this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
521 points (97.1% liked)

News

23367 readers
2937 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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?

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, it is a great argument, if you like anecdotal fallacies.

[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago

Which is perfectly fitting in response to an absurd, reductionist generalization.

You seem to be rather one-sided in your application of criticism.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The last refuge of the gun proponent pertains to the issue of self-defense. This is certainly a major perceived reason for the private ownership of guns. In a 1979 survey, when asked why they possessed a gun, 20% of all gun owners and 40% of handgun owners cited self-defense as the reason. It is unfortunate that these people may be operating under a delusion, having subjected themselves and their families to great danger in the guise of self-protection. One study examined the number of times a gun is used in self-defense against the risk of having a gun in the home in King County, Washington. The risks measured by the authors were the cumulation of "death from unintentional gunshot wounds, homicide during domestic quarrels, and the ready availability of an immediate, highly lethal means of suicide." The authors conclude that for every instance of a death resulting from defensive use of a gun, there were 43 gun deaths resulting from domestic fights, accidents, or suicides.

Can you not do math? This isn't at all in dispute. Having a gun in your home makes you exponentially more likely to be killed by a gun. You are perhaps tenfold more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder.

[–] trafficnab@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did you know that owning a car makes you exponentially more likely to die in a car accident?

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Very much. Cars also do lots of useful things other than kill, did you know that, or do you have a hard time with depth?

[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Those shifting goalposts make quite the sound.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, the subject always had depth. That your understanding is superficial does not mean the goalpost has moved so far as you now understand what the rest of us already realized.

[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

you: makes statement

them: directly addresses statement

you: pivots to different statement entirely

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.

[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago

I see you didn't respond to what was stated. As a reminder:

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?

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.