For those of you who’ve just joined us, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is America’s number one gun grabber. Using his bully pulpit, speaking on behalf of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), Bloomberg promotes the idea that America’s gun laws are too lenient by half. Any regulation restricting the constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms in the name of public safety is A-OK with Bloomberg. Unlike The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, MAIG is well-funded—via Bloomberg’s personal fortune. Bloomberg’s business publications account for a big slice of that pie. While the Mayor isn’t supposed to meddle with his media mavens (being an elected official and all), his news orgs reflect the Mayor’s anti-gun perspective. Except when they don’t . . .

Here’s an example of a career-killing bit of common sense from [no spacing allowed] BloombergBusinessweek writer Paul M. Barrett, in an article entitled  Gun Control and the Milwaukee Sikh Massacre.

It is too early to say what precisely the suburban Milwaukee Sikh temple massacre may tell us about guns and gun control. The facts are still in flux, and the facts matter . . .

But before we condemn elected officials as “immoral” because they fail to offer instant “reforms,” let’s find out what exactly happened in Milwaukee and then examine closely what changes in the law could have prevented it. The grim reality is that, in a society with 250 million to 300 million firearms already in private hands, tinkering with the rules on legally obtaining new guns—meaning tinkering with gun control—can have only a marginal effect on deterring determined mass killers.

Bravo Mr. Barrett! We’ve taken Paul to task for the pro-gun control rhetoric in his book Glock, The Rise of America’s Gun. But we’re not so blinded by ideology that we can’t see that even the appeasers who would compromise American gun rights recognize the truth from time to time. [Hey Paul, send a pic of yourself holding a Glock to guntruth@me.com when you get a chance, m’kay?]

Recommended For You

12 Responses to How Long Before Mayor Bloomberg Fires Paul M. Barrett?

  1. Oh snap…that boy is as good as gone, unemployment line here he comes !!
    But hey, that’s the price of the truth, the price of freedom sometimes.

  2. I don’t think he will lose his job. Good for him for talking common sense instead of SMBD all the time. Honestly bad things happen to good people. The method might change but in the end it stinks.
    My only hope is that this trend of rationality will continue to grow.

  3. I met Paul out in Reno during a gathering of Gun Bloggers. I received a review copy of his book, enjoyed it quite a bit (enough to purchase copies to give to friends and family), and even took him to my local range where he, his wife and myself spent a couple of very pleasant hours shooting. I think he’s an excellent writer, a pretty good guy, and tries hard to look at issues in a rational, balanced way.
    As I understand it, Bloomberg Businessweek is run with a fair amount of autonomy from NYC’s mayor/head of Bloomberg Media. Paul does his job quite well (he does other business reporting aside from firearms) , so I think he’s pretty safe where he is.

  4. I don’t think Paul will lose his job. MB needs someone employed by his media organization as proof to America that he MB is supportive of the 1st Amendment and a stand-up righteous fair guy (not).

  5. On another note, the latest Time magazine had an AR15 on the cover, titled How Guns Won. It wasn’t bad. The writer is horribly anti, but he was much fairer than I expected. Even admitted that the 94 AWB was a failure. Might be worth a piece here. Definitely worth reading.

  6. “tinkering with the rules on legally obtaining new guns—meaning tinkering with gun control—can have only a marginal effect on deterring determined mass killers.”

    Marginal at best. Thankfully the whack jobs use guns and not bombs. Even a modest bomb will kill more people than some off kilter whistle dick with a gun. The IRA has more than proven that. Take away guns, the nuts will use bombs and we still haven’t addressed the real issue.

  7. “then examine closely what changes in the law could have prevented it. The grim reality is that, in a society with 250 million to 300 million firearms already in private hands, tinkering with the rules on legally obtaining new guns—meaning tinkering with gun control—can have only a marginal effect on deterring determined mass killers.”

    Words mean things (professional deformation; besides, I’m looking for the axe).

    So, while tinkering with the rules dealing with obtaining may have marginal effects, what could have more than marginal effects?

    Broad reform of those laws dealing with obtaining firearms (instead of merely tinkering)?

    Sweeping statutory reforms regarding the possession, retention, storage, etc, of firearms (instead of just rules regarding obtaining firearms)?

    Even if the typical reading of constitutional rights comes with an expansive list of rights (penumbral rights), will those necessarily extend to the ammunition (seems to be the latest argument, doesn’t it?)

    Finally, let’s not forget Article 5. While today you may feel comfortable that an amendment to the constitution (repealing or modifying the 2nd) is not likely, feasible, politically supportable, etc, don’t think that it is so. Maybe not today, perhaps not tomorrow, but it’s not impossible. Nothing is off the table, and there are no sacred cows (save in India, of course).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *