61°
Weather by

View Full Forecast

Login | Register

facebook Icon rss Icon twitter Icon

Rank-and-File Law Enforcement Officers Sound Off On The Election -- 90% Support Romney!

Back to Forum: Greenville News Board
11 replies [Last post]

PittCountyPride
User is online Online
Joined: Sep 3 2010
90% of POLICE Readers Support Concealed Carry, Romney for President September 12, 2012 by David Griffith POLICE Mag The vast majority of working law enforcement officers in the United States support the Second Amendment right to bear arms and plan to vote for presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney this fall. That's the findings of a survey conducted by POLICE Magazine this summer. A total of 19,000 subscribers to the PoliceMag.com e-newsletter On-Target were given the opportunity to participate in a survey covering gun control, politics, and police operations. Of that base number, 2,387 responded, a total response of 12.6%. Of the respondents, 74% were active sworn law enforcement, 15% were retired sworn law enforcement, and 11% were not law enforcement officers. Gun Control Respondents showed little or no support for increased government restrictions on gun ownership. Only 10% of respondents said they believe stricter laws on handgun ownership would increase or enhance public safety. Concealed carry for civilians drew almost unanimous support from the respondents. A whopping 94% said they support civilian concealed carry laws. In a follow-up question, 82.4% said they support expanding concealed carry to more places. Asked where concealed carry should be restricted and given a list of possible locations from which to choose, 51% of respondents said private property owners should have the right to prohibit carry on their property. Another 32% said that carry should not be prohibited in any location, including churches or schools. In the wake of the Aurora, Colo., "Dark Knight" massacre only 10% of respondents said that carry should be prohibited in movie theaters. Active Shooters The good news on the active shooter front is that this concern is front and center on the radar screens of police brass. A full 87% of respondents said their agencies have held active shooter response exercises. Maybe that’s why 73% of respondents said their agencies are prepared to respond to an active shooter incident. Individual officers are also concerned about active shooter attacks, even to the point of personally paying for gear that can be used for responding to such attacks. A full 63% of respondents said they have paid for ammunition, weapons, armor, or other gear intended for active shooter response out of their own pockets. A follow-up question asked respondents what measures would likely prevent mass shootings in public places. The number one answer was more concealed carry at 62.8%. Other popular answers included armed guards, 30.9%, and metal detectors, 26.6%. Note: Respondents were allowed to choose more than one answer. The Election As in our previous presidential election poll in 2008, the vast majority of respondents tended to be conservative. Only 10% of respondents support Democrat Barack Obama's bid for re-election. Conservatives also indicated their vote for Romney was more about their disapproval for Obama than any actual fondness for Romney. Only four respondents, or 0.2% of the Romney supporters, selected "I like him personally" as the reason that they plan to choose the former Massachusetts governor in November. The number one answer Romney supporters chose for voting Republican in the upcoming election was "I oppose Obama's policies" at 67%. Note: The POLICE Magazine survey was conducted prior to Romney's selection of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) as his vice presidential running mate. To get a better feel for the issues that most concern law enforcement officers in this election, the editors of POLICE Magazine asked respondents to rank a given set of issues in order of importance. Seven issues were provided in the survey. Number one at 76.25% was the economy. Despite their overwhelming support for the Second Amendment right to bear arms, respondents indicated that they were least concerned about the potential restriction of firearms and ammunition sales. This is likely due to the fact that neither party has made increased gun control a platform issue. The Economy As noted above, respondents chose the economy as their primary concern in the upcoming election. And with good reason; a whopping 41% of respondents said governments (city, county, state) served by their agencies are in "financial trouble." Financial difficulties facing their agencies have affected officers in two ways: worries about employment and benefits and diminished resources for carrying out their mission. A staggering 70% of respondents said that the economy has them "worried about the stability" of their retirement benefits. Even more concerning is the fact that 50% of respondents said that "budget cuts have adversely affected" their ability to do their jobs. www.policemag.com
"My religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to always be ready, no matter when it may overtake me." Maj. Gen. Thomas J. Jackson, 1862.
Equal
User offline. Last seen 4 hours 20 min ago. Offline
Joined: Sep 2 2010
What's wrong with the other 10%?
Ham and eggs....A days work for a chicken, a lifetime commitment for a pig.
PittCountyPride
User is online Online
Joined: Sep 3 2010
Equal wrote:
What's wrong with the other 10%?
That poll was conducted before Romney selected Ryan. NOW they are for Romney 100%!!!!!! LOL.
"My religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to always be ready, no matter when it may overtake me." Maj. Gen. Thomas J. Jackson, 1862.
PittCountyPride
User is online Online
Joined: Sep 3 2010
What do you think of this informal poll, Stank? Sounds about right to me...
"My religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to always be ready, no matter when it may overtake me." Maj. Gen. Thomas J. Jackson, 1862.
Stan
User offline. Last seen 1 year 16 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: Sep 2 2010
Sounds right to me too.
A man that won't cheat for a poke, don't want one bad enough - Capt. August McCray Texas Ranger
PittCountyPride
User is online Online
Joined: Sep 3 2010
Stank wrote:
Sounds right to me too.
What do you think about students who live in dorm and professors in their offices? Perhaps the University should be allowed to mandate that handguns be secured in a lock box, unless worn on the body... If in a vehicle, it must be in a locked container (like a glove box or trunk) and out of sight...
"My religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to always be ready, no matter when it may overtake me." Maj. Gen. Thomas J. Jackson, 1862.
Stan
User offline. Last seen 1 year 16 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: Sep 2 2010
PittCountyPride wrote:
What do you think about students who live in dorm and professors in their offices? Perhaps the University should be allowed to mandate that handguns be secured in a lock box, unless worn on the body... If in a vehicle, it must be in a locked container (like a glove box or trunk) and out of sight...
Nah. We used to do that back in the old days. We'd keep the guns of kids who hunted or who were competition shooters at the PD and they could check them out. But times change, and I've changed my views too. I think that a gun locked up in a locker wouldn't help any student who was sitting in class if a psycho started shooting people. But I think that if a student qualifies for and passes the requirements for a CCP then he/she should be able to carry at all times on campus. I also think that a faculty member that does the same thing should be able to carry at all time. Staff too, plumbers, carpenters, etc. If the apply for, qualify for, and jump through the hoops to get a concealed carry permit, they should be able to carry at all times on campus or off. There's too much government interference as it is. If a kid is living in the dorm, then they should be responsible for securing their firearm. Lock box is fine, or a trigger lock, etc. A firearm owner should be responsible for securing it, but as far as government mandates like lock boxes, nah. If a person is responsible enough to carry concealed then they should be responsible to secure it when they aren't carrying it.
A man that won't cheat for a poke, don't want one bad enough - Capt. August McCray Texas Ranger
ltp
User offline. Last seen 1 day 4 hours ago. Offline
Joined: Sep 3 2010
I do think that any place that you are required to disarm should be required to provide locked storage and they should be liable for your safety until you get your gun back. So the movie theatre would be required to have armed security guards if they require patrons to disarm. They should have those doors to the outside secured with magnetic locks so security can open the doors when needed but otherwise leave them closed. Students who have guns should bring gun safes to secure their guns when they are not carrying them. If they didn't there would be an unbelievable number of guns stolen. The best security is when you take care of it yourself.
The only thing O consistently delivers is uncertainty.
Stan
User offline. Last seen 1 year 16 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: Sep 2 2010
As far as business go, I disagree with you LTP. If a private business decides to ban firearms, I don't think the government has any business dictating to them that they have to provide security or a lock box. It's their business, their property, and I think there is too much government interference in private businesses anyway. All in all, I just don't like the idea of anybody having to get permission from the government to carry a tool to protect themselves, so I'm not really big on the CCW permits at all. I think they are unnecessary. Bad guys don't worry about them, so why should you or any other law abiding citizen have to ask permission to carry? Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming allow residents to carry a concealed firearm without a permit at all. Vermont doesn't issue permits at all, which presents a problem to their citizens who wish to carry concealed out of state (in states that recognize out of state permits), but Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming do issue permits, even though they are not required by law, so their citizens can carry out of state. But privately owned property or businesses are different. It's their property and I think they have the right to ban guns if they are that dumb.
A man that won't cheat for a poke, don't want one bad enough - Capt. August McCray Texas Ranger
ltp
User offline. Last seen 1 day 4 hours ago. Offline
Joined: Sep 3 2010
Stank wrote:
As far as business go, I disagree with you LTP. If a private business decides to ban firearms, I don't think the government has any business dictating to them that they have to provide security or a lock box. It's their business, their property, and I think there is too much government interference in private businesses anyway. All in all, I just don't like the idea of anybody having to get permission from the government to carry a tool to protect themselves, so I'm not really big on the CCW permits at all. I think they are unnecessary. Bad guys don't worry about them, so why should you or any other law abiding citizen have to ask permission to carry? Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming allow residents to carry a concealed firearm without a permit at all. Vermont doesn't issue permits at all, which presents a problem to their citizens who wish to carry concealed out of state (in states that recognize out of state permits), but Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming do issue permits, even though they are not required by law, so their citizens can carry out of state. But privately owned property or businesses are different. It's their property and I think they have the right to ban guns if they are that dumb.
Private businesses can't ban seeing eye dogs. Why? Because the government decided that blind people are at risk when they don't have the tools they need. When a lunatic breaks out a gun and starts shooting in a disarmed crowd, what is the difference between those people and a blind person who didn't have their seeing eye dog?
The only thing O consistently delivers is uncertainty.
Stan
User offline. Last seen 1 year 16 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: Sep 2 2010
ltp wrote:
Private businesses can't ban seeing eye dogs. Why? Because the government decided that blind people are at risk when they don't have the tools they need. When a lunatic breaks out a gun and starts shooting in a disarmed crowd, what is the difference between those people and a blind person who didn't have their seeing eye dog?
Good point, but I believe that if a person owns property he has the right to impose rules on visitors. If I own a store and don't want seeing eye dogs in there, then probably my patrons would get ticked off and refuse to do business there when they heard about it, and I'd lose business, and maybe even go out of business. If enough of the public disagrees with my rules, I'll go bankrupt. I'd rather have the public make the decision than the government, is what I'm trying to say. It's the libertarian in me coming out. Another example is smoking in a bar/restaurant. If the owner doesn't want smoking in there, that's fine, if he does that's fine by me. If a patron doesn't like the smoke they can go elsewhere. But the government shouldn't be able to "fine" a business and control otherwise lawful behavior in there. I'm an ex-smoker, but it still gripes me. Lot's of people disagree with me though. I have a good friend who owns a restaurant and he can't even smoke in his own place, but he DOES support the law. Go figure.
A man that won't cheat for a poke, don't want one bad enough - Capt. August McCray Texas Ranger
Bless your heart
Bless your heart

College Football