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 information in Gifford’s anti-gun rhetoric came from an article in HealthDay, a website that claims to have been producing award-winning content since 1998 and is supposedly “the world’s largest syndicator of health news and a leading independent creator of ‘evidence based’ health content.”

HealthDay News published an article called “One in 15 Americans Have Survived a Mass Shooting, Survey Says.” HealthDay got their information from a website called JAMA Network Open, which published the study claiming to have surveyed 10,000 US adults, of which 7% reported having been present on the scene of a mass shooting. The study’s author is David C Pyrooz. David’s bio says he “received his PhD from Arizona State University in 2012 and joined the sociology faculty in 2015.”

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.”

Under these criteria, the number of people in a school at the time of a mass shooting who would qualify as “hearing gunfire” could be a very large number when only a very small number of people may have actually been in close proximity to the particular incident.

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.” According to Gifford’s and HealthDay News, everyone within the 7% of reported people being present were “survivors.” This, of course, was used for effect knowing that most people won’t actually read the study.

Anti-gun folks like to stretch the truth to try and make their claims against gun ownership. This appears to be one of those situations, and Gifford’s group couldn’t wait to use it as propaganda.

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.”

A number of studies have concluded that gun free zones may be one of the most dangerous places in America. According to data collected by John R. Lott, 94% of mass shootings between 1950 and 2019 occurred in gun free zones. Of course, the anti-gun crowd hates this fact and will always find a way to avoid talking about it. A typical strategy of the gun-control crowd is to redirect the narrative in a way that encourages the public to focus on gun fear and emotional reactivity rather than an educated, proactive approach to gun ownership.

According to HealthDay, David Pyrooz and colleagues will delve into how mass shootings affect mental health. 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.” This is obviously a tactic to induce irrational gun fear in the minds of people.

Maybe David will follow up with another study focused on the dangers of gun-free zones or the safety benefits of carrying a firearm. It’s highly unlikely. Folks like David and other anti-gun zealots rely on deaths that occur in gun-free zones to fuel their propaganda pieces and exaggerated statistics. As for Giffords, they will run with this study as long as it serves them politically, regardless of its misleading nature.

About Dan Wos, Author – Good Gun Bad Guy

Dan Wos is available for Press Commentary. For more information, contact PR HERE

Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate, Host of The Loaded Mic and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” book series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications, and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on Newsmax, the Sean Hannity Show, Real America’s Voice, and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun-rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun-owners.