Survey of More Than 15,000 Cops Finds Most of Them Oppose More Gun Control

Police OnePolice OneThe law-enforcement support site PoliceOne.com has released the results of a massive survey in which "more than 15,000 verified law enforcement professionals" were asked 30 questions about current gun control proposals. The results may surprise you.

"Contrary to what the mainstream media and certain politicians would have us believe," writes Police One Editor in Chief Doug Wyllie, "police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry, would like to see more guns in the hands of responsible people, and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership, or accessibility." 

The most telling results are these: 

  • "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."
  • "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. Just over 7 percent took the opposite stance, saying they believe a ban would have a moderate to significant effect." 
  • "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, with just over 10 percent saying it would have a moderate or significantly positive effect."
  • "Seventy percent of respondents say they have a favorable or very favorable opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions. Similarly, more than 61 percent said they would refuse to enforce such laws if they themselves were Chief or Sheriff."
  • "More than 28 percent of officers say having more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public, followed by more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons (about 19 percent) and more armed guards/paid security personnel (about 15 percent)."

See the whole survey here

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John||

    Pretty much every professional organization is run by lefty state loving bastards. If they reflect the views of the people they represent, it is by pure accident.

  • wareagle||

    then these numbers show a pretty big accident. Cops often act like morons but even they realize that most of the time, their work is after the fact.

  • jamson74||

    Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job Ive had. Last Monday I got a new Alfa Romeo from bringing in $7778. I started this 9 months ago and practically straight away started making more than $83 per hour. I work through this link, Mojo50.com

  • The Late P Brooks||

    police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry

    Except when OFFICER SAFETY is concerned. Then it's shoot first, make up a narrative later.

  • sarcasmic||

    Exactly.

  • ||

    And of course the mountain of data on police involved shootings (check the DOJ reports which I read and I suggest no reasonoid has) shows this to be a ridiculously false statement.

    Cops are extremely reserved in their decision to shoot, and when they do, the overwhelming majority of shootings are justified. Courts etc. will continue to come to that conclusion because they actually look at case facts and consider them in relation to rule of law not reasonoid use of force fantasyland precepts.

  • sarcasmic||

    Ruled justified and actually being justified have no relation to each other.

    For example round here a few years back there was a standoff with an agitated guy who was holding a knife from his kitchen. There was at least thirty feet and at least one vehicle between him and the cops. He wasn't threatening anyone. He was just being completely unreasonable. So they murdered him on his own porch. Executed for contempt of cop.

    Nothing else happened. Nothing else ever happens.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    The taxpayers of Long Beach, CA get to pay $6.5 million to the family of a man who was shot by police. He was holding a water nozzle, while waiting on his friend's front porch. The police silently surrounded him, and without identifying themselves opened fire. Swiss cheesed the poor fucker. That shooting was ruled justified by the State. The civil trial jury obviously felt differently.

  • some guy||

    If only the civil trial juries could bankrupt a few local governments. Then maybe people would get the message.

  • sarcasmic||

    That shooting was ruled justified by the State.

    Of course it was. They all are. Can't go and find police shootings to be unjustified. That might erode the public's trust in the police. Can't allow that. Better to allow murderers to keep their badges than sow seeds of public distrust.

  • LemonMender||

    Just a minor quibble, but that page shows why friends don't let friends operate Excel. They seemed to think that switching chart type all the time is a good thing, even though every single one of them would best be a pie chart since the answers are exclusive of each other.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Considering how many stories we've seen of police firing a hundred rounds to hit their target three times, control of one's gun isn't something they seem to prioritize.

  • Drake||

    Police marksmanship varies widely. I've seen both extremes.

  • Paul.||

    Police marksmanship varies widely

    Very widely around the target area. Yes.

  • ||

    This article just confirms what I have been saying as long as I have been here. A few ignorati seem to think that if the IACP or some other group of cop-o-crats is pro-gun control, that means that REAL cops are, but I think the majority here accept what I have been saying. Real cops, on the whole, are not on the side of the gun grabbers.

    Good to see a survey done of REAL cops to oppose the surveys done of police "leaders" who, on the whole (specifically police chiefs) are just appointed politicians.

  • Enough About Palin||

    "Good to see a survey done of REAL cops, which of course wouldn't include me."

    *turns back into Tommy Flanagan*

  • ||

    smooches!

    I'm as real as it gets baby! A salty, experienced street cop with a fondness for Terry v. Ohio and civil rights. Oh, I guess it's just a statement about the duality of man, sir.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Yer a paradox. Got that smarmy elitist power freak attitude that just wreaks of your shit don't stink, so happy to enforce bullshit laws and the LAWN ODOR they create.

    Then spout all sorts of libertarian stuff completely at odds with your profession and what you say you do.

    Like a Jewish policeman in Nazi Germany, happy to enforce the laws and uphold the regime, all the while saying you support political freedom.

    I've thought several times of starting an anti-dunphy persona, but my mind just can't get get around it.

  • Gene||

    ^^THIS^^ Thanks for putting into words my thoughts.

  • Drake||

    I served with a lot of cops when I was in the Guard and still shoot with some at the gun club. Most want nothing to do with more gun control.

    They don't want the paperwork and BS that comes with more more permitting for guns and ammo purchases. They don't want to go through it themselves (in NJ they have to go through the same process as civilians), and they know it's nothing but a hassle for the law-abiding and does nothing to the criminals.

  • Restoras||

    Riggs, I posted this in AM links four hours ago. Where's my hat tip?

  • sarcasmic||

    Right next to my hat tip for the family fleeing to Cuba.

  • Paul.||

    Riggs has your hat tip hanging.

  • ||

    I got your hat tip right HERE! ::grabs crotch suggestively::

    /Riggs

  • Paul.||

    "More than 28 percent of officers say having more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public, followed by more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons (about 19 percent) and more armed guards/paid security personnel (about 15 percent)."

    There's your telling statement there.

    I'll read the rest of the survey, but there's already a mountain of evidence that shows that cops get extremely hostile when they actually confront civilians (thhpt!) exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

  • ||

    And there's a mountain of evidence showing that cops are extremely respectful of those keeping and bearing arms. There are a host of posts at WA open carry forum, as well as youtube videos and day to day experience. At least here in WA, we respect the right to carry. In fact, most cops I know support it and when we pull over somebody who is carrying, they get nothing BUT respect.

    Isolated counterexamples are just that.

  • Paul.||

    The examples are hardly isolated. And since one negative incident happened to a close friend of mine, it's made me very nervous about conceal carry.

    One shouldn't have to worry about getting the wrong cop on the wrong day. Even if negative incidents only happen 10% of the time (which I'll bet they happen way, way more often than that). Do I really want to walk around with a concealed weapon knowing that there's a 1 in 10 chance that my encounter could become hostile and possibly deadly?

  • WTF||

    You mean something similar to this?

  • derpules||

    Does Chicago PD count as an isolated counterexample?

  • mr lizard||

    Sounds like they found the first 13500 re-education camp residents. Can't have the kings men upsetting the narrative.

  • ||

    I bow to no king. If it comes down to a conflict between rule of law and rule of man, I side with rule of law. I pissed off one Sgt. years ago for refusing to make an unlawful arrest, and I stand by that decision.

  • Chris Mallory||

    90% of the arrests you make are "lawful" but immoral. Choke on a dick and die, slaver.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    This result does temper my view of the police a little bit. It is encouraging to see so many support private gun ownership. Of course, the 28% that seem to support concealed carry, well, that's better than 27%, but it should be a lot higher.

  • ||

    Support for CCW is not limited to 28%. Read the polling question. It's a question about the result of more permissive CCW laws, not a question about support qua suppor for same, which I assume would be higher.

  • DaveSs||

    According to the PoliceOne survey, 91.3% of officers support Concealed Carry. 4.1% oppose it.

    Sounds like overwhelming support to me.

    Also in that survey they asked about Open Carry.
    31.1% responded "I support both concept and practice"
    A further 40.8% say its "a valid concept, but is misguided" Not sure what that means...I guess I'd take it to mean they think it should be legal, but wouldn't encourage it (preferring concealed carry instead)

    Only 18.2% said it was a bad practice/idea.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    I stand corrected. That really surprises me. I mean, to the point where I'm wondering about the validity of the survey. That just sounds odd. This was just among LEO registered on PoliceOne. Is there a significant skew in their mix of registered users?

  • Almanian!||

    Isolated counterexamples are just that.

    Always count on derpfee for the comedic take.

    AND NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    How 'bout that motoGP race, Almanian?

  • Tony||

    Majorities saying they wouldn't enforce new gun regulations? Overwhelming majorities favoring the view that more gun proliferation is the solution to gun violence? I don't know what it is yet--methodologically or agenda-based--but something's fishy about this survey. Or maybe police are overwhelmingly right-wing gun nuts, which should scare us all.

  • sarcasmic||

    Police understand that when seconds count, they are minutes away.

  • Cavpitalist||

    Cops clearly hate children. Not taking a gun away from an adult is the same thing as giving a gun to a child. Reality is a right-wing gun nut, which should scare us all, but if it doesn't, I'll try harder the next time I have some young-child meat puppets to drive the point home.

  • Tony||

    Because clearly it makes no sense that the two factors that separate the US from other advanced countries, high gun proliferation and high rates of gun deaths, have nothing to do with each other, and that obviously the solution to our massive gun death problem is more gun proliferation. (Why we're not the safest country on earth as a result of our already high gun proliferation is a mystery.)

  • Paul.||

    What about the countries that have high gun proliferation and low gun death?

  • WTF||

    The UK has nearly double the rate of violent crime as the US. And guns are virtually prohibited there.
    Fucking idiot.

  • Enyap||

    Not to mention violent crime and murder rates have largely risen or stayed the same after new gun laws were passed.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    What you want is impossible. Putting aside that it is immoral and wrong-headed, it is simply impossible. There is no way to get rid of guns in America. MAKING SOMETHING ILLEGAL DOES NOT MAKE IT GO AWAY. Some of the worst gun massacres have occurred in Western Europe which has much more strict laws.

    America has a deeply entrenched cultural association with firearm ownership. Any attempt to drastically reduce gun ownership is likely to cause far more deaths and associated harms.

  • WTF||

    But, passing a law is magic! Just look at how making drugs illegal made drugs go away!

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    Gun ownership is to the Left what illegal immigration is to the Right. There's no way to get rid of guns, just like there's no way to deport 12 million illegal immigrants. No law will truly end gun ownership, and no law or fence will end illegal immigration, and any attempt to try causes more harm than good. The only way to deal with it is to keep it in the open, make it legal for as many people as possible to take part, and enforce laws in the case someoene actually harms someone else.

  • Tony||

    Gun buyback programs have had some success, and the level of cultural entrenchment of guns is overstated (a minority are gun owners--fewer still passionate about it).

    I've tended to agree that (largely thanks to the NRA/gun manufacturers lobby's political success) there are just too many guns, and that the ones who will keep them in the event of the ban are the most dangerous ones.

    But an attitude of hopelessness is just what the NRA wants, and I don't buy that we have to be forced to accept a certain level of deadly violence as a price for a minority of a minority's definition of freedom.

  • DaveSs||

    Gun buybacks are very successful at paying $100+ for rusty old non-functioning pieces of junk. Totally ineffective at combating criminal activity.

    Regardless of whether or not people personally own firearms, the MAJORITY do support the right to keep and bear arms.

  • Tony||

    Which arms? What ammunition capacity?

  • DaveSs||

    Its not my place to tell you what arms you can or cannot have.

    Buy whatever you please.

  • DaveSs||

    Its not my place to tell you what arms you can or cannot have.

    Buy whatever you please.

  • Tony||

    I want a nuke.

  • DaveSs||

    Considering that producing such a device takes billions of dollars, I'll sleep well at night knowing that you don't need to pass a law to prohibit possession of an object that not even the uber wealthy could accomplish.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    Gun buybacks have not even dented the overall firearms ownership. Gun owners are only a minority by a small margin. There are a hell of a lot more gun owners than there are those who voted for Obama.

    I never said there were too many guns, I simply said it would be impossible to get rid of them all. At least not without creating violence that far exceeds what current legal ownership produces.

    The ones who keep them are the ones who actually have a backbone. You might not like it when they get pushed too far.

    Your minority of a minority is a serious misconception. You can't seem to reconcile your world view to reality. Their is a slim majority of Americans who favor increased gun restrictions. That does not mean they favor elimination of private firearms ownership. You, in fact, are in the minority on that one. Your opinion also shows that your concept of democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

  • Tony||

    The problem with gun nuts is they think being "pushed too far" is whatever NRA mouthpiece/rightwing demagogue says is being pushed too far. Let's just have Civil War 2.0 and settle the issue? Will you consider it settled when you ridiculous rednecks get your ass handed to you again? Or will Dixie continue to be in the process of rising again?

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    It's always violence with you. The blood stains show through your little shroud of benevelonce.

  • Enyap||

    The vast majority of our military especially combat troops would be among the "rediculous rednecks". I'm sure they're trembling in fear at the thought of fighting a bunch of skinny fat vegan who've never fired a gun in their life.

  • Calidissident||

    I find it hilarious how Tony portrays anything he disagrees with as a nefarious plot promulgated by (and any popular support for such a proposal as due to brainwashing by) "rightwing demagogues" or "KOCH BROTHERS" or "KOREPOURASHUNS" or "LOBBYISTS." Of course a right-wing group like the NRA is just an evil corporate tool used to control corporations, while left-wing advocacy groups are totally pure and noble.

  • Cavpitalist||

    The problem with gun nuts is they think being "pushed too far" is whatever NRA mouthpiece/rightwing demagogue says is being pushed too far

    I honestly don't give one-half of a rusty fuck what the NRA says or thinks.

    There isn't one empirical data set in human history that links gun ownership rates to aggressive violence. There are more guns on Earth today than at any point in human history, and you are safer from violent aggression right now than at any point in human history. Legal firearms are used far more often for defense than all gun are used for assault, and the large majority of gun violence in this country is directly attributable to the War on Drugs.

    I know that rifles, legal and illegal, 'assault weapons' and deer rifles, ALL rifles account for 2.6% of gun homicides. This, despite the fact that 60% of gun owners own rifles, and that the AR-15 is the best-selling gun in the country. Also, the murder rate has dropped about 40% in the last two years. When someone advocates doing away with the most popular firearm in the land, one that is statistically almost NEVER used to murder, in an era of quickly dropping murder rates, I see either a moron or a threat, and in either case, fuck you, that's why.

    I'm an empiricist, I don't care what a group says about anything. I care about objective reality, and the objective reality is that you have to be a drooling retard or an agent of tyranny to support "gun control" in this country.

  • Cavpitalist||

    Let's just have Civil War 2.0 and settle the issue? Will you consider it settled when you ridiculous rednecks get your ass handed to you again? Or will Dixie continue to be in the process of rising again?

    There will be more citizens with guns on their person in the North alone on the first day of deer season this year than there are LEOs and federal agents in America, you ignorant fuck. I think I would suck a dick so I could drag you behind a truck and not face hate crime prosecution.

  • Cavpitalist||

    Also, the murder rate has dropped about 40% in the last two years.

    The murder rate has dropped about 40% in the last 20 years. Forget it, I'm on a roll.

  • derpules||

    gun death

    what is a gun death?

  • Tony||

    A death caused by a gun.

  • Cavpitalist||

    No such thing.

    If you want to narrow it down to "deaths caused by a person with a gun", that would get you to whatever number gets pistol-whipped to death every year.

    If you want to narrow it down to "deaths caused by a person with a gun and ammunition and the capability to hit what they're aiming at", you'll get mostly what you're looking for, which is a stupid fucking distinction that only fools the worst of hacks.

  • Calidissident||

    "Because clearly it makes no sense that the two factors that separate the US from other advanced countries, high gun proliferation and high rates of gun deaths"

    Really? Those are the only differences? Even if we assumed that gun control could take every gun off the street, and that everyone who killed someone with a gun was unable to do so without one, and that there would be no new murders from people not being able to use guns in self-defense, or potential murderers being deterred by that possibility, the homicide rate of the US would still be higher than many of the countries you're comparing us to. That tells me that gun control isn't the real issue here

  • Jordan||

    And let's ignore the fact that the vast majority of gun deaths are suicides.

  • Tony||

    Which are perfectly OK!

  • Jordan||

    Derp. Missing the point as usual. There are about 65 countries with higher suicide rates and far lower gun ownership rates than the U.S.

  • Tony||

    Steven Pinker thinks it's because the US was a democracy first, and the people made rules that let them keep their guns, whereas European democracies and such had long ago disarmed their people before they were democracies.

    I would say our relatively meager safety net (a high tolerance for poverty) combined with massive gun proliferation is a good recipe for bad violence stats.

  • Juice||

    England had no real gun control laws until the 20th century. They were a "democracy" then.

  • Juice||

    And Jesus, you think the safety net in this country is meager?

  • Calidissident||

    And why should I give a shit what Steven Pinker thinks? And did you not read the part about how the non-gun homicide rate in the US exceeds the total homicide rate in a lot of the countries you're comparing the USA to?

    And how does your contention in the second paragraph jive with the massive spike in the murder rate that occurred not long after a massive expansion of the federal welfare state (which, aside from SS, was almost nonexistent prior to the mid 60s)?

  • fish||

    Gee but you're a whiny tard!

  • derpules||

    maybe police are overwhelmingly right-wing gun nuts

    So when the data agrees with your political orientation it's fact, when it doesn't the source is wrong.

  • Tony||

    I find it fishy, that's all.

  • Drake||

    Funny these comments.

    The hate the cops crowd don't believe it - while our resident statist doesn't believe it.

    Together I take it as a good indicator that the survey is accurate.

    There are good cops and bad cops. As I see it, most of the bad ones are to be found in the cities.

  • ||

    police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry, would like to see more guns in the hands of responsible people, and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership, or accessibility.

    No shit. More weapons for the them to confiscate through asset forfeiture on bullshit charges.

    FUCK the police.

  • Chris Mallory||

    Of course the poll doesn't show that cops are opposed to more gun control. The poll does say that the cops think that the goals behind more gun control won't be reached.

    The only good cop is a .....wait there are no good cops.

    Disarm government employees for a safer America.

    All cops lie, all the time.

  • AlgerHiss||

    Sorry, but I don’t buy all of this pro-gun talk from this bunch.

    Ever observe a cop around any peaceful person that legally has a gun?

    They tense up…they want to unload it…they want to hold it until the encounter is over, then hand it back unloaded and tell them not to reload it until the cop is gone….they tell them to keep their hands in plain view…they want to run the serial number “just to be sure it’s not stolen”…

    I think it’s total bullshit.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement