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.
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.
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
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.
They may run, or they may return fire. Depends, are they there for your TV like you seemingly assume, or is it a methed up abusive ex here to "take back his kid no matter what gotdammit?" Those two situations are going to be wildly different. Hell, even if they're here to steal your shit, they don't always run especially when there's multiple, you ever hear the phrase "prepare for the worst and hope for the best?" Even if it only happens at the same rate as mass shooting homicides, it's still something one should be able to prepare for if they so choose.
Gun policy also shouldn't be based on ineffective feature bans under the pretext of mass shootings when mass shootings would be entirely unaffected. In fact one of the most well known, Columbine, the one all these fucks are copying, only used 10 rnd (or less) mags. It doesn't effect them at all, the only people who might be effected are those using it for defense who may lack the time to reload becaudr "deadly threat," so why do it then?
Most mass shootings as the law defines them aren't like Columbine. They are gang members doing drive-bys or opening fire in crowds. Reducing the number of rounds in a gun absolutely improves on this problem. It has been proven again and again in states which have passed magazine restrictions. Deaths and injuries from such events drop significantly.
For every abusive ex that uses a gun to save themselves or their child, there are multiples more who are injured or killed by their violent ex. The net gain is negative. We absolutely need stricter laws nationally to take away gun rights from violent partners, but gun rights people consistently fight against them.
I agree completely. The only feature that matters is the number of rounds a gun can fire. A gun can be fully automatic and it still won't be significantly more dangerous than a revolver if it has the same number of rounds. The second it takes to reload might not seem like much until you are the one being shot at and it gives you a second to escape.