{"id":469,"date":"2009-12-04T11:11:42","date_gmt":"2009-12-04T16:11:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.gunpoliticsny.com\/?p=469"},"modified":"2009-12-04T11:11:42","modified_gmt":"2009-12-04T16:11:42","slug":"if-he-campaigned-on-this-he-might-have-won","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.gunpoliticsny.com\/?p=469","title":{"rendered":"If he campaigned on this he might have won"},"content":{"rendered":"

There’s an op-ed in the Daily News by Richard Aborn<\/a>, “Make DNA the new fingerprint: N.Y. now fails to collect it from half of all convicted criminals<\/a>.” \u00a0He writes:<\/p>\n

“… The evidence is clear that violent criminals commit both multiple crimes and nonviolent crimes. It follows then that the more offenders that are required to give DNA<\/a> samples, the more crimes we can prevent. In the 21st century, DNA should be treated in the same way that fingerprints were treated in the 20th century. That is, a DNA sample should be taken for all offenses and kept in a database in cases once a person is convicted. There’s no excuse. Not only is it now less expensive and faster to test DNA, but there are an ever-increasing number of surfaces from which DNA can be lifted, including guns and bullets. Almost anything a criminal touches has some chance of yielding a DNA sample …”<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is a 180-degree turnaround from what he campaigned on. \u00a0He’s now actually talking about something that involves finding and prosecuting violent thugs. \u00a0Perhaps had he made this a central issue of his campaign, as opposed to screwing gun owners, he might have gotten more than 26% of the vote.<\/p>\n