15,000 Police Officers Weigh In on Gun Control [Charts] - Polidicks

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40214081]I said the sheriff works for the people, I did not say the government is not voted in by the people, but the sheriff doesn't work for the government directly, he works for the people who elected him, and enforces the law of the government. One elected office doesn't work for another, Congress doesn't work for the President, nor do the state governments Congress, even though they are all intertwined by the laws each other creates. All elected offices work for the people who elect them, they do not work for each other, though they can and do collaborate with each other. Now if the sheriff was appointed by the local/state/federal government then that'd be a different story, then he'd work for the government, but as he is an elected official, he works for the people who elected him. While the government is meant to represent the people at a legislative level, the sheriff is meant to represent them at an enforcement level, they can be elected for different reasons, and in different jurisdictions, and each independently of the other has an obligation to the people who voted them into power. [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] Which country is this? I don't think I've ever heard of a country where handguns are legal, but rifles are not.[/QUOTE] personally if i were sheriff(a job i would never want in the first place tho), i would simply try and hold a series of public discussions and referendum in the county to decide whether federal law should or should not be enforced. if law enforcement is necessary, it should at least be accountable to the people that are "looked over". federal law should not oppress the direct will of individuals. it should be a guideline that is used to help facilitate cooperation between communities.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40214013]calling the mentally ill / stupid a disease lmfao also you realize criminals were once law abiding citizens right? where do you guys get this idea that the only people who commit crimes are hardcore gang members and serial killers or some shit? regular people shoot other regular people. the big link here is almost entirely unregulated access to dirt cheap firearms and ammunition lol what are these magical solutions you listed? "semi regular mental health checks", like for all citizens or just for those buying guns? are you cool with background checks? and how do you "reduce desirability of owning a gun" you cant just make up this shit and pretend everything but guns are the issue[/QUOTE] 1. Figure of speech. They are figuratively the disease in the illness of poor gun control and violence. They need a strong support network where they can go before any violence happens. 2. The idea isn't that there is some magical fix that prevents the average joe from committing a crime, but it's about those that are high profile cases that cause mass shootings are mentally ill. I'm saying that there is not enough mental care funding to safeguard against some of the recent events. Not that much really could, only reduced. 3. For those buying guns. A simple doctors report or checkup every few years, maybe something along the lines of a semi-automatic (Ha!) system that ensures there are no obvious developing issues. Yes, I am cool with background checks if I were to buy a dangerous tool - I can't work with children, operate heavy machinery or handle explosives in work or outside of work without some major kind of checks, so why would owning a gun be any different? I'm not 'making shit up', I'm offering debate. These are ideas that have been pinged around many times by different people. Also, I'm not pro-gun. I'm more anti-gun than anything, but I'm a realist. People are not going to just give up their guns after 200 years, and guns themselves don't kill people. They're just tools for doing so, like hunting knives. Knives can kill 8-10 people if you're in a crowd and know where to stab - but you can't just suddenly ban knives. It's impractical.

[QUOTE=catbarf;40213545]I'll take overwhelming near-consensus from a statistically valid sample of people who interact with criminals and guns on a daily basis as about as close as you can get to an expert opinion, and consequently a little more valid than the opinions of a bunch of gun-shy lawmakers.[/QUOTE] this is an egregiously biased and methodologically flawed sample, police overwhelmingly tend to be conservative and male (both of which are linked to support of guns)

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;40214161]this is an egregiously biased and methodologically flawed sample, police overwhelmingly tend to be conservative and male (both of which are linked to support of guns)[/QUOTE] If it was supposed to be nationally representative of the general population, then it would be, but it's not, it's supposed to be representative of the opinions of police officers. The only major flaw in the data collected is that it may not represent each state's law enforcement equally.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40214202]If it was supposed to be nationally representative of the general population, then it would be, but it's not, it's supposed to be representative of the opinions of police officers. The only major flaw in the data collected is that it may not represent each state's law enforcement equally.[/QUOTE] i imagine many of these officers have a private weapon so they are already biased

[QUOTE=LordCrypto;40214243]i imagine many of these officers have a private weapon so they are already biased[/QUOTE] Like I said, if this were meant to represent the opinions of the general population then yes polling only police officers would be horribly biased, but it's only meant to represent the opinions of police officers, so it's entirely reasonable to only poll police officers about the opinions of police officers.

[QUOTE=LordCrypto;40214243]i imagine many of these officers have a private weapon so they are already biased[/QUOTE] well it's like saying a survey or study of black voting tendencies would be biased because blacks as a demographic tend to vote a certain way. yea if you try and interpret the data as a representation of the nation as a whole, the data is skewed. however, if you take it as a representation of a certain group(in this case police officers), then the data becomes more accurate. the question is whether this data is relevant to the gun debate or not.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;40213522]so long as the law doesn't violate the constitution.[/QUOTE] I can confirm that it's each individual police officer's duty to follow regulations according to their own personal interpretation of what our constitution does and does not allow...

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40213850]"cops can ignore the law based on their interpretation of a vaguely worded amendment that people have been arguing about since it was written"[/QUOTE] "the only part of the bill of rights that is vaguely worded is the second amendment"

At first, I was taking this seriously, but then I read that most of the cops blame "lack of family values" for shootings. Ridiculous. This led me to realize that, perhaps, cops are more likely to be in demographic groups that would be Conservative, and that, therefore, the Conservative ideology of the cops contributed to their answers as much as their experience. That being said, I would also love to see surveys from French, Japanese, and British cops about Gun Control. I wonder. [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] Not to say that their answers are not valid, I agree with the cops on a few things. Simple gun control cannot solve America's gun problem.

[QUOTE=person11;40214468]At first, I was taking this seriously, but then I read that most of the cops blame "lack of family values" for shootings. Ridiculous.[/QUOTE] I don't think you understand what the survey meant. I'm pretty sure it meant more along the lines of them blaming bad parenting and bad family values, things like kids who live and grow up in bad homes or bad neighborhoods or those that have abusive parents and such.

[QUOTE=person11;40214468] That being said, I would also love to see surveys from French, Japanese, and British cops about Gun Control. I wonder. [/QUOTE] I know surveys done of Canadian cops showed they don't support gun registration, but it was a very one-track survey, in which that was the only question, so there was no broader opinion of other gun control measures tabulated.

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;40214457]"the only part of the bill of rights that is vaguely worded is the second amendment"[/QUOTE] "i never said that"

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40213550]if they're such independent thinkers why are people getting arrested for minor drug offenses? "yeah ill ruin someones life for smoking a bit of weed but arrest someone for owning outlawed firearms and accessories? fuck that"[/QUOTE] It's called their job and that's what they're doing. Also no one's going to ruin your life for just "smoking a bit of weed."

[QUOTE=zacht_180;40214648]It's called their job and that's what they're doing. Also no one's going to ruin your life for just "smoking a bit of weed."[/QUOTE] remind me again what percentage of people are in prison / have felonies on their record for non violent drug offenses?

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40214688]remind me again what percentage of people are in prison / have felonies on their record for non violent drug offenses?[/QUOTE] If I remember right it's actually 1/4th of all inmates. Yes, that's a lot and it is a problem. But the thing is you said "smoking a bit of weed." If you're caught with marijuana you're only arrested and charged with a felony if you had intent to sell (most states say anything over 20 grams is intent to sell). Chances are you won't get arrested unless you were driving under the influence or publicly intoxicated causing some sort of scene. With DUI and public intoxication it's [i]still[/i] even hard to get arrested and charged, considering it's hard to test for marijuana during a traffic stop. Although some departments have a zero tolerance policy and will drive you to the nearest hospital for a urinary test. Those inmates probably have [i]multiple[/i] offenses and parole violations for harder drugs. Still is 20 years for heroin ridiculous sentence? Yes, I agree, don't get me wrong. I'm just going off of what was said in your post... "a bit of weed" won't ruin your life. It'll probably be on your record and people may look at you funny when applying for jobs, but if you're totally honest and otherwise an okay person there's not much to worry about. Remember though this doesn't have much to do with the topic on hand...

i wonder what these cops would say if they were asked this kinda shit re: drug laws?

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;40214833]i wonder what these cops would say if they were asked this kinda shit re: drug laws?[/QUOTE] Mostly conservative, similar to these polls. Although I do know a good amount of officers who will say that marijuana is a complete waste of their time and should just be legalized and regulated.

[QUOTE=zacht_180;40214809]If I remember right it's actually 1/4th of all inmates. Yes, that's a lot and it is a problem. But the thing is you said "smoking a bit of weed." If you're caught with marijuana you're only arrested and charged with a felony if you had intent to sell (most states say anything over 20 grams is intent to sell). Chances are you won't get arrested unless you were driving under the influence or publicly intoxicated causing some sort of scene. With DUI and public intoxication it's [i]still[/i] even hard to get arrested and charged, considering it's hard to test for marijuana during a traffic stop. Although some departments have a zero tolerance policy and will drive you to the nearest hospital for a urinary test. Those inmates probably have [i]multiple[/i] offenses and parole violations for harder drugs. Still is 20 years for heroin ridiculous sentence? Yes, I agree, don't get me wrong. I'm just going off of what was said in your post... "a bit of weed" won't ruin your life. It'll probably be on your record and people may look at you funny when applying for jobs, but if you're totally honest and otherwise an okay person there's not much to worry about. Remember though this doesn't have much to do with the topic on hand...[/QUOTE] why would you extend a derailment argument and then end your fucking post with "hey don't reply to this and prove me wrong or its derailing ;)" lets just end it by concluding that the only thing that was even remotely reasonable about your ridiculous post was that we should stop talking about this because its offtopic

[QUOTE=zacht_180;40214865]Mostly conservative, similar to these polls. Although I do know a good amount of officers who will say that marijuana is a complete waste of their time and should just be legalized and regulated.[/QUOTE] which is kind of the point i'm trying to make. most cops are conservative fuckwits just because you have a badge doesn't mean you somehow know what would or wouldn't reduce crime

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40214877]why would you extend a derailment argument and then end your fucking post with "hey don't reply to this and prove me wrong or its derailing ;)" lets just end it by concluding that the only thing that was even remotely reasonable about your ridiculous post was that we should stop talking about this because its offtopic[/QUOTE] Lol I didn't say that man... I'm just saying it shouldn't be dragged out anymore than it needs to be. You said in your post, "ruin someones life for smoking a bit of weed." All I said was that doesn't really happen, but a little lengthier than I should have I guess.

[QUOTE=ZestyLemons;40214533]I don't think you understand what the survey meant. I'm pretty sure it meant more along the lines of them blaming bad parenting and bad family values, things like kids who live and grow up in bad homes or bad neighborhoods or those that have abusive parents and such.[/QUOTE] For their and our sakes, I hope you are right. Usually, "family values" as a term is a code for Conservative beliefs on social issues. I have seen way too many examples of non trustworthy cops (though I am sure they are just a loud minority). I know a lawyer who is a huge racist, and HE claims that the LAPD is racist. Not sure how much their opinions should be taken into account for SOME of these answers. Obviously they know what they are talking about.

Saying that police officers should break the law rather than enforce it isn't normal. But in FP gun threads it is.

[QUOTE=thisispain;40213531]since when did police officers become supreme court justices[/QUOTE] since when did the average american citizen's stance on the constitution default to "if we break the constitution, suck it up and take it up the ass, pooplord"

[QUOTE=Raidyr;40215253]Saying that police officers should break the law rather than enforce it isn't normal. But in FP gun threads it is.[/QUOTE] Breaking the law is wrong, unless it's to do with gun legislation becoming marginally more strict.

If you ask me I think its reassuring they prioritize the constitution over the government.

if only cops cared so much about peoples rights when it comes to spying on people and tapping phones and detaining people without reason and searching people without reason oh well at least they won't act on laws aimed at guns!

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40216658]Breaking the law is wrong, unless it's to do with gun legislation becoming marginally more strict.[/QUOTE] I guess you've never heard of civil disobedience? The law is important but I don't think it's sensible to make it more important than the actual values it's supposed to uphold. Anyways, becoming "marginally" more strict is a big understatement of the actual scale of gun legislation right now. Some very large companies have even been forced to relocate because of new laws. Edit: Sorry, this is probably better addressed to the thread as a whole. I just don't agree with the attitude that we should all follow the law for better or for worse.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;40216699]if only cops cared so much about peoples rights when it comes to spying on people and tapping phones and detaining people without reason and searching people without reason oh well at least they won't act on laws aimed at guns![/QUOTE] Good thing I don't live in a Nazi state.

[QUOTE=zombojoe;40216682]If you ask me I think its reassuring they prioritize the constitution over the government.[/QUOTE] It's not their job to say what is and isn't constitutional. [QUOTE=iFail;40216732]I guess you've never heard of civil disobedience? The law is important but I don't think it's sensible to make it more important than the actual values it's supposed to uphold.[/QUOTE] Civil disobedience is fine, you just can't be a law enforcement officer that is refusing to enforce the law. Let alone outright saying you would break any laws because of your own vague concept of constitutionality which isn't upheld by anyone except for yourself.