Useful research

Via NRA-ILA we have Anti-Gun Researchers Undermine the Anti-Gun Narrative:

Comprehensive background checks and prohibitions based on violent misdemeanors had no effect on homicide rates in California.

The latest study published by the highly-credentialed researchers in these well-funded programs, “California’s comprehensive background check and misdemeanor violence prohibition policies and firearm mortality,” was designed to evaluate the effect of California’s 1991 comprehensive background check and prohibiting those convicted of violent misdemeanors policies on firearm homicide and suicide. The study period was 1981-2000, with secondary analysis up to 2005.

Using a synthetic control methodology, the researchers found that the comprehensive background check and violent misdemeanor prohibitions were not associated with changes in firearm suicide or homicide.

In conversational language, the two policies had no effect.

This can and must be used to block further attempts at “enhanced background checks” and eliminating existing background checks. They are a waste of resources in addition to being constitutionally suspect.


6 thoughts on “Useful research

  1. So…criminals do not buy firearms from an FFL and undergo a Form 4473 back ground check? I’m shocked!

  2. Research….anti or pro by either side is IRRELEVANT. Because the gun grabbers are not interested in facts and statistics ( and vast numbers of them aren’t bright enough to understand them anyway). They want what they want.
    And that want is based on emotion…..either the emotions of immature willfully
    ignorant sheep based on irrational fear OR the emotion of lust…the lust for
    power and control that drives the leftists running the show on that side of the
    spectrum. But research, facts, statistics, logic, reality…..ALL are irrelevant to
    gun grabbers unless they can be twisted and contorted to serve THEIR agenda.
    There can be NO discussion or compromise with the left regarding the Second Amendment and it’s starting to become quite clear that we can probably not even coexist with them.

    • That’s why they love that “coexist” theme. They know that if they can fool us into tolerating the determined enemies of Western Civilization in our midst, even in our institutions, it will eventually be too late for us and they will have won by attrition, ablation, and default.

      They of course have no intention of coexisting with us, anywhere.

      The strategy appears to be working.

      And…once we’re totally defeated we’ll still be asking ourselves, “How did it ever come to this?!? Surely we were tolerant enough! Surely we compromised enough! Surely we did everything we could do to get along and avoid conflict! Surely they can see that we are good people!?!?”

  3. If UBCs don’t work towards the stated goal (less crime) then the obvious solution is to ban guns. Because the same people that ignore background checks will obviously turn in their guns.

  4. Don’t get too excited here. First off (and yet again) this argument is based on the assumption that gun restriction laws come up out of an earnest desire to reduce crime or increase the security of the general population.

    Running with false assumptions means fighting the wrong fight, meaning it will yield poor results. We’ll have to fight that battle forever.

    War is deception, and we’re falling for a deception which says gun restrictions are for reducing crime. We’re chasing that irresistibly shiny object (“We GOT ’em this time! We GOT ’em this time!”) only to be distracted from the fight while showing ourselves to be the dullards we’re accused of being.

    We can think about it, and fully realize it intellectually, even openly admit to one another that the impetus behind “gun control” has never had anything to do with reducing crime, but we still cannot resist taking the bait and “proving them wrong” at every opportunity.

    You can prove to a leftist, beyond all shadow of doubt, that his policies have had no effect, or that they’ve had an effect opposite to his stated goals, and his conclusion, every time, will be that he therefore needs to double down. He’ll say that his efforts were ineffective because they were half measures, that he was forced to compromise, that if he can go all the way with them, THEN his leftist authoritarian policies will yield positive results.

    In short; any such conclusions from any such study only prove to the leftist that “stronger measures” are required to solve the problem.

    The “problem” at issue can be real or it can be imagined, or even knowingly fabricated– It doesn’t matter. It all works the same.

    If we don’t “GOT ’em!” on conspiracy in violations of the Supreme Law of The Land, and most especially on the bedrock principles from which it arose, we will never, ever, have “GOT ’em!”

    • Here is the way is it used.

      Person A: We need more gun control!
      Person B: Why?
      A: Gun violence!
      B: What do you propose?
      A: Universal background checks!
      B: Background checks have never been shown to reduce violent crime.
      A: We need more background checks!
      B: You more more of something that has never shown to reduce violent crime? You’re crazy. What is needed is for the resources used on existing background check to be used for something known to work, like more police and prosecution efforts in high crime rate areas.

      So… what is their response now? Do they admit they aren’t really interested in reducing violent crime?

Comments are closed.