Posted on 05/04/2013 3:44:58 PM PDT by forty_years
A friend of mine sent this survey to me over the weekend. It is one of the most comprehensive surveys I've seen since the gun control issue boiled over late last year.
It is fascinating reading on how police officers and other law enforcement personnel feel about these issues.
PoliceOne is an online resource for the law enforcement community with 450,000 members.
Here is a link to the PoliceOne.com site and the survey page.
Here is a link to how the survey was conducted.
Reprinted with permission of Doug Wyllie, PoliceOne Editor in Chief.
In March, PoliceOne conducted the survey 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.
1.) Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.
2.) The majority of respondents -- 71 percent -- say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. However, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime. Just over 7 percent took the opposite stance, saying they believe a ban would have a moderate to significant effect.
3.) About 85 percent of officers say the passage of the White House's currently proposed legislation would have a zero or negative effect on their safety, with just over 10 percent saying it would have a moderate or significantly positive effect.
4.) Seventy percent of respondents say they have a favorable or very favorable opinion of some law enforcement leaders' public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions. Similarly, more than 61 percent said they would refuse to enforce such laws if they themselves were Chief or Sheriff.
5.) More than 28 percent of officers say having more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public, followed by more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons (about 19 percent) and more armed guards/paid security personnel (about 15 percent).
6.) The overwhelming majority (almost 90 percent) of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident.
7.) More than 80 percent of respondents support arming school teachers and administrators who willingly volunteer to train with firearms and carry one in the course of the job.
8.) More than four in five respondents (81 percent) say that gun-buyback programs are ineffective in reducing gun violence.
9.) More than half of respondents feel that increased punishment for obviously illegal gun sales could have a positive impact on reducing gun violence.
10.) When asked whether citizens should be required to complete a safety training class before being allowed to buy a gun, about 43 percent of officers say it should not be required. About 42 percent say it should be required for all weapons, with the remainder favoring training classes for certain weapons.
11.) While some officers say gun violence in the United States stems from violent movies and video games (14 percent), early release and short sentencing for violent offenders (14 percent) and poor identification/treatments of mentally-ill individuals (10 percent), the majority (38 percent) blame a decline in parenting and family values.
Bottom Line Conclusions
Quite clearly, the majority of officers polled oppose the theories brought forth by gun-control advocates who claim that proposed restrictions on weapon capabilities and production would reduce crime.
In fact, many officers responding to this survey seem to feel that those controls will negatively affect their ability to fight violent criminals.
Contrary to what the mainstream media and certain politicians would have us believe, police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry, would like to see more guns in the hands of responsible people, and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership, or accessibility.
The officers patrolling America's streets have a deeply-vested interest -- and perhaps the most relevant interest -- in making sure that decisions related to controlling, monitoring, restricting, as well as supporting and/or prohibiting an armed populace are wise and effective. With this survey, their voice has been heard.
Questions or comments? Contact me at Jsonger@al.com or on Twitter @joesonger22.
The plain truth is that could care less about saving lives. It's all about control and if need be eliminating lives. History repeats itself, only if we let it. This report needs to be sent to every congressman and senator.
Very interesting. I am curious about the background of the people responding to the survey. How many are from Chicago? How many are Muslims? And so on. I bet to the 10 to 20 percent that are in the negative are a bunch of Obama lovers and could be his sons.
I have no problem with safety training, just as long as it is entirely controlled by pro gun organizations without government employee involvement.
Police chiefs are not real cops, they’re politicians, kissing the asses of their liberal mayor bosses. Watching these brass-covered hacks on TV makes me ill.
One of my neighbors is a former Detroit cop. He says moving to this tiny (150 people) town has really changed his perspective.
In Detroit he learned to see every armed person as a potential threat. Here he learned that virtually no gun is a threat. He says that his opinion on open carry has changed in favor as well.
We closed our local police department less than a year after he came here and he’s no longer a cop but says that all rookie cops should spend some time as a small town cop.
I grew up in a good old-fashioned neighborhood where tradition held that young men (now women) became first responders, like firemen, police officers — or by joining the military. These people, who are still dear friends, firmly believed in the Constitution when they joined up and still do. Of course some people given a badge and gun (power) will abuse that power, but my experience shows this is not the case for the vast majority of law enforcement officers and military.
My neighbor says that what really changed his attitude was the realization that he wasn’t spending his day worrying about his wife and kids at home.
In Detroit he and his family received threats from gang bangers and other assorted scum pretty much every day.
That’s exactly why I say background checks are pointless.
One of our local newspaper columnists had his eyes opened when he took my suggestion and went to the hood and asked people on the street how easy it was to get a throw away.
This goes to show several things about police officers.
That they are level headed, realistic and practical.
That they understand and support constitutional rights, liberties and freedoms.
That they do not see the honest citizenry as their enemies, but instead as their allies.
That they are on “our side”, not unthinking tools of their political “masters” in Washington.
Interesting. Bookmarked.
I suspect most cops have employment rules that prohibit such public statements.
Not surprizing, because most private corporations have employment rules about public statements pertaining to their industry.
You have a right to speak out. You just don't have a right to stay employed after you speak out.
Most cops are employed by the State and the First Amendment is specifically written for application to the State, not private parties.
The state is severely limited in silencing cops, what they are not limited in doing is revoking special privileges showered on them. That's the stick used.
Exactly, and you can add most of the command structure as well.
Your local elected county sheriff is much better positioned to be honest and responsive to the law abiding electorate.
Often, Sheriffs are elected for the purpose of controlling the crooked politicians in the county.
Lately, in several liberal areas, leftist urban politicians have been attempting to trick voters into making the Sheriff an appointed position.
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.