Monday, August 20, 2012

Oregon Police Chief Doug Pettit - Anti-Gun Zealot or Reasonable Gun Owner

 The Cap Times reports

In an era in which pro-gun advocates have been racking up a string of victories, Doug Pettit is trying to hit the brakes. The Oregon police chief, who serves as the legislative chairman for the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association, is one of the most vocal proponents of expanding background checks for gun buyers.

Pettit and his group are part of a national push by the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, which hopes to convince federal lawmakers to mandate background checks on people who purchase guns at gun shows, flea markets and other venues that don’t involve licensed gun dealers.

How big a deal is that? The partnership says that about 40 percent of gun purchases fall outside background check requirements. So when you hear about record-breaking handgun purchases -- which are calculated using data from background checks -- you can calculate the actual number of new guns on the street by increasing the reported number by two-thirds.

Not only that, those who do go through background checks can slide through the cracks. Take Seung Hui Cho, who in 2007 killed 32 people at Virginia Tech. If state authorities there had submitted Cho’s mental health records to the background check system like they should have, Cho never would have passed the two background checks that paved the way for the massacre. Virginia now has one of the best compliance records in the nation, according to a group called Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Pettit’s group is pushing for other states to follow suit.

Pettit is a hunter, a gun hobbyist, and he carries a gun on the job. But his push for what he considers reasonable gun regulations increases his visibility, and he’s being painted by some in the pro-gun crowd as an anti-gun zealot.

“I’m not very well-liked out there,” he says.


  1. Our policemen are the ones most in danger, and the ones who most directly have to deal with the real costs of guns in our society. Little wonder why they overwhelmingly support stricter gun regulation at every level.

    1. You mean that the political appointee police officers support these things because their patrons want them to. I hear rank and file cops talk all the time about how they support good citizens owning and carrying guns.

    2. Bullshit, Greg. You're repeating again what you've heard from others.

    3. Since I'm not a cop, you're correct in so far as that goes. I'm repeating what I've seen on discussion boards that police officers frequent. I'm repeating what Massad Ayoob says about himself and the officers that he's talked to. That's not bullshit, though.

    4. Mike, Greg is actually right. A great deal of CPD officers would like to see some sort of carry legislation in Chicago. Of course, they would like to see proper licensing and training for people to receive these permits.
      I can not speak for any other department outside of Chicago though.

    5. Greg, it is bullshit, it's anecdotal bullshit. Guys like Massad are fanatics and naturally his friends and associates are like-minded. But your average cop is just like your average civilian, that is on the gun control side of the argument.

      J.O.B., even I agree with that, "proper licensing and training." This is not what Greg is saying.

    6. Mikeb, don't put words in my mouth. I've said before that as long as the fees for a carry license aren't too high and the requirements aren't stupid (read your proposals), I can accept carry licenses.

      But you go on believing what a bunch of mayors and lickspittle appointees say, and I'll believe the cops that I've talked to, the cops that I've read, and the experts who support what they say.

  2. Hmm, funny. I would like to see your statistics for "Most cops are on the gun-control side" and "[our policeman] overwhelmingly support stricter gun regulation at every level".

    I know of at least one survey that severely contradicts those statements:

    "In a survey conducted by the National Association of Chiefs of Police of the nation's police executives, with regard to private citizens owning firearms for sport or self-defense, 93.6 percent of the respondents supported civilian gun-ownership rights. Ninety-six percent of the police chiefs and sheriffs believe criminals obtain firearms from illegal sources and 92.2 percent revealed they hadn't arrested anyone for violation of the so-called "waiting period" laws. When asked if citizens' concealed-weapons permits would reduce violent crime, 63.1 percent said yes."

    1. By producing "a survey" you think you're winning the argument???

      Chief Pettit is talking about private sales without background checks. What in the hell does that have to do with your 60% who think concealed carry is good?

    2. Did you miss all those numbers that he gave you? Of course, you don't regard private sales as a right, but the rest of us know what "civilian gun-ownership rights" means.

    3. What it has to do with, Mike, is a direct response to your tweet that linked me to the article in the first place:
      "Most cops are on the gun-control side."

      Here is the URL if you can't remember or (being that I am a gun owner) in case you doubt my honesty:

      I was also responding to the comment made by Baldr Odinson who said:
      "Little wonder why they overwhelmingly support stricter gun regulation at every level."

      I am directly rebutting those two arguments because they are patently false.

      If you would like me strictly hold my comments to the thesis of the article, perhaps you could do the same with your tweets.

      But if you post an article about a single cop wanting to force background checks on all private purchases, then perhaps you should not preface said article with the completely inaccurate statement of "Most cops are on the gun-control side" which is not even what the article is about.

      Because as long as you continue to take 2+2 and insist that it equals 10; I will do my best to try to teach you that it, in fact does not.

      Case in point: One Oregon Police chief and his organization advocating for mandate background checks [does not equal] most cops are on the gun-control side.

    4. You're right, but who says the title of a post or a tweet must be proven in the text of the linked article. Everything I write is my opinion or my observation or my conclusion. If it sounds too much like fact to you, I don't know, what can I say? Maybe it is, maybe it's not.

      By all means, when you disagree with something I say, please tell us all about it. But, lighten up with the internet rules of comportment, will ya?


    5. Mike I am literally flabbergasted ...

      I said all of that because you 'corrected' my original response with this statement:

      "Chief Pettit is talking about private sales without background checks. What in the hell does that have to do with your 60% who think concealed carry is good?"

      Basically it is like this:
      1) You tweet a general comment about cops and gun control and link to this article
      2) Baldr backs you up with another general specific comment in the discussion
      3) I respond to those two comments – clearly targeting those two comments as I included them in my response so you would know what I was talking about
      4) You then proceed to rake me over the coals for missing the point of the article?????
      5) I respond to let you know, AGAIN, that I was responding to your and Bladr’s comments – not the article - and show you that you do the same thing
      6) And now I am guilty of being too strict on posting requirements?!?!?!?!

      You continually seem to hold us to a much different standard than you hold yourself to. I am flabbergasted.

    6. And again ... no comment from Mike on his repeated 'pot calling the kettle black' projection behavior ...

    7. Frail Liberty, sometimes you lose me with your overly meticulous tedium and nit picking.

    8. I am sorry. I will try to be less precise and logical then perhaps you will be able to follow me better.

  3. i'd like to see a study of our cops compared to those in canada re:stress levels, longevity, health. i think it's easier making traffic stops when you are pretty sure you're not gonna face a gun. odinson didn't say he was gonna take away your gun!
    tom webber miami

    1. I have experience on the other side. Before I got a carry license, when I'd get pulled over, the officer was typcially unpleasant. After getting my license, they're relaxed. They know that I have a good record and am unlikely to shoot them over a traffic stop.

    2. Webber, Odin had nothing to do with the commentor from Oregon.

  4. What, Wisconsin didn't have any local officers who could deal with legislative matters? Why bring in someone from Oregon?

    He says that he's not liked in the gun rights crowd. Um, yeah, we don't like being betrayed. We don't like someone who tries to take away our rights. He shouldn't be surprised.

  5. "What, Wisconsin didn't have any local officers who could deal with legislative matters? Why bring in someone from Oregon?"

    This is what happens when you're too fucking stupid or arrogant to do a little research.

    Greg Camp, putting the "jerk" in "knee-jerk reactionary"

    1. Democommie, you back?

      Oregon, WI, eh? The title is misleading, but that's just cute. Of course, here in Arkansas, we have an Alabam and a Huntsville close together.