Our Boys Need Us, Too: The Conversation the 2A Community Is Missing
Something GIFFORDS said recently got under my skin, but probably not for the reason you would expect.
On September 18, the Department of Justice announced that its Office of Legal Counsel had concluded that the federal prohibition preventing federally licensed firearm dealers from selling handguns to otherwise law-abiding adults ages 18 to 20 cannot constitutionally be enforced. DOJ's position is that these young adults are among "the people" protected by the Second Amendment and that the government had not demonstrated a historical tradition sufficient to support excluding legal adults in that age group from purchasing commonly used handguns.
GIFFORDS immediately pushed back in several PSAs and social media posts. The gun-control organization, featuring founder Gabby Giffords and Executive Director for the org, Emma Brown, posted the video below arguing that people ages 18 to 20 account for a disproportionate share of school shootings, public mass shootings and gun homicides, and pointed to that risk in defending minimum-age laws. According to GIFFORDS' own minimum-age policy page, 18-to-20-year-olds make up about 4 percent of the U.S. population but account for 17 percent of known gun-homicide offenders.
And let's be real: those statistics are mostly highlighting young males.
Now, I'm not going to pretend troubling statistics involving young men don't exist simply because I disagree with the policy prescription attached to them.
They do exist. I'm a realist more than I'm anything else. I know how to read statistics and filter through the chaos certain organizations like to push for clicks and clout.
What bothered me was where the conversation begins...
We become incredibly interested in young men when they're 18-20, armed, angry, struggling, violent, suicidal, arrested or dead.
BUT...
Where were we when they were eight?
Where were we at ten, twelve or fifteen?
Who was teaching them how to handle anger? Who taught them conflict avoidance? Who taught them firearm safety before curiosity ever put a firearm in their hands? Who taught them that carrying a gun doesn't make them a man? Who noticed when they were struggling? Who told them asking for help wasn't weakness?
And if there wasn't a good man in their lives, who stepped in?
That is the part of this conversation I can't shake... AS A WOMAN!
The debate in Washington is about what an otherwise lawful young adult should be permitted to purchase at 18. I think there's another conversation the Second Amendment community needs to have about what we're doing for boys long before their eighteenth birthday ever arrives.
Empowerment for Her, BUT What Are We Teaching Him?
I can appreciate women's Second Amendment organizations putting an emphasis on educating young women about firearms and their rights. I really can. I think a lot of people in the industry would say that I'm "Anti-2A Women's Groups," but if you REALLY know me... I'm one of those rare women that sees the argument from all angles. I understand that can put me in a place of conflict, but one thing should be very evident: I AM VERY PRO 2A and I believe the Constitution is just as important now as it was back in the late 1700s.
ALSO: I DO NOT CARE ABOUT CLOUT CLIQUES. It's cringe.
Another thing that should be very apparent... I'm a woman. I've spent years in the Second Amendment community, and I understand why women have been encouraged to step into a space that was traditionally dominated by men, learn how to protect themselves, understand their rights, become competent with firearms, and stop believing they need someone else to do all of that for them. As an instructor, who is female, I teach mostly women.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, I think a lot of good has come from it. Women are undeniably taking over the growing numbers regarding gun ownership.
But I'm also the mother of a boy, and maybe that's why I have a hard time joining the "Girl Power" chorus when the conversation becomes almost exclusively about how important it is to reach our daughters. Somewhere in our effort to make sure girls know they have a place in the Second Amendment community, I think we've made an assumption that boys will simply and naturally find theirs.
We've become very comfortable talking about girls and firearms through the language of empowerment.
When a young woman learns to shoot, we celebrate her confidence and independence.
We tell her that knowing how to safely handle a firearm is a valuable skill and that understanding her Second Amendment rights makes her a more informed citizen.
Good. Keep doing that! BUILD THEM UP!
But I want us to think just as intentionally about what we're teaching boys.
Boys and firearms frequently enter the broader cultural conversation under very different circumstances. Young men and guns are regularly discussed in connection with school shootings, crime, gangs, suicide, aggression and violence. There are real statistical reasons young males appear prominently in some of those discussions, and those realities shouldn't be dismissed or minimized.
Acknowledging risk, however, is very different from treating boys themselves as risks.
If anything, those statistics should make us more interested in reaching boys early, teaching them well and surrounding them with responsible adults long before there is ever a crisis.
Boys Don't Automatically Know This Stuff
I think the Second Amendment community sometimes makes another mistake. We assume boys are going to learn about firearms simply because they're boys.
Dad will teach them. Grandpa will take them hunting. Somebody will eventually put a .22 in their hands and show them which end points downrange.
Except that isn't every boy's life.
Not every boy grows up with a father who owns firearms. Not every boy hunts or has a family that introduces a gun culture. Even among families where firearms are common, proximity doesn't automatically produce maturity, judgment or responsibility. Familiarity isn't the same thing as education, curiosity isn't competence, and being male certainly doesn't come with some biological understanding of firearm safety.
Yet sometimes we behave as though boys arrive "preloaded" with firearm knowledge while girls require intentional instruction.
Speaking from personal experience as a BOY MOM, they don't!
I personally grew up in a very "Pro 2A" home, with experience in hunting and sport shooting. My husband is a USAF veteran, and between us, we are very knowledgeable of ALL the things "2A." Our son... he didn't come into this world with the immediate love and appreciation of firearms, or even Constitutional knowledge of any sort. It had to be molded, and even with that influence from his father and I, it's one of the last things he things he thinks about daily. He's ten, has received the basics and safety discussions, but as far as for self-defense... he thinks there's a robot for all that. THAT'S where we are in this world, and YES! I'm fighting against it as much as I can.
Point being, OUR SONS deserve adults willing to teach them what responsible firearm ownership actually looks like, and that means teaching something much deeper than how to hit a target. It means competence without bravado, discipline without ego, restraint, safety, judgment and responsibility. It also means teaching them about their rights and what is expected of someone who chooses to exercise them responsibly.
Femvertising Exists on Our Side, Too
I've written plenty over the years about femvertising in the gun-control movement. We know the formula: Put women at the center of the message, wrap the issue in motherhood, safety, empowerment and protecting children, create an emotional identity around being a woman who cares about a particular issue, and then market the message through that identity.
But if we're willing to recognize demographic marketing when the gun-control world does it, we ought to be honest enough to recognize that the pro-gun world can do it, too.
The firearms industry and Second Amendment community discovered that female empowerment is a powerful message. We have women's shooting organizations, women's training events, women's concealed-carry campaigns, women's firearm products, women's conferences, and advertising built around the image of the strong, independent, armed woman.
Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. Women were underserved by the firearms world for a very long time. They deserve competent instruction, products that actually consider their needs, and organizations where they can learn without feeling like an afterthought. Most importantly, women deserve to know that the Second Amendment belongs every bit as much to them as it does to the guy who has been hunting since he was six.
But marketing has a funny way of turning a legitimate need into a demographic strategy. Eventually, "women need to be included" can quietly become "women are the demographic we need to reach," and those are not the same thing. And, well... that's my niché in this industry. And YES... I AM ONE OF THE BEST. (winky face, smiley face, lots of hearts and rainbows- how you doin?)
There's another version of this in the pro-gun world that bothers me even more. Some organizations and businesses absolutely do cater to boys and young men, particularly once they're old enough for more advanced firearm training, shooting sports or tactical culture. Yet even there, I've watched gender-based marketing creep in from the opposite direction, with attractive or overtly sexualized women used to sell firearms, gear, training or the broader gun lifestyle to a predominantly male audience.
I'm a grown woman... A MOTHER TO A BOY... and personally, I think it's gross. I especially don't understand its place anywhere near advertising intended to attract age-appropriate youth to firearm education or training. Also, statistics show that it's mostly OLD MEN close to retirement who fall for that mess, so MISS ME with the, "You must be jealous" hits. No! I am aware that pregnancy, motherhood and stress has expanded my booty. I know what I need to work on. YOU need to be more self aware and realize that your appreciation of a sexy chick selling guns or gun culture is your silent cry for Viagra. I'm also not a feminist, so save that comeback for a Moms Demand Action harpy.
BUT BACK TO THE POINT...
If we're trying to develop responsible YOUNG MEN, what exactly are we teaching them when responsible firearm ownership is packaged alongside sexualized images of women?
More importantly, why are we waiting that long to get their attention?
If we really want to get the ball rolling with boys, reach them before anyone needs an attractive woman, a plate carrier, a tricked-out rifle or some tactical fantasy to make firearm education look interesting.
Reach the eight-year-old who encounters a firearm at a friend's house and needs to know what to do.
Reach the ten-year-old who is naturally curious about how firearms work.
Reach the middle-schooler who is beginning to encounter conversations about guns, violence and constitutional rights online and among his friends.
Reach the teenager who needs to understand that possessing a firearm doesn't make him tougher, stronger or more masculine.
Give boys age-appropriate firearm safety education.
Teach them the history and meaning of the Second Amendment.
Teach them conflict avoidance and situational awareness.
Teach them respect for life, responsible decision-making, safe storage and what to do when they encounter an unsecured firearm.
And give those who need it a father figure.
Give them a strong male mentor who can model what responsibility, self-control, integrity and healthy masculinity actually look like. Maybe that's a father or grandfather. Maybe it's an uncle, coach, teacher, pastor, counselor, firearm instructor or community mentor. The title matters considerably less than having a good man willing to show a boy what being one actually looks like.
Then, as those boys mature, build on those lessons with increasingly advanced instruction.
Don't wait until we're trying to sell something to young men before deciding they're worth reaching.
Educate boys before someone else markets an identity to them.
Trauma Doesn't Only Happen to Girls
There's another uncomfortable piece of this conversation, and it goes well beyond firearms and it should ABSOLUTELY be mentioned.
Think about how we commonly talk about trauma involving children. Sexual assault, abuse, domestic violence, dating violence, exploitation and trafficking are often discussed publicly with girls and women at the center of the conversation.
There are legitimate reasons girls receive significant attention in some of these areas, and we shouldn't manipulate statistics or pretend otherwise. CDC's 2023 Youth Risk Behavior Survey found that 17 percent of female high-school students reported experiencing sexual violence by anyone during the previous year.
But 6 percent of male students reported experiencing it, too.
Six percent isn't the majority, but those boys still matter, especially when we are talking about certain age and gender demographics involved in firearm related issues.
Sexual violence is also only one form of childhood trauma. In a separate CDC analysis of adverse childhood experiences among high-school students under 18, 54.3 percent of male students reported emotional abuse and 29.7 percent reported physical abuse. Another 14.4 percent reported witnessing intimate-partner violence in their home, 20.7 percent reported household substance use, 21.7 percent reported living with someone experiencing poor mental health, and 13.2 percent reported having a parent or guardian incarcerated or detained.
Girls reported higher prevalence than boys for seven of the eight adverse childhood experiences measured by the CDC, so this isn't an argument that boys secretly experience more trauma than girls. They don't have to experience more for their trauma to matter.
Acknowledging boys does not require minimizing girls. A girl who survives sexual assault deserves to be seen, believed, supported and helped, and so does a boy.
A young woman struggling with trauma deserves adults who recognize the signs, and so does a young man.
Somewhere along the way, we've developed a habit of discussing human problems as though recognizing one group's suffering requires taking something away from another. It doesn't. We should be capable of recognizing statistical disparities while still seeing the people represented by the smaller number.
Because the smaller number still has names.
Those boys are somebody's sons.
What Happens When Boys Are Struggling?
The picture becomes even more complicated when we look at mental health.
Among high-school students surveyed by the CDC in 2023, girls reported substantially higher rates than boys on several measures of poor mental health and suicidal thoughts and behaviors. That deserves serious attention, particularly for girls.
But then we have to look at mortality.
Final CDC data for 2024 show firearm-related suicide was the leading method of suicide for both males and females. The age-adjusted firearm-suicide rate among males was 13.5 deaths per 100,000, compared with 2.0 among females.
Those numbers do not prove that boys and men are being ignored, nor do they tell us why that difference exists. Statistics cannot answer questions they weren't designed to answer.
They should, however, make us willing to ask questions.
That becomes particularly relevant when we consider help-seeking and treatment. Among adults with a mental illness in 2023, federal survey data show 59.3 percent of females received mental-health treatment compared with 45.9 percent of males. There are numerous factors that may contribute to differences in treatment and outcomes, and something this complicated shouldn't be reduced to a single explanation. I don't add this part to make it seem like those with mental health issues should be immediately restricted from firearm ownership. Actually, MOST individuals who live with mental health issues are NOT VIOLENT. Keep that in mind.
But when distress, treatment and mortality numbers look different between males and females, there is more to understand.
For those of us in the firearms community, that matters because a serious conversation about firearm safety cannot only be about the firearm: We have to care about the person who may someday be holding it.
Someone Is Already Doing the Work
This is one reason I have so much respect for what my friend Devin Perkins is doing through Kids to Kings, a program of Walk the Talk America.
(Devin, if you read this... YES! This article is a long time coming. Regardless of my delay, THANK YOU for the work you and your team do!)
Kids to Kings focuses on early intervention and trauma-informed education for young men, addressing complex trauma and emotional regulation before unhealthy coping patterns have the chance to become deeply rooted.
That's exactly the kind of upstream thinking I'm talking about.
We spend an enormous amount of time debating what to do once a young man is legally old enough to purchase a firearm. Programs like Kids to Kings force us to ask a better question: What are we doing while he's still becoming that young man?
Mentorship... Emotional Regulation... and Having Productive Outlets matters so much in this conversation.
Giving a boy adults he trusts matters. Helping him understand what he's feeling before anger, fear, trauma or isolation begins controlling his behavior matters.
Sometimes a boy needs a counselor.
Sometimes he needs a coach.
Sometimes he needs a mentor.
And sometimes he needs the father figure he never had.
And before ANYONE jumps on all of that as "Babying," it's not coddling boys.
That's investing in them... and THAT is where we are lacking in society and as the "2A Community."
Too often, our national conversation becomes intensely interested in a troubled young man only after something terrible happens. Suddenly everyone wants to know what he was thinking, what warning signs existed, what his parents knew, what his teachers noticed, what he posted online, how he obtained a firearm and what someone could have done differently.
Those can be important questions, but they're very late questions.
As a "Boy Mom" and a "2A Proponent," I'd rather invest in boys before we're asking those questions.
Firearm Education Has to Be Bigger Than Shooting
If we're serious about raising responsible future gun owners, firearm education cannot begin and end with teaching the rules of firearm safety and putting rounds on target. The mechanics matter, but so does the person we're developing.
Teach a boy how to safely handle a firearm, absolutely, but teach him how to handle anger, too.
Teach him how to recognize fear and how to walk away from a fight without believing he's somehow surrendered his masculinity.
Teach him that asking for help doesn't make him weak and that strength and kindness aren't opposites.
Teach him to recognize when his buddy isn't okay and to be the kind of friend who says something instead of looking the other way.
Teach him that possessing the ability to use force doesn't mean every conflict requires force, and that carrying a firearm someday will demand more self-control from him, not less.
Give him people worth looking up to.
Give him responsibility before giving him authority.
Give him confidence without teaching arrogance.
Give him a place to fail, learn, get back up and try again while the stakes are still small.
Then teach him to shoot.
That's the kind of prevention I can get behind because it isn't built around fearing firearms or fearing boys. It's built around raising competent, emotionally healthy, responsible human beings who understand both their rights and the enormous responsibility that comes with exercising them.
And this is where I come back to the debate that started this whole train of thought.
GIFFORDS looks at the disproportionate involvement of 18-to-20-year-olds in certain forms of gun violence and sees an argument for restricting firearm access among that age group. DOJ looks at those same legal adults and sees members of "the people" whose constitutional rights cannot be denied without a historical basis sufficient under the Second Amendment.
That constitutional and policy fight will continue. Is what it is.
But neither side of that legal argument relieves the rest of us of our responsibility to ask what happens before eighteen.
If young men are disproportionately showing up in some of our worst firearm statistics, then those of us who believe in the right to keep and bear arms should have an especially strong interest in raising boys who understand what that right demands of them.
Not when they're eighteen.
Long before then.
Rights Aren't Gendered
This may ultimately be the biggest reason I struggle with demographic-driven Second Amendment outreach.
The Second Amendment doesn't belong to men, but it doesn't belong to women, either.
It belongs to THE PEOPLE.
When we're talking about the next generation, I don't particularly want to raise girls who know they are "empowered" by the Second Amendment while assuming boys will somehow figure the rest out on their own. I want educated young Americans who understand what the right means and what responsible firearm ownership requires of them.
I want daughters who understand that a firearm isn't a magic talisman that suddenly makes them independent, and I want sons who understand that a firearm isn't proof of masculinity. I want both to understand safety, restraint, responsibility and their rights. More importantly, I want both to understand that possessing the ability to use force and possessing the judgment to know when not to use it are two very different things.
That's the culture I want us building. THAT is what ALL OF MY WORK has been focused on over the last decade and a half that I've been in this "community."
I'm Raising One of Those Boys
Maybe I notice all of this more because I'm a mom.
More specifically, because I'm a mom raising a son.
When I read statistics about boys and young men, "male youth" isn't some abstract demographic category to me.
I see MY boy.
I want him growing up in a culture where responsible adults teach boys, of ALL backgrounds, that strength and kindness aren't opposites. I want them to understand that firearm ownership is connected to discipline instead of ego, and the exercise of their constitutional rights is packaged with an expectation that you actually have to understand them.
I want my son to know he can protect someone and still be gentle.
I want him to know he can be strong and still ask for help.
I want him to understand that experiencing fear, hurt, grief or trauma does not make him less of a man, and that carrying those things silently until they consume him isn't some measure of strength.
And yes, I want him growing up in a Second Amendment community that sees him as someone worth intentionally teaching, not simply someone we assume will figure it out because he's a boy.
Because one day my little boy won't be a little boy anymore.
He'll be a man... and my heart is already breaking over THAT reality.
All of the things we hope to see in good men don't suddenly appear when boys turn eighteen. Responsibility doesn't magically arrive with adulthood. Neither do judgment, restraint, compassion, courage or integrity.
Somebody has to teach those things.
Somebody has to model them.
Somebody has to care enough about boys while they're still boys to help them become the men we're always complaining there aren't enough of.
We've spent years telling young women they belong in the firearms community, and I'm glad we have. Keep teaching them, empowering them, and making room for them.
But while we're doing that, look at our boys.
Really look at them.
They need education and responsibility. They need mentors and good examples. Some need a father figure. Sometimes they need help, and they need to know that asking for it doesn't diminish them.
THEY NEED SPACES, TOO!
Most of all, they need adults willing to see them and reach them before the rest of the world only notices them when something has gone terribly wrong.
If we're concerned about the man at eighteen, then we damn well better care about the boy at eight. Do NOT let the messaging from gun control organizations like GIFFORD'S, Moms Demand/Everytown, Brady, et al... ruin OUR BOYS.
Additional resources:
Comments