California law banning 10+ capacity magazine

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
M

ManBearPig

Diamond Member
Sep 5, 2000
9,173
6
81
It's kinda annoying to have to keep reloading at the range, I'd prefer to have a larger magazine so I wouldn't have to do that. There's one reason.
 
Gerle

Gerle

Senior member
Aug 9, 2009
587
6
81
Oddly enough law enforcement are allowed normal capacity magazines. I guess their self defense needs are more important than other law abiding citizen's needs? Criminals won't care one way or another.
 
D

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
DCal430 said:
Explain why you need more than 10 bullets to be loaded, plan to go to a school and shoot a bunch of kids?
Click to expand...

As if limiting the number of rounds to 10 is going to make the gun as a whole that much less deadly. Hell, that just means he'll go in double-fisting.

Seriously, gun laws are stupid. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. And people who are bent on killing other people are going to do so even if guns are illegal. Also, people who want 15-round magazines are going to get them, regardless.
 
schneiderguy

schneiderguy

Lifer
Jun 26, 2006
10,801
91
91
Gerle said:
Oddly enough law enforcement are allowed normal capacity magazines. I guess their self defense needs are more important than other law abiding citizen's needs? Criminals won't care one way or another.
Click to expand...

I would love it if gun manufacturers all got together and decided to stop selling to cops in CA anything that was illegal for "regular" citizens to buy.

Barret (they make the .50BMG M82 sniper rifle) stopped selling to law enforcement agencies after they banned it in CA :thumbsup:

It would be hilarious for cops to be walking around with neutered 10 round magazines in their pistols and bullet buttons on their ARs. Maybe they'd stop supporting shitty laws under the guise of "officer safety" if those laws affected them also.
 
Last edited:
gorcorps

gorcorps

aka Brandon
Jul 18, 2004
30,741
456
126
I'm surprised you didn't know OP. I've never even lived in the state but knew. They make "CA legal" ARs as well that are modified to take 10 round magazines only. And yes... all of those parts are more expensive because there's no demand to allow them to produce many easily.
 
E

elitejp

Golden Member
Jan 2, 2010
1,080
20
81
Criminals are using more than a 15 round clip. Criminals are crimnals because they dont care about the laws. Like my Dad says who is an avid gun collector "You can pass as many laws as you want and the law abiding citizens will still be able to go through the procedure to buy and register a gun and the lawless will still have access to their guns" . The only problem is that my dad isnt allowed to buy certain guns that he could have bought 10 years ago while criminals still can.
 
R

randomrogue

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2011
5,449
0
0
See I'm all for 2nd amendment rights but the numbers don't justify large capacity magazines, assault rifles, etc. I just don't see why we need these for hunting or protecting ourselves from our government. Should the people need to turn against the government they will need the military on their side or it's game over anyways.

There's something disgusting like 30,000 gun related deaths a year and an additional 70,000 injuries. Do you honestly believe that if they didn't have a gun the death/injury would have happened anyways? There is a huge difference between using your hands to stab someone or bludgeon someone vs the separation that a firearm affords you. We are losing more people to domestic gun violence than we are to our foreign wars.

I'm all for our rights. Lets keep it to revolvers, low capacity hand guns, and hunting rifles though. Nothing fully automatic. Make sure people have to keep the ammunition and the weapon separate and locked up for safety. Have thorough licensing laws with wait lists. Be smart about it.
 
D

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
randomrogue said:
See I'm all for 2nd amendment rights but the numbers don't justify large capacity magazines, assault rifles, etc. I just don't see why we need these for hunting or protecting ourselves from our government. Should the people need to turn against the government they will need the military on their side or it's game over anyways.

There's something disgusting like 30,000 gun related deaths a year and an additional 70,000 injuries. Do you honestly believe that if they didn't have a gun the death/injury would have happened anyways? There is a huge difference between using your hands to stab someone or bludgeon someone vs the separation that a firearm affords you. We are losing more people to domestic gun violence than we are to our foreign wars.

I'm all for our rights. Lets keep it to revolvers, low capacity hand guns, and hunting rifles though. Nothing fully automatic. Make sure people have to keep the ammunition and the weapon separate and locked up for safety. Have thorough licensing laws with wait lists. Be smart about it.
Click to expand...

You don't shoot a gun at something/someone unless you want it dead. Period. Whether you're hunting, skeet shooting, target shooting, or robbing a bank, it doesn't matter. The goal is to destroy something with that gun. So, yes, if a criminal is in the act of trying to kill someone, they're going to do it whether or not they have a gun handy.

How many stabbings are there? How many slit throats? How many deaths by blunt force trauma? Guns are a tool, nothing more.

Whether or not someone wants a gun to hunt or target shoot or to just go out in the forest and unload on a few trees...doesn't matter. They should be allowed to. If they decide to use that gun to take another's life, it's not the fault of hte gun or the gun manufacturer...it's solely, 100%, the fault of the perpetrator.
 
R

randomrogue

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2011
5,449
0
0
I'm not going to try to change your mind since your only line of reasoning is "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". That's a great line. Really impressive critical thinking there.

I would suggest you at least become familiar with the issue of gun violence and then make an educated opinion on the matter.
 
Last edited:
S

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
DCal430 said:
Explain why you need more than 10 bullets to be loaded, plan to go to a school and shoot a bunch of kids?
Click to expand...
I love California logic. Guy shoots 20 people at a school; that's too many. Let's limit all future killing sprees to 10 people or less.
:awe:
 
boomhower

boomhower

Diamond Member
Sep 13, 2007
7,228
19
81
randomrogue said:
See I'm all for 2nd amendment rights but the numbers don't justify large capacity magazines, assault rifles, etc. I just don't see why we need these for hunting or protecting ourselves from our government. Should the people need to turn against the government they will need the military on their side or it's game over anyways.

There's something disgusting like 30,000 gun related deaths a year and an additional 70,000 injuries. Do you honestly believe that if they didn't have a gun the death/injury would have happened anyways? There is a huge difference between using your hands to stab someone or bludgeon someone vs the separation that a firearm affords you. We are losing more people to domestic gun violence than we are to our foreign wars.

I'm all for our rights. Lets keep it to revolvers, low capacity hand guns, and hunting rifles though. Nothing fully automatic. Make sure people have to keep the ammunition and the weapon separate and locked up for safety. Have thorough licensing laws with wait lists. Be smart about it.
Click to expand...

The 2nd Amendment says the right to bear arms. It doesn't say the right to bear arms that the govt thinks you should have. All constricting laws do is limit law abiding gun owners. Criminals don't care what the law says, hence they are criminals. No concealed carry, limited magazines, etc. don't apply to them. It just hurts law abiding citizens. The 2nd Amendment has been trampled on all across this country.

OP: If you think that's bad wait until you want an AR and get to discover the joy of bullet buttons.
 
shortylickens

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,082
136
kazaam said:
It's kinda annoying to have to keep reloading at the range, I'd prefer to have a larger magazine so I wouldn't have to do that. There's one reason.
Click to expand...

I love Virginia.

6a00e0097f1b5f883300e55452c8038833-800wi
 
B

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,365
16
0
randomrogue said:
See I'm all for 2nd amendment rights but the numbers don't justify large capacity magazines, assault rifles, etc. I just don't see why we need these for hunting or protecting ourselves from our government.
Click to expand...

The government has them, the police have them, criminals have them, so free citizens should also be allowed to have them.
 
olds

olds

Elite Member
Mar 3, 2000
50,128
781
126
BladeVenom said:
The government has them, the police have them, criminals have them, so free citizens should also be allowed to have them.
Click to expand...
What's stupid as fuck is that right next door in Arizona or Nevada, you can have them.
 
JulesMaximus

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,589
986
126
oldsmoboat said:
So, the 10 round law discriminates against poor people? Not everyone is rich like you...
Click to expand...

Most guns come with 2 magazines and they aren't that expensive. If you can afford a decent semi-auto, ammo, and range fees I'm sure you could scrape up enough for a couple extra clips. ;)

Just looked up online and you can buy spare magazines for a Glock for $22/ea.
 
olds

olds

Elite Member
Mar 3, 2000
50,128
781
126
JulesMaximus said:
Most guns come with 2 magazines and they aren't that expensive. If you can afford a decent semi-auto, ammo, and range fees I'm sure you could scrape up enough for a couple extra clips. ;)

Just looked up online and you can buy spare magazines for a Glock for $22/ea.
Click to expand...
I have tons of extra mags. I am talking about poor people. This is CA, you can't exclude them. Hell, in Texas they have government programs in place to subsidize magazines for the poor.
 
D

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
randomrogue said:
I'm not going to try to change your mind since your only line of reasoning is "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". That's a great line. Really impressive critical thinking there.

I would suggest you at least become familiar with the issue of gun violence and then make an educated opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...

So you're trying to tell me that the mere fact that guns exist is the catalyst to violence associated with guns?

If that isn't circular reasoning, I don't know what is.

Tell me, which is more dangerous and why: 1) a gun with a 10 round magazine in the hands of a criminal, or 2) a gun with a 15 round magazine in the hands of a criminal?

Here's a hint: Your answer should be "they're both dangerous, because the guy's a criminal". However, I have a feeling that's not what it's going to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom