Law enforcement officers overwhelmingly oppose gun control

Remove all ads!

The vast majority of law enforcement officers are opposed to gun control. They also believe that bans on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and so-called "assault weapons" will do absolutely nothing to stop criminals and will only have negative consequences. The vast majority of law enforcement officers also said that they would refuse to enforce proposed gun control laws AND that the best way to combat violent crime is to expand gun rights (especially concealed carry).

Interestingly, a few weeks ago Michael Bloomberg said that "the majority of police officers support my organization," (his organization is the "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" anti-Second Amendment lobby). Yet all of the data shows that the vast majority of police officers don't even come close to remotely lining up with Bloomberg and Feinstein's agenda.

I'm curious, what are your thoughts on this data?

Source: http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legisl...l-Survey-11-key-findings-on-officers-thoughts

 

Those statistics really aren't all the surprising. I mean, most police officers are also, you know, gun owners. I have two friends who are members of the state police. One in Pennsylvania, the other in South Carolina. Neither of them have ever purchased a gun, but obviously they each have their state-issue side arms that they bring home with them. Their opinions of this mirror yours, i.e., that since the vast majority of violent crimes are not committed with assault rifles, nor are they committed with firearms that have extended magazines, that a ban on these types of rifles/magazines will do little to reduce the problem.

 

The first thing that came to mind on seeing that title was was... chefs overwhelmingly oppose knife control

 

Actually the conventional thinking, in the US at least, is that police officers generally favor gun control, because they are the ones on the front lines dealing with firearms in the hands of criminals or those who should otherwise not have them (drunks, etc.) and are thus more likely to be injured by them. From what I gather, gun control advocates among police ranks moreso consist of administrators and policy-makers (e.g. chiefs of police, sheriffs), but I'm nonetheless rather surprised at the extent of the lack of support among the rank and file line officers. "Guns hurt cops" is a common mantra amongst police, and most that I know certainly like taking them away from bad guys.

 

I know that in Canada cops see the same da** people going through a revolving door and committing the same crimes only to get bail and come out again. In that sense, I can imagine they would rather see criminals actually punished appropriately when they actually commit a crime than the rather nebulous "prevention" that comes from disarming people who have never committed a crime in the first place. The US experience may be different, but I doubt it.

 

It's not a survey of US law enforcement officers. It's a survey of US law enforcement officers who are registered to this Policeone website. Very different things and it's probably like a survey of Sorcerer's Place would show RPGs to be by far the most popular type of video game.

 

These statistics are consistent with the opinions of the police I know. That being said, I know less than a half-dozen police. Haven't met any in this town, yet.

 

I would hazard that many cops couldn't care less if Farmer Brown has a gun that he uses to shoot gophers, or that Mr. Grimmly the high school teacher has a gun that he target shoots every weekend. He doesn't care about their gun possession because he is never called to their residences, because nothing criminal ever goes on there. However, the cops are much more likely to be concerned about Edward Jones possibly having a hot gun that he didn't buy through legitimate channels anyway, because he's out on parole for the 8th time and the last seven times he got a gun and used it in the commission of a felony each time, despite the sternly worded order from the judge forbidding him to own guns.

In all honesty, which is more likely to prevent a felony? Taking away Grimmly's gun or forcing him to fill out reams of useless paperwork? Or putting Jones away for life? Logic tells me that dealing with Jones is the more effective way to reduce crime.

 

Meh. A few years back, most meteorologists didn't believe in global warming. Police officers aren't statisticians, and most police officers will never have to discharge a weapon while on duty. Their job experience isn't terribly informative in this regard.

This line of reasoning is a red herring, anyway. Arguing that a statistically low percentage of gun crimes are committed with weapons that would be affected by a new assult weapons ban misses the point. Making high powered rifles with extended magazines less available is intended not to reduce the number of shooting incidents, but rather to lessen their severity. Background checks, waiting periods, and closing gun show loopholes will do far more to lessen the frequency of shooting incidents than making it harder to buy a high powered semi-automatic rifle with an extended magazine ever will. Fortunately, we need not choose between one or the other approach. We can do both.

 

My friends that are police officers are big supporters of the second amendment. Of course they don't want scum to have guns, but see no problem with law abiding citizens having them.

 

Tell me this: What does “Universal Background Check” mean in the USA? To me, “universal” means “everyone” and “Background check” means looking into a potential buyer’s background to ensure they are not criminals, psychos, or foreigners. This seems a reasonable precaution to me. Yet the NRA opposes it, correct? Why? What is it they are really opposing?

 

What the say they are opposing is allowing the federal government to get one step closer to identifying all gun buyers, which supposedly makes it easier for them to confiscate those from the public should they decide to enslave us all.

What they are really opposing is the rate at which guns are sold – and thus, the profit margins made by the gun manufacturers – slowing down in any way whatsoever.

We're talking about machines that make it extremely easy to kill people with little skill or effort. I would think anyone concerned at all about safety would consider strengthening the system by which we conduct background checks for those who wish to possess such things to be a no-brainer. But as I keep getting told by people on the other side of this argument, I totally hate freedom.

 

I got around to looking at the PDFs, as Deise said, they not only didn't sample random police officers, they only polled PoliceOne members. Even among their own members they didn't use random sampling, the survey was instead 'promoted' to members, which raises the specter of sample bias. (this poll is so bad in fact, it's eerily similar to a certain well known 1936 poll)

It is dishonest to even call this a poll, the findings are biased, and the validity is non-existent.

 

I didn't mention before, Policeone states that it has "400,000 registered members, comprised of verified law enforcement professionals." That's the equivalent of half the number of policemen in the US. This website is either incredibly popular, has loads of retirees or has one heck of an international audience.

 

I know. But you aren't claiming these are verified law enforcement professionals.

 

Hitting the broad side of a barn is actually pretty tricky with a handgun. Shotguns and rifles less so, but pistols are almost the only firearms ever used in violent crime.

 

If the numbers are even trustworthy, it still doesn't mean anything. The questions have been deliberately set up to come at a certain outcome. Imagine you're a negative, cynical law enforcement officer, completely jaded by the amount of guns you encounter on the streets. A survey asks you a kind of 'but would it make a difference?' question, and you honestly answer that you think it won't. Your vote is added to a statistic that gives an impression that you actually OPPOSE gun control. The questions have been engineered, so it makes me suspicious about the survey makers.

 

Why would you support a law that you know won't work?

And if what you were saying is true, how does that explain how most police officers said they would refuse to enforce the proposed gun control laws?

 

Like I said, I don't trust the survey makers. Perhaps a great deal of policemen are NRA fanatics, but I can't imagine all of them are. Perhaps the survey was taken in an honest fashion, but then the portion of police officers who frequent the website are not representative of the average. I read stuff on the website, and it seems to cater to policemen working at remote outposts. City officers wouldn't view the website, because they have better methods to stay up-to-date. If that's true, then the officers' opinions are reflective of the average countryside/non-urban American's views. People outside the cities often hold traditional republican views, which includes gun ownership, but they are not the majority.