This is a Brady Campaign video (the comments are disabled—of course):
They claim that a criminal can buy a gun without a background check in Arizona and Nevada then sell it in California because AZ and NV don’t have universal background checks. This makes AZ and NV criminal paradises of some sort. But CA is a bad place for criminals because they do have universal background checks.
But if CA is such a bad place for criminals then why would criminals be motivated to sell guns there? And why wouldn’t these lifesaving background checks in CA prevent the criminals from selling guns to criminals in CA?
And if background checks make a difference in violent crime why is the 2013 violent crime rate in AZ (416.5/100K) and to a certain extent NV (603.0/100K) not all that different from CA (402.1/100K)? And why did they choose AZ and NV to talk about lack of universal background checks? Why not all states without universal background checks or maybe Idaho or Washington which in 2013 had violent crime rates of 217.0/100K and 289.1/100K? It is clear that background checks do not and cannot have a significant influence upon violent crime rates. But they do draw resources away from law enforcement that could have been used to put and keep violent criminal in prison. But facts like this are not something they want well known even though they know it themselves.
There can only be one explanation. They are attempting to deliberately deceive the public with sloppy thinking and cherry picking of data to gain support for the infringing the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. They have a demonstrated history of a culture of deception and it doesn’t appear to be changing even though they have had many changes in leadership during the last decade. I believe they know that they have to lie to have any hope of winning.