The ongoing firearms investigation is one of 11 internal investigations involving 15 sheriff’s office employees conducted over the past year. The investigations included complaints of domestic violence, sexual harassment, excessive force, abuse of authority, failure to follow policies and order, and failure to perform assigned duties. The investigations produced disciplinary actions ranging from oral reprimands to termination.

All of this is very upsetting, but the issue of the guns is the one we find very disturbing as it sort of takes aim at the argument that only police should have guns. In this case at least a dozen or so guns would now be in the hands of the bad guys near Duluth if “only the police” had guns.

Personal bias is something journalists are trained avoid [sic] when they cover the news.

When I started working on a story about the controversial issue of concealed carry of weapons in Illinois, I was forced to face my own bias. I have never lived in a home with guns and considered myself the quintessential anti-gun nut.

First, we congratulate Brady-Lunny, not for the article that follows – where she describes her experience at the gun range – but rather that she admits she has her own bias. Too many journalists, for reasons that we don’t truly understand, have a natural bias against guns. At least Brady-Lunny admitted of such.

But let’s look at one other statement she makes:

My aversion to guns and my long-held belief that less is better when it comes to firearms in the hands of anyone other than peace officers or soldiers is rooted in my experience as a journalist. I have witnessed firsthand the harm and carnage that comes from people wielding guns. The images of a heart or a head riddled with bullets and stories of the aftermath of gun violence have always stayed with me.

And here is the root of the bias, which we don’t understand. Brady-Lunny is clearly an idealist, someone who believes cops are always the good guys, soldiers only protect the innocent and only bad people would want a gun otherwise. Clearly this journalist hasn’t watched the world news – where it took guns from Libyan rebels (and help from NATO in the way of air support) to take down a dictator, or where the military in Syria retains control despite attempts to start a revolution. Clearly this journalist doesn’t follow the news that SWAT team guns were stolen in Los Angeles, or read that a police chief in New Mexico helped arm criminals. And there was the soldier smuggling guns into the U.K.

Clearly those examples that we show that this idealistic view can be far from ideal in the real, cold, hard world. But she also notes the “images of a heart or a head riddled with bullets,” and yet does she not think of the 18-year old mother who defended her home and infant son on New Year’s Eve? Just something to think about.

But again, at least this journalist admitted to her bias. And as with addiction, the first step is admitting there is a problem.

Imagine how this story might have played out if Willden didn’t have gun? We don’t hear any comments from anti-gun types on this story now do we?

Our dysfunctional Congress has repeatedly failed to perform its duties under the Constitution to pass a budget, to advise and consent on presidential nominations, and, perhaps most tragically, to curb illegal handgun violence.

The argument here in this op-ed piece is that illegal handguns are responsible for crime, notably the death of a New York City police officer.

But isn’t the Second Amendment clear on the right to keep and bear arms? Congress passes laws, it doesn’t enforce them, and this is never their job. So the point of Congress curbing illegal handgun violence is again to calling on Congress to stop crime in general. They can make the laws, but it is someone else’s job to see that those laws are enforced.

So is this a call for gun control? Essentially this is what Morgenthau is suggesting. He points to the fact that guns used in crimes in New York City come from other states. And while he says this isn’t an attack on law-abiding gun owners, it isn’t clear what his point is exactly. He calls for fully manning the ATF, but with Fast and Furious still in so many minds, we must ask ourselves: do we want more or need ATF debacles?

While we don’t fault the officer in this case, it does show that criminals will find guns, even if “only the police” have guns as many anti-gun zealots say should be the case. So if only the police had guns, now the criminals would as well.

Peace officers throughout California have bought more than 7,600 assault weapons that are outlawed for civilians in the decade since state lawmakers allowed the practice, according to data obtained by The Associated Press after it was revealed that federal authorities are investigating illegal gun sales by law enforcement.
Investigators have not said what kinds of weapons were involved, but did say they were ones that officers can buy but civilians cannot. That category also can include certain types of handguns and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

We would ask, if private citizens can’t own these guns, why do the police need them?

These stories should be a warning to anyone who believes “Only the police should have guns,” as it shows that criminals will still find a way of stealing guns!

Former New York City police commissioner Bill Bratton brought his pro-gun control agenda into a segment about the FBI’s latest crime statistics on Tuesday’s Early Show on CBS, blaming the “the insanity of the lack of gun control laws in this country” for an increase in police deaths during 2011.

This attempts to suggest that criminals buy guns the same way as law-abiding citizens, and this simply isn’t true. It is disrespectful to those law abiding citizens to blame them for the death of law enforcement officers this year, especially as gun sales have increased and overall crime is down – a fact not noted by Bill Bratton.

The other truth is that Bratton doesn’t want to suggest that New York is suddenly a more dangerous place, while the rest of the country is seeing a decrease in overall crime.

There is a tense issue with that sentence we’d like to point out, how can the event be ongoing “is paying” and continues “today and next week” and yet “took.” If it is ongoing it should have “taken 744 so far,” but that’s the least of the problem with this reporting.

As with many it implies these do “take weapons off the street,” which there is no proof. Crime in the city is high and we just wonder whether these events make any difference?

The ATF is responsible, not for legislating gun control laws or arguing the second amendment, but for enforcement. One of the primary functions of the ATF is to enforce gun control through inspections of sellers, dealers, and importers. Also, it is spelled out to dealers and resellers who may own a gun and who may not. For example, those with a police or federal crime record, and those with a mental disability are among those who cannot. In addition, it is the business of the FBI to insure background check are being done.

But even when crimes are committed, such as last week’s tragic shooting at Virginia Tech, the role of the ATF needs to be considered. Wager adds:

Police officers and gun dealers, nor the ATF can begin to speculate the intention of a person to do harm at any given moment, regardless of their weapon, a car, a gun, or a knife. Society will never be able to fully protect itself.

This is one of many interesting points Wager makes, and one that many anti-gun zealots seem to forget.