Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

krispos42

(49,445 posts)
13. It's an arbitrary number
Fri Mar 29, 2019, 10:28 PM
Mar 2019

Ten fingers, ten toes, and ten rounds. It's not based on any research or anything. Why not 7? Or 3? Or 12? A revolver usually holds 6. What number is the point at where rights are being taken away? California simply latched onto 10 rounds in 1989 or so, and that because a "reasonable" number. New Jersey and Connecticut followed suit, followed by the Federal ban in 1993. New York tried to impose a 7-round limit after Sandy Hook but I think it was struck down by the courts.

Frankly it doesn't do much except motivate people to vote for Republicans. A lot of issues are abstract and cerebral and hypothetical, but gun owners know their guns. Guns are tangible goods they are familiar with, and that gives them knowledge and motivation and confidence.

I mean, I know many on DU would love to see the right removed outright, which means that these kinds of laws are just one step towards that goal and they give absolutely zero farts about them being legislated into nothing.

My personal reasoning goes something like this:

The odds of me being in a situation where I have to point my gun at somebody are pretty damn small.

Assuming that happens, the odds of me having to actually shoot the gun are fairly small; most defensive gun uses don't actually involve shooting. Presentation is enough to either scare off the attacker or apprehend them.

However, if I beat those combined odds then I'm in a pretty serious situation and I don't want to have to be fumbling with a reload when I'm fighting for my life. Adrenaline, panic, desperate maneuvering, etc., are not conductive to reloading.



Assuming I survive, I expect I will have fired as many rounds as needed to end the situation. Since handguns are not particularly powerful and shot placement can easily go to hell during a crisis, it can take several hits to stop a threat quickly, and several shots to make a hit. Defensive handgunners often train to shoot rapid pairs, so a 10-round magazine really means five attempts to hit a threat.

I can go into further detail, but basically it's fairly common for fear, anger, adrenaline, etc. to enable attackers to keep attacking even after being shot. Only a small part of a person will result in a near-instant incapacitation when shot. A larger area will result in incapacitation in minutes, and the balance of the body in hours.

That's the reality. A really dedicated person that goes to self-defense courses and shoots in defensive competitions frequently? Yeah, he's probably fine. He's got the training and mentality and practice and reflexes. Me? I ain't got the budget to shoot a thousand rounds a month in practice and competition, nor to travel to all those events.

Flame away.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

California. Ignore the ruling and enforce the law anyway. roamer65 Mar 2019 #1
Great idea! BigmanPigman Mar 2019 #3
Dumb idea. No they can't. former9thward Mar 2019 #16
Why even suggest such an idea. Come on! Joe941 Mar 2019 #28
Can red states ignore judges and enforce their anti-abortion laws? hack89 Mar 2019 #4
They already are through intimidation of women and abortion clinics. roamer65 Mar 2019 #5
So only ignore the rulings that you disagree with? Polybius Mar 2019 #12
While the wording of the ruling isn't inconsequential... Socal31 Mar 2019 #2
I took a cursory look at the ruling DetroitLegalBeagle Mar 2019 #11
En Banc prediction? Socal31 Mar 2019 #14
Yep DetroitLegalBeagle Mar 2019 #17
It sounds like we also agree on the likely outcome. Socal31 Mar 2019 #18
More than ten rounds are needed to defend against WHAT exactly? DFW Mar 2019 #6
Really gratuitous Mar 2019 #7
Better question malaise Mar 2019 #8
Could well be DFW Mar 2019 #9
It's an arbitrary number krispos42 Mar 2019 #13
Handguns MFM008 Mar 2019 #27
Compared to shoulder-fired guns. krispos42 Mar 2019 #34
An incel defending himself against a sorority? n/t Crunchy Frog Mar 2019 #25
The ruling cites several specific home invasions where it was possibly significant Amishman Mar 2019 #33
he says this "imposes a burden" Takket Mar 2019 #10
Are you suggesting that 10 is an arbitrary number? hack89 Mar 2019 #15
No. Takket Mar 2019 #19
So why did they pick 10? hack89 Mar 2019 #29
The ruling certainly doesn't rely on the home invasion example. Socal31 Mar 2019 #20
Just tax each round of ammo. LiberalFighter Mar 2019 #21
There are already severe restrictions on the sale of ammo in California ansible Mar 2019 #22
.. roamer65 Mar 2019 #24
There is already a federal excise tax on ammo. hack89 Mar 2019 #30
Your honor, I'm struggling to live without a tank moondust Mar 2019 #23
Don't worry - both are legal if you have a shit ton of money. Nt hack89 Mar 2019 #31
"well-regulated militia" Hermit-The-Prog Mar 2019 #26
When was this golden age when they took away your gun if you were not in the militia? hack89 Mar 2019 #32
nice strawman Hermit-The-Prog Mar 2019 #35
There have always been gun regulations hack89 Mar 2019 #36
That judge is a fucking idiot. Goodheart Mar 2019 #37
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Judge blocks California's...»Reply #13