15,000 LEO's Surveyed: Gun Control

[TSA]

http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/...mmary_2013.pdf

About the Survey
PoliceOne’s Gun Policy & Law Enforcement survey was conducted between March 4 and March 13, 2013. More than 15,000 officers completed the survey, which was promoted by PoliceOne exclusively to its 400,000 registered members, comprised of verified law enforcement professionals. Only current, former or retired law enforcement personnel were eligible to participate in the survey. The survey sample size was broadly distribut- ed by geography and rank in proportion to the U.S. law enforcement community at large. Respondents comprised a variety of ranks from departments of all sizes, with the majority representing departments of greater than 500 officers. Of those that took the survey, 80 percent were current law enforcement officers and 20 percent were former/retired law enforcement.

[admiralsnackbar]

Without more information on the survey's methodology, it's difficult to find the findings particularly persuasive. It's not clear whether PoliceOne actually developed the instrument ("promoted" seems malapropic if meant to suggest anything other than distributed on their site) , or what criteria were used to select respondents (or if the survey was filled out voluntarily, what controls were used to balance the sample across geographic and demographic strata), or how it is germane that PoliceOne has 400,000 members when the scope of the study is confined to 15,000 respondents. The very fact that the survey description is so vague ultimately works against whatever scientific credibility they are trying to establish... to the extent that I smell NRA.

Registered owner of several rifles and a couple of pistols here, btw.

[ElNono]

Not that they don't work with the NRA already...

http://www.policeone.com/training/ev...tructor-School

NRA obviously already running with the story...

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/in...-policies.aspx

[TSA]

It accurately expresses the general feeling of LEO's on gun control. Nothing more, nothing less.

[admiralsnackbar]

It accurately expresses the general feeling of some potentially cherry-picked LEO's on gun control. Nothing more, nothing less.

Fify

[TSA]

That's an awful lot of hand picking.

[ElNono]

That's an awful lot of hand picking.

About 4% of their alleged total membership...

[admiralsnackbar]

That's an awful lot of hand picking.

Really? Using computers to sort algorithmically through a closed database at a site which requires registration and encourages participation of its members (thus obtaining personal info and tracking metadata that can be correlated with 3rd party data-mining databases) sounds difficult? Welcome to how market segmentation/targeting is done in the 21st century, where it probably took longer to write the instrument than it did to render/compile their alleged findings.

And although this would be fairly straightforward, quick, and cheap to do (to the extent that local mom-and-pop businesses use the same technologies every day on Google/Facebook/etc.), winning the war of public opinion with this kind of PR tactic ultimately saves/makes gun manufacturers billions by keeping their vested interests unregulated and sales steady.

[TSA]

Care to find data with an equal sample size saying otherwise?

[admiralsnackbar]

Care to find data with an equal sample size saying otherwise?

Not really

I've already explained why I think the study is dubious -- the burden of proof isn't on me. Curious why you seem so convinced the study is credible? And allowing that the study isn't PR after Edward Bernays heart -- what makes you think police officers opinion on the matter are more valuable than anybody else's? Bit of an argument from authority, innit? Perhaps that's why so many will likely swallow the alleged findings whole without critically evaluating the foundation of these claims. Hmmmm.

[admiralsnackbar]

Couldn't resist a Google search... beyond the findings, notice the difference in rigor with respect to describing the instrument's methodology. Kind of night-and-day, don't you think?

http://www.ajpm-online.net/article/P...05179/fulltext

[Wild Cobra]

I wonder if Obomba started crying when he read the results of #4, #5, and some others?

[boutons_deux]

the poll proposes nothing but known-ineffective gun "control" measures, and the LEOs are smart enough, like a lot of us, to know they are ineffective.

LEOs in general are for real, strict, ENFORCED gun control that takes guns out of the hands of the Bad Guys

[TSA]

Couldn't resist a Google search... beyond the findings, notice the difference in rigor with respect to describing the instrument's methodology. Kind of night-and-day, don't you think?

http://www.ajpm-online.net/article/P...05179/fulltext

Definitely more thorough in regards to methodology, but didn't touch on the same points regarding gun control ie: will it make us safer.

Thanks for finding that though, was really surprised at the cheifs reluctance towards advocacy.

[ChumpDumper]

I wonder if Obomba started crying when he read the results of #4, #5, and some others?

I bet you a thousand dollars he didn't.

[boutons_deux]

I dont' think anybody seriously think the proposed, NRA-gutted gun "controls" will reduce anything.

MUCH MORE SEVERE, EXTENSIVE gun regulation,s combined with stringent enforcement, a national serialized gun + owner database on computers (not NRA-mandated paper), and mandated minimum fines and imprisonment for violations would do the trick to get guns away from the Bad Guys and terminate the lackadaisical, "fun/entertaining" gun culture. No citizen complied would be denied his mythical "right" to own and carry a gun.

[admiralsnackbar]

Definitely more thorough in regards to methodology, but didn't touch on the same points regarding gun control ie: will it make us safer.

Thanks for finding that though, was really surprised at the cheifs reluctance towards advocacy.

No sweat, but that question you want answered is only meaningful if the reader understands who is being asked, how they are being asked, and why their opinion is significant.

Ever see Police Academy? There were, what... 20 characters in that class? Each with their own quirks. Imagine if I were only going to administer this survey to one person in the class, and for whatever reason -- sloppy science or greed or whatever... I'm not tellin' -- I ended up interviewing Tackleberry, and based on that survey (and maybe a couple of fun probability functions I'm not going to tell you about either, thanks very much), I determined that the whole class was of the same mind as Tackleberry.

Because we've seen the movie, we know that's a flawed conclusion, therefore there must have been something wrong with my research instrument or all the way back to my hypothesis. But pretend you haven't seen the movie. What reasons have I given you to believe that Tackleberry speaks for his class? What tools have I given you to test the accuracy of my methods and the value of my conclusions. All I did was put on a white lab coat and tell you I was on the up and up... why should you let me get away with bull ting you like that? If they don't give us their methodology, they make it impossible for us to confirm/disconfirm whether Tackleberry speaks for his class. Would you be as convinced this study was legit if they had surveyed the fat wimp or the hen-pecked nerd or Jan Hooks, the mousy wallflower girl?

I'm thinking no, somehow.

[TSA]

No sweat, but that question you want answered is only meaningful if the reader understands who is being asked, how they are being asked, and why their opinion is significant.

Ever see Police Academy? There were, what... 20 characters in that class? Each with their own quirks. Imagine if I were only going to administer this survey to one person in the class, and for whatever reason -- sloppy science or greed or whatever... I'm not tellin' -- I ended up interviewing Tackleberry, and based on that survey (and maybe a couple of fun probability functions I'm not going to tell you about either, thanks very much), I determined that the whole class was of the same mind as Tackleberry.

Because we've seen the movie, we know that's a flawed conclusion, therefore there must have been something wrong with my research instrument or all the way back to my hypothesis. But pretend you haven't seen the movie. What reasons have I given you to believe that Tackleberry speaks for his class? What tools have I given you to test the accuracy of my methods and the value of my conclusions. All I did was put on a white lab coat and tell you I was on the up and up... why should you let me get away with bull ting you like that? If they don't give us their methodology, they make it impossible for us to confirm/disconfirm whether Tackleberry speaks for his class. Would you be as convinced this study was legit if they had surveyed the fat wimp or the hen-pecked nerd or Jan Hooks, the mousy wallflower girl?

I'm thinking no, somehow.

I understand what you're saying about the methodology they used, and although we can question that, the survey in general seems to convey the general feeling of LEO's across the nation. The National Sheriff's Association echoed the same.


http://www.sheriffs.org/sites/defaul...n_2013-1_0.pdf

Hundreds of others LEO's have come out in public stating the same. I tend to side with the men and women who deal with gun crime directly, as opposed to some know nothing agenda driven politician.

Excellent video by a Colorado sherrif explaining why Obama's gun control measures won't do a damn thing.

[admiralsnackbar]

Fair enough.

Given gun violence is most prevalent in cities (the true front lines, statistically), I'm curious whether there's an analogous national association of metro police that has released a similar statement. Too lazy to look tonight, though... s' it!