Bloomberg’s “Blueprint for Federal Action on Guns”

[X_Digger]

http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/12/28/bloombergs-blueprint/

I have obtained a copy of Bloomberg’s secret “Blueprint for Federal Action on Guns” which is really a blueprint for how the Obama Administration can screw gun owners without needing anything from Congress.
<snip>
This was the infamous 40 recommendations that the Washington Post reported on a few months ago. It this document doesn’t convince you that MAIG is a significantly more serious threat than any other gun control organization out there, nothing will. Whoever wrote this knows ATF very well, and understands federal gun laws well enough to know how to effectively make changes using only administrative and regulatory changes, which do not require action from the US Congress. While some of the 40 recommendations are not objectionable, quite a number of them are. Let me go down the list and pick out some of the worst offenders, and this is by no means a comprehensive list. Look at the document yourself to find others:

# Require REAL ID compliant identification for all gun purchasers. Those in non-complying states, which are many, will no longer be permitted to buy firearms.
# Recommends a ban on the importation of all “non-sporting” firearms and ammunition, and specifically calls for banning the FN Five-Seven. Kiss cheap imported rounds of military caliber goodbye. Maybe kiss Glock’s goodbye too. MAIG isn’t all that specific on what would be sporting or non sporting. Also note that MAIG can no longer claim they do not advocate banning guns. They do.
# Recommends ways for the administration to exploit loopholes in Tiahrt to publish information on “problematic” gun dealers (so they can be sued by New York City, no doubt). As we’ve pointed out on this blog before, having a lot of traces doesn’t necessarily mean a dealer is breaking the law.
# Extend the multiple purchase reporting requirement to long guns, especially ARs, 50 caliber firearms, and Kalashnikov variants. MAIG is not very clear on this, and I think it would be difficult for dealers to keep track of the current state of regulation.

Some of the recommendations are fine (adding more ATF resources), some are idiotic (the FN).

[slackmaster]

1. I've said it before and I'll say it again

Bloomberg is an ass.

[Deep13]

2. What's MAIG? nt

[X_Digger]

3. Sorry, "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" n/t

[Don Caballero]

4. Although I am not generally a fan of Mayor Bloomberg

His efforts to rid the streets of firearms are welcomed by those who wish to see violent crimes drop. My mayor is a member of his group and I applaud him for his support of very strict gun control measures.

[TheWraith]

5. Reducing firearms doesn't make crimes drop.

The number of guns in this country has been steadily increasing for decades while crime has gone down a third. Combine that with the fact that cities where they enacted total bans on firearms, such as Chicago, DC, New York, etcetera, have not demonstrated any of the placid tranquility you would expect if such draconian measures actually worked.

[Don Caballero]

6. If guns were totally banned nationwide I guarantee crime would drop

much more than it has. People hate to admit that guns are a major problem here in the US. I know people love firearms for some reason but that fascination is faulty and dangerous.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

7. Here's what Ben Franklin had to say about you.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[Don Caballero]

8. Franklin lived during a different time

If he were around today to see rampant gun crime he probably would have changed his stance.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

13. We are all in favor of taking guns away from criminals.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. Must be nice to be able to speak for the dead.

Also interesting that you think we have MORE crime NOW, than we did in the 1700's.

[vincna]

9. How well did that work in the United Kingdom? - nt

[Don Caballero]

10. Everywhere gun bans have been implemented

firearm crime is way down including England and Australia.

[vincna]

11. How about citing some bona fide studies or statistics as backup.

[PavePusher]

14. Got stats to support that?

I think you'll find the opposite is actually true...

[slackmaster]

30. Neither England nor Australia has ever had much of a firearm crime problem.

Your argument would be much stronger if you could produce some historical statistics to back it up.

[GreenStormCloud]

44. So knife and strongarm crime are OK with you? N/T

[Euromutt]

49. Then why have non-fatal shootings in the UK tripled since 2000?

In the ten-year period following the UK handgun ban (after Dunblane), the number of gun crimes in England & Wales doubled. Between 2000 and 2008, the number of reported non-fatal shootings almost tripled; the number of reported non-fatal stabbings roughly doubled during the same period. The only reason the UK no longer has the highest violent crime figures in the European Union (which it did in 2000) is because of the accession of several eastern European countries to the EU in the interim.

The use of firearms in muggings and armed robberies has shown a slow but steady increase in the Netherlands in the past fifteen years or so, along with periodic spikes in organized crime hits. The borough of Amsterdam Zuidoost (pop. ~86,000) saw 22 reported firearm discharges in the past year, including 3 fatalities. Organized crime-related incidents in recent years have included the use of a grenade launcher (to shoot at a high-security courthouse in western Amsterdam) and at least one sub-machine gun (to murder a marijuana grower near Nijmegen; over 70 rounds were fired at his car). And of course, the first political assassination since 1584, when Volkert van der Graaf murdered populist politician Pim Fortuyn with a Spanish-made 9mm Star M-43, which Van der Graaf bought off some guy in a bar in a provincial town.

The highly restrictive firearms law of the UK and the Netherlands failed to prevent these increases. The reason why should be obvious: firearm crime is not driven by supply. Rather, it is criminal demand for firearms that attracts a supply, regardless of how illegal both the demand and the supply are. Where there is no domestic source for black market firearms, they will be brought in from outside, e.g. from eastern Europe or China (Chinese arms factories have major security and inventory control issues, making them easy picking for traffickers). There really is no compelling reason to assume that even if gun control could be tightened in the United States, it would reduce violent crime. The US non-firearm homicide rate is higher than the total homicide rate of quite a few European countries, so evidently there are factors than firearms alone involved here.

Yes, I know you said "firearms crime," but I for one am not interested in reducing only violent crime that involves the use of firearms; I want to see a reduction in violent crime overall. If assaults and robberies involving firearms go down, but ones involving bladed and bludgeoning implements go up by the same number, you've achieved exactly nothing, except to reduce the ability of private citizens to defend themselves against violent crime. And most people see it that way, which is why gun control is always marketed as a means to reducing violent crime overall. No gun control group ever says "this measure will reduce gun violence though we can't guarantee that method substitution won't cause the violent crime rate to not perceptibly change."

[krispos42]

55. Apples and oranges

If Australia banned the ownership and possession of blue-painted cars, then deaths related to blue-painted cars would also go down. But we would facepalm if any politician said that fewer blue-painted-car-related deaths made the highways safer.


Reducing the total numbers of crimes is the goal, not a specific kind. In the UK firearm homicides are at historic lows, but total homicides are at historic highs.

[PavePusher]

15. Do you claim that firearms are not effective for legal self-defense? n/t

[Don Caballero]

16. I do not deny that protecting yourself with a gun is effective

But if no one but the police and military were legally armed violent crime would drop precipitously.

[DonP]

17. Only the cops and military have guns huh? We call that a Police State

I'm sure you're going to share your secret plan for getting the gang bangers and other criminals to give up their weapons. Your plan is working really well in Mexico thgouh, isn't it? Only the cops and military are legally armed there.

[armueller2001]

19. OH MY GOD!

That's the answer right there! Why hasn't anyone EVER thought of that?

While we're at it, we should just make it so that only pharmacists, doctors, and those who have prescriptions can legally obtain drugs. It would solve our nation's drug problems instantly!!

We should ban murder too!

[SteveM]

29. ...quit Bogarting that....Oh! Thanks buddy... ffFFF...whhh... good stuff...

[east texas lib]

51. Duuuuuude! Is that from Bastrop County? (nt)

:smoke:

[SteveM]

54. I wish, but the Texas version of Humboldt Co. is just as expensive

So it's just run-of-the-mill stuff. Even the hot-house weed is too high. It never ceases to amaze me that while other retailers (food, electronics, clothes) seem to realize there is a recession on, the pot sellers act like it's five years ago.

Incidentally, I see where Humboldt Co. is #5 on the list of top bear-hunting counties in CA. Also ranks high in other big game. Must be an uneasy truce in the hills between weed-growers and hunters.

[virginia mountainman]

34. Charlotte Cop, commits sex assaults while on duty....

A Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officer was charged with sexually assaulting two female motorists while in uniform and operating his squad car.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Officer Marcus Jackson, 25, was charged with sexual battery, second-degree sex offense, extortion, kidnapping, indecent exposure and two counts of felonious restraint. He was being held in lieu of bond totaling $360,000 ahead of a court hearing Thursday, according to jail records.

http://www.wbt.com/news/details.cfm?article_id=49183

Another one of "the only ones that need to have a gun".

[PavePusher]

39. The rising crime stats in places with few or no guns...

would seem to disprove your premise.

Banning large numbers and types of guns did not drop the overall crime rate in Britian, for instance. (I lived there for 7 1/2 years after their handgun ban.) In fact, gun crime there has increased. Hmmm...

[Euromutt]

50. Make that "few or no LEGAL guns"

There are probably more handguns in private hands in the UK now than there were prior to Dunblane. Except now they're all illegally owned, and almost entirely for criminal purposes.

[PavePusher]

52. Good point, I stand corrected. Sadly. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

45. Then why is Britain's violent crime rate four times higher than ours? N/T

[rd_kent]

46. Keep deluding yourself....

[Mojorabbit]

18. I don't believe this has happened in the UK

Knife crimes are up last I read. Humans from the beginning of time have a history of violence.

[slackmaster]

20. I'd like to see some verifiable data to back up that "guarantee"

And of course I must assume you don't mean a ban on all guns, just ones that aren't used by government employees.

Correct?

[Don Caballero]

21. Correct. Guns only legally owned by those who protect and serve the public

This includes the police and the military.

[slackmaster]

22. I hope you realize that the people who are most likely to comply with a ban are least likely...

...to commit violent crimes, and vice-versa.

[Don Caballero]

23. If guns were banned for civilians

It would be much, much harder for criminals to acquire them.

[armueller2001]

24. You do realize that

governments and the military have killed many, many more people with guns than civilians have?

Good thing those Jews in Germany didn't have guns, because they couldn't shoot each other with them. Of course, it didn't help them too much against the Nazi's, but oh well!

[Katya Mullethov]

26. And how we burned in the camps later, thinking .......

" Alexander Mullethov "

[X_Digger]

25. Like criminals can't get drugs? n/t

[SteveM]

33. BwwhhAACK... Hic...Cof, cof, cof... bruFF... damned bong water solution.

[slackmaster]

28. Criminals already have them

There is a large black market in stolen and otherwise illegally transferred firearms.

[rrneck]

31. What makes you think

criminals need them? Someone who has made a career out of brutalizing people can kill you or put you in the hospital just as quickly with a club, knife or hands and feet.

If you were to magically make all the guns go away, you will make criminals somewhat less dangerous, and those whom they would brutalize significantly more defenseless.

If you want to disarm people, fine. What remedy do you offer in exchange for the exercise of their civil liberties?

[SteveM]

32. ...Bublblublbubl... Duh hooka from Paducah... bublblublblubl...

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Yeah, I mean, a metal lathe and a file are so hard to acquire.

That's all it takes, you know that right? Any high school metal shop can turn them out by the dozens.

[PavePusher]

53. Careful now, Shares will have those declared controlled items...

that may only be owned by government agencies.

Why do I think Shares would be happier if we had a version of Jerry Pournelles' CoDominuim Bureau of (anti)Technology or Larry Niven's ARM, dedicated to the repression of all "harmful" technology, devices and information?

[taurus145]

47. Yeah, that's really worked for drugs

Get a grip.

In my own experience I've killed one criminal in my home with a legal firearm owned by me.

Perhaps you would prefer that my wife, son, and I had been killed instead?

Take that civilian ownership ban bullshit elsewhere.

[jeepnstein]

37. You know, of course, that...

the police are in no way shape or form liable for your personal safety? Unless you rate a personal protective detail you are on your own. Your personal safety is not their problem.

[TPaine7]

48. The public protects and serves the public, which is why the public must be armed.

The public protects and serves the public; the police are simply a publicly funded SUPPLEMENT that figures out crimes after the fact and brings lawbreakers to justice--and other technical specialties.

Depending on a police officer to protect you from an imminent attack is like depending on a lottery win to pay your mortgage.

[SteveM]

27. Umm, sort of like pot? Fffffft.... whhhh....yeah right...nt

[virginia mountainman]

35. Much Like...

Prohibition, war on drugs, anti-prostitution laws, and anti-porn laws??

LOL!!!!!! I am so glad, that in our party, people with your anti-civil rights viewpoints are getting rarer, and rarer, everyday.

[TheWraith]

42. No, it wouldn't. Look at Mexico and Switzerland.

Mexico has little to no legal gun ownership because you need police permission to own anything. Switzerland has something like 2 million guns, including 660,000 fully automatic machine guns that are simply stored in people's closets as part of their military preparedness laws.

Mexico is a killing field thanks to our drug war, and Switzerland is the picture of peace. The availability of weapons has little to nothing to do with the level of violence--a fact that's backed up by scientific research. The fact is that every time the pro-gun-ban side wins a victory, they move the goalposts. Because you can't get a gun in New York City, it's the fault of New Jersey's lax gun laws. Then when NJ became restrictive, it was the fault of Virginia. Then Virginia instituted limits, and it's the fault of somebody else. There's ZERO scientific evidence that banning firearms has any effect on criminals, since by definition criminals do not follow the law. It only disarms the law abiding.

Not to mention, what you describe is directly contrary to the principle of a free society. I'm sure that some people think we'd have less crime if we got rid of the fourth amendment too, or if we went right ahead and established a police state, but that's not a trade off that we should be willing to make for a dubious measure of security. You're talking about penalizing a hundred million law abiding gun owners, including people who hunt for their livelihood, in retaliation for the fact that it was the same kind of ban-everything prohibitionist thinking in this country that created our violence problem via the drug war and the thriving black market and gangs it created. So it's not enough that we tell independent adults what they can do with their bodies, now the solution to that is to ban something else? And then what? Follow England, where they are now trying to ban kitchen knives?

It's grossly bad, illegal, immoral ideas like that that convince gun owners that liberals are the enemy, and if more people shared your position it could make the Democratic Party extinct.

[GreenStormCloud]

43. Britain has a violent crime rate over four times ours.

Mexico has a huge crime rate.

In both countries, guns are essentially banned.

In America, gun ownership is increasing and crime is falling. It has been falling for 15 years.

The facts do not support your assertation.

[paulsby]

56. even IF you banned them

there would still be over 200 million guns.

how do you get rid of them?

by definition, only the law abiding would turn their guns in, thus the ONLY people who possessed guns in such a world would be those who were willing to break (if only one) the law.

and you think that would be SAFER?

[virginia mountainman]

36. Yea, the simple mind...

Attempt to take the tools, by passing laws, that ONLY the law abiding will follow, with massive none-compliance from formally "law abiding", and DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO ADDRESS THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE VIOLENCE IN THE FIRST PLACE...

How very repuke of you... Agreeing with Bloomberg, and his REPUBLICAN CROONIES...

[jeepnstein]

12. How very Republican of him.

He's certainly willing to throw my rights away to make things easier for the government.

[rusty_rebar]

38. I posted this on another thread

but it does go to the point here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

Violent crime in England (a place with a fairly effective gun ban) is almost 430% higher then the United States.

Now I am sure they have less GUN crime, but what difference does it make if you are killed with a knife or a gun, you are just as dead.