0
   

Mayor Bloomber Fires Blanks Against the Innocent

 
 
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2012 02:58 am
THE DAILY CALLER
By Bob Barr

If you caught the Super Bowl on Sunday, you may have seen an ad
featuring New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor
Tom Menino claiming they “support the Second Amendment”
but want to keep “illegal guns” off the streets and “save lives.”
The ad might appear innocuous, even laudable.
After all, who doesn’t want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?
However, the group sponsoring the ad, “Mayors Against Illegal Guns,”
is blatantly anti-gun and openly supports strict limits on the ability
of all citizens — including law-abiders — to own and possess firearms.

Of course, the media often reports on violent crime, which aides
anti-gun politicians in their never-ending crusade against firearm rights.
After all, bad and salacious news sells. The facts, however, tell
another story. According to a seminal study published in the mid-1990s
by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, firearms are used in self-defense about
2.5 million times each year in this country.

Unfortunately, news stories that feature law-biding citizens using firearms
to fend off attackers often either go unreported or wind up buried in
the back pages of newspapers, but even though these stories aren’t
being reported, a new paper from the Cato Institute confirms what
Kleck and Gertz discovered nearly two decades ago — that guns are
frequently used to ward off all manner of crimes, including assaults,
home invasions and rape.

This latest report, which undercuts Bloomberg’s message, is based
on extensive and sound factual research. Authors Clayton Cramer
and David Burnett examined more than 4,600 incidents over an
eight-year span — October 2003 to November 2011 — that involved
the use of a firearm in self-defense during a crime or some sort of serious injury.


The results are interesting. The authors found that home invasions
made up the largest share of the incidents they examined (more than
a quarter, or 1,227 incidents). They also identified 488 burglaries
where guns were used in self-defense.

Cramer and Burnett identified 14 instances where college students
in off-campus housing used firearms to defend themselves. This is
important because of the ongoing debate over whether guns should
be allowed on college campuses, which are often considered or
mandated to be “gun-free zones.” Of course, the “gun-free”
designation matters only to law-abiding citizens; criminals don’t
care about the law.
That’s why there has been a rash of violent crimes
over the last couple of years on the campuses of Georgia Tech and
Georgia State University, both based in Atlanta. Lives could have
been saved if students at those schools were allowed to carry weapons.

For Cramer and Burnett, the evidence leads to the obvious conclusion
that the “rationale for [anti-gun] legislation is to reduce accidental
shootings and the criminal use of guns against people, but if harm
reduction is the goal, policymakers should pause to consider how
many crimes — murders, rapes, assaults, robberies — are thwarted
by ordinary persons who were fortunate enough to have immediate
access to a gun.”

None of these facts will matter to Bloomberg and his anti-gun cohorts,
whose crusade to disarm all potential victims of criminal assault will
continue unabated. These misguided nanny-staters continue to prove
the point that Winston Churchill made many years ago:
People may occasionally trip over the truth, but most of them simply
pick themselves up, dust themselves off and continue merrily on their way.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s Seventh District in the U.S. House of
Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He provides regular commentary
to Daily Caller readers



 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2012 06:52 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Trouble with you and your kind, you yield no ground to accomplish any of these goals. The mantra of
"itll never work and the 2nd amendment doesnt allow it" is very tiresome.
Im a gun owner and I carry in specific circumstances, yet I feel that guns are a major problem in our society . There is a criminal element , the control of which can NOT be the universal arming of the rest of the population by guys like you or me. If Im not threatened , would I use my gun to protect anyone else? Ive often thought of that and my answer is HELL NO!(I would cal 911 immediately and would render assistance but I would NOIT draw my gun) Im not going to expose myself or my family or colleagues by joining in a gunfight to save someone else. This may be cowardice but Im being honest. SO a "universal arming of the citizenry" wont lead to more safety from gun deaths. Ive been fired upon and have lived through several attacks by para-military units and have lost a person at my side to gun fire, so Im not speaking out of ignorance of the experience.

Your attitude as supreme hedonist in NYC seems to underpin me. I dont think that youd help someone either even though you are armed (your reasons of doing so may be different but the results would be the same).

How would you see this dilemma being handled (excluding universal armament)? You should periodically refresh our memory of what you think rather than believe that everyone reads and "buys" your verbal extracts from the press.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2012 07:49 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Trouble with you and your kind... blah, blah, blah...


formerman, you are either ignorant or stupid - pick one and be honest with your choice.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 07:32 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Trouble with you and your kind, you yield no ground to accomplish any of these goals.
SOME things r open to negotiation;
e.g., if u have a yard sale of your "gently used antiques"
u might be open to hondle and dicker over the price of a painting,
but if a customer wants to dicker your wife or your mom,
maybe u 'll not be willing to compromise.
Principles COUNT for something.
Do u agree with that, Farmer?




farmerman wrote:
The mantra of "itll never work and the 2nd amendment doesnt allow it" is very tiresome.
That is an appeal to emotion, instead of to reason.
U might be tired of snow falling in winter, but that does not make it less true.
What is "tiresome" to u can be thrilling to someone else.




farmerman wrote:
Im a gun owner and I carry in specific circumstances,
What is your defensive gun of choice ?
Loaded with what ??



farmerman wrote:
yet I feel that guns are a major problem in our society.
Thay r major problems to violent criminals on-the-job
whose lifespans might be thereby adversely affected.



farmerman wrote:
There is a criminal element, the control of which can NOT be the universal arming
of the rest of the population by guys like you or me.
For years and centuries, I have advocated that men
who have proven by histories of recidivistic criminal violence
that thay r intolerable menaces to the decent people shud be removed
from contact with them, preferably off of the North American Continent.
I have merely pointed out that by the Bill of Rights,
government was granted the privilege of EXISTING,
subject to the condition that it NOT interfere with any citizen's possession of defensive firearms
any more than it has jurisdiction to interfere with his possession of BIBLES.



farmerman wrote:
If Im not threatened, would I use my gun to protect anyone else?
I dunno. I suspect that is related to how much u LIKE the person in question.



farmerman wrote:
Ive often thought of that and my answer is HELL NO!
If the victim is your mom, or your little child??
your first love ?




farmerman wrote:
(I would cal 911 immediately and would render assistance but I would NOIT draw my gun)
Good idea. When seconds count, the police are mere minutes away.



farmerman wrote:
Im not going to expose myself or my family or colleagues by joining in a gunfight to save someone else.
This may be cowardice but Im being honest.
Its not cowardice if u have no duty to defend the victim.





farmerman wrote:
SO a "universal arming of the citizenry" wont lead to more safety from gun deaths.
Year after decade after century Vermont has had very low gun deaths
and it has never had anti-gun laws.
To my mind: that is a logical, factual refutation of your theory.




farmerman wrote:
Ive been fired upon and have lived through several attacks by para-military units
and have lost a person at my side to gun fire, so Im not speaking out of ignorance of the experience.
Forgive me if I wonder whether more aggressive defenses 'd have successfully nullified the threat.




farmerman wrote:
Your attitude as supreme hedonist in NYC seems to underpin me.
I dont think that youd help someone either even though you are armed
(your reasons of doing so may be different but the results would be the same).
I join in your philosophy,
in that it all depends on the degree of my affection for the victim.



farmerman wrote:
How would you see this dilemma being handled (excluding universal armament)?
For the record:
my position has always been very simple, to wit:
government has NO JURISDICTION qua defensive personal armament of citizens.
The way u wrote that made it sound like obama's universal mandate that everyone get health insurance whether he wants it or not.
I just say that no government shud take any notice in matters of defensive personal armament,
the same as it respects the privacy of any citizen in his choice of religious beliefs.

See above qua BANISHMENT of criminally violent recidivists.




farmerman wrote:
You should periodically refresh our memory of what you think rather than believe that everyone reads and "buys" your verbal extracts from the press.
Yea; maybe u r right.





David
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 08:07 am
why would anyone take any notice of anything said by the lady mayoress of new york or that thick tongued retard mayor mumbles of boston
OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 08:19 am
@djjd62,
Y don ' t u express your objections openly n forthrightly,
so that we 'll know what u mean ?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Drumsticks - Discussion by H2O MAN
nobody respects an oath breaker - Discussion by gungasnake
Marksmanship - Discussion by H2O MAN
Kids and Guns by the Numbers - Discussion by jcboy
CO gun-grabbers go down in flames in recall - Discussion by gungasnake
Personal Defense Weapons (PDW) - Discussion by H2O MAN
Self defense with a gun - Discussion by H2O MAN
It's a sellers market - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Mayor Bloomber Fires Blanks Against the Innocent
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/22/2019 at 09:00:56