GET::REAL with Jay DeDapper » guns

For The Doubters…

Jay — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 03:43:14 +0000

A Gun Nut

When we wrote last week about the ridiculous press release put out by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association claiming that David Yassky lost his run-off primary race for New York City Comptroller because he was a proponent of gun control we got the predictable stream of unpublishable screeds and a few comment arguing with our reasoning.

Putting aside the venom, several people wrote to say that Yassky had made gun control an issue in this race, one stating that Yassky had made it a “central issue of his campaign.” Others repeated that assertion in arguing we were off-base.

So since we like to deal with demonstrable facts here let’s cut to the chase. Here are the scripts for Yassky’s four TV spots:

#1 “Know Me”

YASSKY: I’m David Yassky. You don’t know me but I’m going to save you money.

I’ll get rid of government waste and stand up to the special interests.

It’s what I’ve always done.

I worked with Chuck Schumer to pass the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban.

On the Council, I closed tax loopholes for luxury housing developers.

Sued Exxon Mobil to clean up our water.

And I put the entire City Budget online because it’s your money.

As Comptroller, I’ll demand accountability. The buck will stop with me and I will watch every penny.

#2 “Behind”

YASSKY: Behind every dollar that government wastes is a child without a textbook, or a senior without a hot meal.

And behind every budget loophole is a special interest that benefits.

That’s why I put the entire City budget online so taxpayers can see how our money is being spent.

As Comptroller, I’ll demand accountability and results for every dollar, and eliminate waste and sweetheart deals with tough audits of City agencies.

I’m David Yassky. The buck will stop with me and I’ll watch every penny, because it’s your money.

#3 “Endorse”

NARRATOR: For Comptroller, the New York Times endorses David Yassky as the candidate “most suited to do the job, with skill, intelligence, and independence.”

The Times praises Yassky’s work on affordable housing, gun control, and for putting the City budget online.

Democrat David Yassky for Comptroller.

#4 “Marty”

SCRIPT—“Marty.”

MARKOWITZ: Brooklyn’s got the best. Junior’s, Nathan’s, Cake Man Raven, Yassky.

WOMAN: Yassky? What’s a Yassky?

MARKOWITZ: David Yassky. Running for City Comptroller. He’s my guy.

NARRATOR: Democrat David Yassky. In the Council, he closed tax loopholes for developers, sued Exxon Mobil to clean up Greenpoint, and put the City budget online because it’s your money. As Comptroller, Yassky will demand accountability with tough audits of City agencies. The buck will stop with him and he’ll watch every penny.

WOMAN: Wow, we’ll take a Yassky.

MARKOWITZ: Me too.

MARKOWITZ: Brooklyn’s got the best. Junior’s, Nathan’s, Cake Man Raven, Yassky.

WOMAN: Yassky? What’s a Yassky?

MARKOWITZ: David Yassky. Running for City Comptroller. He’s my guy.

NARRATOR: Democrat David Yassky. In the Council, he closed tax loopholes for developers, sued Exxon Mobil to clean up Greenpoint, and put the City budget online because it’s your money. As Comptroller, Yassky will demand accountability with tough audits of City agencies. The buck will stop with him and he’ll watch every penny.

WOMAN: Wow, we’ll take a Yassky.

MARKOWITZ: Me too.

Sure enough when we wrote that there was no mention of gun control in the papers or TV coverage of this race we failed to recognize that there was a mention — actually two — in the ads Yassky put on local cable channels. Fair enough. We were wrong. But isn’t it true that the first mention is really just a way to point up his endorsement from wildly popular New York Senator Chuck Schumer? And isn’t the second one of several items the New York Times mentioned in their editorial endorsement of Yassky? It’s quite a stretch to say he made gun control a “central issue of his campaign.”

The truth is none of the people writing in addressed this from our last post:

And follow the logic: If “the citizens of New York City have delivered an unambiguous rebuke to the gun control movement” then Sen. Chuck Schumer should be in deep doo-doo. He’s up for reelection in 2010. So how are his poll numbers holding up? According to the Marist Poll last month 6 in 10 New Yorkers think he’s doing an excellent or good job — just 13% think he’s doing a poor job.

Please answer this question before you send out another round of “Yassky-lost-because-of guns” missives.

And while you’re at it explain to me, if gun control was a “central issue” in a very low turnout election in which every political pro will tell you organized labor backing is the only guarantee of victory, how it is that Bill de Blasio running for Public Advocate on the very same day, won. Unlike Yassky, de Blasio got a pretty fair amount of ink and airplay for airbrushing out a gun necklace on his daughter’s neck from a campaign flier. Remember that de Blasio was Hillary Clinton’s first campaign manager and has always supported Mike Bloomberg’s anti-gun crusades.

If Yassky lost because of guns, then Bill de Blasio should have lost for the same reason. But wait. He won, didn’t he. Facts are stubborn things.

What Are They Smoking?

Jay — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:31:33 +0000

Sometimes spin is so ridiculous — so obviously wrong that political reporters have to laugh. Or blog about it.

So here’s a great press release sent out Wednesday regarding the New York City Comptroller runoff election results from Tuesday night. Remember this is from an organization based in upstate Troy that probably had never heard of John Liu or David Yassky until today.

News from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc.

New York City Primary Voters Reject Gun Grabber

TROY, NY (09/30/2009)(readMedia)– For the second time in two weeks, the citizens of New York City have delivered an unambiguous rebuke to the gun control movement by rejecting David Yassky’s bid for Comptroller. Yassky based his campaign largely upon his gun control record. As a staffer to then Congressman Charles Schumer he worked on both the Brady Act and Clinton Gun Ban. His campaign was endorsed by Senator Schumer, the Daily News and the New York Times because of this. Yassky’s double-digit loss in the runoff election demonstrates just how far outside the mainstream of society gun control advocates are. A solid majority of Democrat voters in all five boroughs have soundly rejected this candidate and his ideas.

Where to start? Oh wait let me pull my jaw off the floor and then stop howling. For those (few) people who were actually following this runoff election the only issue that got any resonance at all was about the Working Families Party’s backing of Liu and how that might make him beholden to the union-backed mini-party. Guns? No mention in the papers or on TV.

And follow the logic: If “the citizens of New York City have delivered an unambiguous rebuke to the gun control movement” then Sen. Chuck Schumer should be in deep doo-doo. He’s up for reelection in 2010. So how are his poll numbers holding up? According to the Marist Poll last month 6 in 10 New Yorkers think he’s doing an excellent or good job — just 13% think he’s doing a poor job.

So here’s some advice to the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association: It’s fine to try and look on the bright side but leave the production of fantasy to Hollywood.

Guns, Crime, and Recession

Jay — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:15:33 +0000

“Gun Sales Thriving in Uncertain Times” read a Washington Post headline today. Earlier this month a New York Times headline provided a subtext: “Keeping Wary Eye on Crime as Economy Sinks”. And so it was no surprise that the Post and pretty much all those who picked up the story and ran with it today noted that “experts” suggested one reason for “booming” guns sales (Brian Williams) was the crappy economy and fear of crime.

To it’s credit the Post was quick to point out some hard facts:

Gary Kleck, a researcher at Florida State University’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice whose work was cited in the District’s recent Supreme Court gun-control case, said that although there are no scientific studies linking gun sales and economic conditions, people often buy firearms during periods of uncertainty.

In other words when times get tough people think crime will rise even though there is no evidence that it will. The problem is that assertion doesn’t make sense to people who read article after article quoting police officials blaming rising crime on a bad economy. Trust me. Google “crime economy link” and see how many stories from lazy TV stations and newspapers show up stating the link as fact.

For those of you who are politically conservative and just don’t buy this check out this 2000 article from the Heritage Foundation. The key quote?

But there’s little evidence to suggest that good economic times have much effect on crime. Crime rates rose every year between 1955 and 1972, even as the U.S. economy surged, with only a brief, mild recession in the early 1960s. By the time criminals took a breather in the early 1970s, crime rates had increased over 140 percent. Murder rates had risen about 70 percent, rapes more than doubled, and auto theft nearly tripled. By the same token, a bad economy doesn’t always bring more crime. Crime rates fell about one third between 1934 and 1938 while the nation was struggling to emerge from the Great Depression and weathering another severe economic downturn in 1937 and 1938. Surely, if the economic theory held, crime should have been soaring.

Of course that report was written near the end of the Clinton years during which the economy grew and crime fell. Many liberal researchers were writing about how a good economy = less crime. They then posited that the conservative answers to crime — tougher laws, more cops, more prisons — were beside the point.