Tweet
I did some research on fatalities for police and the general population. Part of what I found didn't surprise me, but I did find some information that did surprise me.
In 2006, 36 police and sheriff patrol officers were killed with firearms, for a rate of 5.8 deaths per 100,000 such officers. During the same period, 12,509 firearm homicides (not including suicides or accidential discharges) occurred across the United States for a rate of 4.2 deaths per 100,000.
In 2007, the respective rates were 8.5 and 4.2. In 2008, the respective rates were 5 and 4. In 2009, police were kiled by firearms at a rate of 6.5 per 100,000. The CDC has not yet come out with the death rates for 2009, so I don't have the general population's firearm death rate for 2009 (police fatalities came from the Bureau of Labor Statistics).
As I had suspected, police officers are killed by firearms at about the same rate (but slightly higher) than the general population. All other things being equal, this would indicate that the need for the general population to carry a weapon for self defense is about the same as the need for police and sheriff patrol officers.
However, while I was looking around, I found some statistics regarding homicides that the FBI characterized as justifiable. While I don't place a lot of faith in this number, some things did jump out at me. First, nearly all justiable homicides by police were accomplished with a firearm:
Year____Firearms Homicides____Other Weapons
2006____386________________0
2007____395________________3
2008____373________________5
2009____403________________3
For the general population, the number of justifiable homicides accomplished with other weapons was significantly higher at about 20-25%:
2006____192________________46
2007____202________________55
2008____219________________46
2009____215________________46
I was somewhat surprised that the number of "justifiable" homicides was lower than for the police given the greater number of homicides in the general population. However, whether a homicides is "justifiable" was not based on any finding of fact by a jury, but instead based upon law enforcement agencies' own determination. So, I guess I'm not all that surprised that the agencies are more likely to determine that their homicides are justifiable than for the general population. However, what really surprised me was how much more likely it is for a justifiable homicide by non-police to involve a weapon other than a firearm. This almost certainly indicates that the non-firearm killers did not have a firearm and instead used whatever weapon was at hand. As we all know (and these statistics confirm), firearms are much more effective for self defense than chairs, fists, knives, etc. Which led me to conclude that a whole lot of people died because they did not have a firearm handy. Which led me to conclude that if the general population carried firearms at anything like the rate that the police do, there would be a lot more justifiable homicides in the general population. Another conclusion is that police really do get involved in deadly situations more frequently than the general populations, but that the police have a depressed (relative to their greater exposure to deadly situations) mortality rate because of their quick access to firearms.
In retrospect, the "other weapons" data should not have surprised me, since it logically follows that a generally disarmed public will successfully defend itself with improvised weapons occasionally. It saddens me to think of all the people who died, attempting to defend themselves with a vase or a shoe.
Here are some of the sources I used:
In 2006, 36 police and sheriff patrol officers were killed with firearms, for a rate of 5.8 deaths per 100,000 such officers. During the same period, 12,509 firearm homicides (not including suicides or accidential discharges) occurred across the United States for a rate of 4.2 deaths per 100,000.
In 2007, the respective rates were 8.5 and 4.2. In 2008, the respective rates were 5 and 4. In 2009, police were kiled by firearms at a rate of 6.5 per 100,000. The CDC has not yet come out with the death rates for 2009, so I don't have the general population's firearm death rate for 2009 (police fatalities came from the Bureau of Labor Statistics).
As I had suspected, police officers are killed by firearms at about the same rate (but slightly higher) than the general population. All other things being equal, this would indicate that the need for the general population to carry a weapon for self defense is about the same as the need for police and sheriff patrol officers.
However, while I was looking around, I found some statistics regarding homicides that the FBI characterized as justifiable. While I don't place a lot of faith in this number, some things did jump out at me. First, nearly all justiable homicides by police were accomplished with a firearm:
Year____Firearms Homicides____Other Weapons
2006____386________________0
2007____395________________3
2008____373________________5
2009____403________________3
For the general population, the number of justifiable homicides accomplished with other weapons was significantly higher at about 20-25%:
2006____192________________46
2007____202________________55
2008____219________________46
2009____215________________46
I was somewhat surprised that the number of "justifiable" homicides was lower than for the police given the greater number of homicides in the general population. However, whether a homicides is "justifiable" was not based on any finding of fact by a jury, but instead based upon law enforcement agencies' own determination. So, I guess I'm not all that surprised that the agencies are more likely to determine that their homicides are justifiable than for the general population. However, what really surprised me was how much more likely it is for a justifiable homicide by non-police to involve a weapon other than a firearm. This almost certainly indicates that the non-firearm killers did not have a firearm and instead used whatever weapon was at hand. As we all know (and these statistics confirm), firearms are much more effective for self defense than chairs, fists, knives, etc. Which led me to conclude that a whole lot of people died because they did not have a firearm handy. Which led me to conclude that if the general population carried firearms at anything like the rate that the police do, there would be a lot more justifiable homicides in the general population. Another conclusion is that police really do get involved in deadly situations more frequently than the general populations, but that the police have a depressed (relative to their greater exposure to deadly situations) mortality rate because of their quick access to firearms.
In retrospect, the "other weapons" data should not have surprised me, since it logically follows that a generally disarmed public will successfully defend itself with improvised weapons occasionally. It saddens me to think of all the people who died, attempting to defend themselves with a vase or a shoe.
Here are some of the sources I used:
