TexasCHLforum.com

Clayton Cramer commented on mandatory background checks for all sales and their indiscernible effect here: http://claytonecramer.blogspot.com/2016 ... sense.html

He also has a link to an interesting study comparing two large states, one with mandatory background checks, the other without.

The Effect of Gun Shows on Gun-Related Deaths: Evidence from California and Texas

Clayton says one of the authors of the study favors gun control.

The study compares California (requires background check and 10-day waiting period for all firearms sales) with Texas (no background check for private sales, no waiting period, ZOMG!) from 1994-2004 and looks for changes in the homicide and suicide rates around the time of gun shows, in zip codes containing or close to gun shows. During the the study period California and Texas accounted for about 20% of the US population and over 3300 gun shows.

Some highlights:

From the abstract:

We find no evidence that gun shows lead to substantial increases in either gun homicides or suicides. In addition, tighter regulation of gun shows does not appear to reduce the number of firearms-related deaths.

In California:

For example, our findings indicate that in the average year from 1994 to 2004, there are four additional gun suicides in the entire state of California resulting from the 102 gun shows occurring in the average year. Moreover, this increase is offset entirely by an almost identical decline in the number of non-gun suicides, suggesting that gun shows influence the
method but not the number of suicides. We find no evidence to suggest that gun shows increased the number of homicides in California during our study period.

And in Texas:

But our results provide little evidence of a gun show-induced increase in mortality in Texas. In fact, we find that in the two weeks following a gun show, the average number of gun
homicides declines in the area surrounding the gun show. Aggregating across all gun shows in the state, we find that there are approximately 16 fewer gun homicides resulting from the 200 gun shows in the average year.

According to the study, Texas had nearly twice as many gun shows as California.

California needs to end killer background checks now! And hold more gun shows.

Another reason why we don't need to close the "gun show loophole" (aka private intrastate sales) is that it is not within the authority of the Federal government. Not that that ever stopped them.

You/he are preaching to the choir. We all know the facts and they're on our side. The problem is the media is on the other side and they continue to spout propaganda and lies. Say something often enough and loud enough, people start believing it. The question is how do you effectively combat it. We can all do it individually, and that helps, but they're yelling at the top of their lungs to 1000's at a time.

Aside from the hardcore antis such as the Brady bunch, I believe if the general population knew the true facts they would see through the "gun show loophole", UBC, and AW ban.

Good info!
Can use it as reference when I write to the editor/opinion page of the local paper.

lfinsr wrote:You/he are preaching to the choir. We all know the facts and they're on our side. The problem is the media is on the other side and they continue to spout propaganda and lies. Say something often enough and loud enough, people start believing it. The question is how do you effectively combat it. We can all do it individually, and that helps, but they're yelling at the top of their lungs to 1000's at a time.

Aside from the hardcore antis such as the Brady bunch, I believe if the general population knew the true facts they would see through the "gun show loophole", UBC, and AW ban.

I agree. However those on our side, with high media visibility, are not doing enough to get the truth out. I can't tell you how many times I scream at the TV when a pro gun advocate is on the news and says nothing when the moderator or interviewer uses terms as "automatic weapon," "assault rifle" or "weapons of war." They do NOT dispute the false labels at all, nor do they offer a challenge to the terminology. I think the only one I've seen do it on the MSM is Greg Gutfeld on Fox. Usually though, the majority let the host/interviewer continue to spew nonsense terminology. Also, I think the NRA needs to have a new media campaign doing so. The touchy/feely "America's safest place" ads are fine, but they need ads that specifically debunk the bogus terminology that is being used so much, that public opinion is turning against the law abiding gun owner, because they believe an AR-15 IS automatic, an assault rifle, high powered, and a weapon of war, because everyone from the media to the police are saying it, so it must be true. In another thread the Sky News commentator said it was an "assault rifle" because the police said so, so it must be true.

The first response by any pro 2A advocate to hearing such terminology should be to ask the questioner/interviewer to DEFINE assault rifle, DEFINE semi-automatic vs. automatic, DEFINE weapon of war, and when the silence occurs, explain and let the audience know they are being deceived by the media and anti-2A advocates. Just MHO.

In California,
How does a private party perform this background check? OR do you have to go through a dealer/agent to do it?

I agree. However those on our side, with high media visibility, are not doing enough to get the truth out. I can't tell you how many times I scream at the TV when a pro gun advocate is on the news and says nothing when the moderator or interviewer uses terms as "automatic weapon," "assault rifle" or "weapons of war." They do NOT dispute the false labels at all, nor do they offer a challenge to the terminology. I think the only one I've seen do it on the MSM is Greg Gutfeld on Fox. Usually though, the majority let the host/interviewer continue to spew nonsense terminology. Also, I think the NRA needs to have a new media campaign doing so. The touchy/feely "America's safest place" ads are fine, but they need ads that specifically debunk the bogus terminology that is being used so much, that public opinion is turning against the law abiding gun owner, because they believe an AR-15 IS automatic, an assault rifle, high powered, and a weapon of war, because everyone from the media to the police are saying it, so it must be true. In another thread the Sky News commentator said it was an "assault rifle" because the police said so, so it must be true.

The first response by any pro 2A advocate to hearing such terminology should be to ask the questioner/interviewer to DEFINE assault rifle, DEFINE semi-automatic vs. automatic, DEFINE weapon of war, and when the silence occurs, explain and let the audience know they are being deceived by the media and anti-2A advocates. Just MHO.

I agree to an extent. Defining terms is important, not doubt about it. However, if you know you are only going to get 3 minutes of air time, would you rather use that arguing definitions or presenting statistics?

jkurtz wrote:

I agree. However those on our side, with high media visibility, are not doing enough to get the truth out. I can't tell you how many times I scream at the TV when a pro gun advocate is on the news and says nothing when the moderator or interviewer uses terms as "automatic weapon," "assault rifle" or "weapons of war." They do NOT dispute the false labels at all, nor do they offer a challenge to the terminology. I think the only one I've seen do it on the MSM is Greg Gutfeld on Fox. Usually though, the majority let the host/interviewer continue to spew nonsense terminology. Also, I think the NRA needs to have a new media campaign doing so. The touchy/feely "America's safest place" ads are fine, but they need ads that specifically debunk the bogus terminology that is being used so much, that public opinion is turning against the law abiding gun owner, because they believe an AR-15 IS automatic, an assault rifle, high powered, and a weapon of war, because everyone from the media to the police are saying it, so it must be true. In another thread the Sky News commentator said it was an "assault rifle" because the police said so, so it must be true.

The first response by any pro 2A advocate to hearing such terminology should be to ask the questioner/interviewer to DEFINE assault rifle, DEFINE semi-automatic vs. automatic, DEFINE weapon of war, and when the silence occurs, explain and let the audience know they are being deceived by the media and anti-2A advocates. Just MHO.

I agree to an extent. Defining terms is important, not doubt about it. However, if you know you are only going to get 3 minutes of air time, would you rather use that arguing definitions or presenting statistics?

Right now, the antis are ramming "labels" down our throats, not statistics. In any case, there are 3 kinds of lies. "Lies, darn lies, and statistics." You can cite statistics till your blue in the face, and the other side will have their own set to counter yours. You tell them homicides are down, and they'll say suicide by firearms is up. But what will be their counter when you ask them to define something they know nothing about except the bogus labels the ant- 2A media and politicians are ramming down the throats of the American public by the minute, hour and day? Here are a few questions I'd ask in response to an interview:

1. What is the definition of Assault Rifle? You don't know, do you?

2. Name any military in the world that issues the AR-15 to its troops? Answer - none!

3. Why do you say " automatic and high powered" when the US Army definition of an Assault Rifle is "a short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power " The AR-15 and its clones are neither select fire nor high powered.

4. Are you deceiving the American public out of ignorance or is it willful? Again just MHO.

G26ster wrote:

jkurtz wrote:

I agree. However those on our side, with high media visibility, are not doing enough to get the truth out. I can't tell you how many times I scream at the TV when a pro gun advocate is on the news and says nothing when the moderator or interviewer uses terms as "automatic weapon," "assault rifle" or "weapons of war." They do NOT dispute the false labels at all, nor do they offer a challenge to the terminology. I think the only one I've seen do it on the MSM is Greg Gutfeld on Fox. Usually though, the majority let the host/interviewer continue to spew nonsense terminology. Also, I think the NRA needs to have a new media campaign doing so. The touchy/feely "America's safest place" ads are fine, but they need ads that specifically debunk the bogus terminology that is being used so much, that public opinion is turning against the law abiding gun owner, because they believe an AR-15 IS automatic, an assault rifle, high powered, and a weapon of war, because everyone from the media to the police are saying it, so it must be true. In another thread the Sky News commentator said it was an "assault rifle" because the police said so, so it must be true.

The first response by any pro 2A advocate to hearing such terminology should be to ask the questioner/interviewer to DEFINE assault rifle, DEFINE semi-automatic vs. automatic, DEFINE weapon of war, and when the silence occurs, explain and let the audience know they are being deceived by the media and anti-2A advocates. Just MHO.

I agree to an extent. Defining terms is important, not doubt about it. However, if you know you are only going to get 3 minutes of air time, would you rather use that arguing definitions or presenting statistics?

Right now, the antis are ramming "labels" down our throats, not statistics. In any case, there are 3 kinds of lies. "Lies, darn lies, and statistics." You can cite statistics till your blue in the face, and the other side will have their own set to counter yours. You tell them homicides are down, and they'll say suicide by firearms is up. But what will be their counter when you ask them to define something they know nothing about except the bogus labels the ant- 2A media and politicians are ramming down the throats of the American public by the minute, hour and day? Here are a few questions I'd ask in response to an interview:

1. What is the definition of Assault Rifle? You don't know, do you?

2. Name any military in the world that issues the AR-15 to its troops? Answer - none!

3. Why do you say " automatic and high powered" when the US Army definition of an Assault Rifle is "a short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power " The AR-15 and its clones are neither select fire nor high powered.

4. Are you deceiving the American public out of ignorance or is it willful? Again just MHO.

Perhaps I should have said facts rather than statistics. In that case points 2 and 3 are spot on.

It is not about gun shows or universal background checks... It is about registration to enforce the universal background check law. There is always an end game.

Once they know which gun owners own one 50 year old single shot .22 and which of us own a dozen pistols and 6-7 AR 15s... Then they know who to go after and look at their medical records for any mental issues, question their kids at school about alcohol use and domestic disputes, and who to put on the terror watch list so they cannot continue to "build an arsenal".