Supreme court has already made the determination that police aren't required to protect anything to begin with.
If they did do it (laughably implausible) I imagine it would have just the opposite effectr.
No police = people protecting themselves as they have the right to do = buy/use firearms *
In the grander scheme this would result in many questioning why they should bother taking police back on the job after they went on strike because they worked out for real that they could do it themselves.
F*** bloomberg
Deliberately trying to create victims to further his agenda
* he's going under the assumption that w/o police everyone will obey the letter of law, but criminals won't and will commit the crimes they would and do the things they do anyway regardless of police presence so somehow 'prove' we really, really, really need more cops not less and less guns not more. (and ironically would allow some the more thuggish police to go out and do the crimes they always wanted to but couldn't because of job restrictions)
Cops go on national strike, I'm going full on machine gun and IED and not ever even care if police go back on the job.