Gun Control Group's Seven-Figure Ad Campaign A Boon To Endangered House Dems (VIDEO)

Americans United for Safe Streets, a non-partisan group advocating gun control, is set to launch a seven-figure ad campaign Thursday targeting candidates on public safety and closing gun loopholes.

A television ad in Virginia features the brother of a Virginia Tech victim and mailings in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania call on Congressional candidates to fight gun crime.

The campaign will target a handful of Republican hopefuls and could be a boon to their Democratic counterparts, including Philadelphia-area Democrat Bryan Lentz, Ohio Democrat Betty Sutton, Virginia Democrat Gerry Connolly, and Michigan Democrat Gary Peters.

Most of these Democrats face tight races. The Washington Post has reported the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is increasingly confident Sutton will win in light of harassment allegations against opponent Tom Ganley. But Vice President Joe Biden was out campaigning for Lentz Wednesday, and late Tuesday night the DCCC gave Connelly's campaign a $1.1 million boost. Gary Peters meanwhile, now holds a small but significant edge over his Republican opponent.

Americans United for Safe Streets spokesman Alexander Howe said the organization is not picking sides.

"The campaign is intended to highlight the records and positions of various candidates surrounding public safety. We'd like all of our public officials to be tough on gun crime but as a non-partisan advocacy group we are not endorsing any candidates."

House Republicans targeted by the ad campaign include Pennsylvania Republican Pat Meehan, Ohio Republican Tom Ganley, Virgina Republican Keith Fimian, and Michigan Republican Rocky Raczkowski.

Watch the ad calling on Fimian to close the gun show "loophole," a gap in the law that allows some sellers at gun shows in Virginia to sell weapons without conducting a background check of the purchaser.

Comments

[OdinsEye]

06:18 PM on 11/03/2010

Dardedar Math

GIVEN: Three countries, A, B, and C. Population of A is 10,000,000. Population of B is 20,000,000. Population of C is 30,000,000.

GIVEN: Country A has 2,000 diabetics or a per capita rate of 20 per 100,000. Country B has 5000 diabetics and a rate of 25 per 100,000. Country C has 6600 diabetics and a rate of 22 per 100,000.

According to Dardedar, you can add the rates of 20, 25, and 22 for a per capita rate of 67 per 100,000.

But, if you apply Dardedar's rate of 67 per 100,000 to the combined population of the three countries (60,000,000) that should mean a total of 40,200 diabetics. We can see that is incorrect by simply adding the number of diabetics ... 2000+5000+6600=13,600. Not 40,200.

The actual "combined" rate of the three countries is not 67 per 100,000, but rather 22.67 per 100,000.

You cannot simply add these kinds of rates the way Dardedar insists.

[rikilii]

10:05 AM on 11/04/2010

Actually, you simply CAN add them, but if you did, you'd be pretty "simple". That's not what that article is talking about, except that it's probably using that terminology for the very specific reason of misleading the reader into thinking that the discrepancy is greater than it really is.

In any case, it's no great secret that the U.S. has a much higher rate of firearm-related death than most other industrialized nations. The big secret, however, is why we even care whether a death is firearm-related or something else-related, or why it's even a valid exercise to compare the U.S. to other countries that are nothing like the U.S. France and Japan, for instance, somehow manage to have much higher suicide rates than the U.S., despite a lack of readily available firearms. If you point this fact out to the same antis, however, they'll tell you that those countries have cultural differences, and you can't compare them to the U.S. I wonder why the same rational doesn't apply to firearm death rates, or even homicide rates in general.

[J Ferguson]

10:21 AM on 11/04/2010

It's because, thanks to our socio-cultural history, and to the continuing efforts of campaigners such as yourselves, Americans treat guns as their go-to problem solvers, whether their problem is with themselves or with someone else.

[rstewart3]

01:22 AM on 11/02/2010

"Americans United for Safe Streets, a non-partisan group advocating gun control,"

By advocating for gun control, they have declared their partisanship.

"The campaign is intended to highlight the records and positions of various candidates surrounding public safety. We'd like all of our public officials to be tough on gun crime but as a non-partisan advocacy group we are not endorsing any candidates."

By highlighting the record and positions of various candidates over public safety, and with the desire of the public officials to be tough on gun crime, they are endorsing candidates by telling you which ones they disagree with. In other words...here are these guys we don't like, so keep that in mind when you vote. Just by doing this they have aligned themselves in a partisan way.

[J Ferguson]

09:30 AM on 11/02/2010

Are you actually inferring that there is a group that advocates gun control, and that an facet of their advocacy is identifying politicians who are unsympathetic to their cause? Really? Thank goodness you've uncovered their evil ruse. There may be time, yet, to avert tyranny!

[rstewart3]

03:41 PM on 11/02/2010

The point went completely over your inflated ego.

The point I was making is that a group should not consider itself non-partisan when it clearly supports a partisan issue. Gun control is one of those partisan issues, with the liberals and democrats overwhelmingly supporting gun control, and conservatives and republicans supporting gun rights.

Its not that hard to figure out what I was saying, unless you are too busy yapping and trying to put words in my post. Let me know when you are done, then perhaps we can have a serious, grown up discussion over this.

[Hagenj]

08:53 PM on 10/31/2010

“Here’s the part of this that bothers me the most: This is not an embracing of Republicans. It’s a rejection of Democrats,” said Andrew Myers, a veteran Democratic pollster who worked on several House campaigns.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44448_Page2.html#ixzz13zGEz1tB



Part of the reason the dems message is being so soundly rejected is their stance on gun control. America wants their guns, there is nothing to discuss.

[shangrolah]

01:56 AM on 10/30/2010

Doesn't seem right that there is so much interference in the race.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39875737/ns/politics-decision_2010/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39875737/ns/politics-decision_2010/

[Just4]

10:56 AM on 10/29/2010

I'm guessing that this will not be a "boon" to the candidates since everyone knows that these groups aren't really interested in anything except civilian disarmament.

[J Ferguson]

12:39 PM on 10/29/2010

Normal, un-obsessed people don't confuse a campaign for reduced gun violence with a campaign for civilian disarmament. Those candidates will do just fine.

[enlightened45]

03:25 PM on 10/29/2010

Wishful thinking or a guess?

[Just4]

03:33 PM on 10/29/2010

Educated guess and opinion.

Many Democrats have been reluctant to embrace gun-control legislation since the 1994 GOP takeover of Congress. Political analysts have said then-President Clinton’s crime bill, which contained the ban on federal assault weapons, helped Republican turnout that year. The ban expired in 2004.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/115953-despite-promises-obama-dem-congress-have-been-gun-friendly

[enlightened45]

09:15 AM on 10/29/2010

One of the members of the NRA's board of directors, while he was in the Senate, was Larry "Wide Stance" Craig of Idaho....and one of three senators who would not allow the confirmation of a permanent ATF chief because of their accusation the ATF was hostile to gun dealers. At the present time the top job is vacant because the NRA has lobbied against everyone nominated.

[rikilii]

10:10 AM on 10/29/2010

So you're basically saying that anti-gun politicians are easily bought.

Good to know.

By the way, what exactly does the ATF chief supposedly do that the guy currently running the agency CAN'T do?

[enlightened45]

11:49 AM on 10/31/2010

My reply about your nonsensical comment must have hit a nerve and been flagged into oblivion....So, again, what are you talking about?

[Rooster Coburn]

02:35 PM on 10/29/2010

As noted in a piece elsewhere here by Josh/Grits the ATF are kinda like "re-enactors". They're really re-enacting the 1938 German Weapons Law, which was the inspiration for the 1968 Gun Control Act which was shepherded through Congress by Conn. Senator Dodd who became familiar with it while in that country after WWII.

[J Ferguson]

03:42 AM on 11/01/2010

It appears that you've finally discovered something about the Third Reich that you don't like.

[shangrolah]

01:21 AM on 10/29/2010

There are too many outside groups involved in this race. People here might support this group but they don t want the NRA in there and they probably don't want candidates funding third parties. Everyone probably better off with the district picking its own on its own terms.

http://www­.delcotime­s.com/arti­cles/2010/­10/27/news­/doc4cc856­24c5a5b984­384560.txt­and

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39875737/ns/politics-decision_2010/

[Sugarmaker]

10:01 PM on 10/28/2010

Link for prior post

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

[Sugarmaker]

09:55 PM on 10/28/2010

In the early 2000's, a more pro gun control congress commissioned a CDC study to support tighter ownership restrictions. The CDC concluded:

"On the basis of national law assessments (the Gun Control Act of 1968 in the United States and the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1977 in Canada), international comparisons (between the United States and Canada), and index studies (all conducted within the United States), available evidence was insufficient to determine whether the degree of firearms regulation was associated with decreased (or increased) violence. The findings were inconsistent and most studies were methodologically inadequate to allow conclusions about causal effects. Moreover, as conducted, index studies, even if consistent, would not allow specification of which laws to implement."

The CDC was not expected to reach this conclusion, and no more studies were commissioned.

[Dardedar]

10:26 PM on 10/28/2010

Here's one:

“…the rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. American children are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die in a firearm accident than children in these other countries.”

--Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Rates of homicide, suicide, and firearm-related deaths among children in 26 industrialized countries. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1997; 46 :101 –105

http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm

Gee, I wonder if maybe it's the guns?

[Sugarmaker]

10:37 PM on 10/28/2010

The study you cite also states:
"Except for rates for firearm-related suicide in Northern Ireland and firearm-related fatalities of unknown intent in Austria, Belgium, and Israel, rates for all types of firearm-related deaths were higher in the United States than in the other countries. "

Which is a bit like saying "Except for the countries higher firearm death rates than the US, the countries all had a lower rate". In 1997 CDC was a tool for gun control.

[Thirdpower]

11:46 PM on 10/28/2010

"The rate of firearm injury to young adolescents (ages 10 to 14) is
very low in most of Illinois, with numbers generally too low to
compute rates.

The rates of firearm hospitalization and death in Chicago are at least
four times higher than any other region in Illinois (Figure 4).

Southwest and Far South Chicago adolescents ages 15 to 19 have
very high hospitalization rates due to firearm injuries at 139.3 per
100,000 and 134.1 per 100,000 respectively (Table 2).

Children's Memorial Research Center

Where are the strictest laws?

[enlightened45]

08:46 AM on 10/29/2010

**** (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)

Conveniently left out......

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

08:29 PM on 10/28/2010

Why don't these gun hater groups spend their efforts keeping judges from giving light sentences to and letting out early violent criminals who use guns instead of targeting law abiding gun owners with more laws they will have to follow and criminals will ignore? End gun crime recitivism... stop liberal judges.

[J Ferguson]

12:02 PM on 10/29/2010

Your campaign will be more impactful, credibility-wise, if you correctly spell "recidivism".

[enlightened45]

12:20 PM on 10/29/2010

I think he was referring to be able to recite the 2nd amendment by heart, without the militia part, of course.....otherwise known as recitivism.....

[rikilii]

10:16 AM on 11/03/2010

Aren't you guys among those who oppose any kind of literacy or intelligence test as a requirement to voting?

If so, it would seem rather disingenuous to focus on the OP misspelling a word by one letter, rather than addressing the substance of his comment.

[GritsJr]

03:43 PM on 10/28/2010

Wonderful! Great to see the 600+ mayors in this organization weighing in on critical public safety issues that have been criminally ignored by this Congress (which never stops thinking about what it can do to appease the NRA). Omar Samaha speaks from experience here - he has purchased handguns and assault weapons from gun shows without showing ID or undergoing a background check and knows how backwards and dangerous the current system is (Google his great video on ABC's 20/20 program).

[Just4]

03:49 PM on 10/28/2010

Isn't the one who broke the law by performing straw purchases (he bought them for someone else) and out of state buys?

[GritsJr]

04:11 PM on 10/28/2010

Actually, no. He bought them for himself and then immediately turned them in to the Richmond Police Department, which is entirely legal.

[Sugarmaker]

03:51 PM on 10/28/2010

Since the top 10 injury AND top 10 death causes don't involve firearms, the issue seems more about politics than safety.

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/Nonfatal_2008-a.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/Unintentional_2007-a.pdf

[Dardedar]

10:36 PM on 10/28/2010

Kind of looks like a "safety" issue to me:

"The unintentional firearm-related death rate for children 0-14 years old is NINE times higher in the U.S. than in the 25 other countries combined (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, p. 101).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Rates of Homicide, Suicide and Firearm-related Death Among Children – 26 Industrialized Countries." Morbidity Mortality Weekly Report, 46(5)(02/07/97):101-105

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm

[Dardedar]

12:19 AM on 10/29/2010

"the top 10 injury AND top 10 death causes don't involve firearms">>

Well, unless we look at a more specific category:

1) "Firearms are the second-leading cause of death (after motor vehicle accidents) for young people ages 1-19 in the U.S."

--WISQARS, Leading Causes of Death Reports, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control, 2005 data, http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html

[DaveNYC]

12:31 PM on 10/28/2010

What is this organization? I've never heard of it before. More pertinently, where did it get a 7-figure budget? Any why is it wasting that budget advocating "feel good" issues right before an election...if it's supposed to be non-partisan?

[J Ferguson]

12:38 PM on 10/28/2010

Your unawareness of this organization, or of the source of its funding, or your appraisal of its advocacy as a "waste", are of negligible consequence, I'm afraid.

[glockman]

01:46 PM on 10/28/2010

Sort of like your opinion on anything related to firearms.

[DaveNYC]

04:35 PM on 10/28/2010

Thank you for contributing that. Very helpful.

[Just4]

01:23 PM on 10/28/2010

It's New York Mayor Bloomberg.

http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527cmtedetail_donors.php?cycle=2008&ein=263516710

[DaveNYC]

04:36 PM on 10/28/2010

Thank you. Your response was legimitately helpful.

[enlightened45]

12:28 PM on 10/28/2010

The National Tracing Center, a one-story building in Martinsburg, WVA, is the only place in the nation authorized to trace gun sales. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has to try to decipher slips of paper using only archaic magnifying glasses in order to trace the paths of guns used in crimes. Strange that the government is prohibited from putting gun ownership record on a reasonable, searchable, computer database. But with the intense lobbying efforts of the National Rifle Association, the NRA has successfully blocked all attempts for any computerization. Think how the other law enforcement departments would be severely hampered and/or completely stymied by this type of absurd ruling. With these restrictions the FBI would have the impossible task of solving crimes with fewer resources than 19th century Scotland Yard. Jack the Ripper could very well be as safe in this country today as he was in London over a century ago.

I find this unconscionable for an organization to have so devoted itself to preventing this record keeping atrocity.

[Old Jarhead]

01:43 PM on 10/28/2010

There already is a National firearms registration scheme in effect. What annoys you, it's not centralized and administered by the government. For instance:

Each buyer must fill out a ATF form 4473. The buyers name, address, DL number, often the SSAN, the make, model, and serial number of the firearm are all entered, as well as the NICS result. The dealer must keep these forms for 20 years.

The dealer must also keep a bound book with all the same information as was entered into the ATF form 4473. He must keep that log until the store closes, or in perpetuity. If the store closes, that book MUST be turned over to the ATF.

So, you already have your wish. Like I said, you are annoyed that it is not controlled and administered by the Feds.

[Dardedar]

10:55 PM on 10/28/2010

Wrong. The gun show loophole bypasses all of this and allows private dealers to sell weapons to anyone, terrorist, felon whatever, cash down, no checks, no receipt, no record.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/gun-show-loophole-closed/story?id=10404727

And sell they do:

Then proceed to here: http://www­.bradycamp­aign.org/f­acts/guntr­afficking

Excerpt:

* “No-check” sales account for an estimated 40 percent of gun sales in the U.S. (Police Foundation, p. 27).

* ATF gun trafficking investigations revealed that over an 18-month period:

- Trafficking by unregulated private sellers accounted for 22,508 guns (ATF, June 2000, p. 13);

- Trafficking in firearms at gun shows and flea markets, where background checks are not required for every sale, accounted for 25,862 guns (ATF, June 2000, p. 13).

* You can see direct photographic and video evidence of assault weapons and other guns for sale without background checks at gun shows from multiple sources:

- Virginia Tech survivor Colin Goddard visited gun shows in the summer of 2009 and caught private sales, including sales of assault weapons, on camera;

- New York City officials mounted undercover stings at guns shows in Ohio, Tennessee, and Nevada in 2009;

- University of California researcher Garen Wintemute conducted an academic study of 78 gun shows in 19 states between 2005 and 2008, producing photographs and video of private sales;

- Cinncinnati, OH, TV station WLWT reported on private sales with no background checks at a 2007 gun show in Kentucky.”

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/guntrafficking

[glockman]

01:50 PM on 10/28/2010

"The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has to try to decipher slips of paper using only archaic magnifying glasses in order to trace the paths of guns used in crimes."

You're telling a partial truth here. ATF uses eTrace (which I have access to) to follow a firearm's path of sale. Yes, it is administered through the NTC.

The only path that can't be traced is that of a private seller. Any other sale, including through pawn brokers, or used firearm sales through an authorized FFL, are traceable.

What you would like is government records of private transactions made by private citizens. This is something not within government purview.

[Epiphany2b]

10:57 AM on 10/28/2010

I'm here to say that after receiving a response to one of my posts here last night, I've changed my opinion:

I suggested that everyone carrying a gun would lead to the ultimate in road rage, and was told that in Texas -- Dallas, I think? -- where everyone supposedly carries, the incidences of road rage have gone down. In processing this information, I've come to understand that if everyone thinks everyone else is packing, one might think things through before attacking someone else. It wouldn't be enough for me to get one, but I might put that Yosemite Sam bumper sticker on my vehicle that warns people to back off.

[Pourshot]

11:12 AM on 10/28/2010

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. -- Robert A. Heinlein

With 2.5 MILLION defensive uses every year in this country -- Guns SAVE Lives! (Google Dr. Gary Kleck)

[J Ferguson]

11:35 AM on 10/28/2010

Who better to advise us on how to live our lives than a second-rate science fiction writer?

[enlightened45]

12:01 PM on 10/28/2010

Kleck attempted to debunk Hememway of Harvard on the actual statistics. Laughable that a Florida State University criminologist takes on a Harvard prof. Best Kleck stick to rooting for the FSU football team.....and leave the self-serving "research" to others....

[eljefefx]

07:09 PM on 10/28/2010

Not everyone carries a gun in Texas.

[EricBishop]

11:50 PM on 10/28/2010

True...plenty of paraplegics in Texas. Very sad.

[shangrolah]

01:44 AM on 10/28/2010

Biden was out in force campaigning for Lentz,

http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2010/10/27/news/doc4cc85624c5a5b984384560.txtand

Lentz is already playing the gun issue with his own adds. Plus DCCC is putting a lot of money into the campaign.

And also they fuding a third party candidate.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39875737/ns/politics-decision_2010/

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69Q4XS20101027