[Jeff Higgins]

Just a few years ago here in the Seattle area, and I assume nationwide, an anti-gun group purchased some billboard space. On these billboards were photographs of small children, averaging perhaps 6-8 years old. The billboard quoted statistics on how many "children" were killed every year by gun violence. The NRA looked into the source quoted and discovered that "children" used to compile the quoted statistics were up to 21 years old. Some very large percentage of the "children" killed by guns were inner city youth between the ages of 18 to 21 involved in gang activity and the drug trade. Why did the billboard not accurately reflect the true make-up of the population actually used to compile the data? Why did they choose to plaster the faces of cute young children on the billboard rather than the older drug dealing gang bangers that make up the majority of the gun related deaths in their data? Out of the 10 to 12 "children" shown, to be an accurate reflection of the real population, only one should have been so young and cute and heart-wrenching. I'm not say that the older gang-bangers' lives are worth any less, and that their deaths are any less of a tragedy. Apparently, though, this particular anti-gun group felt they did not have the same "sympathy factor" and chose not to display the real faces behind the statistics.