🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7rkj50$35a@dfw-ixnews13.ix.netcom.com>,
Merlin Dorfman  <dorfman@netcom13.netcom.com> wrote:

>     The important thing is for the survey to be repeatable, or to
>be phrased in such a way as to show its scope of accuracy.  If
>a similar survey were run by police associations, police departments,
>universities, HCI, etc., and got similar results, I would accept it
>within the statistical limits of accuracy. 

Surely you wouldn't expect HCI to admit to such results and publish them?  I
don't believe the SDPOA survey was unique, however.

>     I'm looking for an explanation of why chiefs and officers would
>have such different positions on gun control.  I have a hard time
>with your explanation that chiefs have become political creatures
>who have given up the common sense attitudes of the officers in the
>they got promoted.

Why?  Ordinary cops can keep their jobs regardless of political views.  Police
chiefs can't, as they serve at the pleasure of their mayors.  Now, if you could
show a large group of anti-gun police chiefs working under pro-gun mayors (or
pro-gun police chiefs working under anti-gun mayors, for that matter), that
would be quite interesting, but the smart money says you can't.  Either they
kiss up to the boss, or the boss hand-picks the ones who happen to agree with
the boss already.

That anti-gun mayors prefer to appoint chiefs out of the anti-gun minority of
LEOs should come as no surprise.

>     But why does this power stinginess apply only to chiefs, not
>to officers?  As you say, all peace officers retain the privilege
>after retirement.

Like I said, I'm not sure that many do change their minds.  Some pro-gunners
shut up to keep their jobs, but mostly, it is the anti-gunners who are most
likely to get appointed by anti-gun mayors in liberal, large cities where anti-
gun views predominate. Rural police chiefs (and some municipal ones, like mine
for instance) are quite pro-gun.