# Firefighter Paramedic killed with his own gun



## VentMedic

*Police: Fireman killed with own gun*

http://www.news4jax.com/news/21769695/detail.html

*Firefighter fatally shot at Fla. gas station*
http://www.firerescue1.com/fire-news/679059-firefighter-fatally-shot-at-fla-gas-station/
December 03, 2009



> JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — Emanuel Porter II was supposed to treat gunshot wounds, not die from them.
> 
> But Porter, a 21-year-old Jacksonville firefighter/paramedic, was fatally shot early Tuesday when a gun went off in the hand of a woman who picked it up from the seat of a car in the parking lot of an Arlington gas station, police said.





> Schmitt said that when Porter got out of the car, he had a gun and took the magazine out. He then put the gun and the magazine on the front seat. Apparently unknown to Saint Breux, there was a round still in the chamber of the .40-caliber gun.


----------



## Summit

10 pages before the lock, two warnings, and a ban.


----------



## JCampbell

Yeah, I guess I don't understand how this IS NOT a blatant troll post. We don't post about every medic who dies in an accident, but we post about one who dies involving a handgun.  Doesn't pass the sniff test to me.


----------



## Sasha

JCampbell said:


> Yeah, I guess I don't understand how this IS NOT a blatant troll post. We don't post about every medic who dies in an accident, but we post about one who dies involving a handgun.  Doesn't pass the sniff test to me.



So you're saying it's inappropriate to post about a medic's death because we don't post about EVERY medic who dies? There is certainly nothing stopping you from posting about other EMS personell's death.

Considering all the gun talk we've had, I find this article appropriate.


----------



## medichopeful

Sasha said:


> Considering all the gun talk we've had, I find this article appropriate.



Agreed.


----------



## VentMedic

JCampbell said:


> Yeah, I guess I don't understand how this IS NOT a blatant troll post. We don't post about every medic who dies in an accident, but we post about one who dies involving a handgun. Doesn't pass the sniff test to me.


 
Have you not seen the numerous recent threads with many, many posts on the subject of carrying weapons on duty, off duty and at various scenes?


----------



## Summit

There's nothing inappropriate about this post! I"m just making my predictions.


----------



## VentMedic

Summit said:


> There's nothing inappropriate about this post! I"m just making my predictions.


 
I had my bet with a couple members on the other forum that the mods here would lock this within 5 minutes of it hitting the internet. Guess I'll have to pay up.


----------



## EMSLaw

VentMedic said:


> Have you not seen the numerous recent threads with many, many posts on the subject of carrying weapons on duty, off duty and at various scenes?



I agree, this thread is totally appropriate.

It seems from the article, though, that this was a failure to follow basic rules of firearm safety - both on his part, in that he left the loaded firearm sitting around, and on the part of the woman who shot him.  You treat any gun as if it's loaded, and you never, ever point a gun at anyone or anything you don't intend to shoot.

For me, the reality of this situation is that it is an absolute tragedy that may wind up ending two lives.  His, obviously, and the woman who is now facing manslaughter charges.  If the article is right, he was working on bettering himself as a Paramedic, and may have had a bright future.  Now that won't happen.  But that has little to do with the gun - he could have just as easily been hit by an inattentive driver while stepping out of an ambulance, or fallen down the stairs.  I think we should avoid the temptation to wave the bloody shirt and scream how this makes guns inherently evil.


----------



## JPINFV

VentMedic said:


> Have you not seen the numerous recent threads with many, many posts on the subject of carrying weapons on duty, off duty and at various scenes?




Sorry, but conceal carry does not absolve the carrier from practicing basic gun sense. This wasn't an accident, it's due to the stupidity of both the woman and the fire fighter. The rules to safely handle a fire arm are short, simple, and multiple ones have to be broken to have stupidity occur (in contrast to a homicide, justified or not)

*Things that never should have happened (assuming valid conceal carry).*

The gun left control of the valid conceal carrier. 

The woman assumed that the fire arm was not loaded.

The woman pointed the gun at person.

The woman touched the trigger (and, yes, it doesn't take that much force to pull a trigger, especially depending on the type of gun. Similarly, I'm extremely skeptical that the gun was an "automatic handgun." Semi-automatic? Possible. Fully automatic? No way.).


*Things that never should have happened (assuming not a valid conceal carry).*

The gun was loaded.

The gun was improperly stored (locked container in the trunk).

The woman assumed that the fire arm was not loaded.

The woman pointed the gun at person.

The woman touched the trigger.


----------



## VentMedic

EMSLaw said:


> It seems from the article, though, that this was a failure to follow basic rules of firearm safety - both on his part, in that he left the loaded firearm sitting around, and on the part of the woman who shot him. You treat any gun as if it's loaded, and you never, ever point a gun at anyone or anything you don't intend to shoot.


 


> _Porter, Saint Breux, 18, and two other acquaintances, Mariah Mungo, 16, and Michael Harrell, 21, _


 
He left his gun, loaded or unloaded with a minor and 2 others who probably had no firearm training and did not know the basic rules even though they might seem obvious like not pointing a gun at someone. 



EMSLaw said:


> For me, the reality of this situation is that it is an absolute tragedy that may wind up ending two lives. His, obviously, and the woman who is now facing manslaughter charges. If the article is right, he was working on bettering himself as a Paramedic, and may have had a bright future. Now that won't happen. But that has little to do with the gun - he could have just as easily been hit by an inattentive driver while stepping out of an ambulance, or fallen down the stairs. I think we should avoid the temptation to wave the bloody shirt and scream how this makes guns inherently evil.


 
No it is not the gun but if used incorrectly or in the hands of people who fail to follow the basic rules, a gun is very dangerous. This was a death that did not have to happen.  It was his own gun that initiated the events and not some inattentive driver.  This lapse of safety cost this young man his life and the life of the young woman will never be the same.  

Regardless of how the facts may fall, that gun should have been secured.  It is useless to blame the young man who lost his life but some should take notice as to how one little slip of the basic rules of safety can change lives very quickly.


----------



## JPINFV

VentMedic said:


> Regardless of how the facts may fall, that gun should have been secured.  It is useless to blame the young man who lost his life but some should take notice as to how one little slip of the basic rules of safety can change lives very quickly.



People who aren't serious about gun safety rules shouldn't have guns. However, saying that one incidence of stupidity occurs, therefor no one should be allowed to carry is like saying that because stupidity occurs when driving that no one should be allowed to operate a motor vehicle.


----------



## VentMedic

JPINFV said:


> People who aren't serious about gun safety rules shouldn't have guns. However, saying that one incidence of stupidity occurs, therefor no one should be allowed to carry is like saying that because stupidity occurs when driving that no one should be allowed to operate a motor vehicle.


 
Yes but the consequences for some acts of stupidity are not as great. One could just end up with a traffic ticket for being stupid in a car. If the act is stupid enough, one shouldn't be driving and hopefully their DL can be suspended or revoked. 

However, with either a car or a gun, the responsibility must be recognized. When you choose to own one or both you must be aware of your actions. If you are behind the wheel of a car, you should not be distracted by texting. If you have your gun in your hand, you should be mindful where your are going to point it or leave it especially in the presence of people who may not be familiar with guns.


----------



## JCampbell

I never said it wasn't appropriate, just pointless. It's gonna turn into a thread thats not about a medics death, but more about guns, and I really don't see how more pointless debate on that subject helps anyone.


----------



## VentMedic

JCampbell said:


> I never said it wasn't appropriate, just pointless. It's gonna turn into a thread thats not about a medics death, but more about guns, and I really don't see how more pointless debate on that subject helps anyone.


 
Too bad you think gun safety and the loss of this young man's life is pointless.

Certain facts and basic rules can be brought out in a debate that make others do some thinking and could prevent them from making similar mistakes. It sometimes takes a tragic event like this to make some situations "real".


----------



## daedalus

Gun safety is of paramount importance, and is directly of concern to us as EMS providers. I think this thread is both timely and important. A FF was killed by his own gun. Tragedy. 

Devices with no other function than to kill living things need to be handled with safety and care.


----------



## JPINFV

daedalus said:


> Devices with no other function than to kill living things need to be handled with safety and care.


Target shooting is a function that doesn't involve killing living things. Doesn't negate the need for safety and care, though.


----------



## fortsmithman

daedalus said:


> Gun safety is of paramount importance, and is directly of concern to us as EMS providers.



It's called firearm safety.


----------



## DV_EMT

I find it inappropriate as it is designed to flare up certain parties on this forum. Due to the fact that this post was posted within a few days of the "armed EMS" thread being locked and by a member that was fueled against EMS being armed... it appears at though the OP is trolling or trying to "get a last word in".

As a person who posted a lot about "armed EMS" and "CCW", This article doesn't change my position on EMS/Fire being armed. I believe that this article only shows the misuse and lack of safety on the FF's part. Guns are not toys... and he treated it like it was one... hence the unfortunate outcome. His family is in my prayers.


----------



## Sasha

DV_EMT said:


> I find it inappropriate as it is designed to flare up certain parties on this forum. *Due to the fact that this post was posted within a few days of the "armed EMS" thread being locked and by a member that was fueled against EMS being armed... it appears at though the OP is trolling or trying to "get a last word in".*
> As a person who posted a lot about "armed EMS" and "CCW", This article doesn't change my position on EMS/Fire being armed. I believe that this article only shows the misuse and lack of safety on the FF's part. Guns are not toys... and he treated it like it was one... hence the unfortunate outcome. His family is in my prayers.



I honestly don't think the OP has control over when a paramedic gets shot and dies... The article's date is 12/3/2009. It's not as if it is an old article she pulled up.


----------



## guardian528

JPINFV said:


> Similarly, I'm extremely skeptical that the gun was an "automatic handgun." Semi-automatic? Possible. Fully automatic? No way.



technically, these kind of handguns can be referred to as automatic pistols, meaning they are autoloading after every shot. i think the term came up when pistols that weren't single action began to appear


----------



## spinnakr

JPINFV said:


> Sorry, but conceal carry does not absolve the carrier from practicing basic gun sense. This wasn't an accident, it's due to the stupidity of both the woman and the fire fighter. The rules to safely handle a fire arm are short, simple, and multiple ones have to be broken to have stupidity occur (in contrast to a homicide, justified or not)
> 
> *Things that never should have happened (assuming valid conceal carry).*
> *Things that never should have happened (assuming not a valid conceal carry).*


[Lists cut for brevity - even though they were the most important parts!]

I agree 200%.  Furthermore, the story said she pointed the gun at his head, said "I ain't gonna shoot you," and then the gun went off.  That shows an extreme disrespect for firearms.  As does, for that matter, leaving it on the car seat.

Pointing blame is rather pointless, because I think there's plenty to go around.  But ignoring the immense stupidity of the series of actions that transpired?

Somebody can preach to me all day long about how they think guns should be wiped off the face of the earth, and that's completely their prerogative.  I probably won't listen, and I certainly won't agree, but I've got no problem with educated opinions.  What bothers me is when people form UNeducated opinions:  when they act out of fear and stupidity.  When people, for example, look at this accident and scream that guns should be melted into oblivion - and miss the obvious idiocy of the whole situation, they are very clearly missing the forest for the trees.  Not to mention the fact that many grow up in a kind of community that accepts - no, condones and glorifies - violence as a way of life.  We, as a society, need to start taking some personal responsibility for stuff like this.



guardian528 said:


> technically, these kind of handguns can be referred to as automatic pistols, meaning they are autoloading after every shot. i think the term came up when pistols that weren't single action began to appear


While this is true, word choice is everything, and I think that choice of words is highly indicative of the bias of the article's author.


----------



## Summit

guardian528 said:


> technically, these kind of handguns can be referred to as automatic pistols, meaning they are autoloading after every shot. i think the term came up when pistols that weren't single action began to appear



technically they are referred to as autoloading or semi-automatic. automatic pistols are machine pistols.


----------



## DV_EMT

Sasha said:


> I honestly don't think the OP has control over when a paramedic gets shot and dies... The article's date is 12/3/2009. It's not as if it is an old article she pulled up.



Right... I understand the fact that it's a "new" story... but the fact that it was immediately posted after one thread was locked because of "heated debate" on the subject... it seems like a). the OP is trying to get the last word in about the subject and b). its like adding salt to a fresh wound thats trying to heal in the sense that the thread was locked FOR A REASON... and so therefore the OP bypassed the locked thread to.. troll and flare up the people who were involved in the original threads. 

This story..... was coincidence

This post 48 hours after the "armed EMS"  was locked - no coincidence (esp with the fact that the OP was a rather large voice involved in the locked thread)

like i said before... the family is in my prayers


----------



## Akulahawk

VentMedic said:


> Yes but the consequences for some acts of  stupidity are not as great. One could just end up with a traffic ticket  for being stupid in a car. If the act is stupid enough, one shouldn't be  driving and hopefully their DL can be suspended or revoked.
> 
> However, with either a car or a gun, the responsibility must be  recognized. When you choose to own one or both you must be aware of your  actions. If you are behind the wheel of a car, you should not be  distracted by texting. If you have your gun in your hand, you should be  mindful where your are going to point it or leave it especially in the  presence of people who may not be familiar with guns.


Of course, one could also end up dead or killing others for being stupid in a car. A couple years ago, a local High School kid killed himself and his passenger when he wrapped his car around a pole... because he was stupid with his car and lost control of it. 


VentMedic said:


> He left his gun, loaded or unloaded with a minor and 2 others who probably had no firearm training and did not know the basic rules even though they might seem obvious like not pointing a gun at someone.
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not the gun but if used incorrectly or in the hands of people who fail to follow the basic rules, a gun is very dangerous. This was a death that did not have to happen.  *It was his own gun that initiated the events* and not some inattentive driver.  This lapse of safety cost this young man his life and the life of the young woman will never be the same.
> 
> Regardless of how the facts may fall, that gun should have been secured.  It is useless to blame the young man who lost his life but some should take notice as to how one little slip of the basic rules of safety can change lives very quickly.


While there's a lot I agree with in your post, I disagree with the assertion that "_t was his own gun that initiated the events". No. It wasn't. The gun is an inanimate object. The person who is responsible for initiating the chain of events is the Paramedic himself. He didn't secure the gun. He didn't clear it. The one most responsible for violating the safety rules is the woman that shot him. She shouldn't have picked up the gun. She shouldn't have pointed it at him. She shouldn't have pulled the trigger. 

Because he didn't follow the rules and she didn't either, someone died. That's a tragedy. Simply following the rules would have prevented his death. I predict that she'll spend a few years in prison, but won't serve anywhere close to life. If the events are accurately reported, it seems that she didn't intend to actually shoot him... and in the end, he'll still be dead. 

The same thing goes for other things in life... if someone doesn't follow the basic rules of driving, it's very possible that someone could die as a result. 

I'd imagine that many deaths could have been easily prevented simply by someone following basic safety rules..._


----------



## DV_EMT

Akulahawk said:


> Of course, one could also end up dead or killing others for being stupid in a car. A couple years ago, a local High School kid killed himself and his passenger when he wrapped his car around a pole... because he was stupid with his car and lost control of it.
> 
> While there's a lot I agree with in your post, I disagree with the assertion that "_t was his own gun that initiated the events". No. It wasn't. *The gun is an inanimate object. *
> 
> The same thing goes for other things in life... if someone doesn't follow the basic rules of driving, it's very possible that someone could die as a result.
> 
> I'd imagine that many deaths could have been easily prevented simply by someone following basic safety rules..._


_


AMEN TO THAT!!!_


----------



## reaper

Quit Whining!

The post is perfectly appropriate. It is about a tragedy from lack of safety. Has nothing to do with carry on duty!


----------



## VentMedic

DV_EMT said:


> Right... I understand the fact that it's a "new" story... but the fact that it was immediately posted after one thread was locked because of "heated debate" on the subject... it seems like a). the OP is trying to get the last word in about the subject and b). its like adding salt to a fresh wound thats trying to heal in the sense that the thread was locked FOR A REASON... and so therefore *the OP bypassed the locked thread to.. *troll and flare up the people who were involved in the original threads.
> 
> This story..... was coincidence
> 
> This post 48 hours after the "armed EMS" was locked - no coincidence (esp with the fact that the OP was a rather large voice involved in the locked thread)
> 
> like i said before... the family is in my prayers


 
Bypassed the thread?  

Are you trying to blame the guy for having bad timing for getting killed after some talked about weapons on this silly forum?

WTF is wrong with posting some reality?  The other threads were full of "what ifs".   This news article is not a "what if".  His death is very real.     Are you really that opposed to the safety issues being mentioned?  Just turn a blind eye to what actually can happen if you ignor some of the basics?  The average age on this forum has become about 18 and less if it is by maturity.  Some do need to hear the basics of safety over and over.  Some do need to read about real life and not just what they see on TV.  The young man in this article IS NOT an actor.  He would be collecting a pay check for his role here.  

Unfortunate that this had to involve the death of a young person, but this is the perfect time for this thread.    I pray for those around some here who are so stupid to believe that safety is not important.


----------



## VentMedic

Akulahawk said:


> Of course, one could also end up dead or killing others for being stupid in a car. A couple years ago, a local High School kid killed himself and his passenger when he wrapped his car around a pole... because he was stupid with his car and lost control of it.


 
This article is NOT about a car. This is about a gun and someone who failed to follow a few basic rules of safety. Avoidance of the safety of guns does not make them go away. We can still have concealed carry permits and I do have one. 

I just believe some need to be reminded at how easy it is to get carried away and forget the basics of safety whether it is your own weapon or that of someone else. 




Akulahawk said:


> While there's a lot I agree with in your post, I disagree with the assertion that "_t was his own gun that initiated the events". No. It wasn't. The gun is an inanimate object. *The person who is responsible for initiating the chain of events is the Paramedic himself. He didn't secure the gun. He didn't clear it.* The one most responsible for violating the safety rules is the woman that shot him. She shouldn't have picked up the gun. She shouldn't have pointed it at him. She shouldn't have pulled the trigger.
> 
> Because he didn't follow the rules and she didn't either, someone died. That's a tragedy. Simply following the rules would have prevented his death. I predict that she'll spend a few years in prison, but won't serve anywhere close to life. If the events are accurately reported, it seems that she didn't intend to actually shoot him... and in the end, he'll still be dead.
> 
> The same thing goes for other things in life... if someone doesn't follow the basic rules of driving, it's very possible that someone could die as a result.
> 
> I'd imagine that many deaths could have been easily prevented simply by someone following basic safety rules..._


_

You edited my comments to fit your own opinion here. Did I not say it was his actions and did I not say it was not the gun? 

It just amazes me that some here actually believe they are part of Public Safety and yet they do not want to acknowledge any of the safety part whether it is for themselves or others.

It also is a sad note that some on  this forum believe a discussion about safety makes a person a troll.   That truly speaks volumes about the attitudes here and it is very sad to see some want to wreck what could be a decent thread because they have their own "guns can do no wrong agenda" and the people who carry them are perfect so there is no need for any pointers on safety._


----------



## mycrofft

*This post is excellent, but the responses have spun away from the reality.*

Ask the hard questions and look at the pragmatic answers...as far as this news article tells us (they always get it wrong anyway). If this happened at home and the victim wasn't a firefighter, or the shooter wasn't a teenaged girl, it might have made the end of the eleven oclock news if it was a slow day.

There is one reason to be driving around with a loaded firearm on the car seat (other than inebriation), and that is the willingness and anticipation (*realistic or not*) to bring it into play rapidly. (Well, two reasons if you were trying to impress an eighteen year old).

And what was the eighteen year old girl doing in this scenario? Why did she pick up someone else's gun, point and fire it then toss it away? What does this do the rest of her life as well?

It's painful to learn these sorts of lessons, but this is what happens, and if people don't take it to heart it can strike home. 

What was the reason to be driving around with a loaded gun in the car?
"This was not Beirut" as we used to say. Although the news doesn't report it, many of the GSW subjects I have seen outside and inside jail were where they should not have been, with people they should not have been around, and often doing things they should not have. 

I apologize to our armchair tacticians and our "FF, right or wrong" folks (being a former firefighter myself), but *my* feeling here is that this was a young man not with a gun training problem, but a cultural/behavioral one including guns, cars and girls.


----------



## reaper

This was in Jacksonville. 90% of the city is not good areas. Half the city is probably armed, whether legal or not!


----------



## spinnakr

mycrofft said:


> *my* feeling here is that this was a young man not with a gun training problem, but a cultural/behavioral one including guns, cars and girls.



I think this particular cultural/behavioral problem has a tendency to breed safety problems and training problems, particularly when it comes to firearms.


----------



## Akulahawk

Vent, I actually agreed with MOST of your post. 



VentMedic said:


> This article is NOT about a car. This is about a gun and someone who failed to follow a few basic rules of safety. Avoidance of the safety of guns does not make them go away. We can still have concealed carry permits and I do have one.
> 
> I just believe some need to be reminded at how easy it is to get carried away and forget the basics of safety whether it is your own weapon or that of someone else.
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree with that above.
> 
> You edited my comments to fit your own opinion here. Did I not say it was his actions and did I not say it was not the gun?
> 
> You did, but you also made the statement I quoted. A statement that clearly put the initiation of events upon the gun. An object which we all agree is inanimate, and therefore can not initiate events on it's own. I thought it a little odd that you made that statement and later said it was the guy and not the gun.
> 
> It just amazes me that some here actually believe they are part of Public Safety and yet they do not want to acknowledge any of the safety part whether it is for themselves or others.
> 
> It also is a sad note that some on  this forum believe a discussion about safety makes a person a troll.   That truly speaks volumes about the attitudes here and it is very sad to see some want to wreck what could be a decent thread because they have their own "guns can do no wrong agenda" and the people who carry them are perfect so there is no need for any pointers on safety.
> 
> My own view is that guns can do no wrong or good. They're inanimate. It is the person using the gun that chooses how it is employed. I have absolutely no illusion that people who own guns are perfect... they're far from it. That includes Law Enforcement, who are supposed to be the best trained firearms people around and therefore are infallible when it comes to firearms handling. At my local range, the most frequently injured people happen to be Law Enforcement...


The guy that died and the woman who shot him clearly made some seriously wrong choices that ended up in his death and her being charged with manslaughter. The really tragic part is that while one person died, one person will likely be imprisoned, and one 16 year old will never forget what happened their families have been forever impacted by all of this... and not for the better.


----------



## FF-EMT Diver

Are you kidding me??????

Ok OK let Vent post what she want's it's a free forum for all. I don't like her view of guns and she may not like mine but last I checked we didnt have to!! she has every right to post a news article whether she's trying to get the "last word" or not.

The best course of action IMHO is to leave it alone if you truly think she or anyone else is doing as a get back then just ignore tham and dont post, as the old saying use to be " dont feed the dog and it'll leave".... 

Come on folks, lets police ourselves and then we won't have threads getting locked!

This horrble senseless tragedy was not caused by a firearm per se. It was caused by two individuals doing some very stupid things and making grave irreversible mistakes at the same time...

Also lets not hang up on "concealed carry", In some places weapons can be carried openly with NO permit, in others it can be carried on a vehicle, home, office, etc...without a permit. regardless the mistake was made when the weapon was left on the seat unsecured.....I want to point out for those of us that carry for self defense, how much use would that gun have been to him had a would be attacker gotten it out of the seat while he was pumping fuel??? IMO he probably had it on the seat to impress a female.


----------



## foxfire

FF-EMT Diver said:


> Are you kidding me??????
> 
> Ok OK let Vent post what she want's it's a free forum for all. I don't like her view of guns and she may not like mine but last I checked we didnt have to!! she has every right to post a news article whether she's trying to get the "last word" or not.
> 
> The best course of action IMHO is to leave it alone if you truly think she or anyone else is doing as a get back then just ignore tham and dont post, as the old saying use to be " dont feed the dog and it'll leave"....
> 
> Come on folks, lets police ourselves and then we won't have threads getting locked!
> 
> This horrble senseless tragedy was not caused by a firearm per se. It was caused by two individuals doing some very stupid things and making grave irreversible mistakes at the same time...
> 
> Also lets not hang up on "concealed carry", In some places weapons can be carried openly with NO permit, in others it can be carried on a vehicle, home, office, etc...without a permit. regardless the mistake was made when the weapon was left on the seat unsecured.....I want to point out for those of us that carry for self defense, how much use would that gun have been to him had a would be attacker gotten it out of the seat while he was pumping fuel??? IMO he probably had it on the seat to impress a female.



Agreed and well put. 
Two irreversable bad choices made.
the family are in my prayers.


----------



## firecoins

EMTs making bad mistakes with guns while on duty is a real possibility.  If the FF/Medic made a grave mistake on duty, he can make a similiar one on duty.


----------



## Outbac1

*The need for proper training*

Legally owned and carried are not the point. He doesn't appear to have been properly trained in how to use a firearm as he didn't render it safe. (Unloaded and secured). Or maybe he did and got lazy. She picked up a firearm she knew nothing about and didn't own or have permission to handle it. She then broke several firearm rules she appears to have known nothing about. 
 Did not control the muzzle by pointing in a safe direction. 
 Did not confirm its loaded or unloaded status.
 Did not then keep her @#%$^&#@ finger off the trigger. 

 Proper firearm training MAY have prevented this or similar tradgedies. However common sense cannot be taught or legislated. Stupidity will prevail.


----------



## Jon

Sounds like a Darwin Award... not a EMS related death.

If I'm filling my gas tank at 0100... I'd think one would want to have the gun on my person, not on the car seat. Further, the Darwin award line goes with leaving the gun in the car with folks not familiar with firearms.

Third - whats with the shooter trying to hide the gun? Seriously? That REALLY doesn't pass the sniff test.

+1 to all the posters who have pointed out all the breaches in common firearm safety practice that had to occur for this, "negligent discharge" to take place - if it really was just that, and not intentional.

Still... it is sad to see such a promising young life cut short. But I know some of the forum members would have hated him, because I'm sure "he just got his medic so he could get a job as a firefighter".


----------



## nomofica

This is why firearm safety should be offered to all EMS/fire personnel. Either that, or a strict "DO NOT TOUCH" policy.


----------



## Jeffrey_169

EMSLaw said:


> I agree, this thread is totally appropriate.
> 
> It seems from the article, though, that this was a failure to follow basic rules of firearm safety - both on his part, in that he left the loaded firearm sitting around, and on the part of the woman who shot him.  You treat any gun as if it's loaded, and you never, ever point a gun at anyone or anything you don't intend to shoot.
> 
> For me, the reality of this situation is that it is an absolute tragedy that may wind up ending two lives.  His, obviously, and the woman who is now facing manslaughter charges.  If the article is right, he was working on bettering himself as a Paramedic, and may have had a bright future.  Now that won't happen.  But that has little to do with the gun - he could have just as easily been hit by an inattentive driver while stepping out of an ambulance, or fallen down the stairs.  I think we should avoid the temptation to wave the bloody shirt and scream how this makes guns inherently evil.



I agree completely. My daughter is four and can shoot, but she is supervised and I don't let her use it without ME being there. Guns are only as safe as the operator.

"This equipment does not have a brain, use your own" 

I am sorry it ended this way however. It really is a shame.


----------



## Jeffrey_169

EMSLaw said:


> I agree, this thread is totally appropriate.
> 
> It seems from the article, though, that this was a failure to follow basic rules of firearm safety - both on his part, in that he left the loaded firearm sitting around, and on the part of the woman who shot him.  You treat any gun as if it's loaded, and you never, ever point a gun at anyone or anything you don't intend to shoot.
> 
> For me, the reality of this situation is that it is an absolute tragedy that may wind up ending two lives.  His, obviously, and the woman who is now facing manslaughter charges.  If the article is right, he was working on bettering himself as a Paramedic, and may have had a bright future.  Now that won't happen.  But that has little to do with the gun - he could have just as easily been hit by an inattentive driver while stepping out of an ambulance, or fallen down the stairs.  I think we should avoid the temptation to wave the bloody shirt and scream how this makes guns inherently evil.



I agree completely. My daughter is four and can shoot, but she is supervised and I don't let her use it without ME being there. Guns are only as safe as the operator. I have been shooting since I was four and never had a problem. 

There is a lesson to be learned here, "This equipment does not have a brain, use your own". 

I am sorry it ended this way however. It really is a shame.


----------



## medic417

VentMedic said:


> Have you not seen the numerous recent threads with many, many posts on the subject of carrying weapons on duty, off duty and at various scenes?



This has nothing to do with carrying on the job.  This only has to do with a person that picked up a firearm that obviously knew nothing about firearms.  Yes the Paramedic made a mistake leaving it unsecured and by this shows he probably had no business owning a firearm. 

Obviously though this proves nothing in regards to your argument that even those that have proper firearm education should not carry on duty.  Those of us that have brought it up have never argued that all Paramedics carry firearms only that those that are properly educated be able to legally carry.


----------



## Jeffrey_169

Exactly. The possession of a firearm is no different then anythig else, whether is be driing a car, practicing medicine, etc; it is important to understand training is the key and education is the key.


----------



## VentMedic

medic417 said:


> This has nothing to do with carrying on the job.


 
Luckily he wasn't on the job when it happened. Had he been so careless with his weapon on the job, other lives may have been lost.

If you truly understand the safety issues and responsibility of carrying a weapon, that understanding would be with you for whatever situation you are in. If you display this type of carelessness you have no business carrying any type of weapon anywhere.


----------



## Jeffrey_169

VentMedic said:


> Luckily he wasn't on the job when it happened. Had he been so careless with his weapon on the job, other lives may have been lost.
> 
> If you truly understand the safety issues and responsibility of carrying a weapon, that understanding would be with you for whatever situation you are in. If you display this type of carelessness you have no business carrying any type of weapon anywhere.



Very well put.


----------



## medic417

VentMedic said:


> Luckily he wasn't on the job when it happened. Had he been so careless with his weapon on the job, other lives may have been lost.
> 
> If you truly understand the safety issues and responsibility of carrying a weapon, that understanding would be with you for whatever situation you are in. If you display this type of carelessness you have no business carrying any type of weapon anywhere.



And had you quoted me completely I said "* by this shows he probably had no business owning a firearm* ".  So guess that means he is not one of the properly educated that should have the legal right to carry if they want to.


----------



## VentMedic

medic417 said:


> And had you quoted me completely I said "* by this shows he probably had no business owning a firearm* ". So guess that means he is not one of the properly educated that should have the legal right to carry if they want to.


 
My reply to you reply to my earlier post.



medic417 said:


> This has nothing to do with carrying on the job. This only has to do with a person that picked up a firearm that obviously knew nothing about firearms. Yes the Paramedic made a mistake leaving it unsecured and by this shows he probably had no business owning a firearm.
> 
> Obviously though this proves nothing in regards to your argument that even those that have proper firearm education should not carry on duty. Those of us that have brought it up have never argued that all Paramedics carry firearms only that those that are properly educated be able to legally carry.


 
We've already been through this many, many times.  4 - 6 hours of training does not provide enough education and hands on to carry a weapon as a Paramedic.  One can still find Public Safety Officer jobs with your Paramedic patch and they will cross train you appropriately to carry a weapon for use on the job as an LEO.    You can not compare the training Joe Q Public gets at a concealed weapons class with that of a law enforcement.   If you are going to carry a gun while representing your company, your employer should know and if they allow this, there should be training provided just like law enforcement to keep you from being shot, shooting your partner or an innocent bystander.   There, at the very minimum, should be a way to measure your competency on file just as there is for any other skill you perform on the job.  But then, some agencies have problems keeping records and some EMS providers have a problem with "more training and education".   To be fair, it would have to be enforced for *all* EMS providers (all EMTs and all Paramedics)  in an agency so that dispatch would not have to determine which truck to send where by who is armed or not to prevent further liability.


----------



## Jeffrey_169

I agree. You won't find anyone more conservative on firearms issues then I, but if someone is going to carry a firearm on duty, in a professional capacity, then they need to be trained far more then Joe Public and the concealed weapons permits. Any service member, as an example, will tell you even before we carry our weapons in the FMF we must be extensively trained in the use and care of a firearm. This is for a variety of reasons, the main one being safety. 

IN boot I went through three weeks of basic rifle training alone, and this does not include the time spent at the pistol range and other tactical courses. In my opinion most LEOs aren't properly trained. To use a firearm in a tactical situation is not as simple as it may seem to most. It requires not just the physical handling of the weapon, but also the mental training.


----------



## FLEMTP

Something I wanted to point out.. in the state of florida.. you dont even need a concealed weapon permit to carrry in a vehicle. As long as the gun is "security encased" then you dont need a concealed weapon permit.. you just need to be 18+. 

in case you're wondering
Reading FL Statute Title XLVI, Chapter 790, 

790.001 Definitions -"Securely encased" means in a glove compartment, whether or not locked; snapped in a holster; in a gun case, whether or not locked; in a zippered gun case; or in a closed box or container which requires a lid or cover to be opened for access.

Also, even if you do get a concealed weapons permit here, you go through a 2 hour course minimum that addresses the legal ramifications of carrying and use of a deadly weapon. Then, you just need to demonstrate that you can safely handle a firearm. This can be as little as one shot fired from a pistol. 

personally, I think that anyone who does carry a firearm concealed or security encased in a vehicle in this state has a personal and moral obligation to themselves and the general public to attend additional firearms training.

A gun is a tool, not a toy or a fashion accessory.  One should ALWAYS be adequately trained to use it!


----------



## Jon

FLEMTP - to further muddy the waters of FL, I've got reciprocity with my PA LCTF to carry a concealed firearm in FL. And there is no training or functional performance requirement in PA.



VentMedic said:


> Luckily he wasn't on the job when it happened. Had he been so careless with his weapon on the job, other lives may have been lost.
> 
> If you truly understand the safety issues and responsibility of carrying a weapon, that understanding would be with you for whatever situation you are in. If you display this type of carelessness you have no business carrying any type of weapon anywhere.



Vent - Is it legal to carry on the job as a medic in FL?
Do you have any evidence he did so, are are you simply suggesting that he might have done so?


----------



## VentMedic

Jon said:


> Vent - Is it legal to carry on the job as a medic in FL?


 
No.

This was a big issue in the early 1980s and to this date no EMS or FD agency allows carry of a weapon unless they are part of a Public Safety organization where they are crosstrained as LEOs and their job is also LE.



Jon said:


> Do you have any evidence he did so, are are you simply suggesting that he might have done so?


 

I never said the Paramedic in this article carried on the job since the fatal shot happened off duty.   Medic417 and I were debating the old "carry on the ambulance" issue and I stated if you don't know what you are doing off the job with a gun, you probably can handle a gun on an ambulance either.


----------



## VentMedic

FLEMTP said:


> Something I wanted to point out.. in the state of florida.. you dont even need a concealed weapon permit to carrry in a vehicle. As long as the gun is "security encased" then you dont need a concealed weapon permit.. *you just need to be 18+. *
> 
> in case you're wondering
> Reading FL Statute Title XLVI, Chapter 790,
> 
> 790.001 Definitions -"Securely encased" means in a glove compartment, whether or not locked; snapped in a holster; in a gun case, whether or not locked; in a zippered gun case; or in a closed box or container which requires a lid or cover to be opened for access.
> 
> Also, even if you do get a concealed weapons permit here, you go through a *2 hour course* minimum that addresses the legal ramifications of carrying and use of a deadly weapon. Then, you just need to demonstrate that you can safely handle a firearm. This can be as *little as one shot fired from a pistol. *
> 
> personally, I think that anyone who does carry a firearm concealed or security encased in a vehicle in this state has a personal and moral obligation to themselves and the general public to attend additional firearms training.
> 
> A gun is a tool, not a toy or a fashion accessory. One should ALWAYS be adequately trained to use it!


 
I'm glad you posted this since some don't see why I don't believe a concealed weapons permit is enough to give the privilege of carrying a gun to every 18 y/o EMT on an ambulance.


----------



## ffemt8978

VentMedic said:


> No.
> 
> This was a big issue in the early 1980s and to this date no EMS or FD agency allows carry of a weapon unless they are part of a Public Safety organization where they are crosstrained as LEOs and their job is also LE.
> 
> I never said the Paramedic in this article carried on the job since the fatal shot happened off duty.   Medic417 and I were debating the old "carry on the ambulance" issue and I stated if you don't know what you are doing off the job with a gun, you probably can handle a gun on an ambulance either.


Is it against the agency rules to carry a weapon, or is it actually illegal to do so?  There is a huge difference between the two.

In my search of Florida laws, I haven't been able to find the actual law that states it is illegal to carry a weapon while working as a medic but maybe I missed it.  Do you have a link to the actual law?


----------



## VentMedic

ffemt8978 said:


> In my search of Florida laws, I haven't been able to find the actual law that states it is illegal to carry a weapon while working as a medic but maybe I missed it. Do you have a link to the actual law?


 
It was decided by the leaders of EMS/FD agencies during the 1980s after a court case in Miami when a few FFs wanted to carry guns. Even the union thought that was a bad idea despite the violence in Miami at the time. Thus, very few have tried to challenge the decision from that case. More time would be spent securing the weapons than actually fighting the fire. They also did not want to send the wrong message to the people in the community in what was already a turbulent and frightening time. 

The reason it probably never became an actual statute was due to the many public safety agencies Florida had at the time. 

I also posted an article on this forum where the Paramedics who work for both a county FD and the county SWAT disarm themselves when working on a fire truck as Paramedic.

I also believe there might have been more than the one case since reaper and I had a PM conversation about a case he also remembered which came later.

Do you believe a 2 hour course is enough to put a gun in the hands of every 18 y/o EMT on an ambulance?


----------



## ffemt8978

So it's not illegal.

I was able to find this article http://www.miaminewtimes.com/1991-09-04/news/guns-n-hoses/ which deals with an incident in 1991 which states it was a departmental policy the firefighter violated.


----------



## JPINFV

VentMedic said:


> Do you believe a 2 hour course is enough to put a gun in the hands of every 18 y/o EMT on an ambulance?



I'm confused. Did someone suggest that fire arms should be standard issue? I thought that this discussion was about someone choosing to carry vs being forced to carry. Forcing anyone to carry a fire arm against their will is idiotic. As such, turning an argument from "some" to "all" doesn't work since not all 18 year old EMT-Bs are going to want to carry a fire arm anyways.


----------



## VentMedic

ffemt8978 said:


> So it's not illegal.
> 
> I was able to find this article http://www.miaminewtimes.com/1991-09-04/news/guns-n-hoses/ which deals with an incident in 1991 which states it was a departmental policy the firefighter violated.


 
The original case was during the Liberty City Riots and Mariel...10 years prior to that incident.

Again, do you think 2 hours of training is enough to put a gun in the hands of every EMT on an ambulance?


----------



## VentMedic

JPINFV said:


> I'm confused. Did someone suggest that fire arms should be standard issue? I thought that this discussion was about someone choosing to carry vs being forced to carry. Forcing anyone to carry a fire arm against their will is idiotic. As such, turning an argument from "some" to "all" doesn't work since not all 18 year old EMT-Bs are going to want to carry a fire arm anyways.


 
An employer has the right to know about a weapon on an ambulance they own. However, what if dispatch now gives the calls in "bad" areas only to those known to be carrying? Where's the liability? What if the others feel left out and rush out to buy their first gun and then after a 2 hour class and a couple rounds on a range, they also are allowed to carry? Should only a few carry and not all especially if all it takes is a couple of hours of training?  Should there be blatant discrimination and on what basis if the concealed carry law says all you need is 2 hours of training?  Should the ambulance be marked differently? What about the insurance carriers for the ambulances? Should they charge the employer a higher rate for LE duties? What about your own personal insurance now that you are carrying *on the job* every shift and with the intent to use it one the job?


----------



## JPINFV

Am I suggesting that anyone should carry on an ambulance? If it takes 2 hours to cover the legalities, safety, and range qualification, then 2 hours works for me. Competency is more important than clock hours.


----------



## VentMedic

Here's a decent study by a former Paramedic.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/heal...Carrying_gun_raises_risk_of_getting_shot.html

Posted on Mon, Oct. 12, 2009 


*Penn study: Carrying gun raises risk of getting shot*


----------



## VentMedic

JPINFV said:


> Am I suggesting that anyone should carry on an ambulance?


 
No, I suggested it and if you read my posts over the past couple of days you will see why. 

Again, how do you discriminate when the statute says it is really, really easy to get a concealed weapon permit? If you are 18 and get the permit, you can carry. What would decide who should and shouldn't carry a weapon on an ambulance? Who will assume the brunt of responsibility for additional training and liabilty? If the employer offers the training, that would make them directly liable and they must justify the length and quality of the training just as LE agencies must do each time there is an officer involved shooting.


----------



## Jon

VentMedic said:


> Here's a decent study by a former Paramedic.
> 
> http://www.philly.com/inquirer/heal...Carrying_gun_raises_risk_of_getting_shot.html
> 
> Posted on Mon, Oct. 12, 2009
> 
> 
> *Penn study: Carrying gun raises risk of getting shot*


Decent in what way?

It fails to consider the difference between a legally owned firearm and a firearm carried illigally by a career criminal.


----------



## VentMedic

JPINFV said:


> Am I suggesting that anyone should carry on an ambulance? If it takes 2 hours to cover the legalities, safety, and range qualification, then 2 hours works for me. Competency is more important than clock hours.


 
Those 2 hours are primarily spent reading the rules. There is not much time spent on a range. In fact, I only had to do 5 shots and not kill anybody in the process. I just had to show I knew how to point a gun at a paper target safely. It didn't really matter if I knew how to shoot or not. My mother was 82 when she got her permit with her condo pals and that was all they had to do as well. In fact, I think the instructor on the range stopped them after one shot and gave them the permit  if they promised not to shoot again.


----------



## VentMedic

Jon said:


> Decent in what way?
> 
> It fails to consider the difference between a legally owned firearm and a firearm carried illigally by a career criminal.


 
Jon, you have been reading JEMS too long.

This is an over simplied article in a newspaper. 

Pull up the original article.

Charles C. Branas, Therese S. Richmond, Dennis P. Culhane, Thomas R. Ten Have, and Douglas J. Wiebe. *Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault*. _American Journal of Public Health_, 2009; DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099


----------



## JPINFV

> Abstract
> 
> Using cross‐sectional time‐series data for U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes, without increasing accidental deaths. If those states without right‐to‐carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, county‐ and state‐level data indicate that approximately 1,500 murders would have been avoided yearly. Similarly, we predict that rapes would have declined by over 4,000, robbery by over 11,000, and aggravated assaults by over 60,000. We also find criminals substituting into property crimes involving stealth, where the probability of contact between the criminal and the victim is minimal. Further, higher arrest and conviction rates consistently reduce crime. The estimated annual gain from all remaining states adopting these laws was at least $5.74 billion in 1992. The annual social benefit from an additional concealed handgun permit is as high as $5,000.


Lott, JR, Mustard, DB. Crime, Deterrence, and Right‐to‐Carry Concealed Handguns. The Journal of Legal Studies. 1997. 26:1



> Abstract
> 
> An analysis of the effects of right‐to‐carry laws on crime requires particular distributional and structural considerations. First, because of the count nature of crime data and the low number of expected instances per observation in the most appropriate data, least‐squares methods yield unreliable estimates. Second, use of a single dummy variable as a measure of the nationwide effect of right‐to‐carry laws is likely to introduce geographical and intertemporal aggregation biases into the analysis. In this paper, we use a generalized Poisson process to examine the geographical and dynamic effects of right‐to‐carry laws on reported homicides, rapes, and robberies. We find that the effects of such laws vary across crime categories, U.S. states, and time and that such laws appear to have statistically significant deterrent effects on the numbers of reported murders, rapes, and robberies.



Plassmann, F, Tideman, TN. Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say. The Journal of Law and Economics. 2001. 44:52


----------



## VentMedic

JPINFV said:


> Lott, JR, Mustard, DB. Crime, Deterrence, and Right‐to‐Carry Concealed Handguns. The Journal of Legal Studies. 1997. 26:1
> 
> 
> 
> Plassmann, F, Tideman, TN. Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say. The Journal of Law and Economics. 2001. 44:52


 
The NRA websites are full of these articles which have largely been funded by gun enthusiasts.

And JPINFV you need to know this happens in medicine as well.


----------



## JPINFV

I'm sure that the Brady Campaign also supports such studies as well.


----------



## VentMedic

JPINFV said:


> I'm sure that the Brady Campaign also supports such studies as well.


 
Exactly.

However, I know what I have been through personally and even under gun fire during riot times, I still felt my primary duty was to the patient and did not feel like picking up a gun to shoot someone although I easily could have in some situations.   

I hope you aren't considering carrying a gun in your med school rotations?   At least don't in your pedi rotations because these kids need a health care provider and not another gangsta to look up to.


----------



## Jon

VentMedic said:


> The NRA websites are full of these articles which have largely been funded by gun enthusiasts...


And Handgun Control, Inc (Brady Campaign)'s website is full of articles funded by those that are anti-gun. However, the ones that seem to actually specifically look at LEGALLY owned and carried firearms are some of the ones you might feel "are largely funded by gun enthusiasts". Where as the ones on the Brady site often manipulate the numbers... they'll add in intentionally self-inflicted injuries/deaths, blur the line between legal and illegal gun use in the study population, etc.



VentMedic said:


> ...
> 
> I hope you aren't considering carrying a gun in your med school rotations? At least don't in your pedi rotations because these kids need a health care provider and not another gangsta to look up to.



How is one a gangsta because they might be carrying a firearm responsibly?


----------



## VentMedic

Jon said:


> How is one a gangsta because they might be carrying a firearm responsibly?


 
I see way too many very young children in our ED and ICU who are injured due to guns and gang related issues. The last thing they need is justification from those who are there to help them that guns are okay. We want to get them into programs to deter the violence and not sign them up for a concealed weapon permit. They've probably already got that part. 

After you see a few kids die from senseless killing involving weapons, you start looking for other answers rather than just telling them to shoot a gun when they get angry. 

How many children or anyone of any age have you seen die from being shot from something very senseless?

But then, I guess we do need more pedi organ donors so maybe you can justify teaching them that guns can be good in that respect while representing a medical professional.  

How many times have you been shot at while on an ambulance? Did you shoot back or seek an escape route?


----------



## 18G

Injury prevention is something EMS fails at as a whole and it is (or should be) one of our primary responsibilities. Why do we not have more injury prevention programs and exert the effort to prevent the injuries from occurring? The FD spends a great deal of money and resources on fire prevention. I don't see how injury prevention is any less important. 

It would be nice to see a "injury prevention week" where EMS can go into schools, set up in the community, and do education and offer seminars on stuff like gun safety, seatbelts, bicycle safety, being safe in the Summer (ie swimming, fireworks, etc), and just reinforce the importance of safe actions. And hand out bike helmets, do car safety seat checks, offer free or reduced cost car seats. 

We need to start being more aggressive and recognize that we do have the reach and ability to prevent injuries. 

On the gun issue, I personally do not like guns. Never have. But I see no problem with people be allowed to own and carry them. It is a right to be able to arm and defend yourself with a firearm. As far as EMS carrying firearms, unless your also a police officer you DO NOT need to be introducing a weapon into the situation! Bad idea.


----------



## JPINFV

VentMedic said:


> not another gangsta to look up to.



I'm a "gangsta" now because I enjoy shooting?  Yo dawg, let's go down to da range and pop some caps into some skeet!


----------



## JPINFV

VentMedic said:


> I see way too many very young children in our ED and ICU who are injured due to guns and gang related issues. The last thing they need is justification from those who are there to help them that guns are okay. We want to get them into programs to deter the violence and not sign them up for a concealed weapon permit. They've probably already got that part.
> 
> After you see a few kids die from senseless killing involving weapons, you start looking for other answers rather than just telling them to shoot a gun when they get angry.


There is nothing wrong with guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. Similarly, the people who have CCW permits are not the ones causing violence. If a CCW permit holder is 'busting a cap' (gotta use my "gangsta" talk after all since CCW proponents=gangstas) because s/he's angry than s/he is doing something drastically wrong. CCW permit is not carte blanche just like a police badge isn't carte blanche. 



> How many children or anyone of any age have you seen die from being shot from something very senseless?


 ... and kids die from such senseless things as car accidents and sports. Can we ban cars and sports now too?


----------



## ExpatMedic0

I would have to agree that most gun violence is not from law abiding citizens with CC licence. In fact I have seen some study's done in in areas with more CCL's and registered guns in the hands of citizens per capita and violent crimes plummeted in those areas.

Ive had a concealed carry licence for over 5 years now but most people would never guess me for the type in person.

and if we want to talk accidents... lets talk car accidents. They kill more people every year than the entire course of the Vietnam war. compare that to gun deaths.


----------



## VentMedic

JPINFV said:


> I'm a "gangsta" now because I enjoy shooting?  Yo dawg, let's go down to da range and pop some caps into some skeet!


 
 There is a big difference between you skeet shooting at some country club or range and the kids in the gangs that shoot each other in the street.   

Are you going to tell the kids how cool guns are? Do you want to be known to these kids as an EMT or Physician or as someone carrying a cool gun?  

Seeing an eight y/o coming into the ED with his brains dripping out of his skull because his friend thought it was cool to play with a gun whether they are part of a gang or because Daddy has some cool guns is not a good thing.   

I just don't believe those who are representing a medical profession should tell kids how cool it is to shoot a gun.  




JPINFV said:


> There is nothing wrong with guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. Similarly, the people who have CCW permits are not the ones causing violence. If a CCW permit holder is 'busting a cap' (gotta use my "gangsta" talk after all since CCW proponents=gangstas) because s/he's angry than s/he is doing something drastically wrong. CCW permit is not carte blanche just like a police badge isn't carte blanche.


 
People who carry a gun may also feel "more secure" and may be more likely to take risks.  They may not wait for PD backup if they have their own "backup".  They may also be more confrontational.  I have worked with several EMTs, Paramedics and FFs during the 80s when this was debated in Florida and those were definitely not the ones who should ever have a gun on their person at work due to their attitudes about "the scum of the earth" aka the patients. 




JPINFV said:


> ... and kids die from such senseless things as car accidents and sports. Can we ban cars and sports now too?


 
So you are all for giving guns to everyone including 18 y/os with a 2 hour class? 

People don't drive cars with the intent that they will have to kill someone with it.  People do put a gun in their car or on their person with the intent that the may have to kill someone with it.  Isn't that what the gun is for?  If you sense your life is going to be in danger, you carry and should know that you will have to use deadlly force?    I do own a gun and have it in my home.  If someone breaks in and threatens myself or my family, I am not going to attempt to shoot their gun out of their hand like in the movies, I will go for a kill shot.  

However, as a person with advanceing medical knowledge, for sports you might want to read about the research being done with football players and boxers.   Both sports and car manufacturers do strive to make their game or vehicles safer through better construction and education.   Gun manufacturers market their weapons for killing either of an animal or a human.  They don't make it safer by putting foam bullets in it or making it so you will miss whatever you are shooting at.   

However, there are several who may never have given a thought about the real consequences that can occur with a gun. They may purchase it after reading the many threads on an EMS forum because some anonymous poster gave reasons that sounded good.  There has also be advice that it is your right to carry and your employer can't stop nor do they even have to know.   Many here are still trying to figure out EMS and caring for a patient but now you want them to carry a weapon to possibly use deadly force on their patients?  LEOs go into their job everyday with that reality that they may have to use their gun but should someone who wants to be a medical professional have to be presented with the same expectations everyday when working on an ambulance?  Is this any different than expecting someone to fight fires who only wants to do patient care?  And yes so will argue that only a few will carry but again what few and should their (company and employees)  insurance rates be raised because a few want to carry a gun?   Should the employer require proof of competency from the employee if they are carrying on ambulances?  Will the employer then be more liable for the training provided?   Will there be a new expectation from the public if EMS providers retreat from a situation when they are armed?  Will the public expect them to act without PD because the EMT(P)s are now armed?  

Why doesn't someone answer the questions I have posed because they are the ones that were addressed indepth when this was a choice the FDs made?    They are the ones you would have to present logically before your employer, the insurance carriers and the legislators.   Emotional crying and whining about "the right to carry a gun" are not enought.


----------



## ffemt8978

VentMedic said:


> The original case was during the Liberty City Riots and Mariel...10 years prior to that incident.
> 
> Again, do you think 2 hours of training is enough to put a gun in the hands of every EMT on an ambulance?



I wasn't talking about training requirements...I was just clarifying that something that you claimed was illegal was not actually illegal.  Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## VentMedic

schulz said:


> I would have to agree that most gun violence is not from law abiding citizens with CC licence. In fact I have seen some study's done in in areas with more CCL's and registered guns in the hands of citizens per capita and violent crimes plummeted in those areas.
> 
> Ive had a concealed carry licence for over 5 years now but most people would never guess me for the type in person.


 
Does your company know you are carrying a gun on the job? Is there a specific policy for it?   Does the college know you are carrying a gun to class?  

There isn't a "type" that gets a concealed weapon permit. Most of the retirees in Florida have a permit and own a gun which most keep in their house.  Since it is so easy to get many get it just because they can. 



schulz said:


> and if we want to talk accidents... lets talk car accidents. They kill more people every year than the entire course of the Vietnam war. compare that to gun deaths.


 
Are you saying the Vietnam War wasn't all that bad?    

Look at the number of just the U.S. young men and women who went into that war situation or any war situation and compare it with the total number of people in the U.S. who drive a car.   Look then at the number of hours stretching several decades that people drive their cars versus the years the Vietnam War lasted.  You may also be counting just the U.S. soldiers who died and ignoring the death to all the soldiers and the civilians.    I  don't consider 3 to 4 million dead Vietnamese, 1.5 to 2 million dead Laotians and Cambodians, and 58,159 dead U.S. soldiers to be insignificant.               

People often toss in the stats for just the dead U.S. soldiers in Vietnam and rarely think about the death it brought overall.  But then, if they are the enemy should they be counted?  If they are civilians, shouldn't they have known better than to be in a place where they could be shot or assassinated.  It is clearly all their own fault as some would lead you to believe.  

We may never know how many actually died in the Vietnam War since some still want to just call it a "conflict". 

What about the death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan? Maybe that would be an even better number for you to use in your argument for guns.   Right now compared with other wars, the death toll for the U.S. is very low. But, look at the total number of soldiers from all countries, Police Officers and civilians.   

Now, the things you also seem to be forgetting is that the soldier is trained to use a weapon, knows what war is about and knows what he/she will be expected to do.   I don't think it is fair to do that comparison with an 18 y/o who didn't enlist with the Armed Forces but rather he/she signed up for an EMT class to do patient care in the U.S. and not in the middle of a battle field.


----------



## VentMedic

ffemt8978 said:


> I wasn't talking about training requirements...I was just clarifying that something that you claimed was illegal was not actually illegal. Nothing more, nothing less.


 
At this time there is not one ambulance service or FD that allows carry.

But, are you okay with the training requirements?  Do you believe a few short hours with very little gun experience will protect someone on the job?  Are we over training out LEOs?  Wow, maybe we could save hundreds of thousands of dollars by just having them take the 2 hour conceal weapons course.

Do you carry with the full knowledge of your employer or volunteer agency?  But then should it be different because you are a volunteer and not really a paid employee?


----------



## JPINFV

VentMedic said:


> There is a big difference between you skeet shooting at some country club or range and the kids in the gangs that shoot each other in the street.
> 
> Are you going to tell the kids how cool guns are? Do you want to be known to these kids as an EMT or Physician or as someone carrying a cool gun?
> 
> Seeing an eight y/o coming into the ED with his brains dripping out of his skull because his friend thought it was cool to play with a gun whether they are part of a gang or because Daddy has some cool guns is not a good thing.
> 
> I just don't believe those who are representing a medical profession should tell kids how cool it is to shoot a gun.


Ever thought that maybe if kids were taught about firearms then some of the "accidents" (a gun left loaded and out isn't an "accident," it's stupidity and negligence on the part of the gun owner), then many of the accidents wouldn't happen? I was taught to shoot at a young age and never had an urge to break into my father's gun cabinet to play with the fire arms. Of course storing guns unloaded in a gun display case is different than loaded in a bedside table or in a shoe box in the top of a closet. 

Similarly, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most gang members don't legally conceal carry and most people who legally conceal carry are in no way interested in some grand shootout with gang members. It's in no way logical to compare legal and competent gun ownership to criminals. 



> People who carry a gun may also feel "more secure" and may be more likely to take risks.  They may not wait for PD backup if they have their own "backup".  They may also be more confrontational.  I have worked with several EMTs, Paramedics and FFs during the 80s when this was debated in Florida and those were definitely not the ones who should ever have a gun on their person at work due to their attitudes about "the scum of the earth" aka the patients.
> 
> 
> So you are all for giving guns to everyone including 18 y/os with a 2 hour class?


What should the minimum requirements be then? I'm going to stick with legal and practical training followed by qualification (and qualification should be more than 1 shot) as a standard. If it takes 3 hours or 30 minutes, then so be it. As I said earlier, the end result is more important than the length of time it takes. 


> People don't drive cars with the intent that they will have to kill someone with it.  People do put a gun in their car or on their person with the intent that the may have to kill someone with it.  Isn't that what the gun is for?  If you sense your life is going to be in danger, you carry and should know that you will have to use deadlly force?    I do own a gun and have it in my home.  If someone breaks in and threatens myself or my family, I am not going to attempt to shoot their gun out of their hand like in the movies, I will go for a kill shot.


So... you own a gun because you want to shoot and kill someone?

No one legally carries a fire arm to kill someone. They legally carry a fire arm to protect themselves, and possible others, from harm and when danger is present, the person who is legally carrying a gun should act to end the threat. Now, yes, I agree that the intent to stop a threat and shooting to kill is one in the same, however shooting someone in the back and killing them is not going to qualify as a justifiable homicide. 



> However, as a person with advanceing medical knowledge, for sports you might want to read about the research being done with football players and boxers.   Both sports and car manufacturers do strive to make their game or vehicles safer through better construction and education.   Gun manufacturers market their weapons for killing either of an animal or a human.  They don't make it safer by putting foam bullets in it or making it so you will miss whatever you are shooting at.



I find absolutely nothing wrong with hunting provided that the carcass is used for something other than a trophy. Should we deter kids from fishing since fishing gear is only used to harm, and in the end kill, fish? Are fishing gear manufacturers inherently bad because any advance results in more killing of animals?


----------



## VentMedic

JPINFV said:


> Ever thought that maybe if kids were taught about firearms then some of the "accidents" (a gun left loaded and out isn't an "accident," it's stupidity and negligence on the part of the gun owner), then many of the accidents wouldn't happen? I was taught to shoot at a young age and never had an urge to break into my father's gun cabinet to play with the fire arms. Of course storing guns unloaded in a gun display case is different than loaded in a bedside table or in a shoe box in the top of a closet.


 
I was taught also at a young age and I do have a concealed weapon permit which I already stated how easy it is to get.  I do have a gun in my house that is accessible to me.  Everyone in my house has had gun training. However, being in a nice middle class neighborhood is a big difference from where the hospital I work at and the kids I see coming in with trauma from weapons.  Most did not have Ward Cleaver around to teach them how to shoot safely and many don't even know their fathers.  They had very different lessons in life than you or I.    Shooting skeets at the country club just doesn't compare with drive bys for turf wars and drug deals. 



JPINFV said:


> Similarly, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most gang members don't legally conceal carry and most people who legally conceal carry are in no way interested in some grand shootout with gang members. It's in no way logical to compare legal and competent gun ownership to criminals.


 
So our standards should be the same as those who carry illegally?  If posed with a threat aren't you going to kill the person threatening you which is why you have a gun with you at all times?  Is that much different from the criminals who have their own perceptions of a threat?  



JPINFV said:


> What should the minimum requirements be then? I'm going to stick with legal and practical training followed by qualification (and qualification should be more than 1 shot) as a standard. If it takes 3 hours or 30 minutes, then so be it. As I said earlier, the end result is more important than the length of time it takes.


 
I've already stated what an EMT should have many times in my posts but here it is again.  
If the EMT wants to carry a gun on an ambulance for protection at work knowing there is a chance they will have to use it, they should get no less than the same firearms training the LEO gets and the same competencies should be mandated as well as extensive training in the use of deadly force.  



JPINFV said:


> So... you own a gun because you want to shoot and kill someone?


 
Why are you carrying a gun on an ambulance? To hunt deer?   The argument has be for protection so unless you are afraid a deer will charge at you in LA, why else would you carry a gun?  If you have that gun and you believe you are in danger, aren't you going to defend yourself?  Or, is it just to look cool and fit in with the cool EMTs on the EMS forums who are pro-gun?   Maybe so the kids will like you better if you don't have a teddy bear to offer them which distracting them from other painful treatment?  



JPINFV said:


> No one legally carries a fire arm to kill someone. They legally carry a fire arm to protect themselves, and possible others, from harm and when danger is present, the person who is legally carrying a gun should act to end the threat. Now, yes, I agree that the intent to stop a threat and shooting to kill is one in the same, however shooting someone in the back and killing them is not going to qualify as a justifiable homicide.


 
Will the 2 hour course and a couple shots on the range give the EMT enough training to know when to pull the trigger or how to pull it safely?   Again, the argument is for protection and if that is the reason you are carrying while at work on an ambulance, you had better be able to follow through correctly when presented with a situation.  You can not expect the bad guys to just run if you say you've got a gun or even manage to get it out of concealment to show them.



JPINFV said:


> I find absolutely nothing wrong with hunting provided that the carcass is used for something other than a trophy. Should we deter kids from fishing since fishing gear is only used to harm, and in the end kill, fish? Are fishing gear manufacturers inherently bad because any advance results in more killing of animals?


 
As I have stated over and over, I am not opposed to gun ownership or hunting.  I just find it ridiculous that you compare hunting rabbit with the potential you have to kill a human being while working on an ambulance.  As a private citizen, it is doubtful you will be exposing your life and car to a really bad area or going into a crack house everyday as you might while working on an ambulance.  Thus, if you just stayed to hunting in the country or skeet shooting at the country club while taking the "safe" way to drive there, you will probably never be presented with much risks.  If you take the gun with you on an ambulance and are assigned a not so good area, do you not think there is a possiblity you may have to use a gun if you had one?   And again, are you just going to shoot the gun out of their hand like in the movies or will you have the courage to kill that person?  I personally believe you should not be put into a situation where that gun gives you the confidence to confront the bad guy and you have have been following your EMT training for scene safety.


----------



## Jon

VentMedic said:


> I was taught also at a young age and I do have a concealed weapon permit which I already stated how easy it is to get.  I do have a gun in my house that is accessible to me.  Everyone in my house has had gun training. However, being in a nice middle class neighborhood is a big difference from where the hospital I work at and the kids I see coming in with trauma from weapons.  Most did not have Ward Cleaver around to teach them how to shoot safely and many don't even know their fathers.  They had very different lessons in life than you or I.    Shooting skeets at the country club just doesn't compare with drive bys for turf wars and drug deals.



Vent,

You seem to want to catorgoize firearms as "one culture". You just acknowledged that those that take responsibility for owning firearms and education aren't really the problem.

With a few exceptions, including the unfortunate FF/EMTP who is the start of this thread, lawfully owned and carried firearms aren't involved in crimes. It's the folks that obtain them illegally and carry them illegally that cause problems like you discuss.

Heres the rub - these folks are ALREADY breaking the law to possess firearms - they are underage, have criminal records (or both). They aren't going to give up their guns just because another law is passed saying folks can't own guns - they already are BREAKING the law.

Whats the line? When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns?


----------



## VentMedic

Jon said:


> Vent,
> 
> You seem to want to catorgoize firearms as "one culture". You just acknowledged that those that take responsibility for owning firearms and education aren't really the problem.


 
Jon,

Did you answer any of my questions about EMTs with 2 hours of training being allowed to carry at work? Insurance? Employer verses employee liability? Competency? 

I respect now and have always respected the FDs and hospitals for not wanting their employees to be carrying a gun while at work. What is so difficult about that concept? Just stating "it's my right" and ignoring the many factors involved in such a decision? Who is going to ensure you are trained well enough to carry on the job? 

Here are the other questions I have asked but yet no one has answered.



> However, there are several who may never have given a thought about the real consequences that can occur with a gun. They may purchase it after reading the many threads on an EMS forum because some anonymous poster gave reasons that sounded good. There has also be advice that it is your right to carry and your employer can't stop nor do they even have to know. Many here are still trying to figure out EMS and caring for a patient but now you want them to carry a weapon to possibly use deadly force on their patients? LEOs go into their job everyday with that reality that they may have to use their gun but should someone who wants to be a medical professional have to be presented with the same expectations everyday when working on an ambulance? Is this any different than expecting someone to fight fires who only wants to do patient care? And yes so will argue that only a few will carry but again what few and should their (company and employees) insurance rates be raised because a few want to carry a gun? Should the employer require proof of competency from the employee if they are carrying on ambulances? Will the employer then be more liable for the training provided? Will there be a new expectation from the public if EMS providers retreat from a situation when they are armed? Will the public expect them to act without PD because the EMT(P)s are now armed?


 
What you do when not at work or when not wearing an EMT patch is your own business. When you are visible in the public eye with your employer's ambulance and uniform, you will be held accountable to a very different standard than Country Club Joe Public who is preventing his BMW from being stolen. 

For those of you who want to chat about your God given right to carry a gun regardless of the rules of your agency when doing patient care either on the ambulance or in the hospital, here is a forum better suited for you.

http://www.defensivecarry.com/




Jon said:


> Heres the rub - these folks are ALREADY breaking the law to possess firearms - they are *underage,* have criminal records (or both). They aren't going to give up their guns just because another law is passed saying folks can't own guns - they already are BREAKING the law.


 
Do health care professionals have to continue with "its okay to carry a gun" or "look at how cool I am as a Paramedic or FF"? "I may be a role model and I carry a gun to work everyday on the ambulance just incase I meet a bad guy I have to kill". When do we start teaching these kids that guns are not the answer to their problems?  Why encourage them by setting an example that guns are great in what should be a "safe" environment (hospital and ambulance) free of the guns and violence they know all to well?


----------



## ffemt8978

VentMedic said:


> At this time there is not one ambulance service or FD that allows carry.
> 
> But, are you okay with the training requirements?  Do you believe a few short hours with very little gun experience will protect someone on the job?  Are we over training out LEOs?  Wow, maybe we could save hundreds of thousands of dollars by just having them take the 2 hour conceal weapons course.
> 
> Do you carry with the full knowledge of your employer or volunteer agency?  But then should it be different because you are a volunteer and not really a paid employee?



I'm not going to answer that, because as you pointed out in this post http://www.emtlife.com/showthread.php?p=203194#post203194 this is not the forum for it.

The rest of this post is directed at EVERYONE who posted in this thread, and not one member in particular:

If you want to discuss firearms as it pertains to EMS, then this thread can continue.  If you want to discuss training requirements, who should be allowed to carry, if you should be allowed to carry, or anything else pertaining to firearms then this thread will be closed.  This is not a firearms forum.


----------



## VentMedic

ffemt8978 said:


> I'm not going to answer that, because as you pointed out in this post http://www.emtlife.com/showthread.php?p=203194#post203194 this is not the forum for it.
> 
> The rest of this post is directed at EVERYONE who posted in this thread, and not one member in particular:
> 
> If you want to discuss firearms as it pertains to EMS, then this thread can continue. If you want to discuss training requirements, who should be allowed to carry, if you should be allowed to carry, or anything else pertaining to firearms then this thread will be closed. This is not a firearms forum.


 
I really wanted to know how you would answer what additional training an EMT should have in order to carry on an ambulance.  Is a 2 hour concealed weapons class enough?  Should the EMT tell his employer that he is carrying a weapon on the ambulance especially in the patient compartment?

This is about EMS as my posts here have clearly pointed out.  You have challenged me to questions which I have provided the answers but yet you still evade my questions about training, insurance and competency. 

  Do you feel every 18 y/o EMT has the right to carry on an ambulance regardless of what their employer says and with only the minimum hours of training required for a concealed weapon permit?


----------



## ffemt8978

VentMedic said:


> I really wanted to know how you would answer what additional training an EMT should have in order to carry on an ambulance.  Is a 2 hour concealed weapons class enough?  Should the EMT tell his employer that he is carrying a weapon on the ambulance especially in the patient compartment?
> 
> This is about EMS as my posts here have clearly pointed out.  You have challenged me to questions which I have provided the answers but yet you still evade my questions about training, insurance and competency.
> 
> Do you feel every 18 y/o EMT has the right to carry on an ambulance regardless of what their employer says and with only the minimum hours of training required for a concealed weapon permit?



Each state's laws are different for the minimum age to carry a concealed weapon, but federal law prohibits anyone younger than 21 from purchasing a handgun and most states follow this example.  So I'm not sure where you are coming up with your 18y/o example.

As far as training goes, I'm of a split opinion on this.  I don't recall anywhere in the Second Amendment that requires a person to receive training prior to bearing arms.  I do support the individual owner taking the responsibility for their own actions, and going out to receive the training on their own.

As to the rest of your issues, that is something better discussed on a firearms related forum and not here.


----------



## VentMedic

ffemt8978 said:


> Each state's laws are different for the minimum age to carry a concealed weapon, but federal law prohibits anyone younger than 21 from purchasing a handgun and most states follow this example. So I'm not sure where you are coming up with your 18y/o example.
> 
> As far as training goes, I'm of a split opinion on this. I don't recall anywhere in the Second Amendment that requires a person to receive training prior to bearing arms. I do support the individual owner taking the responsibility for their own actions, and going out to receive the training on their own.
> 
> As to the rest of your issues, that is something better discussed on a firearms related forum and not here.


 
18 y/o is the age for several states.

So you do not believe EMTs should have any firearm training to carry on job on their employer's ambulance?  You support but don't feel it should be a requirement?   Again, what about the owner of the ambulance service?

NO ONE should ever handle a weapon without proper training and education.  Even those who lay claim to being trained by their daddy should take a course just to be familar with the laws. 

You stated this thread could stay open as long as it pertained to EMS. 
Why are you so evasive to my questions? Do you carry on the ambulance and as a volunteer do you feel you are exempt?   Do you have a permit or do you feel that the Second Amendment protects you from abiding by state laws?


----------



## JPINFV

ffemt8978 said:


> As to the rest of your issues, that is something better discussed on a firearms related forum and not here.



Well... there always is the lounge for off topic discussion. Heck, even the anesthesiology residency forum at SDN had a gun thread recently.


AR 15 thread:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=680329

Self defense thread:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=669660


----------



## VentMedic

JPINFV said:


> Well... there always is the lounge for off topic discussion. Heck, even the anesthesiology residency forum at SDN had a gun thread recently.
> 
> 
> AR 15 thread:
> http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=680329
> 
> Self defense thread:
> http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=669660


 
Have you notified your educators that you are carrying a weapon to class and into the hospital's patient areas?


----------



## JPINFV

Yes... because posting threads about people who enjoy guns and realize the potential for self defense automatically means that they carry into the hospital.


----------



## VentMedic

JPINFV said:


> Yes... because posting threads about people who enjoy guns and realize the potential for self defense automatically means that they carry into the hospital.


 
Do you think the EMT(P)s carrying are going to take time to place their gun in a lock box in front of the patient before going into the hospital? Of course, if the hospital is set up with good security, they would have to. 

But, you also didn't answer my question about telling your educators that you are carrying a concealed weapon in class and in the hospital.

If you are proud of it you should be able to discuss it with them. Even if you don't get their approval you could probably still get away with carrying.

Again, this thread is about EMS and health care professionals carrying weapons on the job.


----------



## JPINFV

VentMedic said:


> But, you also didn't answer my question about telling your educators that you are carrying a concealed weapon in class and in the hospital.



Irrelevent question because I've never stated that I conceal carry. 



> If you are proud of it you should be able to discuss it with them. Even if you don't get their approval you could probably still get away with carrying.



That is largely true, since by the definition of conceal carry, it is concealed. However, good luck if you do get caught either by accident or necessity.




> Again, this thread is about EMS and health care professionals carrying weapons on the job.


That's the topic only when it suites your view. For example, you've brought up incidents with unsecured guns being found at home by children which has absolutely squat to do with concealed carry while at work.


----------



## VentMedic

JPINFV said:


> That's the topic only when it suites your view. For example, you've brought up incidents with unsecured guns being found at home by children which has absolutely squat to do with concealed carry while at work.


 
No I did not dwell on what parents do with their children.  My comments were directed totally as the EMS providers and you as a future doctor being a role model and justifying that guns are great and all the kids who are in gangs should have one.

Actually, YOU brought up the topic of unsecured guns in the home:


> Ever thought that maybe if kids were taught about firearms then some of the "accidents" (a gun left loaded and out isn't an "accident," it's stupidity and negligence on the part of the gun owner), then many of the accidents wouldn't happen? I was taught to shoot at a young age and never had an urge to break into my father's gun cabinet to play with the fire arms. Of course storing guns unloaded in a gun display case is different than loaded in a bedside table or in a shoe box in the top of a closet.




I also didn't make the rules here as I wanted to continue discussing what should be adequate training for the EMT to carry weapon while on duty.

But...


ffemt8978 said:


> If you want to discuss firearms as it pertains to EMS, then this thread can continue.


----------



## JPINFV

Vent, did you miss the fact that I was responding to one of your posts? That entire quote is more accurate as follows:




JPINFV said:


> VentMedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a big difference between you skeet shooting at some country club or range and the kids in the gangs that shoot each other in the street.
> 
> Are you going to tell the kids how cool guns are? Do you want to be known to these kids as an EMT or Physician or as someone carrying a cool gun?
> 
> Seeing an eight y/o coming into the ED with his brains dripping out of his skull because his friend thought it was cool to play with a gun whether they are part of a gang or *because Daddy has some cool guns is not a good thing.   *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever thought that maybe if kids were taught about firearms then some of the "accidents" (a gun left loaded and out isn't an "accident," it's stupidity and negligence on the part of the gun owner), then many of the accidents wouldn't happen? I was taught to shoot at a young age and never had an urge to break into my father's gun cabinet to play with the fire arms. Of course storing guns unloaded in a gun display case is different than loaded in a bedside table or in a shoe box in the top of a closet.
Click to expand...


Emphasis added.


Additionally, where did I say that either, kids should be in gangs (implied) or that I endorse that kids in gangs should have guns? There's a difference between endorsement and understanding that organizations who operate outside of the law (such as gangs) generally don't follow the law. As such, making broad laws that cover everyone while targeting them doesn't produce the desired results. I'm pretty sure that kids in gangs are inspired by other gang members to carry fire arms and not someone who is legally carrying a fire arm.


----------



## Jeffrey_169

FYI, I keep several loaded firearms in my home. If someone is breaking in to my home, I should say "hey, wait a minute please so I can unlock and load my weapon, then you can break in". NO!!! I have a two y/o and a 4 y/o, and just take a guess how many times they have touched a firearm w/o permission...NONE...EVER!!! It is not the weapon, but how your raise your children. My daughter is 4 and she already owns her own 22 Ruger, and she knows how to safely use it. Don't get me wrong, she is ONLY allowed to use t under my personal supervision, but she knows the safety rules, and she knows what will happen if she even comes close to violating any rule of conduct regarding the firearm. They walk past them every other minute of every other day, and although they know what they are, they know not to touch. They learned the same way I did, at like me, they learned from birth. 

I have yet to see a kid have an accident with a firearm where proper instruction and a lifestyle geared toward the safe operation of a firearm resulted in an accident. I have seen a few occasions where an intruder came into someone's home and the kid prevented him/ herself from being assaulted however. 

The fact is that more people are killed every year by food poisoning then firearms, further more for every one firearm crime committed, 4 are prevented because a law abiding and responsible citizen had and properly used a firearm; the media doesn't tell you this, but it is plain to see on the CDC's website, as well on the Department of Justice’s website. 

It really irks me to see the police have firearms to protect themselves, but someone no one else, especially us, should have the right? Why is their life, and their families life more important and worth protecting then mine? and my family? 

It has been proven in communities where the people are allowed to carry firearms enjoy a far lower crime rate than those who do not, and the reverse is equally true. In the field we are subject to a variety of personal hazards. We live in an age where human life is worth no more than the change in your pocket, and unfortunately we are all too often caught in the cross fire. LE is not always available when they are needed, this is a fact of life; we should be trained and equipped to handle the age in which we live. If a Medic works in an area where he/ she feel it necessary to carry for their protection, concealed of otherwise, they should have the right.  Don’t get me wrong, proper training is an absolute must, but the opportunity should be present. Everyone has the right to feel safe and secure. If someone doesn’t want to carry okay this opinion should be respected, but if someone feels this need, it should be respected as well.


----------



## VentMedic

Jeffrey_169 said:


> I have yet to see a kid have an accident with a firearm where proper instruction and a lifestyle geared toward the safe operation of a firearm resulted in an accident. I have seen a few occasions where an intruder came into someone's home and the kid prevented him/ herself from being assaulted however.


 
The kids who get themselves shot didn't always have daddy around to teach them how to shoot a gun or he may have come around inbetween prison terms.



Jeffrey_169 said:


> It really irks me to see the police have firearms to protect themselves, but someone no one else, especially us, should have the right? Why is their life, and their families life more important and worth protecting then mine? and my family?


 
So you are saying the concealed weapon permit is no different than the training in of an LEO?

Does that mean you are in favor of all 18 y/o EMTs getting issued a gun with their EMT card and be allowed to carry?

We have already seen very deadly mistakes made by LEOs who also have SWAT training just recently that will change lives forever. The Oakland BART officier probably didn't mean to shoot the guy who was already down and his face showed his emotion. The Oakland SWAT members will replay their mistakes that go their 2 co-workers killed over and over in their mind. Emotions and the heat of the moment can skew one's judgement. Carrying a weapon every shift on an ambulance with the expectation of using it for deadly force can be more than some are ready for at a young age and with only a conceal weapon permit for training which may be a whole two hours and a couple of shots fired on a range.



> If someone doesn’t want to carry okay this opinion should be respected, but if someone feels this need, it should be respected as well.


 
But would that be fair?  The dispatchers would have to send only the EMTs who are armed to the high risk calls and the others could do the nice neighborhoods.  If you are going to operate as a Public Safety Officer it should be done properly with the correct job title and trainning.  No half arsed education/training and levels like EMS tends to do.


----------



## ExpatMedic0

VentMedic said:


> Does your company know you are carrying a gun on the job? Is there a specific policy for it?   Does the college know you are carrying a gun to class?


I follow all state, agency, institution laws and regulations. 



VentMedic said:


> Are you saying the Vietnam War wasn't all that bad?
> 
> Look at the number of just the U.S. young men and women who went into that war situation or any war situation and compare it with the total number of people in the U.S. who drive a car.   Look then at the number of hours stretching several decades that people drive their cars versus the years the Vietnam War lasted.  You may also be counting just the U.S. soldiers who died and ignoring the death to all the soldiers and the civilians.    I  don't consider 3 to 4 million dead Vietnamese, 1.5 to 2 million dead Laotians and Cambodians, and 58,159 dead U.S. soldiers to be insignificant.
> 
> People often toss in the stats for just the dead U.S. soldiers in Vietnam and rarely think about the death it brought overall.  But then, if they are the enemy should they be counted?  If they are civilians, shouldn't they have known better than to be in a place where they could be shot or assassinated.  It is clearly all their own fault as some would lead you to believe.
> 
> We may never know how many actually died in the Vietnam War since some still want to just call it a "conflict".



I am talking about the U.S., I do not have MVC/MVA information for Cambodia and Vietnam. No matter what you say, U.S. vehicle related accidents cause more deaths every 12 months than every U.S. armed forced member killed in the entire course of the Vietnam war. Thats still a staggering fact to me. In the United States vehicle deaths make guns look like nothing. Maybe we should just take away everyones car?


----------



## 281mustang

VentMedic said:


> 18 y/o is the age for several states.


 For which states?


----------



## ffemt8978

And that's enough of this thread.


----------

