Hockey
Quackers
- 1,222
- 6
- 38
EMT/Fire Fighters and gun control
- Thread starter MedicAngel
- Start date
Sasha
Forum Chief
- 7,667
- 11
- 0
So. Person pulls a gun. You try to run away and duck behing something while pulling out your gun, you've been shot. Let's say the arm. You still feel that you are going to be able to adequately shoot while injured?
So how are you gonna justify shooting down someone running at you with a knife?
medic417
The Truth Provider
- 5,104
- 3
- 38
If I go home alive is better than going into a box. If you have no gun they shoot your arm then walk over shoot you dead. If I have a gun they shoot my arm I shoot them with my other arm when they come to finish the job.
Someone coming at me with a knife wants to kill me I pull and shoot if they are far enough back, same thing the cops do. If they are up close I and even cops just have to try and fight for life as not able to get a gun pulled quick enough. Deadly force is justified to stop someone trying to use deadly force on you.
medic417
The Truth Provider
- 5,104
- 3
- 38
Thats how I roll
Had to be one of the best qoutes of all time. Can't believe its not used more.
Sasha
Forum Chief
- 7,667
- 11
- 0
It's a police officer's job to take down a criminal. It is not yours as a paramedic. So you're going to shoot someone coming at you with a knife? Why are you not able to run away?
I'm not so ignorant that I believe you will know when the scene is safe or not, but I don't feel that carrying guns is the answer. I used to be anti-taser, but I can see the benefit of a taser over a gun. Non-Lethal (In MOST cases, there will always be the exception.) force that incapacitates the target long enough for you to get away, as oppose to shooting them with a gun, which may or may not incapacitate them, may kill them, and will possibly land you in jail.
I'm not so ignorant that I believe you will know when the scene is safe or not, but I don't feel that carrying guns is the answer. I used to be anti-taser, but I can see the benefit of a taser over a gun. Non-Lethal (In MOST cases, there will always be the exception.) force that incapacitates the target long enough for you to get away, as oppose to shooting them with a gun, which may or may not incapacitate them, may kill them, and will possibly land you in jail.
Last edited by a moderator:
Buzz
Forum Captain
- 295
- 16
- 0
Off the top of my head: Getting cornered. Opening a door with someone coming at you is NOT easy. Particularly if you have to run to that door. It slows you down considerably. I forget the exact numbers, but someone can close a distance of 20ft pretty quickly. Add that into your time to react, time to move towards the door, and time to try and open it and you'll have a nice shiny new steel implant in your back.
Sasha
Forum Chief
- 7,667
- 11
- 0
Alright, so why is a taser not a viable option over a gun?
AJ Hidell
Forum Deputy Chief
- 1,102
- 3
- 0
Because you only have one shot with a Taser. In a stress situation, there is a good chance you are going to miss. Remember, cops are usually shooting it offensively, meaning they are more likely to hit, but they still sometimes miss. When you are on the defense, your ability to make one shot count is significantly decreased. And then it has to actually stick, which won't always happen. And then it has to actually work, which again does not always happen.
As for running, you shouldn't have to. You may need to stay and protect your partner and/or patient. And, of course, what makes you think you run faster than your attacker, or that there is anyplace to run to? Is there anyplace to run to in HIS HOUSE, which is where you are likely to be? All your "what if's" are a little weak. But if you are going to pull them out, then you need to pull them all out, including the ones above.
Last edited by a moderator:
Buzz
Forum Captain
- 295
- 16
- 0
When did I ever say it was not? Aside from the one shot thing, I'd be happy with having a taser over nothing.
DT4EMS
Kip Teitsort, Founder
- 1,225
- 3
- 0
Important questions before you make you decision;
How many officers have been killed in the line of duty with their own firearm?
The "average" officer does not practice enough weapon retention skills. How much training would it take to teach an EMS provider the issues involved with carrying a firearm while on duty?
How many EMS agencies will provide the ongoing certification process to allow the EMS provider to be armed with a firearm while on duty?
The agency DOES assume some responsibility when "allowing" a person to be armed or carry a tool.
How many officers have been killed in the line of duty with their own firearm?
The "average" officer does not practice enough weapon retention skills. How much training would it take to teach an EMS provider the issues involved with carrying a firearm while on duty?
How many EMS agencies will provide the ongoing certification process to allow the EMS provider to be armed with a firearm while on duty?
The agency DOES assume some responsibility when "allowing" a person to be armed or carry a tool.
Shishkabob
Forum Chief
- 8,264
- 32
- 48
With proper education just like any other civilian, then yes, totally, we should be able to carry if we so choose.
We deal with the same exact dangerous people that LEOs do.. why shouldn't we be armed?
But this is coming from someone who's been through MCRD and has all the training...
We deal with the same exact dangerous people that LEOs do.. why shouldn't we be armed?
But this is coming from someone who's been through MCRD and has all the training...
Last edited by a moderator:
Hockey
Quackers
- 1,222
- 6
- 38
Because a Taser is not 100% effective on everybody.
Police are trained to neutralize/stop the threat. You know, that within 21 feet, you could run at me with a knife, and before I could get my firearm out, acquire my target, and fire, you would be on top of me stabbing me.
I don't think EMS will ever get to carry firearms. But thats just how it is.
AJ Hidell
Forum Deputy Chief
- 1,102
- 3
- 0
Actually, it is not unheard of in some parts of the country. I carried on-duty in EMS for years in Texas.
DT4EMS
Kip Teitsort, Founder
- 1,225
- 3
- 0
If they put firearms training, Use of Force (levels), Documentation and courtroom training as a part of EMT and Medic school I am all for it.
There is a secondary issue here.........
A civilian has a DUTY TO RETREAT in most cases. Police officers do not. It may take a change in the Supreme Court to task EMS with carrying a gun "on duty".
I am all for a citizen legally carrying a gun and having that gun for self-defense purposes. I am just afraid of the dangers of a person in EMS having that gun. Too many variables that lend it to be more of a danger than a safety for the provider.
Hockey
Quackers
- 1,222
- 6
- 38
AJ Hidell
Forum Deputy Chief
- 1,102
- 3
- 0
This is actually becoming less and less common in right-to-carry states. Both states I reside in have enacted laws that specifically exempt a citizen from a duty to retreat.
DT4EMS
Kip Teitsort, Founder
- 1,225
- 3
- 0
Not in Michigan anymore!
Do you have a link to that? I wanna make sure that is not confused with a "castle doctrine" type ruling.
I go to the range regularly, having said that.
I would not carry a firearm on duty in either the hospital or on a truck. Whether you do or not, is you and your employers business, but here are the risks, benefits I see.
Benefit:
You have the most modern weapon to defend yourself with. It puts you on equal or better (depending on how well you shoot) ground as any other weapon out there.
depending on your weapon and ammunition load out, you can eliminate overshot, penetration, or even negate cover or concealment.
A missile weapon will usually win out over a melee weapon until distance is closed.
Draw backs:
A weapon you do not control is a weapon that can be used against you. Giving your attacker the benefits over you, you would have had over them.
It escalates the threat prior to even showing up. If the local criminals know EMS is carrying, (in the hood word travels fast) a guy who might have pulled a knife and demanded a drug box or money may now pull a gun first. Or shoot first and take what they want after.
Psych patients may also escalte directly to fire arm. Maybe even to long arm. No gun in the world protects you from being sniped.
You are responsible for your gun. If you are involved in patient care and during such your gun comes up missing, you will have a major headache on hand.
Having a gun often imparts a false sense of security, those who have guns seem to have an increased probability of making it the first choice rather than the last.
If you constantly have to be worried about securing your firearm, you are taking attention away from other things. like patient care, scene management, etc.
In the EMS environment, most violence against providers will be close quarters, the gun may put you at a disadvantage. Concealed certainly doesn't mean accessable.
increase potential violence against you. I worked in a hood where fire and EMS we overwhelmingly treated as the good guy. Despite it being a high crime area, not only did we not carry, we rarely called for the police. (I know it is not like that everywhere) Somebody mistaking you for a police officer may be more likely to assault you.
Neutralization of the threat. If I were in a violent situation, the people who could shoot back would be the most important target. So a gun may become a bullet magnet. A person who wanted to fire and flee may now resort to making sure you can't shoot back.
I have never been in LE, but I know about this fight or flight response in animals (humans are animals too.) If they feel they cannot flight, the natural reaction is fight. (which is why I can never understand why cops surround people and then wonder why they shoot back instead of surrendering in stressful situations)
Kill myself fine, bring the weapon that kills my coworkers would make me feel like crap if I lived. Not to mention the legal ramifications. Especially if the only weapon on scene was the one I brought.
No such thing as "friendly fire." So the scene turns violent, I call for help, pull my weapon to defend myself, a cop shows up highly stressed to a violent situation, sees I have a weapon, decides in a fraction of a second I am the threat and it is over for me or in the heat of the hypothetical wild west shoot out, I perceive as a threat the cops trying to help me and take one of them down.
I have never even heard of an EMS professional coming out the better in a gun fight outside of war zones.
Even if I am in the right, doesn't stop your employer from throwing you under the bus.
I have also never even heard of an instance where a provider, with a fire arm outside of a warzone or terrorist attack, would have benefited from having a fire arm.
I just see many more drawbacks than benefits and even in my time in urban ghettos have never been in or heard of a situation where an armed provider (non LEO) would have made a difference. Why make the job any harder than it is?
"Well one day what if..." I'll risk it.
Maybe one day there will be a need to a US or EU medical provider to be armed. But it isn't like that today. Unless I am wearing a military uniform, (since I have no desire to be a LEO) if there is a high likelyhood of me needing a gun, I am not going into that environment.
I would not carry a firearm on duty in either the hospital or on a truck. Whether you do or not, is you and your employers business, but here are the risks, benefits I see.
Benefit:
You have the most modern weapon to defend yourself with. It puts you on equal or better (depending on how well you shoot) ground as any other weapon out there.
depending on your weapon and ammunition load out, you can eliminate overshot, penetration, or even negate cover or concealment.
A missile weapon will usually win out over a melee weapon until distance is closed.
Draw backs:
A weapon you do not control is a weapon that can be used against you. Giving your attacker the benefits over you, you would have had over them.
It escalates the threat prior to even showing up. If the local criminals know EMS is carrying, (in the hood word travels fast) a guy who might have pulled a knife and demanded a drug box or money may now pull a gun first. Or shoot first and take what they want after.
Psych patients may also escalte directly to fire arm. Maybe even to long arm. No gun in the world protects you from being sniped.
You are responsible for your gun. If you are involved in patient care and during such your gun comes up missing, you will have a major headache on hand.
Having a gun often imparts a false sense of security, those who have guns seem to have an increased probability of making it the first choice rather than the last.
If you constantly have to be worried about securing your firearm, you are taking attention away from other things. like patient care, scene management, etc.
In the EMS environment, most violence against providers will be close quarters, the gun may put you at a disadvantage. Concealed certainly doesn't mean accessable.
increase potential violence against you. I worked in a hood where fire and EMS we overwhelmingly treated as the good guy. Despite it being a high crime area, not only did we not carry, we rarely called for the police. (I know it is not like that everywhere) Somebody mistaking you for a police officer may be more likely to assault you.
Neutralization of the threat. If I were in a violent situation, the people who could shoot back would be the most important target. So a gun may become a bullet magnet. A person who wanted to fire and flee may now resort to making sure you can't shoot back.
I have never been in LE, but I know about this fight or flight response in animals (humans are animals too.) If they feel they cannot flight, the natural reaction is fight. (which is why I can never understand why cops surround people and then wonder why they shoot back instead of surrendering in stressful situations)
Kill myself fine, bring the weapon that kills my coworkers would make me feel like crap if I lived. Not to mention the legal ramifications. Especially if the only weapon on scene was the one I brought.
No such thing as "friendly fire." So the scene turns violent, I call for help, pull my weapon to defend myself, a cop shows up highly stressed to a violent situation, sees I have a weapon, decides in a fraction of a second I am the threat and it is over for me or in the heat of the hypothetical wild west shoot out, I perceive as a threat the cops trying to help me and take one of them down.
I have never even heard of an EMS professional coming out the better in a gun fight outside of war zones.
Even if I am in the right, doesn't stop your employer from throwing you under the bus.
I have also never even heard of an instance where a provider, with a fire arm outside of a warzone or terrorist attack, would have benefited from having a fire arm.
I just see many more drawbacks than benefits and even in my time in urban ghettos have never been in or heard of a situation where an armed provider (non LEO) would have made a difference. Why make the job any harder than it is?
"Well one day what if..." I'll risk it.
Maybe one day there will be a need to a US or EU medical provider to be armed. But it isn't like that today. Unless I am wearing a military uniform, (since I have no desire to be a LEO) if there is a high likelyhood of me needing a gun, I am not going into that environment.
Last edited by a moderator:
Shishkabob
Forum Chief
- 8,264
- 32
- 48
Duty to retreat only applies if you can do so without undue risk towards yourself, and only before the actual act of aggression happens. Once violence is directed towards you, and you act in kind back, no DA in the country would take you to court.
Hockey
Quackers
- 1,222
- 6
- 38
Do you have a link to that? I wanna make sure that is not confused with a "castle doctrine" type ruling.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006/publicact/pdf/2006-PA-0309.pdf
Used to be the castle doctrine but not anymore