What Chiefs of Police think about guns and other subjects.

[skippythwndrdog]

Survey can also be found at: http://www.aphf.org/surveyresults.pdf

As there are many general interest answers there, some of which are surprising to me, I will post also in GD.

[jody]

1. Are you implying police chiefs and sheriffs know more about

guns and crime than the Scary Brady Bunch and Fienstein?

How can that be when Bill Clinton and Al Gore acknowledge that the gun grabbers were major factors in we Dems winning the last two presidential elections?

I'm sorry, I was dreaming of what might have been but we actually lost both elections.

[skippythwndrdog]

2. Of course Brady and Feinstine know more. Who could think differently?

Thank God the gun-grabbers brought home the last two elections for us, how awful would it have been if Bush had won?

[iverglas]

11. your prayer runs counter to popular wisdom

Thank God the gun-grabbers brought home the last two elections for us

I'm pretty sure the prevailing view is that the baby-killers and homo-huggers did that job.

Still can't figure this one out. Maybe a platform of a big honking firearm in every pot would win an election ... but definitely a platform of closing down all the abortion clinics and bathhouses would do it. Why go for the long shot, when there's a sure thing??

And what is it that prevents so many people from correctly spelling a quite common, if not quite WASP, surname?

[iverglas]

7. blew it again, eh?

the Scary Brady Bunch and Fienstein

I think that's supposed to be FienDstein, isn't it?

You're batting less than 50 on this one, I'd guess. It would be unfortunate if anyone who's somehow managed to see the little witticism in its multiple previous appearances were to be deprived of the pleasure of this demonization (heck, that's actually literal in this case) of a Democrat because of the typo.

Sarah Scary Brady.

Dianne FeinFiendstein.

There ya go. Glad to be of service.

[Columbia]

3. Umm...uhh...

They're bogus! Bogus police chiefs!!!

/ggrabber

[slackmaster]

4. LOL!

Was the APHF founded by a Libertarian who has never worked in law enforcement?

:D

[skippythwndrdog]

5. The silence from the anti crowd is quite deafening.

[iverglas]

6. now there's a credible bunch for you

They claim to believe -- against all evidence -- that
the death penalty is an effective deterrent (to
"certain types of crimes"; maybe they'd be right
if what they had in mind was shoplifting ...).

So their opinion about anything else that is a matter
of fact (whether the fact is knowable or not), and not
opinion, would matter to anyone ... why was it, now?

Not to mention the question of why the opinions, about
anything that is a matter of opinion, of people who
overwhelmingly have such revolting opinions (death
penalty for killing of law enforcement officer) would
matter to anybody, let alone a liberal/progressive/Democrat,
anyhow ...

Haven't we seen all this before? Is there something
about it that makes it more worth knowing or thinking
about than any other time?

[skippythwndrdog]

8. Oh, so now the Chiefs of Police aren't credible?

Really, then who is? Of course! Sarah Brady and her authoritarian (TM'd by Fatslob) friends.

I, for one, fully support the death penalty in many instances. Yes, my motive is retribution. Your opinion is that it is revolting, mine is quite different, I see it as justice. I want cop killers to be executed, I want rapists executed, child molesters executed, murderers executed. I want attempted murderers to be executed (just because you fail at being a murderer doesn't mean you should live).

If you can't figure out why the opinions of the Chief Law Enforcement Officers in the United States are valuable, and worth knowing, then I suspect that your brain must be taking a well-deserved mental holiday. Alternatively, it could be denying the obvious because it is opposed to its viewpoint. The very people who are charged with enforcing gun laws side with the pro-gun point of view. Those with the authority, don't support the authoritarian viewpoint of gun control. That is pretty damning.

Frankly the attempt to discredit their views on one subject, due to their views on another is quite pitiful. It rather seems like an attempt to lead the conversation astray...too bad that it won't work. The gun control/ban movement is getting its ass handed to it. The United States is waking up to the fact that gun control is a failure. Similarly, I'm glad that Canada is waking up to the fact that its registry is a boondogle and a failure. See, the biggest difference between many of the gun control/ban crowd and myself is that I support all basic rights, not just selected ones. I urge you and your brain to stand with me, against government intrusion, and stand for freedom.

[iverglas]

9. try it again, sam

"Do you believe the death penalty serves as a deterrent to certain types of crime?"

Survey says ... 88.5% YES.

Now, you haven't claimed that the death penalty is a deterrent to anything, in your post. You babbled on about other things you consider to be good reasons for the death penalty.

I consider advocating that the death penalty be used for the reasons you advanced to be revolting.

I consider a statement of belief that the death penalty serves as a deterrent to crime to be stupid, for the simple reason that it is a statement of belief in a "fact" that is not a fact, and that there is no trustworthy evidence to support.

Like I said, the death penalty might be a deterrent to shoplifting, but there is no trustworthy evidence to show that it is a deterrent to the kinds of crimes for which it is applied in the US.

So you have assembled a basket of oranges and apples, friend.

The reason why I regard the opinion of the 65.7% of respondents to a survey who said YES in response to the question:
"Do you agree that a national concealed handgun permit would reduce rates of violent crime as recent studies in some states have already reflected"
as unworthy of my serious consideration is the same reason why I regard the same respondents' response to the question regarding the death penalty as unworthy of my consideration.

Their belief in something that there is no trustworthy evidence to establish to be fact is of no interest to me.

We will of course note the push-poll nature of the question in question in any event:
"... as recent studies in some states have already reflected".
And studies in other states have "reflected" the opposite.

A survey that is designed to produce an accurate and honest portrayal of opinions does not frame its questions in such a way as to persuade respondents of anything, or in such a way as to suggest the answer. Duh.

I like this one, two:
"Would you concur that foreign or domestic terrorist threats or acts will increase in this country in the next year?" -- 88.2% YES.
Whadda these guys got, a crystal ball? And they've used it to foresee something that recent experience provides no basis for foreseeing? I mean, given how we all know that there have been NO "terrorist threats or acts" in the US, ever, except for one incident over 4 years ago.

The very people who are charged with enforcing gun laws side with the pro-gun point of view.

Yeah. And with the pro-death penalty point of view. There being, in both cases, no trustworthy evidence of the effectiveness of what they advocate for the purposes they claim to believe it to be effective, I must conclude that they are either stupid or dishonest. And I don't place much weight on the opinions of either stupid or dishonest people. "Pretty damning", you say? You betcha. They stand damned by their own stupidity and/or dishonesty.


So hey, they're your pets. You find their opinions valuable? Anything else you would willingly cite them as authoritative on, or in respect of which you would approve their positions?

76.9% of them do not agree that "'civilian review boards' are an effective method of handling citizen complaints against law enforcement officers".
To "Should marijuana be legalized in the United States for those who have a legitimate medical need for the drug?", 59.8% say NO.
To "Do you think anyone convicted of a felony should be required to provide DNA samples to be cataloged in a manner similar to current practices of fingerprinting?", 92.4% say YES.
To "Does encryption technology - the ability to allow electronic messaging to be private and untraceable - hamper law enforcement’s investigative efforts?", 76.6% say YES. (I wonder, did the other 1/4 know what it meant? ...)

And reconcile these, if you will:
"Has the national war on drugs, which has been going on for more than 15 years, been successful in reducing the use of illegal drugs?" -- 82.3% NO.
"Do you think the decriminalization of “soft drugs” would allow more resources for violent and property crime management?" -- 68.9% NO.
Eh?

If we would not cite the respondents to this survey for informed opinion about "X", why would we cite them for informed opinion about "Y"?

Too bad the surveyers didn't ask them what they thought about George W. Bush, doncha think? Or maybe the Patriot Act, or free speech zones ...

But anyhow ...

Frankly the attempt to discredit their views on one subject, due to their views on another is quite pitiful.

You seem to have worked very hard to miss the point, and I do hope it will be clearer now.

The fact that their "opinion" about the effectiveness of the death penalty is so completely contrary to the known evidence suggests to me that their opinions about such things are based on something completely different from evidence. When I consider their "opinion" about the effectiveness of a law permitting the concealed carrying of firearms, I consider both

- the fact that there is no evidence to support their opinion
- the fact that they are known to have opinions unsupported by evidence

and I conclude that I can disregard their opinion about that matter without spending too much energy thinking about it.

If you can't figure out why the opinions of the Chief Law Enforcement Officers in the United States are valuable, and worth knowing, ...

Well now, I guess I shouldn't have implied that I didn't think that their opinions were "worth knowing". It's always worth knowing what stupid and/or dishonest people in positions of authority or influence know about the matters that they are in a position to have an effect on.

But "valuable"? Nah. And amazingly, I seldom see rkba-head discourse around here that would suggest to me that they value the opinions of law enforcement officers of any variety much, either.

Similarly, I'm glad that Canada is waking up to the fact that its registry is a boondogle and a failure.

Do you people never get tired of living in the past? Most of the time it's the 18th century, but in this case it's just the 20th. The firearms registry works, and is here to stay, along with its companion legislation and regulations (mandatory firearms licences, prohibitions and restrictions on weapons that may be possessed, firearms storage requirements ...), and is currently costing Canadians less than $1/year/person, and Canadians had obviously so "woken up" to whatever chimerical failure you're imagining that the thing was not even mentioned in the 2003 federal election. Now I wonder why a right-wing politician who opposes the firearms registry, and who was convinced that he had a chance of winning the election, would not have played such an obviously winning issue in wooing this alert electorate of yours?

I urge you and your brain to stand with me, against government intrusion, and stand for freedom.

Well hey, how's about we go together and advocate the overthrow of the government of the US, as long as we're standing for freedom; after all,

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, ... .

I just kinda suspect we might encounter a problem.

http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002385----000-.html

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2385

§ 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; ...

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. ...

Stand up for freedom of speech! Demand that this law be repealed! And while you're at it, demand that no broadcaster require a licence (let alone, good dawg, be fined for broadcasting speech), no purveyor of snake oil to cure cancer be punished (when was the last time snake oil killed somebody?), no perjurer be punished, no shouter of "fire" in crowded theatres be punished (when was the last time somebody was trampled to death after someone shouted "fire" in a crowded theatre, I wonder?) ... . Where's your love of liberty, man?!

On one of those holidays, I suppose.

[skippythwndrdog]

10. Thanks for the response.

I won't have much time today, I'll try to get back to you on Friday or Saturday.

[MrSandman]

12. So, when Japan is exemplified as gun-control utopia...

630. The Committee observed with concern that although Japan ranked second among the countries of the world in terms of overall resource development, according to the United Nations, her ranking was reduced to fourteenth when the socio-economic status of Japanese women was taken into consideration. The Committee considered that this demonstrated the State's indifference to integrating women fully in the economic development process of the country.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/cedaw/cedaw-japan_50_38.htm

[slackmaster]

13. We should disregard everything about Japan

If they're that far behind on women's rights, the country is clearly a backwater, a cultural cesspool.

:dunce:

[iverglas]

14. who you talking to?

Funny thing. When we look at the index of concluding observations by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, which you cite:
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/cedaw/

... we don't see the United States.
http://www.womenstreaty.org/

Hmmmmmmmmmm. I wonder, could that be because
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/reports.htm#u

United States of America
- not a party to CEDAW convention

This convention:

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/

As usual, it's in fine company. The United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Pakistan, Somalia ... not parties to it either. Japan (like Canada) has submitted five periodic reports to date. Norway's up to six.

But heck, if you aren't a party to the Convention, you don't have to comply with it, or submit a compliance report, or be rated on your compliance. Neat trick.


Pots might want to google a bit before calling 14th-place kettles black, anyhow. In Save the Children's mother's index --
http://humandevelopment.bu.edu/dev_indicators/show_info.cfm?index_id=241&data_type=1

The six indicators of women’s well-being are:
• Lifetime risk of maternal mortality
• Percent of women using modern contraception
• Percent of births attended by trained personnel
• Percent of pregnant women with anemia
• Adult female literacy rate
• Participation of women in national government

(all pretty basic stuff) the U.S. managed to move up from 11th place to 10th in 2003, I gather. Congratulations.

[MrSandman]

15. Skippy...nt

[iverglas]

16. fascinating

skippythwndrdog says, to me (in reply to a post about the value of a bunch of USAmerican executive cops' opinions about this and that):

I won't have much time today, I'll try to get back to you on Friday or Saturday.

... and you, in reply to that, launch into a lecture about the status of women in Japan.

[MrSandman]

17. Not much of a liftoff...

So sorry to have interrupted your dialog.

[alwynsw]

18. Is the death penalty a deterrent? Certainly!

It's 100% effective in preventing recidivism in those who have been subjected to it.

I like an idea told to me by a former death row inmate who I met while I was working in corrections. (He became a lifer in 1973? when SCOTUS struck down the death penalty as it stood at that time.) His idea dealt only with gang bangers involved in drive by shooting in which a fatality occurred.

Speedy trial: 30 days max from arrest to end of trial.

Speedy appeals: 30 days max from conviction to end of appeals.

Speedy execution: within 7 days of end of appeals

Mode of execution: public hanging in the perps neighborhood. No hood. Let him/her hang for at least 3 days after execution so his/her fellow gang bangers have a solid opportunity to see the cost of murder to the perpetrator.

Is it sensational? Yes. Would it be effective? Probably.

Now tell me all about the tramatized innocents in the neighborhood.

I didn't say we should do it. I said I liked the idea.

[Krinkov]

19. no matter your thoughts on the death penalty

why should cop killers recieve special sentencing for their crime?

Seems disturbingly police-statish if they got the death penalty more than other murderers...