PDA

View Full Version : Msnbc: Police Deaths Up... Due To Lapse In Aw Ban


HK fan
07-21-2007, 08:46 PM
THEIR OWN STORY DOESN'T SUPPORT THE HEADLINE!@!


Police deaths up sharply
Officials blame more violent criminals with deadlier guns after lapse of ban
By Alex Johnson
Reporter
MSNBC
Updated: 1:54 p.m. PT July 19, 2007

Police officials and law enforcement groups Thursday blamed a sharp increase in the number of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty on more violent criminals who have access to deadlier weapons.

Statistics released Thursday showed that 101 local and federal law enforcement officers died on duty in the first half of the year, 31 more than had died at the same time last year. It was the first time in three decades that the toll had reached more than 100.

“Every assignment that a police officer is on is potentially life-threatening,” said Craig Floyd, chairman of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, a nonprofit group that compiled the statistics with the police advocacy group Concerns of Police Survivors. “And unfortunately, for the first six months of this year, it’s been particularly deadly for our police officers.”

Floyd called the statistics “very alarming” and “somewhat puzzling, quite honestly, because over the last 30 years we’ve seen a downward trend in the number of officers’ being shot.”

The memorial fund annually releases the half-year study, which NBC News justice correspondent Pete Williams said was considered highly reliable by law enforcement agencies.

Nearly half of the officers died in fatal traffic-related incidents, but 39 of them were shot to death, a 44 percent rise over the number shot to death by the same point last year. Floyd tied that increase to a rising number of officers on the street responding to more violent crimes, many of them domestic disturbances.

“Often, alcohol or drugs are involved, and a high rate of emotion is involved,” Floyd said in an interview with MSNBC. “It’s a very volatile situation. A police officer responds trying to keep the peace, and oftentimes they become the targets of this violence themselves.”

Lapse of assault weapons ban cited
Local and federal law enforcement officials told NBC News that criminals were more likely to use high-powered semiautomatic pistols and handguns today.

Some of those weapons, like the widely feared Intratec Tec-9, were banned until 2004, but they became legal when Congress refused to extend the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, even though President Bush, an opponent of gun control, promised to sign an extension.

Semiautomatic firearms — including the previously banned assault-style guns often misleadingly equated with “assault weapons,” which remain illegal — boast higher-capacity magazines than standard revolvers, and their trigger mechanisms allow users to fire off more rounds in a shorter period of time.

The study did not examine how many of the police officers killed this year were shot with weapons that were legalized three years ago, but the study and figures compiled by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics suggest a statistical correlation.

The 39 officers killed in the first half of 2007 exceeds the 36 officers shot to death in all of 2004, the last year the ban was in effect. More broadly, firearm-related crime rose in 2005, the first year after the semiautomatic weapons became legal again, after having declined every year since the ban took effect in 1994.

“We’ve always had lots of guns,” said Charlotte-Mecklenburg, N.C., Police Chief Darrel Stephens, president of the Major Cities Police Chiefs Association. None of the department’s officers were killed by gunfire last year, but six have been gunned down since Jan. 1.

“What we’ve seen is people shifting from revolvers to automatic weapons,” Stephens said. “Rather than six shots or five, they have 14 or 20.”

Floyd said police countermeasures had not yet caught up to the increased firepower of criminals on the street.

“Bullet-resistant vests are designed to stop normal handgun ammunition,” he said. “Criminals are getting their hands on high-powered assault weapons, and those weapons pose a great danger to police because their soft-body armor won’t protect them, in most cases.”

Semiautomatics used against officers
All but one of the 101 officers who died in the line of duty were men. They averaged 37 years of age and had just more than 10 years of experience. After traffic-related incidents and gunfire, a small number of other deaths were attributed to work-related illnesses, drownings and miscellaneous other incidents.

Texas, with 13, had the most officers killed in the first half of the year, the report showed. North Carolina had eight, and New York had six. Ten of the officers were members of various federal law enforcement agencies.

Semiautomatic weapons have been implicated in several recent shooting deaths of law officers.

The report was released a day after hundreds of people gathered in Brooklyn to mourn the death of Russell Timoshenko, 23, a New York police officer who died Saturday after he was shot while making a routine traffic stop last week. A 24-round semiautomatic pistol was found in the stolen car Timoshenko had stopped, police said.

In May, an officer was shot and killed in a confrontation with a man at a church in Moscow, Idaho; investigators found shell casings fired from two semiautomatic weapons. Baltimore police said one of their officers was shot and killed in January with a stolen semiautomatic gun.

Salt Lake City Police Chief Chris Burbank said stricter gun control laws were needed.

“We need to work at the front end and make sure we do all we can to extend the number of illegal guns,” Burbank said in an intervew with MSNBC.

“A person who’s willing to commit some sort of aggravated crime with a firearm is certainly willing to be involved with a police officer using that same firearm,” he said. “So we’re seeing some very tragic incidents where people that have really no reason to have a firearm at their disposal ... now have firearms in their hands again, and they’re using them in some very violent acts.”

The National Rifle Association has opposed reinstating the 1994 ban, pointing to a 2003 study by the Congressional Research Service that found that the average number of rounds fired in crimes involving firearms like those covered by the measure was lower than in those using revolvers. Wounds were also less likely to be fatal than those involving revolvers, the study found.

“The guns that [the 1994 measure] temporarily banned — very widely used for target shooting, hunting and home protection — are still used in only a small percentage of crime,” the association’s Institute for Legislative Action said in a statement.
NBC’s Pete Williams and MSNBC’s Peter Alexander and Chris Jansing contributed to this report.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19853442/

SgtBulldog
07-21-2007, 08:50 PM
This article has to be a joke right? I know the MSM is mostly clueless about firearms and firearm legislation, but it doesn't seem like even the most basic fact-checking was done for this article.

HK fan
07-21-2007, 08:52 PM
This article has to be a joke right? I know the MSM is mostly clueless about firearms and firearm legislation, but it doesn't seem like even the most basic fact-checking was done for this article.

nope, that's why I included the link!

SgtBulldog
07-21-2007, 08:54 PM
Indeed... very pathetic.

TheMan
07-21-2007, 09:01 PM
Who makes a 24 round semi auto pistol?

Interesting how they warp the numbers. They mention a 44% rise in officers shot to death. But the overall increase(from 70 to 101) was 44% as well. So 44% more officers died by all the other causes they mentioned also(car accidents, donut overdose, etc)

As for the rest of the article, it is amazing how they can screw up facts and terminology so many times in one article, but the press always manages to find a way.

uclaplinker
07-21-2007, 09:04 PM
First, let me say the trend of increasing law enforcement deaths is disturbing and upsetting. But this is my favorite part:

The study did not examine how many of the police officers killed this year were shot with weapons that were legalized three years ago, but the study and figures compiled by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics suggest a statistical correlation.

Correlation isn't cause and effect. I hope someday logic will prevail.

SgtBulldog
07-21-2007, 09:06 PM
FWIW, this article from 3 days ago says that Charlotte-Mecklenburg had two officer fatally shot this year, not six as the chief says.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-18-police_N.htm

Is there any way to contact the author or editor to correct this pile of lies?

Dont Tread on Me
07-21-2007, 09:59 PM
Guess it is easier to let Brady write your news stories then just run them....

tiki
07-21-2007, 10:03 PM
“We need to work at the front end and make sure we do all we can to extend the number of illegal guns,” Burbank said in an intervew with MSNBC.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19853442/

What???

Jack Straw from Wichita
07-21-2007, 10:24 PM
This report's claims are contradicted by the FBI's data:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2005/table28.htm

Looks like police officer deaths by firearm declined after the AWB expired.

-Jack

Piper
07-21-2007, 10:50 PM
I've seen less Bravo Sierra in the cattle yards in Chino.:rolleyes:

ibanezfoo
07-21-2007, 10:53 PM
Well the mention of the Tec9 proves its pure BS. How can a gun that can barely fire actually kill anyone? Are they being beat over the head with it? If thats the case, why are the cops not shooting before it gets to that point? Did they give up on their hand to hand combat training?

-Bryan

M. Sage
07-21-2007, 10:56 PM
Lol, I was thinking the same thing about the Tec-9. I'm afraid of that gun...

...at least I would be if I ever was forced to trust my life to one. :eek:

arguy15
07-21-2007, 10:58 PM
Where can I get a good deal on one of these new Tec-9s that are being made?:chris:

CalNRA
07-21-2007, 11:11 PM
sounds like MSNBC is laying down down some brownie points in anticipation of the Democrat master in '09.

GSequoia
07-21-2007, 11:19 PM
Buddy of mine has a Tec... He said that it fires just fine...


As long as you hold it sideways gangsta style with the ejection port down :D

Calguns2000
07-21-2007, 11:20 PM
Articles like these, and tv news stories like the NBC "black rifle" story, are part of the groundwork for the Democratic plan to push through a new [Clinton][Obama] AWB. Truth/facts are irrelevant here.

jdberger
07-22-2007, 02:03 AM
Articles like these, and tv news stories like the NBC "black rifle" story, are part of the groundwork for the Democratic plan to push through a new [Clinton][Obama] AWB. Truth/facts are irrelevant here.

:iagree:

EggZactly.

Time magazine is next.

They'll go slow, 'cause they know that gun control is an election loser. The usual suspects (Feinstein/Schumer) will stay out front, 'cause they're bulletproof - but the rest of them will wait quietly.

supersonic
07-22-2007, 06:40 AM
:banghead:

CCWFacts
07-22-2007, 10:59 AM
I hate these stories. The AWB did not in any way limit the availability of "black rifle" type guns. All it did was mean that manufacturers had to remove a few useless cosmetic features like flash hiders. To say that the AWB had an impact on officer safety is to claim that flash hiders are causing officer deaths. That's absurd.

Rob P.
07-22-2007, 12:27 PM
What I find interesting is that the increased statistics for officers killed in line of duty is from handguns which are not part of the AW ban.

So I ask myself this: WHY are there more cops being killed by people using handguns?

Could it be not because of the handguns but because of more agressive law enFORCEment? Or could it be just statistical increases due to an increased interaction rate between LEO and the gen pop (IOW, more stops increase the risk of being involved in a shooting) due to a stronger/higher police presence?

The article is too short on FACTS and long on emotion. Thus it promotes an agenda and is not merely reporting the news.

BAD journalism.

taloft
07-22-2007, 02:31 PM
Statistics released Thursday showed that 101 local and federal law enforcement officers died on duty in the first half of the year, 31 more than had died at the same time last year.

This just goes to show that the lapse of the AWB has nothing to do with the rise in LE fatalities. 31 more than the same time last year? Didn't the ban end in 04'? So the increase came long after the end of the ban. They just chose these numbers to support their position. Once again, the press is only using the numbers that support their purpose and ignoring the rest.

I notice that they keep saying that this is the 1st time in 30 years that the numbers exceeded 100 fatalities. Lets ask a few pointed questions.

1. How many of these firearms would have actually been illegal during the ban?
2. Well, was there a ban during most of the last 30 years?
3. If the ban lapsing is what caused a sudden increase in LE deaths, then how do you explain the 17 years before the ban not breaking the 100 mark?

The ban was only for 10 years. So why don't we look at the 20 years that we didn't have a ban and come up with a mean average. Compare that to the mean average for the 10 years we had a ban and what do we get? Numbers that don't support their position. FUD is the primary weapon of the antigunners. Truth and facts only get in the way of their agenda.

Solidmch
07-22-2007, 10:21 PM
Crime overall is up. Conviction rate is low due to overcrowding. Less convictions- more violent people on the street. Ask any real street cop This artical is BS...

Clodbuster
07-23-2007, 05:27 PM
Well, I would think all LE would stand up and tell/email the author that they are not afraid of the Tec9. At least have some respect for LE... If LE actually stands behind this BS, then that's another rung down the ladder.

The reason the body count at the 101 California massacre in SF was so much less, was because the TEC9s that the nut job used malfunctioned and jammed....he had to switch over to his 1911.



Clod



Lol, I was thinking the same thing about the Tec-9. I'm afraid of that gun...

...at least I would be if I ever was forced to trust my life to one. :eek:

Clodbuster
07-23-2007, 05:34 PM
That's the next installment of the in-depth investigation. Along with the widely feared bayonet lug.

Since the next AWB is California-styled, they'll toss in the even more widely feared shuriken too. Can't wait for the clips of Ninja 3: The Domination, where they'll show the Ninja taking out a dozen cops with shurikens.

Clod

To say that the AWB had an impact on officer safety is to claim that flash hiders are causing officer deaths. That's absurd.

Mirage
07-23-2007, 06:33 PM
So, do you think it would help stop this type of poor reporting if we click the contact us link on there webpage, and tell them what we think of this artical?

tiki
07-23-2007, 07:24 PM
So, do you think it would help stop this type of poor reporting if we click the contact us link on there webpage, and tell them what we think of this artical?

Only if we spelt are wurds right.

TheMan
07-23-2007, 08:13 PM
Only if we spelt are wurds right.

Or yew shure abowt taht?

tiki
07-24-2007, 10:55 AM
Or yew shure abowt taht?

I tink sew. ;)

Mirage
07-24-2007, 11:43 AM
What, you don't think they are hooked on phonics?
I have to agree spell check before submitting would be helpful.
Bunch of thin blue Lipper's!

Satex
07-24-2007, 12:26 PM
First, let me say the trend of increasing law enforcement deaths is disturbing and upsetting. But this is my favorite part:

The study did not examine how many of the police officers killed this year were shot with weapons that were legalized three years ago, but the study and figures compiled by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics suggest a statistical correlation.

Correlation isn't cause and effect. I hope someday logic will prevail.

Excellent observation. This is exactly why we need to bring law enforcement to our side by working to eliminate the privileges they have.

Clodbuster
07-24-2007, 12:48 PM
How do you coerce another to be on your side by REMOVING privileges?

Gov. been slowly stripping away the average Joe's rights, and you don't see people jumping over the side of the fence in favor of the government...except for folks in San Francisco, but they smoke a lot of hemp. :D

Clod

Excellent observation. This is exactly why we need to bring law enforcement to our side by working to eliminate the privileges they have.

Satex
07-24-2007, 06:11 PM
How do you coerce another to be on your side by REMOVING privileges?

Very simply! The police force in general has a large clout with the uneducated and easily manipulated public. Did you ever notice how every elections you always see different police departments endorsing specific candidates on TV commercials?
How are they coerced? Very simply, you give them privileges in the form of exemptions from the restrictions sought on the general public. For example, police officers can obtain: normal capacity magazines, evil “assault” weapons, “dangerous” handguns. They also don’t have to get an HSC and more that I may be forgetting. Now, one may say that those were put in place so they can arm themselves for work, but the facts suggest that each agency fully equips its officers. In addition, if this was only for work, then those privileges should go away when off duty and when they leave the line of work. By providing these privileges, law enforcement agencies support is obtained and maintained.
By eliminating their privleges, they will once again become ordinary citizens and see things the way we do.

Clodbuster
07-25-2007, 12:57 PM
What I meant was that the government gives them the extra privileges. If you or I, as the public, try to take them away, it will only leave a bad taste in their mouths.

I wouldn't be apt to be part of a group responsible for stripping me of a privilege. Rather, I would work even harder for the other side to restore those privileges. Loyalty goes to the dangling carrot.

Clod

Very simply! The police force in general has a large clout with the uneducated and easily manipulated public. Did you ever notice how every elections you always see different police departments endorsing specific candidates on TV commercials?
How are they coerced? Very simply, you give them privileges in the form of exemptions from the restrictions sought on the general public. For example, police officers can obtain: normal capacity magazines, evil “assault” weapons, “dangerous” handguns. They also don’t have to get an HSC and more that I may be forgetting. Now, one may say that those were put in place so they can arm themselves for work, but the facts suggest that each agency fully equips its officers. In addition, if this was only for work, then those privileges should go away when off duty and when they leave the line of work. By providing these privileges, law enforcement agencies support is obtained and maintained.
By eliminating their privleges, they will once again become ordinary citizens and see things the way we do.

tacticalcity
07-25-2007, 02:04 PM
"[T]oo short on FACTS and long on emotion"

You just summed up the entire anti-gun point of view.

The only argument for gun control is emmotion based. Logic and statistics are just not in their favor. Every study I have ever seen that attempts to use statistical data to back up gun control had holes so big you could drive a truck through them.

The real problem is lack of education.

Accidental shootings are extremly rare, but nothing pulls on the emotional purse strings of the general public than a mother shedding tears over the loss of a child. So this "fear", rational or not is probably the most effective argument the anti-gun lobby has in their favor. The truth is, children have accidents with guns because their parents fail to teach them gun safety, and because of a lack of gun safety and awareness in general. If guns were not so "taboo" in our society, and gun safety was taught a young age...firearms related accidents would decress accross the board. Instead, parents and society in general prefer to burry their heads in the sand. They choose to ignore the fact that just because they do not have a gun in the house, their child's friends parents most likely do.

Next is crime. They completely ignore the fact that just like cocain, a criminal is going to get a gun whether they are legal or not. Prohibition does nothing but turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals, and even more into helpless victims.

The worst argument by far is police officer safety. I hear this argument from police officers all the time. Their biggest argument against the AR-15 is that it fires a projectile strong enough to penetrate their vest. This argument might make sense, if it were not for the fact that any rifle cartige over a .22lr is strong enough to penetrate their vest. The argument simply can not be applied to a rifle. Because it would have to be applied to all rifles.

The simple truth is, by disarming the general population crime actually increases because you have decreased the risk for the criminal, and turned the general population into easy marks. The role of the police officer is not to protect the individual, but society as a whole. He is not superman. He will not come and save you. What he will do, is clean up your body and take a 50/50 stab at trying to find and arrest the person who killed you. It is your job to protect yourself and your family. The best tool out there to help you do this is a firearm, firearm safety, and real world training (i.e. Front Sight, NV). If you're too lazy, ignorant, or just plain too appathetic to buy a firearm and get the training needed to use it effectively, then Darwin's theory applies.

eta34
07-25-2007, 03:25 PM
As a LEO, I am not afraid of a Tec9, an AK-47, an AR-15, a .50 cal cannon, a bazooka, or surface to air missles. I have NEVER stopped a car in which the occupants had any of these in their possession. The only guns I have ever found were handguns...which is why I am all for banning handguns.

Only kidding, take it easy. The point is this. Whether or not cop deaths are on the rise due to the AWB lifting is irrelevant to me. (I find the statistics in this artice sketchy at best). My profession needs to realize that the current gun laws are not working; adding more will do nothing. The local gang banger isn't deterred by 10-day waits, DROS fees, and fingerprint checks at the local Turners...he isn't going there to buy his "gat" anyway.

We also need to realize that we are not the highly-trained elite that we think we are. Sure, the majority of us qualify quarterly on our handguns, shoot our rifle and shotgun annually, so that makes us much more qualified than the average gun owner, right? Not so much. As I have said many times, the average range goer would be able to shoot as well or better than your average cop.

We have completely missed the point in this argument. I can't remember the last time a bayonet killed an officer, but we ban bayonet lugs. The completely evil flash suppressor is responsible for thousands of cop deaths, right? Hi capacity magazines as well...I mean, aren't most cops who die shot by those fully automatic Glock pistols with the 40 round magazines?

Here's a better idea...perhaps the criminal justice system should actually punish those who commit violent felonies using firearms. Robberies, assaults with firearms, murders...these people shouldn't be getting out. Possessing KNOWN stolen weapons should be punished severely.

Finally, the "officer safety" argument is pretty lame as well. Banning the AR and the AK because they penetrate our vests is silly. We need to take the next logical step and eliminate pretty much every bolt action hunting rifle and every rifle not entitled ".22 rimfire."

Long story short...this cop doesn't buy into the article.

tacticalcity
07-25-2007, 04:31 PM
I have found that the papers usually quote a Cheif of Police of a major metropolitan area. Which on the one had, makes sense. You would think that a largely populate area would have more crime, so the Cheif would know what he is talking about. Which, if you removed politics from the equation, then he would make the perfect source. Unfortunately, there is no more political of a job than being the Cheif.

Large cities such as Chicago, New York, and San Fran. have very strong political machines, and have historically been dominated by the Democrats.

The Cheif of Police is almost always a political appointee. Even if he is not, he won't keep his job long if he publicly controdicts the administration. Odds are he would not have gotten his job if he did not know how to fall in line with his political master's point of view. There is no question the Mayers of most major cities are Democrats, and most of them are very anti-gun. So of course, you are going to find a lot of Police Cheifs that are anti-gun. If they were pro-gun, they would never have been appointed to that position in the first place.

If you were to take a Nation wide poll of Rural Sheriffs, you would get very different answers than a Nation wide poll of police chiefs. Not because of the size of their population, although that would play a small role, but because the politics are different.

Sadly, you can't take anything you read at face value. Everyone has an agenda. You have to question everything.