Study Suggests Big City Chiefs Anti-Gun
by Dave Workman
Senior Editor
Almost two-thirds of big city police chiefs responding to a gun control survey conducted by researchers in Ohio and Michigan agreed that the government should do “everything it can” to prevent criminals from obtaining handguns, “even if it means making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to purchase handguns.”
The results of this national survey, published in the April issue of The American Journal of Preventive Medicine, showed 63% of the respondents agree with that restrictive notion.
The survey was limited to chiefs of police in cities with populations greater than 25,000. This population level was selected, the researchers said, “because a higher percentage of crime occurs in larger cities.”
The survey also offered suggestions about how gun control proponents might use the data, and the police chiefs, themselves, to further their cause. And the survey also refers to firearms crime and mishaps as a public health problem.
The study also revealed that 69.4% of the respondents support mandatory handgun registration, and a whopping 93.5% support mandatory background checks for the purchase of handguns, while 82.2% believe in background checks when buying rifles or shotguns.
Another revealing statistic is that more than 58% of responding police chiefs support the notion that private citizens should be prohibited from carrying firearms in public places, while 26.5% support the idea.
The survey was conducted by Amy Thompson, PhD., Kent State University, OH; James H. Price, PhD, and Thomas Tatchell, PhD, both with the University of Toledo, OH, and Joseph A. Dake, PhD, Wayne State University, MI.
Their report, entitled Police Chiefs’ Perceptions of the Regulation of Firearms, offered suggestions about how the data might be used to affect public firearms policy. In their conclusions, the authors note, “The results of this study may assist grassroots efforts in initiating and enacting firearm control policies.”
They also advise readers, “By including such diverse groups like police chiefs in their membership, gun control advocacy groups may be able to share resources, broaden their constituency base, share information on political strategies, and learn new policy implementation tactics from one another.”
The study’s conclusions noted, “lawmakers strongly value the opinions of law enforcement regarding which firearm control policies are useful and enforceable.”
In a telephone interview, Thompson told Gun Week that the survey was conducted “about a year ago,” and that The Journal submits articles for peer review.
There were 29 questions in the survey, which was sent to 600 police chiefs selected at random, in a three-part mailing. Out of that number, 547 police chiefs actually received the survey and the overall return rate among them was 70.5%. It took about two months for the team to recover the data and analyze it, Thompson said.
Slightly over 25% of those who responded acknowledged membership in the National Rifle Association, while 74.3% said they do not belong to the NRA or any other pro-gun rights organization.
More than half of the respondents said they would be willing to meet with legislators to discuss gun control, while slightly more than a third said they would join a coalition to work on a gun policy that it supported. Thirty-three percent said they would donate money to support gun control while more than two-thirds would not, and less than 20% said they would meet on a regular basis as part of a gun control coalition. Only 13.7% would agree to be a spokesperson for gun control in a public service announcement.
Response to this question surprised Thompson. “It surprised me they weren’t actively participating in those kinds of activities,” she said.
Thompson suspects that most police chiefs think of themselves as public employees and public servants who may not believe it is their role to be active in such efforts. Yet, she said, it is often police chiefs to whom state lawmakers first look for opinions on firearm policies.
The majority of police chiefs also support prohibiting handgun purchases “based on prior misdemeanor convictions,” particularly the display of a firearm in a threatening manner, possession of illegal drug paraphernalia, domestic abuse and carrying a concealed weapon without a license.
However, responding chiefs showed far less support for disarming people if they were convicted of drunk and disorderly conduct, indecent exposure, driving under the influence or shoplifting.
Perhaps most surprising, almost two-thirds of the chiefs did not support a denial of handgun purchases to people convicted of assault and battery without a lethal weapon or serious injury.
Slightly less than one-third of the responding chiefs supported one-gun-a-month laws, though this was another surprise for Thompson, who acknowledged that her research colleagues “could not figure out” whether their response to the question indicated they oppose the idea of such laws, or perhaps don’t think they are restrictive enough.
Even fewer respondents supported a policy that would require handguns to be “personalized,” while only 38.2% supported a requirement that firearms only be sold through commercial gun dealers, and 42.7% oppose that idea.
However, respondents largely would favor (82.7%) a requirement that new handguns have trigger locks and to a lesser degree (65.3%) that guns be packaged with safety regulations. Also, 57.6% of the chiefs would support a design requirement that handguns have loaded chamber indicators, while just over 50% favor a requirement that new handguns be “child proof.”
Return to Archive Index