The day before yesterday, I suggested that people, especially politicians not use the shootings in Aurora Colorado to push their political agendas. But, being politicians, they can’t help themselves. Its what they do. I was mostly concerned with gun control advocates, but people on the other side can say stupid things too. Witness the statements of Congressman Louie Gohmert.
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said Friday that the shootings that took place in an Aurora, Colo. movie theater hours earlier were a result of “ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs” and questioned why nobody else in the theater had a gun to take down the shooter.
During a radio interview on The Heritage Foundation‘s “Istook Live!” show, Gohmert was asked why he believes such senseless acts of violence take place. Gohmert responded by talking about the weakening of Christian values in the country.
Gohmert also said the tragedy could have been lessened if someone else in the movie theater had been carrying a gun and took down the lone shooter. Istook noted that Colorado laws allow people to carry concealed guns.
“It does make me wonder, with all those people in the theater, was there nobody that was carrying a gun that could have stopped this guy more quickly?” he asked.
I am as much an advocate of second amendment rights as anybody, yet I have to question whether it would have been a good idea to start shooting in a darkened, crowded theater, not knowing precisely what was going on. It seems to me that someone trying to stop the shooter would be more likely to hit a bystander.
On the other hand, have you ever noticed that these sort of events never happen at gun shows, or police stations, or really, anywhere where there are armed people who are prepared to use their weapons? It seems that although Colorado allows concealed carry of firearms, the city of Aurora is more restrictive and the theater chain did not allow guns on the premises. Is it possible that the shooter considered these factors when choosing where to strike?
What rep. Gohmert may not understand is that the purpose of bearing arms is not really to engage in shootouts, but for deterrence. Honest, law-abiding people arm themselves in the hope that they will not have to use them. The idea is that one is less likely to be attacked if the assailant knows his potential victim can fight back with deadly force.
Moving on, Mayor Bloomberg continues his streak of idiocy by suggesting that the police go on a strike for gun control.
One of the few points that President Obama and Mitt Romney agree on is that they’re both determined not to let gun control become an issue in the election, despite Friday’s theater shooting in Colorado. However, their attempts to dodge the issue have only emboldened Mayor Bloomberg, who was rather bold to start with. After warming up on Monday’s Morning Joe, Bloomberg ended the day by suggesting on Piers Morgan Tonight that law enforcement should take a drastic stand on the issue. “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 said. “We’re not going to protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what’s required to keep us safe.”
Earlier, Bloomberg said, “I think there is a perception among the political world that the NRA has more power than the American people. I don’t believe that.” However, there’s evidence that the NRA isn’t the only impediment to passing stricter gun laws. The New York Timesreports that support for gun control has hit a new low. An October Gallup poll found that gun control laws were less popular among people of all political persuasions, and for the first time a majority (53 percent) opposed banning semiautomatic guns and assault rifles. Representative Peter King told the paper, “The majority of American people are very attached to their guns. They look on any attempt to regulate or control them as an infringement.”
First, such a strike would be illegal in most jurisdictions. The police may not endanger public safety by going on strike and allowing criminals to rum rampant, and I cannot believe that many police officers would be so unprofessional as to agree with such a course of action.
Second, Mayor Bloomberg really suggests that the police blackmail the public into supporting policies it does not want. The tide of public opinion on this issue has shifted dramatically against gun control in the last two decades, which might be why Bloomberg is so eager to suggest extra-legal methods to achieve the policies he wants. Ultimately the precedent set by such a police strike might end in a situation in which the police have first say in every piece of legislation, hardly a democratic method.
Finally, and here is the important point, note carefully Mayor Bloomberg’s idea of the relationship between the police, the government, and the people. To him, it seems that the problem is that too many people are armed, and likely to attack the police. He makes no distinction between criminals and law-abiding citizens. All are equally under suspicion and no one should be trusted to defend themselves. When you consider also his incessant nanny-statism, it is clear that Mayor Bloomberg’s America is an America composed of lowly serfs who are incapable of caring for themselves and who must be grateful that their betters take an interest in saving them from themselves. There is the real evil.