Pro-gun myths busted

[The Dark Side of Will]

If registrations always equal confiscations why haven't fully automatic weapons been confiscated or non fully auto firearms in states with registries?

CT and CA have started confiscating weapons.

Also, what do you think would happen if the police found you with a fully automatic weapon that wasn't grandfathered? Do you think they'd grandfather it for you?
They'd confiscate it, obviously. ...And charge you with a Federal crime for possessing it.

[BraveUlysses]

There are still too many armed Americans to have an effective confiscation. I would only guess that if the govt tries to play that hand they'll wait until they can get them all. I'm also not saying they would confiscate as soon as a registry was implemented. It may take several generations but they are trying to lay the groundwork.

hahahahhahahahahahaha

[peter321]

Is that for cereal? The second one was hilarious: "Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0" hmm where do they happen? Oh they happen at places where authority has banned legal possession of weapons.

[ParsedOut]

If registrations always equal confiscations why haven't fully automatic weapons been confiscated or non fully auto firearms in states with registries?

There are still too many armed Americans to have an effective confiscation. I would only guess that if the govt tries to play that hand they'll wait until they can get them all. I'm also not saying they would confiscate as soon as a registry was implemented. It may take several generations but they are trying to lay the groundwork.

[smooth]

If registrations always equal confiscations why haven't fully automatic weapons been confiscated or non fully auto firearms in states with registries?

[ParsedOut]

Your entire post is completely fucking irrelevant, because:

BACKGROUND CHECKS =/= OUTRIGHT BANS

Effective universal background checks == gun registry
Gun registry == confiscations

Therefore...unless of course 2+2 =/= 4

Besides, I was using your example. Not mine.

[CorvallisBMW]

So let's go ahead and stick to the alcohol example for a moment shall we? Once upon a time, the government tried to demonize alcohol and all those who imbibed, see the parallel? Maybe not, let's keep going then. Eventually they passed an Amendment that outlawed alcohol entirely, the result was a bunch of normal law abiding citizens were required to break the law to keep their relatively harmless way of life.

Sure, alcohol causes people to ACT in certain ways and to DO certain things, but demonizing the substance itself does nothing to solve that problem. Today you are required to show ID to prove you are at a legally responsible age, same goes for firearm purchases. If your longtime neighbor comes over and asks to have some Vodka for a backyard BBQ are you required to ID him? Under universal background checks you would be legally required to go to an FFL and have a background check done to give a gun to your sibling or family member.

I'd be curious to find out how many deaths attributed to alcohol vs firearms per year, not in a place where I can bother to look it up. It's funny how the government picks their battles against the tool/substance (alcohol, drugs, guns) instead of addressing the root cause of their abuse...but then again you're not interested in talking about that.

Your entire post is completely fucking irrelevant, because:

BACKGROUND CHECKS =/= OUTRIGHT BANS

[mrsleeve]

See the 18th amendment and the subsequent 21st... That is what happens when you ban things.

[ParsedOut]

Again, here's what gun-tards just can't seem to get through their heads: requiring background checks =/= outright ban. You're required to be 21 years old and show ID to purchase alcohol at ALL points of sale, does that mean that it's been banned? Hardly.

Until you accept this most basic of facts, the whole debate is pointless, because you're not even responding to real arguments or proposals. You're responding to your own dark fantasies, which are both unrealistic and irrelevant.

So let's go ahead and stick to the alcohol example for a moment shall we? Once upon a time, the government tried to demonize alcohol and all those who imbibed, see the parallel? Maybe not, let's keep going then. Eventually they passed an Amendment that outlawed alcohol entirely, the result was a bunch of normal law abiding citizens were required to break the law to keep their relatively harmless way of life.

Sure, alcohol causes people to ACT in certain ways and to DO certain things, but demonizing the substance itself does nothing to solve that problem. Today you are required to show ID to prove you are at a legally responsible age, same goes for firearm purchases. If your longtime neighbor comes over and asks to have some Vodka for a backyard BBQ are you required to ID him? Under universal background checks you would be legally required to go to an FFL and have a background check done to give a gun to your sibling or family member.

I'd be curious to find out how many deaths attributed to alcohol vs firearms per year, not in a place where I can bother to look it up. It's funny how the government picks their battles against the tool/substance (alcohol, drugs, guns) instead of addressing the root cause of their abuse...but then again you're not interested in talking about that.

[CorvallisBMW]

According to that logic, we should just ban alcohol because drunk drivers kill people too.

Again, here's what gun-tards just can't seem to get through their heads: requiring background checks =/= outright ban. You're required to be 21 years old and show ID to purchase alcohol at ALL points of sale, does that mean that it's been banned? Hardly.

Until you accept this most basic of facts, the whole debate is pointless, because you're not even responding to real arguments or proposals. You're responding to your own dark fantasies, which are both unrealistic and irrelevant.

[ParsedOut]

According to that logic, we should just ban alcohol because drunk drivers kill people too.

Hmm, seems like we tried that before...can't exactly recall the outcome of that though.

[E30NJ]

According to that logic, we should just ban alcohol because drunk drivers kill people too.

[Ether-D]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...hat-bet-badly/

I actually lol-ed.

[BDSax]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/20/he-pointed-a-gun-at-his-would-be-victim-and-said-i-bet-you-dont-have-one-of-these-he-lost-that-bet-badly/

[The Dark Side of Will]

Right, armed psycho with a gun will automatically be thwarted by any do-gooder with a CCW amidst the chaos.

That's actually very close to what the data shows.
Armed resistance, whether or not it's lethal, or even effective (that is, may not even wound the shooter), usually ends the shooter's rampage.
The reason is that the shooter is operating in a self-reinforcing delusion of his own invincibility. When no one shoots back, that delusion is reinforced. Someone shooting back at him shatters the delusion and throws him off both his game and his planned course of action.

Armed individuals may stop a shooter here and there, but you best bet that gun is being aimed right at you as soon as you challenge them. We're talking pistols here vs. someone who's not stable and hoped up on all sorts of adrenaline, chances are they're getting off a shot or two in your direction.

Mass shooters have a notoriously bad hit percentage...
People who oppose mass shooters frequently get injured, but as mentioned above, being shot at or seriously opposed usually stops the shooter's rampage.
See the previously posted link about the effectiveness of armed bystanders stopping a mass shooting. The upshot is that unopposed shooters kill an average of 18 people, while opposed shooters kill an average of 2.3.