police organizations backing gun control

[bill2]

Whenever I see an article on gun control, it usually mentions various law enforcement organizations that are in favor of stricter gun control. When I argue with my sister on why gun control is useless, she points out the various LEO organizations back it. I am curious as to who comprises these organizations - Fraternal Order of Police, International (or National) Association of Police Chief's, etc.

* Are they made up of street cops or just upper management?

* How many cops are members of these organizations?

* Why are so many of them, at least according to various articles, in favor of gun control?

* Do these organizations command much respect among cops who are on the streets?

* Do they serve a law enforcement purpose, or are they more for political lobbying?

Thanks

 

[warmi]

Oh come on.

It is only natural that they will gravitate towards solutions that make their jobs easier and safer - regardless of the cost in terms of civil liberties.

And they are right in the sense that living in a police state is generally safer proposition as long as you are deemed "good citizen" ( whatever that means.)

Freedom by definition implies certain risks and, unfortunately, it seems that more and more folks are willing to trade more of their freedoms for the increased sense of security.

 

[George S.]

Some of these LEO organizations are political in nature rather than something dedicated to LEO's themselves as individuals or the job they have. Some Chiefs of Police are political appointees and may very well have their views on gun ownership defined for them. Sometimes that policy is then passed down to the rank and file patrol officers without allowing them to consider their own views.

I have talked at length with a few LEO's that I personally know and for the most part, they either encourage citizens to defend themselves within the limits of the law or don't really have an anti-gun stance. When I mentioned that I have a CCW, they all agreed that I had done the right thing and were supportive of my carrying.

One thing to understand is that the police cannot guarntee to protect you from harm. If that was to be done, half the people would be LEO's and the other half would have to be next to them 24/7. And what self-respecting criminal or gang-banger would want to have a cop at their side all the time? Their basic job is to find the criminal after he has committed a crime, arrest them and turn over the information to the prosecutors for court action.

 

[boofus]

Law Enforcement Alliance of America opposed the AWB. Fraternal Order of Police was in favor of the ban but evidently not enough to stop them from giving Bush unanimous endorsement.

 

[flatrock]

I shoot at a range that is owned by a police officer, and staffed mostly by police officers.

None of them support the AWB.

 

[moa]

Policemen who wish for a police state should known that historically sometimes the police were victims too. Stalin was working with his third head of secret police when he died. Stalin had the first two executed. The third one (Beria) was executed a few months after Stalin's death.

In one of the most notorious secret police prisions in Moscow, during Stalin's reign, the staffs were purged and liquidated four times.

Purges and liquidations during Stalin's reign where standard operating procedure for all members of the police, government members including the big-shots, military and Communist party faithful. Liquidations often included an entire family.

Thus you have a nation not ruled by law, but ruled by men.

 

[Ktulu]

It is only natural that they will gravitate towards solutions that make their jobs easier and safer - regardless of the cost in terms of civil liberties.

Except that solutions like gun control [spit] don't make their jobs easier and safer. They make us more dependent on them. It’s actually quite unnatural for someone to lobby themselves out of a job by drastically reducing the very thing that puts food on their table (crime). Witness the war on drugs and tell me that that has anything to do with reducing crime.

But, that's beside the point....

Most cops are good people. It's a pretty good guess that they have about the same population of pro-gun people per capita as the general population. That means most of them are not pro-gun. That means most of them are uneducated about the REAL effect of gun control [spit] and think it makes sense.

We, more specifically I, seem to forget that common sense is anything but common. We sometimes forget the obvious fact that gun control [spit] being far more dangerous then unrestricted individual ownership is anything but an obvious fact. For most people it's counter intuitive. Most people think the lies spewed by Brady, Frankenstein, and et al [vomit] sound perfectly reasonable. This is no different for the people that wear a gun on their hip and a badge on their chest everyday.

 

[warmi]

I doubt there are many policemen who are consciously longing for a police state.

The problem is that they are humans and the fact that citizens can own high powered rifles does make their jobs more dangerous even if only due to possibility of accidental shootings etc ...

The drive towards less and less free society is a slow processes, often disguised as a attempts to make streets safer for the police.
The safety of a policeman is being considered an overriding principle - a concept that is very easy to accept until you realize that this safety can only be obtained at the cost of freedom of people that are being policed.

In a free society, the job of policing others will always be relatively dangerous and there is not much that can be done about it.

 

[warmi]

"Except that solutions like gun control [spit] don't make their jobs easier and safer. "

It does.
It is simply a matter of common sense that a policeman answering a domestic disturbance call is much more likely to be assaulted with a fire weapon in a society where such weapons are widely available.

The real question is if we are willing to keep our freedoms even if it means less safe work environment for LE agencies.

Unfortunately, more and more people ( some people call it a "soccer mom" mentality) are willing to go for the safer , even if less free, option.

 

[C96]

I doubt the AWB made life more safe for LEO's. If you want to make life better
for cops, make a ban on stupid.

Im not a cop, but I rode in the back of a cruiser once.

allan

 

[Geech]

It is simply a matter of common sense that a policeman answering a domestic disturbance call is much more likely to be assaulted with a fire weapon in a society where such weapons are widely available.

But there's no guarantee that gun control will significantly decrease the availability of firearms to criminals, or that criminals won't simply resort to other means to achieve their goals.

 

[Ktulu]

We, more specifically I, seem to forget that common sense is anything but common.

I'm quoting myself...nice!

 

[warmi]

"But there's no guarantee that gun control will significantly decrease the availability of firearms to criminals, or that criminals won't simply resort to other means to achieve their goals.."


That is correct.
I am not trying to argue that ban on firearms will make police work completely trouble free.
There are plenty of hardened criminals that will be there regardless of the gun laws and other limitations but it will make tragedies like this less likely.

All I am saying that we got to be intellectually honest with ourselves and admit that a heavily armed society does have its drawbacks but the benefits of having armed populace outweigh other considerations.

 

[Ed]

Every LEO I have talked to thought the Homeland Defense Rifle Ban was useless and an infringment of our rights. An hour ago at the range I let a LEO shoot my "evil" Ar 15 with FS and Bayo lug. I also told him where to get a good deal on one.