We heard from the police chiefs and commissioners, but what do the

[gejohnston]

street cops think this issue?

In March, PoliceOne conducted the most comprehensive survey ever of American law enforcement officers’ opinions on the topic gripping the nation's attention in recent weeks: gun control.

More than 15,000 verified law enforcement professionals took part in the survey, which aimed to bring together the thoughts and opinions of the only professional group devoted to limiting and defeating gun violence as part of their sworn responsibility.

Totaling just shy of 30 questions, the survey allowed officers across the United States to share their perspectives on issues spanning from gun control and gun violence to gun rights.

Top Line Takeaways
Breaking down the results, it's important to note that 70 percent of respondents are field-level law enforcers — those who are face-to-face in the fight against violent crime on a daily basis — not office-bound, non-sworn administrators or perpetually-campaigning elected officials.

http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-findings-on-officers-thoughts/

[slackmaster]

1. Every police officer plans on living to be a former police officer

They value their liberty at least as much as the rest of us.

[spin]

2. This survey reflects the views of the police officers that I have talked with over the years. ...

Of course all have been street cops.

A survey of police chiefs would show different results as they are often political creatures hoping to advance their careers.

I don't expect this survey to garner much attention in the media. It simply doesn't support the media's agenda.

[rdharma]

3. What do street cops think this issue?

You're not likey to get a straight answer from an internet poll like "policeone.com". What a joke.

I would seriously doubt that more than 5% of their subscribers are actual "street cops".

[gejohnston]

4. you didn't read?

PoliceOne’s Gun Policy & Law Enforcement survey was conducted between March 4 and
March 13, 2013. More than 15,000 officers completed the survey, which was promoted
by PoliceOne exclusively to its 400,000 registered members, comprised of verified law
enforcement professionals. Only current, former or retired law enforcement personnel
were eligible to participate in the survey. The survey sample size was broadly distributed by geography and rank in proportion to the U.S. law enforcement community at
large. Respondents comprised a variety of ranks from departments of all sizes, with the
majority representing departments of greater than 500 officers. Of those that took the
survey, 80 percent were current law enforcement officers and 20 percent were
former/retired law enforcement.

I doubt it is as big of a joke as VPC.

[rdharma]

6. "Verified"?

Hahahhahaa!

[Lizzie Poppet]

13. Your desperation is palpable.

Despite the nervous-sounding laughter and hilariously weak attempts to discredit the survey's methodology (a subject I feel pretty confident you know fuck-all about...), you're not fooling anyone. Rank-and-file cops don't support stringent gun control...never have and I have no doubt they never will.

Oh, and to hopefully further deepen your funk, the military is even less supportive of strict gun control...and the military's professional officer corps even less so. You might want to think about just what agency's going to actually enforce any new gun regulations that the majority of gun owners consider unacceptable and elect to ignore.

Have a nice evening!

[sylvi]

20. You have to remember

You have to remember, this is the same poster here who dismissed the credibility of a certain newspaper only to turn around a few days later and cite the same paper to back up some nebulous "point" he was trying to make.

He's here to troll and nothing else.

[Lizzie Poppet]

22. Expensive real estate!

I hear those under-bridge condos are pretty pricey...

[norge]

84. When You Have No Evidence To Refute An Argument...

try laughter! It implies that you think the points made by your opponent are so silly as to be laughable, and require no serious refutation. Of course, your laughter really means that you have no logical, rational opposition to offer.

[rdharma]

85. Except proving that the poll is BS!

Verified LEOs! I guess I debunked that BS!

[CokeMachine]

5. Try reading before you post.

It's not that difficult if you give it a try. You're not trying very hard here but there may still be hope for you.

[rdharma]

7. I did read!

That's why it's so hilarious!

[slackmaster]

8. Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger

[rdharma]

9. It got pretty quiet after I challenged the validity of this "poll"! nt

[slackmaster]

10. The Astute Reader(TM) will note the absence of alternative data in any of rdharma's replies.

Pure gainsaying and disruption are all rdharma has to offer.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

52. Why should today be any different?

[gejohnston]

11. could be because

simply saying "I don't believe it" isn't much of a challenge and not worth the effort to respond to. Someone might be looking for evidence to challenge the poll with. I would think you would want to be the first with the scoop if there is one.
You have a good start for a water well there. Keep digging.

[rdharma]

14. Do tell me about these "verified" LEOs on policeone.com!

Verified? How? When I registered on policeone.com, I shore nuff didn't need no certified verification signed by the "Chief" on Dept. stationary!

Y'all are so funny!

[Straw Man]

15. You don't believe the site is legitimate?

Interesting. Aren't you supposed to be some kind of former LE firearms trainer?

So you registered for the site? Then post a comment there and a link to it here.

[premium]

49. At this point

I don't believe a word he says, he's here for one purpose and one purpose only, to disrupt.
He doesn't like that poll because it doesn't fit his agenda on gun control, despite it being a legitimate poll.

[Lizzie Poppet]

19. An actual "challenge" would involve facts and logically valid arguments.

You offered neither...

Troll harder.

[Jenoch]

12. I believe the results of this poll are valid.

I have two brothers and two cousins who are LEOs and in discussions with them their views are similar to those shown in these results.

[rdharma]

16. And I got six brothers, two uncles, three cousins and two nephews who are/were LEOs who disagree!

Oh, and then there's me too!

See how that works?

[Straw Man]

17. Have I told you ...

... that I'm the rightful heir to the throne of Russia? They want me back, but I really don't want the hassles.

This is a fun game, isn't it?

[Jenoch]

18. The difference between your post

and mine is that I was telling the truth and was not just posting a smartass response with no substance. Of course everyone has come to expect that on these threads. Do you ever tire of posting this sort of drivel?

[rdharma]

25. "The difference between your post and mine is that I was telling the truth!"

You calling me a "liar"?

[Jenoch]

45. I probably could have phrased my post a little differently.

My post was not intended to be so much about whether or not your post was truthful (of course it's b.s.), but more about pointing out that it was a smartass response with no substance and was just more drivel. Which is to be expected.

[rdharma]

23. Hey, StrawMan! Here it 'tis!

http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6188462-PoliceOnes-2013-Gun-Policy-Law-Enforcement-Survey-Results-Executive-Summary/#comments_block

Posted by rdharma on Monday, April 08, 2013 06:18 PM Pacific

A friend of mine (Straw Man) recommended this topic. Very interesting. Working as a LEO in Mumbai, I have a very different opinion on this subject.

Dharma Rajan
Dadar Police Station
Shankar Maktar Marg
Dardar W, Mumbai-28

PS - I deleted my post above because it responded to the wrong post.

[cherokeeprogressive]

24. It plainly states on their registration page that all who claim to be LEO's will be checked.

Your gotcha moment just went up in smoke...

Judging from the content of your post there and its claim that you're a member of Law Enforcement, I'm thinking you just may have lied about it; which proves nothing other than you don't have any trouble either bending the truth or just plain being untruthful.

I guess we'll keep a link to this page and see if your post remains or whether it gets deleted due to its untruthful nature. Oh wait, never mind. Your post on DU is a permanent way to trip back over there and see if they've discovered your untruths or not.

And remember the court's view on lying... tell one lie and everything else you ever say is suspect.

[rdharma]

28. Oh, do tell!

[Straw Man]

27. So ...

... you actually are a LEO in Mumbai, or you lied on your registration over there? Interesting.

[rdharma]

31. Well, seems somebody lied........

..... but that poster claimed that "policeman.com" polls were verified! And I told you that was BS........didn't I?

[cherokeeprogressive]

32. Did you vote in a poll? If not, then how do you know anything is BS?

All you did was post a comment. And I believe that comment will disappear when your information can't be confirmed.

[rdharma]

38. Poll was over! nt

[Loudly]

26. Based on my own survey, cops support guns in the hands of the public

right up until the moment when a bullet enters their body fired by an armed citizen.

[Straw Man]

30. Another classic meme ...

... from the artist formerly known as Shares United.

What was the post that got you banned the last time? I believe it was when you told another DU-er, "I toast a cap in your ass." Or was that during this incarnation?

[Loudly]

33. Stop blathering a moment, and tell me if cops trust the People not to shoot them?

Seems to me that the "anti tyranny" crowd stands firmly for the principle that the public needs guns PRECISELY to shoot cops.

No?

Then what resistance to tyranny are you folks referring to?

Defend your 2A.

Go ahead.

You can't. Not convincingly.

[Straw Man]

37. OK, Shares, I'd be glad to.

Resistance to tyranny has nothing to do with resistance to legitimate authority. The former is justified; the latter is criminal.

I don't consider my government or the organs of its authority to be illegitimate. However, there is no guarantee that this will be the case in perpetuity.

A government that trusts its citizens does not see the need to disarm them.

[Loudly]

39. Now put yourself in the shoes of the 1861 state's rights advocate.

Your perception of tyranny is very real and perceptible.

But can you see how subjective it is?

Those secessionists felt as self-justified as anyone could ever feel.

Yet history and fairness has shown how wrong they were.

Doesn't this realization serve in any way to erode your sense of confidence that you should have guns and ammunition to shoot at the authorities?

Well it should!

And without that confidence, what can possibly remain of a 2A argument?

[Straw Man]

40. We've done this before, Shares.

Remember?

You're claiming that the existence of a unjustified rebellion 150 years ago negates the possibility of a justified rebellion forever. And I'm not buying it.

I don't have guns and ammunition "to shoot at the authorities" -- I have them for sport and self-defense. I would hope that my political sensibilities and moral compass would be sufficient to tell me when and if it might be necessary to actively resist tyranny. Those are the only tools any of us have to tell us when to take any political action, after all. I very much doubt that it will happen in my lifetime, if ever. I have much more faith in our Republic than that.

You are positing a quagmire of doubt and relativism that leaves only one way out: obedience to authority, no matter what. Doesn't work for me. Sorry.

[Loudly]

68. And you're claiming that as a constitutional "right??"

Don't make me laugh, because I am easily made to at nonsense.

[Straw Man]

69. Absolutely.

And you're claiming that as a constituional "right??"

Don't make me laugh, because I am easily made to at nonsense.

Absolutely. The constitutional justification is not my primary reason for owning firearms, but it is the reason that the right is protected. I know you can understand that if you try.

A rhetorical tip: calling a position "nonsense" is not an effective rebuttal.

[Loudly]

70. Help yourself to a constitutional justification.

I'm listening.

With full knowledge of the history of the nation.

[Straw Man]

71. The Second Amendment protects the right ...

... to keep and bear arms. It has never been repealed. I know you have some spurious Civil War justification for believing it to be obsolete, but fortunately your bizarre theories don't have the force of law or the weight of history behind them.

[Loudly]

73. You're looking for refuge in a harbor whose name you dare not say its name.

What is your constitutional basis for claiming a right to convenient murder?

It's because you think you know a tyrant when you see one.

Just like the Rebs did!

But they discredited that viewpoint for all time.

Didn't they?

[Straw Man]

74. No one has a right to murder.

But you know that.

New name, same old song. You were banned once. Don't you believe rules and regulations? A curiously hypocritical position for a prohibitionist.

Yes, I know a tyrant when I see one. So the Rebs discredited the idea of opposing tyranny? For all time? They were wrong so all those who might ever oppose tyranny are wrong? How does that work?

[Straw Man]

72. By the way ...

Why are you still here? You were banned from this site. Apparently you don't like to live by the rules.

[rdharma]

41. "A government that trusts its citizens does not see the need to disarm them."

"I don't consider my government or the organs of its authority to be illegitimate. However, there is no guarantee that this will be the case in perpetuity."

Oh! The drama where none is needed!

[Straw Man]

44. No drama.

Where do you see drama? I said that I trust our government.

[sylvi]

34. Yeah, I'm sure the cops surveyed

were too stupid to consider that when weighing the risk vs. benefit of the public being armed.

[Loudly]

35. It was more that they liked the sound of it in theory.

Until they realized how it put themselves in harm's way.

[sylvi]

42. Or it could be that they know what puts them at risk

better than you do.

[DonP]

29. Here's a Chicago street cop blog where they are mostly anonymous.

Once you read a few posts, you'll see why many of them stay anonymous.

http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/

But, for the unbelievers out there ... (Bong Bong is that you again, but with slightly less charm?) they have to use their shield number and can't post until it's confirmed.

Keep in mind, this is a deep blue state and a deep blue city with union cops, fire and teachers ... even though the cops haven't had a new contract in several years and are about 900 cops short of what the manpower is supposed to be.

The short version is ... they think Chicago's gun laws are ridiculous and aren't terribly afraid of the law abiding carrying.

But see for yourself. They don't think too highly of Rahm or his new Superintendent "of the moment" McCarthy, who has already embarrassed Rahm twice since the first of the year.

[CokeMachine]

53. Thanks Don,

I was trying to figure who that poster reminded me of. Now we have Bong Bong and Shares United with us again under new names.

[rdharma]

36. Have you seen the comments over on "policeone.com"

I have and they aren't very ..... democratic.

Shall I fetch you some quotes for those who love the site?!!!!

Oh, thank-y'all for exposing this can of conservative worms for observation!

[sylvi]

43. Cops tend to be conservative?

Whoda thunkit? Thanks for the news of the world, genius!

The OP was to help put to rest the meme that most cops favor stricter gun control, not gauge the political climate among cops, which we already knew.

Yet another strikeout.

[rdharma]

46. Cops tend to be conservative?

Especially the young stupid ones! I know from personal experience.

But they eventually learn!

[sylvi]

47. Yeah, the country is fairly brimming

with old, liberal cops.

[spin]

48. Strange. I know a lot of retired cops and cops approaching retirement. ...

Most are sadly Republicans and most support gun rights (which is why they are Republican).

I live in Florida and you would think that if civilian ownership of firearms was really a bad thing, most street cops here would favor strong gun control. Even in the urban areas a large number of citizens own firearms in this state. Tampa is located in Hillsborough Country and 52,409 individuals have concealed carry permits in the county.
(ref: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_active.pdf)

The one group of gun owners that the cops I know dislike are criminals.

[rdharma]

50. Citizens own firearms in Tampa........

[spin]

54. So obviously you feel the solution is to disarm all civilians in Tampa...

to solve the problem of child kidnapping.

[rdharma]

55. So, obviously you have a fondness for straw man arguments.

They were "responsible" gun owners and "anti-government conspiracy theorists" ........ until they became irresponsible gun owners and anti-government conspiracy theorists.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

56. "were"

Once the task of seeing the future is accomplished, this problem of knowing who might become irresponsible will be over and something can be added to background checks.

[rdharma]

57. Seeing into the future?

I think the guns should have been taken away from these nut jobs when custody of their children was awarded to granny!

No Nostradamus needed on that one!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

58. I "think" it should rain beer and $20s

I don't know "these nut jobs" and if you have an applicable principle in mind, please share it.

[rdharma]

60. So do I.... What is your point?

Would you have defended the "right" of these nutjobs to "keep and bear arms" after they were adjudicated as nutjobs.... unfit to have custody of their children?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

62. As I said...

...I'm unfamiliar with "these nut jobs". If their "situation" is covered here: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheet then their right is, was or should have been, via due process, suspended or revoked.

You've given my no links or names to check for these facts, so that's best I can do.

[rdharma]

65. "no links or names to check for these facts"

Need spoon feeding?

Don't you feel uncomfortable making comments without checking the facts yourself?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

66. Don't you feel uncomfortable...

...acting rudely? Spoon feeding? You posted pictures and asked if I thought their arms rights should be defended.


My facts:

I'm unfamiliar with "these nut jobs". If their "situation" is covered here: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/fact-sheet then their right is, was or should have been, via due process, suspended or revoked.

What exactly from that excerpt do you have a problem with?

[spin]

59. Joshua Hakken lost custody of his sons after he had been arrested in Louisiana ...

for possession of marijuana.

Perhaps we should ban marijuana. We all know that banning things works.

[rdharma]

61. Drug conviction disqualifies one from owning firearms...... nt

[spin]

63. True. However if certain drugs were legal this incident might never have happened. ...

We lost our war on drugs decades ago.

[rdharma]

64. I thought we were talking about guns.......

..... and not drug laws.

I'm for the legalization of MJ.

So, do you think these nutty folks should have had the right to keep their guns?

[spin]

67. At this time with the information that I have I feel we may have another failure of our ...

mental health care system. Obviously he needed some treatment for mental issues.

TAMPA — Joshua Hakken has previously planned suicide, court documents state. He has talked about taking a "journey to Armageddon."
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/authorities-continue-search-for-missing-tampa-children/2113181

If this is true, he might have posed a significant danger to himself and possibly his family. He needed to be evaluated in a treatment center and if the results showed significant mental issues, his firearms should have been confiscated.

That doesn't mean that I believe that every gun owner in Tampa has serious mental issues.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

51. This will be disregarded by those who want to do something quickly whether it is stupid or not.

[ileus]

75. Forget LEO's lets hear what those of us that actually protect our lives have to say.

[bowens43]

76. Well if this true and I doubt it, so what? I really dont care they think.

every act of gun violence is committed with a gun. Ban guns and ammunition and gun violence goes away.

end of story

[friendly_iconoclast]

77. "Ban guns and ammunition and gun violence goes away." Faith-based gun control, in other words.

Tell us, how well have such bans worked in other places? Places like Mexico and Jamaica, for instance...

[Jenoch]

78. What is your plan

to accomplish your lofty goal?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

79. Didn't someone once say that...

...about drugs?

[sylvi]

80. And alcohol...nt

[Bazinga]

81. What happens if gun violence goes away, but there is an increase in overall violence?

Because the results of previous gun control efforts are inconclusive at best, is it outside the realm of possibility that gun control efforts could result in a rise in crime, especially in our country with a long-standing tradition of guns? What happens then? Why is it so important to get rid of gun crime in particular? Is a person less dead when killed with a knife? Less mugged when threatened with a bat? Less raped when overpowered by a larger, stronger man? It seems disingenuous to me to conflate the weapon with the crime, and naive to believe control of the weapon equates to control of the criminal.

[beevul]

82. And yet in the poll, you selected...

"I support confiscation of some currently legally owned firearms, but not all firearms."

Changed your mind, have you?

[norge]

86. No Kidding!

Really? "Every act of gun violence is committed with a gun." What a revelation! Gee, I thought some were committed by lawn mowers. Just like every criminal act is committed by a - criminal?

Yes, you can ban guns and ammunition and gun violence goes away - in theory, but not reality. Criminals will still have access to both - do you really think a ban will keep them out of their hands? A gun owned by a law-abiding citizen is not a danger to anyone. (Except perhaps to a criminal threatening that citizen.)

Are you only concerned with gun violence? What about non-gun related violence? FBI website (see Expanded Homicide Data Table 11, Murder Circumstances, By Weapon, 2011) shows in that year, U.S. murders committed by "Knives or cutting instruments" numbered 1,684. Same data table shows 496 people were murdered by "Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)". And another 726 people were murdered by "Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)". Add in the other methods of murder used in 2011, (fire, strangulation, poison, drowning, etc.) and you get a total of 4,081 non-gun murders that year. Are these people's lives just as valuable as those murdered by guns? What is your take on stopping those murders? Ban all knives, baseball bats, fists, ropes, and so on? The causes of violence do NOT lie within the inanimate object used to commit the act. They lie within the human mind. So in response to your smug "end of story" line - you couldn't be more wrong. Violence will continue in many different forms until we address the mental health issues.

[Robb]

83. Whoopsie.

Dyed-in-the-wool NRA propaganda alert!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/nra-ad-claims-that-poll-data-reflects-views-of-americas-police/2013/04/17/f32b82f6-a7ae-11e2-8302-3c7e0ea97057_blog.html

Jon Hughes, Praetorian’s vice president for content, said that a qualifying question at the beginning, asking whether a survey-taker was a current or former law enforcement member, was intended to weed out people who were not connected to law enforcement.

“While that falls short of a 100 percent guarantee that no non-law enforcement members took the survey, we found the responses reflective of the general tone of discussion on our site (e.g. member comments) and the rank distribution and department size distribution closely matches that of our registered member base as well as the law enforcement community as a whole,” Hughes said. “There was no cross-checking after the survey was finalized.”

Still, let’s do the math.

The reported membership of PoliceOne is 400,000, so the response rate among members is just 3.75 percent. Moreover, there are some 765,000 sworn local and state law enforcement officers — not to mention federal officers.

This makes it all but impossible to claim that this survey is representative of law enforcement opinions on gun-control measures, and Hughes conceded that “the survey was not scientific by definition.”

and

The survey methodology also discloses that a question on criminal background checks was removed from the survey “due to flaws with the question details, highlighted by a handful of users.” That’s rather unusual, especially given that background checks are at the center of the gun-control debate.