dscntnt: I'm not surprised at the inconsistency
Excerpt: "Texas A&M research shows the laws do not deter crime..."
And further down: "Research demonstrates the effectiveness of a wide range of gun laws..."
In one case the law is ineffective where it respects the idea of self-defense but works well as long as it restricts guns.

Why do you expect consistency when you compare apples to oranges? you want them both red? orange?
You took two sentences out of context and truncated them to make it appear they were both referring to gun laws, when you merely concocted a duplicitous ruse, because the top referred to stand your ground laws, not gun control. Why you thought no one would check further shows your underhandedness.
Here are the two sentences in context, and how they aren't the same fruit:

"Stand Your Ground" laws passed by states in recent years change that well-established law so that citizens no longer have a duty to retreat from dangerous situations, even in public places when they can safely do so. Texas A&M research shows the laws do not deter crime and that states that have passed these laws have more murders.

Research demonstrates the effectiveness of a wide range of gun laws, including:
Background checks:
Regulation of gun dealers: State gun laws designed to regulate gun dealers, including regular compliance inspections, are effective in reducing gun trafficking.
Bans on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines:

Why don't you stop with the biased BALONEY? more 2nd amendment mythology.

They are both about gun laws. The post I linked makes the claim that, in one case a law is effective and, in a different case, another law is not effective. SYG would include cases of self-defense where a gun is used. BGCs and gun dealer laws are, you know, laws.

Here I'm left to conclude that pro-RKBA/self-defense laws are bad and don't work while gun-control laws do work. If you take the position that laws can be effective and then make claims against the ones you don't like, I just get suspicious.

I wrote: You took two sentences out of context and truncated them to make it appear they were both referring to gun laws..."

dscntnt: They are both about gun laws. The post I linked makes the claim that, in one case a law is effective and, in a different case, another law is not effective. SYG would include cases of self-defense where a gun is used. BGCs and gun dealer laws are, you know, laws.

That is nuts. You took two sentences OUT OF CONTEXT in order to mislead and make a concocted point to make it appear a gun control list was being disingenuous when it is you yourself who is a master manipulator of deception.
You even left out the term 'stand your ground law' in your OP, misleading readers that a true gun control law was being discussed. SYG is not a gun control law.

Here is your OP in it's nutshell. You were trying to present the gun control list as contradicting itself, by taking out of context two apparently contradicting views, without noting that one was gun control while the other was SYG, stand your ground law:

dscntnt's deceitful OP:
Excerpt:
"Texas A&M research shows the laws do not deter crime..."
And further down:
"Research demonstrates the effectiveness of a wide range of gun laws..."