“In recent decades, advocates of gun control have taken their cause to court, bringing lawsuits that charge the gun industry with negligence because of how it distributes firearms. Large-scale traffickers, these suits claim, purchase guns in big batches from corrupt or irresponsible dealers, especially those operating in states with weak gun control laws. These guns are then moved to places with stricter laws, where they are sold, supposedly at high markups, to criminal buyers. “

The story follows by noting that the ATF embraces this view as well, and that crime increases because of it. But the story then notes:

“Unfortunately, there is little evidence to support this set of interconnected claims.”

Writer Gary Kleck explains that it is really a small time operation. And Kleck even debunks the notion that guns used in crime travel from states with so-called lax gun laws to those with stricter laws:

“Because the ‘newness’ of crime guns and out-of-state origins are regarded as indicators that the guns were trafficked, trace data provide a misleading picture of the sources of guns used in crimes, exaggerating the share that appears to have been trafficked.”

The question now is whether the rest of the media will even pay attention?

The twist here is that this might not just be a case of lone individuals taking advantage of so-called lax gun laws, but rather a gang-related business.

The news site reports:

“The crime-fighting plan would establish what Schneiderman calls a special ‘I-95 coalition’ with other state attorneys general. The reference is to Interstate 95, the superhighway that runs the length of the country’s East Coast. Schneiderman said the roadway also is used to transport illegal guns to places including Rochester.”

What is bothersome with both Schneiderman’s claims and the reporting by RocNow is that the guns in question aren’t technically “illegal guns.” The guns are perfectly legal in the states where those firearms are sold. Criminals just go to great lengths to buy the guns. We worry that the “plan” from the I-95 coalition would be to ban certain, if not eventually all guns – simply because these are “banned” in New York. That is after all the New York way it seems

“The findings are a bit misleading, in a sense, when you consider the above list (of 10 states)  — made up of some of the county’s most populous states — is based on raw figures. A closer look reveals that Pennsylvania ranked 30th in the number of exported guns per 100,000 people.”

So could it be that the Mayors’ report has flaws that the MSM is ignoring?

Rather than questioning any of the findings, the “news” article accepted at full face value. And when there was any counterpoint commentary, they used it to make a snide remark. Consider this passage:

“This is not the first report from this coalition on gun-trafficking—another released this month found that 90% of the guns recovered from crime scenes in Mexico and traced led back to American dealers. And it has attracted the sort of response one might expect: Andrew Arulanandam, director of public affairs for the National Rifle Association, called Mayors Against Illegal Guns ‘intent on enacting some form of gun control’ and predicted that people would be ‘wary about believing so-called studies that come from groups that have an interest in the outcome.’ And he ought to know.”

Is that comment by the authors “and he ought to know” really necessary? But worse is the fact that his news story doesn’t note that not all guns are sent for tracing. This is a highly biased piece from an outlet that should know better.

MSNBC is the latest to jump on the bandwagon, noting that “high-powered assault rifles as well as components for improvised explosive devices (IEDs)” are coming from the United States. In the former, we ask again why the emphasis on “high-powered.” The truth is that many hunting rifles are “high-powered.” This lexicon just makes the guns sound more dangerous, more sinister, but it doesn’t say anything. It is akin to saying, “fast car.” Yes, a racecar can go fast, but so can the average luxury auto these days. Does “fast car” really mean anything? No, and nor does “high-powered” rifle.

As for the other fact that “IEDs” are being used shouldn’t be a mentioned at all. It isn’t as if you buy the parts for an IED at a special story only in the United States. The key word here is “improvised” as in made from pipes, nails, glass, etc. Of course blaming the United States is just par for the course with the American media.

But where MSNBC crosses the line is with this statement:

“The report describes such ‘corrupt’ U.S. firearms dealers as ‘high value targets’ — a phrase that could rile gun rights groups and their supporters in Congress who charge ATF is already too aggressive in regulating the firearms industry.”

Does the writer of this piece, Michael Isikoff have an anti-gun agenda? It certainly feels that way. This investigative story tells the usual tale, “90 percent of guns come from the United States,” puts the blame on American gun dealers and says ATF’s hands are tied as the agency has no permanent director. In other words, another heavily biased article from an “investigative reporter.”

“Not all seized guns in Mexico are traced.”

Of course this factoid was buried way down in the story, in the third paragraph from the bottom. This type of news reporting on the issue of guns isn’t really that uncommon, but it shows yet another example of the bias that we’ve come to sadly expect from the mainstream media.

“According to U.S. officials, a majority of the guns seized in Mexican crimes are found to be sold in the United States by gun stores in Texas, California and Arizona.”

That’s not exactly correct. As usual a word is missing, and that word is “traced,” but it is not the only word. The sentence should say, “of the guns of American origin sent back for tracing, the majority of those guns came from Texas, California and Arizona.”

But we also notice facts in this developing story change. Two weeks ago when this “broke” we heard that significantly less guns came from California – supposedly because it had tougher gun laws. Now the tune has changed.

But the story also adds:

“A recent report by Mayors Against Illegal Guns that used ATF data revealed that, ‘from 2006 to 2009, nearly 19,000 traced crime guns were originally sold in the U.S. and recovered and traced to Mexican crimes.’”

Now we see the word “traced,” but the problem here is that other references note some 80,000 seized guns. It seems it is as much about what is being reported as is not being reported, at least from the most trusted name in news.

Helmke offers the usual line that “violence in Mexico has increased since Congress allowed the federal assault weapons ban to expire in 2004.” He adds, “a significant number of the guns used in Mexican drug crimes come from America.”

Of course what constitutes “significant” isn’t made clear. Nor does Helmke offer any suggestion on how to stop the violence in Mexico short of banning guns from law-abiding citizens in America, and by essentially stopping all private sales of firearms.

WaPo’s editors take aim at the 7,000 guns stores that “operate along the U.S.-Mexican border.” The way it is written you’d think in the middle of the desert, next to the border fence is a gun store. And the paper further shows its bias by suggesting, “Mr. Obama should make stopping the weapons traffic one of his national security priorities.”

Our fear is that this would mean taking away American’s Second Amendment rights in the process. What does WaPo suggest? Closing the 7,000 gun stores located in the border states because these operate just a bit too closely to Mexico? Making it harder for law-abiding citizens to legally obtain a gun, because a fraction of the guns found in Mexico can be traced back to the United States. That certainly sounds what they’re saying.