demsrule4life
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-14-04 08:44 AM
Original message |
Facts show U.S. vigilance |
|
Under President Bush's leadership of Project Safe Neighborhoods, gun-crime prosecutions have reached record levels. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-01-14-oppose_x.htmWhat is up with USA Today?
|
MrBenchley
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-14-04 08:55 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Imagine that.....the RKBA crowd posting AshKKKroft propaganda |
|
"Mark Corallo is director of public affairs for the U.S. Department of Justice."
|
Superfly
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-14-04 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. The proof is in the pudding... |
|
"At the same time, the violent crime rate has plunged 21%. That's what makes some recent criticism surprising. Consider: Federal gun-crime prosecutions increased 68% in the past three years. Last year, the Justice Department set a new record by charging 23% more individuals for violating gun laws."
|
MrBenchley
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-14-04 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. All padding, all the time |
|
"Last year, the Justice Department set a new record by charging 23% more individuals for violating gun laws." Mostly by moving the cases out of state courts. And as we saw frrom an earlier story, in 40% of the cases, the culprits received no jail time....and in most of the remaining ones, the culprits pled guilty for lighter sentences.
Some hot shit progrram that is, all right.
|
SmokingLoon
(126 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-14-04 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. Who would've thunk it? |
|
Bench is against the Federal Government prosecuting gun criminals? This makes no sense. Or are certain people only for prosecuting criminals when it makes a Democrat, not a Republican, look good?
|
MrBenchley
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-14-04 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. Indeed, who would have thunk it? |
|
The RKBA crowd rooting for a phony stat being pushed by pResident Turd and John AshKKKroft in a propaganda piece by a GOP flack.
"Or are certain people only for prosecuting criminals when it makes a Democrat, not a Republican, look good?" Jeeze, you mean certain people are supposed to want to make a Democrat look BAD by pretending this asswipe is doing something other than shuffling cases from state court to Federal court to pad phony stats?
Guess that's RKBA "logic", or whatever that is. Glad I don't have a speck of whatever that noise is.
|
SmokingLoon
(126 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-14-04 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. If a frog had wings...eom |
MrBenchley
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-14-04 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. And if an unelected drunk was beholden to the corrupt gun industry |
|
he'd shuffle state cases into federal court and put out bullshit press releases like this.
|
Romulus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-14-04 04:10 PM
Response to Original message |
|
if some people here in this thread are to be believed, then:
1) the total number of state/fed combined gun-related prosecutions has remained constant, meaning that the types of law enforcement policing efforts have remained constant, and 2) despite this consistency, the violent crime rate has dropped,
and
3) the only change since Project Safe Neighborhoods began is that more states have enacted fair-issue CCW laws.
I guess that's some objective evidence to point to in support of the assertion that CCW laws DO NOT cause violent crime problems.:evilgrin:
|
MrBenchley
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-14-04 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. Or it's an utter pantload |
|
from our dishonest attorney general....
Wonder how far they'd drop if we had sane gun laws....
|
Withergyld
(685 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-14-04 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
12. If we had sane laws.... |
|
that were effective in reducing criminal access to firearms without hindering law abiding citizens, the rates would drop even further. The AWB has done little to restrict access to firearms Closing the "gunshow loophole" will have little if any effect on criminal access to firearms. It really is time for sane gun control laws.
|
MrBenchley
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-14-04 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
13. Hand us another BIG laugh |
CO Liberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-14-04 04:25 PM
Response to Original message |
10. Here's Up With USA Today |
|
At the bottom of this article:
Mark Corallo is director of public affairs for the U.S. Department of Justice.
So this article is about as believable and factual as an article in the Washington Times or the Limbaugh Letter.
|
MrBenchley
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-14-04 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
11. And it happens to be the same day |
|
that the AGS story was in USA Today...so of course they have to respond with some bullshit.
|
alwynsw
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-15-04 04:00 PM
Response to Original message |
14. We only thought the (Louisville, KY) Courier-Journal slanted left until |
|
Gannett, the owner of USA Today, bought it from the Bingham family (As in Barry and crew. Pops was Joe Kennedy's predecessor at the Court of St. James under FDR.) Now it's almost ultra left. (Why do I say that? Hmmm, Kentucky - tobacco - Bible belt. The CJ is pushing smoking bans and gay rights - bans bad, rights good - in the very home of the Southern Baptist HQ. That's both awfully brave and awfully left for this area.) So now USA Today publishes a press release that makes PSN look good through statistics and it's a "pantload".
Simply because the powers that be are currently in the opposition camp does not mean that they cannot have programs that work. Gee, the folks at USA Today evidently felt that it is factual and newsworthy. I don't believe that Gannett is in the business of publishing falsehoods and trivialities in the new section.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 12:35 PM
Response to Original message |