California cannot ban gun owners from having detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, a federal judge ruled Friday.
The decision from U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez won’t take effect immediately. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, has already filed a notice to appeal the ruling. The ban is likely to remain in effect while the case is still pending.
This is the second time Benitez has struck down California’s law banning certain types of magazines. The first time he struck it down — way back in 2017 — an appeals court ended up reversing his decision.
Now let’s watch CA push another law through the courts, wasting even more taxpayer money on lawyers defending failed legislation.
Why dont they just let those people get murdered?
Well they could try addressing systemic poverty, housing, and the mental health and addiction crises instead.
No?
Not going to do that either, huh?
No country on earth doesnt have mental health problems, homeless people arent doing any mass shootings, nor are any drugs causing people to mass murder. The US isnt unique in these metrics. Its very unique in gun availability.
The vast majority of “mass shootings” are gang violence.
And it isn’t unique in gun availability.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country
Extremely unique
The typical American excess is the unique facet, not a large portion of the population being armed.
I dunno what else to tell you if you cant read numbers
Or I know more about the topic than you do, like the percentage of the population with a registered firearm compared to how many guns those owners have on average.
Unless you think mass shooters are quad wielding.
The fuck is your idea about other countries?
What, you think we don’t have excess anywhere else?
No, it is just that the US is a shithole where you are required to own a gun to feel safe in your own home.
I’ve got a better idea: we’ll take your guns away and you can have them back once you’ve finished fixing all that shit – which casually includes curing mental health problems far beyond our ability to treat, for every man, woman and child in America, including the ones that don’t want help, for free, faster than someone can buy a gun.
Yeah I’m sure you will, go right ahead. Let’s see who will have your back on that.
A smaller mag ain’t fixing a single damn problem, pass something that actually matters like proper gun control and licensing
Less bullets=less victims. Licensing dont do shit to keep people from murdering.
deleted by creator
Why don’t they tackle the issue at the root: people who feel like they have nothing to live for, so they take their frustration out on society.
Oh wait, that involves reducing the disparity in wealth. I guess we know why the ruling class is making us squabble over gun laws, then.
We just had the story of a judge getting road rage and firing wildly.
The root of gun violence is guns.
Then why isnt this a problem in say, switzerland? They have lax gun laws as well, but you dont really hear about mass shootings there. This is a mental health issue.
We have way more guns than switzerland.
Owning a 2nd or 5th gun doesn’t make one magically murderous. The fact that guns are widely owned in Switzerland and they don’t have the same crime issues proves something else is at play. The highest crimes areas in the US are the poorest, it’s fundamentally an economic issue to be solved. Make sure people have a happy and fulfilling life and many, many fewer people choose to murder.
Because nobody has ammo in Switzerland.
And everyone who owns a gun got one during their military training.
So they are trained and ammoless.
Switzerland isn’t the argument you ammosexuals think it is.
What are you talking about? Gun owners can freely buy ammo in Switzerland.
Are you referring to the fact that military-owned ammo stays on the military base? If so, I would like to emphasize we are talking about civilian ownership and civilians can buy ammo.
Right. But, proportionally speaking, who is significantly more likely to go on a shooting spree because they ‘feel like they have nothing to live for, so they take their frustration out on society’?
Is it going to be your exceptions, or my rules?
Why does it only matter if they go on shooting sprees for the reasons convenient to you?
Because addressing why people want to throw their lives away and kill others is important to solving the problem.
You say “convenient to me.” That’s cute, you’re trying to make this all about me, lol.
What’s “convenient for me” is these problems not existing in the first place. Wish that didn’t need to be spelled out for you.
What people?
The list of people killed in mass shootings this year, alone, has too many characters to fit into a Lemmy comment. Even if you just used first names.
No, I get that. And the arguments on both sides ad-nauseam. I was legit asking because the OP wasn’t talking about gun deaths. It seemed to be a comment to come out from other threads. I just started using Boost for Lemmy and I was trying to figure out if comments weren’t nested in a way that I understand.
California is the only reason your country has the GDP that it does.
They can do whatever the fuck they want.