# Why I carry a gun.



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Next time some liberal goodie two-shoes wants to argue with you about the 2nd Amendment and about carrying/owning a gun ask them one simple question; "What's the police response time where you live?" According to American Police Beat, the *average response time for an emergency call is 10 minutes*. Atlanta has the worst response time with 11 to 12 minutes and Nashville comes in at a lightning speed of 9 minutes. Do you know how much can happen in 10 MINUTES! It's foolish to think anyone is going to save you but yourself.



> There's this false sense of security that we have created with the 911 system that has people believing that with a single call, a swat team will be dispatched immediately to save you and your family within moments of the call.


Interesting (short) article on response times.

Average-Police-Response-Time

I feel sorry for any of you folks in NOLA. Response time there is 1 hour. In one hour you can- go to McDonald's-twice-take a bath, and read a book to a child. Or get killed raped and maimed multiple times.

Another interesting and funny/scary article on response times.

Police response times: In New Orleans, call 911 and wait for an hour | The Economist


----------



## txmarine6531 (Nov 18, 2015)

A lot can happen in 10 seconds. Too many stupid people out there, cops are too slow, better them than me or an innocent.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

On Night shift I can usually get anywhere in my zone within 2 minutes. Truth is, That really is a long time. Get a carry permit and keep a gun handy and safe in your home.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

I say your lucky if they show the same day. Counting on 911 to get police for a break in is a crap shoot. Hours for response. Guess such calls have a low priority. That was my experience a few months back.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

In the rural are where I live, there is only one cruiser on duty at night.
The officer could be in another town assisting on their call.
Might have a 10-30 min wait.
State police are a crap shoot, they may never show.
You must depend on yourself, therefore be armed.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Milwaukee LE will not respond to home invasion call unless there is a body in many case and if the do hour to days before they get there.
I do not live in a city we get Police service from Sheriff department. They do their best great bunch . But they are spread thin and face it larger population areas get the patrols. Buy the time we see them all that is left is paper work.


----------



## alterego (Jan 27, 2013)

We called the Ionia county Sheriff depart regarding a dog attack at about 2:00 on a Friday after noon and they showed up on Tuesday around 3:30 p.m.

Many years ago when we were at our third home we had a truck in our yard at 2:00 a.m. we called the police about a suspicious vehicle etc, they told us they were to busy and could not come, call them back if something serious occurs. Latter that week the Hastings reminder had the truck on the front cover arrested for armed robbery.

The side of the police car says to protect and to serve. They protect the criminals and serve as a secretary to fill out paper work.

If you believe the police are going to protect you your a fool.


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

I like the story where the older fellow called to report a break in at his garden shed, . . . ongoing at the time.

Dispatcher said it would be an hour or so, lock the doors and stay inside.

Old guy waited about 5 minutes, . . . called back and told them to forget the squad car, . . . just send the coroner, 2 body bags, and a meat wagon. He said the third one got away, . . . but was bleeding profusely so would probably bleed out and they could find the body the next day when it was daylight.

Within three minutes, . . . helicopter overhead, . . . swat team, . . . and 3 squad cars, . . . plus chief of police.

They first went out to the garden shed, . . . found the burglars still in there hiding from the LEO, . . . arrested them.

Then they went up to the back door to arrest the old man for calling in a fake report, . . . chief got in his face and accused him of lying to his dispatcher.

"Well chief, . . . the dispatcher started it, . . . she said nobody was available, . . . would take an hour, . . . heck I got 27 minutes left on that hour, and you got it all done. You need to tell her to tell the truth once in a while."

I love that story. Probably made up, . . . but I still love it........................

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

They hate this Sheriff they have tried every trick in the book to shut him up. A black conservative in Milwaukee and he not only gets elected but get reelected . Unheard of.


----------



## Gunner's Mate (Aug 13, 2013)

Police do not prevent crime they investigate crime


----------



## SDF880 (Mar 28, 2013)

I pretty much always have 2 on me. 

I tell anyone disagreeing with me I tell them even tho I pitched college baseball and a few single A games I cannot throw a rock 1300 feet per second!

22 minute average response where I live!


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

Gunner's Mate said:


> Police do not prevent crime they investigate crime


True..... But the real description of police is law enforcement. Meaning, we will investigate, hunt down and catch murderers and charge them. Too bad for the victim, after all that work it still won't change the fact that he/she is dead and will stay dead..... Arm yourselves, self defense is your responsibility.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Gunner's Mate said:


> Police do not prevent crime they investigate crime


Not true, my friend. Not as far as the intent of patrolmen are concerned.

Sir Robert Peel, the father of modern policing, employed a group of men called "Robert's Runners." They were policemen who ran through the streets of London. Because it was never known when a Robert's Runner would come running around the corner, thugs, rogues and other nasty sorts were less apt to conduct themselves improperly.

Today? The only infractions that seem to be on the minds of the patrolmen are traffic infractions. The technique is not the problem.


----------



## Doc Holliday (Dec 22, 2012)

and they took "to serve and protect" off their squad cars long ago....


----------



## Boss Dog (Feb 8, 2013)

You know what "they" say. 

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away!


----------



## Boss Dog (Feb 8, 2013)

I went looking for a different article written by the NRA but, this is all I could find atm.

Do You Have A Right to Police Protection?

One of the basic themes of gun control is that only the police and military should have handguns or any type of firearm. I cannot explain their rationale, other than to say that gun control proponents must believe that the police exist to protect the citizenry from victimization. But in light of court decisions we find such is not the case. You have no right to expect the police to protect you from crime. Incredible as it may seem, the courts have ruled that the police are not obligated to even respond to your calls for help, even in life threatening situations!. To be fair to our men in blue, I think most officers really do want to save lives and stop dangerous situations before people get hurt. But the key point to remember is that they are under no legal obligation to do so.

Case Histories
Ruth Brunell called the police on 20 different occasions to plead for protection from her husband. He was arrested only one time. One evening Mr. Brunell telephoned his wife and told her he was coming over to kill her. When she called the police, they refused her request that they come to protect her. They told her to call back when he got there. Mr. Brunell stabbed his wife to death before she could call the police to tell them that he was there. The court held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring Mrs. Brunell's pleas for help. *Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975)*.
[Those of you in the Silicon Valley, please note what city this happened in!]

Consider the case of Linda Riss, in which a young woman telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly threatened "If I can't have you no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no-one else will want you." The day after she had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features. "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand," wrote a dissenting opinion in her tort suit against the City, "is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her." *Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968)*. [Note: Linda Riss obeyed the law, yet the law prevented her from arming herself in self-defense.]

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: ``For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.'' The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a ``fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.'' *Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)*.

The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is *DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989)*. Frequently these cases are based on an alleged ``special relationship'' between the injured party and the police. In DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had ``specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger,'' but failed to remove him from his father's custody. ("Domestic Violence -- When Do Police Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect?'' Special Agent Daniel L. Schofield, S.J.D., FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, January, 1991.) 

The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship,'' concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. ``The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf.'' *(DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989) at 1006.)*

About a year later, the United States Court of Appeals interpreted DeShaney in the California case of *Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. (901 F.2d 696 9th Cir. 1990)* Ms. Balistreri, beaten and harassed by her estranged husband, alleged a "special relationship'' existed between her and the Pacifica Police Department, to wit, they were duty-bound to protect her because there was a restraining order against her husband. The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that DeShaney limited the circumstances that would give rise to a "special relationship'' to instances of custody. Because no such custody existed in Balistreri, the Pacifica Police had no duty to protect her, so when they failed to do so and she was injured they were not liable.

A citizen injured because the police failed to protect her can only sue the State or local government in federal court if one of their officials violated a federal statutory or Constitutional right, and can only win such a suit if a "special relationship'' can be shown to have existed, which DeShaney and its progeny make it very difficult to do. Moreover, *Zinermon v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990)* very likely precludes Section 1983 liability for police agencies in these types of cases if there is a potential remedy via a State tort action.

Many states, however, have specifically precluded such claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals.''

In other words this means the only people the police are duty-bound to protect are criminals in custody, and other persons in custody for such things as mental disorders. YOU have no recourse if the police fail to respond or fail to protect you from injury!

Some more reading for those who wish to

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/p...a-constitutional-duty-to-protect-someone.html

https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

THAT is some scary reading!! Not looking to bash Leo's, I work with a 35 yr. vet, pretty much best buds, Some folks might say what are we paying them for? Guess its not the boots on the ground but the courts. How do we change this? Is it even possible?


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

1skrewsloose said:


> THAT is some scary reading!! Not looking to bash Leo's, I work with a 35 yr. vet, pretty much best buds, Some folks might say what are we paying them for? Guess its not the boots on the ground but the courts. How do we change this? Is it even possible?


When Dodge City was 10 blocks long, . . . 8 blocks wide, . . . one "main drag", . . . one saloon, the Longbranch, . . . Marshall Dillon and Festus could walk up and down the street a couple times a day, . . . run scalliwags off, . . . and go up and down the street after dark and make sure all the front doors were closed and locked.

Ain't so today, . . . not anywhere, . . . and would require a massive input in terms of people, equipment, training, and oversight. Nobody is going to pony up the cash to double the size of the local police force just so you can have more on the street for prevention.

AND, . . . (if you are an LEO and this does not apply, . . . my apologies, . . . if it does, . . . do something about it), . . . at least here in central Ohio, . . . when something happens and a bunch of cops come on the scene, . . . it very often looks like a weight watchers meeting. None of them wear shirts whose sizes do not begin with X and many have XX or XXX or more. They don't have trouble catching cold or the flu, . . . but at 71 years old, . . . they won't catch me, . . . I know I can outrun most of them for the first 6 blocks anyway.

They spend way too much time behind the doughnut desk, . . . and foot patrol is only from the squad car door to the driver's door, . . . back, . . . doughnut & coffee while the ticket is written, . . . more foot patrol back up to the offender's door, . . . more foot patrol back to the squad car, . . . turn off the flashers, . . . put it in drive, . . . and reach for another doughnut.

At least, . . . that is the appearance. But I will have to admit, . . . Dunkin Doughnuts around here hasn't been robbed in a long, long time.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## Oddcaliber (Feb 17, 2014)

NOPD means Not Our Problem Dude! I'm glad to live in Jefferson Parish. I dial 1911.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

10 Minutes is an eternity if something bad is happening to you or a loved one. In today's world, no matter where you live, uptown, downtown, poor or rich, bad things happen. Your not really safe anywhere. Be armed and ready.


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

The response I have received is WHY do need to carry a gun?? What are you scared of?? We all know the answer. But some will point out and ask every time if I have a gun. They just don't get it.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

Chipper said:


> The response I have received is WHY do need to carry a gun?? What are you scared of?? We all know the answer. But some will point out and ask every time if I have a gun. They just don't get it.


chipper you need to tell these people that you are not scared of anybody, after all you carry a gun.


----------



## TacticalCanuck (Aug 5, 2014)

I have a really sharp stick. Since its highly visible nobody messes with me.


----------



## GTGallop (Nov 11, 2012)

Phoenix response time is AMAZING. I've had to call three or four times and they were there in two minutes. Very impressive. If there are any PHXPD folks here - KUDOS!


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

It is an oxymoron that you are denied a firearm for self defense by government because the police are to protect you and at the same time government absolves its self of any duty or liability to protect you.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 25, 2014)

I carry (and keep a loaded gun in every room of the house) because everyday I read in the news about people who are dead for want of a firearm.


----------



## Moonshinedave (Mar 28, 2013)

Why do I carry a gun? Because, cops are too damn heavy. Ok, it isn't mine, but I like it.


----------



## Doc Holliday (Dec 22, 2012)

In my opinion there are only 2 reasons to call 911...
1. to get medical help.
2. to get the police to send a coroner to pick up the body.


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

why not just respond cause I want to-what's your excuse for owning a car that goes way over the speed limit from the factory?


----------



## tinkerhell (Oct 8, 2014)

....because criminals like packing guns.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Average response time in Fort Worth went up by 50 seconds to 9 minutes and 45 seconds. On the north side, it's up to 12 minutes.
I don't *need* a reason to carry a gun, but these stats are a damn good one if I ever find myself in a conversation with an idiot.


----------



## Gimble (Aug 14, 2015)

Average response time of 10 minutes eh?

How about this:

5 minutes to mill the frame: 



3 minutes to assemble: 




So 2 minutes to spare.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Because black lives madder but whit e girls don't.
All three of them should have never been on the street in the first place.

Three arrested in 2013 murder of university student Rebecca Foley | Fox News


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

average response time is about 1200fps


----------



## chocks141 (Nov 21, 2015)

by choice, we live in a remote corner of the 9th largest county in the country. Because the entire county population is around 15,000, we have 12 patrol deputies to cover the whole county, for all shifts. They are all awesome guys who take their job serious, BUT. If I were to call for help, it is possible that ALL of the deputies on duty could be on a call 140 miles away. Best case would be them sitting in a coffee shop in town, then they might be able to get here in 1/2 an hour.

All other things aside, I can not comprehend someone putting their life, or the lives of their loved ones in a complete stranger's hands. I know no one else would protect my family with their life, like I would.


----------

