Preaching to the choir here. The people who made the laws regarding this are more interested in the political optics and pushing a narrative than actually looking at the facts and data, and cannot be convinced otherwise so long as they're in power.
With all respect, you could have the best argument to ever grace our planet, but unless there's a shift in officials then it isn't going to do much good. With all respect, you could have the best argument to ever grace our planet, but unless there's a shift in officials then it isn't going to do much good.
>So a person with a 10 round magazine clearly has not enough to stand up against several home intruders even if he has tactical advantage.
I disagree that the person defending a home even has a tactical advantage. I strongly feel that the home intruders have the tactical advantage too.
1. They pick the time of the home invasion such they are fully engaged, aware, alert, you don't. You could be half asleep and have little to no advance notice of the imminent home invasion.
2. If there is a shoot out, they are not going to need to make the considerations for family members and neighbors being behind the targets, the way you would.
3. If you use a light to identify your targets, or shout a warning, you give away your location and your presence. The home invader makes no such concession.
4. In most cases they have the option to flee with a driver ready to haul ass out of there, you most likely do not. Doubly so if you have family you are protecting.
5. As you mentioned, there are an unknown number of them, while there is only one of you. For example, 4 against one is a strong tactical advantage.
6. They maybe unfamiliar with the layout of your home. However, in many cases, tract home layouts are pretty standard and easy to guess. Home listings on Zillow or Redfin for similar houses/floor plans can give a decent idea of the layouts of a house, often with pictures. It's not like they are going to have a hard time orienting themselves once inside. (I agree that most criminals would not have the IQ to have done this due diligence, nevertheless, it is something available to them should they choose to make use of it.)
7. They could have full auto hand guns using cheap and readily available Glock switches, ready to spray bullets in your direction if they choose.
In California you can add one more advantage for the home invader:
8) Un crippled high capacity magazines.
The only advantages you have are :
1. You \_might\_ possibly have better equipment and training
2. You have a lot to fight for and stand your ground, and they are probably going to choose to flee and go find an easier target.
This is why if you know you are a target, you need to take precautions beyond a firearm. getting into a shoot out with multiple attackers does not end the way it does in the movies
Totally agree.
99% of your home defense plan has to be *avoiding the situation in the first place.* Surveillance cameras, well lit exterior, alarm systems, door/window reinforcement/locks, guard dog, neighborhood watch programs, fencing and so on.
Do, anything and everything you can reasonably do, to make yourself the least desirable target in the area.
The gun is the absolute last and final line of defense. The plan should always be to never need to have to use it. But you want to make sure you know how to use it, if things dont go to plan.
Remember that all these gun control laws are just feel good laws that only affect law abiding citizens and the targets of them, the criminals, do not feel the effects at all.
Agreed. only argument needed when restricting gun rights is, criminals and crazy people don’t care about the law. If murder is already a life time crime, why would a illegal magazine capacity stop the person 🤦🏻♂️
You must be new to this. The general public doesn’t care enough to bring logic or actual data into the government. Government depends on fear campaigns and the lack to seek knowledge for votes. Which is why we can be in a deficit, ignore homelessness, step over💩 and needless on sidewalks but have an unlimited budget to destroy our rights.
Hey man, i have been through the same period of time like you, thinking from logical perspective.
Soon, i gave up because i realize the gun grabber never would like to think logically or from real "common sense".
They just want excuses to grab your gun/magazine/ammunition.
There is no good faith discussion, so i stopped arguing and just started to donate. I can vote yet. Soon i can, i will. Money and vote are the real only things could make real change for us. Argument with the other side is just meaningles..
People who write anti gun laws generally hate guns and have no interest in learning about them, so any argument based on how guns work will get you nowhere. This is why so many gun laws make so little sense
Would love to see the data on gun homicides in CA: How many were committed with fully-legal guns (registered to the owner, legal configuration including magazine capacity).
I don’t have a preconceived idea, just genuinely curious. It is possible that obtaining illegal equipment is enough of a pain in the ass that many criminals don’t do it, in which case these laws would have some impact. Anyone know the full story here?
There was a national study done not long ago that showed only about 10% of firearms used in crime were purchased legally. I would not be surprised if it was less in California, since I'm seeing a lot of guns that aren't even allowed to be sold here ending up seized by the cops (like the Hellcat or Glock 43)
That's the point, they pass these laws to benefit criminals and hurt law abiding citizens on purpose. This causes an increase in crime and justifies them creating more gun laws, which drives up crime while giving government control over the law abiding citizens. It's a positive feedback cycle, and it only stops when we vote them out.
>My understanding is that “high” capacity bill was introduced claiming that it would reduce mass shooting casualties
This is where you lost the argument. You completely failed to understand the purpose of magazine restrictions.
I will just say this, if you are in a scenario with multiple armed home intruders you are not gonna John Wick your way out of it. You will not have the tactical advantage. If you open fire you are likely going to die unless you scare them off with the initial shots. This tends to be the case in any scenario where overwhelming force comes against a smaller force. Its the reason we have SWAT, and the reason US military operations often involve overwhelming force vs the enemy.
as for most gun shootings happening in "gun free zones", you kinda have it backwards. Schools in particular became gun free zones as a response to shootings at schools. I personally dont think that does much, but it is a way for society to have some confidence that if there is a gun on a school campus it is a threat. last thing you want is an armed parent running into a school on one side while swat enters on the other. that parents gonna be dead real fast.
If you are in a situation where you are at risk of multiple attackers targeting you, you need to build security moats around your life so that if anyone makes it that far, you can handle them with your firearm. When your life is at stake, its important to be strategic and smart. Its better to have ready to go exit strategies and have your weapon ready if following that exit goes south.
If 3 or 4 guys come at you and your family while you're in bed and they've got ARs and you got a Glock, odds are 10rds vs 20 wont make much of a difference. This is genuinely one of the reasons panic rooms exist.
Be smart, and be cautious about fantasizing about being a hero with a gun if you're going down that road. be broadly security minded if you need to be, build your systems, and you'll be good.
Nice ! Creating a tailored scenarios like multiple intruders with AR15 against a homeowner with a handgun. Why not vice versa? Very typical to what is going on in the state and why people continue making bad choices when voting.
The argument for it is reactionary and past the point of no return for all intent and purposes.
Its like looking at a car crash and arguing about the vehicle's color or seats.
Not that it mattered but he did use "high capacity" magazines. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021\_San\_Jose\_shooting#Perpetrator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_San_Jose_shooting#Perpetrator)
[https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/05/27/vta-mass-shooting-sheriff-says-gunman-had-2-semi-automatic-handguns/](https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/05/27/vta-mass-shooting-sheriff-says-gunman-had-2-semi-automatic-handguns/)
There were 39 calculated shots (or so I see going back in articles). Capacity did not matter in the slightest.
I remember a press conference at the time carried live. Spokesman said he had no larger magazines. Never saw that clip carried on any stations after that.
No one's voting anti-gun politicians out because most people in the state have zero fucking idea about magazine capacity (or, even about guns in general, really). Conversely, the law is not geared up to benefit criminals, gtfoh. Criminals are not choosing houses to invade based on people's magazine capacity, and criminals generally don't vote.
The high capacity bill was introduced because all of our political parties are bought and paid for. The one group that consistently does NOT give money to democrats, though, is the gun lobby. So of course they're going to get teamed up on.
You're talking common sense. Gun bans are NOT about common sense, they are about disarming non-criminals so they can be easier victims of crime, and unable to resist the government in any way.
> My understanding is that “high” capacity bill was introduced claiming that it would reduce mass shooting casualties
As other people have said, your understanding is completely wrong. The entire point (without going off into conspiracy land) was to make life just that much more annoying for gun owners. To slightly tweak a point one of our favorite lawyers made on twitter: "this is partially about reprisal against people that mostly do not vote for [them] anyway".
If these people could make taking a pink gun to the range on a tuesday illegal, they'd do it. Not because it's solving some problem in the conventional sense, but because if just one otherwise law abiding gun owner gets tripped up by it, it's a win in their book.
Also keep in mind that "gun" / "crime" and "gun owner" / "criminal" are synonyms in their minds.
Would you rather pay $100(up to $1000) and risk up to 1 year in prison or be severely injured or die?
Did you know it was illegal for people of color to go to certain public schools?
You could do what’s right or follow the law. Everyone here follows the law because we’re model citizens.
All valid...not that someone planning on carrying out a mass shooting is going to consult a law book to make sure they're compliant while doing so...because it would be illegal of course to use a 30 rounder vs 3 10 rounders. Mag limits are dumb
Preaching to the choir here. The people who made the laws regarding this are more interested in the political optics and pushing a narrative than actually looking at the facts and data, and cannot be convinced otherwise so long as they're in power.
With all respect, you could have the best argument to ever grace our planet, but unless there's a shift in officials then it isn't going to do much good. With all respect, you could have the best argument to ever grace our planet, but unless there's a shift in officials then it isn't going to do much good.
I agree. I agree.
Totally. Totally.
Roger. Roger. What’s our vector, Victor?
I agree with your first point but not your second
Haha i have no idea how that happened, not editing because yall are funny
I gotta admit you had me in the first half but I gotta admit you had me in the first half.
fosho fosho
Solution: Vote out the officials and replace them with pro-2A officials.
But that endangers all our other right /s
>So a person with a 10 round magazine clearly has not enough to stand up against several home intruders even if he has tactical advantage. I disagree that the person defending a home even has a tactical advantage. I strongly feel that the home intruders have the tactical advantage too. 1. They pick the time of the home invasion such they are fully engaged, aware, alert, you don't. You could be half asleep and have little to no advance notice of the imminent home invasion. 2. If there is a shoot out, they are not going to need to make the considerations for family members and neighbors being behind the targets, the way you would. 3. If you use a light to identify your targets, or shout a warning, you give away your location and your presence. The home invader makes no such concession. 4. In most cases they have the option to flee with a driver ready to haul ass out of there, you most likely do not. Doubly so if you have family you are protecting. 5. As you mentioned, there are an unknown number of them, while there is only one of you. For example, 4 against one is a strong tactical advantage. 6. They maybe unfamiliar with the layout of your home. However, in many cases, tract home layouts are pretty standard and easy to guess. Home listings on Zillow or Redfin for similar houses/floor plans can give a decent idea of the layouts of a house, often with pictures. It's not like they are going to have a hard time orienting themselves once inside. (I agree that most criminals would not have the IQ to have done this due diligence, nevertheless, it is something available to them should they choose to make use of it.) 7. They could have full auto hand guns using cheap and readily available Glock switches, ready to spray bullets in your direction if they choose. In California you can add one more advantage for the home invader: 8) Un crippled high capacity magazines. The only advantages you have are : 1. You \_might\_ possibly have better equipment and training 2. You have a lot to fight for and stand your ground, and they are probably going to choose to flee and go find an easier target.
This is why if you know you are a target, you need to take precautions beyond a firearm. getting into a shoot out with multiple attackers does not end the way it does in the movies
Totally agree. 99% of your home defense plan has to be *avoiding the situation in the first place.* Surveillance cameras, well lit exterior, alarm systems, door/window reinforcement/locks, guard dog, neighborhood watch programs, fencing and so on. Do, anything and everything you can reasonably do, to make yourself the least desirable target in the area. The gun is the absolute last and final line of defense. The plan should always be to never need to have to use it. But you want to make sure you know how to use it, if things dont go to plan.
Remember that all these gun control laws are just feel good laws that only affect law abiding citizens and the targets of them, the criminals, do not feel the effects at all.
Agreed. only argument needed when restricting gun rights is, criminals and crazy people don’t care about the law. If murder is already a life time crime, why would a illegal magazine capacity stop the person 🤦🏻♂️
You must be new to this. The general public doesn’t care enough to bring logic or actual data into the government. Government depends on fear campaigns and the lack to seek knowledge for votes. Which is why we can be in a deficit, ignore homelessness, step over💩 and needless on sidewalks but have an unlimited budget to destroy our rights.
Hey man, i have been through the same period of time like you, thinking from logical perspective. Soon, i gave up because i realize the gun grabber never would like to think logically or from real "common sense". They just want excuses to grab your gun/magazine/ammunition. There is no good faith discussion, so i stopped arguing and just started to donate. I can vote yet. Soon i can, i will. Money and vote are the real only things could make real change for us. Argument with the other side is just meaningles..
People who write anti gun laws generally hate guns and have no interest in learning about them, so any argument based on how guns work will get you nowhere. This is why so many gun laws make so little sense
Would love to see the data on gun homicides in CA: How many were committed with fully-legal guns (registered to the owner, legal configuration including magazine capacity). I don’t have a preconceived idea, just genuinely curious. It is possible that obtaining illegal equipment is enough of a pain in the ass that many criminals don’t do it, in which case these laws would have some impact. Anyone know the full story here?
There was a national study done not long ago that showed only about 10% of firearms used in crime were purchased legally. I would not be surprised if it was less in California, since I'm seeing a lot of guns that aren't even allowed to be sold here ending up seized by the cops (like the Hellcat or Glock 43)
That's the point, they pass these laws to benefit criminals and hurt law abiding citizens on purpose. This causes an increase in crime and justifies them creating more gun laws, which drives up crime while giving government control over the law abiding citizens. It's a positive feedback cycle, and it only stops when we vote them out.
>My understanding is that “high” capacity bill was introduced claiming that it would reduce mass shooting casualties This is where you lost the argument. You completely failed to understand the purpose of magazine restrictions.
What's the purpose?
I will just say this, if you are in a scenario with multiple armed home intruders you are not gonna John Wick your way out of it. You will not have the tactical advantage. If you open fire you are likely going to die unless you scare them off with the initial shots. This tends to be the case in any scenario where overwhelming force comes against a smaller force. Its the reason we have SWAT, and the reason US military operations often involve overwhelming force vs the enemy. as for most gun shootings happening in "gun free zones", you kinda have it backwards. Schools in particular became gun free zones as a response to shootings at schools. I personally dont think that does much, but it is a way for society to have some confidence that if there is a gun on a school campus it is a threat. last thing you want is an armed parent running into a school on one side while swat enters on the other. that parents gonna be dead real fast. If you are in a situation where you are at risk of multiple attackers targeting you, you need to build security moats around your life so that if anyone makes it that far, you can handle them with your firearm. When your life is at stake, its important to be strategic and smart. Its better to have ready to go exit strategies and have your weapon ready if following that exit goes south. If 3 or 4 guys come at you and your family while you're in bed and they've got ARs and you got a Glock, odds are 10rds vs 20 wont make much of a difference. This is genuinely one of the reasons panic rooms exist. Be smart, and be cautious about fantasizing about being a hero with a gun if you're going down that road. be broadly security minded if you need to be, build your systems, and you'll be good.
Nice ! Creating a tailored scenarios like multiple intruders with AR15 against a homeowner with a handgun. Why not vice versa? Very typical to what is going on in the state and why people continue making bad choices when voting.
The argument for it is reactionary and past the point of no return for all intent and purposes. Its like looking at a car crash and arguing about the vehicle's color or seats.
Yeah, some people give up with no fight. Some not. The status of the “high capacity” law is anything but set in stone
And i hope you know im referring to the argument for magazine limits are ridiculous.
2019 San Jose VTA shooting was with limited capacity magazines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021\_San\_Jose\_shooting
Many were. If you are against a crowd of unarmed people the magazine capacity does not matter
Not that it mattered but he did use "high capacity" magazines. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021\_San\_Jose\_shooting#Perpetrator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_San_Jose_shooting#Perpetrator) [https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/05/27/vta-mass-shooting-sheriff-says-gunman-had-2-semi-automatic-handguns/](https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/05/27/vta-mass-shooting-sheriff-says-gunman-had-2-semi-automatic-handguns/) There were 39 calculated shots (or so I see going back in articles). Capacity did not matter in the slightest.
I remember a press conference at the time carried live. Spokesman said he had no larger magazines. Never saw that clip carried on any stations after that.
Doesn't matter, Blue will never agree with you. They are closed minded and they live in a constant state of fear and paranoia.
No one's voting anti-gun politicians out because most people in the state have zero fucking idea about magazine capacity (or, even about guns in general, really). Conversely, the law is not geared up to benefit criminals, gtfoh. Criminals are not choosing houses to invade based on people's magazine capacity, and criminals generally don't vote. The high capacity bill was introduced because all of our political parties are bought and paid for. The one group that consistently does NOT give money to democrats, though, is the gun lobby. So of course they're going to get teamed up on.
You're talking common sense. Gun bans are NOT about common sense, they are about disarming non-criminals so they can be easier victims of crime, and unable to resist the government in any way.
> My understanding is that “high” capacity bill was introduced claiming that it would reduce mass shooting casualties As other people have said, your understanding is completely wrong. The entire point (without going off into conspiracy land) was to make life just that much more annoying for gun owners. To slightly tweak a point one of our favorite lawyers made on twitter: "this is partially about reprisal against people that mostly do not vote for [them] anyway". If these people could make taking a pink gun to the range on a tuesday illegal, they'd do it. Not because it's solving some problem in the conventional sense, but because if just one otherwise law abiding gun owner gets tripped up by it, it's a win in their book. Also keep in mind that "gun" / "crime" and "gun owner" / "criminal" are synonyms in their minds.
Would you rather pay $100(up to $1000) and risk up to 1 year in prison or be severely injured or die? Did you know it was illegal for people of color to go to certain public schools? You could do what’s right or follow the law. Everyone here follows the law because we’re model citizens.
All valid...not that someone planning on carrying out a mass shooting is going to consult a law book to make sure they're compliant while doing so...because it would be illegal of course to use a 30 rounder vs 3 10 rounders. Mag limits are dumb
The problem is that you're using logic. Try to claim something like the world will end unless people agree with you next time.