Mayor Bloomberg makes a startlingly frank admission. [View all]

[Atypical Liberal]

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2012/08/28/bloomberg-defends-nypd-officers-in-empire-state-building-shooting/

“Let me ask you this, Miss, ‘Somebody pointed a gun at you, and you had a gun in your pocket, what would you do?” said Bloomberg in response to a reporter’s question about the police officers’ actions.

When the reporter didn’t respond, the mayor said, “I think that answers the question.”

“The police commissioner’s looked at it. They acted more than appropriately,” Bloomberg added. “I’ve seen the film. The guy turned, pointed his gun at the two police officers – and you can really ask that question after that?”

Bloomberg said it’s “sad” that passersby were injured but, on occasion, bullets fragment, ricochet and hit unintended targets.

“Fortunately, nobody was hurt seriously, and just sometimes things happen,” the mayor said."

The mayor is actually right - if someone points a gun at you, and you have a gun in your pocket, why of course you would try to defend yourself! Anyone would.

And yes, it's true that when you defend yourself with a gun, it is possible that collateral damage might happen, with bullet fragments, ricochets, and unintended targets might be hit.

But what is startling here is that Bloomberg readily makes this confession - but only concerning police officers.

Why not ordinary citizens? The reporter he asked probably could not have had a firearm in her pocket, unless she was rich and well-connected like most of the few CCW permit holder in NYC are.

If it's reasonable for a police officer to pull a gun and shoot someone pointing a gun at them, why isn't it reasonable for a regular citizen, like the reporter that Bloomberg thinks ought to have done the same, to also be able to do so?

Why is self-defense reasonable for agents of the state but not for citizens?

It's not.

Bloomberg's startlingly frank confession highlights this dichotomy perfectly.