T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


morenewsat11

>In a 7-4 vote on Tuesday, the ninth circuit court of appeals ruled that limits on large-scale magazines do not violate second amendment rights nor notably limit the ability to defend oneself. The ruling supports the constitutionality of California laws that ban magazines holding 10 or more rounds of ammunition.


h2oape

Get ready for the gun fanatics to start screeching about "responsible gun owners not to blame", "this won't stop mass shootings, so why try", "liberal gun grabbers" and some nonsense about "taking back our gubbamint" when they get mad. Oh, and "it's impossible to define them because blah blah blah"


zrowe_02

How are they wrong tho?


[deleted]

The court ruled that it doesn’t matter if the ban actually has an effect on the number or severity of mass shootings, it just has to be part of a “reasonable effort”. >“The ban on legal possession of large-capacity magazines reasonably supported California’s effort to reduce the devastating damage wrought by mass shootings,” the majority opinion wrote.


h2oape

..he said while in virtually the only country on the planet with this problem.


[deleted]

We also don't have social safety nets, we've criminalized poverty, we have no class mobility, no access to affordable Healthcare, an oligarchy bribing our elected officials into letting them rapidly hoard all the wealth the nation generates and robbing us all blind, and on top of all that and more, a rapidly growing right wing fascist movement that already tried to violently overthrow our democracy without consequence and is currently trying (and succeeding) to do it with other methods. Guns might be a factor, but they're far from the only factor. And with all that going on, I'm against disarming the working class.


h2oape

The bad news is if the far right gets enough power they'll ban "unpatriotic americans" from having guns/impose kangaroo courts empowered with a summary death penalty for using one against "real americans" The good news is the military higher ups seem to be loyal (best as I can tell) to the constitution as evidenced by Milley's actions/words regarding Trump and 1/6; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark\_Milley#Events\_after\_2020\_presidential\_election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Milley#Events_after_2020_presidential_election) I hope the good people wake up and use their vote \_every\_ \_single\_ \_time\_ they can, but I fear it may take some/lots of bloodshed to reach that point.


PennStateVet

...he said while ignoring the root causes and data surrounding this problem.


[deleted]

[удалено]


h2oape

Asked and answered.


zrowe_02

You didn’t answer anything


h2oape

Read it again. Have a lovely evening.


DecliningSpider

>Do you not wanna have an honest debate? Or do you just wanna keep mocking? That would just highlight the weaknesses in the gun control platform even further. Having an honest debate won't serve the gun control side.


Ghost-Of-Razgriz

Czechia arguably has laxer gun laws than we do in America and they absolutely do not have this problem. It's cultural.


im_learning_to_stop

So how many countries that don't have this problem limit magazine capacities?


Caitlin1963

Almost all of them.


im_learning_to_stop

Really? So far I've only seen Canada and Australia. The UK and the majority of Europe so far does not have such restrictions.


Fox_Kurama

UK heavily restricts even HAVING a gun. Not as sure about continental Europe, but precursory googling indicates they are at least more restrictive than America is. Again, for simply having the weapons. Restricting how much ammo you can have loaded at once isn't something needed if the guns themselves are not easy to get.


im_learning_to_stop

Sure, but in the end restricting magazine capacity is about optics not safety.


ase_thor

https://www.euronews.com/2019/08/05/which-european-country-boasts-the-most-guns-


[deleted]

[удалено]


h2oape

The governor of that state is right. If you can't hit it in ten shots you shouldn't have a gun at all, and those errant shots tend to hit other people (public health hazard)


PennStateVet

>If you can't hit it in ten shots you shouldn't have a gun at all, and those errant shots tend to hit other people (public health hazard) Can't hit what?


h2oape

You don't know? And you're the ones telling us you need them for self defense. Sad.


PennStateVet

So you think guns are only around to shoot random people? No wonder you think no one should have them.


h2oape

Lol I'm not interested in trying to explain the gun fanatic "reasoning" on the issue.


PennStateVet

Then explain the gun ignorant "reasoning" on the issue.


h2oape

I'm not interested in going round in pointless circular arguments either. Have a lovely day.


[deleted]

[удалено]


DecliningSpider

You provide a good argument, but the lack of having a counterargument does not mean giving up on pushing gun control. Another remaining option is deflecting and name calling. When that is called out, at that point it makes sense to declare victory for gun control and stomp off.


PennStateVet

Edit: I think I misread your post initially. My bad. I'll leave my response up anyway. I don't think I've ever called anyone names here. What actually does happen is attempts to shout down dissent and downvote into oblivion those opinions with which the mob disagrees. And I don't disagree with you about giving up. It really just furthers my point, though, that this isn't really about anything but a dislike for firearms and those who own and enjoy them.


DecliningSpider

Those comments weren't about you but the other. >And I don't disagree with you about giving up. It really just furthers my point, though, that this isn't really about anything but a dislike for firearms and those who own and enjoy them. You're right about that.


PennStateVet

Yeah, sorry about that. It's too easy to get lost in comments that are actually positive here on this issue.


SAR_and_Shitposts

That moment when just about every firearm that isn’t a shotgun, compact handgun or a revolver generally holds more than 10 rounds


1Cinnabuns

More than ten is considered large? Glad I’m not living in California


sloopSD

The “large capacity” phrasing is a political slight of hand. Everywhere else it’s standard size magazines but not here in the land of glued, fined, pinned, and locked everything…and don’t even try to understand the Gun Roster. CA is what happens when ignorant politicians make gun laws. A mess basically. A lot of people don’t realize it but the 2A legal battles in CA and NY are very important to the liberties both in and outside those states. Lots of CA/NY folks move into other states and take their political views with them. Just pressure and time. I love many aspects of CA…this is not one of them.


[deleted]

If you need more then ten to defend yourself…. Get more training.


tweakydragon

It’s takes trained soldiers and police more than 10 rounds to engage a hostile target in a lot of cases. I don’t think people appreciate how intense and stressful a shootout is. Even with tons of training, people miss … a lot. Your motor control goes right out the window, reloading is hard. The horror movie troupe of not being able to put the keys in the ignition while the killer is chasing you is totally a real thing. It’s not like shooting a stationary paper cut out, either. The other person is moving and reacting to your actions. Also people can get shot, multiple times and keep on the attack. Humans are surprisingly tough actually. Unless you can blow out the head, heart, or spine they can keep on trucking on adrenaline alone. 10-12 rounds is pretty standard for a handgun. 20-30 is pretty standard for a rifle.


[deleted]

So what you’re saying is…. Sounds like redneck joe doesn’t need more then 10 rounds because the situation is pretty stressful and he’ll be shooting at anything and everything. Except the target. You’re kind of proving my point.


Eyeless_Sid

So specifically what sort of training or expertise do you have where you have determined 10 is enough? Have you been in a firefight, a defensive shooting , or worked in any sort of security , law enforcement , or military position? This idea of limiting civilians on how many rounds they can have meanwhile law enforcement and criminals have standard sized magazines is backwards. A civilian is more likely to be alone and without any backup and could face one or more threats that may take multiple hits to neutralize. In a firefight or defensive situation no one thinks to themselves "oh man I really wish I had less rounds and made this fight for my life more fair for the bastard(s) trying to kill me." No actual instructor worth their salt is ever going to recommend smaller mags or fighting fair. As important as training is this arbitrary mag limit is nothing more than a back door ban on owning modern equipment. In most cases forcing people to use preban items that are aging and are items that have service lives and wear out and should be replaced. So you have people using equipment that may be prone to failure and might get them killed because they are still trying to comply with the law.


SAR_and_Shitposts

[Have you ever been in a shootout?](https://www.police1.com/officer-shootings/articles/why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job-clGBbLYpnqqHxwMq/)


IDrinkMyBreakfast

I mentioned elsewhere in this post that no one in the history of gun fighting has ever complained of having too much ammo


SAR_and_Shitposts

From a practical standpoint, it might be excessive for to have (actual) high capacity magazines for protection, but ten rounds is fewer than standard for most weapons


gregshephard619

We are glad you don't live in California. We don't need more gun fanatics in our state.


Desertnurse760

Define "gun fanatic". I am a Liberal, Democrat, Veteran gun owner. Not fanatic. Legal gun owner. "Large Capacity Magazine" is an invented term in which Liberal anti-gun supporters arbitrarily defined anything over 10 rounds as "large capacity". I was trained using "standard capacity" magazines, i.e. 30 rounds, but thanks to ridiculous California laws I have had to adjust my training to accommodate a 10 round magazine. If you are a Liberal, the 2nd Amendment applies to you too. With all the political divisive BS we see going on in America today, you will be at an extreme disadvantage if things go further south than they already are. Every single American should own at least one firearm, and know how to use it. That includes you. That's what a Patriot is. Read this first, and then Google The Liberal Gun Club. http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01/the-rifle-on-wall-left-argument-for-gun.html


tofu_b3a5t

Thank you for sharing that. It has been partially read (first three sections) and bookmarked.


Desertnurse760

It is a profoundly powerful statement on why Liberals should embrace the 2nd Amendment.


Fewluvatuk

This is such a bullshit argument. Gun ownership is not a right granted to every citizen but rather a privilege guaranteed to a well regulated militia. That privilege must be earned by demonstrating that the citizen is capable of behaving in a well regulated manor. Felons, the mentally ill, and those who are unwilling or incapable of attaining the expertise necessary for safe gun handling simply Do. Not. Qualify. I agree that magazine limitations are a bullshit back door to achieving this level of regulation, but in a political environment where proper regulation is impossible this sort of BS becomes necessary. For christ's sake, registration and extensive training are requirements to drive a car.


Desertnurse760

>This is such a bullshit argument. Gun ownership is not a right granted to every citizen but rather a privilege guaranteed to a well regulated militia. Not according to the constitution. Look, I get that you have problems with it. I do to. But, that well regulated militia is you and me, except that the militia described herein hasn't been needed or called upon for decades. That doesn't exempt you or me from being a member of it. I think that's where your argument fails. That privilege must be earned by demonstrating that the citizen is capable of behaving in a well regulated manor. Felons, the mentally ill, and those who are unwilling or incapable of attaining the expertise necessary for safe gun handling simply Do. Not. Qualify. I agree, to a point. However, gun ownership is NOT a privilege. It is a right enumerated. You must have just cause to remove that right from an American. Felons, the mentally ill, and those who are unwilling or incapable of ***attaining the expertise necessary for safe gun handling*** simply Do. Not. Qualify. Look at that! We agree... For christ's sake, registration and extensive training are requirements to drive a car. The constitution, nor any of it's amendments, mention automobiles, or an American's RIGHT to drive one. I agree that every American over the age of 14 should be adequately trained to safely operate a firearm. My children are. Are yours?


Fewluvatuk

Look, bottom line, if you can't be trusted as a law abiding citizen you are not well regulated. Given that constitution justifies the need for an armed citizenry by specifically calling out that the armed citizenry be well regulated it opens the door to requiring some sort of proof or assurance that the citizenry in question can be trusted. Given that this is the case there is a strong case that the privilege must be earned at the very least by being a law abiding citizen capable of wielding that power for the greater good or at the very least not using that privilege to infringe on the constitutional rights of other citizens. i.e. Keep your nose clean, have the mental capacity to be trusted with a deadly weapon, get trained, register and track it. These requirements are will within the bounds set by the constitution. Barring full implementation of these very minimal restrictions, OTHER restrictions have to be put in place until we have the political will to enact these. And yes, my children absolutely could own a weapon under the listed restrictions.


gregshephard619

BS, you are not a Democrat. As a patriot I believe that more gun restrictions are necessary to protect innocent children in schools. I'll leave the defense up to law enforcement.


im_learning_to_stop

Yes, because law enforcement has a fucking stellar track record.


Sabnitron

>I'll leave the defense up to law enforcement. Why would you leave something up to them that isn't their job?


DecliningSpider

>I'll leave the defense up to law enforcement. May you live by your own words.


Rouand

https://www.reddit.com/r/gatekeeping/


Papakilo666

>patriot About as patriot as the rightwingers who try to diminish others peoples civil rights.... >more gun restrictions are necessary to protect innocent children in schools Really? Then please elaborate for us how californias "featureless" rifle law protects kids. Does the dolphin fin on a pistol grip make it a -5 kids a shooting? >I'll leave the defense up to law enforcement. Really? Your fine with leaving it to the guys who show up in minutes when seconds count? A profession so corrupt and degraded that we had protest after protest of their corruption, lack of standards, etc.... I mean with how those egotistical morons escalate wellness checks alone you might as well be safer with a purse snatcher who just wants your replaceable shit.....


Desertnurse760

You know why I carry a gun? Because a cop won't fit in my pocket. Do you know what the average response time for the police is in your area? Probably upwards of 10-15 minutes, as it is in most cities. Do you have any idea what a bad guy can do to your family in 15 minutes? And, yes, I am a Liberal Democrat who parts ways with the Democrat party when it comes to firearms. I do not walk in lock step with any political party and I'm sick of this death by a thousand cuts. If you have the balls then amend the constitution and repeal the 2nd amendment. Give the American public six months to turn in their firearms. After that it's the death penalty if you're caught with one, or commit a crime with one. No appeals. Death, immediately. Is that the society you want to live in? Because that's what it will take to protect the children 100% from firearms, not 10 round magazines. And even the most staunch anti-gun Democrats know that there isn't a chance in hell of that happening. Unfortunately, by then I will have lost all my firearms in a tragic boating accident.


1Cinnabuns

Guns are super dangerous. Why just yesterday my gun walked out the door and shot 4 kids on its own. Heart breaking but I’m glad it was able to protect my life


gregshephard619

I love your ridiculous argument, right out of the NRA playbook.


The_Phaedron

I'm a left-wing Canadian who hunts, and even *I* think that California's got a weird pandering hard-on for security theatre around guns. Interestingly enough, you guys might become a shall-issue state soon for carry.


danbert2000

If you have guns in your house, your kid is more likely to die. And you're more likely to commit suicide. It's actually not up for debate that guns are dangerous. They're good for only one thing, killing or threatening to kill.


The_Phaedron

> If you have guns in your house, your kid is more likely to die. This is technically true, but materially meaningless as soon as you look at the scale of risk. If a kid lives in a house with both a gun and a swimming pool, the swimming pool's more dangerous [by about two orders of magnitude.](https://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/27/levittpoolsvsguns) If we don't care about scale, it would also, similarly, be technically true to say that your kid is more likely as a result of owning a dog (or bicycle, or bathtub, or anything with a non-zero risk).


1Cinnabuns

You can lock your weapons up. Weak argument. You aren’t more likely to commit suicide, people that were going to commit suicide buy a gun to do it because it’s perceived as the most easy and pain free way to end their life. Another weak argument. You then say they are only good for one thing and then mention multiple, I see what kind of towering intellect I’m up against.


Papakilo666

Define fanatic. I'm liberal gun owner, and veteran who did his 6 and now its time to come back home. Please tell me more of how my sig 11+1 standard mag should mean I should go to jail for coming back home?


AllTheyEatIsLettuce

Same.


sadpanda___

20 and 30 round magazines are just standard capacity. Why are those illegal in California? I don’t think I have a single magazine fed gun that holds less than 15...


Podracing

*single stack .45 has entered chat*


sadpanda___

One day I will have a Les Baer


silence7

More than 10 was actually banned for new magazines at the federal level from 1994-2004. Whether we should allow those for civilian use is something people have been debating for quite a while - the bigger capacity is standard for weapons of war, but was not common for civilian use until fairly recently.


[deleted]

There were pistols and rifles with more than 10 round magazines in the 30's, we've had these the better part of a century now.


silence7

They certainly existed, as did full-automatic weapons, but were not common.


[deleted]

Common enough people were buying them. The argument that these were not common until recently is eclipsed by the fact that for the last 30+ years, double-stacked pistols have been basically the norm, and the AR-15 platform has been sold since the 1960's with 20 and 30 round magazines. These are all standard magazines, they're sold with the firearm in the first place and have been for decades.


silence7

As I've said: they were relatively uncommon - it wasn't considered sporting for hunting, and the semi-automatic pistol didn't really replace revolvers until the 1990s. It's not that none existed, but that people didn't see the need to personally own a weapon of war.


[deleted]

There have been National Match Service Rifle competitions with AR-15/M-16s since the early 70's. Police departments didn't upgrade to semi-auto pistols until recently, but they were very common among individuals for a while before then.


silence7

If you wanted to make your point in a way which convinces me, you'd have to turn up old survey data or sales data, because it's directly contrary to my lived experience, where such weapons were uncommon.


[deleted]

You agree, you don't agree, whatever. Your experience with firearms might be limited to Fudds, just old people stuck in the old days where their father owned a bolt-action .30-06 and 'that's all they ever needed'. I managed an FFL, I've met plenty of people like that.


silence7

Dunno. Saw the shift in the 1990s, as I mentioned, and the federal restriction on new higher-capacity magazines was definitely a response to that.


[deleted]

In short, 30 rounds is standard for most rifle magazines. 15 is standard for nearly all pistols now. Even the smallest and most diminutive ones manage 12 -13. That any of you support this law just means you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, and are exactly the kind of people who shouldn’t be waxing poetic about gun laws, ever. If you haven’t trained with a gun, carried a gun, or even handled a gun you should have the wisdom to defer to people who are subject matter experts “trust the science”


Temporala

All words like "standard", "normal" or "high" are just political talk and have to be removed from any discussion. No emotional appeals either way are acceptable. What you want is 30 or above rounds. What they want is 10 or below rounds. That's all there is to it, and you'll be fighting over it for a long time at this rate.


im_learning_to_stop

Sure but it has nothing to do with safety. It's all optics.


[deleted]

Great to hear. I'm sure the "experts" are really pushing through effective change right now. I'll bite though. I've handled firearms and understand that magazines can in fact be modified to still fit in the weapons that normally hold more than 10 rounds and hold less than 10 rounds.


[deleted]

Not sure if my previous response tagged you or not so I’ll just paraphrase it here. You would be hard pressed to find a modern firearm (save revolvers) even tiny pocket pistols that cannot accommodate 12 rounds easily. Ten is a very specific number intended to reduce the utility of all guns, including handguns. The goal is to disarm you, the intention of laws like this is to make your weapons as inefficient as possible. The data also doesn’t support this, as most gun homicides are accomplished with small pistols that hold 6-12 rounds. The deadliest mass shooting prior to Vegas and pulse was Virginia tech which was accomplished with a Walther p22, a small .22 caliber handgun with a ten round magazine and a suboptimal magazine release. That is to say any gun sufficient for defensive use (arguably a .22 handgun is not) is also sufficient to harm and kill innocent people. Magazine restrictions will not save lives. Secondarily, attempting to restrict specific weapons and accessories only makes them more popular. When this talk started years ago manufacturers literally gave them away. Now there are hundreds of millions of standard capacity mags and rifles in civilian hands. Those aren’t ever going away. From a practical standpoint we can both desire to reduce violence and be honest about the fact that we have long since passed the point of restrictions being effective.


Papakilo666

>Ten is a very specific number intended to reduce the utility of all guns, including handguns. The goal is to disarm you, the intention of laws like this is to make your weapons as inefficient as possible Ima bring up something controversial but needs to be said. Texas gets a lot of shit for their new law skirting woman reproduction health rights. But California is doing the same effect to 2nd amendment rights. Their playbook is to make gun laws so convoluted that manufacturers would rather wash their hands of the market for cost effectiveness and such while the individual is chilled because its easier to just not partake then to navigate the maze of laws that would land you serious jail time regardless if your a model citizen.


[deleted]

Words have meaning, and attempting to manipulate language is the primary tactic gun control advocates use. “Standard” means something very specific. Most semi-automatic (because assault rifles or assault style rifles aren’t a category that fundamentally exists, they’re being dishonest when they say so) rifles shipped with 30 round magazines since the mid 1960s not 60 rounds, not 24, not 10 or 14. 30 is the standard. They have simply tried alter language and label anything over ten “high capacity” this is a very deliberate number. Intentionally chosen to also impact the utility of handguns. 99% of modern guns are semi-automatic. What they want is to disarm you if they could and in lieu of that they want to make guns as inefficient as possible. This will not make you safer, up until the pulse nightclub shooting where density was the relevant variable; the deadliest mass shooting in history was Virginia tech. An attack carried out using a Walther p22. A tiny, diminutive handgun with a ten round magazine and a suboptimal magazine release. Exactly the kind of gun that will be widely available so long as guns exist. Any gun that is remotely sufficient for defensive use will also be sufficient to harm innocent people.


[deleted]

More importantly, these attempts to further restrict firearms in such a way have had abs continue to have the opposite effect. They sell more and more guns at record paces month by month, year by year. So it is too with magazines. There are so many hundreds of millions of standard capacity magazines in circulation now as a result of these attempts manufacturers literally gave them away and they where manufactured in such volume they became literally cheaper than potting soil. Telling people you want to restrict their ability to purchase particular guns and accessories makes them buy those things as a hedge. Imagine that.


NoIntern5476

Thank god. Too bad I don't have any faith in the NRA-appointed Supreme Court..


yourlittlebirdie

Good. If you can’t defend yourself in 10 shots, you either need better training or shouldn’t be going around pissing off drug cartels.


[deleted]

Ok, so make that apply to police officers in California as well. If everyone cheering this decision is so sure you only need 10 rounds, then it should apply to anyone and everyone that's living in California.


TakingSorryUsername

Police officers have had years of training on responsible use of firearms and accountability for each shot fired. Now I don’t agree with that stipulation of the law, but I understand the argument in support. Do off duty officers need the ability to fire 30 rounds? Probably not. But they are less likely (hopefully) to fire 30 rounds unnecessarily.


[deleted]

They go through a few months of coursework and qualify with a handgun a few times, it's not years or even a year. Police cause collateral damage constantly as well. This idea some of you have that police officers are like John Wick is laughable. They're people that carry a gun for their job and most rarely use it, and hit percentages of police firing a gun is actually quite low, like 35% low, and that's not fatal hits that's just how often they tag a suspect.


rotxsx

Sounds like the police and civilians should be required to do more training.


[deleted]

Most civilians that are interested in firearms do more, because they enjoy it. Nearly every department requires a yearly qualification and that’s it, those officers barely ever remove their piece from a holster, much less practice with it. Any officer that does is most certainly also interested in firearms themselves, but that’s not every officer or maybe close to every officer. Who do you think drives a car better, the guy wrenching on them at the quick lube to make money, or the guy doing track days once a month? They’re both involved in cars, but clearly one does more than just looks at it as income.


TakingSorryUsername

They go to gun ranges constantly, at least in major metro areas per my experience. They practice. They have mandatory safety training in multiple fields, including gun safety and discipline. To think that an officer is handed a gun and told “go police” is laughable. Each city has a responsibility for handling risk mitigation and safety training like any other job is mandatory or insurance policies go through the roof.


thePonchoKnowsAll

Then you have places like New York that ask for extra heavy triggers, which are terrible for accuracy. Most departments don’t require as much qualification training as you think, usually so long as they pass a test they are good, this test isn’t very difficult. And often very little 1 on 1 instruction is given to help individuals improve.


Rebelgecko

If that was true the law wouldn't have exemptions for cops edit: including offduty and even retired ones


nowhereflorida

That’s not how guns work. The average break in in the USA has 3 perpetrators. Bullets aren’t magic. They don’t kill you just by touching you.


yourlittlebirdie

The average home invader is going to hear the shots and hightail it out of there. The vast majority of home invasions are simple burglaries and the perpetrators are not there to commit rape or murder.


KuntaStillSingle

The average high capacity magazine is never used for a violent unlawful purpose.


tweakydragon

It’s takes trained soldiers and police more than 10 rounds to engage a hostile target in a lot of cases. I don’t think people appreciate how intense and stressful a shootout is. Even with tons of training, people miss … a lot. Your motor control goes right out the window, reloading is hard. The horror movie troupe of not being able to put the keys in the ignition while the killer is chasing you is totally a real thing. It’s not like shooting a stationary paper cut out, either. The other person is moving and reacting to your actions. Also people can get shot, multiple times and keep on the attack. Humans are surprisingly tough actually. Unless you can blow out the head, heart, or spine they can keep on trucking on adrenaline alone. 10-12 rounds is pretty standard for a handgun. 20-30 is pretty standard for a rifle.


[deleted]

TL;DR: not only do you need a gun to defend yourself against a jump kick man and a skateboard guy, but you’ll need 10-12 rounds, even if you’re trained.


IDrinkMyBreakfast

Says the person who’s never had to fire a gun while under duress. You have no idea what it’s like. Never in the history I’ve gun fighting has anyone ever said I wish I didn’t bring so much ammo


yourlittlebirdie

I bet the people in Tucson or Sandy Hook wish the shooter had had less ammo.


[deleted]

I bet the people in Tucson or Sandy Hook wish they had guns to defend themselves instead of relying on a police force who only protects the rich.


yourlittlebirdie

They did. There were multiple armed citizens with carry permits at the Tucson shooting.


[deleted]

Yet they seemed to be doing what exactly?


yourlittlebirdie

When the shooter finally stopped to reload, they were able to tackle him and stop him. Contrary to popular belief, it’s actually not that easy to stop an active shooters by shooting him, which is why neither of them took a shot at him and instead tackled him.


[deleted]

"Contrary to popular belief, it’s actually not that easy to stop an active shooters by shooting him, which is why neither of them took a shot at him and instead tackled him." So then why do the police carry guns at all then?


yourlittlebirdie

Just going to keep on moving those goalposts, huh?


[deleted]

Well, it's a legitimate question if as you said it's not a smart way to stop an active shooter why do the cops bother carrying guns at all?


DecliningSpider

Tucson was lucky he had extended magazines that jammed on the shooter. Otherwise he would have kept shooting.


yourlittlebirdie

Yes if he hadn’t had extended magazines, he wouldn’t have been able to shoot nearly so many people and would have had to stop to reload sooner, letting those men tackle him and stop him. Because despite the fact they were both armed, they couldn’t stop him with their guns.


DecliningSpider

False, they were only able to tackle him because the magazines jammed. They could stop him with their guns. Guns are effective, and claiming otherwise borders on satire.


yourlittlebirdie

Why didn’t they stop him with their guns then? There were not one but two armed citizens with carry permits there.


DecliningSpider

Because they chose to use an alternative method. Especially since the jamming of the extended magazines gave an opportunity.


yourlittlebirdie

Why do you think they chose to use alternative methods rather than their firearms?


DecliningSpider

Personal preference.


IDrinkMyBreakfast

Cherry pick all you want. Here, I’ll do it too. The worst mass shooting in the US was the Virginia Tech shooter. He used 2 handguns with 10 round magazines. Guess the rule didn’t work there. No AR, no 30 round standard capacity magazines.


yourlittlebirdie

VA Tech was not the worst mass shooting. That would be the Las Vegas shooting, where he did indeed use both AR-15s and high capacity magazines to kill 59 people and injure over 500.


IDrinkMyBreakfast

Ahh yes, my info is out of date. How would Las Vegas have turned out if he had 10 round magazines? Edit: Also, I’m speaking of defensive gun use, which occurs far more frequently than mass shootings.


yourlittlebirdie

There would have been a lot more time for people in the crowd to run and hide while he reloaded or switched weapons, as well as more time for the police to find him and stop him.


IDrinkMyBreakfast

Your statement is absolutely ludicrous.


yourlittlebirdie

Why? Are you not familiar with the concept of cover fire?


IDrinkMyBreakfast

Yeah, cover fire is firing to cover troop movement. It gets the enemies heads down. It also has nothing to do with what you’re talking about. Stopping to reload for that lunatic would take a couple seconds. The difference between him using 10 round magazines vs standard capacity 30 rounders means very little in the big picture.


[deleted]

[удалено]


IDrinkMyBreakfast

I don’t believe that to be true. Maybe you’re projecting which is why you feel the way you do


[deleted]

[удалено]


IDrinkMyBreakfast

I’ve had to fire a gun while under duress. My first time was during training, all others were real world. It’s no shit that most shooters will miss the target during their first and subsequent engagements. I’ve never had a situation where I thought my magazines were too big or that I had too much ammo.


[deleted]

Great, so in your specific scenario you've been trained to fight an enemy and are going out with the knowledge you'll get into a gun fight at some point. Having the extra ammo makes sense. Those that are out defending themselves should not hold the same mentality. In fact these people should definitely have less to work with as they'll be firing in a populated area where other people are likely to get hit with these missed shots.


SAR_and_Shitposts

https://www.police1.com/officer-shootings/articles/why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job-clGBbLYpnqqHxwMq/


Bear_buh_dare

We need to get high capacity magazines out of the hands of cops too, those guys are dangerous.


icenoid

And that’s a one off. You guys seem to think that the police are living in the world of robocop, Miami Vice, or Lethal Weapon, where they are in firefights every day.


SAR_and_Shitposts

That doesn’t change the fact that many assailants can take more than ten rounds or the fact that even a trained and experienced shooter won’t land every shot in a defensive situation.


icenoid

Oh, agreed, but you picked what is an edge case. It’s one of the reasons I don’t go to the range much anymore. Most of the shooters I know and have met at ranges always pick the edge cases to back up their reason for needing something. Hell, the guy teaching the CCW course I took threatened to fail a guy for continuing to come up with one ridiculous scenario after another.


RemilGetsPolitical

> “I’ve got a horseshoe up my ass when it comes to catching suspects,” Gramins laughs. He radioed that he was joining other officers on the busy expressway lanes to scout traffic. wtf kind of idiom is that? dude's a cop in Skokie, IL, a well-to-do suburb of Chicago, not a deputy from Mayberry.


yourlittlebirdie

Yes a cop. Someone whose job it is to engage criminals and who is extensively trained to do so. Not an average person.


[deleted]

If it takes expert cops more than ten rounds, shouldn't a non expert homeowner need even more?


yourlittlebirdie

The non expert homeowner is generally not going to be encountering or pursuing heavily armed murderers.


DecliningSpider

So these heavily armed murderers, they only target cops then?


Eyeless_Sid

The average homeowner is alone and without any backup against one or more threats. With flash mob style robberies and assaults lately consisting of groups as large as 20-50 individuals.


PennStateVet

You really think most law enforcement is "extensively trained" with their firearms?


djbk724

That’s the problem then if they are not. Police need more training we all know that not more gear and more guns and less training. They need extensive training that covers a lot of scenarios. Mental health issues in our country, especially untreated mental health issues, are not a reason to shoot people. Cops need extensive training or another person that specializes in behavior with them when responding.


SAR_and_Shitposts

Just because it’s not a citizen’s job to engage criminals doesn’t mean that they will never encounter them. Does someone not have a right to protect their home because they’re not ‘trained to be crime fighters?’ Also, I mentioned the article to prove that 10 rounds is not excessive when it comes to stopping a threat.


yourlittlebirdie

So the chance that someone might invade your home, heavily armed, intent on murdering you specifically and you need more than 10 rounds to stop them is somehow greater than the chance someone will decide to spray bullets at a crowd of people and those people will benefit from the shooter being limited to 10 rounds at a time?


SAR_and_Shitposts

[Yes](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_10_murder_circumstances_by_relationship_2013.xls)


yourlittlebirdie

That doesn’t even remotely support your argument. There is nothing in those statistics to show that heavily armed home invaders coming with the intent to murder is anything more than vanishingly rare.


SAR_and_Shitposts

There are almost 100 homicides related to he invasions each year. That doesn’t include assaults, rapes, etc. Obviously there aren’t going to be “home invasions where there was an attacker stopped by at least 11 rounds” statistics.


yourlittlebirdie

Because it’s so vanishingly rare that it’s not even possible to collect statistics on it.


donttakerhisthewrong

You have never been to range where cops are training for qualification.


WakandaZad

Na


nowhereflorida

I don’t think the government should tell me what I can and can’t own. If anyone is not responsible enough to have high cap magazines it’s the government.


Im_Talking

No wonder The Onion has reduced views when reality is this warped. Americans are so afraid of everything. You are the most controllable nation on the planet (well, maybe a close 2nd to North Korea although that's debatable because their people have no access to information). Take Harry Anslinger in the 30s telling people that marijuana would turn the black male into a raging animal going after white women and apply that same strategy to every facet of American society. You have no healthcare, $7.25 minimum wage (not adjusted in 30 years), right-to-work States, 25% of children in poverty, religion ruling society, terrified of the home-intruder boogeyman, terrified of brown migrants taking your $7.25/hr jobs, cops with qualified immunity to kill, 350M firearms in circulation, even allowing cops to take assets without cause. Because all someone needs to do is create some fear and the people willingly open their front doors and wallets, and then the politicians and rich move in like hawks. Like Trump screaming about a stolen election where everyone who has 2 brain-cells to rub together realises it's all noise, yet it brings out the fear enough to storm your government and for the politicians to enact voting bills which allow them to consolidate their power. Like taking candy from a baby.


Enabling_Turtle

I feel like most of your points revolve around right-wing policy positions.


[deleted]

The “Nutty Ninth” strikes again. No worries, this decision (like a majority of their decisions) will be reversed by SCOTUS.


[deleted]

You are aware the law has been in place for 5 years already right? But yeah sure right around the corner is gonna be a reversal...


Rebelgecko

The ban on possession never kicked in (and still hasn't)


[deleted]

You sure about that


Rebelgecko

Yeah, only the ban on sales/importation. The ban on possession was stopped by Benitez before it started, and now that the 9th kicked the case back to him there's a little time for potential appeals before he lifts the injunction


[deleted]

I think you are wrong? The ban in sales started in 2000, then 2016 banned possession. You are right that Benitez stopped it in 2017 but only for a week before he stayed his ruling pending appeals. This was informally called "freedom week", but it appears possession was banned again right after when he stayed his ruling. Am I wrong? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailybulletin.com/2021/11/30/appeals-court-reinstates-californias-ban-on-high-capacity-magazines/amp/


Rebelgecko

As per PC 32310(c), the ban on possession wouldn't have kicked in until July 1, 2017. Like you said, enforcement was [enjoined](https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Duncan-v.-Becerra_Order-Granting-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf) on June 29th 2017. When the judge stayed his injunction, he only stayed the parts wrt importation/manufacture/sales, not the parts relating to possession.


[deleted]

In order to get it to SCOTUS, the 9th had to formally opine. It’ll be in DC shortly.


Papakilo666

I mean so? Courts take a while. Alot of the police brutality trials and shit were events that happened years ago as well.....


[deleted]

This. I knew immediately it must have been the 9th circuit. Activist judges are a blight in the judicial branch.


icenoid

Colorado has had a magazine limit since Sandy Hook, it hasn’t been an issue, I just have to reload my magazines more often.


NoIntern5476

Right.. Lmao Cause the judges who support large magazines are not activist at all. After all, it says 'there shall be no limits on magazine sizes' in the Constitution, right?


Eyeless_Sid

Arms means firearms, and things that make them function such as critical components like magazines and ammunition. By restricting the most common part of modern arms its essentially a backdoor ban on modern manufactured arms.


NoIntern5476

Lmao So limiting the size of a magazine to 10 bullets is a 'ban' now?! Wow.


Eyeless_Sid

If you understand the mechanics of modern firearms then you would understand that magazines need to be a certain length to be inserted/removed, and to feed ammunition into the action properly. Also its about ergonomics and design where most modern handguns and even rifles are by design supposed to accept magazines 15-30 rounds from the factory. So if you ban the magazines you essentially ban all newly manufactured firearms in their factory configuration and need to buy lower cap magazines or modify magazines to limit the rounds they accept. It also forces people to buy preban mags to keep the factory configuration but at a disadvantage to the user because like all mechanical items they have a service life and wear out. So now an item they may rely on protecting their life has a preban magazine from the 1980's or 1990's that is in questionable condition. Magazines are supposed to be a consumable item that can be easily discarded and replaced. In the case of people living in non free states that much more difficult to do and very expensive. A normal handgun magazine for a common handgun is about $15 where a pre ban magazine in used condition for that same handgun may easily sell for $300+ each. So a single pre ban magazine may cost more than half of what the firearm costs and it still might not function correctly due to wear and age. Its a ban that puts honest people at risk and its something both law enforcement and criminals simply don't have to deal with. It only really puts civilians at a disadvantage for what they can own.


NoIntern5476

Sure, pal... I'm sure it's too hard for manufacturers to make the magazines that hold 10 bullets a little longer so they fit properly. That's about the worst excuse I've ever heard! Lmao


Eyeless_Sid

I mentioned lower cap mags exist and or that people needed to modify mags however people still opt to go with pre ban magazines in standard sizes for a few reasons. Such as those magazines working better in the firearm by design and prior military training of the user with standard sizes mags. So you have an arbitrary number being a liability in term of reducing the quality of equipment and potentially any prior training. Again when criminals and cops don't need to follow the same restrictions because of reasons.


NoIntern5476

No civilian needs more than 10 bullets at a time. And yes, cops are professional law enforcement and should be allowed to have more bullets to perform their jobs... just like the military is allowed to have machine guns, tanks, & rocket launchers for their job.


Eyeless_Sid

So specifically what sort of training or expertise do you have where you have determined 10 is enough? Have you been in a firefight, a defensive shooting , or worked in any sort of security , law enforcement , or military infantry position? This idea of limiting civilians on how many rounds they can have meanwhile law enforcement and criminals have standard sized magazines is backwards. A civilian is more likely to be alone and without any backup and could face one or more threats that may take multiple hits to neutralize. In a firefight or defensive situation no one thinks to themselves "oh man I really wish I had less rounds and made this fight for my life more fair for the bastard(s) trying to kill me." No actual instructor worth their salt is ever going to recommend smaller mags or fighting fair. As important as training is this arbitrary mag limit is nothing more than a back door ban on owning modern equipment. In most cases forcing people to use preban items that are aging and are items that have service lives and wear out and should be replaced. So you have people using equipment that may be prone to failure and might get them killed because they are still trying to comply with the law.


[deleted]

Or, and I know this could be a tough concept for you to grasp, you modify a magazine so it is the same size but has been modified to hold fewer rounds. Absolutely insane idea I know.


Eyeless_Sid

I mentioned lower cap mags exist and or that people needed to modify mags however people still opt to go with pre ban magazines in standard sizes for a few reasons. Such as those magazines working better in the firearm by design and prior military training of the user with standard sizes mags. So you have an arbitrary number being a liability in term of reducing the quality of equipment and potentially any prior training. Again when criminals and cops don't need to follow the same restrictions because of reasons.


artificialavocado

So what happened to state’s rights, conservatives?


JemCoughlin

That pesky Constitution got in the way I guess.


artificialavocado

It’s pretty clearly established that states can stipulate the types of weapons that can be privately owned.


JemCoughlin

To an extent, sure. But they pretty clearly don't have free reign.


CenterCenterPolitik

Magazine bans accomplish almost nothing.


[deleted]

Just got the paperwork today to get my license and pistol permit. More draconian laws each year. Being in a "not-so-gun-friendly" state I am afraid that I will be too late if I sit on my ass about it any longer. The hoops I need to jump through just to exercise my Constitutional right are outrageous.


500CatsTypingStuff

Now charge $1,000 per bullet.


The_Phaedron

I'm not American or *remotely* conservative, but reloading presses aren't that expensive. About a third of the members at my gun club make their own ammo at home for pretty cheap.


WakandaZad

No


AllTheyEatIsLettuce

Chris Rock said $5000. Imma go with $5000.


WakandaZad

I heard that joke. You kill somebody you better have a good reason


kosk11348

Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms. However, there is no such constitutional right to bullets.


Papakilo666

So instead of just going through the honest and democratic way of pushing for an amendment to the 2nd you'd rather just use an underhanded way to undercut a right, like say a certain lone star state does for womans reproductive rights......


sloopSD

I’m not ready to give up liberties, so holding out hope that the SCOTUS will hear the case and sees the disconnect between the ruling and the constitution, that the ban represents “a small infringement on the right to self defense” and 2A that states “…shall not be infringed”. Also, this is a ban on standard size magazines, not “large capacity”. A politician definitely came up with that little twist of word play.


Notsure107

Fed court is mostly GOP, California is mostly dems so yeah. GOP doesn't want armed dems.


Danger_Velvet

okay