this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023

497 points (97.2% liked)

News

36965 readers

2023 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

497

Federal judge again strikes down California law banning gun magazines of more than 10 rounds (apnews.com)

submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

575 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 2 years ago (4 children)

“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.

[–] Liz@midwest.social 14 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[+] JustZ@lemmy.world -9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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?

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago

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

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

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] trafficnab@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Did you know that owning a car makes you exponentially more likely to die in a car accident?

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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?

[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Those shifting goalposts make quite the sound.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 1 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] nBodyProblem@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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?

[–] KillAllPoorPeople@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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?

[–] BaldProphet@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago

I don't agree with the premise that the government can be better armed than me in peacetime. Disarm the cops.

[–] nBodyProblem@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

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.