Federal judge again strikes down California law banning gun magazines of more than 10 rounds

News@lemmy.world – 497 points – 1 years ago

Federal judge again strikes down California law banning gun magazines of more than 10 rounds

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.

You are viewing a single comment

View all comments Show the parent comment

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?

Yes, it is a great argument, if you like anecdotal fallacies.

Which is perfectly fitting in response to an absurd, reductionist generalization.

You seem to be rather one-sided in your application of criticism.

The last refuge of the gun proponent pertains to the issue of self-defense. This is certainly a major perceived reason for the private ownership of guns. In a 1979 survey, when asked why they possessed a gun, 20% of all gun owners and 40% of handgun owners cited self-defense as the reason. It is unfortunate that these people may be operating under a delusion, having subjected themselves and their families to great danger in the guise of self-protection. One study examined the number of times a gun is used in self-defense against the risk of having a gun in the home in King County, Washington. The risks measured by the authors were the cumulation of "death from unintentional gunshot wounds, homicide during domestic quarrels, and the ready availability of an immediate, highly lethal means of suicide." The authors conclude that for every instance of a death resulting from defensive use of a gun, there were 43 gun deaths resulting from domestic fights, accidents, or suicides.

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.

you: makes statement

them: directly addresses statement

you: pivots to different statement entirely

No, that's a textbook shifting goalpost.

It's interesting you comment on depth given your demonstrated inability to engage with anything - be it arguments or your own sources - beyond the most superficial.

Understand, indeed.

I see you didn't respond to what was stated. As a reminder:

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?

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.