I have just recently become aware of David Hogg’s five point “platform” on firearms. Presumably the idea behind this is to reduce or stop firearm-related deaths.
Now it’s no secret that David has the audacity to talk about firearms without understanding the fundamentals of firearms and the actual issue(s), while shamelessly being proud of that. He continues this tradition of ignorance with his is five point platform that is so patently absurd and obviously specious that anyone of average intelligence would find what he proposes to be offensive to their thinking ability.
Let’s go through each one, starting with the first one on the CDC. First the CDC is already researching gun violence, what it’s not being allowed is use funding to take a political stance when it comes to its research. This means, the CDC must be fair and take no position in regards to its. research.
For example, The American Pediatric Association does research into circumcision that is intentional in regards to directing research to fit a conclusion that fits the cultural bias of its members. Instead of allowing the research to be unbiased and one sided.
To remove such a barrier as David suggest, would allow the research into firearm-related gun violence to be bias and one sided fitting the already established cultural acceptance of its members. In many ways this could even backfire on to David. Because, if most of the CDC members are pro-gun, then the research could result in conclusions that are in favor of firearms.
By restricting the CDC from becoming political in its research, the CDC is forced to be fair and unbiased to the best of its ability. David Hogg however, would have us put in place a system that allows for biased research. This is wrong and I’m ethical I’m so many levels.
Next on his list was Universal background checks. We actually already have a universal background check. Every time anybody goes to buy a firearm from a licensed firearm dealer, they have to submit to a Federal background check. That is the universal background check.
Now David didn’t give a lot of information on exactly what he means by Universal background check. Chances are, there’s more to what he was wanting to say here, but is limited by Twitter’s character limit. However, I don’t want to speculate on what his meant by Universal background check so I just leave it there.
Next point about digitizing ATF records has me wondering, what exactly does he mean by this? Is he talking about keeping track of who owns what fire arms? This would be highly illegal and unconstitutional.
It also would be incredibly worrisome for those of us who actually own firearms. Because it would mean there would be a gun registry. This would be a huge issue for many gun owners who have a history of not registering their firearms in the states that require them to register their “assault weapons.”
Because many of us gun owners see a issue with the idea how this gives the government the power, when they say, all guns are illegal, the government or powers-that-be, would know who has what kinds of firearms and how many. So when people who was decide not to follow an unconstitutional ban on firearms, would now be expecting to be targets and can expect a knock on their door. And really? What does David expect here? A highly expensive “mandatory buyback” a firearms that people will ignore, or a forceful confiscation which many will resist?
This could lead to an intense amount of deaths from all the people who would resist and possibly even a civil war that could result in more deaths than thousands of years of gun ownership could do and possibly destroying America all together. The destruction after a civil war, is not always the easiest thing to come out of no matter who wins.
Besides, one thing we’ve learned from states that have enacted their own firearm registrations, very few people actually register their firearms in the first place. They rather take the risk, then give up their rights. Like many gun owners they’re probably utilizing the mantra, I’d rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.
And seeing that we live in a day and age when we can’t even keep are most personal information safe and secure. We may actually find ourselves less safe when criminals get a hold of this information. Using it to know who has firearms and who does not. This could create higher crime rates and also, more deaths, which I suspect David wants these digital records to somehow prevent.
Next on his list is a high capacity magazine. This idea that caring less ammunition in a magazine will somehow save lives, flies in the face of everything we know about firearms. It’s also at odds with the very school shooting that took place at his own School. That he may or may not have actually been at during the shooting.Because the shooter in that school shooting did not have high capacity magazines.
Dropping a magazine and putting a new one in happened so fast, that no one has time to react. Let alone know that it just happened. We’re talking 2 to 5 seconds. By the time anyone realizes what’s going on, it’s already too late. The old magazine was dropped and a new one was put in.
In many ways this could actually be more dangerous. Because now, in that 2 to 5 seconds, people might stick their heads up to see why there’s no shooting. By the time they do that, the shooter has reloaded, notices where they’re at and can go after them in their hiding spot and shoot them right there.
Not to mention the only way to even know a person is exchanging magazine just to actually see it happen. Most people will be ducking for cover and hiding. Their ears will be ringing so they won’t even hear he already hard to hear faint click of a spent firearm. So this probably won’t affect anybody, and if it does it may actually make it worse as mentioned.
It may also make it worse for such people as security, armed civilians. Because now the shooters who definitely have no interest in obeying the law and can still get their hands on such magazines, or can simply use a 3D printer to make their own. While the Law Abiding Citizen is dtuck with say a 10-round magazine. So now he only has 10 rounds while the shooter would have 30 round magazine or a 100 round drum. We quite literally would be putting more people’s lives at risk with that simple fact alone.
So, David platform here, would most likely put more people’s lives in danger, then it would save. If it could save anyone’s life at all. Putting more people’s lives at risk, in my view is really not a great idea.
The last one he listed was a assault weapons ban. Of course he didn’t define what an assault weapon is supposed to be and I suspect if I was to ask him in person what an assault weapon is, he wouldn’t be able to define it in any useful way. Giving a definition that would probably include every gun other than revolvers and muskets.
Or he may be honest and just say any firearm that looks scary to him. Firearms like AK-47 or something along the lines of a AR platform rifle.
Hover most Firearms used in most shootings including mass shootings are not rifles or “assault weapons” but are handguns. And if they don’t use a AR they will use a handgun, that again is responsible for more firearm related deaths then rifles. Thus, the problem isn’t solved by what David Hogg is presenting here.
So, what David has presented here, his Five Point platform at best would have no effect, at worse could result in far more people losing their lives. This is what he wants, its what many of his fellow gun control advocates want and it’s why we must resist their dangerous stupidity.