Posted: 2/3/2003 3:57:33 AM EDT
|
The Wall Street Journal February 3, 2003 Gun Control, Ashcroft Style Editorial http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1044232123411629504,00.html Attorney General John Ashcroft just gave his first significant update on Project Safe Neighborhoods, a flagship program launched in the first months of the Bush Administration. Gun criminals, and the gun-control lobby, might take notice. Under Safe Neighborhoods, the Administration pledged $550 million, 113 new U.S. "gun prosecutors," and more cooperation with state and local officials to put criminals who violate existing gun laws in jail. "It will send an unmistakable message," said President Bush at the launch. "If you use a gun illegally, you will do hard time." The point here is that "hard time" resonates with the criminal class far more than "five-day waiting periods." Since the start of Safe Neighborhoods, federal gun crime prosecutions have increased by 32% -- which doesn't include the greater state and local prosecutions that have also resulted from the program. In 2002, more than 10,600 defendants were charged for violating federal firearm statutes, and 93% received prison sentences. Seventy-one percent of those will spend three or more years in jail. This is important, because two-thirds of all firearms crimes are committed by repeat offenders. These are the people who will get their hands on illegal weapons no matter how many thousands of gun laws are on the books. The Clinton Administration never grasped this point and spent its time devising new ways to keep average citizens from getting guns, while leaving bad guys on the street. The results are a vindication for Mr. Ashcroft, who has been vilified for being soft on gun violence because he continues to defend the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners. In reality, gun violence has declined from 12% of violent crime in 1993 to 9% in the most recent Justice statistics. Any gun control advocates out there care to apologize? |
|
These safe city projects have been taking off like wild fire. They are extremely effective and receive litte to no coverage by the media. I applaud the efforts of this program's originators and supporters. It all started in Virginia with strong [b]NRA[/b] endorsement and financial support during the lobbying onset. You can't refute these factually positive results. I'm surprised more pro-gunners don't use this info during debates with the antis. |
|
Even as rabid as I am in the fight for gun rights, I must point out a couple of things here. One would have to be ignorant to believe this article is [b]not[/b] a slam on the Clinton Administration and its record on gun control and crime. I've got more problems with that regime than I care to list but let's take a look at this quote from the article. [b]"Since the start of Safe Neighborhoods, federal gun crime prosecutions have increased by 32% -- which doesn't include the greater state and local prosecutions that have also resulted from the program..."[/b] 1. We are given a set of two time samples in this article, "Since the start of SN" and any time before the start. That's a pretty big spread. The time sample could be back to Bush I, or Reagan, or Carter, or Roosevelt. The article does not say. We are given the impression that the comparison is between Bush II and Clinton but no factual comparison is made. [b]"In reality, gun violence has declined from 12% of violent crime in 1993 to 9% in the most recent Justice statistics."[/b] 2. Again, we are given two sets of time samples. Again, one sample is finite "1993" and the other isn't. All we are told is that it is the "most recent." What is most recent? 1999? 2000? 2001? We are not told, and because we are not told, my first suspicion is that it may be because "most recent" could be the latter part of the Clinton Administration. If that is so, and the purpose of the article is to slam Clinton, the author wouldn't want to include any factual information that would validate his policies. Just a few observations. Sometimes the information we are given is less important than the information we aren't given. |
|
Quoted: [b]"Since the start of Safe Neighborhoods, federal gun crime prosecutions have increased by 32% -- which doesn't include the greater state and local prosecutions that have also resulted from the program..."[/b] I really don't care if it was from back in the stone ages - the point being made is that this [b]Ashcroft[/b] backed program is working (and quite well at that). [b]"In reality, gun violence has declined from 12% of violent crime in 1993 to 9% in the most recent Justice statistics."[/b] Again, even if the most recent was 1994, the point is that, due to [b]THIS[/b] program, we are seeing decreased crime. edited: I see your point, and I agree that it may have been a very well deserved bash on Klinton, but my value of the story is the great results being derived from "Safe Cities." [:D] |
|
Quoted: I really don't care if it was from back in the stone ages - the point being made is that this [b]Ashcroft[/b] backed program is working (and quite well at that). If indeed it is, I am glad it is working too. Just pointing out that if the author is trying to make comparisons b/t Bush II (Ashcroft) and Clinton (Reno), show us data from [b]both[/b] admins. It is quite clear that the article is as much a defense of Ashcroft as it is an indictment of Clinton. If this article were presented in a formal debate on the issue of gun-control, it would be chopped to pieces without data being clearly presented to undermine Clinton's policies. [b]"In reality, gun violence has declined from 12% of violent crime in 1993 to 9% in the most recent Justice statistics."[/b] Again, even if the most recent was 1994, the point is that, due to [b]THIS[/b] program, we are seeing decreased crime. Not so, 82nd. If the "most recent" was 1994, as you jest, this information would not prove anything about project Safe Neighborhoods. Likewise, since we are not told what year the "9%" figure was attributed to, we can't, in all honesty, claim that this Project caused the reduction from 12% to 9%. Based on that quote, no one can make a valid claim that Project SN had anything to do with a reduction in violent gun crime. If it did, I think the author would have included the dates of the "most recent" figures, but as we see, he didn't. Why? If any of us were in a formal debate about this issue and happened to use this article, we'd get pummeled because of its lack of information. |
|
Quoted: Doesn't anybody here feel uncomfortable about getting the Federal government involved in fighting petty crime? Isn't that what local PDs are for? Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Government is supposed to be everywhere fighting crime? Federal prosecuters were sought for federal convictions, i.e. mandatory 5 year minimum (behind bars) sentences. They are sending the message that if you get caught using a firearm in the commission of your crime - SLAM! 5 years of your life are automatically gone without negotiation. |
|
Quoted: If any of us were in a formal debate about this issue and happened to use this article, we'd get pummeled because of its lack of information. Agreed with your above point. My satisfaction lies with the fact that this program is working quite well. Well enough to be spreading across the country. It is absolutely a program to be embraced by the pro-freedom advocates of the 2nd Amendment. |
|
Quoted: BTW, if anyone DOES want the totality of statistics on this - it is VERY easily found. Wobblin's debating point is with this atricle, not the program. Right, Wobblin'? Precisely, 82nd. I'd just hate for any of us to whip out this article against the antis and get it smooshed in our face. Good call. |
|
I read an article this weekend that talked about IMHO an alternative to more gun control laws. The city has installed microphones in some of the high crime neighborhoods here in Charelston, SC. A few days ago someone began shooting a gun. The police triangulated the location of the gunfire within 40 ft of the event and were on scene in less than three minutes. Three "gentlemen" were arested for discharging a firearm in the city limits. The "gentleman" with the handgun was on parole and it was later determined to he had stolen the weapon from a vehicle a few days before. So 3 bad guys arrested ( well 1 bad guy and 2 suspected bad guys) and a stolen weapon recovered without additonsl guns control laws. Seems to be a better alterative than more laws. |
|
Another tricky part for us is the mantra, "enforce the laws on the books instead of passing more gun-control laws." Be very careful using that line with anyone, fellas. When we say stuff like that, we immediately justify any gun-control law on the books, even if it is clearly unConstitutional. I, for one, try very hard never to concede any loss to the antis, whether or not that loss translated into a gun-control law or not. My fear is that when we say "enforce the laws on the books," the antis can then say that when the current laws were being proposed, we were very much against them, but now we want to see them enforced. Ouch, not good. Never concede, guys. Never concede to the antis. |
|
Under Safe Neighborhoods, the Administration pledged $550 million, 113 new U.S. "gun prosecutors," and more cooperation with state and local officials to put criminals who violate existing gun laws in jail. better hide your post ban [s]high[/s] regualar capacity mags |
|
Quoted: Another tricky part for us is the mantra, "enforce the laws on the books instead of passing more gun-control laws." Be very careful using that line with anyone, fellas. When we say stuff like that, we immediately justify any gun-control law on the books, even if it is clearly unConstitutional. I, for one, try very hard never to concede any loss to the antis, whether or not that loss translated into a gun-control law or not. My fear is that when we say "enforce the laws on the books," the antis can then say that when the current laws were being proposed, we were very much against them, but now we want to see them enforced. Ouch, not good. Never concede, guys. Never concede to the antis. Ah-ha! Excellent point! I would NEVER speak those words. That would be tantamount to agreeing to the AWB. I do not wish to enforce ALL of the current gun laws - not in the least. I advocate prosecuting criminals who are committing crimes using firearms. It has held pertinence since the 'Old West' and still has a ring of justification today. We want REAL criminals off the streets. Criminals are those people who have [b]harmed[/b] others. Law abiding citizens who own Constitutionally protected firearms have harmed no one! I'm very happy you brought that up, Wobblin'. |