A recent study on gun purchases and background checks shows that 20% of purchases in the last two

[flamin lib]

years were made without a background check. The gunners are all over this, saying that gun violence prevention advocates are liars. Back in 1994 a study of the same subject reported that 40% of gun purchases were without a background check so obviously we proponents of sensible gun laws were making stuff up, right? No, not so much.

So why the discrepancy between the two studies? What a difference two decades make! Since the first study in 1994 a number of states have passed universal background check laws that require private sales to go through a licensed dealer for the NICS check.

From the study abstract:

Results:
22% (95% CI, 16% to 27%) of gun owners who reported obtaining their most recent firearm within the previous 2 years reported doing so without a background check. For firearms purchased privately within the previous 2 years (that is, other than from a store or pawnshop, including sales between individuals in person, online, or at gun shows), 50% (CI, 35% to 65%) were obtained without a background check. This percentage was 26% (CI, 5% to 47%) for owners residing in states regulating private firearm sales and 57% (CI, 40% to 75%) for those living in states without regulations on private firearm sales.

http://annals.org/aim/article/2595892/firearm-acquisition-without-background-checks-results-national-survey

So, enough states have passed universal background checks to bring the reported 1994 40% rate down to 20% because states with universal background checks dragged the average down.

Of course the NRA/ILA can't admit this so they spin the new findings into an accusation of lying. They also can't admit that the average avoidance of background checks in states without universal background checks is 57%.

It's all about 'telling the truth attractively' or more to the point outright blatant lying.