After a thorough discrediting of John Lott, which we're all familiar with, an interesting survey is cited. The gun nuts, following Lott's lead always start out with the lying proposition that cops generally favor gun rights, but when confronted with facts, they fall back on the equally dishonest explanation that police chiefs don't count because their more like politicians. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. Police chiefs generally come up through the ranks and are therefore eminently qualified to render opinions which should be taken seriously. Here they are:
The 2006 mail survey, which appeared in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine, was conducted by actual academics who put measures in place to ensure the internal validity of their survey. Among the findings:
- 93.5% of police chiefs supported requiring a background check to purchase a handgun.
- 73.4% of police chiefs were in favor of child access laws.
- 69.4% of police chiefs supported mandatory handgun registration.
- 58.4% of police chiefs believed civilians should not carry firearms in public places.
Chiefs are politicians. Their jobs depend on keeping mayors and city councils happy. Besides, as I've asked you repeatedly, since when do we refer our rights to law enforcement? Our rights exist in part to constrain what cops can do.
ReplyDeleteJust out of curiosity, Mike, why didn't you include or respond to my comments on this issue?
ReplyDeletehttp://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/08/media-matters-gets-it-wrong-yet-again.html
Of course, in the interim, a massive survey by PoliceOne, the largest national organization of police officers has also been released.
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2013/04/new-policeones-gun-policy-law.html
Many other MMFA errors
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2013/04/is-gun-research-by-john-lott.html
Note that up until the last week, Media Matters has refused to let me post any responses on their website. Nor do they ever respond to the posts that I have put up on my website or the articles that I have written in response at Fox News.
John, thanks for coming by. I'm honored, seriously. I don't think you're a regular enough reader of my little blog to have seen our rather tedious discussions the other day about loaded questions, but you gave us a good one right there. You can often spot the statements-disguised-as-questions by the preface, "just out of curiosity."
DeleteI'll try to make time to get over there and perhaps leave a comment.
About the Police One blog, I had the impression that they were an extremely pro-gun group, not at all representative of cops in general. Maybe that's wrong.
I saw someone retweet your tweet, and I followed the post from there. I haven't read your earlier posts on loaded questions, but I used the term "curious" because I was genuinely curious to learn whether you tried to learn about the issue before you posted your attack.
DeleteAs to PoliceOne, they have about 450,000 members (370,000 active duty police, 80,000 retired). Their members account for over half of the active duty police in the US.
Regards.
On their "about us" page it says this: "PoliceOne has more than 230,000 Law Enforcement members."
DeleteWhere did you get the larger numbers?
Plus, isn't it possible that not all the law enforcement members are in complete agreement with what the writers of the blog have to say about civilian-owned guns? And isn't it also possible that not all the supposed law enforcement members are in fact law enforcement? This is the internet, after all.
About the loaded question business, I don't like to questions someone's veracity until I know them better, especially an illustrious visitor like yourself, let's face, in the gun debate I'm a nobody but you're an A list celebrity, but what you said about being "genuinely curious" sounds like total bullshit. You knew damn well, or at least you guessed, that I hadn't done any research before printing my "attack," as you put it. You could just say that, but like most of the pro-gun guys I've had the pleasure of knowing, you seem to have a hard time arguing straight up.
"On their "about us" page it says this: "PoliceOne has more than 230,000 Law Enforcement members."
DeleteWhere did you get the larger numbers?"
You seem to have gotten your number here,
http://www.policeone.com/MemberReferences/
While John seems to have gotten his number from here,
http://www.policeone.com/about/
" With more than 1.5 million unique visitors per month and more than 450,000 registered members, PoliceOne is becoming the leading destination for Law Enforcement professionals."
Mike, I saw the 450,000 number on the page with the link to the page with the 230,000 number, so there is a possibility that one is outdated.
Considering that John does write for Foxnews, its sort of humorous that recently, you wrote this when we discussed the survey that John refers to back in January,
"Asking Police One readers about gun ownership is like asking Fox viewers about Obama. It doesn't matter how many you ask. It's slanted and useless, and you should have known better."
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-gun-rights-legacy.html
Welcome to the blog John, its an interesting place, and its an honor meeting you.
John, I'm glad to be in the same comment thread as you. We repeatedly present facts and logic to Mikeb, but since those don't go along with his gun control feelings, he remains impervious. We keep up the good fight, though, and it's good to know the word gets around.
Delete"You knew damn well, or at least you guessed, that I hadn't done any research before printing my "attack," as you put it."
DeleteYeah, he could have said it, its just more fun when you admit it! LOLs!
Mr. Lott, arguing or debating with Mike B is akin to tilting at windmills. No matter that the facts aren't on his side, all that matters is his opinion...everyone else is wrong.
DeleteI find it interesting that you seem to have faith in this survey but claim the police one survey, one that is taken of confirmed sworn law enforcement officers is biased. As Greg said, Chiefs will follow the politics of those that appoint them. If you notice at most gun control related events they use chiefs of police but not sheriffs. That's largely because the sheriffs are chosen by the people chiefs are chosen by the government and will largely hold the party line and politics of the government that appointed them. Essentially by only using the numbers from the chiefs they can essentially control the results, not to mention that using a numerically smaller total will make the percentages appear more significant. A more accurate survey would have to include the sheriffs and average street cops, in order to get a truer view of the views of the law enforcement community.
ReplyDeleteMikeZ
But, isn't John's contention that police chiefs are overwhelmingly in favor of gun rights? How can that be if they're politically appointed yes.men?
DeleteDear Anonymous:
DeleteThe police chiefs from some very large cities tend to understandably get more media attention, but the National Association of Chiefs of Police shows strong support for gun ownership and concealed carry laws. Interestingly, even in some heavily Democratic strong holds such as Detroit and Milwaukee you are seeing police chiefs and sheriffs speaking out in favor of individuals being able to protect themselves.
John, I'm sure you've seen the many many discussions about how police chiefs favor gun control because they're political lackeys. We've argued this frequently, my contention being that most of them came up through the ranks and are for that reason generally in favor of gun control. Your side always countered that with the unsupported theory that they don't really believe in gun control but are constrained to preach it because of their superiors in the political sphere.
DeleteNow, you're saying all that's wrong? You're saying not only cops of the lower ranks want more guns in civilian hands but even the brass does?
Mr. Lott, thank you for the information. I was reading through the limitations and set up of the study and there are a number of issues I have with it, especially knowing how cops think and how many results are calculated. The fact that they only chose larger metro areas already skews the study. The wording of the questions, is quite vague and cops generally like to think precisely, as that's where the truth comes out.Without solid definitions you can say the study means anything you want it too.The questions are written in concepts, but one persons idea of support is very different than another. Even in the wording of explanation it says the chiefs would meet regarding gun control not necessarily endorsing it. While I am not saying that there is no validity to this study I do believe that this, as with any other study that says a huge percentage of a certain group believes a certain way, it needs to be closely read and analyzed.
DeleteMikeZ
I exchanged emails with Doug Wyllie, PoliceOne Editor in Chief, when I was looking at their membership survey. He told me the membership number and the breakdown and it was in their release of the survey. You can see 450,000 pointed to in these news articles here: http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/04/whatt_do_police_officers_think.html
ReplyDeletehttp://limaohio.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?avis=LI&date=20130413&category=news&lopenr=304139964&Ref=AR
Is it possible that not all law-enforcement street officers are in agreement? Sure. No one is saying that 100 percent of officers agree on anything. But all the polls of street officers from the ones that I have mentioned elsewhere, in my WSJ article, and Policeone show a consistent pattern. Do you know of any poll of street officers that show a different result?
As to the comment about being curious, while I guessed that you hadn't done any checking, I wasn't sure. There are lots of possible answers that one could give from saying that you had (but that you thought that the points were wrong and then I would then ask you why), to saying that you had checked some points to the answer that you gave. I think that there is a difference between me guessing the answer and me knowing the answer. I didn't know so I asked. I probably used the word "attacked" in my second comment since I was irritated with your question implying that I wasn't being sincere in not drawing a clear conclusion regarding my question.
Yeah, I get irritated too at the way gun-rights fanatics conduct themselves.
DeleteI have tried to be civil with you. I have see no reason to attack others. I am sorry that you think that doing so some how makes for a productive discussion.
DeleteBeing on the front lines of the gun debate like you are, I find it surprising you have such a thin skin. Or are you just pretending to in order to take the moral high ground. That's another common tactic among you guys.
DeleteWe've gone round and round on the question of which side is the most uncivil. You can probably imagine some of the comments I've deleted. I'm sure you've had to do the same. Recently, to be honest, it's been fanatical gun control guys who've been the worst offenders, but in my overall experience your side is far and away the worst.
In any case, I'd be pleased and honored if you participate in our discussions. You're very welcome here. As ssgmarkcr said, this blog's an interesting place.
The point is simple: I have other things to do. If you want to argue facts, I am happy to do so. Unfortunately, you aren't arguing facts. Your responses here just attack one's sincerity and then needless attack others who aren't even involved in this discussion. If you brought up some facts or some intellectual argument in any way, I would have had something to respond to. You don't respond to my questions to you and you don't respond to me points. Instead, these emotional attacks give me nothing. Take care.
DeleteMikeb, you openly admit that you don't do research, that you don't like mathematics or statistical analysis, that logic is too hard and too boring. You continually demand that we use our "common sense," which to me means that you want us to guess. The more you do that, the more vacuous you make gun control look.
DeleteJohn and Greg, I have to take issue with your saying I'm not "arguing facts" and that I "don't like mathematics or statistical analysis, that logic is too hard and too boring."
DeleteBoth of you are attacking me with bullshit and lies while calling me the attacker.
Do you see the "facts" in the post? I know you don't like them, but they are survey results from a reputable source. On top of those, I offered the "logic" required to back them up, namely that police chiefs are rank and file cops who have come up through the ranks and therefore extremely qualified to know what's best regarding gun laws.
Mike I see the first flaw in your "logic" that you use. You are assuming that the chiefs come up thru the rank and file officers. The fact is that most don't. They are hired as chiefs from higher schools of learning, mostly liberal, and have certain law degrees and management skills. Some are hired from different cities and states in which they didn't live in in the first place to take a new position. Most all of them have higher political aspirations of higher political offices, like mayor for example, using the police chief office as a stepping stone.
DeletePolice chiefs, for the most part don't even know the local laws that they want enforced because they come from somewhere else and almost all of them have a team of lawyers to research the laws that they do get involved with before making some kind of determination of the law that the chief has to make a decision on.
Your logic would seem sound on the surface, but flawed in application of that logic as most chiefs have never been "rank and file".
Mikeb, I was quoting things you yourself have said.
DeleteMikeB, its problematic when you blow off the Police one survey as biased but lend so much credibility to the police chiefs survey. And you yourself have said that you don't care what the data says, and that an honest person doesn't need evidence or measurable results. Largely your "logic" is little more than explaining why your bias is right. For you what defines reputable and valid seems to be significantly tied to whether or not it fits your already decided conclusions.
DeleteMikeZ
You do the same thing, Mike. Both sides cherry pick the surveys and reports that support their position and that make sense to them.
DeleteSo, are you saying that both sides are dishonest, or that neither side is being dishonest, or is it honest when you do it, but dishonest when someone on the pro-gun side does it?
DeleteAnonymous, before i read to much into your response i want to see if i am reading it correctly. It appears that you are saying that chiefs have never been rank and file officers, if that is what you are saying you are incorrect. you may be confusing them with police commissioners which often have never been law enforcement officers but as you say come from the schools of learning. That being said most chiefs are not from the rank and file officers of the departments they become chief of. It is quite rare that a chief is hired internally. They usually come from the bigger agencies, which allows for a much larger prospect pool and makes it easier for the powers that be to appoint a chief that matches their politics. While the source is different the effect is still the same, the chief is appointed to match the will of the government not the match the opinions of the rank and file officers.
ReplyDeleteMikeZ
We wouldn't want to trust the word of experienced professionals, with a lifetime career of law enforcement, most of which is on the beat, whose JOB is to safeguard our lives, now would we. No, gun loons like Greg would rather we take his word for it, with zero experience protecting anyone other than himself.
ReplyDelete"We wouldn't want to trust the word of experienced professionals"
DeleteBaldr, there was a time when we did just that in many aspects of our lives. Then one day we looked around and for example, in the area carry permits, we noticed that Sheriffs would issue permits to campaign contributors, but not to the guy who had a genuine need.
In response to this discovery, legislation was passed which took this misused power out of the hands of those that couldn't handle the responsibility, and established uniform rules that applied to everyone equally. Many states, like my home state of Minnesota do give the government official issuing permits power to deny a permit as long as they are able to justify the denial to a judge with something called evidence.
This is a concept that isn't limited to just carry permits though. There have been many such adjustments made in response to the misuse of power by the government.
Did you support allowing law enforcement agencies to determine our rights during the Jim Crow era? Was Bull Connor correct in his expertise?
DeleteBaldr, an equally valid question is why not follow the survey of policeone, taken from a sample of many thousands that shows most police officers support gun rights over a small sample of 450 political appointees? Do you give validity to the policeone officers survey or do you blow it off as being "as biased as it gets" like MikeB does?
ReplyDeleteMikeZ