LiveLife
Member
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a layman.
In light of last week's federal judge ruling against 10 round magazine limit for California, I read up on the US Constitution and found this particular article on layman's perspective of the Constitution - https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-laymans-perspective-on-the-constitution/
And I recently read the NYT piece about larger bullets being more lethal - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/27/upshot/deadly-bullets-guns.html
I also browsed through Pew Research Center article titled "America's Complex Relationship With Guns, An in-depth look at the attitudes and experiences of U.S. adults" - https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/americas-complex-relationship-with-guns/
When California banned higher capacity than 10 round magazines, I switched from 9mm Glock 17/19/26 to 40S&W Glock 22/23/27 thinking if I am restricted to 10 rounds, using larger caliber bullet may provide me with greater effect on my threat. With this rationale, I also bought Taurus MilPro PT145, a 10 round double-stack pistol chambered for 45ACP, thinking even larger caliber bullet than 40S&W may be more effective carry option.
In Friday's ruling, judge Benitez cited three home invasions in which women fought against the attackers and women would have been more effective if they had higher-capacity gun magazines. If a woman, elderly or physically disabled person with weaker upper body strength has to select smaller caliber 9mm over 40S&W/45ACP, does 10/7 round restriction discriminate against them?
As expressed by JAMA study, if smaller 9mm bullets inflict less damage than larger 40S&W/45ACP bullets, 9mm shooter may need to fire more rounds to inflict same amount of damage - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2688536
If this is the case, restricting magazine capacity to 10/7 rounds should be an issue for women's rights organizations, AARP and disabled people's organizations as these persons may need more rounds to achieve same level of damage for self defense.
In light of last week's federal judge ruling against 10 round magazine limit for California, I read up on the US Constitution and found this particular article on layman's perspective of the Constitution - https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-laymans-perspective-on-the-constitution/
And I recently read the NYT piece about larger bullets being more lethal - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/27/upshot/deadly-bullets-guns.html
I also browsed through Pew Research Center article titled "America's Complex Relationship With Guns, An in-depth look at the attitudes and experiences of U.S. adults" - https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/americas-complex-relationship-with-guns/
When California banned higher capacity than 10 round magazines, I switched from 9mm Glock 17/19/26 to 40S&W Glock 22/23/27 thinking if I am restricted to 10 rounds, using larger caliber bullet may provide me with greater effect on my threat. With this rationale, I also bought Taurus MilPro PT145, a 10 round double-stack pistol chambered for 45ACP, thinking even larger caliber bullet than 40S&W may be more effective carry option.
In Friday's ruling, judge Benitez cited three home invasions in which women fought against the attackers and women would have been more effective if they had higher-capacity gun magazines. If a woman, elderly or physically disabled person with weaker upper body strength has to select smaller caliber 9mm over 40S&W/45ACP, does 10/7 round restriction discriminate against them?
As expressed by JAMA study, if smaller 9mm bullets inflict less damage than larger 40S&W/45ACP bullets, 9mm shooter may need to fire more rounds to inflict same amount of damage - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2688536
If this is the case, restricting magazine capacity to 10/7 rounds should be an issue for women's rights organizations, AARP and disabled people's organizations as these persons may need more rounds to achieve same level of damage for self defense.
Last edited: