9th Circuit appeals court strikes down CA magazine ban

[BmorePat87]

(08-16-2020, 01:02 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Any restriction on law abiding citizens should be subject to considerable scrutiny.  We all know criminals don't obey the law by definition, the guy committing armed robbery won't be overly concerned with the extra 3 years he'll serve, concurrently, for having a standard capacity magazine in the gun he uses to rob you.  The question then becomes what does this restriction prevent?  The answer, in this case, is very little.  You'd "save" far more lives by putting a governor on every vehicle that limits it to 65 MPH.  Why aren't we advocating this life saving measure?!?!

A governor would save more lives, and proponents of lower speed limits will attest to that. We should have lower speed limits.

People not making a big deal over automobile deaths, however, isn't a good argument for not looking into good gun safety regulations. 

Most people accept the possibility that an accident can occur when they drive. They're far less likely to accept that someone might shoot them and 40 others on a whim. I think most people will agree that the intent and motive of an accident versus mass murder will always invoke different responses. Most people also see car companies tout new safety features, something we aren't seeing from the gun lobby.