"I don't understand why the police officers across this country don't stand up collectively and say we're going to go on strike," Bloomberg told the "Piers Morgan Tonight" host. "We're not going to protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what's required to keep us safe."
Assuming this is an accurate transcript, and I could believe it, I cannot understand Bloomberg's thought process regarding gun control. What was his specific proposal here - magazine capacity restrictions and "assault weapon" bans?
Someone hell-bent on doing great evil like these mass shooters will find ways to carry it out, especially when they are as (apparently) intelligent as the Aurora shooter. Whether he has 4 rifles with limited capacity on a sling, 6 hand guns on lanyards, etc, he would be capable of doing great harm.
Even if you outlawed all firearms in the USA, you would still be left with (A) the black market and (B) household products capable of being turned in to bombs.
Last time I checked, legal prohibition of just about anything (alcohol, marijuana, murder...) does not eliminate it from existence. I honestly don't know what the answer is, but none of the proposals I hear seem to make any sense.
I do think the civillian-criminal arms race can have negative effects regarding the millitarization of the police force. Said another way, Barney Fife with his S&W six-shooter wouldn't stand a chance against a guy in head-to-toe body armor armed with an AR-15, shotgun and handgun(s).
"Police officers want to go home to their families. And we're doing everything we can to make their job more difficult, but more importantly, more dangerous, by leaving guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them and letting people who have those guns buy things like armor-piercing bullets," he detailed. "The only reason to have an armor-piercing bullet is to go through a bullet-resistant vest. The only people that wear bullet-resistant vests are our police officers."
Harrington constructed dams to block a tributary to the Big Butte [river], which Medford uses for its water supply.
There are dams across channels, water channels where the water would normally flow if it were not for the dam and so those dams are stopping the water from flowing in the channel and storing it- holding it so it cannot flow downstream
I realize that this may not be intuitive to folks from the east, or that it may seem trivial, but out here in the west, water is serious business, and always has been. Range wars have been fought over access to water. A hundred years ago, that man would have been hung for damming up a tributary to divert water to his own property.
Even if it somehow makes it out of the Senate... It will be D.O.A. in the House. Schumer and Feinstein will probably get discreet messages from the White House to shut the heck up. It's an election year and gun-control is political suicide. In fact, with that in mind, I hope they do pass it. That amendment would be repealed almost before the ballot counting was concluded.
That said, this is nothing new. In the 110th Congress, Feinstein and Schumer tried appending this to at least twenty bills. At least, twenty is where I stopped counting. They had the most receptive Congress possible, and it never got to committee.
So, yeah. Don't worry. Feinstein will also try to get the Assault Weapons Ban reintroduced in January, like she has every year since 2004. Bobby Rush will try to get nationwide handgun registration, like he has every year since 2000.
Recently, I've been looking at the "More Gun Control?" polls on both Dem and Rep websites. Every single one, regardless of political leaning, is at least 2/3 for no additional gun control.
Every single one, regardless of political leaning, is at least 2/3 for no additional gun control.
Probably because between 2 million and 2.5 million uses of guns for self-defense annually can be found in studies and reports countered by the use of guns for criminal purposes at a rate of 100,000 to 135,000 times a year.