FBI: Gun Sales Up, Murders Down...

[spin]

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

The Federal Bureau of Investigation reports a ten percent drop in murders during the first six months of 2009, while at a time US gun sales are going through the roof, according to reports obtained by the National Association of Chiefs of Police. Meanwhile, gun sales to private citizens soared almost 30 percent during that same period.

Gun rights advocates claim that these numbers are further proof that there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, state officials from the Second Amendment Foundation, a civil rights group. Further, the SAF contends that the increase in private citizen gun-ownership may have had an impact on reducing violent crime.

In a survey conducted by the National Association of Chiefs of Police of the nation’s police executives, with regard to private citizens owning firearms for sport or self-defense, 93.6 percent of the respondents supported civilian gun-ownership rights. Ninety-six percent of the police chiefs and sheriffs believe criminals obtain firearms from illegal sources and 92.2 percent revealed they hadn’t arrested anyone for violation of the so-called “waiting period” laws. When asked if citizens’ concealed-weapons permits would reduce violent crime, 63.1 percent said yes.

***snip***

“Studies have shown that the incidents of proper use of guns by US citizens far outweigh any abuses or misuses. In my own law enforcement career, must guns used in a crime are illegally obtained. If a suspect is willing to walk into a bank full of people to rob it, I doubt he’d be worried about violating some gun law,” said former NYPD detective Mike Snipes, now the owner of a private security firm.

“This obsession with gun control by politicians and activists has more to do with disarming law-abiding citizens and less to do with fighting crime,” he added.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/newswax/2009/12/22/fbi-gun-sales-up-murders-down/

[rd_kent]

1. Imagine that! More guns does not equal more deaths. SUCK IT, ANTIS!

[proteus_lives]

8. A big +1 on that!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

17. Now that's priceless.

[spin]

2. All quiet on the Western Front...

The people who oppose gun ownership are quietly ignoring facts once more.

[rd_kent]

4. Yup. Funny how when things like this are posted, they are conveniently absent

[safeinOhio]

46. Most likely because there are fewer gun control advocates

than there were before. I think most polls show Americans support reasonable 2nd Amendment rights. A few just do not like guns, which is their right. I think they are less and less a threat to legal and reasonable ownership. I no longer feel threatened by them as I see no legislation passing that moves away from legal ownership. Let them be against guns, no reason to fear them.

[WheelWalker]

3. An armed society is a polite society n/t

[old mark]

5. This is in line with the earlier report that violent crime in the US is down.

What happened to the blood in the streets predicted by the antis with liberalization of gun laws?

More people own and carry guns for protection, criminals get the message.....


mark

[TPaine7]

6. Obama obviously needs to bring his incompetent and corrupt FBI in line.

Perhaps Cheney is still pulling strings in the Bureau?

It is obvious that murder cannot go down 10% as gun sales go up 30%. More guns in civilian hands = more gun murders. As night follows day. As 2 + 2 = 4.

Obama needs to purge the FBI of the racist, misogynistic, reactionary, paranoid, right-wing, fascist, homophobic religious nuts with gun fetishes and small penises. What's next--"National Aeronautics and Space Administration reports moon actually is made of cheese"?!!

...

Spin, you should be ashamed of yourself. Real progressives have to be careful not to help the racist, misogynistic, reactionary, paranoid, right-wing, fascist, homophobic religious nut propaganda program. Real progressives know that guns are to be feared and hated--except in the hands of state officials, our dear leaders and professional law enforcement officials (and a few specially selected people of high wealth and status).

[eqfan592]

7. Ok, now I need a new keyboard! ROFLMAO! (nt)

[spin]

16. You just summed up why REAL progressives support RKBA ...

Two extremely progressive and very liberal ideas are contained in the first two amendments in the Bill of Rights.

First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

[Xenotime]

29. +1

[rhett o rick]

9. The cops are being killed at an alarming rate around here. nt

[rd_kent]

10. They are? Please explain.

[kelly1mm]

11. And what would your avitar think should be done? nt

[paulsby]

13. if you are in seattle/tacoma area

i agree. we (at least nobody i have talked to) blame RKBA or CCW'ers for it.

[PavePusher]

14. Uuh? WTH? Typo? n/t

[paulsby]

12. for police executives

iow cop-o-crat politicians to admit that CCW's are good, is a big step.

line cops (iow the guys actually fighting crime) have generally been pro RKBA, but for the executives to now admit the obvious is a positive step.

[pipoman]

15. I just flew home sitting next to a retired DEA

agent who had 22 years on the job. He said he doesn't ever remember a single DEA agent he knew who advocated gun control beyond what we now have, like prohibition of felons, age, mental illness, etc. He agreed that the Washington DEA political appointees were about the only ones who would follow the politics of those issuing their appointment.

[paulsby]

18. thats consistent with my experience

i've even met a fair # of dea agents who are pro mj decriminalization


not that they'd state this publically

[pipoman]

19. We actually discussed that

he feels like MJ should be left to the states, assuming no interstate transfer. But as long at there are federal laws in place, states shouldn't violate federal laws.

[paulsby]

20. i can see that logic except

imo there is no legal justification for the feds criminalizing mj possession or distribution WITHIN state borders. that court case was based on a (imo) faulty reading of the commerce clause.

iow, i would argue, from a states' rights constitutional basis, that congress has NO authority to make ANY laws regarding mj possession or distribution that does NOT affect interstate commerce.

the case that continues to allow them to do so is based on a very loose reading of the "commerce clause" imo.

[pipoman]

21. That is exactly my position on that..

I refer to it as 'bastardization' of the commerce clause. He told me a story of a bust he made in a state border town where he had to lure the seller to his side of the street to have a case...interstate commerce. We had a nice conversation, I didn't want to push the issue...it really doesn't matter too much to me, I might use some once in a while to self medicate if it were legal, but I wouldn't be a regular user.

Merry Christmas.

[paulsby]

25. merry christmas to you

i would probably never use it, even if legalized... but... i agree on the bastardization of the commerce clause.

the feds have been usurping power and creeping step by step, and that's partly because of bad commerce clause decisions (if mj grown in your home for personal use is "interstate commerce", then ANYTHING is interstate commerce), and other decisions like kelo.

as a nation, we were never even supposed to have a federal police force (and still don't), but we've seen creeping expansion of power by federal agencies, and much of it done under commerce clause readings.

[RealityInSeattle]

22. Owning a gun will more likely kill you and/or someone you know.

The article above does not use statistics that show any, kind of causation what-so-ever between more guns and less homicides in anyway at all. They used a phone poll to see humans personal opinions, this is not a study, this is an opinion poll. You post this stuff like it is some kind of scientific study? Please.

The murder rate has changed because of a radical drop in the number of adult female peruvian tree frogs observed in the rain forests of South America.

The "stats" in the article above are about as scientifically correlated as that last paragraph is.

Here are some actual real data on preventative gun usage: http://bit.ly/7dVvEV/. It represents a fraction of a percentage of gun usage.

Here are some actual studies that show how it is much much more likely that a gun will be used in your home. Here is one study that actually happened to be done in the county I live, King County, on kids under 19. http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/153/8/875

The highlights...
"A firearm owned by a household member living with the victim was used in 33 (65%)of 51 suicides and suicide attempts and 11 (23%) of 47 unintentional injuries and deaths".

Here is one from a newspaper you probably read:http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-30-3858863648_x.htm

"Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present,the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater.Studies have also shown that homes in which a suicide occurred were three to five times more likely to have a gun present than households that did not experience a suicide, even after accounting for other risk factors."

And here are six different studies that all back that up, taken from a gun rights page of all places:

http://www.guncite.com/cummingsjama.html/

The paper that cites them says:

"Six published case-control studies have examined the association between a gun in the home and suicide. All of these studies reported that the RR (relative risk) of suicide was greater among persons in a home with a gun compared with other persons. Only 2 case-control studies analyzed homicide as an outcome. Both reported a higher RR of being killed in a homicide among those with a gun compared with those without a gun."

In other words, the risk of either you or someone else in the house killing themselves or another person are greater when there is a gun in the house.

The study's conclusion: "Based on the evidence currently available, it appears that gun ownership is associated with a net increase in the risk of death for a typical individual"

Heres all the papers that study cited, no direct links but they could probably be found on the net.

1. Brent DA, Perper JA, Goldstein CE, et al. Risk factors for adolescent suicide: a comparison of adolescent suicide victims with suicidal inpatients. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1988;45:581-588.
   
   
2. Brent DA, Perper JA, Allman CJ, Moritz GM, Wartella ME, Zelenak JP. The presence and accessibility of firearms in the homes of adolescent suicides: a case-control study. JAMA. 1991;266:2989-2995.
   
   
3. Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:467-472.
   
   
4. Brent DA, Perper JA, Moritz G, Baugher M, Schweers J, Roth C. Firearms and adolescent suicide: a community based case-control study. AJDC. 1993;147:1066-1071.
   
   
5. Beautrais AL, Joyce PR, Mulder RT. Access to firearms and the risk of suicide: a case-control study. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 1996;30:741-748.
   
   
6. Cummings P, Koepsell TD, Grossman DG, Savarino J, Thompson RS. The association between purchase of a handgun and homicide or suicide. Am J Public Health. 1997;87:974-978.
   

There are literally thousands of studies that all say this, and there is usually just one study the 2nd ammendment-ers always cite, because it is the only one that offsets these numbers, and that is the Kleck study. That study has been shredded quite a few times by quite a few people. People who teach at colleges and stuff, not dope smoking hippies. Just look on the net.

So keep buying guns at Walmart and storing them at your house. Very, very likely the only person who is going to die is you, or unfortunately, someone else in your family

[PavePusher]

24. I think the Peruvian Tree Frogs are in decline...

because you are licking them too often.

Just say "NO" to the tree frogs...

[spin]

26. Welcome to DU. Let me reply...

Much of what you say deals with suicide. Suicide can be committed in many different ways. Obviously, the people who do commit suicide have serious mental problems. A firearm may make suicide easier, but if there were no firearms in the house, the person may decide to use other means.

Two separate studies, in Canada and Australia, conducted in conjunction with more restrictive firearms legislation, demonstrated that while said legislation showed a decrease in firearms suicide, other methods such as hanging increased. In Australia, the overall rate of suicide actually increased (following a trend that had been moving upwards for some time), and did not decrease until measures specifically aimed at providing support to would-be suicide victims was enacted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods

If more firearms caused more suicides, it would be logical that the United States would lead the world. However if you look at the chart from the World Heath Organization, you will find that actually the U.S. is FAR down the list.



Do more firearms in the hands of civilians decrease crime? I agree that it is hard to say. One thing is certain, the violent crime rate did not increase because of more firearms.



Have firearm sales increased?



Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- Data released by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) reported 1,074,757 checks in August 2009, a 12.3 percent increase from the 956,872 reported in August 2008.

So far that is roughly 9,076,205 gun bought this year! The total is probably more as NICS background checks may cover the purchase of more than one gun at a time.
http://www.ammoland.com/2009/09/04/1000000-guns-added-to-american-homes/





Has the violent crime rate increased or decreased as more firearms were purchased by citizens of the U.S?

Preliminary figures indicate that, as a whole, law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation reported a decrease of 4.4 percent in the number of violent crimes brought to their attention for the first six months of 2009 when compared with figures reported for the same time in 2008. The violent crime category includes murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The number of property crimes in the United States from January to June of 2009 decreased 6.1 percent when compared with data from the same time period in 2008. Property crimes include burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Arson is also a property crime, but data for arson are not included in property crime totals. Figures for 2009 indicate that arson decreased 8.2 percent when compared to 2008 figures from the same time period.

***snip***

Report issued by Robert S. Mueller III, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20535
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2009prelimsem/index.html

Here's a chart from the Bureau of Justice which covers the violent crime rate from 1973 to 2007


http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/cv2.cfm

So there are many more firearms in circulation in the U.S. then say 10 years ago. If firearms were responsible for an increase in crime, the crime rate would have climbed dramatically. The suicide rate, while a problem in the U.S., is surprising low compared to other nations with laws that prohibit firearm ownership.



Obviously not all people should own firearms. If you suffer from depression, abuse alcohol, have anger management problems or live in a bad relationship with a significant other - then firearms are not for you.

If you have young children in your house, you should store your weapons properly. When they reach nine or ten years old, you should teach them firearm safety and take them shooting. Actually, the school system should offer courses for all students. Many avoidable accidents with firearms are caused by people who have no idea if the weapon is loaded or not. You may not expose your child to firearms, but in a country with as many firearms as we have, they will probably encounter some.

[GreenStormCloud]

27. Welcome to DU, and to the "gungeon", our nickname for the Guns forum.

First, let me compliment you on attempting to actually discuss and debate the issue instead of doing like most pro-gun control posters do. Most of them just seem to post rants and insults and call that discussion. It is refreshing to see a pro-gun control person who seems to want to discuss the issue.

Your first study, http://bit.ly/7dVvEV / was done between 1987 and 1990. That was at a time when only a few states had shall-issue concealed carry laws. Florida enacted their shall-issue law, that started the trend, in 1987. So during that study it was a very rare citizen that had a concealed carry permits. So practically nobody had a gun on their person(Except for criminals)and were not able to have a defensive gun because they didn't have a gun. The only defensive gun uses were at places where the good guy could keep a gun on the premises. Since that time most states have adopted shall-issue laws, none have repealed those laws, and we now have between 4 to 5 million citizens with concealed carry permits. I suggest that it is time for a new study, since the situation has so radically changed.

The next study, http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/153/8/875 deals with suicides and accidents among people under 19. Taking away a gun will not stop a suicide. There are drugs, knives, poisons, hanging, cars & traffic, jumping from high places, etc. There are countries with extreme gun control that have higher suicide rates that the US. The death rate for drownings, or bicycle accidents is higher than the death rate for accidents with guns. Every human activity has an accident rate. There are some people who are killed by accidentally tripping and falling while walking. The accident rate for guns has been going down for years and is at an all-time low, despite about 100 million new guns being purchased in the last twenty years.

The USAToday article deals with suicide. Do you think that a gun is a Ring of Sauron type device that emits mind control rays that command people to kill themselves? Suicidal people have been killing themselves for many centuries before guns were invented. Many of Shakespeare's plays have somebody kill themselves with not a gun in sight.

Suicide statistics are further complicated by those who deliberately commit almost-suicides. Those are people who don't really want to die, but want to manipulate others around them by staging an almost suicide. Drugs seem to be the favorite for those, because they so frequently call someone after they have taken the drugs and get rushed to a hospital. Since the article states that the success rate for drugs is only 2%, that suggests that drug suicide attempts are actually not genuine attempts at suicide but desperate cries for help with a life problem. I would suggest that a gun suicide has made up his mind to actually do it, and absent a gun would find another effective method.

Taking away my ability, and my wife's ability, to defend ourselves from violent felons will do nothing to our suicide rate, but may increase our number of crime victims. By having a gun on her my wife has already prevented herself from being murdered.

[RealityInSeattle]

33. Like I said

keep buying your guns. Keep increasing your risk. Its your choice. Be a statistic.

[GreenStormCloud]

36. There are serious flaws in all of those studies.

We are happy to logically point out the flaws. Try honest discussion of the issue, instead of silly, one-line accusations.

[spin]

37. True, it's our choice. But be aware, you can also become a statistic...

when you needlessly die because you didn't have a firearm for self defense.

Check your local newspaper.

While having a firearm for self defense is no guarantee of surviving an attack by any standard, it sure does improve your odds.

I have no problem with you pointing out that guns are dangerous. I already know this and treat firearms with great respect and practice safety when handling one.

As I said in a post above, guns are not for everyone. Perhaps your posts will convince someone with problems not to purchase a firearm.

But I should point out that owning 30 firearms is no more dangerous than owning just one as long as they are properly stored and safely handled.

[NightRainFalls]

42. Great post, very rational, nice change

Dear Reality,

I am on the other side of debate from you, but I like well reasoned and civil discussion. I usually lurk here because of all the one line flaming going on, but I was impressed with your post.

I am a classically trained biologist and also a gunsmith. I have sold thousands of guns to hundreds of different customers over the last five years. I also have a lot of experience reading scientific papers. Quite often when I see posters reference a certain paper, without much discussion of that paper. I am often surprised, when I read that paper, because usually the paper does not support the posters thesis. Many times it just turns out to be a naked Appeal to Authority.

I refer specifically to your statement "Here are some actual studies that show how it is much much more likely that a gun will be used in your home. Here is one study that actually happened to be done in the county I live, King County, on kids under 19. http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/153/8... " The stated conclusion of the paper you referenced is, "Most guns involved in self-inflicted and unintentional firearm injuries originate either from the victim's home or the home of a friend or relative." The researchers have done no work researching the likelihood that a gun will be used in suicide or an accident, instead of in self defense. They have only determined the source of guns in small cohort of suicides and accidents. In these cases 57 percent of 19 year old or younger suicidal persons used firearms owned by their parents. 43 percent of these persons could either not obtain a firearm from his or her parents, or chose to obtain a firearm from others. The reason that 57 percent of teenage suicides use a parental gun is not even explored in this study. It is entirely possible that this result is a manifestation of a base rate. It is possible that 57% of parents own firearms, and that 43% suicidal teenagers need to go to non parental sources to obtain forearms. In this case it would be entirely possible that parental ownership of firearm has nothing to do with suicide frequency, it merely bears on the whether or not the suicidal person needs to find a substitute gun. In short we know where this cohort of suicidal teenagers tended to find guns, but nothing about the relative likely hood that a gun owners firearm will be used in a suicide in the gun owners home. Since King County has over 800,000 households, a huge number of which likely contain firearms, and over the five year period there are only about 120 cases studied, we cannot draw any real inference about the amount of increase in suicide risk a gun in the house may or may not cause. The cohort is just too small to generalize it over such a large population. At best we can say that a suicidal teenager who wants to use a gun will find the nearest gun available. If no gun is available from a parent, the suicidal teenager will exploit the next nearest firearm. This is something which makes intuitive sense and is relevant to the parent of a suicidal teenager. Obviously, the parent would want to either dispose of firearms, or lock those firearms away from the teenager. The parent would also want to limit the teenagers access to other sources of firearms.

If we wanted to study your thesis, that a gun owners or gun owners family is substantially more likely to suffer a suicide, accident or homicide involving that gun, than to use the gun in self defense, the actual parameters of that study would be significantly different. We would need two large geographical diverse randomized cohorts. Both cohorts would need to be followed for a lengthy period of time since gun related suicides, accidents, and self defense are relatively rare occurrences. In cohorts of ten to twenty thousand, it is unlikely a statistically valid conclusion could be drawn in less than five to ten years. One cohort would need to have guns, and one cohort would need to not own guns. The members of the gun owning cohort would need to be polled regarding defensive use of handguns, and suicides, accidents and murders involving firearms would need to tallied among both groups. The relative risk of suicide would have to determined and balanced against cases of self defense. To my knowledge, no such study has ever been conducted.

You claim, "There are literally thousands of studies that all say this (guns are more likely to kill owners or an owners family members)." Interestingly enough, one of your sources states that there are only six. In fact you cut and pasted that portion of the statement into your post. There is quite a difference between six and thousands. There is another substantial problem with these six studies. 4 of the 6 are by 2 different authors, contain similar data sets and evidence similar flawed constructions. All of these studies are over ten years old I am not aware of any follow ups that have addressed the obvious systematic problems with the design of these studies. Since these studies have been published they have been largely dismissed due to these problems. If you want to know what those problems are, you can check your own sources. They are itemized in one of the documents you quoted from.

In reality, there is only sparse support in the data to back up you assertions. In fact when we look at Arthur Kellermans studies we note that he originally stated that owning a gun made it 43 times more likely an owner was going to be killed. By 1993, in the New England Journal of medicine, the likely hood had fallen to 2.5 times. In that same study, Kellerman notes that if a household member uses illegal drugs you are 5.7 times more likely to be a victim of homicide. If you rent an apartment you are over four times more likely to be a victim. That is right, according to one of the authors or a paper you cite, not only is his earlier research greatly exaggerated, but renting a home is almost twice as dangerous as owning a gun.

If you can cite any of the thousands of more recent studies which supposedly support your thesis, I would like to see them. You can just post links here, I will go and study them.

[JonQ]

23. Good news, but irrelevent

the grabbers cannot be argued out of their position using logic and facts because they came to their beliefs by emotion, not reason.

[GreenStormCloud]

28. Agreed, completely. That is why some of us post stories of DGUs.

Those stories appeal to emotions in a different direction.

[JonQ]

30. I'm not sure what "DGU" means

could you elaborate?

[Katya Mullethov]

31. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie (German Society for Trauma Surgery)

Or "defensive gun use" .

[GreenStormCloud]

32. "Defensive Gun Use"

Does not mean that the gun was fired, merely that by having the gun the person was able to prevent themselves from being victimized by a violent criminal. A few years ago, my wife was about to be attacked. When the attacker realized that she had a gun in her hand, he ran away. That was a DGU.

[RealityInSeattle]

34. It this the "murder" she prevented

[GreenStormCloud]

35. In only a few posts, you have gone from attempting...

rational discussion to sarcasm. How sad. I was hoping to be able to rationally discuss the issue with an anti. You will notice that my large post rationally rebuted the points that you made. So did another's long post. We enjoy discussing facts with antis. Please engage in discussion, and not sarcasm.

[spin]

38. My daughter had a similar incident...

she confronted a man breaking into our home. He was forcing the kitchen sliding glass door open and had made it halfway into the house. An alarm system was blaring and there was a rather gentle 60 pound Black Lab in the house.

He looked at her and said, "I'm going to rape you".

My daughter pointed a large caliber S&W revolver at him. It was her favorite firearm and she was an excellent shot with it.

The intruder left in a hurry.

All ended well. True, it's hard to say exactly what might have happened had she been unarmed and he had made entry.

But I'll tell you one thing. I'm damn glad she had access to the firearm and the training to use it if necessary.

[tburnsten]

39. Well there's no reason not to take a guy at his word

I'm glad he turned around instead of going forward

[spin]

41. She would have shot him but ...

he was only halfway through the door.

I told her to never shoot an intruder unless they were inside the house.

Still, all worked out well. No shots fired. No one hurt. Hopefully he learned a lesson.

[tburnsten]

44. I'm pretty familiar with your posts

I've got no doubt your daughter is as well prepared for that nightmare as possible, but I don't think "happy" that she didn't have to help out with the the guy's career finale is a strong enough word. Although if he hadn't taken her seriously, then he wouldn't have been able to victimize anyone else in the future. Who knows, hopefully (totally unrealistic though) he realized the error of his ways and sought out professional help to prevent him from attacking anyone else.

[spin]

45. Shooting or killing another person must be the absolute last choice..

even in justified self defense.

Shooting another person often causes psychological problems for the shooter. Had she shot the man and killed, or severely injured or crippled him - she might have questioned her actions.

Remember, I had told her to never shoot someone unless they were totally inside the house. If she would have shot him when he was only halfway in, she might have questioned herself for years on rather she did make the right decision.

Few people understand the effects that can happen after a "good shooting". It's called Post Shooting Trauma.

Very soon after the incident, the officer needs counseling. Few jurisdictions employ professional counselors, but must have supervisors with the sensitivity to discuss with the officer those things which may occur as after-effects of his experience.

The officer needs to know that, in similar situations, other officers have had one or more of the following experiences:

-flashbacks or nightmares

-anger at the suspect, for forcing the officer to do something that he didn’t want to do

-changes in behavior habits

-changes in eating preferences

-reduction in sexuality

-frustration with media coverage, and

-“locker room shock” which occurs when the officer goes
back to work

Post-incident return to duty is a very stressful time for the officer. Most of the comments and inquiries he receives are sincere and well-meant. But, there are those few vicarious thrill-seekers who simply must have a complete verbal account of the incident, firsthand. Their guts-and-glory commentary are usually disastrous to the feelings of the returning officer.
http://www.spiritofthelaw.org/sol2art12.html

Post Shooting Trauma is the internalization of stress following a shooting. (1) It is a combination of stress, fear, confusion and anxiety. It usually sets in after your moral beliefs and reality come in conflict.

There are many symptoms of Post Shooting Trauma, and a person suffering from it can suffer any one, any combination, or all of the following symptoms.

The first is sleep pattern disturbances. Either insomnia or nightmares. Insomnia is simply the inability to relax and sleep following the shooting.

The nightmares are another story. They are very frightening, mostly because the officer doesn't understand why he is having such terrifying visions.

The dreams can be a reliving of the incident, night after night. Or, it can be a dream of being involved in another shooting, and being either wounded or killed. Some officer have dreamed that the person they killed was standing at the foot of their bed. Some admit to being so frightened by this experience they have jumped up in a sweat, screaming in fear.

I have experienced nightmares following my incident. The night after my shooting, I dreamed many of my friends were dying around me. After that, I started to dream of being involved in other gun battles, all with the same results. In the imagined gun battle, I am forced to shoot someone again. Each time, the bullets either come out the barrel of the gun and fall on the ground, or if they strike their intended target, they have no impact and the criminal just stands there looking at me.

80% of officers involved in shootings have nightmares related to their incident. 10% have a variation dream in which they dream of being in different shooting incidents. Those that dream of being killed are probably experiencing some form of guilt, whether imagined or real.

http://www.tearsofacop.com/police/articles/aftergun.htm...

Fortunately, my daughter didn't have to deal with any of these problems.

Several times in my life, I have had firearms pointed at me. It's amazing how big the hole in the barrel looks when someone draws down on you. To me, a .22 caliber revolver resembled a gun the size of Dirty Harry's. (A double barrel 12 gauge shotgun looked like two trashcans.)

The revolver that my daughter pointed at the intruder, a S&W Model 25-2, was very similar to Dirty Harry's .44 mag. It was chambered for the milder .45 acp. round.

I'm sure the intruder remembers the incident to this day some 20 years later. Hopefully he learned a lesson.

[PavePusher]

43. And you can guarantee that all he wanted to do...

was to help make lunch?

[JonQ]

40. Gotcha

I should have been able to figure that out, I guess I was still buzzing on turkey and pie.