Who needs guns when we have the police?

Typical Punishment

Typical Punishment

We have all heard the gun-grabbers bleating that citizens don’t need guns because the police protect them.  It’s one of their standard arguments.  They often stamp their feet when saying it, like a child complaining that mommy won’t serve dessert first.

Does that argument hold any water?


While common sense tells us that calling 911 does not result in the instantaneous appearance of a police officer, some people lack common sense.  To those people, who claim to live in a “fact-based” universe, the facts are both clear and troubling: the average response time for a 911 call in a city can be more than 10 minutes.  A lunatic armed with a machete or even a musket would be able to cause considerable havoc in that time frame.

And that’s assuming that the appearance of a police officer will make the situation better.  Several gun blogs keep a running count of misbehaving law-enforcement personnel.  Perusing their documentation of misbehaving cops, it’s not uncommon to see things like this (or even much worse):

Chicago Cop Arrested Four Times in Seven Years Still Working, Makes $80K

And what was this paragon of justice arrested for?  The Chicago Sun-Times says:

“Rizzo has been arrested for domestic battery, child endangerment and aggravated assault with a gun.”

Sounds serious!  Was it?

“Rizzo was arrested for aggravated assault with a gun and domestic battery after a fight with a 40-year-old man and the man’s 18-year-old son…The arresting officers said Rizzo punched the older man, grabbed the gun, put the muzzle in the man’s eye and told him, “How about I shoot you in the face?””

But wait…there’s more:

“A month later, on Jan. 31, 2011, Rizzo was arrested again, this time for domestic battery, after officers said he grabbed his girlfriend “by her throat and began to strangle her.” The arresting officers said she broke away and locked herself in a bedroom. They said Rizzo kicked in the door just before they arrived. The officers “photographed alleged injuries to victim and damage to the bedroom door,” and the incident was referred to the city’s Independent Police Review Authority for investigation.”

And he was allowed to remain a cop?

“According to the Sun-Times, Rizzo has never been disciplined for violating Chicago Police Department (CPD) rules that “generally target officers who break the law or otherwise bring discredit upon the department,”

Gosh, that’s such a comfort to me.  There is a silver lining though:

“Rizzo was reportedly relieved of his “police powers” on June 13, 2013 and placed on “call back” (desk duty), only after the Chicago Sun-Times asked about his status. Just as his fellow law-breaking officers, Rizzo remains eligible to collect his pension.”

Well, anyone who isn’t a die-hard liberal has some familiarity with “the Chicago way”. And while thugs like Rizzo strut around with their badges, Chicago simultaneously banned civilian gun ownership while experiencing a massive increase in violent crime.  So, the real question is: how confident are you that Ofc. Rizzo will do his job if he shows up?

Through the miracle of modern liberalism, the creators & enforcers of that policy were able to maintain their support of the policy while shielding themselves from any facts that would tend to discredit said policy.  I have heard liberalism described as “the heartfelt belief that it is possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end”.  This tends to support that theory.

But the people weren’t so starry-eyed about the effect of Chicago’s strict gun laws and high crime rate:

Victims No More: Concealed Carry Coming to Chicago

While appearing to be a victory on its face, the story is much more complicated than it seems. From a commenter on the story named Cole:

“I wouldn’t celebrate just yet. Madigan and the Chicago machine still have some games left to play. Quinn is refusing to sign the bill so townships have time to pass assault weapon bans. And then he’ll likely issue an amendatory veto. Basically gut the bill and turn it into “may issue” pile of garbage. Quinn is facing a tough primary for his Governor’s gig. So he isn’t going to turn on his base and sign the bill. Now this is where the games get thick. Sure the bill passed with veto proof numbers but only because Madigan allowed it to. They can kill the bill and let chaos reign. Or more likely Madigan can force his minions to pass the new “may issue” bill that will essentially block conceal carry. Madigan can’t upset his base either. His daughter is running for Governor too. Ain’t Chicago grand! Of course, a bill that restrictive would lead right back to the courts. Which again, would benefit Madigan. Pro-2nd groups would have to spend time and money for years pushing this through the courts. All the while, the Chicago machine keeps on running and citizens are denied their right to defend themselves. Don’t open the champagne until the original bill is signed and becomes law.”

So, finally, back to the question posed at the beginning of this post: is it true that the citizens don’t need guns because the police will protect us?

The facts say no.  The police are not sufficiently trained, sufficiently numerous or sufficiently trustworthy to be the sole guarantor of our safety.

Anyone who says that the police eliminate the need for armed citizens is either ignorant or lying.


Yep, the governor pulled a fast one.


To their list of failings, we can add police officers who wear military decorations that they didn’t earn.


10 police raids gone wrong


Bet a few bucks on a game?  It might get you killed in a SWAT raid.


Share and Enjoy:
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • email
  • RSS

Related posts:

One Response to “Who needs guns when we have the police?”

  1. W1zard says:

    FBI 2012 stats show that people shot and killed 260 criminals and the police shot and killed 393 criminals. Police are ahead by 130+. My point is their is 260 cases where police were not their in time, because “WE THE PEOPLE” were armed by the 2nd, They still get to enjoy their families. How that for gun control.