News judge overturns CA 10round magazine law.

[ivwshane]

Because I'm not a statistic and I have control over my own actions. I can mitigate my risk of self-harm with a gun by being safe with my guns. Foolproof? no. But over the actions of others I have no control. My only means of mitigating the risk of being the victim of violent crime is to be prepared for it. To some that means move to a safer area, or installing better locks and exterior lighting, or joining the neighborhood watch, or (*gasp*) owning a gun.

And you are totally ignoring what I said about there being many other reason more important to me for owning a gun than defending my home from invaders. Not everyone agrees that guns are only for killing people with, or inherently evil tools. Unless you can acknowledge that I don't think you came to seriously discuss this issue.

I really don't care what reasons you use to justify owning guns its just that one reason in particular, protecting oneself from an invader doesn't make any sense to me. How scared shitless must one be to have that be their main reason for having a gun in their house? I am unable to empathize.

 

[Paladin3]

Ahhhhahaha! I finally watched the video the OP linked. Interesting info, but I was looking at the cat tree in the background. I'm a cat guy and was wondering what kind of cats he had. At about the 10 minute mark I giggled like fuck when he cat came tearing through the shot!

 

[Paladin3]

I really don't care what reasons you use to justify owning guns its just that one reason in particular, protecting oneself from an invader doesn't make any sense to me. How scared shitless must one be to have that be their main reason for having a gun in their house? I am unable to empathize.

I don't need your empathy or understanding because we've got this thing called the 2nd Amendment. Funny how you think gun owners need to justify their lawful behavior. Just leave us alone. Stop trying to pass laws that fail to address the motivation of those who choose to kill, and instead only affect the law-abiding and then we'll leave you alone too.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't need your empathy or understanding because we've got this thing called the 2nd Amendment. Funny how you think gun owners need to justify their lawful behavior. Just leave us alone. Stop trying to pass laws that fail to address the motivation of those who choose to kill, and instead only affect the law-abiding and then we'll leave you alone too.

I'm not sure why you are making it personal when I'm just stating my inability to understand this particular reasoning. If you can't explain it than so be it.

As far as passing laws, I suggest you and your types figure out what laws should be passed to address the issues or you'd better get used to having your "rights" stepped on.

 

[Paladin3]

I'm not sure why you are making it personal when I'm just stating my inability to understand this particular reasoning. If you can't explain it than so be it.

As far as passing laws, I suggest you and your types figure out what laws should be passed to address the issues or you'd better get used to having your "rights" stepped on.

I take all conversations personally. I say what I think and expect others are doing the same. Sorry if I attributed the ideas you expressed to you. Are those not your ideas you typed?

And, why is it my job to stop all gun crime or the very rare instances of mass shootings that occur to enjoy my rights of lawful gun ownership? Even if there was a way to get rid of all guns in America, you can't lay the blame for the crimes of others at my feet. Do you feel a need to stop the drunk driving of others before you drive to work in the morning?

 

[Paladin3]

sorry, double post.

 

[JSt0rm]

Because a "real man" fights hand to hand?

real men dont kill people.

 

[ivwshane]

I take all conversations personally. I say what I think and expect others are doing the same. Sorry if I attributed the ideas you expressed to you. Are those not your ideas you typed?

And, why is it my job to stop all gun crime or the very rare instances of mass shootings that occur to enjoy my rights of lawful gun ownership? Even if there was a way to get rid of all guns in America, you can't lay the blame for the crimes of others at my feet. Do you feel a need to stop the drunk driving of others before you drive to work in the morning?

Lol wut?

 

[ondma]

Because I'm not a statistic and I have control over my own actions. I can mitigate my risk of self-harm with a gun by being safe with my guns. Foolproof? no. But over the actions of others I have no control. My only means of mitigating the risk of being the victim of violent crime is to be prepared for it. To some that means move to a safer area, or installing better locks and exterior lighting, or joining the neighborhood watch, or (*gasp*) owning a gun.

And you are totally ignoring what I said about there being many other reason more important to me for owning a gun than defending my home from invaders. Not everyone agrees that guns are only for killing people with, or inherently evil tools. Unless you can acknowledge that I don't think you came to seriously discuss this issue.

So what are those other reasons for needing guns? All I can really think of is target shooting and hunting. I have nothing against either, but you certainly dont need a 19 round pistol magazine or an assault rifle for hunting.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I never understood the fear people have about others breaking into their house. Unless its a thing that happens a lot in ones neighborhood, where does this fear come from?

Something like 41% of people who live in suburban neighborhoods have guns. Compare that to urban, 29% and rural 58%.

I worked with an Army guy when I was a DoD contractor, always slept with a loaded pistol under his pillow. Asked him why, he said in case someone tried to kill him in his sleep. He acknowledged that the odds of that happening were vanishingly small but he insisted he always would anyhow, because it could happen. Being that he was a SF guy he was PTSD'd a smidge (not bad, honestly) but not enough that it would justify it I don't think. More like run-of-the-mill vigilant. Only one I knew of that at least talked openly about keeping loaded firearms around the house. He did live alone, however.

View attachment 4932

I always find it hilarious when presidents talk about citizens not needing guns, when they literally travel with an armed escort at all times.

 

[mikeymikec]

I don't need your empathy or understanding because we've got this thing called the 2nd Amendment. Funny how you think gun owners need to justify their lawful behavior. Just leave us alone. Stop trying to pass laws that fail to address the motivation of those who choose to kill, and instead only affect the law-abiding and then we'll leave you alone too.

As far as passing laws, I suggest you and your types figure out what laws should be passed to address the issues or you'd better get used to having your "rights" stepped on.

And, why is it my job to stop all gun crime or the very rare instances of mass shootings that occur to enjoy my rights of lawful gun ownership? Even if there was a way to get rid of all guns in America, you can't lay the blame for the crimes of others at my feet. Do you feel a need to stop the drunk driving of others before you drive to work in the morning?

Lol wut?

@ivwshane

You have to give him some credit: I wouldn't have thought that a FYGM perspective could be crowbarred into a 2A discussion, but apparently it can.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The general populace shouldn't get an opinion on everything. When they do get to vote on complicated decisions that are highly nuanced, you end up with brexit.

I disagree completely on this. I'm not talking about creating legislation, but in a normal process the legislature has time to debate but this did not happen because of NYs particular political and governmental structure. There is also a time allowed for public input to the legislature which allows for a proper representative democracy. This wasn't Brexit at any level but was a Trumpian dream. Imagine if the orange one said "I've written this law and enacted it" and he did with no one able to oppose it. That is what we had here. What should have happened is that Cuomo introduced his law to the legislature where they could properly do their duty and allow time for public input and debate. That is precisely what should have happened and did not.

real men don't kill people.

Not usually, no. I would not let someone who was not a real man do so if it were in my power to stop them.

 

[dainthomas]

From what I read of the case there were examples cited where a lone woman defending her home with a 30 round gun killed one assailant and drove off two others and would have failed had she only had 10 rounds. In two similar cases two others with 10 rounds failed. Don't know if these were real or hypothetical cases. The argument as I recall implied that more people are use guns to defend themselves than are shot up in schools etc. But if statistics are not kept, how could we know for sure? The absurdity, of course, is that whatever the case, some people in the country are better protected with their 30 round guns that most but not all Californians. Some have 30 round magazines grandfathered in.

Would be nice if the NRA allowed the CDC to study things exactly like this. For some reason they don't want facts to get in the way of their fear-peddling.

 

[Moonbeam]

Would be nice if the NRA allowed the CDC to study things exactly like this. For some reason they don't want facts to get in the way of their fear-peddling.

They don’t seem to be alone in this. For me guns are like classic cars, works of art I deeply admire, woke to look at, would love to own, but would not likely ever spend a dime on. So I learn about them on the internet.

In this way I have discovered that I can’t own a Ruger Mark lV 22 LR pistol even with a 10 round clip. It seems that in order for a semi-automatic hand gun to be California legal It has to leave two identifying marks on ejected shells, that the firing pin must be stamped with the guns serial number. Anybody buying a gun like that and doesn’t pich up every casing ejected opens him or her self to being framed for murder. The firing pin can also be replaced or the micro stamping filed off etc. Now I can buy a revolver that can kill an elephant, but not this 22.

The irrationality of this law and the fact that highly reviewed 22 is legal in the rest of the country tells me this law is all about irrational fear, imagining in c completely nonsensical way support for the idea this will deter criminal acts. In this way a 22 pistol for liberals becomes a Mexican for conservatives. Yeah yeah, I know......both sides.

 

[JSt0rm]

Not usually, no. I would not let someone who was not a real man do so if it were in my power to stop them.

statistically thats never going to happen.

 

[JSt0rm]

so the real reason you have guns is because you are a fearful little bitch.

 

[ivwshane]

so the real reason you have guns is because you are a fearful little bitch.

Of course but there isn't anything wrong with that but I think the question one would ask themselves is; is their fear justified?

 

[JSt0rm]

Of course but there isn't anything wrong with that but I think the question one would ask themselves is; is their fear justified?

no. Its not considering they put themselves at greater danger by having the guns.

 

[dainthomas]

They don’t seem to be alone in this. For me guns are like classic cars, works of art I deeply admire, woke to look at, would love to own, but would not likely ever spend a dime on. So I learn about them on the internet.

In this way I have discovered that I can’t own a Ruger Mark lV 22 LR pistol even with a 10 round clip. It seems that in order for a semi-automatic hand gun to be California legal It has to leave two identifying marks on ejected shells, that the firing pin must be stamped with the guns serial number. Anybody buying a gun like that and doesn’t pich up every casing ejected opens him or her self to being framed for murder. The firing pin can also be replaced or the micro stamping filed off etc. Now I can buy a revolver that can kill an elephant, but not this 22.

The irrationality of this law and the fact that highly reviewed 22 is legal in the rest of the country tells me this law is all about irrational fear, imagining in c completely nonsensical way support for the idea this will deter criminal acts. In this way a 22 pistol for liberals becomes a Mexican for conservatives. Yeah yeah, I know......both sides.

Having solid science on how guns are used in criminal acts would go a long way toward writing more effective laws.

 

[Sunburn74]

Having solid science on how guns are used in criminal acts would go a long way toward writing more effective laws.

Thus why the NRA has blocked research into gun violence.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

statistically thats never going to happen.

Statistically, you aren't posting here, yet here you are.

 

[JSt0rm]

Statistically, you aren't posting here, yet here you are.

Thats all you got? Take all the guns.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Thats all you got? Take all the guns.

No, there's more but you aren't able to discuss this any better than Spidey can Trump's agenda. "Take the guns". Well that's against the Constitution but I suspect that's not a consideration. You then try to apply statistics in an inappropriate way with comments about how "they" are less safe. Well no, that's completely statistically invalid but does that matter? Probably not to you, but in the debate where extremists are marginalized when resorting to fibs at best it does.

BTW, I don't carry a firearm, I have other ways to take care of situations that can happen far more often than a school shooting, statistically that is.

Competing with Spidey with fallacious methods isn't a good look, and you are wearing that now.

 

[JSt0rm]

No, there's more but you aren't able to discuss this any better than Spidey can Trump's agenda. "Take the guns". Well that's against the Constitution but I suspect that's not a consideration. You then try to apply statistics in an inappropriate way with comments about how "they" are less safe. Well no, that's completely statistically invalid but does that matter? Probably not to you, but in the debate where extremists are marginalized when resorting to fibs at best it does.

BTW, I don't carry a firearm, I have other ways to take care of situations that can happen far more often than a school shooting, statistically that is.

Competing with Spidey with fallacious methods isn't a good look, and you are wearing that now.

they are less safe. You and all gun owners are at a greater risk of shooting yourself or a loved one then defending yourself from some fanciful home invasion.

 

[Viper1j]

ruling lays down fairly deep groundwork for appeals courts and possible supreme court framing. also may set precedent for similar laws in NY NJ

fairly deep breakdown by copyright atty's YT stream.

while 10 rounds max is struck down, there is still room for bans on 30, 50, 100 rounds based on usage and rationality. all contingent on demonstrable evidence/correlation. the main problem being the nra(aka gun manufacturers lobby) has paid for federal laws barring the CDC from collecting any data to prevent any actual numbers/evidence being generated.

judge Benitez however has put a stay on any importing of 10+ mags into the state until appeals are heard.

If 10 bulets won't kill them, you're fucked anyway.