Giffords didn't have a great weekend. For one thing, we've got Larry Keane dunking on them, and then it seems that a study they pushed last week may have backfired on them.

See, they pushed a study talking about people directly exposed to a mass shooting. This is something that, to some degree, I want to roll my eyes at, but I also look at these studies all the time.

So does my buddy Dan Wos.

He took to the keyboard over at Ammoland to point out some problems with the study and how it highlighted something Giffords would rather you ignore.

The radical, left-wing, gun-grabbing group Gifford’s recently posted in X claiming that 1 in 15 adults have survived a “mass shooting.” Their post was obviously created for propaganda purposes, and further investigation into the data was necessary if for nothing else, to simply understand the source of Gifford’s latest propaganda dump. What was found was much more damaging to gun control laws than was expected.

NEW: One in 15 adults have survived a mass shooting, according to researchers from multiple universities.

It’s a startling statistic, yet it doesn’t even include the number of Americans impacted by community violence, domestic violence, and suicides.https://t.co/TpjJ2PfsLO

— GIFFORDS (@GIFFORDS_org) March 10, 2025

...

The study, called “Direct Exposure to Mass Shootings Among US Adults,” consisted of a survey of 10,000 people, which equates to approximately 0.00293% of the U.S. population. David’s study stretches to extrapolate the notion that 7% of the entire United States population or approximately 23,870,000 people have had direct exposure to a so-called “mass shooting” (incident where a minimum of 4 people were shot) in one form or another. You can believe this number if you’d like, but many are finding it a bit of a stretch, considering that the relationship between a person and so-called “exposure” to a mass shooting under David’s criteria can be a very disconnected relationship.

The study defined “direct exposure” as:

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.

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.”

It should be noted that this definition also includes pretty much every gang gunfight we've seen show up at Gun Violence Archive, which drives the numbers up. Plus, this is a survey of people, which means many may have reported false information due to their own personal politics.

Still, the gist is that people are somehow directly impacted by so-called mass shootings at this massive rate, but as Wos notes, that includes pretty much anyone who could hear the gunfire. They may have been in no danger at all, just hearing shots in the distance at a large festival or something else, and this is considered the same as having to run for your life.

But look at what else Wos noticed?

But let’s look at what this study actually uncovered, unbeknownst to the study’s author and the propagandists who pushed it onto the public.

Although the organizations pushing the study as ‘valid statistics’ attempted to use it as anti-gun propaganda in the hopes of gaining support for more gun legislation, this study exposed the dangers inherent in gun free zones.

Almost half of the locations revealed by those surveyed in the study were primarily gun-free zones in most of the country. A gun free zone is considered a location where the public is restricted by law or private business policy from carrying a firearm to protect themselves and people around them. The other half of locations which were not specifically listed, could have likely consisted of gun-free-zones as well but due to a lack of definition in the study are unable to be categorized.

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.”

Depending on the state, almost all of those could fall under the definition of a "gun-free zone." Bars and restaurants are often required to prohibit guns. Schools are gun-free under federal law. Many shopping outlets are also gun-free zones, as are concerts and other outdoor events.

Only the neighborhoods are unlikely to be gun-free, though depending on where they are, they might still fall under that criteria. For example, if they're near a school, it might be unlawful for people to carry firearms there.

So, if we're being generous here, at least 50 percent of these shootings are in places that are gun-free already. I'd argue it's probably a lot more than that, though.

Giffords wouldn't want people to know that, but Wos noticed it and pointed it out. The usual Giffords crowd wouldn't even think of it, but it's true.

And this is based on a very expanded definition of "mass shooting" that comports with the Gun Violence Archive's definition, not one used by literally anyone else. If we were to take a look at real mass shootings, I think we'd see something very different. In fact, I know we would, because as Wos points out in his piece, John Lott already looked.

He used the traditional FBI definition for mass murders which is four or more people killed in a single event, outside of the home, that isn't connected to drug or gang violence. The only variation is that he focused on those involving a firearm since that's the only kind of mass murder Giffords or other gun control groups car about.

He found that 94 percent of all mass shootings happened in gun-free zones.

So yeah, Giffords played themselves. Their much-touted study actually shows the problem with gun-free zones and not anything else.

Whoops.