December 16, 2017

A Model Town for ‘Gun Safety’

Chicago photoMy article as originally published in American Thinker:   

Michael Bloomberg’s group “Everytown for Gun Safety” recently released a map claiming there have been 74 school shootings in the U.S. since the horrifying Sandy Hook shooting in 2012.  The map was widely (and without hesitation) displayed by newsrooms all across America.  The only problem is the map turns out to be a fraud and has been thoroughly debunked:

The saga of the fraudulent map of “school shootings” pumped out by Michael Bloomberg’s “Everytown for Gun Safety” group is fascinating, especially given how quickly the fraud was exposed and destroyed.  This group was caught in a lie, pure and simple… and the lie went down so hard that CNN got in on the act.

Let’s forget about “Everytown” for a moment and instead focus on just one town – Chicago.  Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, yet in 2012 it had the distinct honor of being named the murder capital of the United States.  In Chicago, one needn’t ask, If a gun spontaneously goes off in a forest, is within five miles of a school and no one is around to get shot, can the data still be used in an Everytown map?  There’s just no need go back two years and torture data to make it look like there were 74 school shootings – that same number can be achieved by going back less than two months (April 19th through June 15th), where there were 74 actual homicides (not just manufactured school shootings) using a gun within the city, as chronicled by a Chicago Tribune-owned website that keeps track of such data.

I’ve taken the liberty of creating a similar map utilizing this appalling data from Chicago (do take the time to zoom-in and read the names of the victims): 


By blatantly fabricating data and making false promises of safety while attempting to restrict the rights of those who obey the law, all the while ignoring the root cause of violence from those who fail to obey any laws, Bloomberg’s “Everytown for Gun Safety” does a tremendous disservice to the families of the 74 names highlighted on the above map, as well as to all freedom-loving Americans. 

Chicago’s gun woes are no surprise to anyone who has taken the time to read the work of John Lott, including his excellent book More Guns, Less Crime.  And speaking of less crime, as bad as things still are, after recently being forced to issue concealed carry permits, Chicago saw its murder rate drop significantly, according to first-quarter statistics.

Like Detroit, Chicago has lived under Democrat rule for many decades and as such is a wonderful Petri dish for all things progressive.  Detroit is the end-stage result of such progressive policy, and Chicago is clearly on a similar path.  This highly toxic mix of strict gun control laws combined with long-term Democrat control of the city has turned out to be a very deadly combination.

Bloomberg naming his group “Everytown” may be truly fitting, because if the group does reach its goals, every town may eventually look strikingly similar to Chicago and Detroit.

Bloomberg Should Demand Hand Control

no handsMy article as originally published in American Thinker:       

Following the second recent fatal subway shoving incident in NYC, this one allegedly involving a hate crime, Mayor Bloomberg was quick to throw up his hands in an effort to halt the public from jumping to any incorrect conclusions, telling them to instead focus on the “overall safety in New York.”

Ironically, it is Bloomberg who is usually quick to leap to wrong conclusions and call for the use of the heavy hand of big government to cure society’s ills. Whether he’s pushing people around with soda bans or trying to shove tougher gun restrictions upon them, his answer, like that of all statists, is to throw liberty onto the tracks in the name of security.

Why, then, should Bloomberg handle these brutal subway murders any differently? To remain consistent and put an end to this senseless slaughter by trains, Bloomberg should call for “sensible” restrictions on trains. Of course, doing so would pose a bit of a dilemma, as trains happen to fit in with the whole green agenda and as such are part of a protected class. Unlike evil guns, trains are inanimate objects incapable of any wrongdoing.

Because trains are off limits, Bloomberg would instead need to shift the blame to some other object. And since holding people responsible for their own actions is usually not an option for the left, it makes as much sense for Bloomberg to implement “reasonable” hand control measures to prevent these shoving deaths as it does to call for new gun control laws to prevent shooting deaths. After all, if these “weapons” weren’t so readily available, these train victims would still be alive today. Wouldn’t saving just one life be worth any minor inconvenience to the public?

While the left may scoff at the idea of concealed carry laws for guns, a similar law may be necessary to prevent all of this senseless hand violence. Eliminating open carry and requiring hand owners to keep their “weapons” concealed in their pockets within a hands-free-zone of at least fifty feet from any set of tracks would be a good start.

Or perhaps some sort of restrictive leash-like device that disallows an “unnecessary” range of motion in order to prevent the discharge of loaded hands (arms cocked and hands palms-forward at chest height) would be more practical?

Obviously having people voluntarily turn in their hands for the greater good of society or starting a government-sponsored hand buy-back program to get more of these dangerous “weapons” off of the streets wouldn’t be practical. This would only give rise to a “greedy” prosthetic industry.

Due to the racial element of this latest tragedy, it may also be a good time to look at reclassifying certain categories of hands as more deadly than others. Lighter-colored hands are clearly more dangerous than the darker ones and as such should be factored into any new hand control measures.

Having strict hand control in place would have helped to prevent even the latest subway incident — a perfect storm where a lethal combination of guns, trains, and hands all came together.

Mayor Bloomberg again quickly grabbed hold of the moment and, in an apparent swipe at the NRA, said: “In recent weeks, we’ve heard some people say that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. But sometimes the good guys get shot — and sometimes, they are killed.” And then he said this: “Tonight, thank God, three good guys — three New York City police officers, who acted heroically — are going to make it.”

I’ll let the reader contemplate the brilliance of Bloomberg’s statements, as it appears that the only thing that stopped this bad guy with a gun was — a good guy with a gun. One does have to ask, though: why is it okay for these plainclothes armed officers to be placed in trains and not in public schools?

But again, why blame guns when it’s clear that it’s hands that were involved in this carnage as well? These evil hands even appear to have been made for this type of destruction, as they contain what is called a trigger finger. Contrary to popular belief, these guns can’t just fire themselves, and proper hand control would put an end to these senseless tragedies.

Come to think of it, it seems as though hands are involved in nearly every brutal murder or violent act we hear about in the news, so why not demand strict hand control as a way to solve all of society’s violence problems?

Now if we could just figure out what it is that is controlling these evil hands…

Nanny Bloomberg Stumbles onto Something

My article as originally published in American Thinker:  Bloomberg can try to sugarcoat this all he wants but NYC’s proposed ban on the sale of large soda drinks over 16 oz, which is supposed to save people from their own destructive impulses, is yet another example of the ever growing nanny-state. Obviously confused as to which country he lives in, Mayor Bloomberg says: “We’re not taking away anybody’s right to do things, we’re simply forcing you to understand that you have to make the conscious decision to go from one cup to another cup.” Aside from the lost freedoms involved, this should make the trash collectors union happy.

While Bloomberg and the government have absolutely no business “forcing” people to do such things, the Mayor actually inadvertently makes the case for why we need “forced” limited government.

When questioned about his nanny-state intrusion Bloomberg stated:

“The idea here is, you tend to eat all the food in the container in front of you,” Bloomberg said on MSNBC Thursday afternoon. “If it’s a bigger container, you eat more. If somebody put it in a smaller glass or plate or bowl in front of you, you would eat less.”

The amount of food or beverage that people pay for and then consume using their own money is nobody’s business but their own. What is everybody’s business though, is the ever expanding colossal girth of the Federal Government due to its voracious appetite for taxpayers’ money. Isn’t it about time that the government is placed on a “forced” diet for the health of the entire nation?

Bloomberg’s logic equally applies to government spending as well. You see, the government tends to “eat” all of the tax dollars that are placed in front of it. If it’s a bigger “container” of taxes, it “eats” more. If a smaller “container” of taxes were placed in front of the government, it would be forced to “eat” less. But without some sort of “forced” restraint, the government has the ability to just borrow or print more dollars for its consumption.

The only way to “force” this tax diet would be with a Constitutional Amendment to cap spending as a percent of GDP such as what Milton Friedman had proposed in Free to Choose or like the Spending Limitation Amendment (SLA) as proposed in 2010 by Reps. Mike Pence, Jeb Hensarling, and John Campbell.

If we’re truly interested in a healthy nation, instead of the government limiting consumers choices (read freedoms) to things like a maximum 16oz soda, why don’t we instead limit the Federal Government’s choice to a maximum of 16% of the GDP? Otherwise, the way things are going, this behemoth is going to explode. Try as it may the media can only sugarcoat these economic numbers for so long.

President Obama did inherit an already obese Federal Government, but despite the claims by some that he placed it on a healthy diet, the truth of the matter is that Obama actually super-sized virtually everything.