A Little Hard Data to PO the Anti-Gun Crowd

| December 17, 2012

Some “gentle souls” out there think all guns should be banned.  They are indeed ignorant and misguided fools.

They’re probably beyond education on this point.  But I’ll try to enlighten them anyway.

There are many reasons the 2nd Amendment recognizes an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.  Some are related to liberty.  But one even more near and dear to all of us is personal protection.

Here is a short, “quick and dirty” list of average police response times to emergency calls (generally defined as violent crimes in progress requiring an immediate police response) in major cities in the US.  In smaller towns and rural areas, the response time can be expected to be longer.

Nationwide Averages:  http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus/previous/cvus107.pdf

I’ve read somewhere that the average violent crime takes on the order of 1-2 minutes.   That’s eminently believable; I damn well know someone with a knife can carve another person up like a steak to the point they won’t survive in a minute or less.  A baseball bat can do the trick even quicker.  So that means in only a small fraction of the cases (far less than 10%) would the police even be able to arrive during the crime – much less in time to prevent it, or to prevent injury of the innocent.

There’s a good reason for the old saying “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.”  It happens to be true.

Anti-gun fools, I don’t much care if you want to help criminals and make yourselves easy targets incapable of defending yourself against an armed attacker.  But I take exception to you making it impossible for me to defend myself and my family.

And so does the US Constitution.

Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists, Guns

Comments (131)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Country Singer says:

    Don’t forget, the cops don’t even have any obligation to protect you: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

  2. melle1228 says:

    That is the problem. They don’t care what is in the Constitution. They believe the all power government will protect them. How’d that work out for victims of Sandy and Katrina?

  3. Jonn Lilyea says:

    And after you’ve waited for the NYC cops to arrive, you’re more likely to be shot than the crook.

  4. DefendUSA says:

    Hondo…the AP is reporting that mass murders are on the decline. Cannot find the cites for the article but I saw the “facts” on the Blaze–


  5. RandomNCO says:

    Detroit takes so long to respond because they send the SWAT out on every call. It takes some time strapping yourself up in all that high speed gear.

  6. Spade says:

    Me and my Sig P225 ended up standing between my neighbor with three broken ribs and her Marine ex-boyfriend who had just broken both doors to our apartment building. I was just taking out the trash and happened to have not taken my sidearm off.

    911 was called. Despite being in the heart of our downtown, reporting a domestic violence call, and telling dispatch I had a gun and a carry permit they still took 5 to 10 minutes.

  7. Green Thumb says:

    You forgot to include Memphis, a war zone unto itself.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Note: Those times are from dispatch to 10-23 (arrived on scene). Which usually means the officer is pulling up to the address – not face to face with the victim. I’d add another minute or two to those times.

  9. Hondo says:

    Anonymous: likely the case in reality. I elected to report the data I found vice adding any corrections I couldn’t substantiate.

    The reported data is bad enough.

  10. NHSparky says:

    We had a case where a person was being threatened in his home and the cops took over two HOURS to show up.

    What most people don’t realize is that in my town of just over 30,000, there are at any given time SIX officers (two of whom are dispatchers) to cover an area of over 50 square miles.

    The running joke around here is if someone calls in to report being beaten/raped/murdered (although no murders here in 10-plus years) the cops will say, “Can you come down and make a report?”

  11. Spade says:


    Not my pic, but one of a fellow gun board member who lives in WV.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Right. I appreciate your post and research and certainly wasn’t intending to be critical. Only trying to add some context from my patrol experience.

  13. Hondo says:

    Spade: must be a Photoshop job, amigo. Everyone knows you don’t use that kind of gun for hunting!

    Yes, I was being sarcastic. (smile)

  14. Anonymous says:

    Some idiots also think alien lizard people have infiltrated the government. The larger block of people that are talking about gun rights now aren’t the ones who want to take all guns away, they merely want to have a discussion on what’s reasonable — which, frankly, is a perfectly fine discussion to have.

    Nobody is coming to take all your guns, I assure you. Hell, in another few years you’ll be able to print your own gun via a 3D printer — this has already been (mostly) done, and owning weapons for protection, among other reasons, is perfectly reasonable. We’ll never be able to prevent the occasional tragedy where someone just goes off, but if we can reduce the likelihood while not negatively impacting others, that’s a good goal to aim for.

  15. Joe Williams says:

    When I took my AR10 on this year’s handcapped Deer hunt. All I heart from the Wardens is they would like to shoot it. Joe

  16. Roger in Republic says:

    It took an hour for a county deputy to get out to our house when my wife called 911. I confronted a group of trespassers cutting firewood in a National Forrest and using my driveway to haul it off. One of them tried to run me over at my gate. I touched the butt of my 1911 but did not draw it. I could not fire at a jeep that was driving away. We waited for the law and he cited them and chased them off. They were armed and one of them is known to be a bit crazy. Stuff like that happens out here all the time as a result of the meth phenomena. The cop was not the least worried about the .45 on my hip. He did say that it would look bad if I shot someone in the back.

  17. bcousins says:

    There are those of us who would be willing to consider support for reasonable additional “gun controls” such as the requirement to lock up guns in a house where there is a person residing who has mental disorder(s), in exchange for adequate care and control of such mentally ill persons. Proper diagnosis and treatment for those with mental disorders is woefully inadequate in this country. The inadequate diagnosis and treatment of those with mental disorders is analogous to patients with angina being sent home with nothing but a prescription for a painkiller to control chest pain. The doctor would be sued for malpractice, but shrinks are getting away with psychiatric malpractice every day.
    As most of us who read TAH know and understand we already have lots of laws controlling the ownership and use of guns, many written by those with little or no understanding of guns, exemplified by the laughable categorizing of “types” of assault weapons.
    Most of us understand that the kindergarten massacre could just as easily have been committed without any weapons except hands and feet in the time it took for police to arrive. We need to more closely control the mentally ill, not the instruments they use.

  18. melle1228 says:


    Exactly how would the “legislation” that is being proposed have stopped the tragedy. You people want to have a conversation, please tell me that.

    There was no reason the women who owned the guns shouldn’t have had the guns, and her son was DENIED a gun when he went to buy one. Gun regulations worked. Short of opening up medical records and finding out who is mentally ill and again THE ACTUAL GUN OWNER WASN’T- you wouldn’t have stopped this tragedy.

    SO this discussion you want to have has nothing to do with this tragedy which was about mental illness and personal responsibility. It is just another attempt to use something tragic to control people and take away rights.

  19. Anonymous says:

    @18: Let’s be careful with the ‘you people’ notion – I’m FOR gun rights. Maybe there’s more that can be done to make it safer, and maybe that’s worth the cost and maybe it isn’t, I don’t know – hence why a discussion isn’t a bad thing. Lay out all the options, examine them carefully, and go from there.

    No gun legislation would have stopped the tragedy – none. Nothing could have done so once the shooter was in the mindset of committing it.

    The discussion I want to have is what DO we do – and maybe the answer to that is ‘nothing’, since tragedies like this are going to happen no matter what we do. But maybe we need better training on gun safety? Maybe we look at technology that restricts fire access to owners? Maybe the costs of those are excessive given the millions of gun owners and, thankfully, relatively ‘few’ victims, despite the sadness at their loss. But if you can’t even discuss this without digging in your heels, calling out someone who wants to hear the facts and pointing a finger saying, ‘you people’, … well, that’s just not helpful, in my opinion.

  20. Hondo says:

    Anonymous (19): your position regarding having a sane discussion is reasonable. But we’re a loooooooong way way from having the technology for stuff like reliable person-locking triggers; requiring something like that today is simply a ban by another name.

    The default position for any discussion should be to do nothing unless the proposed solution is demonstrably workable and has a chance to improve the situation without unduly restricting individual freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. However, that’s not what the left wants here. They want some kind of additional controls, and they’re going to pull out all the stops to try and get them – whether or not they do a damn thing worthwhile.

    Unfortunately, the default for most politicians seems to be, “We MUST do something – we can figure out later if it worked.” Sorry, I just ain’t buying that option. Something about the road to hell’s pavement comes to mind.

  21. Nik says:


    You mean something like “we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in the bill”?

  22. USMCE8Ret says:

    Good points, Hondo.

    Not to change the subject, but for some reason that reminds me of the law-makers in both Washington and Colorado, who seem to be wondering about how best to determine the legal limit of THC in the system for those caught “driving under the influence of drugs”.

    Seems to me so subjective. It’s almost as if they thought, “Let’s pass the law, legalizing marijuana possession” without considering the ramifications of doing so over the broader scope of the issue.

    Now they’re having to back peddle and consider things they should have considered in the first place, before legalizing it.

    “We can figure it out later.” Indeed.

  23. Anonymous says:

    @20: I just brought thumbprint trigger-locks as an example, but to take that and run with it, my position wouldn’t be that we should require that right now, but that if that IS deemed a useful (partial) solution, we should maybe invest in the technology, or at least make it known that in, say, 10 years, that’s what we’re aiming for, which might stimulate some commercial-sector investment in the technology. In other words, we won’t get there without some reasonable understanding that that is a direction we need to move in. Put another way, such methods won’t be built if they’re not going to be used. Solutions, even partial ones, needn’t be immediate.

    As for the politicians, I agree that they’re all scrambling to be seen ‘doing something’, which is never, ever good. Unfortunately, given the way tragic events like this are covered in the news, I feel it’s only a matter of time before enough of these happen in a person’s collective memory where the majority sentiment is to support it. Given that, I’d rather jump the gun (so to speak) and make sure that any effort that IS proposed is a reasonably sensible one.

    I don’t know what form that takes, mind you – even using the example above of fingerprint locks, that doesn’t stop people from printing their own non-lockable frame in a similar 10-year time-frame. It’s a tough issue, undoubtedly, but I just think it warrants discussion rather than the oversimplification of ‘guns are bad/good’ that it often breaks down to.

  24. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    @19 I suspect the “do nothing” is probably the most likely outcome. If mom denied to herself that the boy was a nutjob and took him out of public school to home school him thereby avoiding any detection by public officials there was little to be done to stop this.

    A reasonable discussion about mental illness in America is difficult, but I believe appropriate at this time. A major question about mental illness is whether or not an effective program is possible without abusing those in its care. Sadly, I also believe we will never find every broken mind before it erupts. I am also convinced that disarming the law-abiding public does little to advance that discussion on mental illness and the appropriate responses.

  25. Hondo says:

    VOV: sadly, I’m quite positive you’re right. Some problems just don’t have solutions.

    Finding every “broken mind before it erupts” would require the ability to perfectly predict an individual human’s reactions and behavior under any and all circumstances. We are no where near being able to do that, today. And IMO, we never will be able to do that.

    The other possible solution is an absolute dictatorship that enforces order with an iron hand. And even then, one can argue that just moves the source of such violence from the disgruntled to the ruling oligarchy.

    I’ll bass on that, thanks. That cure is worse than the disease. Just ask those who survived the Gulag.

  26. Ex-PH2 says:

    I used to live in Chicago. In fact, I lived there for 30 years, until I moved out to where I am now.

    My last apartment was 1.5 blocks from the local police precinct station — walking distance. I was in the north end of the city, commonly known as Rogers Park. My street was pretty quiet most of the time. One night, two guys got into a fistfight out in from of my building, so I called the 911 number, told the dispatcher what was going on and said that a squad car was needed “now”, because those two acted like they were going to kill each other. The noise from them was quite loud.

    As I said, I was a block and a half away from the precinct station. I noted the time it took for a squad car to finally pull around the corner and two cops to get out of it — 12 long minutes. In those twelve minutes, one of those guys could have badly injured or killed the other one.

    So I moved. But before I moved, I went to the local police station, which is about a mile and a half away, and asked how long it would take them to arrive for a 911 call. They said, depending on distance, about 2 to 5 minutes. They also showed me their log books as confirmation. So I moved.

  27. melle1228 says:


    Exactly right, guns were not the systemic problem in ANY of these shootings.. Mental illness and violence was. Let’s have a conversation on those issues..


    You want a discussion? I gave you a discussion. The problem is discussion leads to legislation, and I am sick of the government trying to legislate personal responsibility. It can’t be done. And I said “you people” want a conversation … Did you not identify yourself as wanting a conversation? I thought I read that.

  28. Nik says:

    Maybe I’m black-helicoptering this, but this could be the plan. First an Executive Order type move, or something rushed through Congress (I’m betting some eager beaver already has a candidate bill in hand). This would eliminate or greatly curtail the right to own weapons of the home-defense type.

    Then, as crime skyrockets, people will be going to the gov’t asking them for help. Obama’s already got a plan for that.

    Remember this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwaAVJITx1Y

  29. dnice says:

    Ouch that was a rough one John (but true). In regards to SWAT what happened Jose Guerena’s case?

    Also riding NJ/NYC transit for work, i always think of crazy Ivan a with a knife ( see http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/nyregion/13stab.html? )pagewanted=all&_r=0 ).

    Of course we all know how 911, Madrid and the London bombings went down.

  30. melle1228 says:


    Reading some of the boards like at MSNBC I see people calling for Obama to EO it. I can’t believe people would willingly cede control of their Constitutional Rights to one person, but that is just me..

  31. Ex-PH2 says:

    I’ve seen that video, but it was from a campaign speech Bo made in 2008. Nothing has been done. Yes, there’s the NDAA bill, but has anyone seen any kind of uptick in a lean toward martial law? I haven’t. In fact, the laziness of the incumbent, who now gets his second term, has been in the forefront of everything else that I’ve. It’s all ‘yap, yap, yap,” and not much else. And remember, the NDAA was sponsored by John McCain (GOP) and Harry “The Finger” Reid and passed behind closed doors in 2010.

    Here’s the full text: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr2647/text

    Nothing has happened. The whispered “I’ll have more flexibility after the election” tete-a-tete between Bo and Medvedev might have resulted in — well, something — but nothing has happened. Bo won the election, he’s still the president until Jan. 20, 2013, and he’s had full authority to implement — well, whatever — and has done NOTHING. And he’s NOT going to. He gets re-inaugurated on 1/20/13, for another four years of do-nothing.

    So can you get off the panic track for a few minutes? You know, take a breath, pull yourself together, and look around. Nothing’s changed. There’s no secret plot to throw everyone into FEMA camps. It hasn’t happened yet, so when is it going to? On Dec. 21?

    The discussion is already in the works. The rebuttal is already in the works. After a few weeks/months of bickering, it will die away until the next mass attack grabs the MSM attention span and then it will start all over again.

    My view of the left or libtards, or whatever you want to call them, is that they’re a bunch of little kids who want everything handed to them on a plate, who want NO responsibility for anything, and who want Mommy and Daddy looking after them for eternity.

    Well, life is not that way. It sucks and you have to take responsibility for your own life, and take care of yourself on your own. That’s what the grownups do in the real world.

    Deal with it.

  32. UpNorth says:

    To address one thing that keeps coming up, the distance to the police department has nothing to do with response times. The PD doesn’t keep a few officers and cruisers on stand-by at the station to respond to calls for service.
    The reason that response times are long are multiple, fewer cops on the streets, the computer programs that all dispatch centers run now, that prioritize calls for service. Those programs are written by administrations of the PD’s, people long removed from any common sense.
    It’s likely that the officers on the streets are tied up on barking dog calls, domestics, neighborhood disputes, loud music complaints, a drunk driver or two, accidents or the one or two free cars, are located on the far end of the city or county.
    So, depend on the government to keep you safe, or depend on yourself.
    And, Nik @28, Di-Fi(Feinstein) has already said she’ll have a bill ready to be introduced on day one of the next congress.

  33. Ex-PH2 says:

    For anyone who wants to see exactly what and how many executive orders have been signed into effect since 2001, go to this link:


    Tons of stuff. Have fun reading it all.

  34. James says:

    For anybody who cares, over 43 laws were violated by that scum who killed the kids. Do you think another law would help? Do you think gun laws inconvenience anybody but law abiding citizens? Do you think if he couldn’t get guns he wouldn’t have done anything(like a propane tank and a flare gun?)

    The 2nd amendment is 2nd only to free speech in how important it was to our framers.

    You can have my guns lead first, after prying them from my cold dead hands. Cliche? Don’t care, still applies. Oh and bring a lot of friends, and let them go first…

  35. Joe says:

    “The 2nd amendment is 2nd only to free speech in how important it was to our framers”.

    The “framers” never saw twenty innocent little kids murdered in their classroom.

  36. Hondo says:

    And as I’ve told you elsewhere, Joe: had one member of the staff been armed that day, there’s a pretty good chance that those 20 children would still be alive.

    The school was a gun-free zone by legal fiat. So the only one there with a gun was the shooter.

    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

  37. Hondo says:

    OK, here we go – a blatant appeal to emotion in an attempt to steer the subject away from logical discussion.

    Transparent as hell, Joe – and an ineffective attempt to boot. We’ve see that tried too many times before for that to be effective. Try again.

  38. melle1228 says:

    @37 Not even a member of the staff. I would venture to say that EVERY one of those parents who lost their child wishes they have been in front of their child protecting them with a gun.

  39. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    @39. Damn straight. How many of us would have given anything to have been there with a weapon? I know the answer: all but Joe, Insipid, and the John Cole’s juiced balloonists.

  40. Nik says:


    Bullshit. Cherry Valley Massacre.

  41. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    One of the 8 members of John Cole’s worldwide fan club (Bethany) wrote last night that she doesn’t carry anything but mace. Sounds reasonable to me. Glock vs. Mace at 50 feet.

  42. Joe says:

    “OK, here we go – a blatant appeal to emotion in an attempt to steer the subject away from logical discussion.

    Bulls**t Hondo. The fact that you are willing to continue sacrificing little children on your 2nd amendment altar shows you, like so many posters here, have little empathy. Don’t know if you started out that way or the service made you so cold. But you are on the wrong sideof history.

  43. MCPO NYC USN (Ret.) says:


    With all that extra time on hand, perhaps in a nation where guns are taken away or restricted from law abiding citizens (wishful thinking by some), we can train everyone on how to reason with the criminal who has a gun.

    Problem solved!


    Arm responsible adults. Rounds on target.

    Probelm solved!

  44. melle1228 says:

    @43 Joe this country is willing to sacrifice babies on the privacy right alter. Let me guess you are perfectly fine with that?

    Second evil exists in the world even in a world without guns. Liberals love to dream up their utopian version of the world. Evil will always exist. Protecting ourselves from such evil is a NATURAL God given, creator-given right.

  45. USMCE8Ret says:

    #43 – Joe… Instead of reading into everything posted here with so much misdirected emotion, take a step back and READ what is written. Think and ponder about it for a moment. Maybe you’ll get the point of view that’s being offered instead of jumping to conclusions?

  46. Ex-PH2 says:

    Personally, AirCave, Hondo, et al., it might be more effective to give teachers some kind of defense training that doesn’t involve the use of or need for guns. By that, I mean using whatever is at hand as a deflection or distraction so that there is time for the kids to get to hiding/safety, maybe out of the room. It should be as important as a fire drill.

    You don’t do kids a favor by avoiding the issue, either. They’re better off it it’s dealt with directly. I say this because my mother and father had a blunt and very up-front discussion with my sister, my brother and me when Starkweather and his girlfriend went on their rampage. It was also discussed at the grade school I was attending. I think that kids are a lot more sensible about these things than parents are even remotely willing to admit to themselves.

    And get over the idea that pleading with a shooter is going to have any effect other than getting killed. Being nice has to go right out the window along with good manners, when someone is attacking you. That’s what self-defense classes taught in the 1970s, and it still holds true today.

    What classroom object could you use on a shooter? Oh, a fire extinguisher. A chair or stool. The flagpole in the corner. A pair of scissors, if you can get that close.

  47. James says:

    I completely disagree the framers didn’t see stuff as horrific as that! What about what cannons did to houses with people who occupied them! What about the families destroyed for supporting the revolution. They sacrificed all! Try again!

  48. Joe says:

    What’s next, weapons training for kindergarteners in the name of the 2nd? How much more surreal can it get?

  49. Nik says:


    While we appreciate your suggestion, you’re fucking crazy, so let’s just ignore it.