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).
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.
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
Actually a popular use for those guns is hog hunting, and you definitely want as many bullets as humanly possible when hunting hogs since they travel in packs.
My step dad shot one point blank in the face with a 9mm pistol and all it did was stun it long enough to grab a rifle.
What happened after the hog grabbed the rifle?
The police obviously arrested it for having a 30 round magazine.
Not arrested, just a warning when they realized it was one of them.
It was like the OK Corral, but with way more squealing.
Well, I don’t have a step-dad anymore, so…
deleted by creator
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.
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?
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.
Improving education, mental healthcare, reducing extremism, eradicating the constant divisiveness in everything, etc etc.
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.
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
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.
And people don’t just stop because you shot them once, or twice.
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.)
So with that in mind, shooting isn’t easy
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.
many countries in Europe have civilian gun ownership laws
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.
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.
Considering the armed attackers have guns themselves
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.
Now to lift the ban on belt fed firearms so Americans can really live free (or at least those who aren’t … female)
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.
10 USC Ch. 12: THE MILITIA
§246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
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.
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.
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.
Gay hispanic gun owner here. Your retarded.
You’re retarded.
States rights!
Wait, no not like that.
Well yes, the state has no right to infringe upon your rights, like say slavery.* Fought a whole war about that actually.
*Unless of course you wind up in the prison system, then they can infringe upon your rights, but that is also a problem.
Like slavery, but not bodily autonomy or the right to representative government or the right to not be discriminated against, or the right against infringement of property rights or …
Actually, I support all those rights, and the right to bear arms. Looks like it’s you who’s lackin’.
I wasn’t talking about you. I was talking about Republicans who definitely don’t support those rights
Correct, given it’s a constitutional right.
The constitution doesn’t guarantee magazine sizes.
The judgement highlights how they’re considered bearable arms therefore protected.
This is like saying the Constitution doesn’t guarantee a barrel on the rifle, or that it uses smokeless power or only muzzle loading muskets…go ahead and apply that same thought of yours to computers/Internet and the 1st amendment…you will argue against it.
go ahead and apply that same thought of yours to computers/Internet and the 1st amendment…you will argue against it.
The Constitution is explicit in regards to the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law…” This isn’t even remotely the case with the Second Amendment. There’s more truth to constitutionally allowing direct physical threats and defamation, which are considered not protected by the First Amendment, than there are magazine sizes, lmao.
I think what trips up a lot of people, especially Americans, is the idea of something not being black and white. Just because the First Amendment talks about speech and the Second Amendment talks about guns doesn’t mean it’s a black and white, when you have this unfettered right to speech and guns. Something being in a gray area makes Americans very confused.
Guns work fine with smaller magazines. They do not work fine without a barrel.
Edit: and I say that as someone that owns several guns. That are in a gun safe at a family members because I have kids and not a great place to store them.
Tell that to the FBI and LEOs who run double stack mags because it keeps you in the fight. Tell that to the military…hell tell that to a hog hunter…or the pregnant woman who is having to defend herself from a home break in.
Pornography is protected under the first amendment, and sharing it via the internet is allowed. Child pornography is illegal and should stay illegal. Similarly there are other forms of speech that are criminal and should stay criminal, such as death threats. I think you would agree that these are reasonable regulations on our free speech.
Here’s an example on the gun side: in the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting, bump stocks were used, allowing one man to kill 60 people and injure an additional 867 (just to confirm this is not a typo: 927 people were killed or harmed). Bump stocks were banned in 2018. The bump stock ban seems justified to me, does it seem justified to you?
No, as knee-jerk reactions to a single facet of an outlier event are absurd.
As an comparison, your highlight of child porn is due to the actual harm of actual abuse - the thing is banned because it cannot exist without traumatizing and abusing children. Your highlight of an outlier shooting is really the highlight of the potential harm of a future event - the thing might maybe be used for harm.
Most of us don’t live our lives in terror of inanimate objects or overrepresented and oversensationalized events.
Point of fact: child pornography is obscene–and not covered by 1A–even if no real people are harmed. I’d have to dig up the law (I think it dates to the mid-90s), but it’s pretty broad. Lolicon may be illegal by itself, even though drawings don’t generally cause direct harm. At least one person has been convicted of obscenity for comics, albeit not lolicon. It is *likely that even AI-generated child pornography, even though it wouldn’t involve real children, would end up being ruled obscene.
Personally, I would take your position; images and depictions of child pornography that don’t involve actual minors should not be obscene and therefore illegal, regardless of how distasteful and repellent they are.
Most of us don’t live our lives in terror of inanimate objects or overrepresented and oversensationalized events.
If you say so.
It is worth pointing out that in the Las Vegas shooting the investigation never concluded if he actually used the bump stocks. Some of the guns had them installed but with his amount of preparation and knowledge of firearms he could have just as easily modified them to be fully automatic. During the course of the investigation they specifically prohibited the ATF from inspecting any of the weapons for modifications and merely said that the use of the bump stocks was a possibility, not a fact. The bottom line is it isn’t known one way or another if he actually used them, he might have but the firing rate was more consistent than most bump firing.
You mean REGULATING guns or gun magazines violates the well REGULATED militia of the constitution? Are the caps enough for you or do I need to spell it out?
“Well regulated” in the context of the constitution clearly meant well-trained/mobilized/deployed, in an efficient and orderly manner, and should be adequately capable. This is clear if you look at it from an unbiased linguistic standpoint, and look at the usage of the phrase around the time. Words don’t constantly have the same exact meaning that we’re primarily used to, they’re a spectrum of different definitions that form, morph, and wane over time.
Plus the first/second clause in the sentence is clearly just a justification for the other 2 clauses, it’s not a directive or even the subject. That alone would make the “well regulated” part meaningless for anything other than explaining why the constitution is in place in the first place. It doesn’t give orders to “regulate” militias, or even that militias are the only things which should have access to guns in the first place.
The point of arguing against current treatment of guns isn’t to argue what the syntax or basic meaning of the amendment was, no that’s clear if you actually know what you’re talking about (and you can find plenty of actual linguists breaking it down for you), it’s to argue to what extent the amendment’s directive (disallowing infringement on the people’s right to bear arms) applies, or especially if the amendment is even beneficial or if it’s harmful to a modern America and should be amended.
Fine argument. Please also remember that militia in the context of the 2A references what is now the national guard.
No, it really doesn’t. Under Federal Law 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.If you’re an able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, a citizen or have declared an intention to become a citizen of the US, you’re part of the militia.
deleted by creator
Some people seem to have trouble with the english in the second, so I started writing it in relation to something else to illustrate how the sentence structure works.
A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.
So, in the above revision, who would you say has the right to keep and eat food, “the people” or “a well balanced breakfast?” Clearly, as “breakfast” is a concept and incapable of “ownership,” “the people” is the answer. It stays the same gramatically if you plug in “regulated militia” for “balanced breakfast” and “guns” for “food,” the first part is clarifying the reasoning for them delineating the right’s importance, the scond part is delineating the right itself and who has it.
It isn’t saying you’re only allowed to eat breakfast, it’s saying that breakfast is important, and as such, your right to keep food in your fridge/pantry and cook/eat it to your specifications shall not be hampered by the government.
The National Guard is a component of the United States Army. A militia is a civilian force and would never be deployed to fight in other countries outside of wartime.
The militia was renamed to the national guard in 1903.
Part of the militia is the National Guard. The rest is us able-bodied males aged 17-45.
Please also remember that militia in the context of the 2A references what is now the national guard.
Lol, I love how people like you just say things and assume they are true.
Also clear is that “bearing arms” was strictly a military connotation.
But hey since you’re ignoring history and rewriting to serve your ammo sexuality, might as well rewrite all of it.
Also clear is that “bearing arms” was strictly a military connotation.
Was it? Duke’s analysis of the history seems to disagree with you and your baseless claim. Interestingly enough, this is in-line with the opinion in this exact recent ruling.
But hey since you’re ignoring history and rewriting to serve your ammo sexuality, might as well rewrite all of it.
You seem to be the one rewriting history, friend.
That said… lol. That you can’t discuss a thing you dislike without seeking to disparage others - e.g. ammo sexual - highlights the worth of your contributions. Why don’t you try an actual argument, next time?
Clearly meant in your opinion.
“Well regulated” in the context of the constitution clearly meant "well-trained/mobilized/deployed, in an efficient and orderly manner, and should be adequately capable.
So not your average Joe who just wants to own a gun then?
Magazine size?
Magazines are considered arms, within the meaning of the Second Amendment, therefore protected especially from arbitrary and capricious restrictions.
No it isn’t.
Looks like the feds disagree with you.
Lol, tell me you don’t understand the constitution without saying you’re a fucking idiot. Oh wait.
Magazine size laws aren’t really effective at doing anything. Up in Canada you can’t have a rifle magazine with more than 5 rounds. However, almost all of the magazines are full size magazines that have been modified to hold fewer rounds. All of the responsible owners leave them at 5, but with a minute or two of work you could turn most of them into full size again. We don’t have mass shootings every day.
Gun violence in America is a culture issue. You’re broken.
A magazine is literally just a box of certain geometry with a spring inside it. They can be 3D printed or made by hand. No government anywhere can stop the signal. Instead we need to focus on the cultural rot that made narcissists decide it was OK to assault random strangers.
Is the magazine size restrictions the only difference between the gun laws of America and Canada?
The most effective part of our gun laws is preventing violent offenders from obtaining a license (and maybe having a license to start with, I guess).
Beyond that, almost every other part of our laws are a ridiculous dog and pony show meant to appease some group or other in some way that’s usually completely ineffective.
Exactly, it’s very hard to respect the anti gun crowd when they focus on banning things that don’t even matter beyond comfort or aesthetics. It’s just all feel good bs that does nothing but hinder the average joe
Do you know why it’s hard to respect the pro-gun crowd?
Because when a legal gun owner in Ulvade used a legally purchased gun to mutilate a room full of children beyond recognition and the entire world asked “What can we change to stop this from happening?”, do you know what their pro-gun community replied?
“I don’t know, maybe something to do with doors or mental health. All I know is that the gun laws in Texas are brilliant, if not too strict. There is nothing I would have changed and selling guns to someone with a history of rape threats and animal abuse is exactly what the founding fathers wanted”.
But yeah sorry we don’t know the intricacies of your little trinkets.
But yeah sorry we don’t know the intricacies of your little trinkets.
If you actually cared as much as you act like you do, you would educate yourself about these “little trinkets”.
it’s very hard to respect the anti-gun crowd? because they focus on banning things that don’t matter?
like focusing on red flag laws so nutbags don’t buy rifles, abusive fucks don’t keep their handguns? yeah none of that matters. you fuckwit.
it’s impossible to have any respect for the pro-dead-children crowd. you cretins deserve so much worse.
Yeah, as a leftist who likes guns for fun, survival, self defense, and theoretical political unrest… I still think it’s ridiculous we don’t have gun licenses in the US. Or a gun ownership registry.
Bans restrict freedom for everyone.
License and registration lets you maintain that freedom for most, but still restrict it where necessary (e.g. crime, mental health), and more easily track and punish those who misuse firearms.
No. Canada has a whole host of prohibitions, and restrictions. The sale and transfer of handguns was recently made illegal (source), in 2020, 1500 models of what the Canadian government deemed to be an “Assault Rifle” were banned (source), Canada has extreme restrictions on the transportation of “Restricted Firearms” (handguns are an example of this) in that, to be able to transport them, you must obtain an “Authorization to transport”, to be able to carry a “Restricted”, or “Prohibited” firearm, one must obtain an “Authorization to Carry” (unless, possibly, it is for wilderness protection (source)), and, as outlined in the Canadian Criminal Code, and the Firearms Act, there are also many restrictions on the general transport, handling, storage, display, and transfer of firearms. Not to mention that in addition to all of this, as outlined in the Firearms Act, every firearm owner must be licensed for the use of “non-restricted” firearms (Possession and Acquisition License, PAL), and “restricted” firearms (Restricted Possession and Acquisition License, RPAL), respectively. The acquisition of each of these licenses requires a 1 day course, the successful passing of both a practical, and written exam, and a background check performed by the RCMP. After filling out, and submitting one’s application, the prospective firearm owner’s application, as mandated by legislation, will sit idle with the RCMP for a 28-day cooldown period. Only after that cooldown period has completed will they begin to process one’s application, which can then take much longer depending on the speed of the government at any given time.
I can provide no guarantee that this list is exhaustive.
One of the hillbillies I know have a fully automatic M14 with a 20 round magazine from the Korean War. It was a pleasure to fire that thing.
No u
“There have been, and there will be, times where many more than 10 rounds are needed to stop attackers,” Benitez wrote. “Yet, under this statute, the State says ‘too bad.’”
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.
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.
I was gonna throw in some sarcastic humor
Good. It was probably going to be a lame reddit-joke, anyways.
I wish you people would realize you’re not as funny as you think you are.
Given the internet doesn’t really need any more assholes, what are you bringing to the table exactly?
Shocking! Another dumb ineffective gun law that was clearly never going to stand is shot down.
Really good use of political capital and money.
Simple solution: tax the ever-loving fuck out of bullets. $1000 per. Call it a “true cost adjustment.”
Only rich people deserve the right to self defense eh?
TIL the only form of self defence is bullets. Nothing else. Only bullets.
Next time you’re walking down a sketchy alley, make sure you’ve got a pocket full of bullets!
Well, better than a knife that makes you get close to an armed attacker, and they don’t make holsters for baseball bats, tasers are 60% effective and that’s the ones the police can get that we can’t, and mace is for non-deadly threats, so you should have that too, but time and place
A knife doesn’t make you come close to an attacker. You use it when the attacker comes close.
The point of self defence is to defend, not to go out of your way to kill.
Ok fair, I worded that poorly, I should have said “is only effective when the attacker gets in close enough proximity to stab, which puts you at undue risk of harm” but I didn’t think the Pedantic Police would be out, my mistake.
Well, if you can’t fight then a gun is your best option.
Can you fight?
Didn’t think so.
Well… I’m not seeing a ton of these mass shootings committed by the ultra wealthy, where are you seeing that?
Oh so you admit it? Fuck poor people!
Glad to hear you say it.
LMFAO, yeah, fuck me alright.
And me, evidentially.
deadliest mass shooting by a lone individual in U.S. history, dude was a millionaire.
We’re talking the outlier that was Vegas, right?
I’m not going to start scoring mass killings for you, the guy asked for data, there it is.
Yeah… no. You’re being disingenuous as fuck, perhaps unintentionally.
Their statement was I’m not seeing a ton of these mass shootings committed by the ultra wealthy, where are you seeing that? You provided a single reference to an outlier - seemingly aware it’s an outlier e.g. calling-out deadliest.
It’s hard to see how a single data-point - an outlier, at that - is somehow the requested data let alone ton of.
Who’s gonna shoot you if mini-missles cost a grand? Defend yourself with something else.
People don’t sell untaxed smokes and booze, huh?
And those people get arrested. What aren’t we understanding here? Selling weapons of war should be easier than smokes or booze? What kind of logic is that?
And those people get arrested.
Interestingly enough, so do those committing crimes with firearms.
Define weapons of war.
Weapons used in wartime.
So every gun.
(Well actually not)
And also every knife, they use knives too, so gotta ban those!
Because you have no other argument?
Only rich people should be allowed to shoot up malls and schools. If you only use them in self defense, bullets are worth a grand each. This is an plutocracy, and such delights of mass murder should not belong to the common man.
So if I don’t have $10,000 I can’t have a full mag with which to defend myself? $15,000 for one standard capacity at that?
Yeah, “only rich people can defend themselves, you poors don’t deserve to live anyway.”
It’s like they’ve learned nothing from the attempted-privilege-making-poor tax that is the NFA.
the really shitty part is regulating suppressors. I wonder how cheap they’d actually be nowadays if it weren’t for the NFA.
There’s certainly an argument to be made that we’d be seeing much more innovation and availability if not for the sheer SOT sandbagging.
It continues to blow my mind that basic hearing protection is somehow restricted especially when the countries the restrict/ban crowd loves comparing the US to generally consider suppressors to be essential equipment because of the sound reduction.
No only responsible gun owners deserve the right. Responsibility means underwriting yourself or with an insurer the cost of the risks posed by your toys.
Right so only rich people, got it. Gotta spend money to prove your life is worth protecting after all, if you have no money you might as well go ahead and be victimized and die, good riddance!
Toys? This is the mentality that makes reform difficult. You are part of the problem, not the solution.
There are those of us who use these tools exactly as they are meant to and really get annoyed at both the “AR at the grocery store” crowd and the “Thousand dollar bullets will show them” crowd.
I wish you the best of luck with that. Poor taxes were the strategy behind the NFA - its incredible unpopularity guarantees it won’t make it through either branch of Congress let alone both.
Thanks!
Ah yes, let’s just arbitrarily throw out the Bill of Rights and make it so that only rich people can access tools with which to protect themselves.
What a brilliantly uneducated idea. Thanks for turning my hunting season into a 3k dollar minimum adventure instead of a cheap way for me to put food on my table.
Use a bow, like a real man.
Oh fuck off. No one gives a flying fuck about your bloodlust beyond other psychos.
Lol, calm down.
Ah, I see hunting for food is now bloodlust. Completely rational take.
It literally is when we live in this day and age. If you aren’t living in a tribe somewhere, the bottom line is, you do this because you want to end something’s life.
It literally is when we live in this day and age.
I’ll be sure to inform my hunting friends we’re all full of bloodlust for our interest in filling the freezer with cheap, quality meat which also serves to provide population control for an invasive and damaging species because a rando on the Internet said so.
I feel for you and your apparent limited ability to consider other situations.
Says the guy who is vastly unaware of how many responsibly armed citizens they cross paths with on a daily basis, and who have demonstrably prevented mass shootings. You have no idea the hidden safety net you live under and yet you want it destroyed because of the few bad actors.
Yup. Yes. A few bad actors spoiled it for the rest of you. Waa waa waa…grow up. Y’all can’t figure out if guns are a hobby or a necessity, but you seem to always fall back on both points pretty quickly. It’s sad that your “interests” seem to threaten our very existence, yet you feel like you have some inalienable right to kill others. It’s extremely sad and disappointing. I suggest you grow up and find other ways to entertain yourself.
Waa waa waa…grow up.
Yikes, the projection.
Y’all can’t figure out if guns are a hobby or a necessity, but you seem to always fall back on both points pretty quickly.
Oh? I’m not sure how you interpreted their highlight of the sheer commonality of those legally carrying with no issue as either of these things.
It’s sad that your “interests” seem to threaten our very existence, yet you feel like you have some inalienable right to kill others.
I’m not sure how you feel threatened by the mere existence of inanimate objects. Even extrapolating to the action - that of homicide - I’m not sure how you’d feel threatened by such a thing, especially so disproportionately to its lack of prevalence related to the other ways you can be killed and their statistical likelihood.
I’m also not sure how you interpret the right to bear arms - repeatedly highlighted for self-defense purposes in judgements and judge opinions - as somehow an inalienable right to kill others. Unless I’m missing something, that kill others part tends to result in the offender spending quite some time in prison.
It’s extremely sad and disappointing. I suggest you grow up and find other ways to entertain yourself.
You may wish to take your own advice - you seem unable to think beyond your own preconceived and irrational views on a thing, even aside from your demonstrated inability to consider how your criticisms and suggestions might apply to yourself rather hypocritically.
And just in case you’re looking for your “good guys with a gun,” they’re all standing outside of a school, waiting and shitting their pants. It’s pathetic.
I’m not sure anyone - anyone - would argue police are “good guys”. If anything, they’re an active demonstration that those in power cannot be the only ones with firearms given the extent to which they maliciously misuse that power.
But sure - use the incompetence and cowardice of a given police department as some absurd emotional appeal.
deleted by creator
Well I think the best legislation is just heavy background checks and checkups on gun owners. Yes, you could introduce laws like this where people can just get around it or actually go deep down the the fundamental issue, which is why these mass shooters are mass shooters. Background checks and psychiatric tests are the way to go. Guns shouldn’t and can’t be illegal, make sure gun owning individuals are sound of mind enough to own them.
We’ve already done the research on mass shooters and understand how to address the problem - it’s a multi-faceted, systemic approach.
So, naturally, neither party is willing to make any progress on it.
Summarised by Chat GPT:
The article is an interview with two professors, Jillian Peterson and James Densley, who have conducted a comprehensive study on mass shooters in the US. They have created a database of every mass shooter since 1966 and interviewed some of them, as well as their families and friends. They have also talked to people who planned a mass shooting but changed their mind.
The main findings of their research are:
- Mass shooters share four common traits: childhood trauma, social isolation, suicidal thoughts and access to firearms.
- Mass shooters often have a crisis point that triggers their violent behavior, such as a breakup, a job loss or a humiliation.
- Mass shooters are not born evil or mentally ill, but rather they are shaped by their life experiences and circumstances.
- Mass shooters can be prevented if they are identified and treated early, before they reach the point of no return.
The article also discusses the challenges and implications of their research, such as:
- The need for more funding and political will to address the root causes of mass shootings, such as mental health, social support and gun control.
- The importance of changing the narrative and language around mass shooters, such as avoiding terms like “monster” or “lone wolf” that dehumanize them and obscure their motives.
- The role of the media and the public in reducing the glorification and copycat effect of mass shootings, such as not naming the shooter or showing their manifesto.
- The potential for using their database and methodology to study other forms of violence, such as domestic terrorism or hate crimes.
and psychiatric tests
I can’t see any way that this could possibly go wrong, not ever. /s
Let’s look at this on multiple fronts.
First, who is going to pay for that? Are you going to require people to pay for the ability to exercise their constitutionally-guaranteed rights? What other rights would you say that people should need to pay for in order to be able to use them?
Second, what criteria would you use to determine if someone is “fit”? A criminal background check is objective; wither you’ve been convicted of a crime or you haven’t. A psychiatric test is about an indeterminate future, an even that hasn’t happened yet. How are you going to guarantee that only people who will create a crime are being prevented from having rights, and not any other people?
Third, how do you distinguish between a protected political opinion (“the bourgeoisie need to be violently overthrown through force of arms by the proletariat”) and beliefs that have no rational basis in protected political speech (“pedophile Jews are killing people with space lasers, therefore I need to murder everyone at Lollapalooza”)? Given that involuntary commitment is already a disqualifying factor for owning a firearm, how is your proposal meaningfully different unless you are arguing that many people should not be permitted to exercise their protected rights because they might act in a criminal way at some indeterminate point in the future?
Dude I’m just saying basic stuff like people shouldn’t carry handheld people killers if they’re clinically insane or beats their spouse each night
Nice, now do Illinois.
You can fire the next bullet in a mag magnitudes faster than you can fire the first bullet in the next mag. Not only drastically lowering the rate a gunman can kill, but dissuading it in the first place
Even if this ban stays, it will only effect law abiding citizens.
Makes it so less magazines are put on the black market. Just like a total gun ban would dry up the black market. In US and Mexico.
3D printers: exist
Nobody gives a fuck what criminals and terrorists could hypothetically use, they care about what they are using, which in nearly 80% of mass shootings is a legal firearm.
“Mass shooting” refers to any shooting where 3 or more people are injured, and it usually happens in areas with high unemployment. Kinda sounds like a class issue to me.
10rnd AR-15 .458 SOCOM mags have entered the chat
How’d that work out for the drug bans? Cause man I could buy so much weed in college (in an illegal state), and trust me I literally never asked.
I mean… if you really cared, its a few hour drive to a state where you can legally buy them. Its not a large burden, and could be done in an afternoon.
I guess they meant “total” as in total ban country wide.
Guess why Mexico has a huge problem with guns. Because they are smuggled from the USA.
And where do the criminals get their guns from?
The ATF.
Straw purchases are the main way, like 85% or more…so illegally…
Damn, sounds like gun laws don’t work then. Better change them to increase background checks and waiting periods.
Yeah and what are you wanting to regulate 3d printers and 80% lowers while your at it? gonna regulate sheet metal to prevent people from making guns?
I don’t need to, because nobody is using them for mass shootings. But sure, I will absolutely advocate laws regarding the illegal manufacturing of firearms are enforced. I’ll also laugh when people blow their hands off.
Fortunately since 3D printed guns don’t line the pockets of Republicans, lobbyists, sleazy PR companies and the people who simp for them, there should be no issue at all actually addressing the problem.
If that problem ever actually exists of course. Isn’t it just fascinating that despite the entire world having access to 3D printers, they still don’t have gun violence that’s even remotely comparable to America? All of these comments saying
It’s almost like “but 3D printers!” is just as bullshit as everything else that comes out of pro-gun groups mouths. 25 years of insisting it was doors or video games or rap music.
I don’t need to, because nobody is using them for mass shootings.
Ah, I see - you don’t care about the dead children, but rather that firearms are used to kill children. That’s really fucked up.
Fortunately since 3D printed guns don’t line the pockets of Republicans, lobbyists, sleazy PR companies and the people who simp for them, there should be no issue at all actually addressing the problem.
I’m not sure if you’re aware or not but blue team has been decrying the evils and supposed impact of these things for multiple election cycles due to their inability to actually address that perceived problem.
If that problem ever actually exists of course. Isn’t it just fascinating that despite the entire world having access to 3D printers, they still don’t have gun violence that’s even remotely comparable to America? All of these comments saying
I’d be interested in seeing you compare such countries by violence overall and then again compare them by available social support and safety nets.
It once more seems you only care that suffering involved a firearm rather than actually caring about people and their suffering.
Ah, I see - you don’t care about the dead children, but rather that firearms are used to kill children. That’s really fucked up.
Thoughts and prayers for whatever point you thought you had.
I’m not sure if you’re aware or not but blue team has been decrying the evils and supposed impact of these things for multiple election cycles due to their inability to actually address that perceived problem.
And “team red” takes $16 million a year from the gun lobby and are adamant the solutions just coincidentally align with what’s most profitable.
I’d be interested in seeing you compare such countries by violence overall and then again compare them by available social support and safety nets.
Of course you would be, because you’re looking for excuses to do nothing, especially excuses that might take decades to prove wrong.
But whatever “social support and safety nets” you find are still going to be paired with vastly better gun laws that try and balance social risk rather than protect profits.
You want a half solution that doesn’t impact you, not an actual solution.
3d printers and illegal markets
Every gun on the illegal markets was once a legal gun.
Work cited: crack pipe. You cant legally buy a glock switch, and there are plenty of exanples of glocks with switches on them (which usually come from china), and seeing as the ATF considers the switch themselves to be a machine gun, these are guns that were never legal, and yet theres an ungodly number of them on the streets
We’re not talking about guns, we’re talking about mags. Which are trivial to make.
Where do you think all black market guns come from?
Trees?
not only this, but lets be honest here, it does absolutely nothing to reduce the lethality of firearms. Even if an active shooter abides it; most people who’ve spent a modicum of time practicing can drop and replace a magazine inside of a second or two.
Also, as Upgrayedd noted… you can drive a couple hours to arizona to get them. Or, just make your own mags. it’s not hard.
I’m all for effective gun control laws… but this ain’t it.
Before anyone tries to argue if the 2A covers bullet capacity, let me introduce you to the chambers gun
Presented to the founding father’s in 1792 by its civilian inventor. 224 round capacity. Fully automatic.
The founding father’s not only KNEW about high cap autos, they are even confirmed to have seen in action this fully automatic ultra high capacity gun, and they had absolutely no problem with a civilian owning and making them.
Great, but if you need a gun to feel safe in your own country, it is a shithole.
Cool. Why are conservatives so determined to see as much murder as possible? Where does their endless bloodlust come from?
I’m a liberal gun owner.
Neither gun owners nor conservatives have bloodlust. What we do have is disdain for laws that don’t actually help the problem but just punish gun owners.
Take this 10 round magazine law. You know what is the difference between a 10-round mag and a larger one? A little rivet pin that stops you from putting in an 11th cartridge. Anyone with a cordless drill can remove the rivet and turn their 10-round mag into a bigger one. Anyone with a 3d printer can make a larger magazine. A magazine is just a box with a spring and some plastic bits. Making it longer is not rocket science.
The threat of ‘drilling this rivet is a felony’ does not stop someone who wants to commit mass murder. This law does not stop murderers or save lives. It just makes life harder for gun owners, as the pinned magazine is much harder to clean.
I’ll also remind you that the guy who shot up VA tech had a .22 pistol (pretty much the least powerful gun you can buy) and a backpack full of 10-round magazines. He complied with the law and it didn’t slow him down.
So stop accusing people of having bloodlust, and ask why they don’t support the law that seems obvious to you. You might learn something.
Tl;dr you’re a conservative cosplaying liberal.
This is the land of the free. There shouldnt be an “unless…”. If you have a problem with freedom maybe you should find a different country instead of complaining that you have too many rights.
Removed by mod
Try to see things from their perspective.
If they got suckered into buying a gun, they’re not going to admit to themselves or anyone else that it was a bad purchase.
Good.
Now downvote and cry more.
I know you really wanted to sound tough and cool but gun owners are constantly throwing tantrums about gun laws so you’re not fooling anyone.
Removed by mod
The incredible liberal skew to r/Politics has migrated from Reddit and it shows.
So much sheer irrational cope in here it’s amazing.
do you think Lemmy is exclusively populated with Americans? There’s a whole wide world out there you know, where much stricter gun laws are common and accepted across the political spectrum, do not assume anyone’s political leaning just because they’re against every Joe Schmoe packing heat
I do believe the timing of the new accounts is an able indicator.
do not assume anyone’s political leaning just because they’re against every Joe Schmoe packing heat
It’s generally more an assessment of the talking point used and coherence of the argument - you seem to be doing some assuming yourself.
He complains openly, unable to cope with seeing how things are.
He complains openly, unable to cope with seeing how things are.
I’m not sure how highlighting a problematic shift in discourse and contained cope or expressing incredulity at the shift is, somehow, an inability to cope with seeing how things are - if anything, it would be quite specifically seeing how things are and beginning discourse about how things are.
But hey - don’t let that get in the way of an attempted dunk.
