California cannot ban gun owners from having detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, a federal judge ruled Friday.
The decision from U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez won’t take effect immediately. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, has already filed a notice to appeal the ruling. The ban is likely to remain in effect while the case is still pending.
This is the second time Benitez has struck down California’s law banning certain types of magazines. The first time he struck it down — way back in 2017 — an appeals court ended up reversing his decision.
Yeah, how are Americans meant to shoot and kill the 11 intruders that come into their bedroom at night as they sleep if their AR-15 mag is limited to 10 rounds.
Good to see common sense prevail. Now to lift the ban on belt fed firearms so Americans can really live free (or at least those who aren’t brown, black, female, queer, progressive, poor or school children).
Skill issue. Line them up so you kill multiple targets with 1 round, and learn how to reload faster.
my man doesn’t affix a bayonet and it shows
Killing them is not the problem, dropping them before they and their pack successfully charge you is the bigger problem
Gun rights are also trans rights. And gay rights. It’s also veeeeeeeeeery interesting how interested the state is in making sure that certain groups of people aren’t armed, e.g., black and brown people.
I’m guessing that you haven’t heard of The Pink Pistols or Operation Blazing Sword, or heard the saying, “armed queers bash back”. You might be vaguely aware that MLK Jr. was denied the right to a pistol permit (back when many states in the south had ‘may issue’ laws, rather than ‘shall issue’), and as a result was usually surrounded by people that were armed, because this non-violent stuff’ll get you killed.
Trans and gay people would be a whole hell of a lot safer if the people who wanted to kill them were unarmed.
Unfortunately, you will literally never be able to guarantee that.
Plenty of other countries manage to do it.
Sure. But they aren’t, and they can’t be legally disarmed. And the cops aren’t on the side of LGBTQ people. So LGBTQ people better get strapped and trained, because no one else is going to be looking out for them.
I’m gonna be honest here. That is an extremely American comment. You guys aren’t exactly the pinnacle of LGBT rights. Far more trans people are killed by guns than save themselves thanks to a gun. Defending guns is killing people and visible minorities are the most at risk.
What states do you think are the best for LGBT people and how do you think their guns culture is like? And why would you think more guns are the solution when countries like Canada so inarguably better than you at this without the guns (we’re still very flawed and have a long way to go, but I’m so glad I’m not American and feel bad for my LGBT friends in the US)?
And why focus on homicides when suicide is by far the bigger cause of death? Trans people are at considerably higher risk of suicide and owning a gun is strongly linked to increased chance of successfully commiting suicide. To be clear, the real solution we need is cultural acceptance because studies show that having an accepting environment massively reduces the suicide risk, but access to guns 100% makes it worse!
I know there’s something about having access to a means to protect yourself that gives some measure of psychological safety. But studies are at best inconclusive or at worst straight up say you’re more likely to be killed if you own a gun, so there is no real safety. And I assure you that an even better way to feel safe is to reduce how many guns other people have.
Again, I’m sorry for being so blunt. I know you mean well. But I think opinions like yours are literally killing people. I expect conservatives to love guns and I don’t think anything will convince them, but I do think people like you can be convinced otherwise.
That’s likely because I’m an American, living in the US, and subject to US laws and court rulings. Like the one that you’re commenting on.
Sounds to me like more trans people need to get strapped, because the cops sure as fuck don’t care about them. I’m guessing that you’ve avoided reading about anarchists and groups like the various John Brown Gun Clubs defending drag queen story hours and groups feeding homeless people?
Well, I certainly wouldn’t vote for Texas or Florida. But I also wouldn’t vote for Illinois, because I’ve known queer people in Chicago that have been the victims of attacks, and I’ve seen just how few fucks the cops give. Here’s the blunt truth: cops aren’t going to save LGBTQ people, because cops are on the side of the people hurting them. The sad truth is that queer people need to be able to protect themselves, and that means having access to lethal force.
Yes, absolutely. But magazine capacity is irrelevant to suicide. But again - the problem isn’t the gun itself, the problem is that LGBTQ people are treated like shit by a society that largely doesn’t care about them. Removing guns doesn’t remove their misery. Fix the real problem, and the suicides fix themselves. (And yeah, we’ve got social and fiscal conservatives preventing solving the real problems too.)
How many cases of defensive gun use are there annually in the US? The most conservative estimates are around 1.5M. How many lives are saved as a result of defensive gun use? That’s the real question, and there’s no way to answer it, since you can’t possibly know if someone would have definitely, 100% died if they hadn’t had a firearm to protect themselves.
Considering the armed attackers have guns themselves and not every shot you make is going to be a cool john wick™ shot through their eye, they may take multiple rounds and you may miss one while they’re shooting back at you, yeah that’s exactly when you need standard capacity magazines.
What, do you think this is for people shooting a bunch of unarmed pedestrians in a tight space with poor egress paths? Magazines are quick to reload if you aren’t being actively shot at, it’s trivial for them to “press button, grab other mag from wherever it was staged, slap in, charge round, and go” takes about 2sec if you’re untrained, fraction of a second if you practiced in your room for a month with your gear and these fuckfaces plan their shit for months, they have the time. Look up a couple videos on reloading anything with a detachable magazine, mag bans are meaningless.
Long drawn out gunfights are just more John Wick stuff. More than 90% of self defense gun uses fire fewer than 3 shots. A gun with 6 shots is more than enough for any civilian situation.
Well, that stat was completely made up by you. Especially with anemic handgun rounds people can take a lot of shots before they flee or go down, depending on caliber, motivation of the attacker, what drugs are in their bloodstream, and the anatomical significance of the shots (or them being on target at all.) There’s plenty of videos that show people taking 10+ rounds before they stop attacking. The actual stat is that civilians (unlike police) are unlikely to reload in defensive encounters and so do fire less but it still may need to be more than 6 in many cases. (The reason may surprise you: Civilians, unlike the police, are actually responsible for what their rounds strike. The police don’t have to give a fuck, citizens do.)
I’ve done this dance before. I spend the time looking up a stat I have read before and the person I am talking to denies its validity for whatever reason. Here’s the first source I found.
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://tacticalprofessor.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/tac-5-year-w-tables.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwil2tXO8sqBAxUZGjQIHcm6AqAQFnoECAcQAg&usg=AOvVaw0cSWgFhURqReAFzl3mykgF
I know you’re not going to accept it so don’t even bother.
Those are called action movies. Not reality. In reality people run if they even see a gun pointed at them. It doesn’t even have to be loaded. The idea that you are going to need to pump 10+ rounds into a psycho monster on angel dust simply aren’t reality and should not be the basis for law. I guarantee that if you got shot with a .22 you would be laying on the ground crying like a baby.
That is indeed an interesting study, guns are even more effective for self defense than I thought. But that still doesn’t remove the possibilty that you encounter someone (or one of those groups of up to 7 mentioned in your study) that is more determined (or numerous) for whatever reason, which would necessitate a larger (standard) capacity magazine. While it may be statistically likely you’ll fire less than 10, if you do need 15 for whatever reason then statistics will be of little importance as your gun runs dry during the defense.
I was going to compile a list of incidents where more than 10 shots were required, but I’ve been really busy for the past few days, if I have time this weekend I’ll try to compile a few and edit this, but you can also do the same by just paying attention to it gouing forward (but I reccomend videos over articles if you can find them, sometimes they shoot more than they need to, articles could skew it my way.) They do happen, even if it isn’t statistically the most likely, and when it comes to life or death it helps to cheat the odds in your favor any way you can, like by carrying a reasonable amount of ammo (too much gets heavy.)
One thing that study also points out is that if people fire more than 2-3 shots,they keep firing until they empty the magazine. The problem with this is it greatly increases the odds of an innocent bystander being hurt or killed. I think we need the balance the outside chance that a civilian needs to use a high number of rounds on a target versus the chance that someone out of fear fires all their ammo and kills a bystander. The latter is unfortunately far more likely than the former from the data I have seen.
I remember a particular story from my city where a homeowner fired at a burglar who then jumped in his car and fled. The homeowner then kept firing at the car as it drove away until he ran dry. Thankfully none of the stray bullets struck a bystander but that is such a huge unnecessary risk. Civilians can panic and keep firing even after the threat has gone. Larger capacity weapons simply make this a greater risk for very little reward IMO.
Imo that balance is “if you hit a bystander you’re getting charged, so make sure to be careful and avoid prison.” Besides that, the chance to hit the bystander exists at any point a shot is fired, having less rounds and making it less effective at saving lives isn’t worth the negligible decrease in liklihood (especially when it doesnct have to be rnd 11 that hits the bystander, rnd 1 or 2 can hit just fine too). Personally I’d rather not give the two intruders with guns better odds, between them they have at least two dudes usually as per your study and the “action team” typically all has arms and at least 22 rnds loaded (10+1), I deserve 15+1 (pistol) or 30+1 (rifle) to balance it a little considering I’m the one defending, not attacking.
Yeah that happens sometimes, but in my area I’d go to prison for it. Even if the shooting was justified, once he flees continuing to fire would be seen as punitive rather than defensive and “that is the role of the court system not the citizen.” In most areas in the US that’s the case actually, but your DA may neglect to file charges on those cases because that is literally up to them (singular, gender neutral). In fact, “Steve” could do that Monday and have no charges filed, but then “Jerry” does the same on Wednesday, and the DA’s Tuesday this week was a shitshow, wife’s been on his ass and such, so Jerry gets charged for the same crime Steve didn’t even see a police station for in the same week. Much better to not go off “this one time I saw on the news a guy didn’t get charged…” and instead actually look up the laws from your area (imperative if you own guns, informative otherwise.) If your state does allow firing at fleeing felons (unadvisable even if legal, for the reasons you mentioned), you’re better served making that practice itself illegal than limiting the number of rounds they are allowed to wing wildly, that number should be “0.”
If you fire even one shot at two intruders, they are going to run. They aren’t going to stand their ground and try and kill you. Watch a few videos of home invasions. They always flee. That’s a big reason why shotguns are the preferred home defense weapon even though they usually only hold 5-6 rounds.
Even if they were there specifically to kill you, once they lose the element of surprise they will flee. They aren’t sticking around waiting for cops to show up to find out who is shooting.
Gun policy shouldn’t be based on action movies and it seems like you’ve got a bad case of confusing those for reality.
Do you have any support for this position, or is it more Works Cited: Crack Pipe nonsense?
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://tacticalprofessor.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/tac-5-year-w-tables.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwil2tXO8sqBAxUZGjQIHcm6AqAQFnoECAcQAg&usg=AOvVaw0cSWgFhURqReAFzl3mykgF
Thanks to legal gun owners and the deeply flawed systems they won’t let anyone change.
Well idk, I’d rather not deal with 5 dudes with knives without a gun, either, tbh.
Which is easier to outrun, a knife or a bullet?
I mean, if the guy is faster than me that is frankly irrelevant and I’m quickly aging as humans usually do. Or if it’s numerous guy(s), that changes it as well.
And which would you rather have to defend with, a kinfe or a gun?
If you need guns to feel safe in your own country, then you live in a shithole.
I’d rather not be stabbed anywhere tbh, my will to not be stabbed is independant from geographical location.
Going into this reply with the understanding that we both know that a perfectly legal reason for firearm ownership and use in the USA is self defence.
So with that in mind, shooting isn’t easy. And people don’t just stop because you shot them once, or twice. Just take a look at the infinite examples where actually trained professionals have had to fire multiple accurate rounds to stop a threat.
The issue isn’t with the weapons themselves (and contrary to your comment, belt fed weapons are no less legal to own than any other semi auto weapon) it’s with the restrictions to the individuals that can own them. The checks aren’t stern or thorough enough.
If you take a step out of your US centric view for a moment you’ll realise that many countries in Europe have civilian gun ownership laws permitting all the same types of rifles and pistols and shotguns as the US. With all the same standard capacity magazines/optics/accessories. And yet very little to no firearm related deaths outside of organised/gang crime.
It’s important to maintain perspective. You become extreme to the opposite then all it does is increase extremism and you achieve nothing.
Edit: downvotes. Cool. Where am I factually incorrect or haven’t added to the conversation?
Yes and no. A lot depends on both shot placement and the firearm being used. Centerfire rifles with bullets traveling more than 2200fps (roughly; some estimates say 2800fps) will stop a person much faster than a pistol, since the temporary wound cavity becomes a permanent wound cavity. But that’s going to be true for nearly any centerfire rifle, aside from old cartridges that were designed around black powder (e.g., .45-70); an AR-style rifle isn’t going to be more lethal than any other fast-moving centerfire rifle cartridge, it’s just a fairly lightweight and easy to use rifle compared to grandad’s M-1. Pistol cartridges can stop threats as effectively as rifles, but you require better shot placement, and you generally want to have defensive (e.g. hollowpoint) ammo. (There’s a reason that “failure to stop” AKA Mozambique drills are a good training tool.)
A rifle is, for an able-bodied person, easier to shoot accurately and effectively than a pistol. Part of that is because you have a longer sight radius, and part of it is because you have a shoulder brace (…and a pistol with a shoulder brace is a short barrelled rifle, which is generally illegal without the BATF gittin’ all up in yo shit). It’s pretty easy, relatively speaking, to hit a target at 100y with a rifle, and very difficult with a pistol.
Eh. Civilian gun ownership is difficult and expensive in many European countries. However, many European countries do have combined violent crime rates (defined as murder, robbery, forcible rape, and battery) significantly lower than the US. Violent crime, in general, is lower in Europe. So it’s not just that gun crimes are less likely, but that you’re also less likely to be sexually assaulted, or get jumped and beaten. There’s almost certainly something different going on in social conditions that make violent crime less likely, and that would make it less likely even if European countries had gun laws that were more relaxed.
The discussion is about the pointlessness of the magazine restrictions. I’m aware of ballistics and the ease of different systems to shoot, but since it’s not about that, it wasn’t mentioned.
And in regards to the final point, yes. That is literally what is being said.
Oh mate, I thought my instance showed on my username. I’m in the regulated land of Oz so you don’t need to tell me how better controls would help the situation out. Nonetheless, I’m familiar with firearms via growing up on farms and military service.
Agree with your points, but also I would love to see stats on successful use of firearms in self-defence vs homicides where victim was armed. Not raising that in a contentious way, just would be interesting to see whether mag capacity >10 is even a relevant factor in that situation. Most pistol mags would be 10-15, except revolvers of course so limiting capacity to 10 doesn’t really affect the outcome unless in a ridiculous situation as I outlined previous.
The FBI say the median number of shots to end a citizen involved shooting is 6 rounds. That’s a person v person shooting.
Would you still feel comfortable with a revolver knowing that there was a chance you would need to use it?
Personally I don’t agree with the concept of weapons for citizen self defence (vs people), it getting to that point is a total and systematic failure of every system in place that lead to that point; from mental healthcare, to education. Law enforcement to the media broadcast. However the topic is the US, and they are what they are at present. And it’s a legally legitimate option.
The fact that I am arguing is that magazine size is so completely irrelevant. It’s a quick fix easy sticky plaster political knee jerk, just like every other stupid and shitty ban or regulation.
The fact is that you can’t ban gun in the US. It’s just impossible. There’s too many of them that any change in law in that regard would take generations to see effect and there are too many people that live in circumstances where there is a genuine reason for ownership and use (as you know living in Australia. Drop Bears).
People in the US need to admit that the solution is from the bottom. Improving education, mental healthcare, reducing extremism, eradicating the constant divisiveness in everything, etc etc. These things have only really become real in the last 15 years against 100s of years of ingrained firearm ‘rights’. But that’s too hard. So just make a piece of plastic that’s a bit smaller than what it once was.
The overwhelming number of gun deaths that aren’t suicide are ordinary crime. Fixing the economic conditions that lead to crime would probably have the single biggest effect. Cramming tons of poor people into a small geographic area, and then ensuring that they have no realistic way out of poverty sure as shit hasn’t helped.
Extremism creates orgies of violence, but poverty creates the daily grind of violence.
I find this a weak argument. Cigarettes and ICE cars were equally if not more so pervasive, and through legislation we have seen change occur to the use rates of both of those, albeit much slower in the case of the former.
You are right in that effective gun regulation in the US will be a monumental task, but not impossible. It’s just the best time to have started was yesterday.
Cigarettes are consumable. And ICE cars are naturally being phased out for EV examples, not being banned with no alternative.
The examples are non sequitur.
I referred to them as examples of societal mainstays that have been/are being phased out generationally. But true, it’s near impossible to find a good comparison.
deleted by creator
Sounds we should get rid of those laws that ban women from owning and operating firearms! /s
If you interpret the 2nd amendment to only grant the right to keep and bear arms to members of the militia (not saying if that’s a right or wrong interpretation, but that’s a somewhat common argument I’ve seen,) there potentially is an interpretation that most women would not be included in that, because we have an actual definition of what constitutes the militia of the United States.
Section 313 of title 32 basically extends the age to 65 for former members of the regular army/navy/Marines/air force
So more or less, it would apply to members of the national guard (which includes some women) and all able-bodied men ages 17-45 (65 for former military,) and some states have laws defining a state militia that may or may not come into play.
Such an interpretation would also mean a whole lot of older men or anyone who isn’t able-bodied also wouldn’t be covered by the 2nd amendment.
I’m no legal scholar, I don’t know if that interpretation would hold any water under scrutiny, but the same could be said for a lot of laws that we’re stuck with.
And again, I’m not saying that it is or isn’t a good interpretation, it isn’t my interpretation, but it’s one that someone could potentially come up with from reading the laws as written.
This DM is following the D&D-2A edition RAW.
It is also the interpretation that has been proven in court to be incorrect. Both lingustic and historical readings demonstrate it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the right of the militia to keep and bear arms. The poster above has no grounds to stand on in arguing that women do not have a right to keep and bear arms.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod