Mayor Bloomberg on guns

In the wake of the tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado, some people have said that it’s best not to make a political statement out of it, that we should be allow people to mourn. I would agree to a certain point. However, it’s tragedies like this that should get people riled up and should get people demanding more of the politicians. Mayor Mike Bloomberg from NYC thinks so. Check out his video above. He says:

“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’re gonna do about it,” Bloomberg said. “No matter where you stand on the Second Amendment, no matter where you stand on guns, we have a right to hear from both of them.”

I have to agree. This is really getting out of control. This murderer legally bought four guns and 6,000 rounds of ammunition over a period of 60 days.

New York City has great gun laws. There are eight million people crammed into five small burroughs. There’s a long waiting period and ample background check. Last I checked, you can’t even touch a handgun without a license. It’s true that there’s gun violence in the city, but they’ve never had anything like what we just saw in Aurora.

Some NRA people say that arming people will result in more occurrences like the recent retaliation by the old guy in the internet cafe. But isn’t it better not to have gun violence in the first place? Right now, we’ve got lax gun laws, and it’s still very rare to see successful defenses by concealed weapons holders.

8 thoughts on “Mayor Bloomberg on guns

  1. Byron,

    Why don’t you move back east then? What’s there in Portland that NYC doesn’t have? I think there are too many delusional East Coast Asians who think the grass is greener on the Left Coast because Asians are more grounded there. So they think!

  2. For example,

    1. Cleaner air
    2. Fewer crowds
    3. Less rushed culture
    4. Better National Parks
    5. More trees

    I think more people out here have guns. Hunting is a big deal. But they could limit certain guns or have longer waiting periods. There’s no reason why anyone needs to own an assault rifle.

  3. Here’s a good point about that “self defense” thing. From the NYTimes comment section:

    Let’s say patrons were allowed to carry guns. When one or more movie goers exiting the theatre reached for his/her gun to stop the first shooter, it would be unknown to the many bystanders whether they were acting in collusion. This is why the first armed individual who arrived on the scene of the Gaby Gifford’s shooting didn’t open fire. He did not want to be mistaken for a second gunman. While that was a wise choice on his part, it shows the fallacy of the “allowing everyone to carry arms is the only way to make us all safer” NRA position. Uncoordinated responses would more likely result in greater carnage. July 20, 2012 at 6:28 a.m.

  4. “For example,

    1. Cleaner air
    2. Fewer crowds
    3. Less rushed culture
    4. Better National Parks
    5. More trees”.

    This could be a reason why the Jews are a lot more successful than the Asians. They have influence over a big city like NY. They make sure the smartest of their kind are in the halls of power in big urban areas. Smart Asians leave the hectic big city life for mind numbing sleepy suburbia.

  5. You don’t think there are influential Jews (or Asians, for that matter) in the Pacific Northwest?

  6. “You don’t think there are influential Jews (or Asians, for that matter) in the Pacific Northwest?”

    Jews are overrepresented in power halls of cities that are very significant, such as NYC and LA. Coincidently, these places aren’t exactly friendly towards Asian men. Now you know why Jews are so domineering in Finance, Law and Hollywood.

  7. Pingback: Who are Sikhs? | bigWOWO

  8. Pingback: Guns at the airport, guns in colleges, guns guns everywhere | bigWOWO

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *