PDA

View Full Version : Fewest cops killed by gunfire in 50 years


CalCop
12-30-2008, 10:03 AM
Fewest officers killed by gunfire in 50 years

http://www.policeone.com/police-heroes/articles/1770006-Police-officer-deaths-fall-sharply-in-2008/

Washington, DC — 2008 is ending as one of the safest years for U.S. law enforcement in decades. The number of officers killed in the line of duty fell sharply this year when compared with 2007, and officers killed by gunfire reached a 50-year low.

Based on analysis of preliminary data, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (NLEOMF) and Concerns of Police Survivors (C.O.P.S.) found that 140 officers have died in the line of duty so far this year. That is 23 percent lower than the 2007 figure of 181, and represents one of the lowest years for officer fatalities since the mid-1960s...

This year's reduction includes a steep, 40 percent drop in the number of officers who were shot and killed, from 68 in 2007 to 41 in 2008. The last time firearms-related fatalities were this low was 1956, when there were 35 such deaths. The 2008 figure is 74 percent lower than the total for 1973, when a near-record high 156 law enforcement officers were shot and killed.So, it appears ever-increasing CCWs and the sunset of the AW ban can't be used as stats to support gun control by Brady in 2009.

nick
12-30-2008, 10:45 AM
Why not? It's not like they mind lying too much. And if they buy enough TV ads, the lie would become the accepted truth :)

GenLee
12-30-2008, 11:07 AM
Wow, you would think with all these EBR's hitting the streets since 06 that # would increase? :rolleyes:

Futurecollector
12-30-2008, 11:11 AM
Hold on so are you guys telling me that more guns out there actually ment less COPS where killed??? wow thats not what Al Gore and BO tell me??? im confused lol

tyrist
12-30-2008, 12:40 PM
Hold on so are you guys telling me that more guns out there actually ment less COPS where killed??? wow thats not what Al Gore and BO tell me??? im confused lol

As devil's advocate here....there were far less gun laws and far more "dangerous" firearms available 50 years ago. So by this logic we have actually reached a happy median of gun control..which I don't think is so "happy".

Captain Evilstomper
12-30-2008, 1:21 PM
the brady's will lie about this as well, just wait, next year they will be saying that the rate this year was due to the AW ban and handgun roster they got passed in Dec.

Window_Seat
12-30-2008, 2:33 PM
The BC will never be able to credibly & legitimately verify any of the claims that they make on which they consider to be positive results of gun control, especially if it ever comes up in any kind of official inquiries where legislation of the past and present will (not if) be examined heavily.

Erik; watching, waiting, & breathing easy.

SteveH
12-30-2008, 2:33 PM
Hard to establish a cause and effect relationship to that sort of statistic.

Medical advancements.
Body armor improvements.
Body armor acceptance/use.
Improved tactics (Face it cops are way better trained than the "instint" point shooting that was SOP training in the early 80's).

Someone wearing body armor, trained to use the sights, carrying a 15 round40SW with acess to 2008 medical care is going to have a better chance of survival than say..

No body armor, point shooting a 4" .38 spec with 158Gn LRN and 1970 medical care.

CalCop
12-30-2008, 3:14 PM
Hard to establish a cause and effect relationship to that sort of statistic.Real science has never stopped the Brady FUD before...why would it stop them now?

Just saying this stat makes it harder for them to say "see...cops are dying since the AW ban sunset!"

bohoki
12-30-2008, 3:14 PM
i wonder how the number of unarmed suspects shot by police numbers did the year maybe they are just getting quicker on the draw

CalCop
12-30-2008, 3:15 PM
As devil's advocate here....there were far less gun laws and far more "dangerous" firearms available 50 years ago. So by this logic we have actually reached a happy median of gun control..which I don't think is so "happy".Just saying...the cops killed by gunfire in 2008 were less than ANY of the ten years that the "cop killer evil black rifles" were banned.

leelaw
12-30-2008, 3:22 PM
Just saying...the cops killed by gunfire in 2008 were less than ANY of the ten years that the "cop killer evil black rifles" were banned.

<Pelosi> Well that just proves that it worked!!! </Pelosi> :chris:

CalCop
12-30-2008, 3:54 PM
<Pelosi> Well that just proves that it worked!!! </Pelosi> :chris:I think you mean that Pelosi is an idiot? If she thinks backwards?

leelaw
12-30-2008, 4:00 PM
I think you mean that Pelosi is an idiot? If she thinks backwards?

I wouldn't put it beyond her or the Brady Bunch to spin this as "in order for the ban to be repealed, it had to have first been in effect. That we see a lower number of officers killed with firearms after the ban went into place, is a testament that it worked." while overlooking that the ban is expired and the numbers dropped after it did so.

Remember, she's a politician and logical thought processes need not apply.

tyrist
12-30-2008, 5:11 PM
Hard to establish a cause and effect relationship to that sort of statistic.

Medical advancements.
Body armor improvements.
Body armor acceptance/use.
Improved tactics (Face it cops are way better trained than the "instint" point shooting that was SOP training in the early 80's).

Someone wearing body armor, trained to use the sights, carrying a 15 round40SW with acess to 2008 medical care is going to have a better chance of survival than say..

No body armor, point shooting a 4" .38 spec with 158Gn LRN and 1970 medical care.

These should have been the first things I mentioned...Yes our equipment is much more technologically advanced and most departments are more willing to deploy the latest and greatest. Just remember some departments have'nt been carrying automatics for even 20 years yet.

Mssr. Eleganté
12-30-2008, 8:20 PM
I think the flood of deadly assault weapons onto our streets after the sunset of the AWB has led officers to avoid confrontations with violent criminals. While this may have led to fewer officers being shot, it also means that these heavily armed violent criminals now have free rein in our neighborhoods. :)

CalCop
12-30-2008, 8:26 PM
I think the flood of deadly assault weapons onto our streets after the sunset of the AWB has led officers to avoid confrontations with violent criminals. While this may have led to fewer officers being shot, it also means that these heavily armed violent criminals now have free rein in our neighborhoods. :)You're right, the gun-grabbers will spew some kind of idiotic crap like that.

Wildhawk66
12-30-2008, 9:23 PM
This is good news, but what are the stats on the number of officers shot/shot at vs. the number of officers shot and killed. Is this years lower stat due to new body armor, new tactics, etc? On a side note, I don't personally think there was anything so new and revolutionary and wide spread (on the LE side of things) provided to affect such a stat so significantly.

CCWFacts
12-31-2008, 1:36 AM
Hard to establish a cause and effect relationship to that sort of statistic.

Medical advancements.
Body armor improvements.
Body armor acceptance/use.
Improved tactics (Face it cops are way better trained than the "instint" point shooting that was SOP training in the early 80's).

Someone wearing body armor, trained to use the sights, carrying a 15 round40SW with acess to 2008 medical care is going to have a better chance of survival than say..

No body armor, point shooting a 4" .38 spec with 158Gn LRN and 1970 medical care.

Yeah, that's basically what this statistic means. Body armor is the #1 factor that has improved LEO safety over the past couple of decades. It's now much more effective and widely used and it saves cops' lives.

Better medical care probably helps a lot too. A wound that would have been fatal 50 years ago could be easily treatable today. Gunshot wound care improved tremendously during the Vietnam War, and also since then. After body armor and medical care, factors such as training and better weapons have probably had minor benefits. If I had to guess, I would say that the improved LEO safety is due 70% due to body armor, 20% due to medical care, 10% due to training / weapons / using more officers, and 0% due to any gun laws or lack of gun laws.

One other factor might be our higher prison population. We do (in my opinion) lock up far too many non-violent people, but we do lock up a lot more violent people, for longer periods of time, than ever before, and keeping them off the streets does improve officer safety.

The various gun laws have probably had negligible effects on this whole thing.

We may see a need for cops to start using hard plates as 223 rifles become more common than they were before. I think there are very active improvements in body armor technology which may also help against some of these "light" rifle rounds. The war in Iraq has spurred a lot of research in how to stop these types of rounds.

ryno066
12-31-2008, 8:48 AM
Hard to establish a cause and effect relationship to that sort of statistic.

Medical advancements.
Body armor improvements.
Body armor acceptance/use.
Improved tactics (Face it cops are way better trained than the "instint" point shooting that was SOP training in the early 80's).

Someone wearing body armor, trained to use the sights, carrying a 15 round40SW with acess to 2008 medical care is going to have a better chance of survival than say..

No body armor, point shooting a 4" .38 spec with 158Gn LRN and 1970 medical care.

You forget we also have more people now. That should mean more cops shot it the percentages stayed the same.

radioburning
12-31-2008, 9:56 AM
Wow, you would think with all these EBR's hitting the streets since 06 that # would increase? :rolleyes:

Yeah, it should be a regular bloodbath across America.:rolleyes:

Every day, across the country 711's are being robbed by gunmen wielding .50 BMG's.:thumbsup: