Gallup Poll On Police Shows Why More Citizens Are Buying Guns

[Desertdog]

GALLUP POLL ON POLICE SHOWS WHY MORE CITIZENS ARE BUYING GUNS
By CCRKBA.ORG
MichNews.com
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_10266.shtml



BELLEVUE, WA – A Gallup poll showing the greatest decline of public confidence in law enforcement in ten years largely explains why a growing number of Americans are arming themselves for protection against criminals, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said today.

Gallup's annual Crime Poll was conducted in mid-October. Gallup randomly contacted 1,012 adults across the country. The results revealed that confidence in the ability of police to protect people from violent crime has slipped from 61 percent last year to 53 percent this year.

"In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, where thousands of Americans were left to fend for themselves in an environment of looting and more serious crime, the poll results are understandable," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. "Americans witnessed on national television why it is so important for them to be able to take care of themselves, their families, and their property. They are buying firearms and learning how to use them.

"Unfortunately," he stressed, "this po ll tells only part of the story. It overlooks the hard work of dedicated men and women in law enforcement; people who will readily admit their ranks are stretched thin, and that they cannot be everywhere at once. An overwhelming majority of these devoted public servants support the right of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, and to have the guns necessary to make that possible.

"The whole country saw what happens when society breaks down completely," Gottlieb explained. "New Orleans was a watershed moment, and because of it, Americans are learning anew that they are ultimately responsible for their own safety. American citizens everywhere have decided that they will not suffer the same fate.

"A cornerstone of that commitment is having a gun," he concluded. "Citizens across the country are learning that myriad gun laws have not made them safer. They're no longer falling for the promises of the gun control crowd that the police will protect them, so they shouldn't own a gun. And you can bet they will fight for their right to keep that firearm."

www.ccrkba.org

 

[CAnnoneer]

Eeeexcellent!

Btw, against the teachings of some doomsayers, this poll comes to show that our populace are not stupid, but just misinformed. It takes Katrina to provide sobering examples for many that live in otherwise safe communities and thus have held unrealistic views on personal defense and RKBA.

 

[Alex45ACP]

Most cops are good people and work hard but the reality is they can't be there to protect you 24/7. I'm glad more people are realizing this.

 

[Oldtimer]

I noticed that the article didn't show the question(s) from that poll.

I can understand why there is less confidence in law enforcement nowadays, for the news media LOVES to print all of the negatives....that is all that you see and hear about!

I am responsible for numerous citizens buying firearms, for I almost "preached" about an armed society being a safer society.....and my "pulpit" was the "Neighborhood Watch" community meetings that I attended, as the speaker...a POLICE OFFICER!

 

[308win]

I am responsible for numerous citizens buying firearms, for I almost "preached" about an armed society being a safer society.....and my "pulpit" was the "Neighborhood Watch" community meetings that I attended, as the speaker...a POLICE OFFICER!

Many of the police officers I know (and I don't know many) are firmly pro gun and against such laws as assult weapons bans. Yet, the national and many local Fraternal Order of Police routinely endorse gun control actions. Can someone explain to my how they are allowed to do this if the membership against gun control is in the majority? Are these leaders ever called to account for their endorsements?

For example, here in Ohio the FOP endorsed the Columbus AW ban, yet Columbus LE that I talk to at Vances (for example) are almost 100% opposed to the AW.

In fact, with the exception of the Ohio Highway Patrol Troopers Association, I expect this would be true of about any local group of police officers or sheriff deputies.

 

[Desertdog]

Yet, the national and many local Fraternal Order of Police routinely endorse gun control actions.

It is called politics. You don't normally get to such high rank witout spouting the garbage that is expected of you.

 

[Sam]

Yet, the national and many local Fraternal Order of Police routinely endorse gun control actions.

It is called politics. You don't normally get to such high rank witout spouting the garbage that is expected of you.

Rank and politics have to do with the statements of what is a membership controlled union? You are not talking about political appointees in this statement but elected officials that represent you. If the membership has a belief and does not hold the officers of their union to it then they have in fact endorsed the position of that official. Either you support what the union official says or you are negligent in controlling those officials.
Which is it?

Sam

 

[k_dawg]

Well, since the Supreme Court already ruled that the police have no "duty" to protect private citizens.. I would expect that poll result should be "0 percent".

Now, I recognize that there are a great many LEO's who do their best to protect the public, but at the same time.. when the SC rules as they did.. it should send a message LOUD AND CLEAR that the private citizens must rely on themselves.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Many of the police officers I know (and I don't know many) are firmly pro gun and against such laws as assult weapons bans. Yet, the national and many local Fraternal Order of Police routinely endorse gun control actions. Can someone explain to my how they are allowed to do this if the membership against gun control is in the majority? Are these leaders ever called to account for their endorsements?

For example, here in Ohio the FOP endorsed the Columbus AW ban, yet Columbus LE that I talk to at Vances (for example) are almost 100% opposed to the AW.

In fact, with the exception of the Ohio Highway Patrol Troopers Association, I expect this would be true of about any local group of police officers or sheriff deputies.

At a recent gun show in Philadelphia, I stopped to chat with one of the dealers. He was a Philadelphia police officer. Most of the customers clustered around his table were Philidelphia police officers. We had an interesting chat about the fact that city politicians continually try to enact new gun control laws. The view of this officer and his colleagues was that we shouldn't worry, because it is preempted by state law.

Which I took to mean he supports firearm ownership by "civilians," but he and his mates don't wish to butt heads with the higher-ups who use gun control as a poltical smoke screen to create the impression that they are "doing something" about escalating crime rates. I think that's a mistake, because one day we may wake up to find the Harrisburg has undergone a sea change, and the state preemption could disappear. This is (thankfully) unlikely, but it is possible.

 

[Silver Bullet]

Maybe a corollary to this is: When the next natural or terrorist disaster hits your town and the animals are on the loose similar to Katrina/N.O., do NOT loan an anti one of your guns. If they survive, they're more likely to become a gun owner after things return to normal if they know they can't count on borrowing weapons next time. If they don't survive, that's one less anti at the polls.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Anyone have the the actual poll data?

 

[Boss Spearman]

I may be mean, but I won't loan an anti a gun under any circumstances.

 

[mountainclmbr]

My view of LEO is that they protect the Government agency that employs them. If the Govt Agency wants more money, they will find a way (drastic speed limit changes, stop light cameras-reduced yellow light times, arbitrary changes in building codes and paperwork, enforcement of code changes... In the business world this would be a conflict of interest that would be prosecuted and widely reported on the evening news. Creating confusing and arbitrary rules so you can profit from the fines would create outrage if business did this.

Studies have shown that military personnel would enforce gun confiscation in the CONUS if ordered to do so. Everyone who did not skip history class should know that loading political opponents onto train cars is the next step.

I think that politicians and all other government employees should be prosecuted if they violate the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. As far as I know, they all pledged to uphold this document. All of their posessions should go to the person who reported them. Isn't turnabout fair play? They started it after all!

 

[ArmedBear]

There are no member-controlled unions.

Just union-controlled members.

 

[bogie]

If government/police force suggests that people should arm themselves for protection, they are essentially admitting that they are unable to protect. The next item on the agenda is generally "so, how much are we paying you guys anyway?" That's why the brass are generally _very_ vocal toward victim disarmament.

 

[Waitone]

Poll methodology makes it representative of nothing.

The only way a random sample polled over the phone could be made worse would be to do it over the weekend.

Still interesting in its implications.

 

[Strings]

>Studies have shown that military personnel would enforce gun confiscation in the CONUS if ordered to do so. Everyone who did not skip history class should know that loading political opponents onto train cars is the next step.<

Citation on this, please. Last such "study" I heard was done at 29 Palms in the late 80s /early 90s. Extrpolation of the results meant the Corps would've been something like 80%+ combat ineffective (most answers were along the lines of "Hell no!"). If there's something more recent, I'd like to know about it...

And OT: "Lobbiest (n): Person with a masters degree in bribery.". Shouldn't that be a bachelor's degree (BS)?

 

[confed sailor]

i know this much, if the US Army came to collect our firearms in my state, they would be collecting them bullet first,

that and these odd looking flags would start getting flown even more often. (band in distance strikes up dixie)

if to succeed we must seceed, with removal of oppression thru sessession

 

[jcoiii]

I am amazed at the fact that 53% of the sheeple think that an LEO can protect them at all. Unless the police are lucky, we are not going to be able to stop the bad guy at the instant he decides to hurt them. What we do is try to catch criminals. How can we do that? They have to commit a crime first. While we may apprehend a criminal before he hurts Suzy, we obviously did not stop the criminal from hurting Bob, because the criminal has to hurt someone first.

 

[beerslurpy]

>Studies have shown that military personnel would enforce gun confiscation in the CONUS if ordered to do so. Everyone who did not skip history class should know that loading political opponents onto train cars is the next step.<

Citation on this, please. Last such "study" I heard was done at 29 Palms in the late 80s /early 90s. Extrpolation of the results meant the Corps would've been something like 80%+ combat ineffective (most answers were along the lines of "Hell no!"). If there's something more recent, I'd like to know about it...

And OT: "Lobbiest (n): Person with a masters degree in bribery.". Shouldn't that be a bachelor's degree (BS)?

Any link to the study youre talking about? I assume you mean 80 percent ineffective if ordered to shoot at their countrymen?

 

[patrol120]

If government/police force suggests that people should arm themselves for protection, they are essentially admitting that they are unable to protect. The next item on the agenda is generally "so, how much are we paying you guys anyway?" That's why the brass are generally _very_ vocal toward victim disarmament.

Its not much, dont worry.

 

[armoredman]

My admin makes no stand on personal arms, and encourages officers to carry off duty. My union makes no stand on civilian firearmns laws, and spend 90% of thier time wheedling more money from the members, and 10% trying to get us pay raises.
I'd say about 95% of the staff I have informally interviewed are pro gun, with a few against "assault rifles", (love the reponses when I asked them to define one), and a very small number against CCW, but not the vast majority. Of course, we are not street LE, either, so our opinions may not matter to anyone....largest organized voting bloc in AZ, though....

 

[Strings]

>Any link to the study youre talking about? I assume you mean 80 percent ineffective if ordered to shoot at their countrymen?<

Wasn't something from the 'Net. Read it somewhere while I was in the Navy, an had met one of the Marines who had gotten the questionaire. As I understand it, a Navy LT passed out the questionaire to a sampling of enlisted Marines at 29 Palms, and one of the questions (there were many different situational questions) was "Would you be willing to act as Federal police to cnfiscate privately owned weapon if such were outlawed". The primary response was "Hell no!"...

 

[jeanfor]

I just wanted to add a few points:

1/ We just need to make sure that people who are not mentally stable do not get guns

2/ Gun owners must understand the importance of training. Once you are trained to operate your gun(s) in a safely manner, you are not likely to become a danger to the general public, not more than police officers. In fact I would say that many civilians are better shooter and better trained than police officers.

3/ You should always avoid firing your gun in self defense as much as you can and fire when there is no other solution (fearful for your life or the life of a family member). It is really important to understand the legal implications of firing and injuring/killing criminals in an act of self defense and to know how to deal with a situation after the facts. I suggest gun owners take some type of class or read available material on the subject.

4/ Gun laws are useless. Everybody knows that criminals will always have guns and get guns whether there are gun laws or not on the book.

 

[Monkeyleg]

"And OT: "Lobbiest (n): Person with a masters degree in bribery.". Shouldn't that be a bachelor's degree (BS)?"

You're a lobbyist. You're just not a paid lobbyist.

As I recall, there were numerous questions given to the group of Marines about them vs. armed citizens. Methinks the Clinton administration was doing some exploration.