I have looked at the media claims about leo homicides and the need to make our officers safer. I don't think the data support the claim that officers are outgunned at all?
I have found some better data dealing with the number of police homicide victims. But I have not yet found good data on the criminal history of victims.
The number of state and local police killed in 1996 was 56 and in 1997 was 65.
The number of federal agents killed in 1996 was 3 and in 1997 was 2.
The police officer census for 1996:
State and local sworn officers population was 663,535 enduring 56 homicides for a rate of 8.4 /100,000.
Federal lagent population was 74,500 enduring 2 homicides for a rate of 2.7/100,000
A composite of the police and federal populations would result in a homicide rate of 7.9/100,000
The national rate of homicide in 1996 was 7.4/100,000
For comparison to the total numbers of homicides for various types of workers in a BJS publication "Workplace Violence" the average number of homicides for retail clerks was 327 per year, for managers was 150 and for taxi drivers and chauffeurs was 74.
Of course my interest in this is the media stories which indicate that the police are "outgunned" and that gun-control legislation is needed to make police safe. It appears that the rates of homicide for police are quite in line for the population as a whole. (This is not true when considering the rate of assaults on police officers).
I have posted info on this topic in the past but have gotten more current data.
This is not an anti-leo post.
But I do have one more controversial question, why do politicians allow leo to use weapons not allowed to non-leo?? (eg suppressors, high capacity mags made after 1994, full-auto, short barreled shotguns etc)
Is there convincing evidence that these tools are a critical part of modern law enforcement?
Or is it simply that the laws are passed more easily if the exemptions for leo are in them so the Chiefs around the nation who support gun control legislation get less flack from the street cops? Why do cops put up with that crap?
What are your thoughts?
Rob, chime in...
Noel
I have found some better data dealing with the number of police homicide victims. But I have not yet found good data on the criminal history of victims.
The number of state and local police killed in 1996 was 56 and in 1997 was 65.
The number of federal agents killed in 1996 was 3 and in 1997 was 2.
The police officer census for 1996:
State and local sworn officers population was 663,535 enduring 56 homicides for a rate of 8.4 /100,000.
Federal lagent population was 74,500 enduring 2 homicides for a rate of 2.7/100,000
A composite of the police and federal populations would result in a homicide rate of 7.9/100,000
The national rate of homicide in 1996 was 7.4/100,000
For comparison to the total numbers of homicides for various types of workers in a BJS publication "Workplace Violence" the average number of homicides for retail clerks was 327 per year, for managers was 150 and for taxi drivers and chauffeurs was 74.
Of course my interest in this is the media stories which indicate that the police are "outgunned" and that gun-control legislation is needed to make police safe. It appears that the rates of homicide for police are quite in line for the population as a whole. (This is not true when considering the rate of assaults on police officers).
I have posted info on this topic in the past but have gotten more current data.
This is not an anti-leo post.
But I do have one more controversial question, why do politicians allow leo to use weapons not allowed to non-leo?? (eg suppressors, high capacity mags made after 1994, full-auto, short barreled shotguns etc)
Is there convincing evidence that these tools are a critical part of modern law enforcement?
Or is it simply that the laws are passed more easily if the exemptions for leo are in them so the Chiefs around the nation who support gun control legislation get less flack from the street cops? Why do cops put up with that crap?
What are your thoughts?
Rob, chime in...
Noel