Might want to look at gunfire injuries that are not deaths. There is also the issue of how this happens despite training, their own weapons, armor, etc that are daily requirements. The general populace would probably see better survival rates with these things as well, right?
It's more than a little biased to just point at deaths.
It's extremely clear that in an average encounter a civilian is much more likely to be shot and kileld or injured by police than the other way around. Gun violence against police is extremely rare.
Now, police officers are obviously going to be involved in a lot more of these encounters than the average person, and there are fewer of them, which I think is what you're getting at, but this is valid from an "in a given encounter, which party is more-justified in fearing for their physical safety?" sort of way.
The 50,000 dead annually via firearms would appear to be paying more. (Even when you adjust for relative populations; 800k cops with 50 deaths, 300M Americans with 50,000).
> Might want to look at gunfire injuries that are not deaths.
I went looking and was unable to find any particularly reliable sources on police-specific firearm injuries. I did find that cops are at higher risk of firearm death via suicide than via suspects as an additional data point.
Perhaps they could do with some therapy and anger management in addition to all the armor and weaponry?
It's less biased than your argument, which pointed at no evidence.
uh no, school-age children (including elementary school children) are the ones who pay the most for our gun-happy culture.