'Hell, if you're that bad of a shot you're safer with a baseball bat': David Hogg argues that gun owners shouldn't need more than 10 rounds per magazine



Gun control activist David Hogg has suggested that 10 rounds per magazine should be sufficient for gun owners.

"If you need more than 10 rounds to hit something you need more range time or you need glasses, not a larger magazine. Hell, if you're that bad of a shot you're safer with a baseball bat because a gun will probably be turned on you. Especially if you are shooting a rifle and you can't hit what you are aiming for in 10 rounds you need to check your sights, check your eye dominance, and/or improve trigger pull. 30 round mags are for two two [sic] things, war and people who don't know how to shoot," Hogg tweeted.

Hogg shared a photo of how he had performed when shooting at a target.

"Even with zero training I could shoot a pretty tight grouping at 20 yards. Just look. You don't need 30 round mags. If you can't stop whatever you need to with 10 7.62 rounds. You got bigger problems," he wrote. "I did this well with zero experience shooting semi auto rifles. Surely you can be a better shot than David Hogg," he noted. Hogg also said that he had been on a college shooting team and that he participates in skeet shooting.

— (@)

People pushed back against the suggestion that 10-round magazines should be sufficient.

"What if there's multiple assailants? What if they have armor on? The adrenaline running thru your body will cause your fine motor skills to become less effective. Shooting a paper target with all the time in the world and no bullets whizzing past you or striking you, are totally different things. But you are a Harvard grad, so you must be intellectually superior," one person wrote.

"What if there are multiple somethings? Sit down. You don't know what you’re talking about. Not all self defense scenarios are 1v1," someone else wrote.

Hogg said that if someone was being attacked by more than 10 assailants they could reload, but if they're facing that many hostiles they "have bigger problems."

"It's crazy to me the main arguments I have seen against banning magazines with more than 10 rounds are: 1. What if there are more than 10 people you need to defend yourself from. To that I would say you can reload and also if you got more that 10 people coming for you have bigger problems. 2. People want high capacity magazines to fight a hypothetical tyrannical government. (So they want these magazines to kill government officials and law enforcement that's also known as treason) 3. Freedom- that they don't care if there's little justified reason to own a magazine with more than 10 rounds and that it’s the choice of mass shooters- it's their right," Hogg tweeted.

Hogg was a student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018 in Parkland, Florida, when a shooter perpetrated an attack there.

"Meanwhile out here in reality," Hogg continued, "Magazines with more that 10 rounds are the choice of mass shooters because it enables them to keep killing people with out needing to reload as much. If the shooter at my high school had a smaller magazine it's more likely a by stander could have stopped him as he was reloading. But instead the Florida state government believes his 'right' to a high capacity magazine as a 19 year old is worth more than keeping kids safe in school," he wrote.

— (@)

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Woke Mob Ruined Bon Appetit, And I’m Still Salty About It

I couldn’t stomach a ‘cooking’ magazine that is more devoted to promoting LGBT awareness than teaching readers about delicious food.

Epicurious cuts out beef recipes, citing climate change: 'We know that home cooks want to do better'



Condé Nast's culinary magazine Epicurious announced Monday that it will no longer publish beef recipes, saying it no longer wants to give "airtime to one of the world's worst climate offenders."

What are the details?

Epicurious tweeted, "Today we announced that Epicurious is cutting out beef. It won't appear in new Epi recipes, articles, newsletters, or on social. This isn't a vendetta against cows or people who eat them. It's a shift about sustainability; not anti-beef but pro-planet."

Today we announced that Epicurious is cutting out beef. It won't appear in new Epi recipes, articles, newsletters,… https://t.co/t2fxB6SfVM
— epicurious (@epicurious)1619450573.0

The magazine explained in its full statement that its "shift is solely about sustainability, about not giving airtime to one of the world's worst climate offenders."

The outlet also acknowledged that "there are problems with chicken, seafood, soy, and almost every other ingredient," adding that "in a food system so broken, almost no choice is perfect."

However, the magazine wrote, "we know that home cooks want to do better."

Epicurious said it made the decision now because while beef consumption in America "is significantly down from where it was 30 years ago, it has been slowly creeping up in the past few years."

The Hill reported that "the brand acknowledged that products made from cow's milk are 'almost as destructive to the environment as beef' but it has not said if it will stop publishing recipes requiring dairy."

While beef recipes and the mention of the meat will be completely scrapped from the Epicurious social media feeds, homepage, articles and newsletters, beef recipes previously published by the magazine will remain available on its website.

Anything else?

For years, cattle production has become a target of environmental activists who argue that methane from cow farts is a leading contributor to climate change.

Beef consumption has been in the news in recent days following President Joe Biden's vow to cut America's greenhouse gas emissions by 50% over the next nine years — an ambitious goal that could mean a monumental overhaul of the U.S. economy.

Since the Biden administration has not yet released the details, outlets such as The New York Times and The Daily Mail pulled research from experts to show possible changes that would be needed in order for the U.S. to reach the president's goal.

But the Mail drew backlash from left-leaning outlets such as The Washington Post, who criticized the outlet for pointing to University of Michigan study "on the impact of limiting meat consumption — including some extreme scenario examining the impact of Americans eating just four pounds of red meat per person annually."

Several conservative lawmakers and commentators pushed back on the prospect of red meat becoming a target, according to Politico, leading the Biden administration to vow that cutting out beef was not on the table.

"There is no effort designed to limit people's intake of beef coming out of President Biden's White House or USDA," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said during a virtual briefing hosted by the North American Agricultural Journalists.

He reiterated, "There's no desire, no effort, no press release, no policy paper — none of that — that would support the notion that the Biden administration is going to suggest that people eat less meat, or that USDA has some program designed to reduce meat consumption. It's simply not the case."

Revered libertarian publication tells people not to bother voting, 10 days before election

Reason Magazine has an important message for Americans: don't bother voting.