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

[QUOTE=Raidyr;40216765]It's not their job to say what is and isn't constitutional. 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.[/QUOTE] Man you got a lot to learn about how the things work outside the binary system.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;40216765] 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.[/QUOTE] I am not sure anymore if I am thinking of the same thing everyone else is regarding not enforcing the law. I was thinking more about resigning or something, not just letting people go.

This says more about the type of people who become cops rather than the quality of opinion. I also smell pandering. Maybe the US should look to other countries for clues on how to prevent gun casualties.

[QUOTE=areolop;40213344] 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. [IMG]http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/gun-surveyQ29.gif[/IMG] [/QUOTE] Why does economic factors have the lowest amount of responses? I feel like poverty has a pretty big role in crime and gun related violence. And pop culture influence shouldn't have that many responses!

[QUOTE=Raidyr;40216765]It's not their job to say what is and isn't constitutional. 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.[/QUOTE] Why does their oath have them swear to uphold the constitution then? If they only have a vague concept of it, is it even possible to uphold it? Why does their oath not say instead "swear to uphold federal, state, and local laws"?

[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;40217362]Why does their oath have them swear to uphold the constitution then? If they only have a vague concept of it, is it even possible to uphold it? Why does their oath not say instead "swear to uphold federal, state, and local laws"?[/QUOTE] they uphold the constitution, but it is dictated by the Supreme Court. so really, it's more like upholding the Supreme Court by proxy of the constitution - they need do what the court tells them to because they wouldn't be upholding the constitution otherwise. it's really not that difficult.

[QUOTE=zombojoe;40216682]If you ask me I think its reassuring they prioritize the constitution over the government.[/QUOTE] And they should. Law of the land should always have authority over a bunch of bureaucrats who get paid to argue with each other and screw us over.

[QUOTE=Cone;40217502]they uphold the constitution, but it is dictated by the Supreme Court. so really, it's more like upholding the Supreme Court by proxy of the constitution - they need do what the court tells them to because they wouldn't be upholding the constitution otherwise. it's really not that difficult.[/QUOTE] It must be difficult as you didn't answer any of my three questions.

[QUOTE=Kartoffel;40217617]And they should. Law of the land should always have authority over a bunch of bureaucrats who get paid to argue with each other and screw us over.[/QUOTE] What exactly is the law of the land? The entire legal system?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40217662]What exactly is the law of the land? The entire legal system?[/QUOTE] The Law of the Land is a nickname for The Constitution

[QUOTE=Hidole555;40217670]The Law of the Land is a nickname for The Constitution[/QUOTE] Well given that it says this: [quote]The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.[/quote] I would say that the rest of the legal system in America is on pretty sound foundations. And remember, Social Security, medicare, political parties, the Air Force, innocent until proven guilty, paper money, primary elections, the FDA and EPA are all things which aren't in the constitution.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40217758]Well given that it says this: I would say that the rest of the legal system in America is on pretty sound foundations. And remember, Social Security, medicare, political parties, the Air Force, innocent until proven guilty, paper money, primary elections, the FDA and EPA are all things which aren't in the constitution.[/QUOTE] and we would get rid of them all if it weren't for the fact that every presidential candidate (other than the obvious like ron paul) were corrupt.

[QUOTE=locojaws;40216894]Why does economic factors have the lowest amount of responses? I feel like poverty has a pretty big role in crime and gun related violence. And pop culture influence shouldn't have that many responses![/QUOTE]Cops are generally more right-wing than average, it's really to be expected they'd hold at least some of those views. Just be glad they're cops and not representatives/senators.

I really, really don't want to live here anymore.

gun carrying police officers are in favor of less gun control wow!

[QUOTE=GoldenGnome;40219607]gun carrying police officers are in favor of less gun control wow![/QUOTE]Considering that, in their line of work they are subjected to different rules and regulations, what is your point?

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;40214884]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] aka. Expert opinion is only valid if it agrees with me. Cop's lives are on the line when it comes to gun control issues. Are you really saying they are knowingly going to push for policies that put themselves in more danger? No one sees the effects of gun control policies more directly than officers on the street who have to deal with them.

Somehow when I read "violent crime" I expect something more a man stabbing another man twenty times in the stomach than someone firing a gun.

A police officer's job is to enforce the law, yes, but they also are allowed to use discretion. While a police officer will do as he is told by someone up the chain most of the time, he can use discretion if he finds his orders inappropriate for the given situation. It's why when some officers pull you over for speeding they'll sometimes just give you a verbal warning instead of writing a ticket for you every time. By the law, you were speeding, and you were caught, and you were pulled over, so you were supposed to be given a ticket for your infraction. But instead, the police officer gave you a warning.

There should've been a poll option that says "Enforce, but oppose anti gun legislation". They probably would've picked that if it was there

[URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum]Why are people even taking this seriously as if it's a scientific study, rather than a collection of opinions[/URL]

Its a survey. I dont think anyone was taking it as a study.

[QUOTE=areolop;40221649]Its a survey. I dont think anyone was taking it as a study.[/QUOTE] Here's one [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 [B]about as close as you can get to an expert opinion[/B], and consequently a little more valid than the opinions of a bunch of gun-shy lawmakers.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=0FucksGiven;40221253]A police officer's job is to enforce the law, yes, but they also are allowed to use discretion. While a police officer will do as he is told by someone up the chain most of the time, he can use discretion if he finds his orders inappropriate for the given situation. It's why when some officers pull you over for speeding they'll sometimes just give you a verbal warning instead of writing a ticket for you every time. By the law, you were speeding, and you were caught, and you were pulled over, so you were supposed to be given a ticket for your infraction. But instead, the police officer gave you a warning.[/QUOTE] Being discretionary about speeding is a bit different from being discretionary about gun control.

[QUOTE=DeEz;40221624][URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum]Why are people even taking this seriously as if it's a scientific study, rather than a collection of opinions[/URL][/QUOTE] Fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong.

[QUOTE=Bobie;40217769]and we would get rid of them all if it weren't for the fact that every presidential candidate (other than the obvious like ron paul) were corrupt.[/QUOTE] I don't know, I'm pretty fond of those.

[QUOTE=DeEz;40221691]Here's one[/QUOTE] Way to completely fail to understand what argumentum ad populum actually is. If you surveyed Americans about whether they think global warming is real and held the result up as evidence for whether or not global warming is real, it would be an argument ad populum. That's literally saying 'x is true because most people think it's true'. That's a fallacy. Reporting the fact, which is that a certain number of people believe a certain thing, is not a fallacy. So if you surveyed climate scientists about whether they think global warming is real and held the result up as [I]evidence of a consensus amongst professionals in the relevant field[/I], it would in no way be an argument ad populum. It's saying 'Whether or not x is true, almost all the experts associated with x believe y'. It doesn't indicate for certain anything about x, but it sure as hell is a little more significant than general opinion. Nobody ever said this survey proves that gun control wouldn't help, but it does show that police, the people who deal with this stuff every day, overwhelmingly believe gun control wouldn't help. And I'll take their near-consensus on the subject as a little more informed and significant than the assurances of a lawmaker who knows nothing whatsoever about guns OR crime.

[QUOTE=thisispain;40213531]since when did police officers become supreme court justices[/QUOTE] I think it's common sense that police officers avert their eyes here and there. Some cops let you off when you speed; some write you a ticket. It's called "Officer's discretion".

snip

[QUOTE=0FucksGiven;40221253]A police officer's job is to enforce the law, yes, but they also are allowed to use discretion. While a police officer will do as he is told by someone up the chain most of the time, he can use discretion if he finds his orders inappropriate for the given situation. It's why when some officers pull you over for speeding they'll sometimes just give you a verbal warning instead of writing a ticket for you every time. By the law, you were speeding, and you were caught, and you were pulled over, so you were supposed to be given a ticket for your infraction. But instead, the police officer gave you a warning.[/QUOTE] Pretty much, and if you're not going at EXACTLY the posted speed limit, you can be pulled over and fined even if you're only going 2 mph over that. Course that would be ridiculous so no cop in his right mind would do that. You can also be charged with assault if someone saw you take a knife out of your pocket to cut open a package or something in a public place. On top of that you can be charged with carrying a concealed weapon because it was in your pocket and hidden from view unless you've got a concealed weapon license. But it's just a pocket knife that wasn't being used to threaten anyone at all so that would be stupid.