Gun Control

As the 9th Circuit Takes Another Look at California's 10-Round Magazine Limit, It Should Demand More Than Speculation From the Law's Defenders

The state's ban on "large-capacity magazines" is easy to justify, as long as you assume its benefits and ignore its costs.

|

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit yesterday vacated a 2020 decision that blocked California's ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. A federal judge in 2019 concluded that the law, which prohibits possession as well as manufacture and sale, was inconsistent with the Second Amendment. Last year a three-judge 9th Circuit panel agreed. Now the full court will rehear Duncan v. Becerra, raising the possibility that the ban will be upheld after all.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, the defendant in the lawsuit, welcomed that development. "Large-capacity magazines have been used in many horrific mass shootings around the country, including right here in California," he said in a press release. "That's why today's decision by the Ninth Circuit to rehear this case is critical; it is the next step in the defense of our state's commonsense gun laws."

Becerra's notion of "common sense," like President Joe Biden's, may be common, but that does not mean it makes any sense. Becerra thinks it is self-evident that a 10-round limit on magazine capacity saves lives by making mass shootings less deadly. At the same time, he cannot conceive of a situation where anyone would need more than 10 rounds for self-defense. The advantage that extra rounds give a mass shooter by reducing the time spent switching magazines somehow disappears when a law-abiding gun owner is defending himself, his family, or his property from violent criminals.

Biden, who favors a federal law similar to California's, shares these seemingly contradictory premises, and he does not even attempt to persuade anyone who might be skeptical. To give you a sense of Biden's reasoning, he notes that "federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun." In his view, "that means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children."

Whatever emotional appeal that line may have, its illogic should be clear to anyone who considers it for more than a fraction of a second. Biden is suggesting that Americans who own guns for self-defense should be subject to the same limits as duck hunters, notwithstanding the obvious differences between these two situations. Unlike human criminals, ducks do not threaten to rob, assault, rape, or murder people, and they do not shoot back. And unlike duck hunting, which the federal government regulates under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, armed self-defense is a fundamental human right that also happens to be protected by the Constitution. A general three-round limit would effectively ban all semi-automatic firearms and revolvers, which would be clearly unconstitutional.

Does adding seven rounds to that limit solve the problem? U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez thought not, and two members of the 9th Circuit panel that reviewed his decision concurred. Both decisions described circumstances (including actual cases) where having more than 10 rounds in a magazine could make a crucial difference for people using guns in self-defense—circumstances that are much more common than the scenario in which the need to switch magazines provides a "critical pause" that allows a mass shooter's victims to overpower him or escape.

Despite the impression created by the attention they get, mass shootings are rare events. In the United States, they account for less than 1 percent of gun homicides and have occurred an average of fewer than five times a year during the last two decades. Mass shootings in which magazine size arguably made an important difference are rarer still.

By comparison, Benitez cites survey data suggesting that Americans use guns in self-defense millions of times a year. Even if that estimate is off by an order of magnitude, and even allowing for the fact that the vast majority of these uses involve brandishing a gun rather than firing it, the potential defensive advantage of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds is bound to outweigh the potential offensive advantage for mass shooters.

"From the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family," Benitez noted, "the time required to re-load a pistol after the tenth shot might be called a 'lethal pause,' as it typically takes a victim much longer to re-load (if they can do it at all) than a perpetrator planning an attack. In other words, the re-loading 'pause' the State seeks in hopes of stopping a mass shooter also tends to create an even more dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine."

California calls the products it wants to confiscate "large-capacity magazines" (LCMs); Biden calls them "high-capacity magazines." Both terms are highly misleading.

Many of the most popular guns sold in the United States, such as the Glock 17 pistol, the Ruger 10/22 rifle, and the AR-15 rifle, come equipped with magazines that exceed California's arbitrary limit, which was originally imposed in 2000 and extended to pre-existing hardware by a 2016 ballot initiative. As the 9th Circuit panel noted, so-called LCMs account for roughly half of the 230 million or so magazines owned by Americans. A capacity of more than 10 rounds is neither "large" nor "high"; it is standard.

The popularity of these magazines makes a difference in the constitutional analysis, because it means they are in common use for lawful purposes—the Supreme Court's test for deciding which arms are covered by the Second Amendment. In Benitez's view, that fact alone dooms a blanket ban like California's.

Becerra thinks 10 rounds is plenty for self-defense, meaning that the millions of Americans who disagree are either lying or deluded. Yet California's LCM ban, like similar laws in other states, includes an exemption for employees of law enforcement agencies, whether on duty or off, and retired cops. Those groups predictably bridle at the notion that they should be subject to the same limit as everyone else.

Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik was outraged when New Jersey legislators accidentally omitted off-duty cops from the privilege of exceeding that state's 10-round limit. By signing that law, Kerik said on Twitter in 2018, Gov. Phil Murphy was "endangering the life of every off duty NJ cop!"

How so? "Gang bangers, drug thugs and really bad guys don't give a damn about magazine capacity," Kerik explained. "So he takes the good guy's ammunition, and the bad guys are loaded for bear!" Kerik vented some more in an interview with Fox News. "You're taking the ability away from the cops to possess the rounds they may need in a gun battle," he said. "That's insane."

Something similar happened with the seven-round magazine limit that New York legislators hastily enacted in 2013, except in that case it was former cops who were overlooked. They angrily demanded the double standard to which they were accustomed, and the legislature gave it to them a few months later.

Notice that Kerik readily conceded New Jersey's magazine limit would have no impact on criminals, and he took it for granted that the difference between 10 and 15 rounds could be the difference between life and death for someone using a gun in self-defense. Yet somehow that extra margin of safety is intolerable for citizens without badges.

If a complete ban on possession of arms commonly used for lawful purposes is automatically unconstitutional, as Benitez suggested, the costs and benefits of that policy don't affect the legal analysis. But otherwise, they matter a lot. Under "strict scrutiny," the standard that the 9th Circuit panel deemed appropriate, California's law must be "narrowly tailored" to advance a compelling government interest. Under "intermediate scrutiny," which the panel also considered for the sake of argument, the law "must be substantially related to an important governmental objective." Either way, there has to be some fit between means and ends.

Becerra not only ignores the costs of California's LCM ban; he musters almost no evidence of its benefits. "The quality of the evidence relied on by the State is remarkably thin," Benitez noted, and the 9th Circuit panel agreed.

Becerra cites a tally of mass shootings by Mayors Against Illegal Guns. "Of the 92 mass killings occurring across the 50 states between 2013 and 2009, only ten occurred in California," Benitez noted. "Of those ten, the criminalization and dispossession requirements of [the LCM ban] would have had no effect on eight of the shootings, and only marginal good effects had it been in effect at the time of the remaining two shootings. On this evidence, [the LCM ban] is not a reasonable fit. It hardly fits at all. It appears on this record to be a haphazard solution likely to have no effect on an exceedingly rare problem."

Becerra also cites the database of mass shootings compiled by Mother Jones. "Of the 98 events over the last 36 years, 17 took place in California," Benitez noted. "This is an average of one event every two years in the most populous state in the nation." All but three of those 17 mass shootings involved multiple firearms, casting doubt on the importance of LCMs. Of the three shooters who brought just one gun, one had a revolver, making magazine size irrelevant; one had a pistol with 10-round magazines; and the third used a pistol with a 15-round magazine that she had legally bought in New Mexico and illegally transported to California.

Two of the California attacks involved LCMs as well as multiple firearms. In one case, the shooter used a pistol with a 30-round magazine that had been stolen in Utah and illegally brought to California. In the other case, Benitez noted, the magazines likewise seem to have been "illegally imported from outside of California." Hence "criminalizing possession of magazines holding any more than 10 rounds likely would not have provided any additional protection."

Once you go beyond Becerra's vague invocation of "horrific mass shootings," the public safety benefit of California's ban on possession of LCMs is not merely speculative; it may well be nonexistent. Since Becerra assigns zero weight to the Second Amendment rights of Californians affected by the ban, that is good enough for him. The 9th Circuit, which has a duty to protect those rights, should demand more.

NEXT: Richard Carranza, the Most Divisive Pro-'Equity' Public Official in America, Resigns

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. ducks do not threaten to rob, assault, rape, or murder people, and they do not shoot back

    Daffy’s gonna snap one day.

    1. Someone hasn’t seen Scrooge get angry.

      1. ░A░M░A░Z░I░N░G░ ░J░O░B░S░
        I basically make about $8,000-$12,000 a month online. It’s enough to comfortably replace my old jobs income, especially considering I only work about 10-13 hours a week from home. I was amazed how easy it was after I tried it copy below web.

        COPY HERE———->> GoOgLE CaSh 1

        1. I get paid 140 $ each hour for work at home on my PC. I never thought I’d have the option to do it however my old buddy is gaining 65000$/month to month by carrying out this responsibility and she gave me how.

          Give it a shot on following website……..VISIT HERE

      1. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job I’ve had . Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month.ERf I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr

        Heres what I do………. JOBS APP

    2. His righteous anger is justified by Donald’s white privilege.

      A duck’s gotta do what a duck’s gotta do.

    3. Black Ducks Matter!

      Drake is down wit yo struggle!

    4. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working FBX online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…….. Visit……….. Visit Here

    5. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple works from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simpleFRE job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…. Visit Here

  2. The state’s ban on “large-capacity magazines” is easy to justify, as long as you assume its benefits and ignore its costs.

    More importantly, as long as you ignore the US Constitution.
    “shall not be infringed” is really, really hard to misunderstand, but the fascists manage.

    1. California was admitted into the union in 1850, long after the constitution was ratified. Therefore, the 2A is not applicable there.

      /The Ghost of Mike Hihn

      1. Hihnsight is 20/20.

        1. Start working from home! Great job for everyone! stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income…You can work this job As part time or As A full time job.You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection…Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom…fdty You can have your first check by the end of this week…

          Lifetime Opportunity This is what I do—— ONLINE-JOBS-USA

        2. Hihnsight *is* about as good as 2020 was…

          1. The absence of Hihn was a rare silver lining to 2020.

    2. It also requires magical thinking as it ignors science and reality. There are largely two styles of magazines, boxes and tubes. Both have springs to push the next round into feeding position and tubes are just round boxes that stack rounds nose to tail instead of a column side by side.

      All we need to do now is define the capacity of a box. Yup, it really is that simple or is it?

      A tube magazine that holds ten 357 Magnum rounds will probably hold fourteen 38 Special wadcutters. Also there’s 22 LR and 22 Short and again a mag long enough for 10 of the former will take 14 of the latter. In my experience with guns in both calibers neither the gun nor the magazine cares how many you put in until you reach the end with but the very occasional hiccup.

      A twenty round 5.56 stanag magazine will hold about nine 450 Bushmaster or 30 Remington AR rounds. Granted not quite as reliable as the tube fed magazines in my experience but easily 90% or better when using off caliber ammo so long as the body taper and case length is similar. Sorry, 7.62×39 fans need not apply as the greater body taper will restrict you to maybe five rounds tops regardless of box size unless you use dedicated mags.

      In any event, we’re looking at the capacity of what exactly, a box? Regardless of whether it’s round or square the capacity of a box depends on what you put into it. Thus I declare a ban on magazines capable of holding greater than ten rounds to be unconstitutionally vague. Besides, I’m certain I can design a box with a spring in it that only holds ten rounds of the mythical 475 TangoDown cartridge but thirty rounds of 5.56 NATO that’ll give five nines reliability with both.

      1. Single stacks are far less finicky, too; so long as the gun is correctly made it’s often just a matter of the feedlips retaining the rounds. I often load 9mm and .357 Sig into .40 mags, and 9mm in .357 Sig mags. So yeah. Is a 10 rd .40 mag suddenly illegal under this regime if you put 11-12 9x19s in there? Sounds unconstitutionally vague to me.

        1. The whole thing is unconstitutional. Better solution is to get rid of the democrats.

          1. Of course it is. That’s why they do it. Some bills try to sidestep the belt feed thing with “ammunition feeding device” thus taking a defensive position that is wholly illogical. Why? Consider a single shot rifle. The “ammunition feeding device” is the shooter so you’re regulating how big their pockets can be. Logically that means the smart shooter would have 500 ten round magazines on their person with a semi-automatic arm because it would be safer than having pockets.

            Unconstitutionally vague? Say “Yeay”.

            1. Sorry, not “safer than having pockets” but ‘more legal than having pockets’. Shoot nude! Yippy cay cow patty!

      2. That’s easy! The as yet undisclosed “Bacerra Compromise” would use the .22 short as the standard definition of a “round,” regardless of any weapon’s actual caliber or magazine type.

        Who says leftists have no standards?

        1. Good thing Bacerra has never heard of the 2.7mm Kolibri.

          1. That was his nickname in college. He’s repressed the memory because of the emotional trauma, but to this day he remains sexually impotent. Which is why he overcompensates by trying to screw so many people in the metaphorical sense.

            1. Daily Online Jobs ” has been a great platform for the only Trusted Way to start their online career by providing reliable online jobs. For joining you will only need a Laptop or Computer. Your daily work will be from 10 minutes to 60 minutes.jhY All the details of joining and working are already given in site with screenshots and video guides in home tabs. For any detail or problem you can contact us on our Facebook page.
              Visit our site today to join Online jobs in US & UK…. JOBS APP

  3. Any “common sense gun control” measure with exceptions for current or retired law enforcement is blatant bullshit.
    The “deadly firearm” doesn’t know who is holding it.

    1. We need the Barney Fife rule: only one bullet and keep it in your pocket.

      1. Which is more funny because Andy just kept the ammo in his unlocked desk drawer and all those rifles on a rack.

        There was an episode where Andy is trying to impress a girl. He takes her out to show off his shooting skills but never hands her the shotgun.

        The next day there is a skeet contest which he always wins. She smiles pretty picks up the shotgun and nails it every time. Turns out she was state champion two years running.

        Don Knots was excellent in the show. The episodes with the Darlings, an actual bluegrass band were great. Hal Smith as Otis the town drunk (he rarely if ever drank) was perfect.

        Just rambling.

  4. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit yesterday vacated a 2020 decision that blocked California’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

    The solution is simple – belt fed semi-automatics.

    1. Now we’re getting somewhere.

    2. Legal, as long as it fires from a closed bolt.

      1. Magazine capacity bans typically forbid linking the 11th and onward rounds to the belt.

  5. Sullum, take this last tiny seed of libertarianism you have, nurture it, feed it, give it some fresh air away from the urban city air you live in. It is your only hope.

    1. That’s why I keep saying he needs to stick to guns and drugs. He’s pretty consistently good on those and they used to be more of his focus.

      1. And he should definitely stay away from rock and roll and sex, because while very enjoyable, they distract from the mission.

        And Sullum is a serious journalist.

      2. guns and drugs. He’s pretty consistently good on those

        His previous piece asserted that the Ruger 10/22 was sold with a > 10-rd magazine, so I’m not so certain about his consistency there.

  6. “Becerra thinks 10 rounds is plenty for self-defense, meaning that the millions of Americans who disagree are either lying or deluded. Yet California’s LCM ban, like similar laws in other states, includes an exemption for employees of law enforcement agencies, whether on duty or off, and retired cops. Those groups predictably bridle at the notion that they should be subject to the same limit as everyone else.”

    As someone who owns a gun for self defense, I’m willing to go along with your general premise here, but are there quotes with Becerra in favor of those LCM exemptions? Is he responsible for them? It seems implied by the article, but I don’t know his politics well enough to take that point for granted.

    1. It’s in the law and the person responsible for defending all CA citizens, including gun owners, is defending it.

  7. The state’s ban on “large-capacity magazines” is easy to justify, as long as you assume its benefits and ignore its costs.

    And as long as you assume the Bill of Rights is subject to a cost/benefit analysis.

    1. Or a “common use/lawful purposes” test.

    2. Sullum’s Utilitarianism.

  8. How did Becerra arrive at the number “ten” as the proper limit for us peasants? Democrats are supposed to be lovers of science, so they’ve got some sort of evidence to back this number up, right?

    1. How many fingers you got?
      There ya go.

    2. In California, rules Democrats make up in their heads supersede science. Let alone constitutional rights.

    3. Studies show that your average criminal can’t count that high, so they feel lucky.

  9. The cold hard truth is. Hunting laws are meant to protect ducksbfom overzealous hunters. The second amendment was written to protect us from an overzealous government. The second amendment is the peoples insurance policy to guarantee the rest of our freedoms. It’s kind of like the fire extinguisher behind the pane that says in case of emergency break glass. These folks need to understand that the constitution is a list of negative rights imposed on government not a limit on the freedoms of law abiding citizens to exercise their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Please not it says pusuit of not achievement of. No promised outcomes only promised opportunities to find yours.

    1. The second amendment was written to protect us from an overzealous government.

      No it was written to protect us from a standing army. We failed. And those who are the strongest advocates of the 2A are also the strongest advocates of a standing army.

      1. How is a standing army not a part of an overzealous government?

        1. It is certainly one part. But usually the advocates for that idea are:

          a)mostly interested in the 2A as a means of overthrowing some future overzealous govt rather than being part of some ‘consent of the governed’ militia (v the white supremacist shit that that word has turned into) and

          b)standing army has been around for 70+ year (the pre-WW2 army was prob a good approximation of a militia-based army). Three generations is more than enough to conclude that that ain’t really of interest. Least I haven’t heard that rationale – the 2A is critical so that my greatgreatGREAT grandson will be able to fight an overzealous government

      2. And those who are the strongest advocates of the 2A are also the strongest advocates of a standing army.

        Cite?

        1. You waiting for someone else’s standing army to show up for the 2A to be necessary?

  10. 30 round magazines for ARs and AKs are standard capacity.

  11. “ our federal law does more to protect ducks than children”

    When is hunting season for children?

    1. When is hunting season for children?

      Year-round, but you have to be a specially-licensed social worker.

    2. “Duck season

      Children season

      Duck season

      Children season

      Children season

      (Daffy) Duck season”

      Blam!!

  12. NYC Cops miss 80% of the time when under duress.

    .8^10 = 11% chance I will completely miss my assailant with a 10 round magazine. Better odds if you count one in the pipe for .8^11.

    I would expect to need to hit an attacker at least twice with a 9mm hollow point to stop him. Without doing the math on an expected value of 2 out of 10, I’d guess maybe a 67% chance of hitting him twice with a 10 round magazine.

    Now do the math two attackers.

    Hell yeah I need a 19 round magazine in my pistol.

  13. At this point I’m surprised Reason is still pro-Second Amendment.

    1. I doubt they really are, but they do need money from those that think they are.

  14. The Ruger 10/22 has a ten round magazine, so it is legal even under the proposed unconstitutional law. That is what the “10” in the model name stands for.

    You can, however, buy bigger magazines for the 10/22.

    California is asshoe. I know because I live in Cali.

  15. Why is everyone using rational arguments in this discussion?
    The point of this law, like all of California gun control laws is to disarm the citizens.
    It is a ratchet that ever tightens, and never loosens.
    10 years from now magazine magazine limits will be seven, then five, then three.
    The only rational way forward for gun owners is to block all gun control laws.

    1. ^This^

    2. NY SAFE Act rammed thru 7 rds. The court said that 7 was illegal but 10 was OK. Seven is still the written law in NY State. If cops don’t like the way you look they can arrest for 8 and send you on a trip thru THEIR system. Cops like vague and conflicting laws.

  16. “Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik”
    I think you mean “former New York City Police Commissioner and convicted felon Bernard Kerik”

  17. Why is the focus only on self defense? The second amendment protects our right to defend ourselves and to defend the country against usurpation of our rights by those in authority.

    In Heller the gun grabbers insisted the right of the people to keep and bear arms was limited to actual service in the state militia and was meant only to defend the states against encroachments by the federal government. That fakery has been thoroughly exposed.

    The right of the people to defend against tyranny was laid out in Federalist 28, 29, and 46.

    The first commentator on what became the second amendment, Tench Coxe, wrote: “As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”

    From Joseph Story:
    “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

    From Aymette v TN:
    “[t]he arms the right to keep which is secured are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority. They need not, for such a purpose, the use of those weapons which are usually employed in private broils, and which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and the assassin. These weapons would be useless in war. They could not be employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens. The right to keep and bear them is not, therefore, secured by the constitution. ” This case was cited by SCOTUS and is essentially the holding in US v Miller. And in many other sources it was shown that the right encompasses individual defense as well as collective defense.

    In the post Heller and MacDonald era, the lower courts have been forced to admit that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right which includes self defense, however the gun grabbers now want to gaslight the public with the notion that the only way an individual can exercise their right to defend their state or the united states is by joining the military.

    Current law draws a bright line at full-auto vs semi-auto. Individuals are able to legally own and use civilian versions of military arms without expensive licensing as long as those are not capable of full-auto. That has been the case for many decades. This fulfills the broad scope of the second amendment by enabling individuals to become familiar in the use of arms that are used in civilized warfare as well as to have arms for self defense.

    1. I just watched an interesting youtube vid (a google search will turn up lots of a similar nature) comparing two AK47 models and indicated one of the weaknesses of many AKs made close to the original design suffered from what is called bump firing. What a now banned bump stock did was use the recoil of the weapon to simulate full automatic fire. But if the marksman does not exhibit good trigger control (intentionally or not) the weapon’s recoil combined with trigger speed can induce full automatic fire.

      As the youtube vid pointed out this causes issues with barrel rise and keeping the target in the sights so it is viewed as a con for marksmanship but a pro for fire suppression which is what full automatic small arms are used for.

  18. ‘ To give you a sense of Biden’s reasoning, he notes that “federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun.” In his view, “that means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children.”’

    Believe it or not, Joe, there’s a federal ban on hunting children.

    1. “Believe it or not, Joe, there’s a federal ban on hunting children.”

      No sweat, Joe, you can still lock ’em in cages, and the media will even cover for you. As long as you’re a Democrat, that is.

      1. Biden puts them in shipping containers now.

  19. If you have failed to take care of the assailant after ten rounds chances are that another ten aren’t going to do the trick. You might, in your incompetent trigger happiness, injure or kill an innocent bystander, perhaps an infant too young to be issued a license to carry firearms. My advice: switch to a shot gun or spend more time on the range improving your aim.

    1. My advice: Fuck off, simpleton.

      1. More bullets is no help if you can’t shoot straight. My other advice: consult your neighborhood optician.

    2. “Assailant,” singular.

      Thugs like to run in packs.

      1. “Thugs like to run in packs.”

        My advice: Use a shotgun or learn to aim. Tear gas is an effective way to disperse and incapacitate a pack of thugs.

        1. Learn to use a sword. Then you can decapitate them.

          Why let all those quickenings go to waste?

        2. I hate to break it to you, but the countless hours you spent playing Call of Duty in your parents’ basement did not made you the CQB expert you seem to think you are.

          1. Who’d have thought the idea of learning the proper use weapons made one an expert… Let’s pray you never get caught in a gun fight. If you can’t shoot having a bigger magazine is not going to help.

            1. Take you bullshit and fuck off.

              1. Didn’t mean to trigger you.

            2. Who’d have thought

              Not you, that’s for certain.

    3. Uh huh. Advice on shooting from a guy who has probably never even held a real firearm in his prog life.

      My advice, don’t bother to comment on things you don’t remotely understand.

      1. My advice: if you have a firearm, learn to use it. Your assailant almost certainly has. The assumption that your assailant is as gormless are yourself will probably get you in trouble. Learning to use a firearm includes learning how to accurately aim. If you think this is bad advice, you’re as silly as the rest of the commenters here.

        1. What would make you think an assailant has learned to use his firearm. One of the saddest things about drive by gang shootings is how poor the shooters aim is often resulting in unintended peeps being hit.

          1. It is indeed a sad thing. If you are going to brandish a firearm, you should not only know how to use it, but be ready and willing to do so. It doesn’t matter how much of a sharp shooter you are if you haven’t the nerve to pull the trigger when time comes.

    4. My advice…

      …is worth every penny that we paid for it.

      1. Worth the time it took for you to read and ‘respond’ to it, evidently.

    5. Chances are that if you can’t hit an adult-sized human that you are aiming at, you aren’t going to hit a child-sized human that you aren’t.

      For the majority of children who get shot, limiting magazines to 2 rounds wouldn’t make a difference.

      1. Maybe you’ll break a window or damage an automobile. Then what?

    6. Range time is always a good idea. On the other hand, using a shotgun rather than a pistol is hardly a good solution for reducing the spread of projectiles and the possibility of hitting bystanders.

      Personally, I like a pump-action shotgun for home defense because the sound of the pump is very distinctive, and enough to stop most intruders without any need to pull the trigger. Ideally, anyone keeping a firearm for home protection would never need to even brandish it, but anyone who sees firing in anger as anything other than a last resort might want to reconsider their choice to exercise their right to have that weapon around.

      At least you didn’t repeat the insane recommendation that someone with a shotgun should fire blindly through a door if they’re afraid of what might be on the other side; or the idea that shotguns are better because “even an inexperienced shooter has a greater chance of hitting something”. Both of those are things I’ve seen published by leftist writers as explanation for why the AR-15 isn’t a good home-defense weapon.

      1. “Range time is always a good idea. ”

        I thought it was a good idea. I think learning how to properly use a firearm is another good idea. Shooting blindly through a door is a bad idea, I agree. A really bad idea if it’s your own door.

        You don’t need a shotgun to get that sound. There’s an app for that. Just beware that your assailant is probably packing more than a smartphone.

        1. You can get that sound by racking a 9mm Calico carbine, too. Sure, if you’ve got one in the chamber you’ll eject it, but 100 more where that came from.

      2. ” Both of those are things I’ve seen published by leftist writers as explanation for why the AR-15 isn’t a good home-defense weapon.”

        Doesn’t an AR-15 require two hands to operate? That alone should disqualify it as a home defense weapon, I would have thought. A revolver is small and reliable and designed for close quarter use.

  20. Very nice News article.
    Also support this website ????
    Latest News Website

    1. y advice: Use a shotgun or learn to aim. Tear gas is an effective way to disperse and incapacitate a pack of thugs.

  21. Tul jaenak jjae jatul jae ji

  22. I agree with every word except the part where you said 10/22s come with magazines over 10 rounds. I bought mine 30 years ago, and have bought multiple “high cap” magazines for it, but if they are supposed come standard with something over 10 round magazines, I demand satisfaction from Ruger!!! For the record, as a CA resident, I’m sad to say I lost all my 10+ magazines for my Glock, Mini-14, and 10/22 years ago, in a tragic boating accident…

    1. I am seeing more and more tragic boating accidents resulting in the loss of guns.

      In fact there seem to be a lot more boating accidents than there are boats.

  23. Thanks for sharing this information, I have found some thing more interesting click here for more details.

  24. Many of the most popular guns sold in the United States, such as the Glock 17 pistol, the Ruger 10/22 rifle, and the AR-15 rifle, come equipped with magazines that exceed California’s arbitrary limit

    Has it ever occurred to you to maybe know what you’re talking about before writing on a subject?

  25. “mass shootings are rare events. In the United States, they account for less than 1 percent of gun homicides and have occurred an average of fewer than five times a year during the last two decades.”

    Except in Chicago during 2020, there were 52 mass shootings (4 or more shot) recorded last year alone. That is once a week. Hardly, a “rare event”. More of an “all too common event”.
    Strangely enough, almost no white people were involved in any of these mass shootings. Certainly no “white supremacists”. Not a single day goes by that “white supremacists” are reported as the “real issue”.
    I am seeing a pattern here. Anyone else?
    800 murders, and 4000 shootings in 2020, 80% of the shootings were black on black shootings. 15% of the shootings involved Hispanic people. Less than 5% of shootings in Chicago involve whites and “other”. I
    The only systemic racism in this country is the utter refusal of the media to report reality correctly. I pity the friends that I left behind in Chicago. They are living in a 3rd world nation with third world levels of crime that will never be reported.
    But, guns are illegal in Chicago…………..

    1. Your post is based on factual information, but no one is government in the city of Chicago, nor in the entire state of IL, wants to deal with this.

      I understand there were more gun homicides in Chicago in 2020 than if 46 states combined.

      I/we are not the “problem;” they should deal with their own problem which are career criminals repeatedly involved in gun crimes about which they do nothing, primarily because of racial implications. This will not be solved by infringing on non criminals over the rest of the country.

      1. Truth be told if Chicago was nuked and everyone there killed the state of IL would be bright red. There are several cities and counties there that are 2A sanctuaries that ignore dictates from the urban areas.

        1. Very typical of the rest of the country; where I live every f’ing city went “blue” while the rest of the State is solid “red.”

          You make a good point regarding “sanctuaries that ignore dictates from the urban areas;” add to that the disregard of federal dictates and I believe that, at least on a local level. is the future of this country.

          So Albany, Sacramento, Springfield, Washington; if they want something enforced, let them send in their own troops to enforce it.

        2. And if the city of Chicago were nuked this would make you happy?

      2. I have lived there and very much loved members of my family are in Chicago. I was shot at by gangsters when I was a teenager.

        I will tell a story one more time. Went downtown with two friends for fun. It got late and we got on the El. Wrong direction and we went south. These two girls walked up and said “you in the wrong color neighborhood”. Got off the next platform.

        I had taken off my kippah so as not to attract attention. We were waiting for the next train. Footsteps coming up the platform. Reached into my pocket and found the yarmulke. Put it on I don’t know why.

        A dozen at least, wearing colors charged up and circled us. The leader walked up to me and started asking questions. He said “what is that thing on your head”?
        I said “we are students. We are Jews and studying to become rabbis. We study the Bible and the prayers”

        He took a step back. Perhaps he had been to church before. I guess we were not worth it.

        He whistled and made a circle with his finger. They left.

        Been a believer ever since. Not a rabbi.

        The cops are outnumbered and outgunned. The Latin Kings, Almighty Vice Lord Kings, Gangster Disciples have control.

        1. If you had a really big magazine you could have killed them all.

    2. The definition used to define “mass shootings” gets changed a lot depending on point is trying to be supported.

      If someone is trying to support the claim that “mass shootings” are common, they end up using a definition which includes a lot of gang-related violence, and mostly involves handguns. Under this definition, there are many of them happening every month.

      It they’re trying to prove that the AR-15 is the “weapon of choice”, or that virtually all mass shooters are white and male, then the definition gets changed to specifically exclude gang-related incidents, and it’s generally necessary to go all the way back to Columbine HS (so long ago that the last 2 graduating classes from that school weren’t born when it happened) to come up with 20-30 examples.

  26. “The definition used to define “mass shootings” gets changed a lot depending on point is trying to be supported.”

    I don’t think so. Mass shootings are defined by the number of victims, more than 3 or 4, according to most people who study the matter. The most fundamental change to that simple definition is to stipulate that the victims be indiscriminately targeted. That change has nothing to do with specifically excluding gang incidents, although it does, as gang incidents are economically motivated turf wars and the targets are deliberately chosen.

    If you want to break it down racially, (and what American doesn’t) you can to argue that deliberate mass shootings are a black phenomenon while indiscriminate ones are white.

    1. Some of the propaganda that Bloomberg’s groups have produced use a definition of any incident in which 2 people are shot; I think they might have at one point tried to use a definition based on number of rounds discharged regardless of whether anyone was hit. That’s the same group who produced a list of 80+ supposed “school shootings” which was ultimately debunked by both NPR and Mother Jones; the criteria used by “everytown” for that one was any news report of an incident in which one or more rounds discharged which also contained the word “school” in the body of the article (they got several “hits” that were articles which for some reason mentioned what high school someone involved had once attended, as well as at least one incident of a negligent discharge of a holstered police service weapon).

      Since there’s no “official” definition of what constitutes a mass shooting, lots of agencies (both academic and non-academic) have used tailored definitions to enable them to reach a desired conclusion. The FBI only counts (or used to, anyway) incidents in which either 3 or 4 people were killed by a single shooter (not including the shooter), others have used 2 deaths including the shooter (making any murder-suicide a “mass shooting”), and more aggressive anti-2A groups use 2-3 people hit (including the shooter) for total count, but then exclude gang activity to make the case that a large proportion are done with legally owned “assault weapons” in order to support bans on cosmetic features and/or expanded “red flag” laws.

      1. I agree that a two victim murder suicide shouldn’t be considered a mass shooting. Though I don’t think quibbling over drawing the line at 3 or 4 or 5 is of much value. And if getting certain types of weapons proscribed or demonizing those of different ethnicity, skin color or political belief, is high on your agenda, quibbling over whether 3 or 4 or 5 victims constitute a mass murder is probably not the most effective strategy. I still think the indiscriminate/deliberate distinction is more important. A disgruntled employee enters his workplace and shoots a couple of his tormenting supervisors, then kills self. Not a mass shooting as the act was deliberate. A different disgruntled employee shoots two other randomly chosen employees. That’s a mass shooting, because of the indiscriminate way the targets were chosen. There’s also the hybrid possibility of some of the victims being deliberate and some being randomly chosen though intentionally murdered. It probably makes sense to classify the hybrid cases as mass murders.

        It makes some sense to categorize ‘mass shootings’ according to the number of rounds discharged. We already have a term for murdering a lot of people, ‘mass murder,’ so I can see the reasoning behind the term ‘mass shooting’ to mean an incident characterized by shooting a lot of bullets, though I imagine such incidents usually are accompanied by a few deaths, at least.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.