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.
I’m sorry, but if ten shots don’t make your attackers run away, you’re pretty fucked.
I was gonna throw in some sarcastic humor, but it keeps coming out very dark, so I’m withholding that. This sucks.
I’ve seen video of a small lady with a handgun chasing out four home intruders while taking wild, panicked shots. Yes, these guys ran, but not everyone will. Two and a half shots per intruder doesn’t sound like a fun time.
Yeah, well, sometimes your home is invaded and you get killed in your sleep. Shit happens. A gun isn’t going to stop that. You’re way more likely to use it to shoot yourself anyway.
Interestingly enough, the lady doesn’t seem to have died in her sleep - that a firearm did, indeed, stop that invasion. Weird, that.
I’m interested in seeing your sources comparing frequency of defensive use of firearms to frequency of firearm suicides. When making such a bold assertion, surely you’ve got actual data and aren’t just talking out of your ass… right?
Right?
Can you not do math? This isn’t at all in dispute. Having a gun in your home makes you exponentially more likely to be killed by a gun. You are perhaps tenfold more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder.
Did you know that owning a car makes you exponentially more likely to die in a car accident?
Very much. Cars also do lots of useful things other than kill, did you know that, or do you have a hard time with depth?
Those shifting goalposts make quite the sound.
No, the subject always had depth. That your understanding is superficial does not mean the goalpost has moved so far as you now understand what the rest of us already realized.
I see you didn’t respond to what was stated. As a reminder:
This, even before your additional questionable conclusion from what is clearly an source so unbiased you cannot taint its unbiasedness by… actually showing support for your position.
I’ll consider your criticism regarding math when you’ve polished up those reading skills.
Under this logic, why do we have exemptions for police? Why does almost every single police department issue handguns with a capacity of 15 or more?
The same way we allow cops to arrest people and transport them into a police station for booking. There are exceptions to rules. Does that not make sense to you?
I don’t agree with the premise that the government can be better armed than me in peacetime. Disarm the cops.
It only makes sense for cops to have an exemption if we first accept the premise that standard capacity magazines have utility for personal protection, and not just to shoot into crowds.
The police response to BLM riots is the perfect example of why I think it’s important for the populace to be just as well armed as the government.
Attackers do not always run away when presented with lethal force. Sometimes many direct hits are required to stop the threat. Many, many shots can end up in non-critical locations. It’s not like an attacker is allowing you to line up nicely.
PCP. Angel dust will turn someone into a borderline unkillable god. Unless you drive all 10 of those shots into their chest instantly there’s a good chance you’re fucked.
Edit: Crazy how the dude above me is positive for saying the same thing I am.