Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Officers kiled by firearms

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    One of the arguments the anti-gun people use to support banning of handguns and assault weapons is that they present a danger to law enforcement and are the principle cause of on-duty deaths of police officers.

    In that regard the following may be of interest to some of you.

    2008 Deaths of officers killed in the line of duty 136 nationwide.

    9/11 related illness 1

    Accidental 1

    Aircraft 4

    Assault 1

    Automobile accident39

    Bomb 2

    Drowned 1

    Duty related illness 3

    Electrocuted1

    Exposure to toxins 1

    Gunfire38

    Gunfire accidental 2

    Heart attack 5

    Motorcycle8

    Stabbed2

    Struck by vehicle 12

    Train accident 1

    Vehicle pursuit 3

    Vehicular assault 11

    Note that more than twice as many officers were killed by some type of vehicle than intentionally by some type of firearm.

    There was 1 officer killed in the state of Wisconsin in 2008. He died after being struck by a vehicle. Chippewa county deputy sheiff Jason Zunker.

    Source: Officers Down Memorial Page











































  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    It bothers me when the anti's group law abiding citizens that own guns into the criminal group!

    Have any of us ever shot a police officer? Do you know any lawful firearm owner that has?

    The only logic that seems to work with the rabid liberal anti's is to take the topic into their court. For instance you could say to them; Since more police were killed by vehicles, maybe we should outlaw all vehicles in the civilians posession?

    Or since people get sick and die of food poisoning, should we outlaw food? It is just as radical and stupid as what they are preaching, and it makes no sense either.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Thanks.

    It is difficult to compare raw numbers of law enforcement (the sample) related deaths, as you have reported here, with the rates that we typically see, from the government, of death in the general population.

    The LE sample is ~10^6 out of a population of 3 x 10^8.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Doug:

    My intention of the post was to show evidence that firearms are not theone and only killer of cops on duty as the anti-gunners would likethe publicto believe.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Sorry, I was trying to go beyond what you did well to the less obvious.

    Is an officer's probability of death from any of these listed causes different from the random chance that might be found in the general population that does not seek risky circumstances.

    Correlation is not cause but cause drives correlation away from randomness.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post



    Doug:

    I don'tremember the exactnumbers but I do recall running accross figures that suggest that the ratios are similar. The figure on gun deaths gets out of whack if you include gang shootings. If the gang shootings are discounted as not applicable to the general population then I believe the ratio is close which would tend to indicate that guns don't present any more risk to police than to the general population. Even though the police work in a violent environment. I think that may be the point you were trying to get to. I can't remember the source of info but I will go back through my files and see if I can find them.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    Wolves would rather attack an unarmed person that attack a cop. They don't attack cops to rob them, they attack police in an attempt to stop themselves from facing the consequences for their actions. This is the same for when criminals attempt to disarm cops...they realize they are in deep $hit and maybe just maybe they can avoid arrest by trying to take a cop's gun and shooting him with it.

    You and me are in much more danger of criminals running around than a cop is. Unarmed people are robbed for their possessions every day. Unarmed people are beaten every day. Criminals don't attack cops to rob them, they attack to get away. If you have an LEO with you at arms reach then you are in luck but usually cops show up afterward to take statements and collect evidence. Very rarely do they actually catch a wolf in the act. Given a particular crime, for every criminal arrested by an LEO during the act or just afterward, probably 10 more go unarrested to prowl again. I don't have stats to back this statement up so I present it for discussion purposes only. When people realize that criminals running around without consequences for their actions pose more a threat to them than the police they may back more good guys carrying guns. But since when to anti's listen to logic.

    edit: spelling

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836

    Post imported post

    Lammie wrote:
    One of the arguments the anti-gun people use to support banning of handguns and assault weapons is that they present a danger to law enforcement and are the principle cause of on-duty deaths of police officers.
    Couple of points:

    *Whenever I hear this argument I always say "don't do me any G*d D*mned favors. Especially at the expense of other peoples freedom!"


    *They like to bring up that argument when carry laws are being debated. The last time concealed carry was going through Wisconsins legislature the antis screamed this crap. Well guess what? The CCW law was publicly support by many police unions and organizations, including Milwaukee police departments and the Trooper association. The antis completely ignored these endorsements. The reality is the antis don't give a freaking rip about officer safety. They just want everyone disarmed.

    *I don't have a percentage, but some of those deaths by firearms include officers getting shot by their own weapon. I wouldn't be shocked to hear the antis use this fact as an argument to disarm the cops too!

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    pkbites is 100% correct. The antis have no interest in cop safety just as they have no interest in crime reduction. Arguments about constitutional rights just make them chuckle. They are gun haters and their only objective is the elimination of guns, period. That is why they are so formidable. They don't hesitate to tell an outright lie to make a point. Lies don't need to be defended only the truth does. If they are discredited on one point they just shift to another. There is no way to effectively use logic against them. They will forever be a festering boil.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Laveen, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    432

    Post imported post

    I wonder if we could find out how many of those firearm deaths were by handgun, by a so-called 'assault weapon', by a typical 'deer rifle' or other firearm type?

    Edit:

    Here's a pretty good breakdown on what I was just asking. Handguns are the biggest culprit by far. Interesting that death by 'rifle' dropped after the AWB expired in 2004.

    http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2006/table27.html



  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    Notso wrote:
    I wonder if we could find out how many of those firearm deaths were by handgun, by a so-called 'assault weapon', by a typical 'deer rifle' or other firearm type?

    Edit:

    Here's a pretty good breakdown on what I was just asking. Handguns are the biggest culprit by far. Interesting that death by 'rifle' dropped after the AWB expired in 2004.

    http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2006/table27.html

    Would also need to include those dangerous .50 caliber weapons, especially those muzzleloaders. Brady campaign says that .50 caliber weapons are particularly suited to carrying out terrorist attacks so it must be true.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    This is a web site I think many of you will find interesting. It contains the violent crime statistics for many ciies and all the states. The statitics cover years 1960 through 2007. The web site is maintained by the FBI.

    http://www.disastercenter.com/crime

    There is one figure I question, the murder rate. The murder rate includes gang killings. I'm not sure murders as a result of gang members killing gang members should be included in the general population numbers. It should probably be a separate statistic.



  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    VEry interesting. Thanks. I wonder what happened on the Island in 1995!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •