Talking Point: "I am a First Responder".

Status
Not open for further replies.
^^^

I think that we, as a group, filter out the world into people like "us" and antis. But that's not the case... hard core antis are actually not that common. Much more common are "know-nothings" that know what they are spoon-fed by the mass media. Those are the people I am trying to reach. When you make them understand that it's volunteers who stand between them and (fire, medical emergency, etc) because there are not enough full time professionals to be everywhere, everytime and can leverage our interest in self defense to one of community defense you can build a cognate set of ideas and may be able to reach them.


It's just one tool in the rhetorical bag. My frearms battles are no longer won on the range in competiton. My firearms battles are now won one housewife at a time. Right now I could care less about 2nd amendment proponents who can shoot. Far more valuable to be able to TALK.


Willie

.
 
Willie Sutton said:
Right now I could care less about 2nd amendment proponents who can shoot. Far more valuable to be able to TALK.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more, Willie. And I think you're spot on when you say that hard-core anti's are in the minority. But I think that for a lot of people whose opinions are based on what they see on the news, the "first responder" argument will be filtered through their fears of "more guns on the street."

The analogy between CCW permit holders and citizens who have taken emergency medicine courses and are certified as first responders is very tempting, but I think it's a false one. Certification as a medical first responder implies that one will be helping others; the primary purpose isn't to do first aid on oneself.

The primary purpose of a CCW permit is for self-defense; the secondary purpose is for defense of one's family. Protecting strangers is a distant third. It's natural to imagine being a hero, being the one who steps up and stops or prevents a crime -- but I think that when engaging anti-gun (better non-gun) folks in conversation, it's best to stress the first two. We don't want to give people who may be on the fence about this issue the impression that we're eager to play cop or hero.

The one place where I think the analogy is valid is that Rule One, for medical first responders, is "Make sure the scene is safe -- don't become another victim." I think we're apt to overlook the importance of this for situations where we might want to use a gun to protect others. And for the people we'd like to convince, it may be also useful to stress that we're guided by "First do no harm," as well.
 
MLeake, in Kansas you would be known as a good Samaritan for all those things you have done. I wish there were more people like you.
Willie, I understand and agree with what you are trying to do here as well as the sentiment behind it. You are trying to bridge the gap in the minds of the ignorant masses. However your nomenclature is borderline deceptive. When people hear the term first responder, they think EMS, fire, police, rescue, etc. They do not associate a good Samaritan with a firearm in that same line of thought. I do however disagree with your claim that because you have a ccl you are in some position of authority above the persons to your left and right at a fire or medical emergency. Your ccl has zero to do with those situations. To claim anything else is incorrect and self-aggrandizing. If you are the first at a medical emergency when I roll up in the ambulance, I will ask you what you saw and what if any interventions you have provided to my patient. It is then up to me whether you are allowed to remain on that scene. Your status as a ccl holder means squat. If you are competent and willing, I may ask for your assistance until more help arrives if the situation warrants it. You are under no obligation to provide any further assistance to me though. It is up to you but you sound like the type who would gladly help. On the other hand, I have also had people who would not do what they were told and were hindering my ability to care for the patient. In that scenario I have asked them to leave the scene. If they refuse I will radio to dispatch to send a deputy to remove that person from the scene.
As I said initially, I agree with what you are doing but I don't likethe idea of purposely confusing people into thinking you aresomething you are not.
 
When people hear the term first responder, they think EMS, fire, police, rescue, etc. They do not associate a good Samaritan with a firearm in that same line of thought.


That's exactly the point. It's what we should change.

We need to be seen as the good guys that we ACTUALLY ARE.
This is a war of public relations. It's a salesmans pitch.

SELL us as a group. CLOSE THE SALE to your neighbor. Use the language of a SALESMAN.

In the war of using creative language WE ARE LOSING. We need to win.


To win the war, it's time for US to begin to control the language of the debate.


Speak to the fact that bad guys are less likely to rob THEM becasuse the bad guys fear that the potential victim is one of US should be used as a constant talking point. WE help THEM even when the assistance is cryptic. SELL IT.


"Yes, Mam, I am an armed citizen. No, Mam, I mean no harm to anyone. Yes, Mam, if I see a bad man with a gun shooting your children before the police arrive I will help if I can. Yes, Mam, I would prefer to let the police take care of it, just like I would prefer to a cardiologist to be on hand when my Father has his next heart attack, but since that's not likely I took CPR, and in the same view of hoping for the best while preparing for the worst I choose to be armed. Yes, Mam, I also volunteer with the Boy Scouts and am a member of the Rotary and Toastmasters. I am your neighbor. I am a good citizen"....




Show some creative thinking, guys. In the words of Bill Jordan, there is no second place winner.


Willie

.
 
Last edited:
As a Paramedic I don't give a rats ass what someone wants to be called when the shtf, just do something to help. But I do agree with Willie Sutton, we need to be positive and bridge the communication gap.
 
Fight fight fight....

It sounds from a few of WS's recent posts on TFL that fights & confrontations are more important that rational thought or civil discourse.
The forum member is entitled to their views but I'm not going to waste any time with meaningless topics.

ClydeFrog
 
Nitpicking and straws.

At the exact time of an incident is the person receiving the crime against them an initial respondent to the crime, or a victim?

When I think of this I look to the word "respond." The person, at time of incident, is an immediate victim (one that is acted on, usually adversely.) Respond, on the other hand, is in answer to, in this case, an incident.

Therefore, imo, a person having an act committed against them is in fact NOT the first responder, rather the first victim (responders are in answer to the situation of the victim).

As far as who is a first responder….99.99% of the time the TERMINOLOGY is reserved to those who are trained and employed to deal with all the encompassing issues/crimes/situations of the public (ie: police, fire, ems).

TECHNICALLY, if you want to to get to the gritty, the LITERAL first responder would be the first person on scene that is NOT the victim.

For this reason, and solely for the sake of this argument, it would not be a bad idea to characterize two responsive divisions. LITERAL first responder and TRAINED (employed) first responder. With these two subdivisions comes laws and possible litigation based on the actions of the first responder and their status, training, and intent (ie: good sumaritan law).

I also recognize the difference between civilian (police) and non-civilan (military). However being that the public is not in daily contact with the military personnel, and that they do not have the authority or powers the Police do (therefore creating a legal divide); it is not absurd to understand the practice of the phrase by police. To say we should b outraged by that is, though, more absurd than the previous issue.

and Willie, we get it, you don't like the majority of cops…getting into the field cops learn to accept the ridicule and know those people will still call and that they will still serve those same ridiculous people. You come off very bitter…i'm sure there's some allegations or failed apps that goes along with that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I recently had a police officer that I had graduated high school with inform me that his worst fear is showing up to a call where someone with a CCW attempted to save the day. He then went on about how poor his departments response time was but "It isn't because of poor intentions". As he proceeded to lecture me about my military training not being adequate for legal self defense, I decided I needed to exit the conversation.

I have nothing against First Responders, however I have no intention of sitting idly by when I can actually take actions that will save lives. If my military ID or CCW license doesn't apply, screw it I am still a Red Cross lifeguard. In fact, that is the first card I'll pull out no matter what the situation.
 
As he proceeded to lecture me about my military training not being adequate for legal self defense, I decided I needed to exit the conversation.
Click to expand...

Was he lecturing you, or telling you something *true* that you didn't like?


I don't know any cops that don't appreciate good samaritans….weekend rambo joe is the guys they are wary of.
 
As a "first responder" (Firefighter/EMT)
I will add my two cents:

First off this attitude:


Our 'First Responders', our LEO are nothing more than civilians paid to do full time what we do given the chance. If the idea that this 'advanced training' is what gives them the title, then I would love to go take the training.

They should have no more powers, they should have no more rights. Even when it comes to arrest.

We did not create an 'us versus them'. They did. By their own actions. By placing themselves above us 'civilians'.
Click to expand...

IS BS!!! We are NOT placing ourselfs over you.

Our "training" it only part of what gives us the means of doing our job effectivly. The other part is teamwork and close co-operation with the other people. I know what the other guys on my crew are going to do before they do it.... If I'm hanging off a 100 foot cliff trying to pick off a person that got stuck trying to climb down I don't want joe blow working the haul system or doing the safty checks. I want someone I have worked with and trainined with so that I KNOW that THEY KNOW what they are doing.
We even have a year long "probationary" period for new hires to see if they are going to work out... This is in reality a continuation of the hiring prosses so that we can see if they are truly cut out for the job. They may hold all the needed creditials and certifications but that dosen't mean they will be a good firefighter.



Second:
We (firefighters)
Have ZERO problems with "civilians" getting training... However, The ugly truth is these job *can* be very dangerous. And haveing some training is very likely to get you in over your head and kill you. The second half of this ugly truth is that most people that are "trying to help" just slow us down and get in the way. Instead of having to focus on the patient now we have to treat the patient AND whoever was "trying to help".
So go get all the training you want. You can enroll in a fire academy very easily. You don't have to get a job to get certified. But keep in mind one thing.
Taking a class is NOT the same as doing something full time.

Here is an analogy... Jogging every day and takeing a Carbine class dosen't make you an Army Ranger does it?
 
Last edited:
I'd rather call myself a "good Samaritan" if I have to call myself anything at all; in part because I don't want to associate with a lot of the people who call themselves "first responders" -- just like they don't want to associate with me.

Whoever is at fault for this "us vs. them" animosity, it is real.
 
Was he lecturing you, or telling you something *true* that you didn't like?
Click to expand...

That is a very good point, and it just been left at that you would be fully correct, he would have been mostly right and it is something that I would not have wanted to hear. His overall point was that he believed protection was up to the police, even after pointing out a (his words) dismal response time.

It might bear on the conversation that we both went to HS in New York, I managed to escape that state twelve years ago and have not looked back. The whole conversation was started when it appeared as if retired LEO's were going to be exempt from all of the NYS firearms nonsense that was recently passed. I mentioned to him that I did not see it as being appropriate that only LEO's and retired LEO's were going to be allowed to defend themselves. Granted, I could have phrased it far more tactfully, but I didn't.
 
Last edited:
While I firmly believe that he who controls the terminology controls the debate, I cannot agree with all of us calling ourselves first responders. In fact, I am pretty certain that in my state the term "first responder" is defined in state statute, and for me to call myself that when I am not a police officer, fireman, or EMT/paramedic would be illegal.

Statutes notwithstanding, IMHO the term "first responder" in general parlance already has an established meaning, and if we try to assume the mantle already worn by those who fit the accepted categories of first responder will only make us look like idiots (at best), or deliberate imposters (at worst).
 
^^^

Then suggest an easy to understand alternative that will ring well and be immediately acceptable to the common soccer-mom.

I have no intellectual investment into any one phrase or statement. I am interested in what works, and what will cause our efforts to be received in a more responsive way by the great mass of undecided people. If the mainstream media can use talking points and sound bites... so can we.

To a few above posts, my views on the dismal state of urban policing (A) has nothing to do with this, is (B) an observation that many make, and (C) takes away nothing from my cordial relationship with many of my friends who are local LEO's. To a man, they all support CCW.


We are all in this together. Let's make it work.


Willie


.
 
Last edited:
I have no intellectual investment into any one phrase or statement. I am interested in what works, and what will cause our efforts to be received in a more responsive way by the great mass of undecided people.
Click to expand...


I must be ignorantly blissful in that I am not aware of a general mass who is conflicted on the verbiage and necessity to define and distinguish, beyond already socially (and legally) accepted terms, for first-responders, good samaritans, and CCW wannabe heroes.

If you're not a cop, and you want to be a well-do-good citizen than be all the things that encompass a GOOD SAMARITAN (ie: observe, report, and take action-within reason based on situation, training, urgency, etc.-).
 
Willie Sutton said:
Then suggest an easy to understand alternative that will ring well and be immediately acceptable to the common soccer-mom.
Click to expand...
I don't know of one and I can't think of one. The anti-gun Suzie Soccer-moms already have their minds made up, so I don't think calling myself something I'm not is likely to change their minds.

I actually sort of lean toward "free citizen" ... except I'm not really that, either (although it is what I aspire to be).

Frankly, I'm not interested in convincing the Suzie Soccer-moms of the world. The only people I'm concerned about are the people who write the laws. For them, I explain that I am Vietnam veteran, a taxpayer, a constituent, and a direct descendant of a U.S. Supreme Court justice, and that I do not appreciate their promulgating laws that are in direct contravention of the Constitution. I also take every opportunity to remind them that they took an oath to uphold and to defend that Constitution. (Not that it does any good -- they ALL preface every anti-2A proposal with, "We can respect the Second Amendment and still make it so nobody can have guns." I haven't figured out yet how that works.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top