# Brady Campaign claims **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 29, 2013, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brady-campaign-claims/657044 "2013-04-29T20:12:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2013, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brady-campaign-claims/657044/41 "2013-04-30T14:38:43Z")
> [@PatriotGrrrl](#): > > For that matter are we assuming all shootings are a bad thing? There would be no reason to assume that, given the statistic as written. I’m certainly not reading anything but at the plainest level, which includes suicides, accidental discharges, justified homicides, etc. ---
**Author:** ![esmeralda2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ccd318/32.png) [@esmeralda2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/esmeralda2)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2013, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brady-campaign-claims/657044/42 "2013-04-30T14:57:56Z")
> [@kenobi\_65](#): > > The point isn’t an attempt to quantify how many people have been shot; it’s an attempt to illustrate just how common it is for someone’s life to have been affected, in some way, by guns and gun violence. > > In my case, I can think of three people I know / knew, off the top of my head, who had been shot. If I sat and thought longer, I could probably think of a few more. > > - A grade school / high school classmate. He was accidentally shot when his father’s hunting rifle, which had been improperly stored with a bullet in the chamber, went off when my friend accidentally knocked it over in his parents’ closet – he was ~12 when this happened, and he wound up a quadriplegic, and died in his early 20s. > > - A high school friend, who tried to kill himself by shooting himself in the head with a hunting rifle. He survived, but it took years of rehab before he could effectively function in school. > > - A college friend, who was working as a cashier at Taco Bell. Just as the store was closing, a guy tried to rob the place with a handgun…during the robbery, the gunman panicked, and shot my friend in the shoulder. I knew someone in high school who was shot and killed, accidently, by his best friend when they were fooling around with a hunting rifle at home. ---
**Author:** ![esmeralda2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ccd318/32.png) [@esmeralda2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/esmeralda2)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2013, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brady-campaign-claims/657044/43 "2013-04-30T15:07:37Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > This is a group that has an agenda, after all. I don’t buy that their data collecting methods were random. They skew the statistics to lean in a manner they want them to. > > Interviewing kids from the inner cities and mixing those results with interviews from kids in different areas may give them the ratios they present, but it’s not an honest depiction of reality. > > If 25 kids in one school see the same shooting take place, and 80 kids in another school have never seen a shooting take place, there is your 1 in 4 ratio. It sounds like there were multiple shootings but in this example it was just 1 incident. They present the 1:4 ratio in an attempt to make it seem like there are more shootings involving teenagers than there actually are. I think the Brady Campaign statistics, which are believeable to me, are to point out the level of gun violence in our country. The fact is that the US has by far, of all developed nations, more guns per person and more gun violence. So it is completely reasonable that 1 in 3 people have been affectected by gun violence and 22% of teenagers have witnessed or been affected by gun violence. ---
**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2013, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brady-campaign-claims/657044/44 "2013-04-30T15:30:21Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > Like I said in the OP, the 1 in 3 claim could be statistically true, though it still is a skewed presentation. If 1 guy get’s shot and they survey only the 100 people who knew him, their survey would show that 100% of everyone asked knew somebody that’s been shot. That seems more dramatic than it really is. > But let’s move on to the second claim. _ **Nearly one in four American teens have witnessed a shooting** _. I don’t buy that. > [@TroutMan](#): > > Here’s a cite to 22% of 14-17 year olds have had exposure to a shooting (last bullet point): [http://www.victimsofcrime.org/library/crime-information-and-statistics/youth-exposure-to-violence](http://www.victimsofcrime.org/library/crime-information-and-statistics/youth-exposure-to-violence) > > Here is the specific study referenced in that link (see table 5 on page 6): [http://www.pediatricsdigest.mobi/content/124/5/1411.full.pdf](http://www.pediatricsdigest.mobi/content/124/5/1411.full.pdf) (note - PDF) > [@pkbites](#): > > 22% is closer to 1 in 5 than 1 in 4. > > Also, while they claim it was a nationally cross sectioned survey, they don’t give specifics as to where. Interviews with kids from inner city Chicago and LA are going to give different answers than those in River Hills, thus skewing the results. > > Lastly, their sampling doesn’t even scratch 1/10th of 1 percent of the population of teenagers in this country. The sampling procdure for this study is detailed [in this document.](http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/NATSCEV_methods_report.pdf) I’m not really a statistician, but it appears that they chose telephone exchanges to get a proportionate geographic coverage. As a final step, they weighted the responses by race, ethnicity, and income level to match census data. And, as other people have pointed out, the effect of sampling a small percentage of the population is pretty well understood. I don’t think critcism of their sampling methodology is really all that valid. However, it looks like the plain English of the survey has quietly morphed. The original report ([published in _Pediatrics_](http://www.pediatricsdigest.mobi/content/124/5/1411.full.pdf)) specifies that 22.2% of 14- to 17-year-olds have had an “exposure to shooting,” in their lifetime. That’s defined, apparently, by answering afirmatively to: “At any time in your life, were you in any place in real life where you could see or hear people being shot?” The same authors talk about “witnessing or hearing a shooting” in the [DOJ publication](https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/227744.pdf), but drop the “or hearing” qualifier when discussing the actual numbers (“more than one in five 14- to 17-year-olds (22.2%) had witnessed a shooting”). The Brady Campaign cites the DOJ report, but shifts “more than one in five” to “nearly one in four” and, oddly, “14- to 17-year-olds” to “teens.” So we have “22.2% of 14- to 17-year-olds have, at some time in their life, been in a place where they could see or hear people being shot” morphing into “nearly one in four American teens have witnessed a shooting.” That seems problematic to me, mostly because of “seeing or hearing” turning into “witnessing,” but also because of “\*could \*see or hear” turning into “\*did \*see or hear.” ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2013, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brady-campaign-claims/657044/45 "2013-04-30T16:02:18Z")
> [@zut](#): > > That seems problematic to me, mostly because of “seeing or hearing” turning into “witnessing,” but also because of “\*could \*see or hear” turning into “\*did \*see or hear.” I don’t think the “could”/“did” distinction plays into this. I can’t see somebody being surveyed answering “could you see the shooting” vs “did you see the shooting” any differently. If I didn’t see it, I would answer both “no.” If I did see it, I would answer both “yes.” I doubt even a fraction of a percent is answering the question in the sense of “did you have the ability to see the shooting, but didn’t” manner, if that’s what you’re getting at. The first part though, yes. By their definition, I am one of these 14-to-17 year olds. I don’t think you can live in a major US city (at least not Chicago) and not hear gunshots at some point. But it’s not “witnessing” in the way I would normally think of it, although the statement may be true by a strict interpretation. Why that nearly 1-in-4 claim bothers me, but the 1-in-3 doesn’t, I couldn’t put my finger on it. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2013, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brady-campaign-claims/657044/46 "2013-04-30T16:34:03Z")
> [@PatriotGrrrl](#): > > For that matter are we assuming all shootings are a bad thing? Was it a bad thing that the Tsarnaev brothers were shot by police? No, but then nobody expects a single number to provide a meaningful depiction of anything. That’s why there are lots and lots of numbers on the Brady site. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2013, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brady-campaign-claims/657044/47 "2013-04-30T16:58:52Z")
Self reported “data” is useless. I’d be better persuaded by a calculation using the number of Americans shot, how many people the average American knows, and calculating the likelihood that someone you know has been shot. Saying “sure I know somebody” on a phone survey doesn’t convince me of much. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2013, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brady-campaign-claims/657044/48 "2013-04-30T17:26:04Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > No, that is not true. I can also promise you that I know more about statistics than you do just based on chance alone 🙂 but not all claims fall into the realm of statistics. You can also have other huge study flaws like the tendency for teenagers to exaggerate or lie that statistics alone can’t tell you anything about. > > This is a case where fuzzy math can tell you about the plausibility of claim #2 without diving diving into sample sizes or the nuances of any individual studies. > > Let’s check claim #2 ( **Nearly one in four American teens have witnessed a shooting** ) for plausibility just by using some fuzzy math: > > **Fact #1:** There are about 90 million people in the U.S. under 20 years old give or take a few million based on my quick numbers. > > **Fact #2:** There are about 52,000 deliberate shooting in the U.S. per year (2/3rds of those are suicides). > > Let’s do the fuzzy math here. For teenagers in general to have a 1 in 4 chance of witnessing an actual shooting personally, it would take (90,000,000 people under 20 years old/52,000 shootings a year) divided by 19 years in that age range and divided again by 4. **That means that each shooting would need on average about 22 personal witnesses under the age of 20 not including older people. That also includes all the suicides (2/3rds of all shootings) and take into account any duplicate young people that witnessed more than one.** > > Conclusion: Not plausible. A large number of our teenage population simply lies on surveys. I am shocked, shocked I tell you. It has nothing to do with statistics. It simply isn’t a plausible conclusion and it shouldn’t be displayed as a real number because it obviously isn’t. Your math isn’t just fuzzy. Your underlying statistics are fuzzy too. First, there are over [100,000](http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf) fatal and non-fatal shootings a year. Second, any rational definition of the term “teenager” has to include more than the four years you are apparently using, and there are only [82 million Americans](http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf) under the age of 20 (page 4). ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2013, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brady-campaign-claims/657044/49 "2013-04-30T20:31:02Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Your math isn’t just fuzzy. Your underlying statistics are fuzzy too. > > First, there are over [100,000](http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf) fatal and non-fatal shootings a year. Second, any rational definition of the term “teenager” has to include more than the four years you are apparently using, and there are only [82 million Americans](http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf) under the age of 20 (page 4). It is a plausibility test. It won’t tell you the exact answer because that isn’t the point but it will tell you that the number specified isn’t even within the ballpark even when all of the assumptions are on the Brady Campaign’s side. Let me phase it again using your numbers (the vast majority of which are accidental shootings and suicides). Let’s assume the U.S. is composed of nothing but people under 20 (82,000,000 of them). There are 100,000 shootings of any type every year. Therefore, there will be about 2,000,000 shootings in the U.S. between the time a person is born and the day they turn 20. That means that 1 in 41 people are shot in some way in this worst case scenario. 40 out of 41 are not shot but some are witnesses to another person’s shooting. That requires that each shooting have an average of 10 personal witnesses with no overlap between the witnesses to have 1 in 4 people as witnesses to a shooting including accidental shootings and suicides. Does that sound reasonable to you? The actual numbers will be many times lower of course because these are the worst case assumptions all in the Brady Campaign’s favor and it still doesn’t pass the plausibility test. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2013, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brady-campaign-claims/657044/50 "2013-04-30T22:12:38Z")
It didn’t sound reasonable before. I was merely pointing out that your numbers were way off. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2013, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brady-campaign-claims/657044/51 "2013-04-30T23:13:58Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It didn’t sound reasonable before. I was merely pointing out that your numbers were way off. My first example was the same as the second except I roughly doubled the number of shootings to also account for all accidents based on your cite and reduced the people under 20 count from 90 to 82 million (mine was just a rough estimate). The second one was just phrased differently to be more clear. The first one included everyone under 20 as well, not just current teenagers. The numbers for the claim that 1 in 4 teenagers has witnessed a shooting just don’t work in any way, shape or form. There simply aren’t enough shooting to go around for that to be true. I think we can declare that claim firmly busted just based on known facts. The Brady Campaign shouldn’t use it because it makes them look either manipulative or stupid. I can actually believe the claim that 1 in 3 people know someone that has been shot. I know more than a few myself. That is completely different claim and only requires a very small percentage of the population who have been shot to make it true because each one will typically know many people and there is no “witnessing” requirement. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2013, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brady-campaign-claims/657044/52 "2013-04-30T23:25:40Z")
Also notice that those claims don’t match with each other. Are we supposed to believe that 1 in 4 people witness someone getting shot by the time they are 20 but the numbers only go up to 1 in 3 if we take out the witnessing requirement and expand it to everyone they know for a person’s entire lifetime? ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2013, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brady-campaign-claims/657044/53 "2013-05-01T01:47:59Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > Also notice that those claims don’t match with each other. Are we supposed to believe that 1 in 4 people witness someone getting shot by the time they are 20 but the numbers only go up to 1 in 3 if we take out the witnessing requirement and expand it to everyone they know for a person’s entire lifetime? They’re making two different points; they don’t **need** to match. The first is about the current generation of teenagers (not “people in general, by the time they’re 20”), and that 1 in 4 of them have “witnessed” a shooting – note that it may have been a stranger being shot, or, as someone noted earlier upon reading the underlying study, “witness” appears to include hearing a shooting, at which point, you likely have no idea who got shot. The second is about the broader population, and refers to actual knowledge of a shooting victim. One possible implication which one might take out of the two numbers (and which I imagine the Brady group would like you to take away) is that younger people are more likely to have been exposed to gun violence than older generations have. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2013, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brady-campaign-claims/657044/54 "2013-05-01T02:13:08Z")
> [@kenobi\_65](#): > > They’re making two different points; they don’t **need** to match. > > The first is about the current generation of teenagers (not “people in general, by the time they’re 20”), and that 1 in 4 of them have “witnessed” a shooting – note that it may have been a stranger being shot, or, as someone noted earlier upon reading the underlying study, “witness” appears to include hearing a shooting, at which point, you likely have no idea who got shot. > > The second is about the broader population, and refers to actual knowledge of a shooting victim. > > One possible implication which one might take out of the two numbers (and which I imagine the Brady group would like you to take away) is that younger people are more likely to have been exposed to gun violence than older generations have. But there are two huge flaws with that line of thinking. This is aside from the very basic fact that there aren’t enough shootings to go around to have that many witnesses no matter what (run some remotely plausible numbers any way you want and be generous to the Brady Campaign; it does not work out to the point of impossibility). The idea that hearing a gunshot is the equivalent of a shooting is completely flawed. If you hear gunfire don’t know that anyone has been shot at all. You may just live down the street from a skeet shooting range and didn’t realize it or someone may just be firing up into the air for whatever reason. It could be thousand reasons and teenagers have active imaginations. That isn’t “witnessing’” a shooting at all to me even if you knew for a fact that someone did get shot. Hearing gunfire alone does not equal someone getting shot in any case. The other problem with your comments is that violent crime has been going down since the late mid-1990’s in the U.S. and the downward curve has been steep. That should be common knowledge to an informed person but I can give you plenty of cites if you wish. All current teenagers were born when violent crime was dropping to historically low levels in the U.S. compared to previous generations. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brady-campaign-claims/657044.md?page=2)