Police gun stance distressing, sad - Letter by Scott Swanson - Commentary

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

---------------
I was saddened and distressed to read the article on the position of the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association on gun violence. (You can find the article here.)

It appears by virtue of the article that the association decided to drop the ball on a critical issue of national safety. The statement, “Taking guns away from citizens doesn’t alleviate or eliminate the threat of violence...” is absurd on its face value. The killer in a Colorado theater had guns. The killer of Connecticut school children had guns. The killer of police officers and other citizens in southern California had guns! (Unfortunately, Mr. Swanson seems to lack the ability to comprehend the meaning of the statement issued by the MSPOA. Two paragraphs earlier in the article we read that "...the association opposes any legislation that takes away constitutional protections, including gun rights, from law-abiding citizens." Clearly this excludes people who murder people. 

Further, the Chronicle article itself, as is typical, gets about half the facts wrong. On the MSPOA website we read the actual unmolested quote: "The MSPOA feels that any legislation that takes away constitutional protections, including gun rights, from law-abiding citizens will not alleviate or eliminate the threat from violent or mentally ill individuals. In fact, it would expose our law-abiding neighbors to violence with fewer resources to counter them with." Note the phrase "law-abiding citizens," which is missing from the Chronicle paraphrase.

Compare that with reporter Whitney Bermes' characterization: "Taking guns away from citizens doesn’t alleviate or eliminate the threat of violence, but in fact exposes people to violence, because they would have less protection, the organization said." The phrase "have less protection" does not appear in the MSPOA's statement in the context of people having less of it. This is an editorialization by the reporter.

The reason all of this is important is that the assertion made by Mr. Swanson ["absurd on its face"] is predicated on a mischaracterization of the MSPOA statement. The fact that some people who are criminals or mentally disturbed commit crimes with guns does not mean the MSPOA statement is absurd, in error, or outside the mainstream of reasonable thought.)

While the article no doubt does not reflect the entire position of the association, I ask where do they stand on universal background checks, specific methods to keep guns from the hands of those who should not have them, specifics on how to restrict the unfettered availability of weapons of war? (There is no burden upon the MSPOA to address topics invented by Mr. Swanson. The article was specific in its thrust to address the constitutional issues of gun control. That was the topic. If Mr. Swanson has other questions about other topics, why doesn't he call them up and ask them, or search their website?

"Unfettered weapons of war." What? Who has access to unfettered weapons of war? Not the average citizen. There is no such thing as unfettered weapons of war, since owning an automatic firearm is illegal. This is nothing but emotionalized hyperbole.) 

Their statement seems to be little more than political pabulum in which the group recites broad generalities (The MSPOA statement makes several very specific assertions. Therefore, Mr. Swanson did not read the statement or is lying about its contents.) 

that have been made time and time again, and have resulted in little actual action that benefits public safety. (What? How many gun laws are there on the books? Hundreds? Thousands? Plenty of gun-restricting action has been undertaken to limit gun violence, including total bans. The places with the most stringent gun laws are also some of the most violent with respect to guns. Mr. Swanson does what is typical for the Left. They pretend like nothing has been done, like today is a new day and the past doesn't exist, and therefore their issues are always crises that need immediate action.) 

I expect much more from a group of professionals that should be looking out for the greater good of our communities. (Who is Mr. Swanson to tell what the MSPOA or any other organization what it should be doing? The MSPOA mission statement: "The mission of the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association is to improve the effectiveness of and to provide support for professional law enforcement in Montana." If Mr. Swanson thinks they should be "looking out for the greater good of our communities," I suggest he join the organization and try to persuade them to adopt his preferences. 

But what does it mean to be "looking out for the greater good of our communities?" That sounds to me like little more than political pablum.)

Scott D. Swanson

Bozeman