Gun Control

Michael Bloomberg's Claim About 'Children' Killed by 'Gun Violence' Is Off by 73%

Such inflammatory exaggeration seems designed to avoid a substantive discussion of the presidential candidate's gun control proposals.


Michael Bloomberg's Super Bowl ad, which presents the Democratic presidential contender as a brave advocate of public safety who is not afraid to take on "the gun lobby," claims "2,900 children die from gun violence every year" in the United States, which is not true. That number includes young adults as well as minors, and it includes suicides as well as homicides.

Bloomberg's campaign cited Everytown for Gun Safety, a Bloomberg-backed group, as the source of the number used in the ad. "Annually," the organization said in June 2019 fact sheet, "nearly 2,900 children and teens (ages 0 to 19) are shot and killed." The ad changed "children and teens" (including young adults) to "children," presumably because that makes the deaths more shocking, strengthening the emotional case for the gun control policies Bloomberg favors.

According to to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, notes, the average number of firearm-related deaths involving Americans 17 or younger from 2013 through 2017 (the period used by Everytown for Gun Safety) was about 1,500, roughly half the number cited by Bloomberg. Furthermore, nearly two-fifths of those deaths were suicides, meaning the number of minors killed each year by "gun violence," as that term is usually understood, is about 73 percent smaller than the figure cited in Bloomberg's ad.

The case highlighted by the TV spot does not actually fit into any of these categories. The ad features Calandrian Kemp, whose 20-year-old son, George, was shot to death in 2013 at a park in Richmond, a Houston suburb, during a confrontation that a Texas appeals court described as "gang-related." According to the court, "two groups of young men, most of them teenagers, had met that night for a fight." Two of them, including an 18-year-old, Corey Coleman, fired the handgun rounds that struck Kemp. Coleman was convicted of murder and sentenced to 34 years in prison.

An honest discussion of this issue would start by clearly defining the problem. Bloomberg fails that test by using a highly misleading number referring to "children," half of whom were adults, and by using a definition of "gun violence" that includes suicides, a very different problem that is likely to require different solutions.

"Ask any grieving parent whose 18- or 19-year-old son or daughter was shot and killed, and they will tell you they lost a child," a Bloomberg campaign spokesperson told Fox News in defense of the ad. "There are simply too many of these deaths, and Mike has a plan to prevent them with common-sense gun safety laws." Everyone is somebody's child, of course, so by this reasoning all firearm-related deaths involve children.

Leaving aside Bloomberg's slippery numbers, how well do the "common-sense gun safety laws" he supports address the problem exemplified by George Kemp's death? Many of Bloomberg's ideas, such as banning "assault weapons," passing more "red flag" laws, and closing the "boyfriend loophole," have nothing to do with cases like this. Others seem more relevant but are unlikely to have much of an impact.

Bloomberg wants to require background checks for all firearm sales and ban purchases by anyone younger than 21. Those rules would be effective in preventing murders like George Kemp's only if young men like Corey Coleman are currently obtaining handguns from sources that can reasonably be expected to follow the new requirements, which is highly doubtful.

Bloomberg also wants to "make straw purchasing and trafficking stand-alone federal crimes, with serious penalties for offenders in order to help stop illicit sales." Yet people who buy guns from federally licensed dealers already have to certify that they are not buying the guns for someone else, and lying about that is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The same penalty applies to anyone, including a private seller, who "knows or has reasonable cause to believe" that the person to whom he is transferring a gun is legally disqualified from owning it.

Finally, Bloomberg supports allocating "at least $100 million annually for local violence intervention programs," which might make homicides like this less common if those programs are effective. Everytown for Gun Safety cites several programs it considers promising. Whether it makes sense to spend more taxpayer money on such programs is a subject worth discussing. But Bloomberg's dishonest, inflammatory approach seems designed to avoid that sort of substantive debate.

NEXT: Mike Bloomberg Just Lost My Vote With His Super Bowl Ad

Gun Control Michael Bloomberg Violence Gun Rights Second Amendment Election 2020

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

150 responses to “Michael Bloomberg's Claim About 'Children' Killed by 'Gun Violence' Is Off by 73%

  1. “Michael Bloomberg’s Super Bowl ad . . . claims “2,900 children die from gun violence every year” in the United States, which is not true. That number includes young adults as well as minors, and it includes suicides as well as homicides.”

    Bloomberg’s truth is that guns needs to be banned, and anything that gets in the way of that is a lie. The Democrats’ greater truth is that Trump needs to be kicked out of the White House, and they’re willing to say anything or do anything to accomplish that–from getting warrants using opposition research to trying to deprive the voters of the opportunity to reelect the president. Lying in campaign ads is nothing compared to that, but thank goodness there are still people like Sullum around to call it like it is anyway.

  2. 0-17 is not 0-19. I can see enough deaths in the 17-19 cohort to make the Moms claim not absolutely wrong on its face. As you note, about 40-60 percent, depending on the year, are suicides, and the rest is mostly criminals doing criminal things.

    For the example in the Bloomberg ad, I didn’t think an 18 year old could buy a handgun legally. Nor carry one legally. Moreover I would bet Corey Coleman had enough convictions in his past that he would never be legally allowed to purchase or possess a firearm. Gun control laws only stop the law-abiding.

    1. According to federal law, an 18-year-old cannot purchase a handgun legally, but he can possess and even own one legally (if, for example, a family member legally lends or gives one to him).

      In a “constitutional carry” state, he can carry one legally; otherwise, it depends on the open carry and CCW laws of any given state.

    2. A study from Milwaukee showed that the AVERAGE murder suspect/assailant had 7.5 prior arrests and victims averaged 6. Overall, 85% of people involved in shootings (BOTH perpetrator AND victim) had AT LEAST 1 prior arrest…

      I would guess you’re probably correct about Corey Coleman’s legal ability to handle a weapon…

  3. “Everyone is someone’s child, so by this reasoning” Negative, I identify as a meat popsicle.

      1. but no cattle

  4. “And some of those children vote”

  5. What people like Bloomberg and his supporters don’t understand is that things are different now than the last time gun control was floated as a serious proposal. Those that own guns really don’t trust the good intentions of those who want to take them away. Gunowners are scared of what the gun banning Left has become, and what infringements of liberty they’ll get up to after the banners take power and the guns are gone.

    The guns aren’t for sale. They will not be turned in regardless of whatever laws Bloomberg manages to buy in a state legislature. And if the State tries to take them by force, it won’t remain a gunowners versus police fight.

    1. Michael Bloomberg’s Super Bowl ad, which presents the Democratic presidential contender as a brave advocate of public safety who is not afraid to take on “the gun lobby,”

      Really Bloomberg, you can take on 50+ million gun owners in the USA?

      1. yep, he’s gonna kick in every door personally.

      2. No, silly! He’s only going to go after the 49+ million gun owners who aren’t politically connected!

        Everyone else can just rely on bodyguards and gated communities. And if you can’t hire bodyguards, or live in a gated community because you cannot afford it, well, that’s why we’re banning freelance work! And if you *still* cannot afford these steps, it’s because you don’t deserve to live!

    2. “Good Intentions” – No, that is window dressing. There are no good intentions here. They need, no they MUST disarm the population to be able to carry the next steps in their plan to take over. They have ADMITTED as much.

      1. Agreed. Gun owners don’t trust the gun banners have any good intentions at all. No matter what the banners say.

        In the past, I don’t think that was the case. The mask is off now.

        1. More people have been murdered in the name of good than any other cause.

          Bloomberg2020 – He knows what’s good for you!

  6. Democrats lie about guns? You don’t say. Bloomberg’s PAC should have tried a bit harder and used a case that couldn’t be so easily taken down.

    1. They want people to dispute the cases they use, so that they can point their finger at the ‘racist’ and accuse them of ‘not caring about #BlackLives!’

      It fires up their base even more.

    2. It doesn’t matter – it is a virtue-signaling echo chamber designed to delude those who are easily deluded. It will not change anyone’s mind who knows the facts, and the takedown will not change anyone who supports such virtue signaling.

      The only thing Bloomberg understands is that he lives in a nation of at least 50% morons…so he lies with impunity.

      Of all the scary candidates for president (including the incumbent), Bloomberg is probably the scariest.

    3. Puh-leeze. You’re expecting a lot of the guy whose sockpuppet organization claimed that the Marathon Bomber was a “victim of gun violence.”

      Bloomberg knows that the truth is irrelevant, as no one with any serious public reach will ever call him out on a lie.

  7. How many died in car accidents or were killed by incompentent doctors?

    1. That’s different.
      Fixing that does not require decimating the bill of rights.

      1. look, they are only looking to repeal the first and second amendments. The 9th and 10th were already dead. And Bloomberg really only wants to gut the 4th…. most of the rest are ok with simply stomping on the 4th.

        Their moves to eliminate the electoral college, expand the supreme court to create a permanent liberal majority and lock in congressional and electoral majorities by rigging census counts to include non-citizens and inviting illegal immigration to expand are not directly bill of rights issues.

        On the other hand… .”Decimate” means to destroy 10%. So we already crossed decimating the bill of rights when we took out the last 2. Taking out the first 2 would be an additional 20% – and 40% total. Even the Romans weren’t brutal enough to murder 40% of a population.

        1. Sure they were; “Decimation” was regarded by them as a warning.

          1. “Even the Romans weren’t brutal enough to murder 40% of a population.”

            Let’s ask the Carthaginian representative his opinion on that…

            1. Even at Carthage they didn’t kill them all…. those who survived and didn’t escape were captured and sold into slavery.

              About 50k were sold into slavery, if accounts are to be believed.

              Still, they did do quite a bit more than decimate the place.

            2. Fairly certain there are also a few Gaulish and Frankish tribes that no longer exist for the crime of resisting Roman expansion. They might want to get a say in as well

              1. Vercingetorix tried to evacuate the women and children from Alesia, but Caesar wouldn’t let them through his lines.

                1. Not the only time in history that has happened. Sieges end sooner when there are more mouths to feed in the besieged city.

          2. Decimation meant every tenth man in a Roman Legion was clubbed to death by his peers…10% of the Legion, 8 men per Legion or 48 men total per cohort of 480 men under the Marian reform.

        2. The 4th is pretty much dead also.

        3. Every iteration of “but no right is absolute” is a step further to the goal of no rights at all, only privileges at discretion of authority.

          The Memphis Crump Democrat machine moved into East Tennessee and tried to impose Democrat machine politics after WWII. WWII veterans who had fought Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo in the name of Democracy did not accept that. They formed the Bipartisan Coalition, ran 5 candidates based on the registered voter breakdown of 3 to 2 Rep and Dem against the Crump machine candidates. When it appeared the machine had seized the ballot boxes and was going to do the vote count without monitoring, it became a siege on the courthouse, with gunfire and dynamite. We may not be ripe for a Second Revolution, a Second Civil War, or the First Hunger Games, but a looming Second Battle of Athens might be a wakeup call.

          This country has drifted from government of the people, by the people, for the people, protected by volunteers raised from and loyal to the people, toward a Hobbesian absolute state justified by a Weberian state monopoly on force. Government of the people, by the government, for the government, protected by mercenaries loyal only to the government.

          How many times has a Bloombergian commentator responded to a gun rights post by gloating their government can declare us domestic terrorists and drop Hellfire missiles down our chimney and our rifle over the mantelpiece won’t do us any good? (For the record, I have a 1960 all electric house with no chimney, So Pfffft!)

          Bloomberg. New York billionaire.Sure there are people willing to kowtow to mandarins for largesse. My mom’s folks came from the area between Louisa KY and Norton VA. Big Sandy River Valley, Tug Fork, Logan County, Matewan, Blair Mountain, Bloody Mingo. In coal mining districts, Carnegie and Rockefeller are curse words.

          And Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Elizabeth Warren’s open admiration for Stormborn Dragon Lady of Game of Thrones (Bend your knee to me or be holocaust by my dragons) should be a warning.

      2. It is different.

        But the point I take, is that if they really wanted to “save lives”, there are hundreds of more effective ways to do that and, not even come close to touching Bill of Rights issues.

        So then, in the end, it’s clearly not about saving lives.

        1. Gun violence is like all crime.

          You have
          (a) an actor
          (b) with motive and intent
          (c) exploiting opportunities, and
          (d) utilizing means
          to perpetrate a crime.

          Focusing on means, criminalizing all who produce or use the same means, demonizing those who defend legit uses of the means, is not a very effective crime fighting/public safety approach to anything.

          Identifying persons with bad motive and intent, providing security to deny opportunity to bad actors known or unknown, is more effective than attacking the means abused by bad actors and criminalizing people for owning or using the same means.

          As ex-student Nickolaus Cruz walked into Building 12 at Stoneman Douglass high in Parkland, carrying a rifle case, he was recognized as Crazy Boy voted most likely to come back and shoot up the school. The response of school security and Broward County was to set up a 500 ft officer safety zone around Building 12 as the gun fire went on. And the Bloomberg answer is to felonize all owners of AR-15s.

          Here in red state, redneck, fly-over piss-on country,
          (a) we stopped two kids plotting to outdo Columbine before allowing them an opportunity to act,
          (b) current students have cards to open the school door, an ex-student’s card = wrong code,
          (c) when an armed intruder threatened a principal with a gun, our SRO immediately engaged the gunman in a Mexican stand-off and responding county deputies entered the school ASAP to engage the gunman (who had demand access to the fire alarm to fill the halls with kids and teachers).

    2. Meanwhile, Barack Obama killed more innocent children with drone strikes than Adam Lanza did at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

      Progressives are extremely selective in their pearl clutching. They still can’t bring themselves to legalize marijuana in New Jersey and New York either–and it isn’t because of the Republicans.

      How many kids lives get screwed up because the government gives their parents a criminal record for something that shouldn’t be any of the government’s business?

      1. Ah, but the Progressives believe EVERYTHING should be the government’s business…and no amount of government failure will ever convince them otherwise. Just as no quantity of Aristocratic inbred morons convinced the European Aristocracy that they ‘right’ to rule was so much twaddle.

      2. How many kids lives get screwed up because the government gives their parents a criminal record for something that shouldn’t be any of the government’s business?

        Not to short-shrift the parents or criminal records, but a fair number of youth have their records screwed up and seek out and carry firearms as a direct result of the same intrusiveness.

    3. I’ve heard so many responses to that along the lines of “that’s different, cars aren’t designed to kill people…the only purpose of guns is to kill people”

      This argument is specious if one considered the normal use of guns. About 4 BILLION rounds of ammunition are consumed in the USA every year. Something like 30,000 people are killed and 75,000 are injured by firearms every year. So about 0.00075% of firearm uses are to kill people, or about 0.002625% of firearm uses kill or injure people. So it’s fair to say that 99.99+% of the time, firearms are used–and used BILLIONS of times–in a way that no person is killed or injured.

      That’s a lot of uses that do something other than kill people. A more fair thing to say is that guns are designed to fire bullets at whatever the user is pointing the gun at when the trigger is pulled. The vast majority of the time that is a paper target.

      Ad the vast majority of the time when a firearm does kill or injure someone, it is either a criminal act or an act of self-destruction.

      1. “ This argument is specious if one considered the normal use of guns. ”

        Even more specious if you consider that even with all the safety enhancing designs of automobiles, they still kill people.

        So then, the argument is that here you have an object specifically designed to save lives, and it kills just as effectively as a firearm. What sort of track record is that to base an argument on?

      2. Not counting reloaders, “About 4 BILLION rounds of ammunition are consumed in the USA every year.” Including reloaders, the consumers of by far the most rounds, per person, per year, and the total consumption is more likely twice that.

        That’s a lot of innocent holes in paper and/or inadament objects.

  8. I am going to pretend I am a democrat and get to make the rules:
    From now n, for all reporting and advertising – –
    0 to 2 years = infant
    2 to 5 years = child
    6 to 13 years = school child
    14 to 16 years = teenager
    16 to 19 years = young adult
    over 19 = adult

  9. Progtards like Bloomberg define “children” as anyone under 25 or even 30 when it suits their agenda, citing “scientists” who claim that our brains aren’t fully developed until then. Shockingly, these same people want to lower the voting age to 16-go figure.

    1. “Shockingly, these same people want to lower the voting age to 16-go figure.”

      And the same people who expect to win those votes.

      1. In fairness, they also like to charge 12 year old kids as adults if they are caught sharing pictures of their girlfriend’s boobies.

    2. They don’t care about facts and logic.

      They care about manipulating the people the people they’re supposed to represent.

      It’s scary because plenty of Democrats feel the same way about the First Amendment, too.

      They want to violate the rights of 100 million gun owning Americans who have never pointed a gun at anyone, much less killed a child, and they want to deprive people of their rights to freedom of speech, religion, and assembly when it suits their short term goals, as well.

      As the Democratic party becomes increasingly authoritarian and socialist, it is appropriate for libertarian capitalists to become increasingly Republican.

      1. It is almost like how the United States allied with the U.S.S.R. during WWII.

        Of course, Republicans are not even a tenth as bad as Communists.

        1. And it’s almost like the USSR was allied with Nazi Germany before Nazi Germany unexpectedly invaded them before they could invade Nazi Germany.

      2. I don’t really have a firm position on gun ownership— although i’m Probably most persuaded by the argument that if gun nuts want to blow their head off they should be permitted to do so. However, it’s a bit rich to be lectured on facts and logic by the same people who don’t think spewing a bunch of CO2– a gas that is an infrared absorber— isn’t going to heat things up a bit.

        1. Oh, sure, a bit. Just not very much because CO2 already thoroughly blocks the frequency ranges that it can block. At this point the response to increasing CO2 is logarithmic, not even linear.

          It’s like, you draw the shades, the room gets darker. Draw a second set of shades over the first, the room doesn’t get twice as dark.

          That’s why they have to attribute a strong positive feedback to H2O in the atmosphere: Because CO2 is largely a spent force, already doing all it can to warm the planet. You have to assume that the CO2 is like a pebble dropped on a slope, triggering an avalanche: Because that pebble isn’t going to bury anyone by itself.

          1. I reiterate my statement, Ken. It’s a bit rich to be lectured on facts and logic by people who aren’t willing to apply facts and logic when it isn’t convenient.

          2. And I have a difficult time taking people seriously who claim that CO2 is an existential crisis, yet have absolutely no interest in considering nuclear power as a solution to the problem.

        2. We accept the science of the greenhouse effect.
          We don’t accept the doom and gloom “we’ve only got 10 more years to save the planet” predictions of the climate change crowd.
          We don’t believe in their proposal that if we accept ruinous taxation, they can adjust the temperature of the planet to exactly where it needs to be.

        3. No sure what this has to due with liberal attempts at “gun control” which is code for gun elimination.simplest all you havebdue is look at the stats to blow there gun control arguement out water. The where little to no federal firearm laws prior to 1968 and shockingly there where also little to know mass shooting. They can not explain why the more they control the worst it gets. The second flaw in there arguement is that democrats make up a overwhelling amount of mass shooters. Background checks are insulting to American way of life. It prove your innocent instead of asuming is innocent.
          The climate change is a liberal twisting of what repubilicans think per usual leaving thing out to suit there needs.
          Very few repubilicans believe there no such thing as global warming. What we believe is the complete science which says it has happened 8 times before. Liberal arguement that it all mans fualt is flawed .sure man is speeding it up but zero nothing man can due will stop it. The other I
          Issue with climate doom poeple is they dont really want to fix it. The solution to slow it down is much easier than they make it out. Stop fighting nuclear power the new advance nuclear plant designs run on sand to cool them and spent fuel rods to power them and have many auto shut down safeties . solar energy which liberal love to push is worst than fossil fuel . first you have to mine a dangerous chemical cobalt .than you have to use a ton of energy to make panel. we have no clue on how to dspose of old panels as there extremme toxic. Finally there is no way to meet world demand with current renewable power ideas . which leads me to the easiest way to solve about 90% of world problem .it is to limit population we need one child for each 2 poeple for at least the next 4 generation to get population back to a level the planet might be able to keep up with . this would limit c02 production and strain on natural resources . we keep stopping every attempt that mother nature has thrown at us to put population back in check such as the black plague .cornovirus just the latest of mother nature attempt to get population in check.

          1. Learn how to spell and write. Are you sure you’re not a troll trying to make libertarians look bad?

    3. Wrong. 30+ is still a child to him. Even 80+ is.

      Bloomberg thinks everyone not named Michael Bloomberg is a child, even if they are older than he is.

      In his mind, he knows what’s best for everyone, no matter what age they are.

    4. So it’s like Obamacare where children can be up to 26 years old?

      1. If they’ve even considered ever voting (D), they are legally defined as “children.”

    5. For the purposes of criminology, 15-24 years old is a quite useful category. It includes the vast majority of those who are big enough to get into _big_ trouble and young enough to be very stupid. I think it takes in the majority of criminals, and it certainly includes most of the criminals that can be rehabilitated. Very few kids under 15 commit serious crimes. Those who continue to commit crimes over 25 probably either have a mental defect more serious than “young and stupid”, simply don’t want to go straight, or are too lazy to earn an honest living.

      But while this is a useful category for criminology, calling these people “children” is dishonest. About 70% are legally adults, and classifying the other 30% as the same as 5 year-olds is a legal fiction – which disappears as soon as a prosecutor wants to put one of them in prison. If a 15 year-old is not allowed to make decisions for himself, he won’t learn how to…

      1. For purposes of criminology we shoud also add that 15-24 year old males that commit serious crimes. High testosterone plus stupidity is a bad combination.
        I would also bet a high percentage of those gun deaths are also male.

    6. “Shockingly, these same people want to lower the voting age to 16-go figure.”

      ok, I figure it implies that, if only people who are mature-brained by their definition are allowed to vote, then they will not have the votes to win power. They desperately need those 16-25 y.o. immature easily-led brains voting for them.

  10. Unfortunately, most people I know are Dems. Fortunately, none of them can stand Bloomberg, and even if they agree with him about guns, climate change etc., do not plan to vote for him because they know he will drive away the critical blue collar voters in swing states.

    1. Bloomshit’s been running that ad with Michael Douglas pimping for him here. My first thought was, why the hell would anyone in this blue-collar town give two shits about what some septuagenarian actor is supporting for President.

      This guy is a textbook example of someone who’s so ensconced in a bubble that he thinks everyone in the country can be persuaded like an upper East Side liberal.

      1. Michael Douglas? Seriously!? If has-been actors and mini-me mayors of small cities are the best endorsements he can get, that’s a problem

      2. Somebody should cut a campaign ad for Bernie Sanders:

        “Michael Douglas endorses Mike Bloomberg…but who is Michael Douglas, really?”

        Then shows clips of Michael Douglas playing Gordon Gekko and close with

        “Mike Bloomberg is all about helping the rich get richer. Vote for Bernie Sanders to help the working class!”

        I wonder how many Sanders supporters would believe it?

    2. A far left coworker of mine called Bloomberg an ultra conservative just a couple years ago. And this guy pays a lot of attention (anger) to politics.

      Not sure what he thinks of him now, but I’m guessing mayor Mikey is waaayyy down his list of totes faves for D nom. Probably a lot of other progs too. If he gets the nom it might slow the socialist roll a little.

  11. If they really wanted to lower gun murders they’d be shouting for and end to drug prohibition.

  12. So- based on what I hear coming from the Democrats, I’m supposed to believe that the same government that’s not been able to prevent gun violence can be trusted to control the earth’s climate?

  13. In all honesty, I think adulthood is trending towards 21 in our collective psyche.

    18 year olds got the vote because they were being drafted, and it was fundamentally unfair to draft 19 year old kids (the average age of draftees to Vietnam) when they weren’t allowed to vote against the president and the representatives who were orchestrating the war.

    Now that there isn’t really a draft (We’ve had at least two wars without one in Afghanistan and Iraq), the need to set the age of adulthood at 18 is probably past. Especially the way millenials and younger stay dependent on their parents well past the age of 18 these days.

    Meanwhile, the nanny staters like Bloomberg want to treat us all like children. Treating adults like they’re children is what being a nanny-stater is all about.

    1. Children are, for the most part, dependent on and under the authority of their parents (except if they want an abortion, or a sex change, because shut up, transphobe!)

      Infantilizing people is one of the most effective methods of controlling them. No wonder it appeals so much to the Left.

      1. It also stems from their elitism.

        They treat us like children because they think they’re superior.

        1. Heil, Adolf Bloomberg!

        2. Yeah, here’s a campaign slogan – “Bloomberg2020 – He knows what’s best for ya!”

    2. To be fair, they want to increase the age for most things to 21 (or higher), except for voting, which they want to lower to 16 (or lower). Oh, and staying an mommy and daddies health insurance as a
      “child” until 26.

    3. 2 wars? You need to count better than that.

      Syria, Panama, Grenada, and Kuwait are 4 more that spring to mind with actually US troops on the ground. That doesn’t include all the ones where we were only “advisors”.

    4. In WWI, the draft age was originally 21. That was changed when it was realized that this would not produce enough soldiers to match the numbers turned out by the European powers – or would not provide them without massive economic disruptions. It was quickly decided to concentrate on drafting 18-19 year olds that hadn’t had time to become good at their jobs, if any.

      But as it worked out, we were not at all ready to train and field that many men – and did not need to. We won that war when only a small fraction of the planned manpower had reached Europe. 4 years of trench warfare (and stupid Generals) had hollowed out the French, British, and German forces to where only a little added force decisively tipped the scales. And the rest of the combatants had never been in the same class as these three – not even the Russians, in spite of their huge population (of ignorant peasants, lead by the worst nobles you could imagine). By November 1918, who would “win” that war was far less important an issue than which countries would follow the Russians into social collapse and Communism. Our biggest contribution was to boost French and British morale so the Germans cracked first, and begged for an armistice to bring their troops home and stave off a revolution.

      So yes, I think that the _only_ time in this nation’s history that we needed to draft kids just out of high school was WWII – because our military was not yet sophisticated enough to do the job with a much smaller and better army. Now they are. We still need an army, but we don’t need an army so huge that we can put a line of men right across a continent. The draft helped lead to disaster in Vietnam; because all that manpower was available, there was little effort to improve the quality of the forces, and eventually no thought to the strategy. (I call it “winning hearts and minds with napalm”.)

      And note that in WWII, it took over 6 months to figure out what to do with all the men who wanted to volunteer. The authorities eventually ran the volunteers through the draft system because a single flow simplified matters (and because those authorities were progressives who liked having government-owned slaves), but if there had been no pre-existing draft, there would have been plenty of time to create one while the services were struggling to create enough training camps and instructors.

      So get rid of the peace time draft entirely. Stop collecting registrations from young men. Cut the SS down to a handful of old men in one office, making and filing plans just in case. If there’s a war that doesn’t produce an excess of volunteers in the first months, we should not be fighting it.

  14. Is this the same Bloomberg who told his media outlets to not investigate or write anything negative about any Democrats, but to investigate and write anything negative they can about Republicans because he writes their paychecks?

    Well, that takes care of the first two Amendments. When will he recommend quartering soldiers in our houses and warrantless searches?

    1. warrantless searches?

      You’re not paying attention – – – – – – – –

      1. Stop and frisk for everyone.

  15. Bloomberg’s claims about everything are way off. He is the poster child for politicians demanding everyone have the same attributes and preferences as them.

    I get that the man would never drink a 36-oz soft drink—I wouldn’t either. But I would never conceive of banning them to force everyone else to be like me. The supreme arrogance of people like Bloomberg is staggering.

    1. But that’s what you do when you are an arrogant piece of shit.

  16. White people deserve the same right to self determination (‘racist!’) and borders (‘diversity!’) that every other group has.

    ‘Slavery! The Natives! WWII! South Africa!’

    First, even if those were all true, this isn’t justified. One-way ‘diversity’, mass immigration and assimilation would be called gen-cide if imposed on anyone else. And gen-cide is never justified.

    Second, anti-whites demand this even of ‘historically oppressed’ whites like the Slavs, Greeks, Irish, with no history of these things, and who themselves had been colonized and enslaved for centuries, including by nonwhite, non-Christian ‘historical oppressors’.

    Third, anti-whites haven’t spent a single minute researching the ‘crimes’ of any other people looking for reasons to impose ‘diversity’/’anti-racism’ on them. All of these justifications are just an excuse for their fanatical hatred.

    Fourth, these narratives are all hoax, hypocrisy, or double standards anyway. See Ron Unz and Stefan Molyneux for overviews. Whites have committed no unique sins, but made incredible unique contributions to humanity.

    The globalist, hostile elite demonizing us now are the same ones who demonized and killed tens of millions of Russian Christian peasants in the Soviet Union. We owe them no respect.

  17. Yawn –
    Another democrat tells another lie.
    Nothing to see here, move along.

  18. Good game though.

    That last big call when Damion Williams caught that corner shot. That one will be debated forever.

    1. Was good; I’d be happier if the 9ers won.
      9er’s defense gave up some plays they shouldn’t have, but KC’s a kick-ass team.
      Shanahan and Saleh have some work to do.

      1. 2nd and 5, couple minutes left SF up 20-17, after a 5 yard run to open drive.
        Shanny calls pass, it’s batted down.
        That was the game.
        Stopped clock and forced them to throw on 3rd down.
        Stick with the run, Shanny.
        That’s 2 Superbowls it’s cost you

  19. Anyone surprised at the dishonesty and invincible ignorance of the anti-gun cult?

    1. They’re not arguing in good faith and never will. Draw a hard line and stand by it.

    2. As we advance further into an era of peace and non-violence, their arguments will ring even more hollow as echo-chamber thought.

      Kids who, progressively know more about guns thanks to video games and technology and experience less death as a result of them will objectively disregard their bullshit. It’s already almost to the point that they could practically talk about banning guns or samurai swords interchangeably.

  20. Meanwhile, Trump ran an ad during the Super Bowl too. It highlighted criminal justice reform. I wanted to post a link to the ad, but googling “Trump super bowl ad” only got Bloomberg ads and articles critical of Trump.

    Apparently the left is apoplectic that Trump is using a poor black face to highlight his policies.

    Huff-Po has an article headlined Twitter Rips Trump Over Super Bowl Ad Featuring Alice Marie Johnson

    But it does include a link to the ad.

    And they were honest enough to include this tweet from Alice Johnson herself:

    “Two Super Bowls ago I was sitting in a prison cell. Today I am a free woman and my story was featured in a Super Bowl Ad,” she wrote. “I will spend the rest of my life fighting for the wrongly and unjustly convicted! God Bless America!”

    But they go on to let us know that Trump’s pardon is just a ploy to cover up his overt racism. Apparently he is actually the enemy of real criminal justice reform… because reasons…

    Also interestingly, they stack the Trump ad with auto-play anti-trump ads targeting evangelicals.

    The Daily Beast article spends several inches telling us just how racist Trump is in order to set up this quote:

    Former Rep. Bakari Sellers (D-SC) reacted to Trump’s commercial on Twitter, saying, “That ad was offensive AF,” adding, “The “I freed a Negro” ad.”

    Who’s racist?

    1. Twitter is essentially a far-left echo chamber at this point, so they’re not being inaccurate when they claim it’s “ripping” Trump.

      The catch is that Twitter is used by so few people that it can’t organically set the narrative on its own. It’s why so many journalists use it to manufacture consensus prior to reporting the narrative as fact.

    2. I briefly dated a girl who displayed such psychological gamesmanship. Everything was a conspiracy; everything I did had a motive and hook. No matter what I said it was in her head whatever it was she wanted to think or believe. She was so exhausting I didn’t stick around to stick it in crazy.

      That’s what I see with these people. Crazy.

      Trump is a racist! I don’t need no stinking evidence it’s obvious because Duke voted for him, he said good people, he’s a Nazi and reasons.

      Trump’s past with inner-city black leaders and communities has no bearing on anything and his policies while in power to help black people be it economically or through prison reform can’t be used as a political success ad because he’s hiding the fact he’s a nigger hating racist.

      They have him in a corner whereby he can literally save three black people from a burning house and they’d still ask why he didn’t save the house itself.

      1. He’d probably be blamed for setting the block people’s house on fire in the first place.

        1. He’d probably be blamed for setting the block people’s house on fire in the first place.

          Too shallow or not layered enough: they’d wonder why they aren’t prosecuting the arsonist’s son for information on the arsonist’s connection to Trump.

  21. Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot…Start here> Read more

  22. I am making 8 to 10 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 3 hour Dailly and make 40 dollar Easily .. This is enough for me to happy my ?? i am making this so u can do it Easily….. Read more

  23. I work from home and I am my own boss now like I always wanted… I see a lot of unhappy people around me, working the same old boring job that’s sucking the life out of them day by day… Everytime I see someone like that I say START FREELANCING MAN! This is where I started,,, Read more

  24. “…An honest discussion of this issue…”

    Which is precisely what he and gun grabbers don’t want.

    His ad seems like one broad appeal to emotion and authority with some cherry picking if not outright false data.

    And this sauce thinks he’s getting into heaven?

  25. I checked out the Everytown for Gun Safety link. It’s full of gems like Law enforcement brings a strong message that if violence continues, the perpetrators will be caught and face harsh consequences. Individuals seeking help are connected to social services, including education programs, tattoo removal and employment counseling.

    Not a single mention of drugs. As IceTrey noted above, one might begin to think they don’t really want to lower gun murders.

    1. The illegal kind, or the psycho-therapeutic kind?

  26. At a Virginia gun show you can get the Virginia State Police to run a Federal NICS background check for about $5.

    When I last bought a gun in Tennessee at a dealer, I had a state TICS check* and federal NICS check, both run through the TN Dept of Safety, for $10.

    Bloomberg Everytown Universal Background Checks as passed in run $55 to $65 dollars. UBC is not the cost of a gun sale background check. It is a punitive tax, a “sin tax”, aimed at deterring legal sales, particularly private used gun sales, and creating 4473 transaction records on all current gun owners. It is calculated to deter private used gun transactions. It does deter private gun transactions with background checks at $39, $55, $65 especial on used guns worth less than $100.

    In NYC under Bloomberg buying a rifle requires a $140 permit and a $96 city background check with fingerprinting in addition to the federal NICS background check. $236 dollars for govt approval to buy a rifle. When Bloomberg decided to impose a NYC AWB, registered military rifle owners were notified (a) to turn in their guns into NYPD, (b) to sell their guns to a licensed dealer to be transferred out of NYC, or (c) to have a gunsmith certify the gun deactivated. His end game for requiring a transaction record on all used gun sales is clear to me.

    Bloomberg is a gun prohibitionist and Moms Demand Action is his Women’s Christian Temperance Union.

    What Bloomberg wants is the NYC flavor of the NYS Sullivan act nation wide. New York City, 8,000,000 people**, 25,000 legally registered handguns: NYC PD and federal ATF estimate 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 unregistered illegal handguns on the streets of NYC.

    A federal application of NY style gun control under Emperor Bloomberg is a recipe for disaster.

    * (TICS checks local wants, warrants, gun possession disqualifiers at state or county level that might not be federal Prohibited Person status under the 1968 Gun Control Act on the NICS)

    ** (contrary to the monicker “The Naked City”, most of the 8,000,000 people are clothed most of the time)

    1. are you admitting the guns can and are being regulated, and yet the Republic has not fallen? nor have the R voting cops kicked in your door to take away your deer rife?

      I as a taxpayer think it a small price to pay, the fees you describe, consider the cost to treat both short and long term, gun shot wounds. think of it a user fee. if you participate in a activity that is extremely costly in terms of dollars, to the public , then some kind of fee is in order to defray those costs. Not to mention the expense to up armor police departments in order to have ballistic parity with say a mall shooter.

      I thought you guys were all about personal responsibility. You seem to want me, JQ taxpayer, to subsidize your fetish.

      1. “if you participate in a activity that is extremely costly in terms of dollars, to the public , then some kind of fee is in order to defray those costs.”

        An annual fee on gang membership sounds like a splendid idea!

      2. So you don’t think law-abiding poor people in bad neighborhoods should be able to legally purchase a weapon for self-defense? Oh, that’s right, that’s what the illegal underground market is for. Gotcha…

        How positively privileged/elitist of you…

        You’re not being asked to subsidize shit.

      3. Congrats: that has to the most convoluted excuse for reason that I’ve seen in a while. A long while.

      4. Hey Tim?
        GFY, seriously the next time you’re broken into just dial 911 and die you statist POS…

    2. “Moms Demand Action is his Women’s Christian Temperance Union.”


      Feelz and all.

      Almost enough to make you ashamed we passed the Nineteenth Amendment.

  27. “by using a definition of “gun violence” that includes suicides, a very different problem that is likely to require different solutions.”

    The fact that guns are a very effective way to commit suicide does mean that guns laws can be effective in reducing suicides. The most lethal suicides are quick suicides (gun, jumping, etc.) and these tend to be very impulsive acts. Studies have shown that if you can reduce access to guns during this impulsive period you can prevent suicides.

    1. If they were trying to reduce suicides, they’d go about it differently, though. It’s not like people commit suicide at random, suicide is actually concentrated around certain life events: Being divorced if you’re a guy, facing a serious and irreversible decline in quality of life if you’re elderly.

      Owning a gun is not a measurable suicide risk. There IS a slight uptick in suicide for a limited period following purchase of your first gun, (And ONLY your first gun.) due to non-owners who decide to kill themselves, and then go out and buy a gun.

      But it remains that almost everybody who goes out and buys their first gun is not going to commit suicide.

      If you were actually trying to reduce suicides, you’d ignore the gun, and focus on the life events, because they much more strongly predict suicide than gun ownership.

      But you have to remember: They’re not the violence control movement, they’re not the crime control movement, they’re not the suicide control movement, or the accident control movement: They’re the gun control movement. Their goal is depriving people of guns, all else is just an excuse.

      1. Your reply makes some of the points I would make to support gun laws to reduce suicide. You note that suicides are higher in first time owners. So a waiting period for a gun purchase could bridge the impulsive period. Second you mentioned life circumstances and again this idea is partially addressed by red flag laws. Your brother has gotten (you choose) divorced, fired, gone bankrupt and seems very depressed. He also owns several fire arms which your family feels should be removed for a short period of time while he works through his problems. Gun law are not the single solution to suicides, but they are part of the solution.

        1. But to what extent do things like red flag laws and waiting periods really work? If we cut out one avenue to suicide, what’s to prevent the person from seeking other avenues?

          Indeed, what’s worse than being divorced, fired, gone bankrupt, and seems depressed? How about being divorced, fired, gone bankrupt, seemed depressed, and you just endured a police raid taking your guns away, with the only hope to get them back is through an expensive, arduous process that is doomed to failure if you don’t have an expensive lawyer helping you through it? And, in the meantime, that person who wasn’t originally a threat now becomes one, and if that person was a threat, he’s still free to be a threat — he just has to find a gun illegally (or perhaps bring it out of that hiding place the cops didn’t check), or worse, he could resort to using the myriads of ways to harm lots of people, but don’t require a background check.

          As for waiting periods, there have been people who’s first gun purchase was to defend themselves from an alienated ex, who ended up dead because they were still waiting for their gun.

          So maybe, just maybe, these reforms aren’t the best way to go about preventing suicides after all.

          1. “If we cut out one avenue to suicide, what’s to prevent the person from seeking other avenues?”

            As I have noted quick suicides are the most lethal and the most impulsive. If you can reduce a persons access to a weapon during the most impulsive period you can save lives.

            1. And as I have noted, (1) not all people who need a gun quickly need it to commit suicide — it’s to prevent homicide, and (2) if you sincerely believe someone is about to commit suicide, why stop at guns? There are many other lethal and impulsive ways to commit suicide as well. Shouldn’t you be taking away the person’s freedom instead?

              1. First I have a big problem with the idea that you can buy a gun for quick protection. This idea assume that all you need is the gun. That you don’t need training and experience in the operation of that gun. It also assume that you can use that gun when you need to use it. That the person you fear will not be able to get close enough before you realize it and the gun is too late.
                As to suicide, guns are a quick effective way to end your life. They are not the only way but other ways may take more time and preparation and that may give time for the impulsive feeling to pass.

                1. “First I have a big problem with the idea that you can buy a gun for quick protection. This idea assume that all you need is the gun. That you don’t need training and experience in the operation of that gun.”

                  1)There are people who are familiar with guns who don’t currently own one.
                  2)I’m a big fan of training, but someone with a day’s training and armed is better situated to defend themselves than someone who is unarmed. Taking a 2 hour CPR class doesn’t make anyone into a cardiologist, but if you need CPR now you’d rather get CPR from the just trained amateur than wait several minutes for the pros, much less a 30 day waiting period.

                  If you aren’t facing a sudden unexpected threat, by all means wait and get lots of training. In fact, it’s a good idea to get training – first aid, self defense, etc – proactively when you have no notion of needing it, precisely because emergencies rarely arrive with prior notice.

                  OTOH if, to cite one example, you were told you would have plenty of warning before the whacko who was sent to prison for attacking you years ago, and who is saying he will get even, is released. But, oooops, some one dropped the ball and you get the call the day before he is released, and now you have a problem that might not wait a few weeks.

    2. Except that nobody commits suicides with rifles, 30-round magazines, or silencers, and most of the people contemplating suicide won’t have any problems passing a background check.

      So thanks for playing, but find another excuse.

  28. Can’t wait for Mayor MSG to re-examine his finances after 2020 and see how many hundreds of millions he wasted to not even make it onto the ballot.

    1. This is a guy who blew millions to buy an anti-gun referendum vote in Nevada, which his people drafted so incompetently that it had no legal effect whatsoever.

  29. My 10-yr.-old son read “Mike will get it done.” at the end of the ad.

    Having relatively no idea who Bloomberg was, he turned and asked “How long has he been in politics, failing to get it done?”

    Good to see Mike go with the anti-gun ad during the Super Bowl. Trump was clearly trying to court black voters and, IMO, hit the nail on the head. Bloomberg seemed committed to sending the message that the Democratic Party intends to fail well into the future.

  30. gosh its only 1700 kids. well hell’s bells there should be no cause for concern.

    unless of course your the kid or maybe the kids parents.

    would you 2nd amendment remedy types agree that it is acceptable collateral damage in the long campaign to preserve a lunatics rite to shoot up a school, church or synagogue?

    1. Oh, screw you. Basically you’re saying, “Any deaths at all are enough to justify taking this right away.”

      Because right now children’s firearms deaths are down there in the noise, comparable to drowning in buckets, and utterly eclipsed by tripping and falling down stairs.

      But you’re not out there leading a crusade against stairs, now, are you? Because you don’t actually care about saving kids’ lives, you just want an excuse to attack this particular civil liberty.

      1. no, what I am saying is 1700 kids die by gunshot. most don’t want to die. most die because in a fit of passion someone picks up a readily accessible handgun and the child gets shot. 1700 is deaths, not injuries, not permanent injuries, nor tells us anything about the costs.
        we know by very available comparisons other countries like ours don’t see this level of handgun deaths of kids. It is reasonable(see title of this website) to surmise its because they don’t have 1 gun for every .75 citizens in their countries. Guns that are often left in reach of the kids. Guns that can easily and legally be bought at gunshows or in private sales.

        Yes, think of all we do on behalf of kid: seat belt laws, CPS, child seats. laws against underage drinking, smoking , sex. But guns, its free range.

        of course none of the those regs above would hurt the bottom line of gun manufactures’ or wayne Lapierre’s suit collection.

        Gentlemen , you blather on in service to Wayne in servance to lobbyist’s and law firms who take NRA donations and turn it into payola for themselves. Do they ever take you hunting? Hell do they ever spring for a drink at an NRA convention?

    2. More like 900, in a country of 330,000,000 people, probably a quarter of them kids. It’s not that 900 kids a year isn’t bad, it’s: a) There are probably lots of things that kill 900 kids a year that are easier to make headway on. b) This ad is advocating an extremely crude and ineffective way to try to reduce that number. Odds are pretty good that if Bloomberg were to get everything he wants, it wouldn’t eliminate 900 deaths it’d bring that number down to maybe 880.

  31. I’m not necessarily opposed to strengthening background checks, ‘Red Flag’ laws or even an assault weapon ban.

    But I worry about what will come after liberals realize that these measures didn’t dent the violence one bit.

    1. All due respect, I fail to see the logic in your comment. If you realize such measures won’t work (and they won’t, as far as their alleged aims), why grant the state these dangerous powers in the first place? They WILL be abused, just like every other law that ‘guarantees’ some measure of illusory ‘safety.’

  32. On youtube, the Trump add is almost uniformly positive in the comments, while the Bloomberg video has disabled comments and view count. This is what the Wall Street Journal’s reporting:

    “One analytics firm, Synthesio, found that Mr. Trump’s ad touting his record on criminal justice garnered predominantly positive reactions on social media, with roughly twice as many positive mentions of the commercial as negative mentions during Sunday night’s game.

    Mr. Bloomberg’s ad, which tackled gun control, got a more negative response. For every positive mention that Synthesio detected about Mr. Bloomberg, it detected about three negative mentions.

    Synthesio’s analysis was based on 4,620 mentions of the political Super Bowl ads across the web as of 10 p.m. Sunday, including in social networks and news coverage. The firm says it has technology to ignore any social posts from bots.

    Another firm, Brandwatch, found that reactions to both candidates’ ads were more than 60% negative. Brandwatch also found that many of the Bloomberg ad’s detractors were Trump supporters and conservative media. Brandwatch didn’t exclude bots from its analysis, seeing them as an important part of the conversation.”

  33. A good rule of thumb is that when a politician uses the term “gun violence” (as opposed to more acceptable forms of violence, such as Democide) you can pretty much assume you are listening to a bloviating would-be tyrant.

  34. Having treated a few suicides by gunshot, I consider this form of death or injury to be a death by gunshot. Our nation’s efforts to diminish firearm violence whatever methods is chosen must address suicide by firearm.

    1. I think everyone should be able to take their own life by whatever means they choose. It is, after all, THEIR life. It is the one way to free yourself from political tyranny that can’t be taken from you. That is why suicide was so high during Mao’s reign.

      1. I’m not entirely sure I agree with this (about taking your own life by whatever means), at least for moral reasons, but then again, how are you supposed to punish people who commit suicide? I propose execution, for both those who attempt it, and those who succeed!

        Having said that, if we’re supposed to treat suicides by guns as death by gun rather than death by suicide, does that mean that suicide by drowning is death by water, suicide by knife a knife death, suicide by rope a strangulation death, and suicide by drugs an overdose death?

        The funny thing about all these is that if we focus on the means, rather than the cause, we can’t really prevent any deaths. If we want to prevent suicide, we need to find the cause of wanting to take one’s own life, and see what we can do to alleviate that concern. Otherwise, we’re not preventing deaths, except where we may very well be unnecessarily prolonging misery.

        But such an approach requires societal self-reflection, and we can’t have that! We’re far better off just banning guns and telling ourselves the comforting lie that we’re saving lives! (Even while the suicide rate stays the same, and the murder rate inches upward.)

  35. I have an idea. Get the Democrat mayors who run gang infestested cities to get off their collective asses and enforce gun laws already on the books.

  36. quote:
    An honest discussion of this issue would start by clearly defining the problem. Bloomberg fails that test
    He epically fails two more tests:
    the killer was 18, we know that. NO ONE under 21 can buy a handgun from an FFL dealer. So, Mikey Boy, HOW did that killer GET his handgun LEGALLY? Odds on he did not.

    Second, NO ONE under 21 can carry a loaded handgun in a vehicle, nor can they carry a loaded handgun in public. Nor can one such get a Mother May I Card to lawfully conceal a handgun upon their person.
    My sure bet is that the dirtbag killer did all three. HOW did he get it to the scene? DID he carry the loaded gun concealed until he pulled it to use?
    I will also assume that the “other gunman” was under 18, thus cannot have a handgun in public anyway, let alone loaded in car or concealed upon his person.

    So Bloomie Blows because neither of those two killers COULD have lawfully possessed their handguns. Their actions are already illegal, so what NEW law does he propose that these two would have obeyed, especially in view of the FACT they both disobeyed the laws that make murder a felony crime.
    And we’re supposed to TRUST this fake?

  37. If gun control is so important and dire to this liar, why all the need for subterfuge and distortion? Can’t rely on resonably intelligent folks to make critical decisions?

  38. This narcissistic prick honestly believes he’s God. When he is in fact a proven liar and overall piece of shitt. Hin and his high paid female mafia are running around the country buying off cronies that are just as much the devil he is. In Florida he bought the Senate Speaker of the house fo a cool half million dollars. This despicable rhino even help purchase several other rhinos to vote for the unconstitutional red flag “fakelaw”. He has 0 percent chance of flying his anti-gun bullshitt through the govorner’s desk!

  39. Wasn’t there already a Democrat running for President who wanted to take away everyone’s guns? I’m pretty sure there was. I want to say his name was…Beta…or something. What happened to him, anyway? We don’t seem to hear about him anymore. I wonder why that is!

  40. Of course, any child dying is a tragedy. So, 375 per year (1,500, not 2,900 over 4 years) killed by guns is too many. But, 600,000 ABORTIONS per year (conscious deaths by another means) is a TRAGEDY of about 2000 TIMES the MAGNITUDE of children’s deaths by guns! Get a GRIP. The difference in MAGNITUDE IS STAGGERING, even to brain dead liberals like Mini Mike Bloomberg!

  41. Mr. Bloomberg and the anti gun, anti gun rights mobs he financially supports, putting the thing in Plain English, would not recognize a fact if one walked up to them and said hello.

  42. Keep wasting your money Mr.Big Gulp. Give up your heavily armed detail before telling others what to do you hypocrite POS!

  43. If I have to choose between Trump and Bloomberg, well, there’s the devil I know …

  44. ★I’am made $84, 8254 so far this year working on the web and I’m a full time understudy. Im utilizing an online business opportunity I caught wind of and I’AM profited. It’s truly easy to understand and I’m simply so cheerful that I got some answers concerning it. Here what I do,.for more data essentially open this connection thank you……. Read more

  45. Another lying Dimorcrat, that should surprise no one. It’s just the way Progressives put forth double speak.

  46. All gun control laws are unconstitutional violations of the 2nd amemdment.

    1. All gun control laws are infringements of the 2nd amendment, that is true. But no Constitutional right is absolute.

      We can execute people in violation of their right to life. We can imprison them in violation of their right to freedom. We can fine them in violation of their property rights. We can prosecute them for sedition in violation of their right to free speech. We can hold them in custody awaiting trial in violation of their right to innocence until proven guilty. All of that and more is Constitutional.

      Certain gun laws can be Constitutional. The debate is over which ones are.

      1. In other words, “Constitutional rights are subject to some limits. This is a limit, therefore it is constitutional.” Short analysis: BS.

        In all the cases you mention, the limitation is specific to a person, and there is due process BEFORE the limitation.

        In the case of gun control, it is precrime.

        It’s like stapling people’s lips together in the theatre check-in line so nobody can yell “fire.”

  47. Real quick, the CDC and National Academy of Sciences reviewed gun laws to identify those that work. They reached identical conclusions: none. That’s right folks not a single gun law has ever made you safer. Which is something the Democrats and mainstream media refuse to tell you. But it remains a fact. Gun control is as big a fail as the war on drugs. Nanny Bloomberg wants his bodyguards to have guns. No one else. And it doesn’t have a damn thing to do with the public good.

  48. Mike Bloomberg said the only government should be allowed to decide who lives in dies. Mike Bloomberg said everybody in the church that day should’ve just been killed rather than having somebody shoot the murderer. Yet Mike Bloomberg surrounds himself with non-government people with guns to protect his life. This is all you need to know about Mike Bloomberg. He is important and you are not. There is not a politician alive advocating for gun control that does not have armed people protecting him and his family.

  49. This article is well argued and logically presented. It is supported by facts. Its conclusion follow logically from its premises and arguments. This article is properly presented in a site called “”.

    Too many other articles on this same site are illogical and present false arguments leading to incorrect conclusions.

    I can only conclude that Reason’s editors, some of them at least, have no concept of logical argument or awareness of logical fallacies.

  50. I have an idea:

    1. End the drug war, which is what a massive portion of the violence all revolves around.

    2. Target black and Hispanic gang activity with as much of a fervor as we did when we were dismantling the Italian Mafia.

    Between those 2 things, murders would probably drop 50-75% from their already historically low rates. White Americans already have comparable murder rates to gun free Europe, and 85% of murders every year are committed by black and Hispanic people, with the overwhelming majority of that being gang related, AKA money related, AKA usually drug money related.

    Do the 2 things above and most of the murders would go away because there wouldn’t be as much illicit money to fight over.

    1. Yes, great ideas. Don’t bother trying to get Bloomberg interested in either of them. The closest he’s ever gotten is suggesting that “guns need to be kept out of the hands of minorities in order to keep them alive.” In other words, Mister Collective-Fixation totally missed the barn again. He can’t help it, it’s just how the little totalitarian is wired.

  51. People like Bloomberg have an agenda that isn’t driven by facts. It’s the same as the assertion that gun violence was the leading cause of death for children under the age of 27 by the Brady Campaign. We give them the right to vote as adults at age 18 but we consider them children until the age of 27 for the purposes of gun control propaganda.

    With each passing day, Bloomberg not only looks more and more like Mel Brooks, he acts like a character out of one of his comedies.

  52. Well color me surprised… a regressive telling lies about guns.

    As for “intentions”, it matters no whit whether they are good because they count for nothing.

    I will add this: years ago I did some fairly serious research on what I suspected was the lie about America’s homicide rate. Sure enough, when you strip out the irrelevant factors, the actual and relevant rate is not more than 1 per 100,000. I had to make some assumptions because the data needed was not readily available. The assumptions I made were VERY conservative, and the real rate still came out lower than the average for all of Europe and most of the rest of the world.

    The regressives are very fond of their lies.

  53. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour…….Read MoRe

Comments are closed.