Grassroots Commentary

Not Even a Little CPR? Part II

John Longenecker · Mar. 8, 2013

In my previous article, Not Even a Little CPR?, I posted that the indifference of a staff in denying CPR [by way of policy] is identical to the indifference of the College Trustees who oppose guns on campus. I posted that my theorem I call the CPR Corollary addresses the subject of how the armed citizen is identical to Citizen CPR; create enough concentration of both and you’ll get back to safer streets. Over the years, I have posted that gun bans on campus make about as much sense as denying student CPR until the Paramedics arrive. Doing nothing until first responders arrive is a policy decision, and for others, it is fatal. For too long, citizens have had to live with the consequences of the ill-informed and obnoxious planners who don’t live with those.

With the indifference and refusal to administer CPR to Lorraine Bayless in a California independent living facility, we now know what this reality comparison is like. What if someone refused CPR like trustees deny student self-defense? No Guns on Campus policies affect younger adults, healthier adults, and all faculty; do you really want this policy on campus for much longer?

The wishes of Lorraine’s family were made known to reporters: the family is satisfied with the actions or inaction of the staff. There was no Do Not Resuscitate order charted and on file, and Lorraine Bayless’ passing was not especially unexpected. On campus, the equivalent would be that anyone with a permit may carry on campus; anyone who wishes not to carry then should not. Simple.

But now something else has come to light in the mind of this second amendment commentarian who is also knowledgeable on CPR. The New York Times online edition reports: “In a statement, Brookdale Senior Living, owner of the facility, said, ‘This incident resulted from a complete misunderstanding of our practice with regards to emergency medical care for our residents.’”

Yet another comparison of values and practice of gun bans and CPR: ignorance embedded in policy, which is subject to a mis-application when it is needed most and which, if misapplied, has dire consequences for others. People screw up all the time, but America’s gun control as a policy is more than stubborn; it is as lethal as wrongly refusing CPR to someone as a policy. Worse, since it affects more than one person at a time.

The comparison between gun bans and the No CPR policy at issue goes further; the continued insistence on proceeding on a wrongful ignorance. The No CPR policy may be legitimate and conventional, but the statement from the institution was that it was misunderstood. The no guns on campus policy might as well say No CPR on Campus. It’s the same thing; response in the absence of first responders. Gun owners say that a No Guns policy is misguided, but we really know better.

Seeing only the liability and refusing to see a foreseeable tragedy in an adherence to that policy – such as banning guns from a campus or from a theater auditorium or a mall for patron safety – cannot be defended for much longer in light of more important evidence which gun owners can show was purely foreseeable to the average reasonable person. Gun bans are rapidly shown to be increasingly unreasonable, and with ten million more new gun owners since 2008, what is reasonable is evolving and becoming the preponderance.

John Longenecker is author of The CPR Corollary. John and his wife Aurea operate WellnessPriorityOne.net.

It's Right. It's Free.