Posted on 04/22/2013 9:01:32 AM PDT by marktwain
Almost to a man, police officers think gun owners are dangerous. Cops strongly believe the best way to reduce crime is to ban “assault weapons,” high capacity magazines and small, concealable handguns. They also believe that the best way to solve crimes is to establish a comprehensive, national database of firearms and gun sales.
Or at least, that’s what anti-gun politicians and the media would like you to believe.
It wasn’t that long ago that most people assumed police officers supported the rights of gun owners to keep, carry and use firearms for self defense. Yet, it seems that in modern days the popular belief is most cops would prefer a disarmed populace.
In my experience from years of law enforcement, police officers almost always support the rights of gun owners to keep and use firearms for self-defense. The problem is that most cops are never heard. With rare exception, the media only talks to police chiefs, sheriffs and other designated command staff members. I’ve never had a member of the media walk up to me and ask, “Hey, do you think citizens should be able to own firearms?”
Ever see that group of cops standing behind the president or some other gun-banning politician? Typically what you are seeing is a group of handpicked, political appointees, not rank and file police officers. However, it creates the illusion that everyone wearing the uniform supports whatever dubious liniment the politician is pedaling.
What is the truth? Cops trust citizens with guns. In a recent PoliceOne.com survey of more than 15,000 active duty and retired law enforcement officers, more than 90 percent surveyed believe that citizens should be able to carry concealed firearms “…without question and without further restrictions.” That’s not a typo: better than nine out of ten cops believe citizens should be able to carry concealed guns “without question.”
When asked what would be most likely to help prevent “large scale shootings in public,” the most popular response was “more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians.” Additionally, when asked what impact a legally armed citizen could have made at the spree killings in Aurora, Colo., and Newton, Conn., 80 percnet of officers responded that “casualties would likely have been reduced.”
Other key statistics:
70 percent of officers are opposed to a national database of firearm sales.
Police officers may be one of the largest pro-gun blocks of voters in the United States. May I suggest that strengthening the bonds between the gun owner and law enforcement communities would be a way to both reduce negative incidents between the groups and improve our ability to defend our rights from new legislation?
It is in the interests of all citizens that police be seen as citizens who are delegated some authority to do jobs that any citizen could do, but would rather delegate for reasons of efficiency.
From what I’ve seen in the last couple of decades cops are doing a fine job of wedge drving all by themselves.
I beleive it would be more accurate to state that police UNIONS beleive in gun control, not necessarily cops....
RLTW
Citizens existed before cops existed.
Citizens created the cops.
Cops derive their powers from citizens.
Cops are servants of the citizens.
Cops are not superior to citizens.
I quit reading after the unsubtantiated first sentence, which I do not believe to be true.
Two of the biggest anti-gun law enforcement associations are:
IACP
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE
Consisting of all of the big-city Democrat kiss-ass Chiefs.
NOBLE
The National Organization of
Black Law Enforcement Executives
Same as IACP
However, the majority of street cops support the Second Amendment.
-—try the fourth sentence—
He has it wrong. Either that, or he’s lying.
Almost to a man, politically appointed police chiefs believe that gun owners are dangerous.
Real cops, not so much. I think a survey showed about 85% of cops (not police chiefs) didn’t really have a problem.
unions, as a general rule, do not like informed citizens, informed members, or informed public.
Unions depend on the UNINFORMED for their very survival.
Pays to read on! Almost did the same. Better now, sip of coffee, some work.....
Much better.
Cheers
Police personnel cannot be everywhere at all times. That is why citizens should, MUST, have the right to keep and bear arms. Of course, the corollary to that belief is, that the citizen should at all times regard that self-protection measure as being exercised only with full responsibility and with considered judgment.
Nor should we WANT there to be that many police on patrol. First, the expense is horrendous, and secondly, after while, just to keep the individual police members on their toes, they are going to have to start LOOKING for problems, where perhaps none existed before. Also, when the general public is no longer on the watch for potential danger to themselves, they become slack and downright lazy, thinking their personal safety is somebody else’s problem, and they should take no responsibility for their own carelessness.
I almost quit reading too, but it’s really the opposite of what you were thinking.
Keep reading. It gets better.
Didn’t read the whole article, did you.
The rest of the article shreds the first sentence...
Based on this survey, it is easy to see that the vast majority of law enforcement officers support the public’s rights to own and use firearms. Just like any other population segment there are exceptions, but by and large officers support the rights of citizens to own, carry and use firearms for self-defense.
I was surprised by the results of that survey.
The plural of "anecdote" most emphatically is not "data," so I'll leave my own experience and impressions out of this.
I believe we patriots ought to undertake or commission some truly serious, solidly scientific surveys of various groups, then have someone of John Lott's statistical caliber analyze and present the results. I have a hunch we think we know a great deal more about attitudes toward both firearms and the Second Amendment than we actually do.
All that said™, no part of the Second Amendment is subject to negotiation. I believe those of us who've been defending it all this time—whether weeks or decades—could probably do a better job if we built coalitions among supporters and shared verifiable facts about attitudes.
You may recall President You Didn't Build That recently shrieking at the top of his lungs about 90% support for leftist extremist so-called "gun control." I believe that goes hand in hand with his earlier shrieking that 90% of the firearms used by Mexican narcotics cartels were bought in American gun shops.
Nothing confounds lies better than the truth.
There was always a cop standing by when I got there with the keys. I would get out of my truck and announce to the cop that I was holstering my gun, and most had no problem with that. One rookie got all bent out of shape, didn't want me to carry while we searched the store, until I handed him the keys and told him "son, it's darker than Hell in that warehouse and I ain't going in there without this S&W, you can have at it". He reconsidered, right away. There was an unlighted flight of stairs in that place that could have been in a funhouse spookshow, you could easily imagine something jumping out at you. The rookie followed me up the steps, about 20 feet back.
Hell, he wasn't even born when I bought that pistol, why do some of them think they are the only ones who can shoot? Most of them would just ask which side we should start on, and that was it, we could form a working unit on the spot, but they were usually locals too, not big city types..
I think people should get to know their local cops.
One of my neighbors is a former Detroit cop and he says its a whole different world out here.
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.