The idea of an organization dedicated to reducing the number or "illegal guns" in their cities is rather disingenuous at best, and should make any mayor wonder about the real agenda. Consider: What is an "illegal gun?" A machine-gun? No, it is legal if you have the appropriate license; a concealed handgun? ditto; a "short-barreled rifle or shotgun? Still no, and for the same reason. In fact, there is essentially no such thing as an "illegal gun" in the USA. What is illegal is not the gun itself, but either 1) its possession by certain types of individuals (felons, the unlicensed, those who obtained the gun by criminal means - burglary, illegal sales transaction, etc.), 2) its possession in certain prohibited places (airports, bars, etc.), or much more commonly, 3) the use of a gun in the commission of a crime. The use of a firearm in the commission of a crime typically adds to the penalty at trial, but the trial is always based, not upon the gun, but upon the fact that a crime was committed, whether or not a gun was used. The point is simply that we already have laws that prohibit things like rape, robbery, or murder (regardless of how they are committed), and no one suggests that we have a campaign against "illegal" knives, cars, clubs, condoms, etc. If mayor Bloomberg and his ilk want to reduce crime, they have only to enforce existing laws (which is already in their job descriptions). If this were actually their objective, the NRA would be their strongest supporter, as strict enforcement of existing gun laws has been the NRA's mantra for several decades now. "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" indeed; how about being a tad more honest and calling themselves either "Mayors Against Criminals," (if that's really what they mean), or just "Mayors Against Guns?"

Do guns embolden criminal types to commit crimes they wouldn't without guns? Would crimes of passion be less deadly if a gun wasn't handy? I say yes to both. Don't you feel more empowered with a gun in your hand? Well so do they. Mayors are under pressure from their constituants to do something about gun violence and they try to think outside the box for anything that will be effective in reducing the amount of guns out there that aren't being used legally. Guns taken out of the hands of criminals before they commit a crime is far better than punishing them after the deed is done.

So you are in favor of taking the rights away from law abiding citizens due to the actions of a very small percentage of the population who chooses to commit crimes with guns?

We could always try the alternative? Give them more guns so they kill themselves off, less to bother arresting and convicting then.

No.

Glad you clarified that.