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.
Facts and logic make for boring argument. It’s much more effective to resort to emotion and innuendo.
After all, that’s all they’ve got.
“Facts and logic make for boring argument.”
That is true only of people who are already severely broken. To a normal person (which we’ll define as someone who’s natural curiosity and love of learning hasn’t yet been ruined) facts and logic are the most awesome things, for they help to bring us closer to understanding life, the universe, and everything.
And so, to state it once again; we have two universes, or two worlds of Man. In one world, there are lovers of lies, who find facts and logic “boring”. In the other world, the world of the seekers of truth, it is the exact opposite. Lovers of truth, the enthusiastic seekers, are bored to tears in public school and bored stiff when listening to the lovers of lies. They know immediately that it is a waste of perfectly good time.
I’d rather sit and watch paint dry than listen to a Progressive or other common criminal, for at least there may be something to learn, therein, about paint, or about the surface under the paint, and the interaction between the two. I learned all I ever needed to know about Progressives long ago—They’re evil and stupid, clever in their lack of discernment, forthright in their avoidance of truth, resourceful in their avoidance of productivity, creative in their destructiveness, enthusiastic in their desire to discourage, and determined in their quest to stop the rest of us from living our proper lives.
One looks forward to a good rousing debate, because it is stimulating and provides an opportunity to further develop one’s understanding. The other must shut down debate because he feels threatened by it. Bored? OK, bored, as one of my older relatives put it when I was a little kid, means nothing more and nothing less than you’d rather be doing something else. “Bored” is a statement about YOU– It says nothing at all about the subject or the task at hand.
At least we agree about Progressives…
And, there’s a bit of sarcasm in my first post. Just a touch.
If you want to talk about cherry picking data…. Do you realize that California used to rank near the top of all states for violent crime? http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/cacrime.htm
It’s fallen from #2 in 1993 to #18 in 2013. If none of these gun control measures work, why has crime fallen so much?
The change in rank is due to factors other than the gun laws. If restrictive guns laws did work then the studies reviewed by the CDC would clearly show that. Instead, “Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws“. And the anti-gun people could, and would, show us the data. But there is little, if any, correlation between gun laws and crime rates. This means it boils down to one of principles and a trade off of risks. Are you willing and able to eliminate a portion of the Bill of Rights in the hope of gaining a some small amount of security? Do you want to live in a society where you are dependent upon the government for your self-defense and are at risk of sliding into a police state? Or do you to preserve the Bill of Rights, have to be able to defend yourself, and have a low risk of a tyrannical government?
There has also been some fudging of the numbers.
See also this study.
Pingback: Quote of the day—Alan Korwin | The View From North Central Idaho