AP: We're not saying police are giving guns to crooks...

Imagine the ridiculousness of the following rhetorical headlines:

“Ex-WSP cruiser used by drug dealer.”

“Woman raped by taxi driver in former Seattle PD car.”

“Capitol Police sell cars to convicted drunk drivers.”

“Former Police Interceptor used in highway suicide attempt.”

That’s what the Associated Press has done in its “guns sold by law enforcement” article. The article seems to imply that Washington law enforcement agencies are selling guns directly to disturbed folks. The lurid headlines like “Baby Shot in Car Seat” draw the eye away from the easy to skip over the details that these guns were sold to dealers, traded for new guns, or auctioned off. This might be news to the AP, but not to any gun enthusiast.

It’s common for law enforcement to dispose sell or trade-in their used firearms for new models; the old guns are then sold to the public through licensed dealers. When Glock was new to the American market, it made a business model out of this. Police trade-in guns provide a high-quality handgun at a lower cost than an equivalent new model and often have collector value as well. This allows departments to get new guns very cheaply; a bonus in the days of cash-strapped municipalities.

Likewise confiscated firearms are sold to the public as well. It’s a practice actually mandated in several states. These confiscated guns aren’t “crime guns” in that they are murder weapons dripping blood. Instead, they are usually taken from prohibited persons, for concealed weapon violations, or other reasons. Non-weapons are disposed of by police all the time.

I argue that the whole point of the article, as Zerohedge either missed or deliberately skewed, is to discredit these practices.

The “journalists” who prepared this article omitted one important fact: each person who bought the gun from a dealer (again, a dealer, not the police), would have to pass a background check. So either the persons involved:

1. Passed a background check, then went nuts or became criminal;
2. Passed a background check that failed to catch their prohibited status;
3. Had someone else buy the gun illegally (a straw purchase); or,
4. Stole the gun;
5. Bought the gun secondhand in an illegal private transaction.

 Such facts are inconvenient to the narrative. Imagine the figures and stories if the story was about what criminals, looneys, and bad actors did with factory-direct firearms! Read the details of the incidents carefully. They have been cherry picked to involve—key word “involve”—a gun that somehow came from local police.

“BABY SHOT IN CAR SEAT”

Found a gun, not the murder weapon.

“TEXT THREATS”

Merely owned a shotgun that happened to be a former police weapon.

“JUVENILES IN STOLEN CAR”

Stole a car, didn't threaten anybody with the gun, just had it.

“DRUNKEN FELON”

How did the felon get the gun? Did pass a flawed background check? Did some buy the gun for him in a straw purchase? Did someone else buy it, then sell it illegally in violation of the unenforceable universal background check law? Five years passed; did he buy it legally when he was not a felon?

“PROHIBITED FROM HAVING GUN”

Felon in possession of a stolen gun.

“DRUG HOUSE ASSAULT”

Domestic dispute, no weapon involved. Just happened to find a cheap .22 rifle that was disposed of by police.

“THREATS TO KILL”

Also owned 15 other guns, not sold by local police.

The hoplopathically-biased liberal media doesn’t want the public to own guns. They would love to get guns out of public hands and paint an innocent police program, one that brings money to the departments, new weapons into officer’s hands, and gives the poor a cheap way to protect themselves, as well as make the police look like monsters. Such misleading and malicious “journalism” ought to fall under libel laws. The mainstream media is dying a little more each day because of their constant penchant for lying and promoting their progressive agenda any way they can.