Talking Point: "I am a First Responder".

[Willie Sutton]

Frankly, I'm not interested in convincing the Suzie Soccer-moms of the world.


Sadly, they are the ones who swing the vote, and who we most desperately need to reach.

They do not respond well to terms like "Free Citizen", "Patriot", or any of the other catch-phrases that we all use as a code to represent our value system. "We" understand the code. To "them" the terms are scary... and after all aren't black guns scary too?

We ignore these neighbors of ours at our peril.


Willie


.

 

[jmr40]

I don't like the term "first responder". It is confusing. Perhaps "Emergency Responder" would be a better term, but for now it is what it is. There is a difference between being the first person to arrive at the scene of an emergency, and being a certified first responder. I'm part of a local volunteer search and rescue team. We also respond to natural and man made disasters and most of our folks are certified as first responders. I start the 3 month class next week and will be certified in May.

Even at that there are different levels of first responder training. The class below is actually the entry level course to becoming a certified EMT. Most firemen and many in LE have completed the entire EMT course which goes much farther.

http://www.nremt.org/nremt/about/reg_1st_history.asp

 

[1-DAB]

haven't read the whole thread, but my concealed carry permit is for me. just me, and my wife if we are together.

i have no duty to anyone else, nor do i have any kind of immunity like the police do. if i have to hire a lawyer, i'm paying for that, not the taxpayer.

my best bet is to avoid and get out of a conflict, not add bullets to it.

 

[hardworker]

Yeah, we are not first responders. It is not our job to fight crime. I don't know how people envision a defensive scenario, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't end with a slap on the back and an invitation to join some secret society of crime fighters. We're being singled out in part because we single ourselves out. When you make it a point to correct someone on minutia of definitions (mags vs clips, assault weapons vs "sporting rifles") you're hurting everyone.

By calling ourselves first responders, we're taking a step toward mall ninja territory. Believe it or not, non-gun owners aren't stupid. They know BS when they hear it. If I walk around talking about how I'm actually the first line of defense against a shooting, they'll think I'm an idiot, much like I would anyone who said such nonsense. A lot of people think we're all mall ninjas, no need to reinforce the stereotype.

Let them call whatever they want an assault rifle, as long as they know what it is they're referring to. As long as they know that it means semi-auto with other features, I don't care what they call it.

 

[Venom1956]

"Run toward the gun fire" "Close and engage" Nutnfancy look him up on you tube and join the TNP'ers!!!

Ugh... Yeah and get a free ride to jail! Nutnfancy is the LAST person I'd take advice from EVER. Musta got in alotta gun fights on those planes he flew...

If I was in some sort of situation I'd just tell em the advice my dad gave me.

"Do what is right and then do it the best you can. That's all you can ask of someone."

 

[Fishing_Cabin]

Frankly, I'm not interested in convincing the Suzie Soccer-moms of the world.


Sadly, they are the ones who swing the vote, and who we most desperately need to reach.

I agree we need to reach and try to win these folks over, both, "Suzie Soccer-moms" and also those folks who "never owned a firearm and are hence scared of them." We may disagree on the methods to do this though.

Yesterday I went to a consignment sale...Nothing huge, maybe 100 people and a lot of various stuff being sold off. There was one person there open carrying a handgun. Nothing huge, right? There were a few people I knew that asked me "is it legal?" with similar questions in a whispered tone, and I spent some time trying explain the open carry... After I left I stopped by my Aunt and Uncles on the way home, and there was Joe Biden on TV again talking about his thoughts on a shotgun. I spent the visit with my Aunt and Uncle then talking about firearms, the legal issues etc. What I am getting at is, there are some people who will only tolerate some things (firearms) to a certain level, such as hunting or home defense, etc. I spent several hours yesterday trying to help "normalize" firearm ownership with several people. What I learned from it was that there are some folks who are good to a certain level, and that's fine. What we need to do (my thoughts) is to encourage that more, and not keep pushing for "if you don't want all of this, your against us" when dealing with those on the fence. Give the right information, be helpful and try to encourage them to explore a bit more, but stop before their eyes glaze over, cause then they are lost.

Some terms like "patriot", while proper when speaking about someone supporting the constitution. Others, such as "Free Citizen" tend to denote such folks as the sovereign citizen movement, which is a good bit distant from the RKBA movement.

Why not just use the common terms we already have, such as a ccw holder/permitee, or a concerned firearm owner? These are honest and direct, but also (at least to me) show a honesty, and if needed a helpfulness.

By calling ourselves first responders, we're taking a step toward mall ninja territory. Believe it or not, non-gun owners aren't stupid. They know BS when they hear it. If I walk around talking about how I'm actually the first line of defense against a shooting, they'll think I'm an idiot, much like I would anyone who said such nonsense.

You hit a nail on its head for me with your comment, hardworker.... There are a few folks I have encountered that talk about how they are there to protect everyone else since they have a ccw. I tend to think not only is it nonsense for them to go around and talk all the stuff, but its also pushing a lot of those who keep a firearm for self defense at home away from supporting easing restrictions. Some of them I always wonder if they left home without there cape, and the "S" for their chest.

People like to point out how "when seconds count police are only minutes away" but if its pushed that the ccw holders are out to save the public at large (not arguing either side of that debate), then your going to give cause to creating similar phrases, either true or not for ccw holders. Perhaps I should register the phrase "I carry pepper spray because a ccw holder is too heavy, and besides it goes good on saltines." I'm joking, but also a bit serious too when it comes down to how some few opinionated ccw holders feel they are there to protect everyone.

 

[Willie Sutton]

^^ thoughtful and contemplative, as is usual from you.

My OP was designed to encourage conversation, and one of the ways we encourage conversation is to encourage healthy dissent. I certainly did not expect everyine to agree, and in fact felt the opposite. I did expect some creativity to be expressed, and figured that someone else would come up with something better. I am distressed with the lack thereof. It goes thought to something that I am proud of, and that's the fact that we, as a group, tends towards intellectual honesty in what we do and say. We have a hard time "using words" that are other than pedantically correct. It's a blessing... and a terrible flaw as we try to deal with a group that has no respect whatsoever for accuracy in language.

You strike the nail squarely when you say that many people will put up with firearms to a certain point but no further. I'm trying to calculate a way to leverage that point a little further towards us... just incrementally.

Language is one of the ways that we do this. Contemplation in advance of how to have the discussion is an important thing to do.


Willie


.

 

[Fishing_Cabin]

thanks for the compliment Willie.

I don't disagree with always trying to increase what is "normal" and brainstorming, if you will. Im going to think more on trying to figure out some term, though I am unsure what it could be. Also, thanks for starting the conversation.

 

[zxcvbob]

Some terms like "patriot", while proper when speaking about someone supporting the constitution. Others, such as "Free Citizen" tend to denote such folks as the sovereign citizen movement, which is a good bit distant from the RKBA movement.

Why not just use the common terms we already have, such as a ccw holder/permitee, or a concerned firearm owner? These are honest and direct, but also (at least to me) show a honesty, and if needed a helpfulness.

At least it's better than calling ourselves "sheepdogs", which was all the rage just a year or two ago.

Did someone delete my picture of Sam Sheepdog (and Ralph), posted a couple of hours ago? Maybe its point was too subtle.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

You strike the nail squarely when you say that many people will put up with firearms to a certain point but no further. I'm trying to calculate a way to leverage that point a little further towards us... just incrementally.

One way to do this, of course, is to practice open carry (where legal). The Suzie Soccer-moms of the world often have a preconceived idea that only gang-bangers carry guns. Yet they don't even blink if they see a uniformed police officer (or security company armed guard) wearing a gun on a duty belt. They might blink -- once -- if they see a detective, but if he/she has a badge on the belt next to the gun, Suzie relaxes immediately.

My view is that if more of us would carry openly when dressed neatly (let's say in "executive casual") so the Suzies of the world could be exposed to decent, ordinary people wearing guns and not making any big deal about it -- it could go a long way toward what the psychologists call "desensitizing" them.

 

[Fishing_Cabin]

At least it's better than calling ourselves "sheepdogs", which was all the rage just a year or two ago

I do agree. Similar with the term "sheepeople"... If we want to get more people to the table we need to work toward reaching everyone we can.

Also, while I am on the topic of reaching everyone we can, lets stop it with the "us vs them"... As I already mentioned in another thread, many in law enforcement (rank and file) are very supportive of the RKBA. Its disingenuous.

 

[pilot141]

Willie, thank you for starting this thread because I think is a discussion that needs to happen.

As we argue amongst ourselves about the best way to present a legal, safe, protected position, we get bogged down on terms.

The gun control folks have no hang-ups on terms or rules for the debate. They may be lawless and beyond control, but we should not stoop to their level.

I don't actually have a solution - i just want to see something of a consensus show up among us that we can all use. A united front is a strong front - I think that is what were going for with the First Responder thing. I personally agree with you that it would be an effective effort, but enough people have chimed in that are in the trenches that I now think that we might need something different.

What that is, I don't know. Sorry, I suck.

 

[southjk]

I think most people do and will equate "first responder" as a police/fire/medical professional and rightly so in my opinion. And that should not be applied to someone just because he is a carry permit holder.

If you want something different how about "volunteer responder"?

 

[dajowi]

Being a "regular guy" with no military or tactical training I'm a bit concerned about the idea (that may or may not be strongly held here) that concealed carry licensees are somehow expected to charge in like the Calvary and defend the population against mass murderers.

I carry a PDW, (personal defense weapon) not a rifle. It has limited range and ammunition.

I neither want to be a victim nor be hailed a hero. To try to engage in combat with a determined shooter with inadequate firepower could be lethal.

I fail to see how all this talk about having armed civilian(s) engaging in firefights with shooters (amid throngs of other unarmed panicked civilians) profits the pro-gun movement?

The media labels us as a bunch of loons just itching to draw our weapons.

This idea of armed civilians jumping into the fray with guns ablazing I think just gives the other side more ammunition to shoot at us.

 

[dakota.potts]

Most CCW holders are not out to save other people. They are carrying to protect themselves and family. They are not carrying to kill a bad guy. They are carrying to diffuse a situation and taught to use the opening provided by the weapon to move out of the situation if at all possible. First responders can be held liable if they don't act when they see a tragedy. Is that what you're equating CCW holders to? You mean to say that everybody that has a concealed firearm has a legal responsibility to move towards the enemy and engage with the idea of disabling? That we are carrying for the protection of our fellow citizens like a guard?

If that's how you carry, fine. Nothing wrong with that. But saying it like this insinuates that everybody carries with these goals in mind. If I had a gun and a clear shot at a violent offender where I could save somebody's life. When the time comes for me to get a CCL, I'll do so and remain aware and yes, will try to affect a positive influence on the life of others. But I will not be one who charges towards the gunfire. Maybe I will because you can't say what you'll do until crisis happens. But that will not be my mindset going in and this term would insinuate that.

 

[Evan Thomas]

I am working out a way to make our viewpoint of being a CCW holder palatable to Soccer Mom. [emphasis mine]

Willie, you're assuming that we all think the same about this, or that we should. But we don't. Not every CCW holder assumes that his or her role is to protect other people. And that's a reasonable point of view.

So -- first problem -- there are two separate conversations going on here: some of us are talking about finding a new way to talk about what we think our purpose is, and disagreeing about what terms are suitable. But some of us are saying, no, we don't think of ourselves that way, and we should be looking at this differently.

So we're sorta talking past each other.

Second problem: the idea that we just need "better language" to sway non-gun people is an oversimplification. To the extent that Soccer Dad (there are men who are worried by guns, too, and it doesn't make them unmanly) views CCW holders as "gun nuts" who want to play hero, just calling them something else isn't going to change his mind.

Typically, propaganda works by using emotionally loaded words to attach the desired response (fear, desire, trust) to whatever is being demonized or promoted. I don't think "first responder" is going to do that -- it's not, of itself, warm and fuzzy enough. It's actually a pretty technical term -- for most people, I doubt that it's even on their radar. As for "volunteer responder"... meh. "Good Samaritan" is a little better, but it doesn't have the emotional impact of, say "hero." And we're gonna look like idiots if we call ourselves that.

On the other hand, consider "Homeland Security." Homeland... gosh, that's where we live, our very own turf. Security... shoot, we all want that. Now look at what the use of those terms has made acceptable, when combined with a good dose of fearmongering: virtual strip searches at airports... warrantless wiretapping... the indefinite detention and murder of American citizens... etc. Feeling secure now, are ya? That's effective propaganda.

We need, I think, to take baby steps here, and remember that the way to reach people is by starting where they're at, not by expecting them to take some giant leap out of their comfort zone.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

We used to call them Good Samaritans or Conscientious Citizens.

I certainly like these terms much better. Saying you are a "first responder" to explain carrying a gun sounds like you are just proclaiming yourself as some sort of unaffiliated Guardian Angel (of the somewhat notorious group with a history of staged publicity rescues and members getting arrested for essentially vigilante actions and other illegal infractions) or an unaffiliated, unsupervised, unrequested, volunteer security guard (ala George Zimmerman). If you are not a first responder by happenstance, then it sounds like you are proclaiming yourself on duty and/or on patrol, like professional first responders.

Vanya brings up a good point. Do folks like the soccer moms share the same view? Chances are, no. In fact, many definitely are fearful of self proclaimed hero types. They don't want every nut with a gun coming out of the woodwork to help them, but that is what self proclaimed volunteer armed first responders would sound like to them.

"First responder" does sound considerably better than the whole "sheep dog" nonsense, however, but such attempts at publicly proclaimed self actualization or justification seem completely unnecessary and will undoubtedly be scary to many.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Well put, DNS.

And it doesn't hurt to remind ourselves that the primary purpose of carrying a gun is for self-defense. Before anyone decides that his default mode is to be prepared to intervene with a gun (or other weapon) on behalf of strangers, there are a lot of things he needs to consider very carefully. Here are a few.

• Do I have the training to do this effectively? This isn't just a matter of range time or participating in shooting sports. See this thread on a defense-of-property shooting by an IPSC Grandmaster for a cautionary tale on this topic. As I wrote in that thread, "...there are lessons to be learned from this about the difference between training to shoot -- which Mr. Thalheimer clearly has done rather extensively -- and what actually happens in a gunfight."
  
• Do I have a thorough understanding of the relevant laws in my state? You'd better, if you're going to carry at all, and it's frightening how many CCW holders have no more knowledge than whatever was offered in a basic CCW permit class -- if that.
  
• How will I know that I'm evaluating the situation correctly? If you make a mistake, and the big guy beating on the young woman turns out to be an undercover detective subduing a drug dealer, you'll be in a world of hurt.
  
• Am I prepared for the consequences if I make a mistake? The above is just one example; if a police officer accidentally shoots a bystander, he's indemnified; you are not. You may go to jail, and short of that, you may lose your house, your livelihood, etc. Also consider the emotional consequences: how will you feel if you shoot an innocent person by mistake? Finally, are you prepared to lose your own life, perhaps because a "bad guy" (lousy term) shoots back at you, or because police arriving at the scene see a guy with a gun, shoot him, and... that was you.

For a some discussion of these issues, see this thread. There are some chest-thumping posts -- those are also, umm... instructive.

Bottom line: There is a lot that can go wrong in these scenarios, and Soccer Parents have some justification for their discomfort with the idea of "citizen interveners." It's probably not the most persuasive argument we can use.

 

[mehavey]

In the thread cited just above, the presumptive conditions were put (in summary) that:

- The attacker was in the unquestionable process of producing grievous if not fatal bodily harm.
- The defender was unarmed/incapable of defending himself.
- The matter would be decided in seconds (moments)

I would hope never to be part of such scenario.
But if a witness and having the ability to intervene, I would hope never to have to live with the fact that I was too afraid to defend an innocent.

Maybe it was the way my father raised me.....

 

[Departed402]

I would say Hardworker hit the nail on the head in post #64. For the vast majority of people out there “first responders” are the people who drive the vehicles with the lights and sirens, and that won't change.

The importance of the “war of words” cannot be understated, but why try to change the interpretation of “first responder” when terms like “assault weapons” and “gun show loophole” do so much more to harm us all. Taking a minute to actually explain the misnomers used by the gun control advocates, and explaining why it is important to be able to protect yourself will get more people on our side. I will add that I am an LEO, and yes I said our side. I’m not sure if some of you have seen too much of Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama saying that Police Chiefs and LEOs everywhere want stricter gun laws, but I assure there are plenty of LEOs on the pro-gun rights side of this issue too. Utah Sheriffs recently got a lot of attention for their stand on the issue, and I know there are more that share their view.

In closing, I apologize for the LEOs out there that puts their ass-hats on, and try belittle their fellow citizens.