Skip to comments.Survey of 15,000 Law Enforcement Professionals about U.S. Gun Control Policies
Posted on 04/08/2013 1:11:57 PM PDT by EXCH54FE
SAN FRANCISCO PoliceOne.com, the leading online resource for law enforcement, today released findings from a national survey of police professionals that provide insight into the opinions of American law enforcement regarding gun control policies and the root causes of and potential solutions to gun crime in the United States.
The survey, which was conducted in early March 2013, received 15,000 responses from law enforcement professionals. It found that the overall attitude of law enforcement is strongly anti-gun legislation and pro-gun rights, with the belief that an armed citizenry is effective in stopping crime. Response percentages varied only slightly when analyzed by rank and department size. Among the results: 86 percent feel the currently proposed legislation would have no effect or a negative effect on improving officer safety
Similarly, 92 percent feel that banning semi-automatic firearms, or assault weapons, would have no effect or a negative effect on reducing violent crime
Demonstrating the opinion that the best way to combat gun crime is through harsher punishment, 91 percent said the use of a firearm while perpetrating a crime should lead to a stiff, mandatory sentence with no plea bargains. Likewise, 59 percent believe increasing punishment severity for unlicensed dealers would reduce crime
Respondents were more split on background checks, with 31 percent agreeing that mental health background checks in all gun sales would help reduce mass shootings, while 45 percent disagreed
71 percent support law enforcement leaders who have publicly refused to enforce more restrictive gun laws within their jurisdictions
82 percent believe gun buyback or turn-in programs are ineffective in reducing the level of gun violence
91 percent support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or have not been deemed psychologically incapable
Likewise, 80 percent feel that legally-armed citizens would likely have reduced the number of casualties in recent mass shooting incidents
38 percent believe the biggest cause of gun violence in the United States is the decline in parenting and family values. This was trailed by overly lax parole and short sentencing standards at 15 percent and pop culture influence (eg. violent movies and video games) at 14 percent
The survey was promoted by PoliceOne exclusively to its 400,000 registered members, comprised of individually-verified law enforcement professionals. Only current, former or retired law enforcement personnel were eligible to participate in the survey.
Respondents comprised a variety of ranks from departments of all sizes, with the majority representing departments of greater than 500 officers. Of those who took the survey, 80 percent were current law enforcement officers and 20 percent were former/retired law enforcement.
This survey captures the perspective of an audience that has an intimate professional connection to gun policies in our country, yet is rarely heard from as a group in discussions on the issue, said Alex Ford, CEO of the Praetorian Group, PoliceOnes parent company. Our standing as the leading online community in the law enforcement market enabled us to gather what we feel is the most meaningful sampling of police attitudes about gun control ever compiled. There is clearly a wide range of opinions regarding this issue nationwide and we believe its important for our audiences voice to be heard.
I guess that is possible. ;)
As Law Enforcement employees become more a part of the Federal Government, expect this percentage of public service “you know our so called government helpers” support to fall, especially the upholders of our laws. Today we have their backing but do not expect this to hold for much longer. After all, their salaries depend on us providing them and they will do whatever is required to keep their monies on track. It does seem like a vicious circle to me.
This does seem to be a continuing effort to undermine the members of law enforcement and also undermine the Constitution. I doubt that we will have the right to bear arms for many more years. This is an incremental effect of socialism/federalism/Marxism and just about all other types of “isms”. Eventually, the power of the people will be undermined without regard of our Constitution. It’s all for the good of the people you know...or of course the children.
Pretty much agrees with everything the NRA has been saying for years, yet the NRA is portrayed in the lamestream media as out of touch. So typical.
As a retired thirty year LEO I have always supported and encouraged citizens to arm themselves Why? Because it is a Constitutional right, but more importantly sometimes we just can’t get there fast enough.
There are 855,000 LE professionals in USA. This survey represents not even 2%. [1.75%]
Wow that’s a HUGE number.
No wonder our state and local budgets are in such trouble.
There are 313,914,040 Americans. A recent poll says that 90% of Americans are in favor of universal background checks.
The Quinnipiac University poll was conducted March 26-April 1, with 1,711 registered voters questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus 2.4 percentage points.
The latter survey represents squat.
Great information. Thanks.
“This survey represents not even 2%. [1.75%]”
That’s a huge sample, statistically.
yep- it`s better than nothing- but I`ll bet there is a large disparity between city LEO`s and small-town LEO`s.
View full survey results:
The survey numbers are, on their face, encouraging, and I hope they are an accurate indicator of LE as a whole. I'm not familiar w/ policeone.com, so I'm not sure if it tends to slant right, but there's the danger of that bias in the sample leading to a misleading skew.
I would also think that police actively involved in a profession oriented website might be those who got into law enforcement for the right reasons,(i.e., sense of community service, a legitimate passion for justice, etc.), and may not represent the views of those who signed up for the badge and the gun, the union perks, etc., which would also distort the sample.
This includes the BUM Obummer who cannot even purchase a gun because he cannot pass the FFL background check.
This disqualifies him, the BUM Obummer, to be president because he is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and he cannot even buy a gun. hahaha!
Common crooks use 'no questions asked' buy back programs to dump weapons low quality weapons they've stolen - then they use the cash to upgrade.
The lowlife who shoots your daughter with a new weapon? He got the money for his shiny new gun from a 'buyback'...
We’ll see where the majority of them stand when “the order” is given and their pensions are on the line.
I have long felt that using a gun in commission of a crime should result in a mandatory “forever” sentence to a jail in a backward African nation where we build the facility and contract for locals to oversee the prisoners care and feeding. Cheaper by far, no danger of escapes, and pretty soon no one would think of carrying a gun for criminal purposes
“View full survey results:”
I recently wrote a column for a police magazine, that leans left in that it is very much politically oriented and prioritizes police association benefits and pay. I have included the text of my column below: My view is solely mine but it accurately reflects the views of 85-90 of my brother and sister officers on the medium sized (300+ sworn officers) department I served in.
I was grading papers the other night and was struck by a students rather sweeping statement that our Constitution was a happy result of the Declaration of Independence. Sure I thought, if we ignore a sequence of events including the War for Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitutional Debates. Nevertheless her statement made me think about the relationship between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Given the intense debate over gun control measures currently being waged in Washington D.C. in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, perhaps it is time that those of us in law enforcement refresh our memories about the origins of the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the new Constitution. These amendments were offered as a package to assuage the fears of Anti-Federalists that the powers entrusted to the federal government as a result of the new constitution were too numerous and too powerful. In short, without the Bill of Rights, the Anti-federalists feared the potential of the new central government to become every bit as tyrannical as the British monarchy from which the Founding Fathers had so recently divorced themselves.
Experts on both sides of the gun control debate have spent countless hours and written thousands of articles parsing the words of the Founding Fathers in framing the Second Amendment. Any objective analysis however cannot fail to conclude that the Founding Fathers strongly believed in an individual right to bear arms. More recently, the Supreme Court has upheld this right in D.C. v. Heller.
If you are truly in support of Federal gun control legislation, I would direct you to examine the writings of Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #29 and James Madison in Federalist #46. Both of these gentlemen acknowledged the very real protections afforded by the militia in the event of foreign invasion or domestic insurrection or the potential of domestic usurpation of legitimate power.
Arguments can and have been made that both of these essays extend only to providing the militia with the right to bear arms. This is fallacy. The militia in those days was constituted of every able bodied male, literally those from 14 to 65. The Founders intended that everyone have the right to bear arms. They did not do so to ensure that game was placed on the table, that the occasional Indian raid be met with force or that the British should they decide to return, could be turned aside. Certainly those were all considerations of the need to retain arms in the hands of the citizen at large. However just as clearly, the Founding Fathers believed that an overarching central government must be met with whatever means up to and including force.
If I sound like an extremist to some of you, you would do well to reexamine your history and our founding documents. Thomas Jefferson was quite clear in the Declaration of Independence when he wrote that:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
With those words freshly in mind and their own arduous experience of the Revolutionary War so recently behind them, the Founding Fathers determined that the right to keep and bear arms was an essential element of a free state. If you consider the potential of the United States to dissolve into domestic turmoil remote, then you are willfully ignoring history. Growing up in the 1970s and 1980s I would never have considered the possibility that the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics would collapse either, but it did. Do I foresee a similar fate for our own nation in the near term? No, but that does not mean that it cannot happen either. The chaos following the L.A. Riots and Hurricane Katrina provide ample evidence that in the event of a breakdown of governmental authority, armed citizens are fully capable of protecting themselves and their property. This ability must ever be defended.
On March 6, 2013 the PORAN Board of Directors voted unanimously to instruct our lobbyists in Washington D.C. to oppose all Federal gun control legislation except those bills designed to restrict the executive in the implementation of gun control measures absent Congressional approval. It was our considered opinion that gun control is a constitutional issue and only Congress or the States have the authority to amend the Constitution and to advance legislation that encroaches on our Second Amendment rights. We were reminded that the Bill of Rights is a bill of negative rights, that is, they are rights that cannot be abridged by the Federal government. They are acknowledged to be afforded man through natural or divine law. When we take our oath of office we swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States, that oath includes the Second Amendment and the earlier articles that define the process for changing or amending the document. It does not extend to executive action circumventing the Constitution and attacking both our right and the right of our fellow citizens.
That should read 85-90% of my brother and sister officers.
Nice essay. How was it received by the audience?
I’ll let you know, I just submitted it for next month’s magazine...I plan on a follow-up essay the month after.
Revolt is coming and it will happen.
I have two requests for the Moderator:
1) That you place this very important article in News/Activism.
2) That you add a bracket to the headline that says: [THE ANTIDOTE TO LYING MSM POLLS!]
Thank you for your kind consideration!
Welllll, I did see a bit on Neil Cavuto yeserday with a “Cop” who was obviously pro gun-control, but was poking holes in all the rhetoric coming from that side of the equation, and supporting the ineffective “feel-good” legislation popping up across the country...
You could tell he wants to really support the banning of private ownership (our posession) of any type of firearms, but he was brought on to talk to the main issue of this professional police poll, and general population attitude towards citizens right to keep and bear arms, which he has his strong reservations about...
It was hard to get a read on this guy till I had a chance to go back and think about what he said after the interview...
But that is the only thing I have seen on this particular poll and discussion in the media...And that was just yessterday, on what I thought was an uncommon news segment...Cavuto is mainly an economic contributor on the FoxNews network...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.