Op-Ed: One Silly Summit

By Gerard Valentino

(This commentary has also been published at CNSNews.com and Townhall.com)

The recent summit led by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was yet another example of the anti-gun movement proving that their own cause has failed.

Bloomberg, and his band of big city mayors, called for an increase in the tracking of illegal guns, and more education for citizens on how to avoid violent encounters. Both ideas are excellent ways to reduce crime and help honest people live without fear of becoming the victim of a criminal attack. Unfortunately, Bloomberg’s gang headed by Boston Mayor Thomas Menino also called for more restrictive gun-control measures.

Considering the mountain of evidence that disproves gun-control as a viable way to reduce crime it is inexplicable that the mayors of two of America’s largest cities could be so ill-informed on the issue. Bloomberg and Menino don’t have to look any farther than their backyard to see just how poorly gun-control has fared. New York City and Massachusetts are two of the least gun friendly places in the nation. Yet, their crime rate is higher than places with permissive concealed carry laws, and places with laws that give the presumption of innocence to law-abiding citizens who use justified deadly force.

Click 'Read More' below for more.

The equivalent of calling for more gun-control to lower crime is to call for more oil as a way to stop your car’s oil leak. Putting more oil in the engine gives the appearance that something is being done about the leak, but it really is little more than window dressing that will eventually be exposed as a failure.

Our nation’s largest City, however, is saddled with a mayor who believes more oil in the engine, instead of a new way of thinking, is the answer.

Luckily, over the last 15 years, more and more areas of the country have been given back the right to bear arms granted by the creator, and affirmed in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.

Logically, elected officials that want to prove gun-control’s worth as a way to reduce crime need only to point to the higher crime rate in areas that have permissive gun laws, as compared to their anti-gun nirvana. There is only one problem – studies, and anecdotal evidence, have shown that less gun-control does equal less crime.

However, the anti-gun movement, and anti-gun elected officials, won’t let the facts, or logic, get in the way of their attachment to the vilification of guns. Even if it means an increase in hardship for the very people they are sworn to protect.

Instead of having the anti-gun summit openly scorned as an all symbolism, no substance farce. The establishment media beamed the story across the country as viable proof of gun-control’s value to society. They also buy into the story that the anti-gun movement desires reasonable gun-control as a way to take the most dangerous guns off the street.

Only the establishment media continues to believe that the gun-control movement has had a change of heart and no longer believes in complete gun confiscation. Adding to existing proof that the establishment media continues to feed any ridiculous notion that creates a little more circulation for their newspaper, or higher ratings for their news programming.

Not that much proof is needed.

For some, gun-control is given credence by the establishment media’s willingness to consider it newsworthy. The thought is furthered when New York’s Mayor speaks out, seemingly, as an expert on the issue.

Bloomberg’s ignorance to the damage gun-control has done for the safety and security of New Yorkers stands in stark contrast to his decision to support more restrictive gun laws. It only takes a willingness by Bloomberg to look at the facts, as opposed to the liberal establishment media’s suppositions and reliance on so-called common sense.

Rarely do common sense solutions prove to be a good idea, if they were, more taxes would equal more tax revenue, and the liberal media would have won John Kerry the last presidential election. As it turns out, neither proved to be the case because lower taxes grow the economy creating more revenue, and no amount of positive spin could make Kerry a viable candidate.

As time ticks away on the gun-control’s hey-day during the early 1990’s we can only imagine how desperate they are to become relevant again. Gun-control advocates have admitted they are only biding their time for a more favorable climate to renew their movement. We can only surmise they wake up every morning and hope somewhere a school massacre takes place, or a high profile gun-crime is committed, so they can recharge the base of supporters they’ve lost.

The American public was fooled once by the false hope of gun-control and a seemingly non-violent utopia it promised.

It will take more to fool us again.

Gerard Valentino is the Buckeye Firearms Association Central Ohio Chair.