🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7r9da0$1eq@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
>     I suspect that those officers who are in favor of gun control are
>concerned by the additional risk posed to them by armed non-criminal
>citizens.

What additional risk?  I am not aware of any instances of legally armed non-
criminals using their guns against police officers, though there have been
numerous occurrences of armed citizens coming to an officer's aid.

>     BTW how many chiefs are at significant risk of being shot by 
>criminals?

About the same number that would be at significant risk of being shot by
renegade CCW holders, if there were any.  This is why I find it telling that
while few LEOs support gun conrol, many police chiefs do.

>     And according to the SDPD survey, such elitist feelings come to
>a policeman only when he gets promoted to Chief.  Ordinary officers
>would NEVER want to be members of an elite that is privileged to own
>guns--they want everybody to have that right.  (If that doesn't make
>sense to you, you will understand why I questioned the survey.)

You can twist anything around to make it sound irrational if you want to.  Try
a more straightforward approach:  According to the SDPD survey, such elitist
feelings come mostly (not only, since the rank and file LEOs were not 
unanimous) when he is hired at the pleasure of a mayor who also holds those
elitist views.  Alternatively, the minority of LEOs who hold such elitist views
are the ones most likely to be appointed by mayors who hold such elitist views
themselves.  Ordinary officers know better than to try to disarm everybody,
since they are much closer to the realities of crime.