I’ve had a biometric gun safe, a SV500 that I have had for a about 5 years now. It has been used as my primary daily carry firearm. during that time, I really had no major grapes or complaints. Well, I have had one.
There has been one lingering issue that I’ve had some concern over in regards to the safe. That has been how every now and then, when I scan my finger it doesn’t work. And I have to scan my finger two or three times to get it to open up and gain to my firearm. This to me is a huge safety concern. if I’m ever in need of that firearm in a moment’s notice for the defense of myself or my family and it does not work, it could mean the difference between life and.
This also happens to be one of the main reasons why I’m against smart guns. When you start putting computer chips into things there’s more chance of failure vs a firearm that is just simply mechanical.
Anyway – Recently, I found something new that was very concerning to me about this gun safe after I locked myself out.
You see, my gun safe just stopped working. with it not recognizing my fingerprint. So, I looked for my keys to it and could not find them. With no way to get in, I decided to look on the internet for a solution. The website of the manufacturer of this safe, would send me new keys, but I needed serial number that was conveniently was missing.
Unable to be able to obtain new keys, I scoured the internet for solution and I found it in the form of a video. In that video some guy just simply used a drywall anchor and shoved it into the hex key hole. After which, he give it a quick jiggle and turned the key and it opened.
Thinking that there was no way I could open so easily do that to my safe, thinking the lock he had must havr been defective. However, I thought that it couldn’t hurt to try. So I did the same thing stuck the drywall anchor into the keyhole and give it a little jiggle and and it opened with no resistance.
That’s when I realized my kid could have stuck the end of a pen in there got the same result and got a hold of my glock. of course I also got a angry as this is absolutely unacceptable. The lock to a gunsafe should be of the highest quality and not easily opened. Thank goodness my son never was be very curious about the gun safe or daddies firearms.
I am just happy I found out now and not latter in a scenario where one of my boys gets their hand on a gun.
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.
Today, I spent a lot of time with Elijah. With our new kid on the way, I was worried he may feel like we are not giving him enough time. So we had gone to the movie’s and I taught him how to clean my daily carry sidearm.
Some 40 years ago children and teens it was normal to take their guns to school. Many schools even have shooting ranges. However, today they are extremely rare and you no longer see kids with rifles on their back walking to school, nor rifle racks in the back of trucks school parking lots.
Today, almost all schools have ban guns if they have not already been banned by local state laws. And unlike 40 years ago, there have been many mass shootings. Despite this people are blaming the guns, not the areas that are attracting these shooters to them. Areas like schools that can no longer fight back or have almost no resistance.
Earlier this month there was yet another mass shooting at a school that was a gun free zone. Sending a shiver up my spine, more so when I think about how it could happen at my son’s school. And like usual, there’s a push to ban a tool.
When I look at the situations with this Valentine’s Massacre, we find that so many things had gone wrong. Yet, it is the guns that are being blamed. The shooter himself even said he was going to become a school shooter in a public forum. Yet no law enforcement agency acted on it, doing anything to stop this monster from killing others. He also had many other posts on the internet talking about how he wanted to shoot people and die fighting. Instagram and YouTube have these comments reported to them and did nothing.
Well this happened over the course of 7 years, Police had shown up to his house 39 time and could not or did not take any action. Even the Uber driver that drove him to the school dropping him off with a rifle bag and did not report this to anyone.
This was a failure in every way. From how nearly everyone just ignored every red flag with this shooter. Ignoring every sign, not reporting what they had seen, police inaction, even removing people’s ability to defend themselves by creating a gun free zone. Yet, it is a tool, a firearm that is getting the blame. A tool that could have been in the hands of a good guy at this school that could have stopped this early on.
You want to blame some, blame the people who see the shooters post about shooting up schools and did nothing. Want to blame something, blame the system that did nothing. But don’t blame the solution, firearms. Or you will just make the problem worse.
After every mass shooting the first reaction of many people is to demand gun control. Ironically, if such people are asked what law do they want, a law that would have stopped the shooting, we find they dont have any ideas. The reason for this is because when forced to think about it, they realize that no law would work on such people.
After all, if such people are willing to break our highest law of the land, murder… Which has life in prison and even the death penalty attached to it. Then they are not going to be worried about a law that they can easily ignore. Made worse is how we see, that if they can’t get the firearms legally, it easy to get them illegally.
Now I’m not arguing how we should not have laws, no I see them as great after the fact ways of putting them behind bars. It’s just that they do nothing to stop or reduce people from going on killing sprees with firearms. They only work after they kill someone.
What may come as a surprise to the pro-gun control people is how we actually can reduce gun violence without gun control laws. That’s because because the solution is not new laws and regulations of firearms. The solution is to look at what are the motivations and locations people do this at. So here is a list of things we can do to reduce gun violence.
1.) End the war of drugs:
Most murders where a firearm is used are drug/gang related. From a drug deal gone wrong, to an addict who robs a store to get money to fuel his or her addiction. So, if we end our war on drugs, controlling it and stop discriminating people who use drugs, we are removing the main reason that people kill other people.
With something like 80% of all firearm related murders being drug related that could translate into almost a 80% reduction in gun related deaths. Something, no gun control law could ever archive.
2.) Make mass shooters into a laughing stock:
Many, but not all mass shooters tend to be society’s outcasts. In away, they are a byproduct of how people treat others. Which is to say, not very good. However, this is part of human nature making it unlikely we can change that.
Anyway – When we look at the mass shooters, to them, they are trying to get indirect revenge for the way people treated them. So, one solution to this is to take away their ability to feel like this would give them the revenge they want.
To do this, we encourage media outlets and comedians to immediately start mocking them, making the mass shooters a laughing stock. Effectively turning mass shooters into a meme immediately after a shooting and continue for a long time after. Making the next perspective shooter afraid that their so called glorious act will become something they would be to embarrassed to have happen to them if the do it.
Making them think that that their act of revenge will only make the world make fun far beyond anything they experienced. So instead of cry ing over their atrocity talking about how many people they killed. Start talking making fun of every aspect of their life.
3.) Encourage people to carry a firearm:
Contrary to what many people think, most gun owners leave their firearms at home. If, however people started carrying their sidearms everywhere, mass shooters/killers and criminals could be stopped sooner. As well, if criminals start seeing others commit crimes being met immediately with firearms, it could result in them rethinking their crimes. Thus, not only reducing murder rates, but overall crime rates.
This should also extend to people in the work place as well.
4.) encourage training:
We should never force people to take a firearm training class, but we should encourage it. Even a simple firearm safety class is a good thing. We could even give incentives to encourage people to take such classes, like tax breaks if they can show proof they took such class in that year.
This could reduce accidental deaths, while making people more effective at stopping a criminal or mass shooter.
5.) No longer allow gun free zones:
What is one thing most mass shooters have in common? They go on their shooting spree in areas that are gun free zones, or areas where they think it is unlikely they will met with armed resistance. So, if we remove gun free zones while encouraging people to carry, we could stop shooters sooner, while sending a message to people thinking about doing it.