Bloomberg's Grandstanding on Gun Control

Shocker, Bloomberg is ranting about gun control. And twisting the facts into a distorted reality all his own.

The senseless loss of life at Virginia Tech breaks our hearts. And every day, nearly 30 people are murdered in the United States. We ask ourselves, what can be done to stop this kind of gun violence? As mayor of the country's largest city, I have asked myself that question many times. In New York, we've cut murders by 40 percent compared with six years ago. But eight police officers have been gunned down in the line of duty in that span—eight young men who were protecting us.

"What can be done to stop this kind of gun violence" is an interesting posture since he quotes a decrease in the number of murders, but doesn't bother to state that the number of murders isn't solely related to guns. He stands there and yelps about the police deaths, but ignores that they are logistically incapable of protecting the citizens of the city. The reality of police "protection" is that it usually entails a clean up crew and finding the offender. With that level of protection, I'd rather depend on my firearm.

FBI statistics show that violent crime is on the rise across America, and the news out of Virginia has again raised the critical issue of keeping guns away from the people who should not have them—criminals and those with a history of being potentially dangerous. There are questions about whether a background check should have prevented the Virginia Tech shooter from purchasing the guns. Regardless, the fact is that most crimes are committed with illegal weapons—and that is where the new gun debate is, or at least should be, centered. In New York, we aggressively go after these guns, but no city can stop the flow of illegal firearms alone, just like no city can stop the flow of illegal drugs alone. These are national problems that require national leadership.

His question about whether Cho should have gotten a gun is foolish, since anyone who has done any reading at all understands that his "mental illness" wasn't documented into the NICs system due to it being related to a voluntary stay in a mental institution. There is no question that it was legal. Don't like that fact, then change the law, and understand the civil liberties backlash that will accompany it.

As for his "new" focus in the gun debate, when did this become new? Illegal guns and the illegal activities with them has always been the issue. Especially for those of us who believe in the Second Amendment. I love the use of the illegal drugs comparison. They've done so well there haven't they. The laws are substantially more draconian, and yet the use of drugs hasn't varied greatly over time.

Unfortunately, in recent years, combating gun crime hasn't been a priority of this Justice Department or Congress. Actually, that's understating it. Congress is undermining our local efforts by handcuffing our police departments.

Shocker, he's coming out on the Gun crime database again. His argument, as you can read at the link is that police should have unfettered access to the data. Let's forget those privacy rights or the fact that the original owner is a victim of a crime. I'm certain he has no intention of taking action against the innocent, just like he didn't commit a crime in instituting a conspiracy to commit a felony by paying agents to perform straw purchases in other states.

He goes into boasting about that:

Last year, I was talking with Boston Mayor Tom Menino, and he was just as frustrated as I was about the lack of action by the federal government. So we did something about it. Along with 13 other mayors, we started a coalition called Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Our goal: to find creative ways to rid our streets of illegal guns. One way that our city has done that is by conducting an undercover sting operation against a group of dealers in five states whose guns kept turning up in crimes in New York.

Yep, that's right, they were creative in how they chose to violate federal law. Funny how the glacial investigation of Bloomberg's little conspiracy has yet to bring any findings. I wonder if they're just waiting until it gets stale and then they can ignore his illegal activities?

Now, the conventional wisdom is that we'll never persuade Congress to do anything because members are too afraid of the special interests. But our strategy is to change the terms of the debate. The fact is, there's common ground on this issue for anyone who is willing to look at it honestly, not ideologically. This isn't about gun control. It's about crime control.

Nice words, but that's not what he's doing. It's nice to hear the words related to idealogy, but he hasn't followed through and he continues to blame others for the illegal activities that his own constituency are perpetrating. But it's the gun dealer's or the Fed's fault.

His finale:

Will we succeed? In my own brief political experience, I've found that pragmatism beats ideology. So yes—and sooner rather than later.

Don't hold your breath Bloomberg. Your activities haven't solved anything, and have only managed to prove your willingness to trample others rights for your supposed concerns over crime.