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.
The results of this study were pretty much a slam dunk for people with brains. The police officer view on this subject is often overlooked. When you really think about it, police officers are affected by gun control laws more than anybody else. They’re the ones that have to enforce them, they’re the ones out there risking their necks every day trying to keep us safe. They’re the ones that go running TOWARDS gunfire instead of away from it.
So it’s worth noting their opinion on gun control. And I don’t mean the police unions’ views. I mean the views of anonymous, individual police officers. So here we go:
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.
OK, so, you’ve seen my post about the New York State magazine law. And a person with a brain would make two conclusions. The first is about the average criminal. If I’m a criminal, say, a crack dealer, and I’m willing to both commit the crime of selling crack and killing someone to defend my business, I probably won’t be too worried about a silly magazine law. You think a small fine and maybe probation is going to phase me? I’m willingly committing acts that will send me to jail for years, if not my entire life. If I’m not in New York, murder might carry a death sentence! If I’m willing to endure that, do you really think I’m going to stop and obey a magazine law along the way?
Second, if I’m a mass murderer like Lanza, do you really think that I’m not going to build my own high capacity magazines myself? People, you can make your own magazines with items you can pick up at a hardware store or Wal-Mart. It isn’t hard. Anybody with an Internet connection and a few hours on their hands can do it. If I’m going to shoot up a school, a silly magazine law isn’t going to phase me if I’m going to commit scores of murders before taking my own life.
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.
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.
So 91% of the polled police offers say that an “assault weapons” ban would either have no effect or a negative effect on reducing violent crime. And 85% say that Obama’s plan is harmful, or at best, ineffective. That’s probably because the amount of violence committed with “assault weapons” is less than 1% of the total gun crime. In fact, more people are killed every year with blunt force trauma with objects like bricks and lead pipes than by bullets fired out of any rifles at all, including, but not limited to “assault rifles”. Plus, I could take any semi-automatic rifle, paint it black, and all of a sudden, it’s an “assault rifle”. A law won’t stop me from doing that if I plan on murdering with it.
This question was too long to describe, so I showed it to you. What would help most to prevent mass shooting sprees? Well, only 2.4% of police officers said that some form of a gun ban would help. 14% said “improved” background checks would help, though it doesn’t get any more specific than that. Another 27% said that more aggressive punishment of criminals and more aggressive treatment of the mentally ill will help. A whopping 44.6% said that more guns in the hands of civilians and armed guards would help. Uh, yeah. Good guys + guns = less shooting spree casualties. Good guys – guns = more shooting spree casualties. Pretty simple algebra right there. It’s reinforced by the next question.
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.
Draw your own conclusions, folks. These are the opinions of police officers here. These people know the laws, know how the laws are enforced, and know the direct effects of the laws. They have a more informed opinion than any of the average knuckle-dragging anti-gun libs that have never even held a gun. PS, if you took a poll of all “criminals” like drug dealers and pimps, I’d bet the rent that an overwhelming majority of them identify more with the democrats than the republicans.