Some mentioned the other one was old. Heres a two-day old article on the same issue.
Good. California regulations have done nothing to improve gun violence in their state when compared to less restrictive states like Texas. Even ignoring the blatant constitutional issues.
Texas has 3.2 gun murders per 100k. California has 3.4/100k.
Source, from the Murders section
Better social safety nets would be far more effective at reducing all forms of violence.
California regulations have done nothing to improve gun violence in their state when compared to less restrictive states like Texas.
That’s not true. You’re being incredibly misleading by only looking at murders instead of gun violence as a whole.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm
Texas has significantly more firearm deaths than California, 9/100k vs 15/100k. Nationally, California is lower than average in gun deaths.
And that’s even after the surrounding states with far more lax gun policy negatively effects California’s rates.
Basically all of the states with the highest gun death rates are republican states, and that’s not a coincidence.
Better social safety nets would be far more effective at reducing all forms of violence.
We should be doing both. The lack of social stability/mobility and health services is a part of the core problem. But it is not the only part the other part is that literally any lunatic or untrained owner can get a gun despite being unfit due to the countless loopholes.
Just as we have the right to vote and a requirement to register, so to should we have the right to bear arms with a requirement to register.
Just as we have the right to own cars and a requirement to be licensed (and therefore trained), so to should we have the right to bear arms with the requirement to be liscensed (and therefore trained.
If you are incapable of registering, being liscensed, or trained to safely own a gun, then you shouldn’t have a gun.
Gun violence is nothing more than an arbritary metric whose sole purpose is gun control. If they wanted violence, theyd say violence. If they wanted suicides, theyd say suicides.
But no, they had a conclusion and made up gun violence as a metric.
Gun violence is nothing more than an arbritary metric
How is counting the number of dead arbitrary?
whose sole purpose is gun control.
People are needlessly dying. We absolutely need gun control.
Keeping track of how many have died is a reasonable thing. We do it for literally every type of death out there.
You aren’t counting the number of dead. Only the acts using a specific tool. Its a metric about the tool, not about deaths. And besides, violence counts more than deaths.
People are needlessly dying. But gun control will not solve that. Focus on why people are killing themselves.
You aren’t counting the number of dead.
That’s exactly what I am doing. I quoted the number of dead per capita.
People are needlessly dying. But gun control will not solve that.
“No way to stop this says only country where this regularly happens.”
Most countries solve this with gun control.
Specifically gun murders per capita. Because its not about murder, its about guns. If it was about murder, youd say murder.
Most countries solve this by not have massive drug and gang problems.
Because its not about murder, its about guns. If it was about murder, youd say murder.
And your point is?
Most countries solve this by not have massive drug and gang problems.
Good thing we are winning the republican led war on drugs /s
Once again lumping in suicides without clearly stating such, to artificially bolster gun violence. This data includes suicides, which a mag disconnector, chamber indicator, registry, etc won’t help with.
Once again lumping in suicides without clearly stating such
Suicides are a form of gun violence.
This data includes suicides, which a mag disconnector, chamber indicator, registry, etc won’t help with.
I never made that argument, so this is a strawman.
Strawman? My friend these are gun laws in California. The state we’re talking about.
My friend these are gun laws in California.
And the intent behind them, at least the ones you specified, is not to deal with suicides. They are to prevent accidents (which is a part of gun violence).
You are basically saying “these car seat belt laws don’t do anything to prevent airplane crashes!”. Yeah no shit, that wasn’t the point of those laws.
Dog I think you’re losing track of the conversion. This post is about mag capacities, a measure trying to tackle gun murder. I started my comment talking about gun murders. I’m still taking about gun murders and related laws. You brought up suicide statistics
You brought up suicide statistics
No, I brought up firearm deaths as a whole, which is a part of the problem. California has addressed it, which is why they have a lower firearm death rate.
I started my comment talking about gun murders.
And like I said, that is misleading. California’s gun laws were added to reduce firearm deaths at a whole, so it is misleading to only go by gun murders.
Nope. There is no and should not be a requirement to register to express a right that clearly states it shall not be infringed. Not a chance. Once again, showe a criminal with bad intentions who’s going to register his firearms he bought out of the back of a van. You can’t because they don’t exist. Registration would only make things worse for everyone. Especially a publicly searchable registry where home invaders could add that little step to planning out which homes they’re going to invade.
Any and every requirement is a barrier to your right to bear arms and is an infringement because people like you think you sit on some high horse when in reality it’s you making life worse for everyone involved. Stop it.
There is no and should not be a requirement to register to express a right that clearly states it shall not be infringed.
And requiring registration does not infringe, as you are still permitted to own guns.
showe a criminal with bad intentions who’s going to register his firearms he bought out of the back of a van. Especially a publicly searchable registry where home invaders could add that little step to planning out which homes they’re going to invade.
These are strawman arguments.
Stop it.
Nope. Children are needlessly being killed over this stupid shit that should have been dealt with a century ago.
Children are being killed over gun rights? Either you’re full of shit or you’re admitting children are being killed by the state for emotional reactions like yours.
Saying criminals are not going to register their guns is not a strawman, it’s the absolute factual truth which you willingly refuse to accept.
Do you need to register your right to speak in public? That wouldn’t be an infringement on your right to free speech, would it? Do you need to register your right to not speak to avoid self incrimination? No. Do you need to register your right to protection from unlawful search and seizure? Nope.
You register for privileges, not rights. I don’t care if you don’t like it. In fact, the courts don’t care if you don’t like it. Just ask Michelle Grisham what people think of your bullshit.
Children are being killed over gun rights?
Yes. The lack of gun control is leading to shootings, accidental discharges, etc, which directly lead to the deaths of children.
Either you’re full of shit or you’re admitting children are being killed by the state for emotional reactions like yours.
The state is not doing that.
Saying criminals are not going to register their guns is not a strawman, it’s the absolute factual truth which you willingly refuse to accept.
I don’t think you understand how a strawman works.
You were arguing against a position I do not hold. You can’t just make up some crap, argue against it, and then pretend that it’s a view I hold.
Do you need to register your right to speak in public?
So there is a fundamental misunderstanding you have here. The right to speak and the right to bear arms are fundamentally different rights. One is the right to an action, the other is a right to own something. One is not inherently dangerous, the other is. So pretending that the protections surrounding these rights can be applied the same is just silly. The right to speak does not carry anywhere near the same danger as a gun.
On top of that, there are other things we have the right to own that are dangerous and therefore require registration, such as cars. We have the right to own cars, but we are still required to register them due to the dangers involved with them. Bicycles don’t require registration, and that’s because they aren’t dangerous, or at least not anywhere near as dangerous.
You register for privileges, not rights. I don’t care if you don’t like it. In fact, the courts don’t care if you don’t like it. Just ask Michelle Grisham what people think of your bullshit.
I really do not care what Girsham/pro-gun death people think.
Lol driving is a privilege, not a right. All that rambling and you still can’t get it right.
The 2nd is literally the only right that specifically states “shall not be infringed.” Yet here you are wanting it infringed because you’re scared.
And you obviously don’t know who Michelle Grisham is. I’ll end my interaction there. Learn before you speak.
Lol driving is a privilege, not a right.
It is in fact a right.
- “The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
The 2nd is literally the only right that specifically states “shall not be infringed.”
And gun control does not infringe that right anymore than car regulations infringe the right to travel.
Yet here you are wanting it infringed because you’re scared.
I want gun control not because I am scared (I’m not), but because people are dying over this and it is easily preventable. We are basically the only country to have this problem. Almost all of the other developed nations have figured this shit out and don’t regularly have shootings or gun deaths at the scale we do.
And you obviously don’t know who Michelle Grisham is.
https://lemmy.world/comment/3410602
I already had a conversation about her. I am well aware of who she is. Since you didn’t understand what I was saying, allow me to rephrase.
- I really do not care what Girsham OR pro-gun-death people think.
Why would anyone need more than 10 rounds in a magazine for an assault rifle? “self defense”?
Here are a few:
-
Because it’s our right. (I know you know this but it’s still the first reason).
-
Because when recreationally shooting a gun like this it’s more enjoyable to have larger capacities.
-
Number 1 again.
Because it’s our right.
The 2nd amendment says nothing about regulation of magazines. And regulating magazines doesn’t effect your right to own guns.
Because when recreationally shooting a gun like this it’s more enjoyable to have larger capacities.
So your personal enjoyment is more important than the lives of children?
Arms as mentioned in the 2A encompasses more than just firearms. It also includes things the magazines, tasers, and armor.
Per US SC Caetano v. Massachusetts “”[w]eapo[n] of offence" or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.” 554 U. S., at 581, 584
So any weapon that can be carried is covered by the second amendment is what you’re saying?
I would interpret that as those useful in the defense of one’s self or one’s homeland. Something that would prevent the enjoyment of the land after it’s use like a cobalt bomb wouldn’t apply in my mind, because it would making the land uninhabitable (invalidating the whole point of defending it). Things like munitions would likely be included with a caveat requiring their storage in the modern equivalent of a powder house, in keeping with the historical tradition of the founding period.
Wiki link to a specific powder house that was in use at the time of the founding:
Strange and unusual weapons like a shotgun collar from the Saw movies wouldn’t be permissible as those don’t have merit for either common or self defense.
Kinda touched on a few different aspects there hopefully it’s clear.
So then is it safe to say, that there are some things that can be carried, but are in some way too ridiculous/dangerous to make sense to be covered under the 2a? How does magazines large enough to mow down an entire crowd of children not count?
I am sorry if I was unclear before, but the qualifier I had sought to relay was that arms aught to have a pragmatic use in either self or common defense. That said it is because magazines are an object of martial value that can be employed in a controlled manner in a style to limit needless collateral damages.
deleted by creator
-
Self defense is but one reason to own a rifle. I’d suggest that people are entitled to own the most apt means of self preservation. And it seems that in the era of intermediate cartridges the most pragmatic sum for a rifle to hold is usually 30 rounds beyond that magazine start to become a hindrance. In most cases people might not use even all ten rounds. Having the additional capacity doesn’t prohibit one from using fewer rounds, but having only 10 does inhibit you from using more than 10 rounds.
Another reason for ownership of rifles is in common defense as alluded to in the 2A by the “Necessary to the security of a free State”. The standard on the global stage for an intermediate cartridge rifle is also 30 rounds of capacity. Meaning most threats to the security of our state would have three times the capacity of a 10 rd magazine.
Why not? No one needs an excuse.
Yes. Arm everyone. No excuses. Give everyone rifles with large magazines. What could possibly go wrong in the only country where things regularly go wrong
Exactly! What could go wrong?
‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
Because the Onion should write laws
This is a strawman. In no way did I suggest that.
You do realize it was a joke, right?
Then you’re terrible with jokes
Californians need more than 10 rounds because of hog hunters in florida?
I don’t believe you’re asking in good faith or would find any reason presented as valid, and I’m not going to play whack-a-mole or engage beyond this reply.
Locality isn’t really relevant in terms of federal constitutionality. Moreover, it’s not wise to demand demonstration of a need to justify a right at the level of an individual. Why do you need to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures? One could argue that we’d be a lot safer if the cops could shake everyone down and catch the baddies early. Why do you need to be secure against cruel and unusual punishment? One could argue that we’d be a lot safer if there was more gruesome public deterrence. Why do you need to be able to freely speak your mind in public? So on and so forth. Individual need is not the fulcrum.
I get it though, you don’t like this one right in particular, so you’ll want to wiggle about how it’s different or outdated or misapplied as to individuals. I’m going to assume your life is fairly stable and secure, based on your original question. Good for you. But don’t assume everyone has your privilege, and try to appreciate that this is a large nation with a great many ways of life and circumstances that are outside your personal experience.
I hope we all get to keep all of our rights, as they keep us, by virtue of their nature and our nature. As to need, I sure hope you never have to individually assert any of your rights because you have an acute need, but if you do, I hope you still enjoy whichever right you need in that moment and haven’t pissed it away.
(Edit for small typos)
Why do you feel people must justify “need”? Aside from the PITA at a range or sporting use which is by far the majority of when people are using them, do you “need” your gas tank to hold whatvit does? Why not hold 5gals and you can simply fill itnup all the time? What does that acomplish other than being a pain in the ass?
Also, AR’s aren’t “assault rifles”. An M16 is, an M4 is, just like your initial argument these are things people say that (sorry), dont know what they’re talkig about.
Why do you feel people must justify “need”?
Because people and children are dying from firearm related deaths all the fucking time in this country. Your rights end where another’s nose begins.
LOL! Sure lunatic. So the criminals that by definition dont follow the law and have no issues comiting murder, will swap those 30rd mags for 10’s becuase those are legal right? Makes no difference that its a felony for them to be in possession of a firearm is already a crime, the mag limit… That’ll stop them right?
You’re hilarious. I’ll bet speed limits and DUI laws stop people too right? The ol’ gotta do “something” even when its proven not to work mindset huh?
Plan your next vacation to reality.
Give an example of how that’s a straw man, its literally punishing the innocent for the crimes of criminal with laws theyre already ignoring.
Nice try.
Give an example of how that’s a straw man
I never said anything about any of this:
- criminals that by definition dont follow the law and have no issues comiting murder, will swap those 30rd mags for 10’s becuase those are legal
Or this:
- I’ll bet speed limits and DUI laws stop people too right?
You are arguing against a position I do not hold, a strawman.
If your argument is that limiting magazine capacity for people not commuting crimes, has an effect on people that ignore laws and will not produce any real life result as a consequence of that, than yes, you are.
smoothbrain take right here
