hindsight, and presented with Pyrooz’s expansive definition, could think themselves a “survivor.” And what is a “neighborhood?” What are its geographic boundaries? A block? A mile? How many people could possibly have been in direct danger? We have no idea.

Giffords reveals her real, fear-inspiring, goal with this:

In what appears to be an attempt at further perpetuating the irrational fear of guns, Pyrooz said when referring to “mass shootings,” “it’s not a question of if one will occur in your community anymore, but when.”

Fortunately, actual mass shootings remain rare. Dr. John R. Lott has proved with replicable research, between 1950 and 2019, 94% of actual mass shootings occurred in gun free zones, useful information that suggests, as Pyrooz’s does not, two functional solutions: (1) eliminate gun free zones, and (2) more widespread armament of the law-abiding.

On a different subject, if you are not already a subscriber, you may not know that we’ve implemented something new: A weekly newsletter with unique content from our editors for subscribers only. These essays alone are worth the cost of the subscription. 

Mike McDaniel is a USAF veteran, classically trained musician, Japanese and European fencer, life-long athlete, firearm instructor, retired police officer and high school and college English teacher. He is a published author and blogger. His home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.