Findings from the FBI about Cop Attackers & Their Weapons

All I needed to see.

Researcher Davis, in a presentation and discussion for the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, noted that none of the attackers interviewed was "hindered by any law--federal, state or local--that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws."
 
Good read. More BS debunked:

"Predominately handguns were used in the assaults on officers and all but one were obtained illegally, usually in street transactions or in thefts. In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study was obtained from gun shows."

[From a pool of more than 800 incidents, the researchers selected 40, involving 43 offenders (13 of them admitted gangbangers-drug traffickers) and 50 officers, for in-depth exploration.]
 
Why is it more important to find out about cop attackers? More equal?

It sells better.

There's the small factor that anyone willing to shoot at an armed cop is by some definition the worst of the worst.

But mostly it's because it sells better.
 
Definitely a dupe, from 3 years ago.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...rom-Fbi-About-Cop-Attackers-amp-Their-Weapons

Why is it more important to find out about cop attackers?

The overwhelming majority of police shootings are defensive in nature, where the cop is armed with a handgun. No one has done any kind of major study on private citizens using deadly force, and cops are a lot more likely to engage in violent encounters than an average citizen.

The study was also done by law enforcement, to save the lives of law enforcement. It was the 3rd study of it's kind, the group running it has been pouring over info like this for the past 20 years with one goal in mind. It also brings up some very important LE specific issues, such as media portrayal of LE use of force, successes and failures of training (as evaluated by the victim officers, their attackers and the people running the study), and some very personal specific information that you'll never hear about unless you're quite close with someone who's walked that road before.

More equal?

tinfoil_hat_antenna.jpg
 
Researcher Davis, in a presentation and discussion for the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, noted that none of the attackers interviewed was "hindered by any law--federal, state or local--that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws."


All I needed to see.

Great minds think alike.
 
Researcher Davis, in a presentation and discussion for the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, noted that none of the attackers interviewed was "hindered by any law--federal, state or local--that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws."
No way, next thing you are going to try and tell me is that I could die in a head on collision if I don't wear a seatbelt
 
It's not more important to find out about cop attackers,it's just that the general public isnt't keeping tabs on this data pertaining to civilian shootings against them by gangbangers.The reason for this is there aren't many shootings by gangbangers against good citizens.Gangbangers target other gangbangers or cops period.
 
It's not more important to find out about cop attackers,it's just that the general public isnt't keeping tabs on this data pertaining to civilian shootings against them by gangbangers.The reason for this is there aren't many shootings by gangbangers against good citizens.Gangbangers target other gangbangers or cops period.

What's really interesting about that study is how few of the attackers were gang members. Most were white, a lot lived in those tiny "safe" towns I'm always hearing about. The only thing that the attackers all had in common was that they attacked cops, they were all different sizes, shapes, genders and everything else.
 
Back
Top Bottom