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.
Interestingly enough, the lady doesn’t seem to have died in her sleep - that a firearm did, indeed, stop that invasion. Weird, that.
I’m interested in seeing your sources comparing frequency of defensive use of firearms to frequency of firearm suicides. When making such a bold assertion, surely you’ve got actual data and aren’t just talking out of your ass… right?
Right?
Removed by mod
Did you know that owning a car makes you exponentially more likely to die in a car accident?
Removed by mod
Those shifting goalposts make quite the sound.
Removed by mod
No, that’s a textbook shifting goalpost.
It’s interesting you comment on depth given your demonstrated inability to engage with anything - be it arguments or your own sources - beyond the most superficial.
Understand, indeed.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I see you didn’t respond to what was stated. As a reminder:
This, even before your additional questionable conclusion from what is clearly an source so unbiased you cannot taint its unbiasedness by… actually showing support for your position.
I’ll consider your criticism regarding math when you’ve polished up those reading skills.
Yes, it is a great argument, if you like anecdotal fallacies.
Which is perfectly fitting in response to an absurd, reductionist generalization.
You seem to be rather one-sided in your application of criticism.