Bloomberg Politicizes Super Bowl

Either Bloomberg doesn’t have a whole lot going on upstairs, or he thinks the rest of the country doesn’t. We’ve all seen the Super Bowl ad, with the mom talking about her son, and losing him to gun violence. It’s a tragedy. No mother should lose her son to gun violence. I couldn’t imagine losing my daughter. It would probably kill me.

But what we don’t see in that ad is the details of the story. Was the gun legally bought and owned? Was her son accidentally shot by the owner? Was their some kind of argument? You see, we know none of the details of what happened to her son. And Bloomberg knows that and is counting on that. Do not misunderstand. I am not downplaying her grief, nor the tragedy of what happened to her or her family. I am saying she was used by Mike Bloomberg for purely political reasons.

The argument about gun control will go round and round for years to come. The issue is too divisive and pure, scientific, provable statistics are almost impossible to come by. Any statistician of any experience can twist just about anything to mean whatever you want. They’re just numbers, it’s up to us to put meaning to them. So, we put the meaning that WE want to the numbers. In Bloomberg’s case, he conveniently forgets that a large percentage of gun violence comes from criminals. It comes from illegally owned guns, etc. Not from law abiding citizens. Accidental gun deaths are a small percentage of gun deaths every year. Yet Bloomberg seems to think the viewers of the Super Bowl are too dumb to realize that this poor woman’s son may have died at the hands of a criminal. Which is barely addressed by Bloomberg’s ‘brilliant’ gun control plan.

Maybe if the age to purchase guns is raised to 21? Oh wait, no, criminals don’t buy guns from legitimate sources. But what about all this money he wants to give the ATF? First, where is it supposed to come from? More taxes? And second, they haven’t done anything so far. How about the safe storage requirement? OK, yes. That would prevent some of the accidental shootings. But this is such a low percentage of the total amount of gun violence that it would barely make a dent in the overall statistics.

Now, here’s the kicker. Bloomberg wants to repeal the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which, if successfully repealed would allow for the lawsuit of gun makers. Now this, I have serious issue with. How can a gun manufacturer be held liable when, for example a criminal kills someone with their gun? To my mind that would require knowledge ahead of the crime that that particular criminal was going to commit that particular crime, and they did nothing to stop it.

There are many, many laws on the books regarding the sales, purchase and use of a gun. If that gun is stolen from the legal owner, and they report it stolen, they are no longer responsible for what it is used for, correct? Because it is no longer in their custody. Do you see where I’m going with this? Gun manufacturers are not responsible for what their guns are used for, as long as they (the manufacturer) have followed all laws pertaining to the manufacture and distribution, etc. of their product. Once it is legally purchased, it is no longer their responsibility.

To hold a gun manufacturer responsible for the actions of the person holding the gun, would be the same as allowing the families of drunk driving victims to sue vehicle manufacturers. Think that’s appalling? It’s the same thing. A drunk driver behind the wheel is just as lethal as a criminal with their finger on the trigger. But all Bloomberg cares about is getting rid of guns in the U.S., and he’ll do it one step at a time. One Super Bowl at a time.