A recent report claims gun control advocates manipulate data on adolescent shootings to push an anti-Second Amendment agenda—raising fresh concerns about how data is weaponized in public debates. While statistics can often illuminate trends, they can just as easily be twisted to fit a narrative, especially when the issue involves deeply held political views. The latest example stems from a published study that has been quickly debunked by gun rights organizations.
JAMA Study Misrepresents Firearm Data
In the June 2025 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), researchers claimed that states with stricter gun laws had significantly fewer adolescent firearm deaths than states with more permissive laws. The report boldly declared that “permissive firearm laws contributed to thousands of excess firearm deaths” among adolescents.
On the surface, the findings might appear legitimate—especially when bolstered by traditional media outlets. But as the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) quickly discovered, the study’s conclusions were based on cherry-picked and misrepresented data pulled from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The study ranked states as “Strict,” “Permissive,” and “Most Permissive” based on their level of gun regulation. Unsurprisingly, it then concluded that gun-friendly states had the highest adolescent firearm mortality rates. However, an honest analysis of the same data tells a much different story.
NSSF Reveals Flawed Methodology
The NSSF took a close look at the original CDC data using the same timeframes and mechanisms referenced by the JAMA authors. Their independent review painted a drastically different picture. In fact, the eight states labeled “Strict”—California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Illinois—had more unadjusted adolescent firearm deaths than the other 41 states combined.
This directly contradicts the claim that stricter gun laws equate to fewer firearm-related youth fatalities. The NSSF emphasized that data manipulation and selective reporting were at the core of the misleading conclusion.
“Rebuilding the data set using the same time, population, and mechanism parameters established by the authors using CDC’s data tells a different story entirely,” the NSSF said in its response.
The report’s timing also coincided with the post-McDonald era—a reference to the 2010 McDonald v. City of Chicago Supreme Court decision that overturned Chicago’s handgun ban. During this time, states that embraced gun rights actually saw lower adolescent firearm mortality rates than those that heavily restricted access.
California vs. Texas: The Real Numbers
Perhaps the clearest contradiction to JAMA’s claim can be found by comparing two of the most populous states in the country: California and Texas. California is often cited as having the strictest gun control laws in the nation, while Texas is known for vigorously defending Second Amendment freedoms.
If the JAMA conclusions were valid, Texas should have far more adolescent firearm deaths than California. But the exact opposite is true. CDC data shows that California had more youth gun-related fatalities both before and after the McDonald ruling.
This inconvenient truth exposes the deep flaws in the JAMA report and further supports the idea that gun control advocates often manipulate data to fit their ideological goals.
Gun rights organizations like the NSSF and the National Rifle Association (NRA) have long championed firearm safety and public education programs. These groups routinely lead effective initiatives that teach responsible gun ownership—especially in states that respect Second Amendment rights. Their impact is measurable, and the results speak for themselves.
Despite repeated efforts by anti-gunners to misrepresent the truth, the facts consistently support the notion that lawful gun ownership and safety education save lives. Instead of accepting misleading headlines and flawed studies, Americans should dig deeper and demand transparency.
In the battle over public opinion, facts still matter. And in this case, they fall squarely on the side of gun rights.
There’s no better way to support the 2A than with merch that speaks before you do.
The Anti Anti-2A Social Club is more than a name it’s a stand against censorship, double standards, and the erosion of our rights. Every tee, hat, and mug is a symbol of unapologetic defiance. Wear it with pride because defending your rights is a badge of honor.
Click the link below to join the club.