“Anti-gunners will never be as committed as NRA members because they really have nothing at stake. With homicides running under 10,000 per year out of a population of more than 300 million people, it is very unlikely that any anti-gunner will be killed by a gun. But if you are a law-abiding gun owner, the possibility of legislation restricting your right is much more likely to affect you.” – Commentator Rimfire underneath Can Michael Bloomberg really build a gun-control lobby bigger than the NRA? [via washingtonpost.com]
The article states that mom’s had some great effect on the alcohol lobby. Ummm, there are over 40,000 alcohol related deaths per year not including car accidents.
I would like to know HOW MANY deaths with Gun’s are Police shooting bad guys?
Compared to the total number of Gun incidents.
I am unable to find the link right now, but the WaPo had an article on MADD sometime last year that said that with all of MADD efforts, since their inception, the percentage of alcohol related automobile deaths has remained at 20%. While in years that it has gone down, they have whipped up the media machine to say their efforts have worked, there have been many years where the rate has also gone up. All-in-all the death rate due to drinking while driving has remained at steady ~20%. Meaning, virtually nothing they have done has done a damn thing because just like gun laws, magical words on paper do not exist.
In terms of alcohol, look at the UK, anything they have tried to do to curb drinking has failed.
Laws that try to prevent a certain type of behavior simply do not work.
MADD is just as much a sham as MDA. Unless you check every single person coming out of every single bar or force every single car to have one of those breath analyzer ignition switches, nothing they have done has helped. In 2008 MADD did try to get both of those items passed in New Mexico, and it failed miserably.
MADD wants the return of the prohibition of alcohol and zero-tolerance drink-driving laws. They won’t come out and say it, but that’s what they want. Just like how Bloomberg won’t come out and say he wants to take your guns away–but he does.
Prohibition has never worked, and will never work. But a zero tolerance policy, both for drunk driving, as well as using a firearm in the commission of a crime I would support 100%. Drunk drivers get off too easily today. Other violent criminals get off too easily as well. How many times have you heard of a crime being committed and the suspect “was out on bond…” or “out on parole…”?
If one gets drunk, or high on a controlled substance that impairs your judgement and slows your reaction time and then decide to get behind the wheel of a car and drive, the penalty should be severe. You have put everyone else on the road in serious jeopardy. It should be treated as attempted murder, and one should be given 10 years, or preferably to me, life in prison.
I have no problem if you want to get drunk, or even high, and stay home, or even wobble home by walking. But get behind the wheel of a 2000+ pound vehicle, and you’ve now put me, my family, and every other person on the road at risk, you are a clear and present danger to everyone else, and should be removed from society for a very long time.
Likewise, if one uses a gun in a crime, the penalty should be life in prison without the possibility of parole. Lock up the violent elements in our society, and be done with it.
“… or even wobble home by walking. ”
When I was a much younger lad I did exactly that. I had too many at the bar, decided to walk the mile or so home, and was arrested for Drunk and Disorderly and *still* spent the night in jail.
Increased penalties for ‘dangerous’ crimes is one thing, but locking up someone for having a .09 BAC for the same reason as someone with a .14 BAC is not how you improve anything. Yes, they are both ‘drunk’ but only one of them is truly dangerous. Zero-tolerance rules make it so that you can participate in the action zero percent of the time without having legal problems.
To AnAnonymous Guy:
A “simple” DIU – where you get pulled over for some moving violation or suspicion of impairment and arrested for DUI without causing property damage or injury or death will cost you $10K.
Pretty damn severe.
Your assertion that drunk drivers get off too easily is not grounded in fact.
Nevertheless, I think these kinds of consequences are appropriate.
Just like the prohibition of other “drugs”. The fact is that addiction rates are also basically the same as when you could walk into your local pharmacy and by uncut cocaine and morphine over the counter.
Just like our foolish experiment with banning alcohol, the bad things about drugs that can actually be prevented come from the prohibition itself. The organized crime, the turf wars, the people who have their lives ruined by getting caught up in the system. Illegal drugs ruin lives simply because they are illegal. Controlling them has never stopped anyone from becoming addicted, it only makes the addicts criminals which is what really screws up their lives.
Yep; this is the why I say at heart; most people are wanna be dictators or slaves. These laws wouldn’t exist if there wasn’t a majority of people that hate the idea that people should have the freedom to put whatever they want into their body; until it hurts someone else.
This sick need to try to control the choices of an adult in what they put in their own body voluntarily is incomprehensible to me.
I believe this is why tyranny is the norm for most of history up to the present moment. Most people want to control or be controlled.
It seems most people; subconsciously, like the idea of an S and M world, where they have the Dominatrix whipping their voluntary slaves into submission; and the slaves demanding more punishment.
Here is pot being treated just like alcohol.
http://www.coloradodot.info/news/2014-news-releases/04-2014/state-officials-caution-the-public-about-responsible-marijuana-use-during-4-20-celebrations
A state bureaucracy actually references responsible use of marijuana.
The CDC places the number at over 80,000 per year DIRECTLY related to alcohol.
Now that is a keen observation.
The typical victim of “gun violence” does not at all relate to Shannon Watts or Bloomberg. In fact, if one actually showed up, I feel pretty sure Bloomie and Shannon would have their security detail remove them mistaking them for someone who was there to steal their stuff. I strongly suspect that the average victim of “gun violence” would say we need jobs and better education, not more laws, so that baby Tayvon has more opportunities not to make bad choices.
Moreover, research sponsored by Bloomberg himself says that if you know a victim of violence you are hundreds of times more likely to be a perpetrator or victim in the future yourself.
So, my view is that putting together 1 million people with a strong incentive – as in victims themselves – when only 60,000 people a year are actual victims (including shootings, but many are likely repeat customers) and when Shannon and Bloomberg live in gated communities – is going to be difficult. And, even if they do, it will be all the wrong people, because of the natural selection bias.
It will be people like Pearl Wilson:
Now, maybe guns are the issue. On the other hand, maybe raising 9 children in poverty with no father is also an issue. Hmm, let me think for a second which one is more likely to result in baby Tavon getting into illicit pharmaceutical distribution.
My sense is, Shannon Watts lives in a corporate bubble and does not know how the rest live. If the people who live in the city are already so apathetic that they do not do what comes instinctively – defend themselves and property – I am thinking insofar as getting them to like a page on Facebook, and send money and vote? I am thinking: Good luck with that. Anyway, most of the folks in these hellholes already vote Dem and have given the Dems a monopoly, look where that has gotten them.
If Bloomberg really wanted to save lives, he’d use the $50 mil to promote school choice, create economic development zones, and hand out $5 gun locks.
Limousine liberals champion many causes for their own hubris and so that they can get golf claps at the country club and within their social group. If they really cared they would be in the middle of Chicago protesting the economic conditions and violence instead of making noise when some rich white kids in CT have been shot. I would be at least respectful of their cause if they went into the inner city to march against the violence instead of going into country clubs to make their case. Neither Bloomberg or Watts have any clue about the real issues and simply are doing this for hubris and applause.
Neither Bloomberg nor Watts would ever set foot inside the inner city without their armed bodyguards and a massive police detail. Because – Cooties, you know.
I strongly suspect that the average victim of “gun violence” would say we need jobs and better education, not more laws..
No I think the average victim of gun violence would say…..
“Where’s the money for the 2 pounds of coke I just gave you?”
or
“Here’s some payback for my homie you wacked last week”
or
If you really want to present numbers in a compelling manner, try this:
Members of criminal gangs or people who distribute illegal narcotics are both the perpetrators and victims of about 80% of all murders — including murders where the attacker used a firearm. That means about 1,800 members of the general public will be murder victims of a gunman this year. And of those, something like half of them will be victims of domestic violence.
So boil it all down … if your spouse is not a domestic abuser and you are not a criminal, your chances of being a murder victim at the hands of a gunman are about 1 out of 333,000.
That is a pretty incredible number in any country in the world.
which tells you that their Background Check system which they love so much amounts to nothing. It will not stop the true violence.
Watts and Bloomberg are trying to stop some possible low percentage outlier event because in their minds it is too tragic to think about. However, they are not looking at the everyday inner city problems because nobody will ever have a solution for that. In their minds, restrictions on legal gun owners will somehow stop all violence.
Watts and Bloomberg are trying to stop some possible low percentage outlier event because in their minds it is too tragic to think about.
No, because in their minds finding and fixing the real root causes – poverty and ignorance – would be too expensive in terms of money and effort. And fixing them would destroy the support of their cronies’ voter base, because people would realize that they are being bought and sold.
Excellent.
I would also add: let that pompous ass Bloomberg walk around without bodyguards and any sort of weapon. He clearly cannot practice the disarmament that he preaches. Neither can Obama, for that matter.
Exactly. That little tyrant Napoleon isn’t S*** without his Grande Armee’.
That’s a pretty astute little observation. and an angle that I haven’t given much thought to.
And clearly illustrates the difference: “Your gun frightens me, so I want my big, burly, armed government agent to take it away from you.” vs. “I have a Constitutionally protected natural right to keep and bear this expensive tool or the protection of myself, my family and my community – Come and take it!”
All the while pretending they have nothing to fear from the gig, burly, armed government agent once the RKBA is gone.”
Pathetic.
That’s why we need more gun owners. Not court cases. Infringing laws are passed in hours while court cases take decades and only result in partial remediation, at best. It has been a losing strategy over the past 50 years.
More gun owners. It’s simply a question of numbers. And we need more gun owners where the market potential is the greatest: Behind the Iron Curtain, or otherwise known as the Delaware Water Gap. A huge market of non-gun owners just waiting to be penetrated by gun companies, ranges and gun stores. I don’t understand why the industry doesn’t get it.
I agree we need more gun owners, but I’m not so sure it would really prevent anything.
Our history with prohibition indicates that just because the majority likes alcohol, and can handle it responsibly, doesn’t stop the nanny-staters out there who will somehow get it banned.
I understand the argument, that violent crime being concentrated among a distinct subset of the population leaves many others blase about gun grabbing, because the issue doesn’t impact them directly. Still, wouldn’t the self-selection and lifestyle choices people make, which greatly reduce their exposure to violent crime, also reduce their interest in and respect for the topic altogether? Wouldn’t they be more accommodating of gungrabbing politicians, feeling that there’s little danger in civil disarmament?
After all, you can actually read statements in the media occasionally, from professionals and laymen alike, bemoaning the supposed high rate of incarceration when crime rates are so low. And that’s not even touching upon all the people who think the 2A itself is irrelevant because we don’t have a dictatorship in America.
If people cannot distinguish cause from effect, then they may blithely dismiss the value of the former in securing the latter. Until it’s too late, of course.
“Wouldn’t they be more accommodating of gungrabbing politicians, feeling that there’s little danger in civil disarmament?” Yes, but also accommodating of pro-gun politicians. Gun owners are much more likely to be single issue voters, and 3x more likely to be active, and motivated to the polls. So, even if both groups had the same followers, gun owners will vote against you whereas the anti-gunners might, or might not even show up. As a pro-gun candidate, the people who are blase, being blase, might vote for you on another issue. Even unions as a bloc often split the vote and individual members vote R sometimes. I think it will happen this year in MD because the admin cut pension funding. Gun owners, as a group, are just far more likely to vote on one issue. In some cases its not because guns per se are the issue, but that “guns” are a distraction from the real underlying social and economic problems, so a politician focusing on “guns” is probably focusing on all the wrong things.
I think we need more education on firearms safety. I beleive that could actually save some lives. Have gun safety taught in our school health education classes (it is a health issue according to the left). We have mandatory sex education why not gun safety if it is such an epidemic.
Now if our government could be trusted to not over reach or over legislate, I would be fine with a gun license that reguired passing a gun safety course. Have the gun course coriculum prepared by the NRA, administered by a NRA approved instructor. Once you pass the class you have an ID that allows you to purchase guns with out the background check (since you license states you can legally own a gun). But then again we can not trust the buffoons in Washington to not over reach or over legislate on this. It should be simple, have a protection against the list being used for confiscation or by law enforcement, except to see if the person is still in compliance. The only stipulations should be that you passed the class and can pass a background check. Hell, put a nuclear option in the law that states if any laws are passed that effect the gun license or any new gun regulation law it will then make all gun regulations federal, state and local null and void. Make congress afraid to even look at it.
But none of this will ever happen because our law makers can not be trusted to not over reach or keep it simple and straight to the point. K.I.S.S. for the win (Keep It Simple Stupid)
You’d need to teach firearms safety in First Grade, because most homies are done with school by Junior High. They may go into the building after that, but they do not learn.
I find it interesting that the comments section of a WaPo article are dominated by the pro-2A folks. The gun-grabbers are exhausted…..so that means it is the perfect time for us to put the pedal to metal and continue to go on the offensive.
Now that’s my kind of language.
Never. Stop.
The question we’re failing to ask is “Why does Monsanto want to disarm the U.S.?”
Once you sell your soul, there’s no going back.
Bloomberg is doing us a favor. The optic of “big city billionaire mayor” trying to buy an election will blow up in his face.
+ 1
I am hoping that ‘blow up in his face’ is literal.
They, the leftists/liberal, can build what ever they want to, that doesn’t mean the masses will come flocking, moreover, that also doesn’t mean that law abiding gun owners are going to give up anything either…
“If you build it, they will come!”
So long as the funds for door-prizes, popcorn and circuses hold out.
Bloomie can’t get anything done without buying his friends first.
Let’s watch him wast a literal ton of money.
Wow, just went to the WaPo article, I didn’t see a single “Oh, how wonderful, go Mikey!” post. Couldn’t believe I was looking at a WaPo site. Despite media clapping and cheering, the public seems to be pretty underwhelmed by Bloomberg’s latest iteration of his nanny-state crusade.
‘Can Michael Bloomberg really build a gun-control lobby bigger than the NRA?’
Well…. he can try to influence enough people to his point of view. As it is his right as enshrined in the Bill or Rights. Of course… it’s somewhat unfortunate that Bloomberg will be using his civil rights to try and strip civil rights from everyone else.
If it’s not popular, then it’s not popular and all the money he spends still won’t make it popular.
If after Sandy Hook and the slaughter of little kids, and make no mistake, I find that act truly horrifying and sad beyond words, then little else is going to change popular opinion.
To make things really simple, Bloomberg might create some local influence here and there, but out west and many other gun friendly states in the east, he won’t.
People don’t like Bloomberg. They don’t like snobby pushy people with lots of money to throw around and tell them how to live.
Bloomberg is going to be flushing his money, which is fine by me. Flush all of it and go away.
It seems like a lot, but even if Bloomberg budgeted an entire $Billion, and assuming there are 300,000,000 (millions) of firearms in private hands in America, that’s still only out $3.50 PER GUN. (Somebody check my math, please.)
He’s going to have to find an extremely strategic and effective way to apply his $50 million to the problem or he is just pissing into the wind.
He’s just good of limiting soda’s, W A F J, to bad his job is gone, hee, hee.
Drunk driving used to be a defense to vehicular manslaughter. When there was no testing and being drunk was a defense to a crime, you can imagine that many many fatal accidents where caused by drunks.
When the laws changed the numbers went down imagine that. Then the legal limits changed and the numbers went up. also correlation is not causation. MADD counts an accident as being alcohol involved even if the victims is parked and drunk and the driver is sober. They are a scam.
That said driving drunk is not the safest thing to do esp on expressways.
Comments are closed.