Frank Borelli
Editor-in-Chief
Officer.com
This blog entry was inspired by a recent conversation I had with a group of civilian gun owners who are all concealed-carry-license holders and who had paid out of pocket to attend training to enhance their skills. To them I say, "BRAVO!" I commend them for having come out of pocket with their own money and having spent a full day (and I do mean a FULL day - about 12 hours) of their time for the training. My question is,
why isn't every armed civilian doing the same thing?
Now I know there are plenty of good reasons why a legally armed civilian can't attend such training: the economy is bad so money is tight; many folks have children and can't get a full day away from the responsibilities of parenthood; some might be able to get the time and pay the course tuition but can't afford to put the miles or gas into their car! Somehow I still think a lot more could than do. My next thought, though, is, "Are we as law enforcement professionals doing anything to help motivate them?"
I don't mean getting behind them and pushing them along. I don't mean offering the training through the agency. I don't even mean recommending schools (or NOT recommending them based on what we know). I guess what I mean is this: when we get asked questions about personal safety or personal protection, do we have an answer ready that is informative, legal and motivated by common sense?
Too many times in my police career I heard a citizen ask a police officer, "Should I get a gun?" only to have the officer answer - without any thought or consideration to the circumstance - "No! Guns are dangerous and civilians shouldn't be allowed to have them." If that's not a politically motivated answer, I don't know what is.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying every civilian
should have a gun; but if it's
legal for them to have one, then shouldn't it be their choice? When asked such questions, shouldn't we answer in such a way as to help them make a more informed, and therefore better, choice?
Let's remember: ultimately we are not responsible for the safety and security of every citizen. That burden falls on the individual citizen. As law enforcement professionals, shouldn't we do all we can, within legal and departmental restrictions, to support those citizens as they increase their ability to be safe and secure?
Let's take that thought a step further: If we DON'T help them increase their own ability to be safe and secure, aren't we simply making more work for ourselves? Yes, I know that on-going crime means job security - and if you haven't realized the farce in that statement yet, then wake up. In the past two years law enforcement officers have been laid off in record numbers due to the plunging economy with
NO regard for the crime rate or what impact less cops on the street would have on said crime rate. So, don't believe for a second that on-going crime means your job is secure. It just ain't so.
As moral human beings, then, doesn't it behoove us to help others become more capable of protecting and defending their own? After all: not only can we NOT be there 24/7, at the rate the economy is going, there are far fewer of us to be there after a crime has been committed.
It's just a thought. Please share yours.
