Especially coming from the head of Bloomberg’s personal anti-gun organization:
“For our mayors, the tired debate about gun control is over and beside the point,” said Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns. “Now that we know the answer, we can sort of put aside the tired debate at the extremes and focus on how you respect the Second Amendment and the rights of law-abiding owners and keep the guns out of hands of people who shouldn’t have it.
“The sweet spot is letting law-abiding citizens buy the guns they want,” Glaze said. “While tightening the background check system to make sure the next Jared Loughner, the next Virginia Tech massacre doesn’t happen.’’
Unless you live in Bloomberg’s own NYC, I suppose.
That article at the Tennessean focuses on the so-called “gun show loophole.”
Tightening up the background check system to ban private sales without a background check would have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop either Loughner or the Virginia Tech shooter.
Loughner lied on his background check form when he bought his gun. The background check was done, but because he lied, nothing stopped him. Preventing private gun sales would not have changed this in the slightest.
Cho likewise purchased his guns through regular stores, and not from private citizens; Cho had been adjudicated mentally defective (though the NICS system was not notified), and must have lied on his 4473 forms as well (since one of the questions explicitly asks if you have ever been adjudicated mentally defective). Banning private gun sales would have done nothing to prevent this shooting either.
When the “solutions” gun control advocates favor would do absolutely nothing to prevent the problems they are supposed to fix, how can we not conclude that their goal isn’t actually the reduction of crime, but the empowerment of the state?
I’d be screeching for relevancy if I were on the wrong side of history, too.