HOW EMERGENCY DEPARTMENTS VIEW SHOOTINGS
Not all physicians are against guns. Many physicians and the non-physician medical practitioners, (including Paramedics) all see pretty much the same traumas, and many doctors and non-doctor specialists are not against guns simply because colleagues see a lot of gun shot wounds. They know something their colleagues donít. Or wonít. Some physicians have formed organizations opposing gun bans based on what they know.
Today, I am asked on talkradio why I wrote my book, The Case For Nationwide Concealed Carry Of Handguns, why I founded Good For the Country, Inc. a patriotic think tank examining policy adverse to the public interest, and I am sometimes asked just how a Paramedic can get behind personal weapons.
The answer is simple: itís not about Violence, itís about Liberty. Itís not about saving lives by banning weapons, itís about saving lives by affirming weapons. As I will show, it's not about Guns, it's about Governance.
Gun Control Policy has always been an abuse of due process. Courts have as much as said this, and one recently ruled that the District of Columbiaís thirty-one year old gun ban was unconstitutional. As further evidence of abuse of due process, D.C. defies that court order, having been handed down an adverse ruling. Too bad. The City of New Orleans ignores its adverse ruling too, refusing to return weapons the court ordered them to return.
This is what Americans dread and loathe in their officials: assumption of powers not granted and abuse of the law, as in defiance of court orders handed down just for them.
Even Virginia Tech defies the law of the state of Virginia, compelling students to sue for their right to carry weapons, perhaps and predictably, only to defy yet another order if the court rules against the Administration.
Abuse of due process. Defiance of law. Assumption of powers not granted. It is what the Founders knew would recur in any age, any era, and it is why they declared the Citizen as Supreme Authority.
Well, if youíre the head of a household and perhaps even a parent, this may be of interest. Back to shootings, the FBI reports that shooting homicides number about 10,177 out of 1.39 million total offenses in 2005. [Source: Table 7 at www.FBI.gov/ucr]
Meanwhile, Table 14 on that website shows a total of justifiable homicides in the neighborhood of 241 for 2006. [Source: Table 14 also at www.FBI.gov/ucr]
In the seventies, I saw my share of shootings and other violence, and I asked: "Where are the self-defense shootings?" I found out where they were.
Today, the physicians against guns have been saying: "Weíre seeing a lot of shootings in our emergency department. We need to get rid of guns."
What they must be asking, as scientists, is this instead: "Weíre seeing a lot of Crime in our emergency department: where are the self-defense (anti-crime) shootings?"
The humanitarian component is not in banning weapons, but in affirming weapons.
First, Gun Bans are responsible for the 1.3 million non-gun crime numbers, because people cannot fight back. What the E.D. is seeing in violence is nothing but unanswered, completed acts of Crime.
Second, when targeted constituents are able to fight back, gun owners have been most restrained and wise. Donít forget that most are trained in how to use their weapon and how not to. As Ambassadors of the Second Amendment and for the entire Bill Of Rights, they have done rather well. There are 80 million such good will ambassadors in this country.
The FBI reports 10,177 gun-related homicides for 2006, and donít forget that this is not irresponsible gun ownership, it is Crime. The FBI also reports 2.5 million who de-escalated a crime ó perhaps their own murder, rape or abduction Ė with the use of their own guns, and Ė get this. . . wait for it . . . without firing their weapon. This is your conspicuous absence of self-defense shootings.
The gun ban in Washington D.C. has been handed an adverse decision by its Court of Appeals. D.C. has said publicly that it will not honor that court ruling. D.C. has filed a certiorari with the Supreme Court, cited as D.C. v. Heller at this time. Will D.C. defy the finding of the Supreme Court if adverse? Will it continue to defy the Appeals court if the Supremes elect not to hear the case?
Abuse of due process. Defiance of court orders.
As Gun Control Policy comes into the public attention now, heads of household need to more fully understand how crime to others affects every household in adverse national policy -- how gun control policy affects how family will care for and protect loved ones. [In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in Castle Rock v. Gonzalez: no constitutional right to police protection. Gonzalez had sued for failure of police to enforce a restraining order. Gonzales lost.]
Most loving parents want the information they need to make their best informed decision. Gun Control Policy obfuscates that information, and hides citizen authority to act when facing grave danger alone. Alone.
Constitutional right to police protection, decided by the Supreme
Court in 2005.
© 2007 - John Longenecker - All Rights Reserved
are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
John Longenecker was one of the first Paramedics in Los Angeles EMS. Today, he a father of three, author, columnist, talk show guest and founder of the Good For The Country Foundation, a 501(c)(3) patriotic think tank examining policy adverse to the public interest.
As Gun Control Policy comes into the public attention now, heads of household need to more fully understand how crime to others affects every household in adverse national policy...