An Anti-Endorsement I'm Thrilled to Have

Our campaign for Manhattan DA has received many endorsements -- like Congressman Jerry Nadler, the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys, Former NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton, to name a few -- but today it's an anti-endorsement I'm particularly proud to receive.

Specifically, the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, the official NRA-affiliated State Association in New York, urged its members yesterday to vote against me in the race for DA. And I couldn't be prouder.

Taking aggressive but common-sense measures to keep New Yorkers safe from gun violence is what this city needs, but is something the NYSRPA doesn't seem to get. What they did get right is that as someone who has worked as a national leader in handgun control, I will do everything in my power as District Attorney to make sure that laws are passed and real action is taken on this issue.

As Assistant District Attorney, one of the most frustrating and difficult things I had to face wasn't just the prevalence of homicides committed by the use of handguns, but the realization that the fight against gun violence cannot be won one gun at a time, simply persecuting the violent crimes committed with guns. Since then, I have worked tirelessly to pass national and state gun control laws, as the President of Handgun Control (now called the Brady Campaign) where we masterminded the passage of the Brady Bill, the national Assault Weapons Ban, and the ban on large volume clips. The recent defeat of the Thune Amendment in the Senate was also a victory to be celebrated -- but the fact of the matter is that violence still persists; the number of guns entering New York from out of state continues to be a major problem; and people are still dying from illegal guns.

I have been fighting the NRA on gun control for many years, and as District Attorney, taking common-sense gun control measures will be one of my priorities in keeping New York safe. If the NRA can't get behind that, then I'm not their candidate for DA.

I would, however, like to be yours. Please visit our web site, abornforda.com, for more information or to get in touch with our campaign.

Follow Richard Aborn on Twitter: www.twitter.com/abornforda

Comments

[Thirdpower]

And Aborn loses the primary. Guess running on a "I only care about banning guns" platform didn't work out really well for him.

http://www.gunpoliticsny.com/?p=242

[Thirdpower]

Sorry Aborn. You lose.

[legaleagle 45]

"Defense lawyer and political scion Cy Vance won the primary. With no Republican challenger, he is effectively Manhattan's next district attorney. Vance, the son of former Secretary of State Cyrus R. Vance, had 44 percent of the vote in the three-way race, with 99 percent of precincts reporting. Former judge Leslie Crocker Snyder had 30 percent. Aborn, a gun control advocate, had 26 percent"

[djcrsn]

the fact he came in dead last should be an indication how much support there is for BC style gun bans

[Jadegold]

"gun bans" = forbidding criminals from access to guns.

At least one NRAista has the courage to admit it.

[mike102]

""gun bans" = forbidding criminals from access to guns."

Since when? Chicago and DC had gun bans for decades, and they didn't deprive criminals of anything. They have two of the highest homicide rates in the country to show for it.

[Berettasskeeter]

Nonsense. What illogical logic. Please return to h.s. for a lesson in economics and history.
Semper fi

[Thirdpower]

"common-sense gun control measures" = gun bans.

At least one Bradyite has the courage to admit it.

[benEzra]

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, just released, there were 835 murders in your state in 2008. All rifles COMBINED, including "assault weapons", accounted for 12 of them. That's only 1.4%.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_20.html

It appears to me that fighting to ban the most popular civilian rifles in America is a bit misguided. More than twice as many New Yorkers were killed in 2008 using shoes and bare hands as using all styles of rifles combined.

Thankfully, Dems nationwide have largely dropped the Third Way's "assault weapon" bait-and-switch. Hopefully NY Dems will follow suit.

[Jadegold]

Hmmm. BenEzra makes his case on why necrophilia should be decriminalized--after all, it's a crime that very rarely occurs.

Of course, BenEzra is engaging in a logical fallacy; he wishes everyone would buy into the poor logic that regulation is only necessary *after* the fact. In reality, we regulate things because the potential for harm is great and/or enhanced.

[OldSFMJT]

Jadegold wrote: "BenEzra makes his case on why necrophilia should be decriminal­ized--afte­r all, it's a crime that very rarely occurs."

HUH??? I don't think anyone here really wants to know what sort of tortured logic you used to arrive at that analogy!

Let's try again. I'll type slowly so you can follow! If a device is used but rarely in the commission of crime, then laws which restrict the ownership of that device cannot significantly reduce crime.

Jadegold also wrote: we regulate things because the potential for harm is great and/or enhanced." Not constitutionally-guaranteed rights we don't! Would you try to spout that nonsense regarding the right to vote or the freedom from self-incrimination?

Old SF MJT

[legaleagle 45]

Jade wrote: "Hmmm. BenEzra makes his case on why necrophilia should be decriminal-ized--afte-r all, it's a crime that very rarely occurs."

Totally inaccurate characterization. If Ben had stated that crimes committed with assault weapons should be decriminalized because they rarely occur, then you would have a point, but that is not the case. What he is asserting is that crimes committed with assault weapons are so rare as to make preemptive regulations on assault weapons unnecessary.... or conversely he would be arguing against the necessity of providing armed police guards to protect dead bodies to insure that necrophilia does not occur... and of course, you would be arguing that such armed guards are an appropriate allocation of resources.

Jade wrote: In reality, we regulate things because the potential for harm is great and/or enhanced."

Indeed we do, yet Ben provided his rationale for just exactly the converse of what you assert. Since the harm committed by assault weapons is relatively slight compared to other methods employed it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that the potential for harm is greater (or enhanced) with respect to assault weapons than with other weapons associated with crime. You can start with knives which are responsible for more homicides annually in the USA than shotguns or rifles COMBINED.... Then you can explain how assault weapons is inherently more dangerous than those semi auto rifles and shotguns which are not classified as assault weapons

[benEzra]

So-called "assault weapons" may be owned on the same basis as any other non-automatic civilian rifle, and are the most popular centerfire rifles in the United States, yet all rifles COMBINED account for less than 3% of murders, and rifle homicide is decreasing, not increasing.

Those who claim that the "potential for harm is great and/or enhanced" with regard to nontraditional looking rifles are living in a fantasy world. Rifles are not, in fact, a crime problem in the United States and never have been, regardless of how the stock is shaped or what the receiver looks like.

[Jadegold]

Another canard brought to us by the usual suspects is that all we need to do is lock up criminals and throw away the key. This is a smokescreen.

Sentences for all criminals--not just violent ones--have increased dramatically over the past 20 years. Sentences are longer and with draconian 3 strikes laws--someone can get sent away for life, based on the number rather than the severity of the crimes.

But as I sagely noted, this is all a smokescreen to cover up gun crime. Who commits and who are the victims of gun crime? Overwhelmingly, gun crime occurs between family members and intimate acquaintances.

[djcrsn]

Long sentences don't help if fools keep letting them out after absurdly short time in prison

[Jadegold]

DJ is apparently confused.

In the mid-1990s, laws were passed that required convicted criminals (violent offenses) to serve longer sentences. These laws require they serve longer. Moreover, life sentences (without possibility of parole) have increased 90% since the early 90's.

But this all a deflection from the real issue of gun violence. As usual, the ones demanding tougher jail terms for crime--inevitably demand those who sell guns to criminals or violate the laws re firearm transactions not be prosecuted.

[molonlabe]

"Who commits and who are the victims of gun crime?"

Good question. Lets have a look:

"In 2005, homicide victimization rates for blacks were 6 times higher than the rates for whites."
"In 2005, offending rates for blacks were more than 7 times higher than the rates for whites "

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

Let's also not forget the recidivism rate of violent offenders...

Sounds like society would be better served with addressing these glaring statistics instead of the miniscule "assault rifle" and crimes committed by CCW holders" smokescreen which anti-gunners like jade like to keep suppressed. However, you can't even get out of the starting block on this issue without being labled a racist.

Now wait........wait for it............

[Jadegold]

You've said it, molon.

You seem to imply that most homicides (both as victim and offender) are a result of being black. What do you propose?

1. Locking up all black people?
2. Giving all blacks free access to guns?---I suspect the NRA wouldn't be wild about this idea.

[OldSFMJT]

Jadegold wrote: "Who commits and who are the victims of gun crime? Overwhelmingly, gun crime occurs between family members and intimate acquaintances."

Ahh, yes! The long-ago debunked Kellerman "study" rears its ugly head yet again! One needs to remember that the good doctor included as "family & intimate acquaintances" your drug contact, your fence, your pimp or prostitute, etc. Doesn't every good, law-abiding family include these folks on their Christmas card list?

The Kellerman document was riddled with factual errors, technical errors and oversights and outright bias. Kellerma's is a classic case of a “study” conducted to achieve a desired result.

Old SF MJT

[Jadegold]

None of the Kellermann studies has ever been debunked. Of course, the NRA has criticized it to high heaven--but they've never been successful at it.

Actually, I wasn't referencing Kellermann's study ("Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," The New England Journal of Medicine, October 7, 1993) that found a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one. The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house. BTW, Kellermann's findings are remarkably similar to the FBI's own statistics. For example, Kellermann found that 12.4% of all murder victims were related to the killer. The FBI--a year later--said 12% of all murder victims were killed by someone they were related to.

No--I'm referring to facts from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

[mike102]

"Sentences for all criminals--not just violent ones--have increased dramatically over the past 20 years." = lie

"Who commits and who are the victims of gun crime? Overwhelmingly, gun crime occurs between family members and intimate acquaintances." = lie.

"But as I sagely noted, this is all a smokescreen to cover up gun crime." = lie

"someone can get sent away for life, based on the number rather than the severity of the crimes"

And then people like Jade start tripping over themselves to let them out early, so they can go kill a cop or something.

To Jade, that is preferable to over-crowded prisons. Can't have the poor baby's personal space getting invaded, now can we?.

[legaleagle 45]

Jade wrote: "Sentences for all criminals--not just violent ones--have increased dramatically over the past 20 years."

And crime has gone down substantially and almost steadily over that time frame. Your point?

Jade wrote: "Overwhelmingly, gun crime occurs between family members and intimate acquaintances."

If you had left out "intimate" you might be more accurate,

Total murder victims 2008: 14,180
Husband is victim: 119
Wife is victim: 577
Mother is victim: 117
Father is victim: 120
Son is victim: 270
Daughteris victim: 211
Brother is victim: 98
Sister is victim: 15
Other family member is victim: 314
Acquaintance is victim: 3,068
Friend is victim: 504
Boyfriend is victim: 145
Girlfriend is victim: 492
Neighbor is victim:106
Employee is victim: 5
Employer is victim: 9
Stranger is victim: 1,742
Unknown is victim: 6,268

The above consists of all murders in 2008, not just gun murders.

[Thirdpower]

"If you had left out "intimate" you might be more accurate, "

And he knows it. So he's either playing the VPC game of deliberately using inaccurate terminology to scare the sheeple or he's 'intimate' w/ lots of people.

[Jadegold]

You left out:

Male, ages 76-96 is victim. Doesn't know assailant. Hey! You kids get offa the lawn!

[mike102]

"As Assistant District Attorney, one of the most frustrating and difficult things I had to face wasn't just the prevalence of homicides committed by the use of handguns,"

Is that an admission that NYC's draconian gun laws have failed to disarm criminals to your satisfaction?

Well, these statements of yours may explain why:

"but the realization that the fight against gun violence cannot be won one gun at a time, simply persecuting the violent crimes committed with guns."

So, your solution is to continue to persecute law-abiding people and deprive them of their 2nd Amendment rights, and to add even more restrictions, none of which has any effect on criminals, or their "illegal guns".

You also provide us with the reason that this will not work:

"but the fact of the matter is that violence still persists; the number of guns entering New York from out of state continues to be a major problem; and people are still dying from illegal guns."

Right. You see, criminals don't obey gun laws. Only law-abiding people do that.

So please enlighten us. How is continuing to go after the rights of law abiding people going to change criminal behavior in NY, or anywhere else in the US?

How about a mandatory 20 year sentence for committing a crime with a gun? How's that for "common sense"?

And how many armed people are assigned to protect you personally, on a daily basis?

[djcrsn]

MIke--long sentences for criminal misuse of firearms is too logical for Brady supporters--not going to happen (remember how angry Kelli gets when we suggest just that (because we are being cruel to criminals))

[Jadegold]

You really don't want to go here, Mike.

The more you point at NYC and its remarkably low violent crime rates (especially for a big city)--the more you highlight the fact that cities with little or no gun control have very high rates of violent crime.

The pro-gun faction is attempting to have it both ways. They try and make the argument that if you have a reasonable amount of gun control--yet you continue to have some violent crime--then that gun control is a failure. In essence and in fact, they're arguing that if one has gun control, you must achieve perfection in terms of violent crime.

Of course, if you make this extremely flawed argument--you must accept the converse: that cities with little or no gun control should be crime-free.

[djcrsn]

Why should the law abiding give up their rights to keep you happy jade?

[molonlabe]

The more you point at NYC and its remarkably low violent crime rates (especially for a big city)--the more you highlight the fact that cities with little or no gun control have very high rates of violent crime.


Forgetting Camden again, jade?

[mike102]

Read the blog again. Is the author compaining about gun related crime, or is he not?

"As Assistant District Attorney, one of the most frustrating and difficult things I had to face wasn't just the prevalence of homicides committed by the use of handguns,"

"but the fact of the matter is that violence still persists; the number of guns entering New York from out of state continues to be a major problem; and people are still dying from illegal guns."

The man says it's a "major problem" Jade, and he's the DA. Do you think he's making it up, so he can push for a hand gun ban? Do you think, if he gets his hand gun ban, that the criminals will turn theirs in?

[legaleagle 45]

"The more you point at NYC and its remarkably low violent crime rates (especially for a big city)--the more you highlight the fact that cities with little or no gun control have very high rates of violent crime."

Yet NYC has a higher homicide rate than does the nation as a whole... NYC homicide rate = 6.27/100,000 while the National rate is 5.4/100,000

As for the final comment, how do you explain major cities (having a population in excess of 500,000) such as Portland, OR and Seattle, WA which have homicide rates of 4.70/100,000 and 4.85/100,000 and have very lax gun control laws?

[Bandofotters]

Is "fighting the NRA" code for 'subverting the 2nd Amendment' or is this fight over something else?

[djcrsn]

2nd posting--it looks like you hit the nail on the head

[Karlitos]

Smugness ... and that based on efforts to impose restrictions that are arguably ineffective and most likely unconstitutional.

That is not a characteristic I'd like to have in a District Attorney.

[djcrsn]

There is no "arguably" about it-- Aborn's demanded restrictions ARE ineffective and definitely unconstitutional

[HisXLNC]

"I have been fighting the NRA on gun control for many years, and as District Attorney, taking common-sense gun control measures will be one of my priorities in keeping New York safe."

You mean common sense measures like letting people get away with a crime?

"...and allow parents to give the police permission to search their homes and take away illegal guns, with no charges being filed for possession of the gun. " - Richard Aborn

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-aborn/the-nra---at-it-again_b_224750.html

If it's an "illegal gun", charges should be filed against the person who brought the gun into the home. That way we can get more than just an easily replaceable gun off the street. We can get both the gun and the criminal in one swipe.

[OdinsEye]

"I will do everything in my power as District Attorney to make sure that laws are passed "

Richard,

Maybe you are not aware of this, but DAs have no legislative power.

[Jadegold]

Untrue.

DAs and other LEOs are largely responsible for shaping and crafting legislation concerning crime.

This has been another edition of the further civics education of OE.

[OdinsEye]

There are few gun control measures that Aborn supports that actually make "sense". They are 'popular' among controllers and that is what they were to as "common sense". I'd rather rely on "good sense".

"Common sense" and "reasonable" are simply non-descript feel-good catch phrases designed to mislead, fool, and appease.

[djcrsn]

Very little of what Aborn supports qualifies as either common sense or reasonable. Disarming the law abiding does not reduce crime.

[OldSFMJT]

Mr. Aborn, you tell us that you “masterminded the passage of the Brady Bill, the national Assault Weapons Ban, and the ban on large volume clips.” The Brady Bill-which resulted in how many prosecutions and how many convictions in its first ten years? (Hint: Next to none!) The so-called Assault Weapons Ban-which even the Clinton Justice Dept. couldn’t show to have any effect on crime. (Oh, yeah! Rifles in total are used in less than 3% of crimes involving firearms!) The “high capacity” magazine ban-same result as the “assault weapons’ ban! Yes sir! That’s a track record to brag about!

So tell us, Mr. Aborn, exactly what is "common sense" about infringing on the Constitutionally-guaranteed rights of law abiding US citizens. Because that’s about all the laws you so proudly brag about have done!

And, since you are so very proud of your part in the magazine capacity law, why don’t you answer this question: Just how many rounds of ammunition should my wife be allowed to have in the magazine of her pistol as she pushes our grandchildren behind her with her other hand, shielding them with her own body, as she defends them against the two armed home invaders coming down the hall toward them? I have asked this question any number of times before, but not one person has had the integrity to answer it!
Old SF MJT

[djcrsn]

as high a magazine capacity as she can reasonably hold onto in as powerful a caliber that she can effectively handle (knowing a small statured individual can not reasonable the same range of firearms as a big football player)

[OldSFMJT]

Glock 19!!! :)

Funny, though! Old Mr. Aborn doesn't have the fortitude to offer an answer!

Old SF MJT