Six police officers or deputies shot to death in the Seattle, Washington, area since October 31 reflect a troubling trend highlighted by a report released Tuesday.According to preliminary information compiled by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, the number of law enforcement officers killed by gunfire in 2009 increased to 49, compared with 39 in the previous year.
In light of the declining overall murder stats, this is particularly worrying. But what does it mean? Why would it be happening like this? Interestingly, the overall numbers of police officers dying in the line of duty has dropped.
"However, that bit of good news was overshadowed by an alarming surge in the number of officers killed by gunfire."In 15 of the shooting deaths, which occurred during five incidents, a single assailant killed more than one officer, according to the report. The multiple-fatality shootings included the killings of four officers in Lakewood, Washington, on November 29.
"Multiple-fatality shootings" sure makes me think of assault weapons. Too bad we can't find a way to define them.
What's your opinion? The article goes on the say that the major killer of cops is the automobile. Do you think that has anything to do with the discussion about guns? Why do gun apologists keep bringing cars into it?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
I think it's likely to go back down, with this year being an anomaly. Several of the cop killings were from nutjobs losing their shit, and they seem to do that in groups, with later nutjobs copying the first nutjob after he gets his name plastered all over the media. Hopefully the "Go out in a blaze of glory by killing cops." mass killing fad has gone out of style.
ReplyDelete""Multiple-fatality shootings" sure makes me think of assault weapons. Too bad we can't find a way to define them."
ReplyDeleteConsidering Maurice Clemmons only need four shots to kill four officers, it would be a good start to define an assault weapon as anything with a capacity equal to or greater than one. After all, you only need one bullet to assault someone.
Mikeb: "The article goes on the say that the major killer of cops is the automobile. Do you think that has anything to do with the discussion about guns? Why do gun apologists keep bringing cars into it?"
ReplyDeleteIs CNN known to be a "gun apologist"?
So do only "gun apologists" keep bringing cars into it?
Have you everd heard gun control advocates say "We register cars, so why not guns?"
USA Today, reporting the same story as CNN, prints a quote from the same Craig Floyd, chairman and CEO of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, which was omitted by CNN:
ReplyDelete"It tells us we have an increasing number of coldblooded criminals on the streets of America," Floyd says.
FishyJay, You're absolutely right that pro-gun guys are not the only ones who bring cars into it.
ReplyDeleteI've yet to hear the comparison that really works. And, I may be wrong about this too, but it seems like the pro-gun guys like those comparisons more than the other side.
Cop killing increased???
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_police_fatalities
kaveman, Thanks for the link. Yahoo made it clearer than CNN, but both say the same thing. Cop killings by firearms are up.
ReplyDeleteHappy New Year. It should be right about that time where you are. I wish you all the best in 2010.
I especially wish that you'll come to your senses, get rid of the guns, and join hands with the Brady Campaign in their noble fight. Don't you like my sense of humor?
To continue my previous post:
ReplyDeleteCraig Floyd, chairman and CEO of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, commenting on an increase in shootings of police: "It tells us we have an increasing number of coldblooded criminals on the streets of America"
Interesting: A Bloomberg or Helmke would have said "increasing number of GUNS on the streets of America," right? But instead, Floyd tells it like it is.
In the imaginary nirvana of gun control advocates, those "increasing number of coldblooded criminals on the streets of America" would be saying:
"Dammit! I want to shoot me some cops or carry a gun in case some cops hassle me, but I can't seem to find a gun anywhere."
I don't think that's going do happen if there is legal gunownership in America, but I also don't think that's going to happen if one tries to end legal gunownership in America.
If one ends legal gunownership in America and ends some OTHER Constitutional rights too, maybe you have a shot. But I doubt it.
The problem remains those "increasing number of coldblooded criminals on the streets of America" who want guns bad -- real bad. Something needs to be done about THAT.
"According to preliminary information compiled by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, the number of law enforcement officers killed by gunfire in 2009 increased to 49, compared with 39 in the previous year.
ReplyDeleteIn light of the declining overall murder stats, this is particularly worrying."
Good Lord--the number of cops shot to death in 2009 was the second lowest since 1999, which in turn was the lowest since the early 60's. Cops were almost 5 times more likely to be fatally shot in the early 70's (when legal concealed carry was unthinkable) than they were last year.
Mike, people like you must be desperate for some bad news about "gun violence," if you're reduced to pointing to this as evidence of a gun problem.
FishyJay, I agree it's the criminals. But I also think that they are a much greater threat when they have easy access to guns.
ReplyDeleteZorro, I wouldn't say we're desperate for bad news about guns. It's just a click away in every city across the land.
"Zorro, I wouldn't say we're desperate for bad news about guns."
ReplyDeleteWell, then it seem odd that you would bring up the statistic of the second lowest number of cop killings (by gunfire) in a decade, and the third lowest in nearly half a century, as (presumably) an example of bad news--unless you hate cops so much that you think the dramatic downward trend in the killing of them is lamentable. Is that it?
"It's just a click away in every city across the land."
Every city across the land, huh? How 'bout, say, Burlington, Vermont (in fact, let's be extremely generous, and give you the entire state of Vermont--a state, by the way, in which gun laws are so progressive that not even a permit is required for concealed carry). Number of homicides in '09? Four--none with guns.
Or is "every city across the land" yet another term you define differently from everyone else?
Zorro, "every city across the land" was exaggeration for emphasis. But you knew that didn't you?
ReplyDelete