# Some EMTs, firefighters want guns on job



## DT4EMS (Sep 14, 2012)

Here is an article that just came out in Dayton Ohio. I was interviewed for it.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/some-fearful-emts-want-guns-for-protection/nR933/

Now, to read more as to "why" I take the stance I do regarding arming of EMS, you can read the recent article Skip Kirkwood and I did in EMSWorld :

Here is the online version:
http://www.emsworld.com/article/107...arUI:p=facebook-like&fb_source=home_multiline


----------



## DrParasite (Sep 14, 2012)

and of course, the other side of the coin is 

http://www.emsworld.com/article/10442064/call-to-arms

and  

http://www.emsvillage.com/articles/article.cfm?id=1923

Does a cop carry a gun to protect the public?  or does he carry a gun to protect himself FROM the public, or anyone who would cause him harm?

As I have said before, i am not sold on the idea of arming EMTs.  However, I do think it's strange that you  (as a private citizen) can wear a gun in a holster as you drive to the supermarket, as you sit at your desk at work, and when you take your kids to a doctors appointment, but the moment you step foot on the ambulance, it's seen as something that should be forbidden.  It just confuses me that's all.

btw, I liked the article you and skip wrote.


----------



## Veneficus (Sep 14, 2012)

Kip,

I am glad that there are reasonable voices such as yours involved in this argument. (especially as leaders)

I have some questions, which are really more like statements, not trying to convince, because people who are hell bent on carrying a gun will not be detered by anything I say. But somebody sitting on the fence might give it some thought. (I have given up trying to reason with insanity) 

When I was growing up, I remember the local police forces asking for donations to purchase ballistic vests for their officers. They simply did not have the money in the budget. 

I see many EMS people claiming they need a gun for protection. (Some argue it is a right, I do not dispute it is a right. I have the right to make an inflammatory movie about religion but that doesn't make it a good idea.)

But why is a gun considered the first choice of protection?

Should EMS responders be demanding things like ballistic vests? Up armored ambulances, etc?

If I suggested EMS providers should provide their own uniforms or EKG monitors they would argue it is the employers' responsibility. Why do they think they need to provide their own firearm for protection?

Isn't that defensive protection as opposed to a missile weapon? 

Afterall, the stories I read in these articles look like responders were not in a position to shoot back but still could have been killed.

Life lessons I learned at the FD. The difference between concealment and cover. When approaching a residence always look for when I would find cover. Don't stand in front of windows or doors when knocking, and not to hold a light source in the center of my mass or near my face. 

It was what the old guys taught the new guys. Not part of school. Maybe it needs to be. Instead of "scene safe gloves on" BS.

One of my doctor friends I go shooting with showed me a study by the US army that marksmanship had no bearing on survival in combat. It went on to say that those who could quickly and effectively find cover were 60% more likely to survive. 

(I like the phrase "taking cover" it sounds so much more heroic than "run and hide.")

It seems to me that those supporting guns as a means of protection are making an almost delusional error in judgement. The gun to them represents the retention of the ability to meet violence with equal or superior violence. This I would not argue as delusional. But this ability to administer violence doesn't protect you from harm.

With the most basic odds ("Great warriors do not fight to win, great warriors win then fight" --Sun Tzu) If you and I were both to face off both draw our guns at the same time and have a good old fasioned TV wild west shootout, there are 3 possible outcomes. 

I will get shot and you won't. (In my case not exactly ideal) 

You will get shot and I will not. (no offense, my favorite option)

We will both get shot. (At least once)

Now while I think the 3rd option is the most likely, at the very best odds, there is only a 33% chance either of us would not get shot if we both had a gun.

I don't think that is very good odds for protection. I still have a 2/3 chance of getting shot.

I concede the argument that 1/3 chance of escaping harm it is better than nothing. (I won't get into the realities of an actual gun battle and people not being incapacitated on the first shot with various types of weaponds and ammo)

If I am driving or riding in an ambulance and somebody starts firing at me, how does that help? It is not exactly like there is a firing port I can return fire from. (not even a way to identify where the attacker is to shoot at)

If I am engaged in patient contact and that person or somebody else starts firing at me, if by some chance I survive, how does engaging in a gun battle become more beneficial than just getting the hell out of there?

If somebody pulls out a knife or a bat and I gun them down and wind up in prison after being convicted of a jury of people who couldn't get off jury duty, how does winding up in prison and unable to practice medicine benefit me?  

No matter what I type or we discuss here, some people just feel that having a gun makes them safe. Sort of like a little metal teddybear. Why not let them?

We will still be discussing line of duty deaths and protecting EMS providers.

We will get to talk about former EMS people who are now in jail because they thought they had a licence to kill. 

One or two might even win a Darwin award.

But they might feel safer or better off.

Also, while I have your attention, do you teach throwing objects at would-be attackers as a time winning distraction?


----------



## krtemt (Sep 14, 2012)

The problem with arming EMTs is that you are going to get some hot headed EMT that is going to use their firearm for something other than self defense. 

So if we start carrying firearms are we going to teach weapon retention tactics? What happens if the previously unarmed thug gets ahold of our weapon? 

Instead of us carrying guns why not take the time to learn some self defense. There are several different variations out there. Personally I prefer Krav Maga, its an Israeli martial art developed during WW2 to protect the Jews from the Nazis. Plus learning the self defense tactics will give the EMT exercise to help battle the bulge that alot of us seem to be developing.


----------



## Bullets (Sep 14, 2012)

krtemt said:


> The problem with arming EMTs is that you are going to get some hot headed EMT that is going to use their firearm for something other than self defense.
> 
> So if we start carrying firearms are we going to teach weapon retention tactics? What happens if the previously unarmed thug gets ahold of our weapon?



Prove it...show me a place where EMTs are allowed to carry on duty and the street ran red. In fact show me a place that allows any form of civilian carry that has some ridiculous shooting rate. I am willing to be that you wont find anything. the fact is that we arent going to just hand new hires keys, a uniform and a gun and say have fun. These are people who have obtain proper licensing to posses and carry firearms in their states. If they are willing to expend the time and money to obtain permits they tend to be more responsible with their sidearm. 

EMTs who possess valid carry permits in their states should be allowed to continue to carry while at work or not. Ambulance Driver actually posted about this very thing about to occur in Virginia
http://ambulancedriverfiles.com/2012/09/13/virginia-emts-granted-right-to-carry/


----------



## krtemt (Sep 14, 2012)

You know I apologize for posting without facts to back up what I was posting. Although I still think it would be better if an EMT/medic took self defense classes, I don't see why if they already have their concealed carry license that they can't carry it. What I posted earlier was based on the assumption that they were going to allow open carry while on duty.


----------



## DT4EMS (Sep 14, 2012)

Again,

If one reads both articles I posted. You would see I am opposed UNTIL the EMSer gets the exact training an officer MUST have to carry a gun ON-DUTY.

I'm sorry.......but an 8-hour concealed class does not meet that level of training.


----------



## medicsb (Sep 14, 2012)

Robust self-defense training is all that is needed.  Arming EMSers is stupid.  You want to carry a gun, join the military or the police department.


----------



## firetender (Sep 14, 2012)

Possessing a gun, regardless the training involved in getting it, adds an element to your consciousness that USING a gun is an option while in the field. Unless you are in a High Danger area, there is no need to impose that consciousness on you while you're doing the work of extending the lives of the fallen.

Access = Use 

This is coming from living in the State which has the least amount of gun-related violence, Hawaii. Why? Most probably because we are islands in the middle of nowhere and have a bit more control over what weapons get into the area.

While having no argument with arming medics working in very specific, high-danger areas, I would do nothing to encourage medics to have the choice to carry unless absolutely positively necessary; for all of our protection.

Sorry, but I don't have confidence in the judgment maturity of medics who, in low impact areas are feverish to carry. I don't care if they get trained like a cop.

It's the fever and insistence that bothers me.


----------



## JPINFV (Sep 14, 2012)

The first time a story is published about an EMT or paramedic drawing on some psychiatric patient is going to be hilarious, if not also sad.


----------



## medicdan (Sep 14, 2012)

In Israel, its fairly common for ambulance staff to have a weapon somewhere on their body... and I'm not aware of any increased shooting rate. The fact is that there are armed men on nearly every corner (members of the military waiting for busses, etc). Let me look for some data, though.


----------



## medicsb (Sep 14, 2012)

I do not think that there is a single place in the US that is dangerous enough to allow arming of EMSers.


----------



## Veneficus (Sep 14, 2012)

medicsb said:


> I do not think that there is a single place in the US that is dangerous enough to allow arming of EMSers.



I agree.


----------



## Veneficus (Sep 14, 2012)

*I have to ask...*

Are EMS providers so inept that they really think that a fire arm should be the first and only solution to protect themselves?

Why are EMS forums crawling with "we want guns" threads but hardly any other ideas on protection are put forth?


----------



## Sandog (Sep 14, 2012)

EMT's with guns. Preposterous. I can see the headlines now, 
*Diabetic kills 3, after EMT drops gun*. Or maybe, *18 year old EMT kills deranged patient. *

Whatever, it is just a bad idea.


----------



## bigbaldguy (Sep 14, 2012)

I don't see the need for it.

That said the truth is if they do start letting medics carry guns I suspect

A. The training requirement will be a huge PITA that most medics won't want to bother with. (dream on if you think a CHL is going to cut it) 

B. Most medics who would be willing to deal with the hassle of the training and annoyance of wearing a gun will probably fail the psych test. 

C. Very few outfits are going to want to carry the insurance.

D. The guys that get approved and do the training will get tired of carrying a 3 pound chunk of metal on their belt after about a year. (I did)

As I've said before after 9/11 the commercial pilots all raised hell about getting an armed pilot program. The loudest advocates for the program didn't get approved to carry (luckily in many cases). A good chunk of the guys who did get approved either don't carry anymore because of the hassle or went through the class so they can jump security not because they want to carry a gun. 

I think it's a bad idea because once word gets out that medics are armed it puts us at far more of a risk than we were to begin with. The types of confrontations a medic is likely to get into aren't the type of confrontations where a gun does any good. Back of an ambulance? Nope Crazy guy taking a swing at you while you take his blood pressure? Nope Drunk/drugged guy spitting on you? Nope Being chased by aliens or zombies? Duh force fields and undead, nope.

I just don't see the need for it outside of some very very limited circumstances.

Edit: I have had a CHL since the first year they came out in Texas and I'm not anti gun. I just haven't bothered carrying in a decade because you eventually realize its just a big heavy thing that keeps u from tucking your pants in. Not only is it useless but it makes everyone think you're a slacker/slob.


----------



## Veneficus (Sep 14, 2012)

I still want to know why it is an all or nothing solution.

There must be potential solutions that do not revolve around the argument of gun or no gun.


----------



## bigbaldguy (Sep 14, 2012)

Note to self. Patent idea of

Star of life holster. (day glo?)

Star of life grips for 44 magnum (only gun most will want to carry)

Design gun that is 20 percent bigger than gun carried by other medics each year with cooler non stick finish. (I'll make a fortune)

And the million dollar idea laryngabayonet with tactical xenon styleto. (pat pending)


----------



## mycrofft (Sep 14, 2012)

HHAHHAHHAHHHAHAH!!!
I move that EMTIFE limit each year's posts to 30 lines regarding "right to carry".


----------



## DrParasite (Sep 14, 2012)

Sandog said:


> *18 year old EMT kills deranged patient. *
> 
> Whatever, it is just a bad idea.


why is this a bad idea?  I have seen and heard about cops who did just that.  EDP had a machete, PD ordered him to drop it, EDP came at them, and they shot him.  was their an investigation?  probably.  did they act appropriately?  based on limited information provided, I would think so.  If the deranged patient were to hurt or kill the 18 year old EMT, what would your reaction be?

The reality is having EMTs armed might save some lives, but probably not with an EMT shooting back when shot at.  Just like having a cop on a scene with his hand on his holstered sidearm helps remind everyone to behave, having the weapon will act as a deterent.  Once you are at the point of needing to either draw or fire a weapon, you should be calling for additional assistance probably 10 minutes ago, and looking for a way to remove yourself from the situation.

I do know there are areas where if you get dispatched to an EDP, you DON'T always get the police on scene before the ambulance.  if someone is assaulted, an ambulance is sent, not the police.  I was told (back in the day, not as often now) ambulances used to leave shooting and stabbing scenes with the injured just as police were pulling up.  I'm not saying it's right, just saying that it happens.

I don't think giving EMT guns is the answer.  but I do think that EMS is a soft target, and if I was a bad guy, a two person soft target in an isolated area (apartment, park, housing project, driving down the highway, etc) would be who I would go after.


----------



## Shishkabob (Sep 14, 2012)

Your article over-simplifies and gives false info.


You aren't restricted from using deadly force until deadly force is used against you.  In the vast majority of states, you can use deadly force when the same is threatened / used against you, a violent felony is attempted against you, or you have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury.  


Second:  An agency hiring a private citizen who uses force, legal or otherwise, has no vicarious responsibility in what that employee does in a defense situation.  If someone robs 7-11 and the cashier shoots the robber, the robber cannot place the blame on 7-11 because 7-11 didn't arm the employee.



People over-simplify scene safety by saying you can simply retreat if it's dangerous or you're under attack... there are times that's not possible.  If it were always possible, it would never be legally acceptable nor necessary to defend yourself and if you laid a finger on another you'd always be guilty of assault.  That's not true.  The law in nearly every single state (Illinois the exception) recognizes that you have the right to defend yourself against unlawful force.



It's silly for you to require someone to have the same training as a police officer before they should be armed.  It is my Constitutional right to be armed and to protect myself.  No mention on having the training of a law enforcement officer.  I don't have the job as a LEO, therefor I don't need the training of a LEO.  To add on top of that, you people that state "EMS isn't law enforcement", the reason to be able to be armed isn't to enforce laws, but to protect yourself from the lawless.    Less than 0.02% of crimes committed in the US are done by permitted concealed carry holders.




Why should I be any less safe at work then I am at home?


----------



## medicsb (Sep 14, 2012)

DrParasite said:


> I don't think giving EMT guns is the answer.  but I do think that EMS is a soft target, and if I was a bad guy, a two person soft target in an isolated area (apartment, park, housing project, driving down the highway, etc) would be who I would go after.



For such a soft target, we seem to be very very very rarely targeted.  Though I guess if you ever break bad, we all know to not go near you with an ambulance.


----------



## Shishkabob (Sep 14, 2012)

medicsb said:


> I do not think that there is a single place in the US that is dangerous enough to allow arming of EMSers.



So, are you against owning guns to defend yourself in the home?  Can you explain to me why it's okay to have a gun in your home, but not in the general public?   Why are you in more danger in your house than the general public?  If there IS a place that you allow someone to posses a means of protecting themselves, why is that place ok but not another?


Nearly every single mass shooting has taken place in a "gun free zone".


----------



## medicsb (Sep 14, 2012)

Linuss said:


> So, are you against owning guns to defend yourself in the home?  Can you explain to me why it's okay to have a gun in your home, but not in the general public?  Most violent crimes happen in the public.
> 
> Nearly every single mass shooting has taken place in a "gun free zone".



I'm not against guns in the home, though I am extremely skeptical that they make a home "safe".  I'm not necessarily against people carrying concealed weapons, either, but I'm not convinced they make society safer.  But, wait, weren't we taking about EMS?


----------



## Shishkabob (Sep 14, 2012)

medicsb said:


> I'm not against guns in the home, though I am extremely skeptical that they make a home "safe".  I'm not necessarily against people carrying concealed weapons, either, but I'm not convinced they make society safer.  But, wait, weren't we taking about EMS?



So then I'll ask:  Why should someone in EMS not be able to carry concealed?  Do we instantly get absolved of all dangers when we clock in?


It's been proven through multiple studies that after states enact right to carry laws, violent crimes either stay the same (meaning society doesn't fall apart by armed civilians) or it actually goes down.  Not a single state has seen an upswing in violent crime after allowing concealed carry.



Depending on the study you read, between 200,000 and 2.5 million crimes are stopped each year by someone with a legally owned firearm... even though less than 10% of those result in shots actually being fired.  That's between 550-6850 crimes A DAY.


----------



## DrParasite (Sep 15, 2012)

medicsb said:


> For such a soft target, we seem to be very very very rarely targeted.


and the last time you were assaulted on the job, did you report it?  spit at, hit, had someone move in an aggressive manner toward you, or had someone throw something at you, etc.  I know I didn't.  

And if you really think we are very very very rarely targeted, check out this link: http://dt4ems.com/forums/index.php?board=16.0  It only has 35 pages of EMS personnel who were assaulted, and those were only the ones that made the news!

And I agree with Linus's post.  the information is 100% spot on accurate


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Sep 15, 2012)

One of the main issues I see with EMS carrying a gun is that most of the time we are in a closed space with an aggressive patient. In the back of the ambulance is too small of a place to draw a gun. In the patients house you are normally right next to the patient. 

If you look at LEO they are always a good distance away from the aggressor when they have their weapon drawn. You don't see them 6 inches to 2 feet away from the aggressor. 

I don't see my state allowing EMS to carry guns anytime soon. It's almost impossible to get a CCP in California.


----------



## Shishkabob (Sep 15, 2012)

firefite said:


> One of the main issues I see with EMS carrying a gun is that most of the time we are in a closed space with an aggressive patient. In the back of the ambulance is too small of a place to draw a gun. In the patients house you are normally right next to the patient.
> 
> If you look at LEO they are always a good distance away from the aggressor when they have their weapon drawn. You don't see them 6 inches to 2 feet away from the aggressor.



Most defensive shootings happen within 3 yards.  You are more likely to have to shoot someone within arms reach than you are at 20 yards.   And trust me, you don't "always see" and officer far away when they draw their guns... most of the time the aggressor is well within 10 yards.  If the person you shoot is more than 21 feet away and doesn't have a gun themselves, you are going to have trouble defending your action.  21 and closer, if they're a threat, you can shoot.



And concealed means concealed:  No one should know that you're carrying, let alone where, until you decide to draw.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Sep 15, 2012)

Linuss said:


> Most defensive shootings happen within 3 yards.  You are more likely to have to shoot someone within arms reach than you are at 20 yards.   And trust me, you don't "always see" and officer far away when they draw their guns... most of the time the aggressor is well within 10 yards.  If the person you shoot is more than 21 feet away and doesn't have a gun themselves, you are going to have trouble defending your action.  21 and closer, if they're a threat, you can shoot.
> 
> 
> 
> And concealed means concealed:  No one should know that you're carrying, let alone where, until you decide to draw.



In EMS how often are you 10 yards or even 3 yards away from a patient when they become aggressive...wait....

How often in EMS (in general) are you 3-10 yards away from the patient? 

As for myself the only time I am that far away is when I get on scene with the ambulance and I leave the ER after dropping the patient off. Apart from those 2 times I am normally 2 feet away from the patient at max at any given time. Pulling a gun for self defensive at 2 feet away? Yeah I don't see that often at all even in LEO. At 2 feet away LEO goes hand to hand with the aggressor.


----------



## Shishkabob (Sep 15, 2012)

You really should start looking up self defense shootings and such.  Again, most of the time that firearms are used in non-war applications is below 10 yards.  That means contact distance of 1 inch, up to 30 feet.  Most rooms aren't 30 feet in length.  Most times you're robbed, the person is within arms reach of you.  



Are you really advocating being otherwise defenseless if someone is within arms reach of you?


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Sep 15, 2012)

Linuss said:


> Are you really advocating being otherwise defenseless if someone is within arms reach of you?



When did I say that?

When they are within arms reach, at least IMHO, EMS would be better off with hand to hand defensive (courses that DT4EMS offers) than being armed with a gun. 

If EMS was able to carry on duty would they have to take a class on how to avoid being disarmed by a patient? The visual I get in my mind (I'm sure I'm not the only one) is an EMS worker pulling a gun on an aggressor who is within arms reach and then being disarmed. 

Imagine that news headline "18 y/o EMT pulls gun on aggressor/patient, gets disarmed and killed".


----------



## VFlutter (Sep 15, 2012)

Blow gun with haldol darts? 

I live in the "most dangerous city" and there are many places I would not go unless I was carrying but I do not feel that translates over to the job. If the scene does not appear "safe" then wait for PD. in an urban environment that should not be a problem with the amount of PD around. 

So after you shoot that crazy mofo on bath salts are you going to render him aid? Or let him lay there until you feel he is dead enough to approach safely?

I would not have a problem with allowing EMS to carry tazers. I feel that would be a compromise.


----------



## JPINFV (Sep 15, 2012)

DrParasite said:


> And if you really think we are very very very rarely targeted, check out this link: http://dt4ems.com/forums/index.php?board=16.0  It only has 35 pages of EMS personnel who were assaulted, and those were only the ones that made the news!



...and I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of them, especially the simple assaults and batteries, where lethal force would not and could not be justified, especially when involving a patient with an acute psychiatric disorder. Shooting the dude undergoing an acute psychotic break because he won't get on the gurney isn't going to be justified... period... even if one of the providers does die of a heart attack.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Sep 15, 2012)

Linuss said:


> You really should start looking up self defense shootings and such.  Again, most of the time that firearms are used in non-war applications is below 10 yards.  That means contact distance of 1 inch, up to 30 feet.  Most rooms aren't 30 feet in length.  Most times you're robbed, the person is within arms reach of you.



The only info I can find online is the NYPD SOP-9. Yes it states that 90% of all shootings occurred 15 feet or less. However if you keep reading the study was done using info on police only shootings from Sept. 1854 to Dec. 1979. 

65% of the officers already had their weapon drawn. 

70% of the officers didn't aim and only used instinct shooting. 

In 1990 the officer hit potential was 19%. In 1992 it was 17%. 

All of this is based on officers who are familiar with their weapon, weapon training, defensive training, and all the other training officers have to do (including special ways to aim, hold the weapon, etc). 

EMS isn't the police, sheriff, or highway patrol. We won't nearly have the same training as they do. Our stats won't look anywhere near what these are.

I am comfortable around guns and have been shooting my whole life. I have a couple awards from the NRA for shooting. Could I be disarmed? Heck yes... And very easily. Do I feel comfortable with my shooting abilities at a distance? Yes. Do I feel I could hit an aggressor at arms length with my weapon in a holster? No.


----------



## Shishkabob (Sep 15, 2012)

firefite said:


> In 1990 the officer hit potential was 19%. In 1992 it was 17%.
> 
> All of this is based on officers who are familiar with their weapon, weapon training, defensive training, and all the other training officers have to do (including special ways to aim, hold the weapon, etc).


  You're grossly assuming that cops get any sort of extensive and ongoing training in firearm competencies beyond the academy;  on average, they don't.  Go ask a group of your local patrol officers, then go ask a group of local CCW carriers, I all but guarantee you that the CCW carriers train more often than the cops do.





> EMS isn't the police, sheriff, or highway patrol. We won't nearly have the same training as they do. Our stats won't look anywhere near what these are.


  Actually, civilian accuracy is about on par to that of LEOs, and each is about as likely as the other to actually have experience some situation where they had to discharge their firearm against another human.


----------



## firetender (Sep 15, 2012)

*Official Pause*

Okay, everybody, this thread is on hold until DT4EMS, the OP chimes in and puts it back on the track of his original intent.

If someone else posts before then the thread gets Closed.

If DT4EMS doesn't post by Sunday, the thread gets Closed.

It's cool your socks time.


----------



## Bob67 (Sep 15, 2012)

Why don't we stop laying off cops. Then we would have enough to respond to dangerous EMS calls along with their normal duties.


----------



## JPINFV (Sep 15, 2012)

Ok... let's raise taxes then!


----------



## Shishkabob (Sep 15, 2012)

JPINFV said:


> Ok... let's raise taxes then!



Or stop paying for social services instead?


How about the government gets forced in to living within a budget?  No spending more than you take in.  Can't afford it, can't buy it, move on.


----------



## JPINFV (Sep 15, 2012)

Linuss said:


> Or stop paying for social services instead?
> 
> 
> How about the government gets forced in to living within a budget?  No spending more than you take in.  Can't afford it, can't buy it, move on.




Police services would be included in not buying services that the government can't afford. Additionally, increasing taxes is basically the government getting a raise. Thus taking in more money allowing them to afford it. Of course this is a gross oversimplification of the ramification of taxes in both directions, especially given the amount of debt the Federal Government has.


----------



## firetender (Sep 15, 2012)

*Guncase closed*

We all thank you for your decision!


----------

