Why does OSHA require hearing protection when loud noise is present?
To protect hearing.
I have worked with many liberal/feminist/LGBTQ coworkers for the past 24 years working for CA state government.
During those decades, as one by one became victims of burglary/robbery/home invasion or knew someone who were victimized, especially as gangs/MS-13 proliferated and when federal judge released thousands of inmates from prisons due to overcrowding, they began to become gun owners and asked me to teach them how to shoot as they knew I shot USPSA pistol matches.
From another thread discussion -
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...n-control-debates.843681/page-2#post-10969148
"In recent years, things changed. When the federal judge released thousands of inmates from prison, violent crime increased 37% in one year for my city and home invasion robberies increased where gang members staked out streets and posted gang members with radios and kicked in the door armed. Often, even when home owners cooperated, if it was gang initiation, home owners were raped/killed regardless. It got to the point where there was no longer "safe" part of town.
One day when I arrived at the office, I was confronted with a group of Anti-gun crowd who demanded that I teach them how to shoot. While pleasantly surprised, I asked why the sudden change. They told me they all either personally been victims of burglary/robbery or knew family/friends/neighbors who were and wanted to protect themselves because 911 did not work when the doors were kicked in. I gladly took them to the range and taught them to shoot. They bought guns and many of them obtained conceal carry permits. In exchange, I asked them to approach Second Amendment as a "rights issue" of self defense and to vote accordingly (To my shock, some of them actually voted for Trump in 2016)"
Pistols are not effective against a group of gang members with multiple pistols/AKs during home invasions. We used to keep pistol and shotgun by night stands but when family lived in high crime areas, that changed to ARs with 30 round magazines with multiple pistols and 15/17 round magazines mounted on tactical vests ready to don. What good is 10 round magazines when you are dead and your wife/family raped and killed?
And need for larger than 10 round magazines was eloquently expressed by federal judge Benitez -
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/happy-days-in-ca.849757/page-2
"'
California's law prohibiting acquisition and possession of magazines able to hold any more than 10 rounds places a severe restriction on the core right of self-defense of the home such that it amounts to a destruction of the right and is unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny.'
... In 2008, Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment applies to arms in common use for lawful purposes.
Benitez notes thathighly popular firearms owned by millions of Americans, 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 ... '
Millions of ammunition magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds are in common use by law-abiding responsible citizens for lawful uses like self-defense ...
This is enough to decide that a magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds passes the Heller test and is protected by the Second Amendment.'"
"he also concludes that
California's ban on 'large capacity magazines' (LCMs) fails 'strict scrutiny,' which requires the government to prove that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest, and even 'intermediate scrutiny,' which requires that the law be substantially related to an important state interest. The LCM ban 'burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home ... It also fails the strict scrutiny test because the statute is not narrowly tailored—it is not tailored at all. Even under the more forgiving test of intermediate scrutiny, the statute fails because it is not a reasonable fit.'"
"Benitez emphasizes that the avowed aim of the LCM ban—reducing the lethality of mass shootings—is related to a small subset of 'extremely rare' crimes: cases where the need to switch magazines creates a 'critical pause' during which the perpetrator might be overpowered or his victims might escape. Defensive uses of guns are far more common, and at the beginning of his ruling
Benitez describes several cases in which having more than 10 rounds could have made a critical difference. 'From the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family, 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.
'
When thousands of people are rioting, as happened in Los Angeles in 1992, or more recently with Antifa members in Berkeley in 2017, a 10-round limit for self-defense is a severe burden. When a group of armed burglars break into a citizen's home at night, and the homeowner in pajamas must choose between using their left hand to grab either a telephone, a flashlight, or an extra 10-round magazine, the burden is severe. When one is far from help in a sparsely populated part of the state, and law enforcement may not be able to respond in a timely manner, the burden of a 10-round limit is severe. When a major earthquake causes power outages, gas and water line ruptures, collapsed bridges and buildings, and chaos, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe. When food distribution channels are disrupted and sustenance becomes scarce while criminals run rampant, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe. Surely, the rights protected by the Second Amendment are not to be trimmed away as unnecessary because today's litigation happens during the best of times. It may be the best of times in Sunnyvale; it may be the worst of times in Bombay Beach or Potrero.
California's ban covers the entire state at all times.'
Proposition 63, which required heretofore legal owners of pre-2000 LCMs to surrender them, remove them from the state, or sell them to licensed gun dealers,
passed in 2016 with support from 63 percent of voters. But
constitutional rights are not subject to majority approval. '
Constitutional rights stand through time holding fast through the ebb and flow of current controversy. Bad political ideas cannot be stopped by criminalizing bad political speech. Crime waves cannot be broken with warrantless searches and unreasonable seizures.
Neither can the government response to a few mad men with guns and ammunition be a law that turns millions of responsible, law-abiding people trying to protect themselves into criminals. Yet this is the effect of California's large-capacity magazine law.'"