This could be what prompted author Edgar Vilchez to write an op-ed in which he makes the case for the anti-gunner lobby to focus on younger Americans. In the piece, he trots out the usual erroneous arguments against gun ownership.

After my experience, I understood why many young people consider gun ownership. Many people, including the majority of teens, believe owning a gun will protect them. But the evidence from over half of the city’s mass shootings is clear: More guns lead to more gun violence. In Illinois, soaring firearm sales during the pandemic coincided with twice as many children killed or injured by guns and a spike in citywide domestic homicides.

These tragedies aren’t limited to Chicago. Nationwide, suicide rates are four times higher for kids living in gun-owning homes, and children are statistically more likely to die from a gun than from a car crash.

Of course, what folks like Vilchez like to avoid is the fact that multiple studies show that one is more likely to use a firearm to defend themselves than to commit a crime. Apparently, the fact that defensive gun use happens more often than homicides involving firearms is inconvenient for those who believe law-abiding Americans should not own firearms.

Nevertheless, Vilchez details how he joined the youth council at Project Unloaded, which is “a teen-powered nonprofit dedicated to changing gun culture, rather than gun laws.” He claims the group is “building local partnerships, teaching teens how to channel their digital savvy into inspiring change where they live.”

The ultimate goal is “spreading the message that guns are the problem – not the solution.”

Our latest social media campaign, Guns Change the Story, relies on MadLib-style storytelling to challenge teens to consider how everyday moments could change if a gun were present. There’s good reason to believe this approach can work. In research that informed the campaign, teens in communities deeply impacted by gun violence initially expressed interest in owning a gun. Learning about gun risks led 18% to change their minds.

Some folks might say that a more effective approach would be to focus on gun laws. But these approaches go hand-in-hand. I’m hopeful our lawmakers will exhaust all options to reduce gun use and keep people safe. But I also know that Illinois isn’t an island, and it’s unlikely that the flow of guns will stop anytime soon from Indiana, Missouri and other states that seem determined to put gun industry profits ahead of safety. Guns will remain available. But we can choose not to own or use them.

As much as I prefer that people don’t try to leverage the state to disarm the people, Vilchez’s focus on persuasion rather than solely using the government could be even more of a threat to the Second Amendment if there are not enough people who stand up to counter their arguments.

With the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, it has become much harder for the anti-gunner left to impose legislation intended to restrict the right to keep and bear arms. This does not mean they are not still trying, but it is clear that the court’s ruling has thrown a monkey wrench into their plans.

However, if the anti-gunner lobby manages to make the case to Gen Z and younger generations that they should reject owning firearms, it could easily lead to a situation in which the populace will willingly give up their gun rights. If folks like Vilchez can successfully convince younger generations that guns are the problem, the Second Amendment could be in even further jeopardy.