Please don't misjudge my motives on posting this topic and I wish to assure all the LEO's reading that I am not belittling the sacrifices you make in performing your responsibilities in a flawed system.
My concern is the statistics on officers killed in the line of duty being used as a justification for more restrictive firearms laws. The last statistics I saw in Guns and Weapons showed about 50 LEO's killed feloniously each year and approximately 100 more killed in accidents each year, mostly automobile related.
Now as a result of Scott Evans question about the number of police in the country I have looked up the total number of police in the country.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Justice Expenditure and Employment Abstracts 1980-1992 (latest year available), indicates police protection employment for all government entities (Fed, state and local) is 857,593 in 1992 (increasing at 1.2% a year)
Later in the report it is stated that total of state and local sworn police is 538,510 in 1992 (no Fed category given) increasing at 1.2% a year.
Using the historical rates of increase of 1.2% and the estimate of 60,000 for armed Fed agents I arrive at the following estimates:
Police Protection Personnel 981,222 in 1998 (857,593 *(1.02 ^6) + 60,000)
Sworn Police (Armed) 578,464 + 60,000) = 638,464
(See also "State and local law enforcement agencies and employees, by State and type of agency, June 1996"
data source: BJS, Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 1996) which gives:
Population Number of Full-time Full-time
State in 1996 agencies employees sworn officers
All States 265,283,783 18,769 921,978 663,535
(NO Fed. Data given)
50 officers killed feloniously in the 1998 year (estimated) would give an annual "murder" rate for LEO of 5.1 per 100,000 using all police personnel as the population.
The rate would be 7.8 per 100,000 using the estimate of armed officers and Federal agents as the population.
For comparison, the murder rate in the state of California is 9.4 per 100,000 in 1996.
The murder rate in the entire U.S. in 1992 was 9 per 100,000 (from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/cv94.txt)
Also for comparison, recent news reports indicate between 300 and 400 citizens are killed in unjustified shootings by police each year.
Now, what is the significance of these comparisons?
I honestly don't know.
But, I am sure that when politicians and Law enforcement figureheads (e.g. LA Police Chief or NYC Police Chief) get up in front of the TV cameras and loudly proclaim that the violence against the police in the streets is such that we must pass more laws to protect the officers, I am greatly concerned. I am also concerned that many organizations that purport to represent Law enforcement play into the hands of gun control advocates by emphasizing that police need access to special weapons that citizens do not "need".
Why does a SRT member "need" a MP5 or "need" a M-16 any more than any citizen? In what way can we justify the fact that only sworn LEOs can legally purchase any firearm magazine with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds?
All the blather about how police are "outgunned" on the streets drives a rift between the citizens and their police that does not need to be present. I felt it was a good thing that the latest gun control legislation impacted the police in the form that no one with a domestic violence conviction could posses a gun, and many police and military were taken off armed duty. I think this points out that if we (LEOs and plain citizens) don't hang together we will assuredly hang separately.
In my opinion LEOs should refuse to carry or use any device that can not be possessed by the people he/she protects.
I am sure the LEOs reading this will have strong feelings on this topic. I am willing to learn from your views, I request that you treat my questions on the topic with respect.
Noel
My concern is the statistics on officers killed in the line of duty being used as a justification for more restrictive firearms laws. The last statistics I saw in Guns and Weapons showed about 50 LEO's killed feloniously each year and approximately 100 more killed in accidents each year, mostly automobile related.
Now as a result of Scott Evans question about the number of police in the country I have looked up the total number of police in the country.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Justice Expenditure and Employment Abstracts 1980-1992 (latest year available), indicates police protection employment for all government entities (Fed, state and local) is 857,593 in 1992 (increasing at 1.2% a year)
Later in the report it is stated that total of state and local sworn police is 538,510 in 1992 (no Fed category given) increasing at 1.2% a year.
Using the historical rates of increase of 1.2% and the estimate of 60,000 for armed Fed agents I arrive at the following estimates:
Police Protection Personnel 981,222 in 1998 (857,593 *(1.02 ^6) + 60,000)
Sworn Police (Armed) 578,464 + 60,000) = 638,464
(See also "State and local law enforcement agencies and employees, by State and type of agency, June 1996"
data source: BJS, Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 1996) which gives:
Population Number of Full-time Full-time
State in 1996 agencies employees sworn officers
All States 265,283,783 18,769 921,978 663,535
(NO Fed. Data given)
50 officers killed feloniously in the 1998 year (estimated) would give an annual "murder" rate for LEO of 5.1 per 100,000 using all police personnel as the population.
The rate would be 7.8 per 100,000 using the estimate of armed officers and Federal agents as the population.
For comparison, the murder rate in the state of California is 9.4 per 100,000 in 1996.
The murder rate in the entire U.S. in 1992 was 9 per 100,000 (from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/cv94.txt)
Also for comparison, recent news reports indicate between 300 and 400 citizens are killed in unjustified shootings by police each year.
Now, what is the significance of these comparisons?
I honestly don't know.
But, I am sure that when politicians and Law enforcement figureheads (e.g. LA Police Chief or NYC Police Chief) get up in front of the TV cameras and loudly proclaim that the violence against the police in the streets is such that we must pass more laws to protect the officers, I am greatly concerned. I am also concerned that many organizations that purport to represent Law enforcement play into the hands of gun control advocates by emphasizing that police need access to special weapons that citizens do not "need".
Why does a SRT member "need" a MP5 or "need" a M-16 any more than any citizen? In what way can we justify the fact that only sworn LEOs can legally purchase any firearm magazine with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds?
All the blather about how police are "outgunned" on the streets drives a rift between the citizens and their police that does not need to be present. I felt it was a good thing that the latest gun control legislation impacted the police in the form that no one with a domestic violence conviction could posses a gun, and many police and military were taken off armed duty. I think this points out that if we (LEOs and plain citizens) don't hang together we will assuredly hang separately.
In my opinion LEOs should refuse to carry or use any device that can not be possessed by the people he/she protects.
I am sure the LEOs reading this will have strong feelings on this topic. I am willing to learn from your views, I request that you treat my questions on the topic with respect.
Noel