Alex45acp,
In other threads you freely admit that a primary motivation for you to arm yourself is for protection from Agents of the State. This is at least mildly disturbing to me.
Logical fallacy: ad hominem.
Rather than cherry picking your facts about "agents of the State" you could take the Bureau of Labor Statistics word for it here;
http://www.bls.gov
/oco/ocos160.htm
Work environment.
Police and detective work can be very dangerous and stressful. Police officers and detectives have one of the highest rates of on-the-job injury and illness. In addition to the obvious dangers of confrontations with criminals, police officers and detectives need to be constantly alert and ready to deal appropriately with a number of other threatening situations. Many law enforcement officers witness death and suffering resulting from accidents and criminal behavior. A career in law enforcement may take a toll on their private lives.
I don't necessarily disagree with this; it
can be a very dangerous line of work. But it usually isn't. Like I said before, it is more dangerous than being an accountant, but when you look at the FBI statistics it's not nearly as dangerous as many people make it out to be. 57 out of ~700,000 is a very low number.
And again, they accept these small risks when they take the job. Nobody is forcing them into it.
This seems perfectly obvious to me, but because I do not seem coherent to you, perhaps you are on some other wavelength. I can accept the word of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Do you also accept the word of the FBI, whose statistics show that the job is not very dangerous overall?
Perhaps because they are also "agents of the State" you might believe that the above is the result of some conspiracy to mislead the populous.
Logical fallacy: ad hominem.
Regardless of this your analysis is simplistic in only looking at death rates as opposed to considering duty related fatality, injury and illness (including those resulting from prolonged stress). I still contend that you are presenting the conclusion and have used a specious support because of the above. Defend your conclusion if you believe anyone is interested.
I
am looking at duty related fatalities. My entire point is that they are low; therefore the job isn't very dangerous. I am only looking at the numbers of LEOs killed on the job in violent confrontations because those are the only ones relevant to this discussion. Stress-related illnesses are irrelevant. Injury rates
may be relevant, but only life-threatening injuries sustained on the job in violent confrontations with criminals.
P.S. If you decide to become a critic of LEO, demean their contributions to society by understating their personal sacrifice and generally dislike or disrespect them, then I contend that knowing something about their work is hardly irrelevant. Thinking that it is irrelevant is telling in and of itself.
Logical fallacy:
red herring. This discussion is not about disrespecting the police, it's about the dangers of police work and how people grealy overstate them to justify police militarization and other excesses.