Leading experts in criminology, public health and law consider background checks performed by a licensed firearm dealer, law enforcement agency or other neutral third party arbiter to be the most effective way to reduce rising gun deaths, including suicides. And about 80 percent of all Americans support background checks for private sales and at gun shows. Polls show majority support for comprehensive background checks even among NRA members, but to pass common sense gun laws, lawmakers need super-owners to share in that common sense and speak out against the NRA’s more extremist positions.
The first step is redefining and reframing universal background checks as good succession planning. Only by closing the private sale loophole can super-owners ensure the safe redistribution of their valuable collections.
James Densley @theviolencepro and David Squier Jones @SquierDavid
December 21, 2018
Want Better Gun Control? Win Over The NRA’s Core Members.
Apparently, someone, hasn’t read the memo. Study after study has shown background checks do not reduce “gun deaths”. It’s a good hypothesis, but it just doesn’t work. Just as the gun owners said it would not, since, well, since at least the mid—1990s when I first got into the debates.
More likely, and the “redefining and reframing” transparent intention of deception is a good clue, these people don’t care about the failure of the background checks. They want “universal background checks” for the registration “benefits”.
Just say, “No!”—Joe]
It’s the Big Lie theory. Say it and repeat it and eventually the masses will believe or at least accept it.
You and others are doing good and essential work by pointing out the lies of the Progressives and countering with fact based truth.
I agree with James Densley.
Background checks performed by a licensed dealer, law enforcement agency, or other neutral third party arbiter are the very best way to prevent the deaths of US Border Patrol agents whenever Barack Obama and Eric Holder sell battle rifles to the Mexican mafia.
Take notice of Densley’s clever use of language to deceive the reader into concluding that actual data collected by experts supports the use of background checks. In fact he links to an article which discusses an opinion poll of gun control policies.
“Our expert survey asked dozens of social scientists, lawyers and public health officials how effective each of 29 policies would be in reducing firearm homicide deaths, regardless of their political feasibility or cost. Policies deemed both effective and popular appear in the upper-right corner of the matrix. Less popular, less effective measures fall lower down and to the left.
“The two policies ranked most effective were those requiring all sellers to run background checks on anyone who buys a gun, and barring gun sales to people convicted of violent misdemeanors, including domestic assaults. The experts were more skeptical of other much-debated proposals, including a national gun registry and an assault weapons ban. The idea of requiring states to honor out-of-state concealed weapon permits was ranked low.”
Opinion is not science. They use this same deception in support of anthropogenic global warming (which is of course a political weapon wielded for controling people, similar to infringing the right to keep and bear arms).
“In fact he links to an article which discusses an opinion poll”
And a thousand uninformed opinions STILL count as one.
It’s not, and was never, supposed to matter what people think OR what “saves lives” even.
It does NOT say “…shall not be infringed unless ‘experts’ can be convinced to say that it’s a good idea to infringe.”
Nor does the first amendment say, “Congress shall make no law…unless some people are uncomfortable, in which case Congress must make a shit-ton of laws.”
No: that’s not how any of this works at all.
The right to keep and bear arms, and the right to free speech, and all the other rights, WILL make people uncomfortable.
In fact that is one of the side benefits, when you stop and think about it. Tyrants should be very, very uncomfortable in this country for example. They clearly are uncomfortable, but they’re not so uncomfortable as to pack up and leave, or hide nearly as well as they should.
No one would have thought to have a Bill of Rights if rights weren’t under constant assault, from all angles, from some very clever people, throughout all of history. QED.
Yet here we are; we can never stop arguing statistics, which keeps us on the enemy’s playground.
In fact, in such times as crime is high, the right to keep and bear arms is most needed.
STOP TAKING THE BAIT
Let them argue that crime is high, and then we are in greater need of self protection. Let them argue that crime is low, and then there’s no “problem” they can pretend to “solve”. Let them conspire to undermine the foundations and laws of a free society, and then arrest them for their crimes against the state.
So long as that isn’t being done, we’re in decline. Regardless of who uses what argument, the criminals are taking over.
“Leading experts in criminology, public health and law . . .”
“Leading experts? What leading experts?”
To paraphrase “Raiders of the Lost Ark.”
“Let them conspire to undermine the foundations and laws of a free society, and then arrest them for their crimes against the state.”
Lyle, you are correct, they have to be brought to account, but who has standing to enforce the law when the public servants with the power to enforce the law intentionally ignore their duty? Who dares even file a writ of mandamus compelling a pubic servant to do his duty when the servant who would be named in such a writ is given such broad discretionary powers to indict or not, that one might as well save one’s money, and avoid unwelcome and illegal attention in one’s life. “Show me the man, I’ll show you the crime.” is not just a saying from the founder of the NKVD, Felix Dzerzhinsky, it has contemporary application. My tenant sent a teabag to her Congresscritter ten years ago when that was a thing to do, and she was audited by the IRS — and her income was 100% W-2 except for a small amount of bank interest.
He’s either utterly ignorant of the subject of which he speaks, or he’s knowingly lying through his teeth. Neither will convince the vast majority of gun owners. Could the NRA sue him for defamation?