Found this on the net.

[beevul]

"As a campaign gimmick, state Sen. John J. Cullerton (D-Chicago) once individually mailed thousands of spent bullet casings to North Side residents. Each envelope was personalized to suggest that they had better run for cover.

Beneath the return address were the words: "Shots fired near the" home of the bullet recipient who was identified by name and address.


"Tragically, these remains of gun violence are now found everyday in our schools and on our street," Cullerton lamented in a signed letter asking voters to nominate him for the U.S. House.

Indignant voters repudiated Cullerton's crass exploitation of gun violence. Although he lost that congressional primary, this loose cannon is still a member of the Illinois Senate."

http://www.suntimes.com/output/neal/cst-edt-neal24.html

The key here for my question is this:

"Indignant voters repudiated Cullerton's crass exploitation of gun violence. Although he lost that congressional primary, ................. is still a member of the Illinois Senate.""

The question is:

Do voters get turned off by exploitation of "gun violence" further a political agenda?

Is it the degree to which it is exploited?

Opinions?

[SheilaT]

1. My first question is

did someone actually go and fire those bullets somewhere near the recipients so the mailing could be literally accurate?

If they did, that's pretty low. And if they simply gathered up the spent casings from whereever (a firing range perhaps) and did the mailing that's even lower.

[Stilgar]

2. for speed and cost I am guessing firing range bullets

with a preprinted envelope to be sent out.

Anything else would cost too much. Plus the more than likely "no shooting in city limits" ban. That could cause serious problems.
(911: Theirs a man shooting a gun out in the street and picking up the shell casings? CALLER: Yes, I live at...)

[iverglas]

3. ah, the Chicago Sun-Times

One of the stable of publications owned by our own (well, formerly our own) Lord Black of Crossharbour, formerly plain old Conrad Black, Canadian citizen.

His other holdings include his flagship Telegraph, in the UK, and the Jerusalem Post. He divested himself of most of his Canadian holdings (which constituted an unprecedented stranglehold on the print media in Canada) when he turned his back on us colonials earlier this millennium. He represents the outer tip of the right wing. If I told you what I really thought of him, and if anybody told him, he'd threaten to sue me. An early master of the art of libel chill, our Konrad.

Lord Black is having a spot of very public bother this past week, what with all the allegations of impropriety in the use and abuse of corporate funds and property, undocumented/unpaid loans to top execs, etc. etc. Your SEC is taking a very close look at him, I gather. (Ask Google for "conrad black" sec to get started on the fun.) The empire seems about to come tumbling down, and the possibility of criminal charges is being bruited about. (There ya go, your word for the day. Conrad, by the way, prides himself on being a walking thesaurus.) Perhaps his charming wife Barbara Amiel will dress up in her Marie Antoinette outfit for the first court appearance. (Sorry, I tried to find the photo on line, but couldn't.)

I can't think of any reason why I'd want to buy a used opinion from that man, I'm afraid.

Know thy media, and don't expect me to be impressed by the opinions of people on the payroll of Conrad Black.



.

[1a2b3c]

4. I was going to warn him about using the sun times

but it looks like you already did.

[beevul]

5. I wasn't claiming it as "the gospel"

"Know thy media, and don't expect me to be impressed by the opinions of people on the payroll of Conrad Black."-iverglas

"I can't think of any reason why I'd want to buy a used opinion from that man, I'm afraid."-iverglas

I was asking for YOUR opinion, amongst others. I understand where your coming from, however, the article is just an example of what I'm asking whether or not is happening. If it offended anyone I'm sorry, but, I really don't care what or who owns/runs said paper, since said ownership is IRRELIVANT to the purpose of this thread, that purpose being to discuss these questions:


Do voters get turned off by exploitation of "gun violence" further a political agenda?

Is it the degree to which it is exploited that turns voters off?

Opinions?