What Bloomberg Wants

Article by Jeffery Goldberg appearing in Bloomberg’s publishing empire, debunking the myths of gun control. Take a careful look at “Myth No. 3” I think Bloomberg would be perfectly OK with conceding everything else that’s been thrown at us if he got a gun show loophole bill. I view their placing an article by Goldberg as an attempt to work that particular field while the President is busy doing his thing.

Glenn Reynolds summed it up best: “Divide, weaken, and rule.” Hey, it works for Chicago. It was only a matter of time before he executed this tactic on gun rights.

8 Responses to “What Bloomberg Wants”

  1. Yes, I think Bloomber would conceding everything else that’s been thrown at us if he got a ban on private sales. Then with that ban in place, he can move on to the next item on his list… until eventually, department stores are requiring photo ID and a federal form to sell flatware.

  2. Jesse says:

    That one statistic was very very eye opening. The one about CCW holders commit crime at a lower rate than police officers. That number if it can be sourced needs to be made into a public fact immediately.

  3. Matt says:

    Jesse, that’s not a new fact. It is derived from statistics managed by various states that track CCW issuance and revocation. The revocation rates for CCW holders for various crimes as compared to the general populace and police as a rate of crime is many times lower.

  4. Alpheus says:

    For something in Bloomberg, I’m surprised at how well-balanced the article is. Having said that, if I recall correctly, Myth #3, besides reminding us that Bloomberg wants to close the so-called “gun-show loophole”, is also potentially false: of those 1.9 million purchases that were blocked by background checks, how many of them went through later, after things were cleared up? I seem to recall that the percentage is actually pretty high.

    But this notion that “Barak Obama isn’t going to come for your gun anytime soon” to be highly disengenuous. He’s already on record of supporting an assault-weapon ban (both from the last Presidential Debates, and now from statements made since the Sandy Hook masacre); the fact that he quoted Biden saying “He’s not coming for your shotguns” provides even less comfort, because Goldberg is assuming that the only types of guns we own, and want to own, are shotguns.

    • Harold says:

      Errr, didn’t he support an AW ban in 2008? While assuring us we had a Constitutional right to “hunt, fish and for self-defense” (I’m fuzzy on the last, but he did start with hunt and fish…). So his current official position is not a change.

  5. Jake says:

    I think Bloomberg would be perfectly OK with conceding everything else that’s been thrown at us if he got a gun show loophole bill.

    More to the point, I seriously wonder if the actual goal for this particular push is simply a gun show “loophole” bill (perhaps with an option to go for a magazine capacity limit as either an addition or an alternative), and anything they can get on top of that is merely a bonus.

    In other words, the idea is to start with the draconian AWB, push it hard, and slowly drop bits and pieces until enough Republicans get tired of the game to give up and start agreeing to “compromise”. With the way they’ve been getting hammered in the press on the fiscal cliff issue, and with another fiscal cliff battle coming in a few weeks, not only is party cohesion already shot, but some of them have got to be looking for a way to look “reasonable” and “willing to compromise” in the papers.

    Given the Republican Party’s more recent performances, I am not encouraged. The only saving grace is that this tragedy happened at a time that it was impossible to get legislation introduced immediately. If it had happened, say, this coming weekend – when the emotional impact would be greatest during a regular session of congress – we would probably have a full on AWB passed and signed before anyone outside congress and Obama even knew about it.

  6. ARL says:

    First step is to stop using our opponent’s language and not call it “the gunshow loophole”. “Loophole” implies it’s some twisted interpretation of the law that Congress never intended, which it’s not. Call it the “private sale ban” or something else.

  7. Trevor Shepherd says:

    I’m not sure I like the gun-show loophole anyway. I am all for people who are legally allowed to own firearms being able to buy them from other citizens without the government having records of the sale, or having access to those records. But the reality is that nowadays, many private sellers want a copy of the buyer’s driver’s license to keep as a record of the sale. Frankly, I am not too keen on giving my identity information to some stranger who I just met on GunBroker (or on any other site). Do I trust the government with the information on my gun purchase/background check forms more than I trust an average citizen with a copy of my driver’s license? Yeah, I kind of do. To me the so-called gun show loophole is a nice thing as long as everyone wants to stay annonymous, but if the seller wants a copy of my license, forget it. Let’s just do this through an FFL.