Predictably, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg opened his big mouth about the Aurora Colorado massacre. And, predictably, the topic was one of gun control. Isn’t it just a little bit ironic that the guy who’s had little to no effect on gun violence in his own city seeks to lecture the rest of us? Bloomberg even had the nerve to call out President Obama and Mitt Romney for their responses to the massacre with these words:
“Soothing words are nice, but maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be President of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country.”
In response, I have a few unsoothing words of my own for the mayor (and Obama or Romney can feel free to plagiarize them at will): “Hey, Bloomberg, let us know when you get criminals to stop using guns in NYC and then we’ll look at implementing your brilliant plan elsewhere. But until that happens, shut your pie hole!”
It is thoroughly breathtaking how shallow and trite politicians can be. Guns were not allowed in the movie theater and murdering people is already against the law. So what makes Bloomberg or any other knothead politician think that more laws will stop gun violence? Anyone hell-bent on mass murder has little concern for whether something is against the law. A mass murderer plans on breaking the law at the very outset, so what could possibly make a person with half a brain believe that more laws are the way to deter him? It’s truly beyond comprehension. Then again, maybe I’m being too generous. Maybe they don’t have half a brain. The nation is reeling from a senseless act of violence at the hand of a barbaric sociopath and callous fools like Bloomberg think it is the perfect time for political grandstanding. Unbelievable.
Not surprisingly, Bloomberg is out of step with his fellow Americans:
Gallup trends on gun control show that Americans have grown less supportive of strengthening gun laws in the United States over the last two decades, notwithstanding a number of tragic gun attacks during that period,” wrote Gallup’s Frank Newport and Lydia Saad in 2011.
Note that: Less supportive of strengthening gun laws. Gallup even hits on a potential reason for such a public reaction, although it seems to treat it as a misnomer when it says “notwithstanding a number of tragic gun attacks during that period.” Could it be that Americans are smart enough to understand that a more violent environment requires fewer restrictions on firearms instead of more? Could it be that Americans are able to figure out that most criminals don’t care about laws, even if lawmakers write thousands more? Gun restrictions only make it more difficult for the law-abiding folks to get guns: you know, the very ones who are guaranteed that right by the second amendment. If I live in a violent neighborhood, I am only to going to be able to defend my family by having a gun, not by not having one (or ten). It’s really not that difficult to understand.
But you see, facts and figures don’t matter. Logic doesn’t matter. Your family’s safety doesn’t even matter. Politicians like Bloomberg have no real concern about stopping gun violence. Their primary concern is not one of public safety and welfare, but one of control and intimidation. If they were really concerned about public safety, they would be just as vocal about knife and baseball bat control; victims can be stabbed or bludgeoned to death just as easily as they can be shot. But when was the last time you heard a politician blowing long and strong on either of these public menaces? I can assure you that the silence on knife and bat control laws will continue as long as guns are around to play the political scapegoat.