9th Circuit appeals court strikes down CA magazine ban

[BigPapaKain]

This is a great move.

Let's not forget that most (2/3rds) of gun violence only require one bullet (its suicide).

Do I need a 17 round magazine? Not really, but I'll take less turns loading my magazines - it hurts your thumbs after awhile.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-16-2020, 02:04 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: This is a great move.

Let's not forget that most (2/3rds) of gun violence only require one bullet (its suicide).

Do I need a 17 round magazine? Not really, but I'll take less turns loading my magazines - it hurts your thumbs after awhile.

Suicide by firearm is not gun violence anymore than hanging yourself is rope violence or od'ing on Valium is pill violence.  As for your last point, get one of these;

https://www.maglula.com/product/uplula-9mm-to-45acp

I have one for every type of firearm I own, it makes range day much easier.  Far less reload time and no strain on your thumbs.

[BigPapaKain]

(08-16-2020, 02:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Suicide by firearm is not gun violence anymore than hanging yourself is rope violence or od'ing on Valium is pill violence.  As for your last point, get one of these;

https://www.maglula.com/product/uplula-9mm-to-45acp

I have one for every type of firearm I own, it makes range day much easier.  Far less reload time and no strain on your thumbs.

My first point was suicide by gun is factored in to most gun violence counts, which skews them and makes it seem like we have a bigger problem than we do.

I've been meaning to buy a speedloader, but I keep finding excuses not to.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-16-2020, 02:12 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: My first point was suicide by gun is factored in to most gun violence counts, which skews them and makes it seem like we have a bigger problem than we do.

I've been meaning to buy a speedloader, but I keep finding excuses not to.

I didn't take it the wrong way, apologies if it came off that way.  We agree on the use of suicides being used to artificially skew gun death statistics.  

Buy one, they're cheap and easy the use.  Make sure it's a maglula, they are, by far, the best.  MidwayUSA has them in stock.

[BmorePat87]

(08-16-2020, 12:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Why not?  "If we can save even one life!" 


And they should see it that way, seeing as you're more likely to be struck by lightning than be involved in a mass shooting.  Fear, especially an irrational one, is a piss poor reason to draft legislation, especially when it takes away the rights of citizens.

The "why not?" is because it's a logical fallacy. 

The reality is that premeditated mass murder and accidents will always be viewed differently, especially when the accident is an accepted risk of driving or riding in a vehicle. It's unreasonable to expect anything different. Emotions drive human behavior, and while you may find that to be a "piss poor reason to draft legislation", the legislation itself has merit. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-16-2020, 02:47 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The "why not?" is because it's a logical fallacy.

No, it's not.  We are talking about the government taking action that could, ostensibly, save lives.  Why is one acceptable and the other never discussed?  The real answer is that people would not tolerate a governor on their vehicle and politicians know this.  So it's not really about saving lives, it's about giving the appearance of saving lives. 

Quote:The reality is that premeditated mass murder and accidents will always be viewed differently, especially when the accident is an accepted risk of driving or riding in a vehicle. It's unreasonable to expect anything different.

It's unreasonable to ask people to look at a problem logically.  You're far more likely to die in a car accident or slipping in your bathroom than you are to be shot and killed in any scenario, much less a mass shooting.  If you're advocating for the restriction of an Constitutional right then you'd better offer a compelling argument for doing so.

Quote:Emotions drive human behavior, and while you may find that to be a "piss poor reason to draft legislation", the legislation itself has merit. 

I'm sure you'd take great issue with a law enforcement officer allowing emotion to drive their decisions.  Why would you hold legislators, who make laws that affect everyone, to a lesser standard?  The legislation has zero merit as it will not prevent any shooter from doing what they plan on doing.  It's feel good "look at what we did" legislation that does not make anyone safer or prevent any shooting.  

[Belsnickel]

(08-16-2020, 01:12 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What if multiple people invade your home (which happens)?  As the saying goes, it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.  Why would anyone be against a law abiding citizen owning such an item to defend themselves?

I appreciate that some people think themselves highly trained marksmen who will hit every target they aim for in a stressful situation.  Unfortunately, reality tends to be somewhat different.

As I said, you don't prepare for the statistical likelihood, you prepare for the worst case. Also, while the study showed the situation ended in 5 shots or less, IIRC, it wasn't necessarily that the assailant was dead, or even wounded, they also could've just run off. This was something I read years ago in some firearm publication. I wish I remembered more about it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-16-2020, 03:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: As I said, you don't prepare for the statistical likelihood, you prepare for the worst case. 

You just made an excellent case for owning a 30 round magazine. 

[Belsnickel]

(08-16-2020, 03:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You just made an excellent case for owning a 30 round magazine. 

I may or may not have one or more, myself. But that's really just more for fun on the range than anything else.

I'm with you on the shotgun for home defense, though. My Remington 870 is plenty with the plug out.

[BmorePat87]

(08-16-2020, 03:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, it's not.  We are talking about the government taking action that could, ostensibly, save lives.  Why is one acceptable and the other never discussed?  The real answer is that people would not tolerate a governor on their vehicle and politicians know this.  So it's not really about saving lives, it's about giving the appearance of saving lives. 



It's unreasonable to ask people to look at a problem logically.  You're far more likely to die in a car accident or slipping in your bathroom than you are to be shot and killed in any scenario, much less a mass shooting.  If you're advocating for the restriction of an Constitutional right then you'd better offer a compelling argument for doing so.


I'm sure you'd take great issue with a law enforcement officer allowing emotion to drive their decisions.  Why would you hold legislators, who make laws that affect everyone, to a lesser standard?  The legislation has zero merit as it will not prevent any shooter from doing what they plan on doing.  It's feel good "look at what we did" legislation that does not make anyone safer or prevent any shooting.  

It is a logical fallacy. The merits of a cause are not diminished if advocates are not equally concerned about other causes. You can criticize them for being hypocrites in some circumstances, but it's not an actual criticism of the cause itself. 

It's not illogical to view murder and accidents differently, no does viewing them differently mean you cannot view either logically. It's unreasonable to expect people to compare them apples to apples when they're not. 

I hope emotion drives their behavior, in particular empathy. 

[Truck_1_0_1_]

I too will respond on a point by point basis.

(08-16-2020, 12:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well, I certainly wouldn't use the word "special" but I have had considerably more training with firearms than most Americans have and ever will.  I do find your comment about no one invading your home interesting, seeing as the odds of being the victim of a home invasion robbery are far higher than being the victim of a mass shooting.  Yet you utterly discount, even mock, the possibility of the far more likely incident ever occurring.  Interesting.

No relevance at all to what I was talking about... unless, by the nature of your comment, you think that you're more likely to be gone after because you are a skilled marksman? O...k then.

Quote:I honestly don't care what laws Canada has or does not, seeing as I'm not Canadian.

Good for you; 'cause I really give a flying leap about American laws as well? Again, your statement is completely irrelevant to my original post. I'm talking about how ass-backwards things are down south, that Americans are compelled to buy guns for the sole purpose of protection in a possible home-invasion situation; that notion is not only scary, but absolutely crazy, especially due to the fact that you are the only country in the world that does things like this.

Therefore, maybe chuck the guns and then violence will go down? What a thought...

Quote:  You also have no rights in your country, only what the government allows you to have at the moment.

wow, you guys really DO know absolutely nothing about us

Let's see, we:

- never have enslaved blacks and gave them a safe haven from your Southern States, during your civil war.
- women's suffrage began for our full country in 1917, while yours was 1920 (we were a country for only 50 years, unlike your 146)
- are allowed to say whatever we want, whenever we want, wherever we want (of course, threats and, "terroristic," language will get you in trouble), without any fear of recourse or issues.
- had all of these measures in place BEFORE a recognised charter (or constitution, in your case) was put in place... 60 years+ before, as a matter of fact.

Not that you care, but take a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms.

We have just as many, IF NOT MORE rights, than Americans.

I guess you think we still use cheques and haven't adopted Chip and PIN yet?

Quote: Not really.  The US has a gang violence problem.  Of the ~12,000 homicides with a firearm per year around 8,000 of them are criminals killing other criminals (and, unfortunately an innocent bystander on occasion).

And that's basically what I'm getting at; get rid of the damn weapons and then there won't be millions upon millions of your citizens, that have to, "live in fear of being home-invaded." Who's comitting 90% of these home-invasions? Gangsters and their associates: you don't have junkie Jimmy walking around a neighbourhood, looking to break into a home to steal some things for drug money, do you? No. You have gangs and organised crime doing the deed.

I repeat; our house was broken into a week after we moved in and I have NEVER been in fear of people breaking into my home at night. I could never imagine living with that fear, but that's how ****** up the mindset is below us.

Quote:Around another 1,000 of those are law enforcement killing a criminal.  So, if you're not a criminal, or hang out with criminals, you're talking 3,000 deaths a year.  While it's certainly tragic and horrible for any family affected by such a crime 3,000 deaths out of 300 million people is statistically insignificant.  Medical malpractice kills over a 100k per year.  Maybe we should defund the doctors?

Where have I mentioned funding or de-fund or anything of that nature? Destroying/recycling guns has nothing to do with de-funding anything; perhaps medical degrees shouldn't be handed out to anyone who pays their way through a second-rate (ie: Non John Hopkins/Ivy League) university (which the Simpsons has even made light of on numerous occasions, with Dr. Nick), then maybe malpractice cases will be significantly down. Ever think of that? Yet again, however, completely off-topic.

Quote:Or today, since it's the topic of the thread and all.  

I've said my piece above, so not really much more to expand upon; I am sympthetic to many plights that normal, law-abiding Americans (hell, anyone in the world, in reality) have to deal with and I am the most empathetic person I know (and am told this constantly), but Jesus Christ, you guys have done it all to yourselves and instead of uniting/seeking a common ground, the USA has turned a world of grey (which it will be forever), into a black and white world, where it's me against him, you against your neighbour, etc. etc.

The fact that you came on here to literally whine and complain that you can no longer have mags of 15 bullets, maxed out at 10, is so beyond preposterous and out of touch with the rest of the world and with REAL issues.

PS: On a personal note, I can't take any of your, "investigative," skills with any bit of seriousness, when you claim that one of the most forward, progressive, liked and admired countries in the world, has, "no rights."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZE0TuKTpo4

Just an excerpt of a special a comedian did back in 2002 or 2003, but... yeah; so many Americans REALLY DO think this way SMH.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-16-2020, 03:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I may or may not have one or more, myself. But that's really just more for fun on the range than anything else.

And I hope it's never needed for anything other than that.

Quote:I'm with you on the shotgun for home defense, though. My Remington 870 is plenty with the plug out.

00 buck is really a conversation ender in close quarters.  I bought a Benelli M4 as soon as my finances allowed it, it's really a beautiful piece of engineering.  I own two 870's myself, I always preferred them to the Mossberg.

[Belsnickel]

(08-16-2020, 05:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 00 buck is really a conversation ender in close quarters.  I bought a Benelli M4 as soon as my finances allowed it, it's really a beautiful piece of engineering.  I own two 870's myself, I always preferred them to the Mossberg.

I won mine years ago at a gun raffle in Pennsylvania when I was visiting family. I mean, I bought the ticket with my own money, but I was like 14 years old so technically my father won it.

It became my turkey gun and really is just a great all-around shotgun that is so versatile and has so many configurations and attachments that it really is the best option for so many things.

I've considered a Benelli, but honestly I just haven't felt the need for it. I have a couple of other shotguns, but they're all break open (12 ga SxS, 16 ga SxS, and a 10 ga single barrel). The 870 is my only pump and I have never felt the need for a semi.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-16-2020, 05:18 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: I too will respond on a point by point basis.



No relevance at all to what I was talking about... unless, by the nature of your comment, you think that you're more likely to be gone after because you are a skilled marksman? O...k then.

I've addressed this above.  You don't have fire insurance because you hope your house burns down.

Quote:Good for you; 'cause I really give a flying leap about American laws as well? Again, your statement is completely irrelevant to my original post. I'm talking about how ass-backwards things are down south, that Americans are compelled to buy guns for the sole purpose of protection in a possible home-invasion situation; that notion is not only scary, but absolutely crazy, especially due to the fact that you are the only country in the world that does things like this.

I get it, you don't like our way of doing things.  I don't care.  I get your reasoning and I don't find your argument compelling.  For me, the means of self defense should not be restricted to the government.  It's as simple as that.  You may never need it, but you have the right to own it.

Quote:Therefore, maybe chuck the guns and then violence will go down? What a thought...

Sure, any other parts of our Constitution you'd like us to excise?

Quote: wow, you guys really DO know absolutely nothing about us

Let's see, we:

- never have enslaved blacks and gave them a safe haven from your Southern States, during your civil war.
- women's suffrage began for our full country in 1917, while yours was 1920 (we were a country for only 50 years, unlike your 146)
- are allowed to say whatever we want, whenever we want, wherever we want (of course, threats and, "terroristic," language will get you in trouble), without any fear of recourse or issues.
- had all of these measures in place BEFORE a recognised charter (or constitution, in your case) was put in place... 60 years+ before, as a matter of fact.

Congratulations?  Don'r get me wrong, I love Canada.  I've been there for hockey tournaments, have numerous Canadian friends and I enjoy our cultural differences, despite being "descended" from the same system.  All that being said, the Canadian perspective on what the US should do is not compelling to me.  We're vastly different countries in many ways.  Not to mention that Canada greatly benefits from having their only neighbor be a friendly nation, and the most powerful one on the planet.

Quote:Not that you care, but take a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms.

We have just as many, IF NOT MORE rights, than Americans.

I guess you think we still use cheques and haven't adopted Chip and PIN yet?

Nope, a bunch of hillbillies here.  Also, form your own source, the judiciary can modify your "rights" at will.  That's not a "right" that's something you're being allowed to have.

Quote:And that's basically what I'm getting at; get rid of the damn weapons and then there won't be millions upon millions of your citizens, that have to, "live in fear of being home-invaded." Who's comitting 90% of these home-invasions? Gangsters and their associates: you don't have junkie Jimmy walking around a neighbourhood, looking to break into a home to steal some things for drug money, do you? No. You have gangs and organised crime doing the deed.

I repeat; our house was broken into a week after we moved in and I have NEVER been in fear of people breaking into my home at night. I could never imagine living with that fear, but that's how ****** up the mindset is below us.

Being prepared for the worst is not living in fear, it's taking personal responsibility for your own safety.  You want to be dependent on the government for your own safety, fine, plenty of Americans choose that route as well/

Quote:Where have I mentioned funding or de-fund or anything of that nature? Destroying/recycling guns has nothing to do with de-funding anything; perhaps medical degrees shouldn't be handed out to anyone who pays their way through a second-rate (ie: Non John Hopkins/Ivy League) university (which the Simpsons has even made light of on numerous occasions, with Dr. Nick), then maybe malpractice cases will be significantly down. Ever think of that? Yet again, however, completely off-topic.

You didn't, I was making a comparison.

Quote:I've said my piece above, so not really much more to expand upon; I am sympthetic to many plights that normal, law-abiding Americans (hell, anyone in the world, in reality) have to deal with and I am the most empathetic person I know (and am told this constantly), but Jesus Christ, you guys have done it all to yourselves and instead of uniting/seeking a common ground, the USA has turned a world of grey (which it will be forever), into a black and white world, where it's me against him, you against your neighbour, etc. etc.

Not at all.  I'm not the one advocating for the revocation of the freedoms of others.  That seems the exact opposite of "black and white".

Quote:The fact that you cam on here to literally whine and complain that you can no longer have mags of 15 bullets, maxed out at 10, is so beyond preposterous and out of touch with the rest of the world and with REAL issues.

Please don't pretend to be attempting to have an honest discussion and then proceed to couch my position as "whining and complaining".  If you're going to be condescending than at least have the courage to own it.

Quote:PS: On a personal note, I can't take any of your, "investigative," skills with any bit of seriousness, when you claim that one of the most forward, progressive, liked and admired countries in the world, has, "no rights."

And yet somehow I'll find the courage to go on living.  

Quote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZE0TuKTpo4

Just an excerpt of a special a comedian did back in 2002 or 2003, but... yeah; so many Americans REALLY DO think this way SMH.

Hey, I appreciate the stereotyping.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-16-2020, 05:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I won mine years ago at a gun raffle in Pennsylvania when I was visiting family. I mean, I bought the ticket with my own money, but I was like 14 years old so technically my father won it.

It became my turkey gun and really is just a great all-around shotgun that is so versatile and has so many configurations and attachments that it really is the best option for so many things.

I've considered a Benelli, but honestly I just haven't felt the need for it. I have a couple of other shotguns, but they're all break open (12 ga SxS, 16 ga SxS, and a 10 ga single barrel). The 870 is my only pump and I have never felt the need for a semi.

A semi is really only for home defense, although some hunt with it.  I will say this, the recoil compensation on the M4 is superb, it's night and day from an 870.  Firing a 3" slug from my M4 is less felt recoil than a 00 buck round from my 870's.  I have a CZ over under I use for trap and bird hunting.  A nice breach loader is a sincere joy to shoot.

[Belsnickel]

(08-16-2020, 05:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A semi is really only for home defense, although some hunt with it.  I will say this, the recoil compensation on the M4 is superb, it's night and day from an 870.  Firing a 3" slug from my M4 is less felt recoil than a 00 buck round from my 870's.  I have a CZ over under I use for trap and bird hunting.  A nice breach loader is a sincere joy to shoot.

Oh, my 870 kicks like a mule. It's just barely over an 18 in barrel and I've been too cheap to get a new one. I let a Scout shoot it when I was teaching the shotgun merit badge. This hoss of a 17 year old, who was not inexperienced with a shotgun, gave it up after one shot. I laughed so hard. And it was only a 2.75" trap load in it.

I've considered getting more into waterfowl, which would be the only reason I'd get a semi-auto, I think.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-16-2020, 05:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Oh, my 870 kicks like a mule. It's just barely over an 18 in barrel and I've been too cheap to get a new one. I let a Scout shoot it when I was teaching the shotgun merit badge. This hoss of a 17 year old, who was not inexperienced with a shotgun, gave it up after one shot. I laughed so hard. And it was only a 2.75" trap load in it.

Yeah, if you're not prepared a 12 gauge or other big bore is unpleasant to shoot.  I always work people up to them gradually.  Plus, there's no quicker way to turn someone off shooting than to give them a round they can't handle.  Not that you did that, a field round in 12 gauge is nothing, but many people do because they think it's amusing.

Quote:I've considered getting more into waterfowl, which would be the only reason I'd get a semi-auto, I think.

We don't get a lot of that here, or at least I haven't really explored it.  I am big on feral hog hunting as they are so destructive.