Mayor Bloomberg’s Fight For Gun Control

bloomberg-guns-ap

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has donated $2.2 million to Chicago’s campaign against fire arms. This has been only one example of politicians going against the National Rifle Association (NRA) since the Sandy Hook incident and even going as far back to the Gabby Giffords incident over 1 year ago. For many Liberals, this has given them a new reason to respect Independent Bloomberg.

Using his super PAC, Bloomberg has been using it to influence the course of political elections using the topics of gun violence and gay marriage. Before this donation, the super PAC had spent $2.1 million on the Democratic Primary. The 2.2 million will surely help the city of Chicago with their horrible gun violence. In fact, earlier this year, President Obama gave a speech in Chicago addressing the gun violence issue. Sadly, just hours after his speech, an 18-year-old attendee lost her life in a fatal shooting.

This shooting is putting even more pressure on the NRA, which has defended the Newtown shooting in saying, “the only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” This has been a controversial statement. With what Bloomberg donated, it is shown that he does not agree. Many New Yorkers don’t. New York City is a fairly liberal city, so it is very understandable why Bloomberg did this, even though he’s an Independent.

Even with politicians starting to back stronger gun laws, guns will not go away. This issue will, without a doubt, be a hot topic for many years to come.

Photo Credit: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2013/02/02/Bloomberg-Anti-Gun-Ad-Super-Bowl

Advertisements

41 responses to “Mayor Bloomberg’s Fight For Gun Control

  1. Although I think that all guns like the AR 15 should be banned, ammo clips should be reduced, gun show loop holes should be tightened and background checks should be more thorough, I understand that guns are an important cultural part of “American life” to people and so the best way to settle this problem would be be by going slowly. I think that if we just got the ammo clips reduced for now, then we could slowly move on and get more and more gun control. Then overtime people who have these over powered guns will realize that they no longer need them and then get rid of them. The problem with this idea is that in the time where gun control is slowly being passed more and more people are going to keep dying

    • In my own opinion, agreeing with what you mentioned, I do think that background checks should be more accurate and more secure, but you can simply ban ALL guns and keep them away from the American people, for it is a Constitutional Law to be able to carry a weapon; “The Right To Bear Arms”. However, the only thing that could potentially have a positive effect on this issue, would be to, like you said, reduce clips, close loopholes, and work on background checks.

    • Your basic idea is to ban certain sized magazines which are essentially a boxes with a spring inside. This is not something which can be banned they are not only can they be made by hand but with emerging 3d printing software anyone will be able to have access to high capacity magazines. Your second idea is to ban the AR-15 and guns like it which is practically the assault rifle ban implemented during the Clinton era which “did not have much of an impact on overall gun crime… For one, assault weapons were used in only 2 percent of gun crimes before the ban. And second, existing weapons were grandfathered, meaning there were an estimated 1.5 million pre-ban assault weapons and 25 million to 50 million large-capacity magazines still in the U.S.”(http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/) I wish your idea would work but it has been tried and could and would never work.

  2. I don’t believe that there is anything or any amount of money that can stop the violence. Like they said, “the thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”. This is a humanitarian problem and the size of the clip would not stop a man on this path. This is much like the uses of nuclear substances in the middle east. Some terrorist groups look to mass murder with this while others look to jump start economy off of a more stable and effective energy source. The true problem is only in the mirror.

    • You have a valid point and are completely entitled to your opinion, however, I disagree. Fighting guns with guns is just fighting fire with fire, and it only leads to more violence. Instead of waiting to fight the offender with the gun, we should first try to prevent guns falling into the hands of the wrong people through background checks and permits, or restricting what kind of gun is legal to buy. It would seem that trying to stop violence before it happens would be a more helpful solution to the problem rather than waiting until the problem is out of hand to try and stop it.

      • Agreeing with Leslie, I do believe that fighting guns with guns is not the right way to go, but if you take a step back (with all that is going on with guns lately,) it is hard to say that fighting guns with guns has not played it’s part. For people to defend themselves, they need to have a weapon. And if it becomes harder to gain a weapon for citizens that want it for the right reasons, it will become easier for criminals to get them illegally and potentially use them in a crime.

    • To address the statement, “the size of a clip would not stop a man on this path,” I think that the size of an ammo clip matters greatly. Depending on how many times a gunman needs to reload will determine how easily he or she could be stopped. If the ammo clip is large enough it will render the shooter nearly unstoppable. Though it would be hard to keep large ammo clips out of the hands of those with criminal intent, I think that background checks and stricter regulations for vendors could reduce those instances significantly. I believe that large ammo clips should be kept for use of the military only, as they are not really needed in civilian life. As Olivia said, some people say they need a gun to hunt or to protect themselves. However, a large ammo clip that releases a large number of bullets at once would not be useful when hunting (the bullets would render the animal inedible or not fit to be mounted), and a pistol would be much safer to keep in a home for protection.

    • I agree with you, no amount of money is gonna stop the violence, the only way this shootings can stop occur is if the government puts a stop to it as a whole. But like you said many people don’t use guns as violence they do use the as self defence and even to get food in some places. I do understand why the public says it will take time and it’s mainly because the government cannot take such big action about something like gun control overnight. The economy of many place are put at risk. The question is whether they should take action for the lives taken away or leave it alone for the people who benefit from it.

    • I agree with you that it is a humanitarian problem but shouldn’t we be trying to at least minimize the violence? I mean even if we could save one life with a 2.2 million donation, isn’t it worth it? A man that carries a pistol can do much less damage than a man with an AK-47. A machine gun can mow a whole crowd down while a pistol can only kill one person at a time. I see where your coming from with your argument but we can’t just give up trying to stop violence.

  3. Gun violence will continue no matter what. Guns should simply be made harder to access. There shouldn’t be many laws restricting them, there should only be organizations making them not worth buying or selling.

    • Personally, I don’t agree. Because, over all, how would you make guns seem less appealing to buy or sell without completely turning people off of them, based on the dangers?

  4. Referring to the statement: “The thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”, I believe that this is one way to stop gun violence. But it does not solve the problem as a whole. It simply attempts to solv individual conflicts. By allowing for “good guys” to own guns, even if it is for safety and protection measures, can possibly make guns more accessible to the “bad guys”. It is very difficult to background check everyone wanting to buy a gun. As history shows, people can always find a way around it. By allowing “the good guys” to own a gun, provides possibilities of the “bad guys” owning a gun. I think that the process needed to go through in order to acquire a gun should be much more difficult and limit gun ownership strongly. Do you agree with what this statement is arguing?

  5. Personally I think it is horrible that our country has some of the worst gun violence. I do not think there is a clear solution in order to stop this gun violence. However, I believe their are ways to reduce it. First, I think background checks could be very helpful. I think that if someone is very angry and wants to purchase a gun with intentions of killing people, by doing a background check, it could stall the process and their actions might change. Also, I understand that some people feel the need to have a weapon to protect their family or because they like to hunt, however, I think heavy duty machine guns should be banned. No one needs one of those weapons unless they are in the army. There should be a limit for the number of fire arms per house hold. I do not think their is one clear solution, but people need to start working with the government, instead of against it because this problem is too important to put off any longer. How many more innocent people, like the Sandy Hook incident need to die before people recognize that it is a huge problem when someone is able to kill a large amount of people in just a matter of minutes. It is impossible to keep weapons out of the hands of “bad guys”, however, these obstacles will make it harder.

  6. I believe that gun violence can be controlled. In fact, any type of violence can be controlled. The problem is that the amount of effort required to cut down on gun violence is viewed as too hard to manage for the government. However, saying that the only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun makes absolutely no sense. What we american citizens want is to see a large cut down on violence. Therefore, it would be pointless to use violence to get what we want which is similar to fighting fire with fire which creates no actual solution.

  7. Though people say that stricter gun laws still will not stop the problem, I believe it will. In 2010, the U.S experienced 11,078 gun homicides. In Australia, there were 30 gun homicides. In the U.S, it is a legal right to own a gun, in Australia, however, it is not (and a permit or license is needed to own one). In the United Kingdom it is also not a legal right to own a gun and a permit or license is needed to own one. In 2010, there were 27 gun homicides. Both the UK and Australia permit their citizens to acquire a gun legally (with a license or permit), I believe that this could definitely bring down the number of gun homicides in the US.

  8. I think gun violence needs to come to and end, and i think that guns have to be made illegal now in the future. Even though i do not agree with a lot of Mayor Bloomberg’s decisions, and how he has handled issues in New York city, i am inspired by his efforts to stop gun control. A lot of conservative politicians have made the case that, even if you make guns illegal, the people will still buy them. then what is the point of having laws at all. I guess you shouldn’t have laws at all if people will just break them, right? No, that is not how it works, you need to laws to keep a stabilized society, and so we as a country can progress. I think that Mayor Bloomberg’s generous contributions to Chicago’s gun control movement, is a decision i approve, and with all of these mass killings, and terrorist attacks that have happened lately, it makes you understand, gun control must be put into affect.

  9. I completely agree. I don’t believe that guns should be banned, but more laws and background checks should should keep the violence under check.

  10. Another thing that could severely impact Mayor Bloomberg’s fight for gun control are psychological checks. That would make sure that before the person purchases a gun, they can be checked to make sure that the person is mentally sound.

  11. I agree with you, not enough is being done about trying to control gun violence. Although it is in the constitution that Americans have the right to bear arms, gun violence has gone too far and has had devastating effects on our country, for example, Sandy Hook. As was said before, fighting guns with guns will provide no solution to the problem, rather, it will only create more violence. The way to control gun violence is to make it extremely difficult to purchase fire arms. Right now, it is not too difficult to buy a gun. There are many loopholes in our systems; people can even buy guns illegally on the internet. One example is the criminal Omar Roman-Martinez, who was seeking to buy and sell firearms online on a website called Armslist.com. The fact that it’s so easy for the “bad guys” to get hold of guns is terrifying, and I believe that stricter background checks are in order. Although gun violence may never be eliminated, that is no reason to stop trying to reduce it.

  12. This is one of those issues that simply has no solution that would suffice. It is absurd to say that we should just give everyone guns so that they can protect themselves, thats just common sense. But making stricter background checks also would not solve the problem. If you can remember, Adam Lanza, the shooter at Sandy Hook was mentally disturbed but got the gun from his mother who was totally normal. If someone really wants to get a gun that badly, it would’t really matter what the background checks were like there would still be numerous “underground” ways to get a gun. Making it illegal to own a gun, or very hard to could also be argued as a violation of the second amendment of the constitution, right to bare arms. This is one of those issues where politicians are not at fault for being unproductive in solving as there are clearly two legitimate arguments for and against.

  13. Guns are made for self defense, period. Police officers carry guns because they have to deal with criminals that every other citizen walking down the street has to deal with…Granted guns are not for everyone, but those of us who are trained and carry them responsibly and legally could someday save your life. However, cities such as London, which is one of the world’s busiest cities, have gun free law enforcement officials. As well, many Canadian and Australian provinces’ law enforcement do not carry guns. This arouses the question, what are we doing wrong?

  14. I think that the only way to stop gun violence is to band guns. its as simple as that. i don’t think “good guys having guns” is necessary. the more guns the easier these shootings are. i don’t mean band guns for everyone, of course law officials and police officers need ones but the way this country is running, where people can just go to a store and purchase armed goods blows my mind. i think that all of the confusion of why these shootings are happening is insane. we live in a world that tons of crazy people live in as well. there bound to shoot, there bound to take lives and the only way to stop them it to make it impossible for them to get there hands on guns, its really not brain surgery.

  15. In my opinion, guns will always be an issue despite what regulations or policies the government makes. Despite the fact that the question of who is allowed to carry guns will always be an over arching conflict in our nation since our constitution defends the right to bear arms, the gun issue which plagues the cities of our nations can be reduced. Establishing laws that require background checks can indeed reduce the amount of weapons being supplied to the criminals that walk on the sidewalks next to us. The positive aspect of restricting people with criminal charges from obtaining guns is obviously that it can help prevent future deaths or incidents involved with shootings. However, the downside of laws which restrict gun control is that it may promote a higher demand of illegal gun trade, and thus lead to even more shootings and gun related outburst. Like maxsperberworldlit mentioned, “even with politicians starting to back stronger gun laws, guns will not go away. This issue will, without a doubt, be a hot topic for many years to come”, there are so many sides to exhibit in order to come to a logical agreement, and in the mean time the gun conflict will continue to divide the nation.

  16. Guns are something that can be controlled. If their legal people will have them and if there illegal people will still get them. I agree with Ben by saying doing test to prove if their sane still doesn’t. Its one of those things where unless we take all guns off the streets and out of stores and factories there is no way that the guns violence will stop.

  17. Our constitution of the says it is, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” and I truly believe that every American has an inalienable right bear arms. Ideally if we were to implement gun legislation it would be a long time ago but now we need to work with what we can as guns are so readily available. Some regulations are needed like preventing convicted felons from buying guns, background checks, and mental health checks but some regulations are going way to far. Our government has no right to ban all guns like they attempted in Chicago which was later deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Also the assault rifle ban in my opinion went way to far, in fact Rep. Charlie Rangel falsely claimed there are “millions of kids dying, being shot down by assault weapons.” when in reality less than 100,000 people younger than 20 years old who died of gun violence, and that is not assault rifle violence that is all gun deaths together. Assault rifles are the cause of less than 2% of all gun deaths and at this point I feel like polotitans are just throwing Sh** (aka legislation) at the wall and seeing what sticks. Both the NRA and Democrats are being unrealistic with their statements they both need to come together and make bipartisan legislation which can pass or gun crime will continue to be a problem in America.

    • Assault rifles have one purpose: to act as weapons against humans. Although I am fully aware in this nation we abide by our constitutional rights, we must remember this amendment was created in a time where raids by enemy forces outside your houses were a frequent occurrence and a gun was needed if you wanted to stay alive. However we are more than 220 years ahead now and in the U.S., those types of attacks are barely seen at all on U.S. soil. So the reasons one would absolutely need for a gun for self-defense are quite minimal. The only people in society I believe should have access to weapons on a daily basis consists of police and security personnel, as well as the military. If you want to go hunting, than you can rent a gun from a hunting ground and return it when you are done. You want to just shoot, rent a gun from a shooting range and return it when you’re done.
      Having guns around the house makes you a threat and supplies others with a reason to own guns as well. By having a gun or multiple guns, you are putting yourself and your loved ones at risk. The Newtown massacre murderer’s mother hoarded guns, which she has bought and had permits for before the Connecticut gun ban was in place so she was allowed to keep them, and she had a child with a severe mental health condition, and as a result he murdered her and innocent men, women, and children. If she never had a gun in the first place, this would not have occurred.
      As an American who is a strong believer in constitutional rights, I must be a hypocrite in this case and disagree with all who find this amendment an absolute necessity, because in all honesty, at the end of the day nothing good has ever come from a bullet.

    • To play devils advocate a bit here: yes, guns are apart of American culture, but you can’t necessarily use the 2nd amendment as an excuse. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” We don’t have to supply militias anymore to keep the security of the United States intake. So therefore, your argument is invalid. It also stated in the constitution, “All MEN are created equal.” Now today in politics, some are attempting to change that statement to, all are created equal. Would you like to use the constitution as an excuse to revoke women’s rights? No, this proves that your logic of the 2nd amendment flawed.

  18. Both Bloomberg and Obama are trying to stop the gun violence and it isn’t making an influence because no one will give up the gun that they own weather they are a good person or a bad person.

  19. believe that you can’t restrict the production of guns on a generalization. At this point in time, there are so many ways to buy illegal firearms. You can purchase weapons of the Internet, which is a huge issue. I believe that guns aren’t bad. Guns don’t kill, the people that pull the trigger do. I’m not necessarily sure the solution is to give every person a gun, but people who wish to purchase firearms should first go through a psychiatric evaluation, as well as an accuracy test. If they fail these tests, they should under no circumstance hold a gun. I believe that similar to the system in Israel, you should register your weapon ever year, and if you fail to re-new your license yearly, you should be considered a criminal with an illegal firearm(s). I think that before you label guns as killing machines you should first see the flaws we have in our own system, to see if that is what metaphorically kills.

  20. I believe that although I wish we could do something to stop gun violence, it would just be too hard to do, or it would take too long. Yeah, we can stop selling guns at this second, but people are always going to be afraid knowing that there may be someone else with a gun out there. As for now, maybe Police would be the only ones allowed to hold a gun. I don’t see a need for anyone else to have a gun, because as long as the Police have them then there might not be a reason to. Back to the “the only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”, I feel like as of NOW, this isn’t true. It will take time, a lot of time, to reduce guns around the US, because there are just so many out there. Slowly but surely we will be able to get rid of guns, but again as everyone else has said, as of now, reducing clip sizes, closing loopholes and bettering background checks is a first step.

  21. I find this whole gun issue so unsettling from day one. I’m glad that Mayor Bloomberg finally took some initiative to prove to New York City that he is against gun violence, but I don’t think this will solve much. $2.2 million is a lot of money for Bloomberg to give to the Chicago fund, but I feel that overall, gun violence will continue if restrictions are not made and action not taken. A good guy with a gun vs. a bad guy with a gun cannot eliminate gun problems as a whole like the NRA states. Maybe it can take down one of the individuals with guns, but the main problem, is that both of these people have access to guns. People should only be able to have possesion of a gun if they work for the military or in the police force, along with security for high authority since it is their job to protect others. Although some people feel safer with guns in their house, or collect guns for hunting, it is not right since not everyone can be trusted. Only those who are legally allowed to protect others as their duty should be allowed to have access to guns, and they too should be checked on when purchasing the gun, and while they have the gun in their possession. The government cannot take guns away from citizens altogether since it goes against free will and a few amendments, so I think that guns should be fully legalized so everyone can protct themselves or fully illegalized that those found with guns or use guns are arrested or killed depending on the usage. I know it’s horrible, but guns are becoming so widely used in all countries that this problem needs to take it’s course. Either all guns, or only guns to authority

What Do You Think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s