PDA

View Full Version : Gun Owners and the CPR Corollary


tboyer
02-16-2009, 2:27 PM
Can gun owners be trusted when not facing grave danger? Grab a cup,
this one is a little long.
http://tinyurl.com/94bsaa

Dr. Laura's on-air mention of my book, Safe Streets In The Nationwide
Concealed Carry Of Handguns, was superb Monday, and I am most pleased
and privileged to join her titles on her Reading Corner at
DrLaura.com. It is very important that non-gun owners appreciate the
relationship between all of our freedoms and the armed citizen,
perhaps now more than ever before. The question has been whether
Americans can be trusted to be armed wherever we have a right to be.
Our way of thinking – 90 million gun owner adults – is that the
question is not this, but how we survive in a nation where citizens
cannot trust their officials. Still, I'll answer the question with
this abbreviated excerpt from Safe Streets.

___________

I write almost entirely for non-gun owners. Reasonable non-gun owners
may feel different about becoming an armed citizen when they see a
great disparity between the predictions of the gun owners and the
failures of the predictions of the anti-gun owners. The comparison
cannot be an even-handed one as some might wish, but frank and honest
because of one reason: it's important. The dire predictions of the
anti-gun movement have never come true, while the fears and
apprehensions of the liberty movement have all come true. More of
these will materialize in 2009, we believe, and this alone can be a
very thoughtful analysis from every adult.

One of the questions about gun ownership is whether gun owners are
safe in any given community. The question has been how gun-toting
citizens behave when not confronted by crime. How do they handle
traffic stress? How do they manage a family discussion when they have
a gun on their hip? How do they function in the workplace when armed
throughout the work day?

The Virginia Tech Review Panel in turning in their narrative to the
Governor reported that they could not allow guns for their adult
students because some students felt uncomfortable. They presented a
string of very poor reasons as their best evidence for denying a civil
right and optimal safeguard of their student body. It is settled by
now that disarming students didn't work as the optimal safeguard.
Naturally, to any liberty enthusiast, it goes without saying that
that's no standard for infringing a civil right, but the trustees felt
that it was. It cost them $11 Million and thirty-two lives. It always
costs the students and their families, and non-gun owners probably
care as much as the rest of us do. The key is to place the blame where
it belongs, and to remember that blame is essential to accountability.
The response of V-Tech was poor and capitalized on emotion of nervous
students. Still, many non-gun owners would very much like one question
answered: can gun owners be trusted?

For the non-gun owner interested in exploring this, I refer you to two
models which answer your question on whether the average reasonable
person can be trusted throughout the day armed with a loaded handgun.
The first model is, of course, our best evidence - experience - and
that is the excellent record of decades of right-to-carry states who
affirm not only open and concealed carry, but Castle Doctrine, and who
also affirm the sovereign authority of constituents there. It is not
as if their arms were twisted by some lobby, it is that some of these
are frontier states who still have a deeper, proven understanding that
they cannot count on bureaucrats and their absentee policies would be
worthless. The key to fighting crime is not in absentee policy ["Don't
do anything until we get there!"], but in presence of authority – as
average reasonable persons – who do the best job of it after all. No
state has ever repealed its concealed carry laws. It works.

The second model is one I first articulated as my own years ago. I
call it the CPR Corollary to the armed citizen, and it is the second
model of whether citizens can be trusted hour by hour and in between.
Forget the incident where they may be needed, the question from
non-gun owners has always been in how they fare when not needed. Can
they be trusted?

The answer is Yes. Each of these operates in the absence of first
responders to fill the void between authorized response and emergency.
The solution is within the citizen who is present, possessed of all
legal authority to act anyway, and must not be discouraged from this.
It is now more than a matter of whether they can be trusted –
discouraging such would run counter to established public policy and
interest - it is a matter of authority and now you can add confidence
to that. The Founding Fathers said that a government which will not
trust its own citizens, itself, cannot be trusted; If the new
administration is supportive of citizen involvement, remember that we
had it first, more than forty years ago. Some say hundreds of years
ago. As the originators of the concept of citizen involvement, we
would be the best to consult. On the concept of citizen intervention,
authority to act does not come from government, it comes from us.

Here is the comparison – the corollary - between the armed citizen and
the lay administration of CPR.

1. In each case, the situation is one of grave danger, whether it is
from medical emergency or violence. Cardiac arrest is generally fatal,
and many crimes of violence do great bodily harm and become a fatality.

2. Each occurs in the absence of first responders, and is more
life–threatening every second it evolves.

3. In each case, the citizen has full authority to act in agreement
with public policy and interest.

4. In each case, the consequences of non-intervention are irrevocable
and heartbreaking.

5. The very mobility and likelihood of a citizen presence improves the
rapport between the government and the governed. How? Not by
authorization, but by non-interference, thank you. Freedom. Call it
less centralization of powers and no longer excluding the citizen from
the process of a healthy and safe community.

6. Each is proven over decades of experience.

The objections to Citizen CPR in the seventies were that the situation
should best be left to the professionals, such as Paramedics, that
citizens would exceed the scope of their authority, that they would be
sued, that they could not stay skilled and sharp because they were not
career personnel.

Why not leave it to the professionals? Because brain death begins in
four minutes, and in the hospital, nearly every unit has a crash cart
several paces down the hall. To the perspective of bureaucrats, help
is seconds away. But gun owners have their experience, too: when
seconds count, police are moments away. The CPR Corollary shows that
there is an identify of values between the immediacy of the armed
citizen and the immediacy of volunteer CPR. In the first moments of a
medical emergency or a violent crime, you are entirely on your own.
This is why a good CPR course includes artificial breathing, first-aid
and the Heimlich maneuver.

Have citizens been trustworthy on CPR? Yes. Have the fears of the
objectors come true? No. Have gun owners – 90 million of them in 2009
– been trustworthy? Yes. Have the fears of the anti-gun movement come
true? Not one.

Mulay El Raisuli
02-17-2009, 7:40 AM
Have citizens been trustworthy on CPR? Yes. Have the fears of the
objectors come true? No. Have gun owners – 90 million of them in 2009
– been trustworthy? Yes. Have the fears of the anti-gun movement come
true? Not one.


I'm old enough to remember all the 'arguments' against teaching We The People the art of CPR. The corollary between the two is right on the money. The only problem I see is that you have used logic & the example of the Real World & we all know that the Brady Bunch doesn't care about either.

The Raisuli