# EMS Carrying Firearms



## MedicPatriot (Jan 6, 2012)

So I was wondering what you guys think about carrying firearms on the medic unit? Now before we start bashing, lets try to be adults.

This argument started at my station where they tried to tell police officers who ride the medic unit that they must disarm themselves and put it in the station safe. I am VERY against that. I have been on numerous calls where I was glad the officer driving for me had a firearm on him. Sure this my be the job of the police, but routine calls can turn violent when police aren't even dispatched. More than that, you are trying to deny someone protecting themselves. 

Besides police officers, what about people who can legally conceal a firearm. I have a concealed carry license, but not in Maryland. If I did have one in Maryland though, shouldn't I be able to [legally] be armed as long as its in due regard to the patient? We are talking about responsible people here, not gun slinging idiots.



The other sides arguments, and my counterarguments:

It is dangerous in case the patient grabs it
A: Yes it could be, but they shouldn't be able to see it under most circumstances and it can't be pulled out with a good retention holster.

It could go off and injure somebody
A: This comes from ignorance. Guns don't magically go off, the trigger must be pulled. The only valid argument is if you are using a cheap holster that could catch the trigger.

That's the job of the police:
A: Agreed, but they aren't always there.



This isn't meant to be a gun control thread. Just a discussion, so lets hear it.


----------



## nwhitney (Jan 6, 2012)

There are already MANY posts on this topic.


----------



## Handsome Robb (Jan 6, 2012)

You did not just start this again did you? Sorry not trying to be an *** but this *always* causes arguments.

I searched "concealed weapon" in the standard search bar and came up with this:

http://emtlife.com/search.php?searchid=2404761


----------



## MedicPatriot (Jan 6, 2012)

Sorry. I searched it and found only things about patients with concealed carry permits.


----------



## mycrofft (Jan 6, 2012)

Here's one:
http://www.emtlife.com/showthread.php?t=14014


----------



## mycrofft (Jan 6, 2012)

It isn't polite to just throw a URL, sorry.

I'm former USAF firefighter, med tech and nurse, qualified (not expert) with M-9 Berreta and M-16. Had training in LOAC. Worked with local sheriff department for twenty years. I will not say whether or not nor how many guns I own.

I do not support carrying firearms because it is dangerous mission creep. You can't render aid while returning fire without armed assistants (which is law enforcement); the situations needing you to barge in under cover of arms are rare and usually misunderstood; the personal, psychological, legal, ethical ramifications should you ever shoot someone (even if found to be acting in self defense) are beyond your, and to some extent, my  knowledge. There is "gun courage" which will cause you to even consider going where you are likely to "get shot", whereas without a firearm you would think twice or flat out hold off. If you should shoot someone, his associates may take it out later on you, your company, your co-workers or friends. This isn't Beirut, as we used to say, and it isn't Hollywood, although Hollywood teaches us Americans that it's all about going fast and shooting.

This is ALL outside the issue of what if you were shot? A gun won't protect you from a bullet. Would your benefits be enough to make it OK even if you were paralyzed for life, maybe quadriplegic, maybe eating through a tube in bed? Even "just a simple colostomy"? Eat up your life savings, no money for the kids to go to college? Make your wife a widow, your kids orphans, or force your parents or other loved ones to have to bury you?

We need more education about firearms and less marketing.


----------



## Handsome Robb (Jan 6, 2012)

MedicPatriot said:


> Sorry. I searched it and found only things about patients with concealed carry permits.



No need to apologize. All is well.  I didn't mean to come off like an ***.


----------



## MedicPatriot (Jan 7, 2012)

mycrofft said:


> It isn't polite to just throw a URL, sorry.
> 
> I'm former USAF firefighter, med tech and nurse, qualified (not expert) with M-9 Berreta and M-16. Had training in LOAC. Worked with local sheriff department for twenty years. I will not say whether or not nor how many guns I own.
> 
> ...



I wasn't saying EMS should be law enforcement. Some people carry guns every day everywhere they go and would probably not want to disarm themselves. It isn't to be able to do more things, but to simply keep one basic ability of self-defense on you at all times. Gun courage could be a valid point you bring up, and I can see some people may be like this.

Either way I didn't realize this is a recurring topic lol so I will browse them


----------



## epipusher (Jan 7, 2012)

Enough emts and medics exist that get exited and brag about the fact they are carrying a knife while on duty. It's a scary thought even consider the idea of carrying a firearm.


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (Jan 7, 2012)

18 months away and nothing has changed... LMAO... I missed this...

Oh... 40 caliber Springfield XD...


----------



## DrParasite (Jan 7, 2012)

I, Joe citizen, am permitted to carry a gun on me in a holster.  Just in case I want to.

I, Joe EMT, am permitted to carry a gun on me in a holster.  Just in case I want to.

I, Joe EMT, am not permitted to carry a gun on me when I step into the ambulance, despite the fact that I might go into a situation where my life is threatened.

I, Officer Joe EMT, am not permitted to carry a gun on me when I step into the ambulance, despite the fact that I might go into a situation where my life is threatened, and I am a LEO who carries a gun at my FT job.

If Joe citizen can carry a gun to handle any situation he wants (and deal with the repercussions of screwing up), why shouldn't an EMT, who is trained to handle EMS emergencies, and as qualified as Joe Citizen to carry a gun?

How many officers have had to draw their gun while on the job?  anyone have stats?  now how many have had to discharge their firearms while on the job?  even smaller number?

What was the percentage of cops who never discharge their firearm once in their career (outside of the range)?  if it's a high number, would you advocate them not needing them, or would you say the low number still justifies them all being armed?

or is this topic still absurd?


----------



## EMS123 (Jan 7, 2012)

In addition to a firearm discussion what does everyone feel about EMS Providers wearing a "second chance vest"?

Definitely feel Providers should at the very minimum be able to carry a less then lethal weapon, or chemical deterrent (OC Spray). 

Law enforcement/Military follow escalation of force/ use of force both are standing operating procedures/protocols that have proved to saves lives.


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 7, 2012)

*a timely post*

I have changed my mind on this issue.

EMS should carry firearms with one round in it. That way if they feel they may desperately need it, they can self administer and rid us of their psychosis.

(Pay no attention to my sarcasm)


----------



## bigbaldguy (Jan 7, 2012)

*They wouldn't just hand us all a gun.*

Bear with me on this I really do have a point.
When TSA first announced that they were going to begin a program to allow airline pilots to carry guns my first thought was "oh HELL no". I knew too many pilots who strut around talking about how they would carry their dessert eagle .50 and if anything happened they would blow those "alkaydah boys right back to Ayllah". I was 100 percent against it. Now that the program has been in place for some time it didn't quite roll out like I thought it would. They didn't just start handing a gun to every pilot and say here yah go try not to shoot any hotel maids. The pilots have to jump through hoops, go through mental evaluations (of which a fair number fail believe it or not),go to some training camp for a week, attend extensive yearly training and follow very strict procedures all at their own expense. I know a few pilots who went through the program then surrendered their FDO (flight deck officer) status because they said it just wasn't worth the trouble. While I still don't see the purpose of having armed pilots I no longer worry in the least about the pilots who are in the program. The truth is the unqualified people don't get guns. I think that a lot of the objections in EMS towards medics carrying fire arms are based around ideas similar to the ones I had when I first heard about the FDO program. If they were ever to arm EMT's you can bet they wouldn't be giving everyone of us a gun.
All of that said I still don't see the need for pilots to be armed and while I can see a greater need for medics to be armed I think that in 90 percent of departments it is unnecessary.


----------



## bigbaldguy (Jan 7, 2012)

bigbaldguy said:


> Bear with me on this I really do have a point.
> When TSA first announced that they were going to begin a program to allow airline pilots to carry guns my first thought was "oh HELL no". I knew too many pilots who strut around talking about how they would carry their dessert eagle .50 and if anything happened they would blow those "alkaydah boys right back to Ayllah". I was 100 percent against it. Now that the program has been in place for some time it didn't quite roll out like I thought it would. They didn't just start handing a gun to every pilot and say here yah go try not to shoot any hotel maids. The pilots have to jump through hoops, go through mental evaluations (of which a fair number fail believe it or not),go to some training camp for a week, attend extensive yearly training and follow very strict procedures all at their own expense. I know a few pilots who went through the program then surrendered their FDO (flight deck officer) status because they said it just wasn't worth the trouble. While I still don't see the purpose of having armed pilots I no longer worry in the least about the pilots who are in the program. The truth is the unqualified people don't get guns. I think that a lot of the objections in EMS towards medics carrying fire arms are based around ideas similar to the ones I had when I first heard about the FDO program. If they were ever to arm EMT's you can bet they wouldn't be giving everyone of us a gun.
> All of that said I still don't see the need for pilots to be armed and while I can see a greater need for medics to be armed I think that in 90 percent of departments it is unnecessary.



I didn't mean to imply by my post that I supported the arming of medics. I do not.
Just to clarify I think there are lost of reasons why EMS personnel should not be armed but the idea that unqualified people will be allowed to carry is in my opinion not one of them.


----------



## Nervegas (Jan 7, 2012)

EMS123 said:


> In addition to a firearm discussion what does everyone feel about EMS Providers wearing a "second chance vest"?
> 
> Definitely feel Providers should at the very minimum be able to carry a less then lethal weapon, or chemical deterrent (OC Spray).
> 
> Law enforcement/Military follow escalation of force/ use of force both are standing operating procedures/protocols that have proved to saves lives.




Why even get involved in a situation? We are here to treat and transport the injured, not get into an all out brawl or attempt to subdue anyone. 

_"But what if a patient attacks me..??"_ 

Then use enough force to get yourself out of the situation and retreat to a safe location. We have plenty of big heavy objects that would suit the purpose just fine. Plus, I would hope that there are two people at minimum on that ambulance, get your partner to back you up? 

We should be deferring and retreating from situations. It is not our responsibility to engage in any form of LE role. If I am getting shot at, the last thing I want to be doing is trying to return fire, just find cover and sit put. Obviously LE based medics are the exception, but you catch my drift.


----------



## bigbaldguy (Jan 7, 2012)

Nervegas said:


> Why even get involved in a situation? We are here to treat and transport the injured, not get into an all out brawl or attempt to subdue anyone.
> 
> _"But what if a patient attacks me..??"_
> 
> ...



Unlike arming of EMS I think that body armor is not a bad idea, but should be left up to the individual medics. I personally would not choose to wear body armor because I simply don't need it where I work. However if someone feels more comfortable wearing it I see no reason it shouldn't be allowed. Unlike a firearm I don't see a significant downside to it other than you might occasionally see a medic who looks a little goofy. I have actually seen one medic who was wearing a vest and other medics did make fun of him behind his back. But I imagine there was a time when people caught hell for wearing their seat belts when no one else wore them. I suppose it might give someone a false sense of security but that can be said of many things. Unfortunately getting involved in a situation isn't always something you chose to do. Sometimes it just happens. 
I do not think that employers should be responsible for buying the vests though.


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 7, 2012)

bigbaldguy said:


> I do not think that employers should be responsible for buying the vests though.



I think this would depend on where you work. It is my belief an employer does have a responsibility to provide protection from _reasonable_ threats to safety.

I do agree that medics should have ballistic armor. Not because somebody is directly gunning for them in most cases, but a victim of circumstance.


----------



## mycrofft (Jan 7, 2012)

I will admit that a vest I can support, but they need to be vividly taught that the vest is not magic and is not to be used as a shield to go where it's too hot to go.
They used to NOT allow us to wear Nomex cowls under our fire helmets because they were afraid we wold go into places we shouldn't, lacking the reality element of burning ears.


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 7, 2012)

mycrofft said:


> They used to NOT allow us to wear Nomex cowls under our fire helmets because they were afraid we wold go into places we shouldn't, lacking the reality element of burning ears.



I know a couple of guys who still won't wear one by choice for this reason.

I don't fight fire anymore, but when I did, I'd take my chances with the hood rather than without.

I also know a couple of guys, one with his wedding ring branded to his finger and the other who was wearing a metal belt buckle he has a life-long reminder of not to do again.

I can't help but think that many safety regs were put into place because somebody somewhere did something stupid.

I know there is probably 1 or 2 named after me from my younger days.


----------



## WhiskeySix5 (Jan 7, 2012)

While I have a concealed carry permit, am former military and LEO, and have been in this field for years... I cannot ever recall a scenario in this field where I truly felt I needed to be armed to ensure my safety and well being, or for that matter, the patients well being. On the battlefield? Yes, I had to shoot. In the real world? Never. I have been in some scary scenarios, but then common sense prevails. If in doubt, we simply stage till LEO's get on scene. Thats what they are paid to do. I am here to provide medical assistance, not enforce the laws of the county, state, et. al.

Can you imagine responding to an inner city area armed? Some of the EMT's I see can barely lift a jump bag or stretcher, so how are they going to fend off someone trying to steal their gun :rofl:


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 7, 2012)

WhiskeySix5 said:


> While I have a concealed carry permit, am former military and LEO, and have been in this field for years... I cannot ever recall a scenario in this field where I truly felt I needed to be armed to ensure my safety and well being, or for that matter, the patients well being. On the battlefield? Yes, I had to shoot. In the real world? Never. I have been in some scary scenarios, but then common sense prevails. If in doubt, we simply stage till LEO's get on scene. Thats what they are paid to do. I am here to provide medical assistance, not enforce the laws of the county, state, et. al.
> 
> Can you imagine responding to an inner city area armed? Some of the EMT's I see can barely lift a jump bag or stretcher, so how are they going to fend off someone trying to steal their gun :rofl:



Thank you. It is really good to see somebody has figured this out.

For those with the insatiable urge to need to carry a firearm while providing medical care, may I humbly suggest an employer who will support it?

1-888-550-ARMY

1-800-USA-NAVY

I am willing to bet they have openings and will take an inexperienced EMT under 21.


----------



## DrParasite (Jan 8, 2012)

WhiskeySix5 said:


> Can you imagine responding to an inner city area armed? Some of the EMT's I see can barely lift a jump bag or stretcher, so how are they going to fend off someone trying to steal their gun :rofl:


hmmm I pull up to an inner city sick person call, for an 50-60 year old lady with diff breathing on a dead end street. what I don't know is both of her sons are  home a well, and (I learned later) both are known members of the Bloods street gang, and both are believed to be heavily armed inside, and both have pistols on them.

now both the sons care about mom very much, and are already unhappy that it took us forever to get to their house (those 6 minutes felt like forever), and once we put the lady on the cot and put her in the ambulance to assess her, Jr ends up banging on the back door to take her to the hospital since we aren't moving quick enough for his tastes.  

In this case (which happened to me about 4 years ago), if I had a gun, I am not worried about fending off someone trying to steal my gun, I'm worried about Jr and his brother drawing their guns on me, because they don't like what i'm doing, or thinking I am not moving fast enough.  Luckily, the ESU cops were on their lunch break, heard the address, recognized the address, and left their hot food on the plate and pulled up 2 minutes behind us.  And he told me in case something bad happened, he was very much outgunned.

I still don't think EMTs should have guns, but using the inner city argument, when you can walk into the projects and everyone has a firearm EXCEPT you, and everyone knows this, well, it makes you an obvious soft target.


----------



## mycrofft (Jan 8, 2012)

No disrespect, but "soft target" is what we are. Next argument is who has the greater caliber weapon.
If we stand out until it is safe, then those truly needing care for a  loved one stop that BS. If Bob is interfering with the paramedics, then his brother Jim who *does* love his mom will sit Bob down.


----------



## abckidsmom (Jan 8, 2012)

Inner city customer dissatisfaction is the only time I have ever felt like I was in imminent danger.  The fact is, though, the best way to work myself out of that is to quickly get the patient to the truck and off the scene.   Having a gun would not help.


----------



## Chimpie (Jan 8, 2012)

DrParasite said:


> In this case (which happened to me about 4 years ago), if I had a gun, I am not worried about fending off someone trying to steal my gun, I'm worried about Jr and his brother drawing their guns on me, because they don't like what i'm doing, or thinking I am not moving fast enough.  Luckily, the ESU cops were on their lunch break, heard the address, recognized the address, and left their hot food on the plate and pulled up 2 minutes behind us.  And he told me in case something bad happened, he was very much outgunned.



Were your a third-party service or party of the county/city system?

The reason I ask is, I know when PD dispatches, some addresses are flagged for "officer safety".  Does this appear for Fire/EMS dispatches as well?  If there was a warning for this address in the system, would Fire/EMS be alerted?


----------



## DrParasite (Jan 8, 2012)

Chimpie said:


> Were your a third-party service or party of the county/city system?


hospital based 3rd party service, with direct communication to local police via portable radio 





Chimpie said:


> The reason I ask is, I know when PD dispatches, some addresses are flagged for "officer safety".  Does this appear for Fire/EMS dispatches as well?  If there was a warning for this address in the system, would Fire/EMS be alerted?


possibly, I am not sure if resident's gang affiliation is listed in the CAD warnings.  Not only that, but all to often PD gets notified about this history on their MDT, but the information isn't passed along to EMS.


----------



## Chimpie (Jan 8, 2012)

DrParasite said:


> possibly, I am not sure if resident's gang affiliation is listed in the CAD warnings.  Not only that, but all to often PD gets notified about this history on their MDT, but the information isn't passed along to EMS.



Unfortunate.


----------



## 18G (Jan 8, 2012)

I am not a fan of EMS carrying guns. In 16yrs active in EMS I have never encountered a situation where I even remotely thought to myself that I wish I was armed. 

A concealed weapons permit does not suffice to carry and use while in an official capacity in my opinion. Shouldn't you be expected to qualify with the gun your going to be carrying? Understand the laws and use of deadly force? Know how to react if someone does grab for your gun? It's a pretty big deal for EMS to carry a gun. Anyone who thinks it isn't should definitely not be carrying. 

Bad idea.


----------



## MedicPatriot (Jan 8, 2012)

still I am not talking about arming EMS or using guns in an official way. I only speak of not making people who carry guns every day take them off just to ride the medic. This isn't about giving EMS guns, its allowing the people who usually excersize their 2nd amendment right to not be forced to disarm. We dont need EMS ever being armed in an official sense, but I think everyone has that right to protection and make a sound judgment call as well.

I could legally carry on a unit in another state, and I probably would too. It isnt because Im a gunslinger, but when Im at my other residence its common for me to carry everywhere. I wouldnt change that for being on an ambulance.


----------



## Bullets (Jan 8, 2012)

DrParasite said:


> hmmm I pull up to an inner city sick person call, for an 50-60 year old lady with diff breathing on a dead end street. what I don't know is both of her sons are  home a well, and (I learned later) both are known members of the Bloods street gang, and both are believed to be heavily armed inside, and both have pistols on them.
> 
> now both the sons care about mom very much, and are already unhappy that it took us forever to get to their house (those 6 minutes felt like forever), and once we put the lady on the cot and put her in the ambulance to assess her, Jr ends up banging on the back door to take her to the hospital since we aren't moving quick enough for his tastes.



Ive been in this exact situation a few times, most likely in a city not far from your own, Doc. It was not a nice feeling having a light belt that day



Chimpie said:


> Were your a third-party service or party of the county/city system?
> 
> The reason I ask is, I know when PD dispatches, some addresses are flagged for "officer safety".  Does this appear for Fire/EMS dispatches as well?  If there was a warning for this address in the system, would Fire/EMS be alerted?



When PD calls EMS, that info usually isnt relayed. And even if it was, a Sick person, or even a respiratory dosnt get a radio car. the PD is strapped for manpower as it is, with the lay-offs and firings, retirements, so EMS calls are like last priority and only get a car if the unit assigned to that zone isnt already tied up or have calls in queue. And if they are free, its up to the patrolman if he wants to go


----------



## WhiskeySix5 (Jan 9, 2012)

Bullets said:


> Ive been in this exact situation a few times, most likely in a city not far from your own, Doc. It was not a nice feeling having a light belt that day
> 
> 
> 
> When PD calls EMS, that info usually isnt relayed. And even if it was, a Sick person, or even a respiratory dosnt get a radio car. the PD is strapped for manpower as it is, with the lay-offs and firings, retirements, so EMS calls are like last priority and only get a car if the unit assigned to that zone isnt already tied up or have calls in queue. And if they are free, its up to the patrolman if he wants to go



WOW... sounds like you need a new Govenor / Police Chief / etc.... not a gun. 

Here, EMS are treated like a fellow LEO. If we are in a scary situation, they will be there very fast, and generally are already on scene to begin with. On top of that, add an Engine crew into that mix, so there are 6 of us on scene not including PD. If I am questionable about the local, we will advise dispatchers to send in PD before hand, and we will stage....

I have worked in NJ among other places.... I have been in some scary situations, but nothing I could not extricate myself from with simple communication. 

What scenario could require a gun? If in doubt, and no PD on scene, I am going to scoop and run, and start treatment after we get moving. You can pick up a PT and put them on a stretcher really quickly when you need to. I am not giving anyone any time to get further disgruntled if they are acting agitated.


----------



## Tigger (Jan 9, 2012)

MedicPatriot said:


> still I am not talking about arming EMS or using guns in an official way. I only speak of not making people who carry guns every day take them off just to ride the medic. This isn't about giving EMS guns, its allowing the people who usually excersize their 2nd amendment right to not be forced to disarm. We dont need EMS ever being armed in an official sense, but I think everyone has that right to protection and make a sound judgment call as well.
> 
> I could legally carry on a unit in another state, and I probably would too. It isnt because Im a gunslinger, but when Im at my other residence its common for me to carry everywhere. I wouldnt change that for being on an ambulance.



And what state would that be? Would the hospitals allow you to carry on their grounds? How about at a city/county owned facility that your unit is based out of? 

I should hope that no agency would be irresponsible enough to allow any of their employees to carry "unofficially." The agency would have no idea whether or not you are truly proficient in firearms use or are even tempered enough to be trusted to carry a firearm in the performance of your duty. I'm not sure if the agency could be actually be held legally liable for an employee misusing a firearm on duty, but it seems like a distinct possibility.

As others have stated, in many environments EMS is a "soft target" unlike the police who carry openly. I think that's a big point, if no one knows that you as an EMS provider is carrying a gun, aren't you still a soft target?


----------



## medic417 (Jan 9, 2012)

A policy would make the service responsible.  If they say no firearms and you die in situation that family can prove you might have survived if you could have protected yourself the service looses lots of money in law suit.  If they make policy that you can carry they become responsible for your actions, again loose big law suit.  Sometimes best policy is no policy.


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 9, 2012)

*The hopeless argument*

My collegues,

especially the ones who share my opinion.

This is a pointless argument. It is impossible to convince people who are so insecure and afraid that the preservation of the ability to respond with violence is the only safeguard they have against the scary world.

It is a base instinct, similar to a frightened or wounded animal. It cannot be overcome by rational, logical argument, or benevolent intention.

EMS providers are not immune to the extrinsic stressors of society. 

I think the best approach is to suggest psychological/psychiatric counceling, particularly desenssitization therapy or cognitive behavioral therapy.

As a cheap alternative, perhaps just turning off the tv. 

Let us hope in the meanwhile that the improper use of violence and the respective consequences remain lower than ambulance or airmed crashes.


----------



## medic417 (Jan 9, 2012)

*The hopeless argument*

My colleagues,

Especially the educated ones who share my opinion.

This is a pointless argument. It is impossible to convince people who are so blind to any opinion besides their own.

Those that choose to ignorantly turn a blind eye cannot be overcome by rational, logical argument, or benevolent intention.

EMS providers are not immune to the extrinsic stressors of society. 

I think the best approach is to suggest education, particularly education to overcome the prejudices based on their limited knowledge and experience on the subject matter. 

There is no cheap alternative to proper education being used to make ones own decision rather than following the crowd in ignorance. 

Let us hope in the meanwhile that the education in proper use of firearms as well as ambulance's and air-med equipment and use will lead to fewer injuries and deaths.


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 9, 2012)

medic417 said:


> My colleagues,
> 
> Especially the educated ones who share my opinion.
> 
> ...



While I appreciate the imitation,

I have yet to hear a rational argument for armed EMS providers.

"The Bogey man could jump out and get me at any moment and I will have to protect myself," is simply not a convincing argument.

Whether "militias" or religious zealots, "those who do not believe as I do are coming to get me so I must excercise my right to self arm and protect my way of life," has generally not been embraced by western society.

It is not an argument about anti-gun, it is an argument about the usefulness of possessing a weapon to feel "safe."


----------



## saskvolunteer (Jan 9, 2012)

I can't believe this is up for debate, let alone that other providers feel they should be carrying a weapon. Give your head a shake.


----------



## medic417 (Jan 9, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> While I appreciate the imitation,
> 
> I have yet to hear a rational argument for armed EMS providers.
> 
> ...



The funny thing is no one is saying arm all providers.  It is the blind that keep throwing that argument out there.  There are many that have proper education in firearm use.  There are many like myself that always have a firearm and use it nearly daily.  Thankfully on vicious animals rather than humans and I hope it always remains as such.  It is not a matter of false security as you imply it is a matter of knowing where all tools are at all times and for many of us a firearm is such a tool.  How do you feel when someone moves a vital piece of equipment that you need seldom but when you do you need it now but it's not where it is supposed to be?  

There are very few that fit the picture you try and paint with the militias religious zealots statement and sadly really exposes ignorance rather than education.


----------



## Bullets (Jan 9, 2012)

WhiskeySix5 said:


> WOW... sounds like you need a new Govenor / Police Chief / etc.... not a gun.
> 
> Here, EMS are treated like a fellow LEO. If we are in a scary situation, they will be there very fast, and generally are already on scene to begin with. On top of that, add an Engine crew into that mix, so there are 6 of us on scene not including PD. If I am questionable about the local, we will advise dispatchers to send in PD before hand, and we will stage....
> 
> ...



if i need pd, i can request them and they are usually quick. they understand that if EMS is requesting, then fecal matter is striking the air circulating device. 

but we operate independantly of PD, and its not just one city in NJ, many larger towns and cities operate this way. Newark, Jersey City, Camden, Paterson, Woodbridge, Edison, Perth Amboy, Atlantic City, PD just isnt an automatic dispatch, EMS needs to have its head on a swivel and always be situationally aware. I never really thought of it as a big deal. It wasnt until i came to EMTLife when i discovered that some systems send a radio car to EVERY call


----------



## Akulahawk (Jan 9, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> My collegues,
> 
> especially the ones who share my opinion.
> 
> ...


While we disagree in our approaches to personal safety, I too hope that injuries to EMS providers and patients from "improper use of violence" remain lower than that of ambulance crashes.


----------



## medic417 (Jan 9, 2012)

Lets get back on the ambulance.  Are there tools that are basically never used?  Yes most definitely.  Does it make us paranoid religious zealots for having those tools for that event that requires it yet will probably not happen in your ems career?  No.  We study the how's and whys.  We practice the skills.  Why?  So we can accomplish what is needed if we hit the lottery ( figure of speech showing odds against ) and have that call.  

The majority of people that carry firearms do not ever expect to need their firearm but they consider it a tool that they want to have the option to use if they ever hit the lottery ( same use as above paragraph).  The majority of firearms owners do not sit around as portrayed by the antigun crowd stroking the gun and dreaming of the day they can save everyones life with it.  In fact if your partner is carrying odds are you will never know it, theres a reason it is called concealed.  It is a tool that by being educated in the how's and whys and being skilled in the use can be a lifesaver if ever needed.


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 9, 2012)

*education?*



medic417 said:


> There are very few that fit the picture you try and paint with the militias religious zealots statement and sadly really exposes ignorance rather than education.



I will point out it takes only minutes, hours at the most to learn how to use a firearm.

But the argument of a weapon is not limited to that. Nor do I claim it to be as you keep trying to insert. 

Why not a bowie knife? longsword? sling? atl atl? crossbow?

What about just carrying around a little blue blanket that makes one feel safe? Infact there are martial arts devoted to the use of chains, whips, and similar devices.

But as food for thought:

If you responded to a patient who demanded his right to carry his concealed weapon while being transported by you to the hospital "just in case," how would you respond to that?

Would his being a firearms expert change that?

What if a patient was a martial arts expert and announced he always carries whatever weapon he likes with him?

How about responding to a patient who states they always sleep with a gun "just in case?" (in a bad neighborhood)

What if the patient answers her door with multiple side arms and knives hanging off of her while holding a long arm?

Does their (let me be generous) education, training, and familiarity with their tools count as less because they are not in EMS, LE, or the fire service?

From the point of familiarity and training qualifying a person to carry a security blanket in order to feel safe and secure in the world, or even just in case, definately calls their capacity into question when they live in a 1st world nation. 

No different than a citizen exercising thier right to walk around with a teddy bear to feel safe or a some lady carrying around a cast iron skillet as a tool in the event she has to fry something up or brain an attacker.


----------



## medic417 (Jan 9, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> I will point out it takes only minutes, hours at the most to learn how to use a firearm.
> 
> But the argument of a weapon is not limited to that. Nor do I claim it to be as you keep trying to insert.
> 
> ...



I have no problem with a person that can legally carry a firearm or knife or frying pan or blanket carrying it in the ambulance if it fits.  I've transported many patients that were legally carrying.  A brief explanation that at the hospital that it will have to be placed with security and all is good.  Honestly I see no point in your argument.  

As to the multiple guns knives meeting at the door, I will not even discuss that ridiculous stereotype of gun owners you have chosen to use.  Surprised you didn't throw out the toothless grin with tobacco running down their chin, banjos strumming etc.  Wow ignorance must be bliss.


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 9, 2012)

*Your agument is invalid*



medic417 said:


> Surprised you didn't throw out the toothless grin with tobacco running down their chin, banjos strumming etc.  Wow ignorance must be bliss.



Actually I was thinking more Lara Croft.

But I have yet to see a reproach of my argument about base insecurity in human behavior or biological programming countered with anything other than repeating that I am simply ignorant.


----------



## 18G (Jan 9, 2012)

MedicPatriot said:


> still I am not talking about arming EMS or using guns in an official way. I only speak of not making people who carry guns every day take them off just to ride the medic. This isn't about giving EMS guns, its allowing the people who usually excersize their 2nd amendment right to not be forced to disarm. We dont need EMS ever being armed in an official sense, but I think everyone has that right to protection and make a sound judgment call as well.
> 
> I could legally carry on a unit in another state, and I probably would too. It isnt because Im a gunslinger, but when Im at my other residence its common for me to carry everywhere. I wouldnt change that for being on an ambulance.



What you do in your own time you are personally responsible for. What you do while your working becomes your employer's responsibility.  

What would you do with your firearm if you get a call at a school where firearms are strictly prohibited on school grounds? Is there a locked compartment on your ambulance where your gun could be secured? Is it worth taking the time to have to screw with that hassle?

No matter which way you look at it, if your on the clock than your carrying in an official capacity and need to receive training to carry just like a police officer. Why should you have zero requirement to carry a gun while your working yet a police officer needs many hours of training and qualification with the gun they're carrying? I guess that does fit typical EMS thinking where we're always the exception and should be able to do more with less training and education. 

The only Paramedics I know that are armed are those that fly with Maryland State Police who are both Medics and Police Officers.


----------



## 18G (Jan 9, 2012)

medic417 said:


> I have no problem with a person that can legally carry a firearm or knife or frying pan or blanket carrying it in the ambulance if it fits.  I've transported many patients that were legally carrying.  A brief explanation that at the hospital that it will have to be placed with security and all is good.  Honestly I see no point in your argument.
> 
> As to the multiple guns knives meeting at the door, I will not even discuss that ridiculous stereotype of gun owners you have chosen to use.  Surprised you didn't throw out the toothless grin with tobacco running down their chin, banjos strumming etc.  Wow ignorance must be bliss.



Hmmm.... and you felt safe transporting a patient with a firearm? Are you crazy? PD would be summoned to take possession of the firearm before we go anywhere. Not to mention, no hospital around here would ever approve of a firearm being brought into their facility and I highly doubt most hospital security is okay with handling a firearm and being responsible for it.


----------



## medic417 (Jan 9, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> Actually I was thinking more Lara Croft.
> 
> But I have yet to see a reproach of my argument about base insecurity in human behavior or biological programming countered with anything other than repeating that I am simply ignorant.



I stated the argument you just ignored it and made more pointless attacks.  

Here let me give you another example so maybe you can even understand it despite all your obvious bias.  

Surgical cric or current equivalent.  How many Paramedics, heck how many doctors for that matter, have ever performed one anywhere besides training?  Very few.  Yet we all learn the hows, whys, skills related to it.  Based on your argument we  ( and I include the Doctors in that we ) should be laughed out of the here because we are insecure for ever wanting to have these tools available.  Because obviously only someone that is insecure would want access to such equipment.  

But I guess that isn't a legit argument because it comes from a toothless tobacco stained gun toter.


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 9, 2012)

18G said:


> Hmmm.... and you felt safe transporting a patient with a firearm? Are you crazy? PD would be summoned to take possession of the firearm before we go anywhere. Not to mention, no hospital around here would ever approve of a firearm being brought into their facility and I highly doubt most hospital security is okay with handling a firearm and being responsible with it.



You don't feel safe transporting an armed patient who has extensive training in its use even though they may have a pathology such as ischemia, hemorrhage, or renal failure which may be or become mentaly impaired because of their condition?

Not sure why the military procedure is to disarm people who may have or deteriorate to an altered level on consciousness...

:rofl:


----------



## medic417 (Jan 9, 2012)

18G said:


> Hmmm.... and you felt safe transporting a patient with a firearm? Are you crazy? PD would be summoned to take possession of the firearm before we go anywhere. Not to mention, no hospital around here would ever approve of a firearm being brought into their facility and I highly doubt most hospital security is okay with handling a firearm and being responsible for it.



Why?  They are not threatening me.  They are legal to carry.  I stated that it was explained they would have to turn over to security at the hospital.  If security is so incompetent to not be able to secure the firearm they should not be security.  But if they really are LE can meet ambulance at hospital and secure for them.  Many hospitals actually have lock boxes that the patient can even place the firearm or other valuables in and reclaim it when released from the hospital.  

It is not the gun that kills people it is the person with it.  When you read the criminal stats of people that are licensed to carry you will find less criminal activity than you will from all the rest of mankind.  So if they are legal odds are more in your favor that they intend you no harm than the patients that aren't licensed to carry whether they are carrying or not.


----------



## medic417 (Jan 9, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> You don't feel safe transporting an armed patient who has extensive training in its use even though they may have a pathology such as ischemia, hemorrhage, or renal failure which may be or become mentaly impaired because of their condition?
> 
> Not sure why the military procedure is to disarm people who may have or deteriorate to an altered level on consciousness...
> 
> :rofl:



Did he describe a patient that may become altered?  No.  If there is any doubt the firearm is locked in cabinet and then turned over at hospital to security.  

Why do you feel the need to complicate the uncomplicated?


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 9, 2012)

medic417 said:


> Surgical cric or current equivalent.  How many Paramedics, heck how many doctors for that matter, have ever performed one anywhere besides training?  Very few.  Yet we all learn the hows, whys, skills related to it.  Based on your argument we  ( and I include the Doctors in that we ) should be laughed out of the here because we are insecure for ever wanting to have these tools available.  Because obviously only someone that is insecure would want access to such equipment.



I am truly entertained by this.

I will bet even fewer patients are served with an emergent thoracotomy. 

But somehow I think there is a difference between the provision of a rarely used medical procedure and the personal need to feel safe by carrying a weapon.

I appreciate your self debasement, but I think I will stick with my idea of a girl in a bikini with a gun when I am at the range on saturday.


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 9, 2012)

medic417 said:


> Why do you feel the need to complicate the uncomplicated?



perhaps habit from the life long experiences where if something can go wrong, it inevitably will.


----------



## medic417 (Jan 9, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> perhaps habit from the life long experiences where if something can go wrong, it inevitably will.



Wow you just made a statement that would justify carrying of firearms.:blink:


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 9, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> perhaps habit from the life long experiences where if something can go wrong, it inevitably will.[/QUOTE:
> 
> Wow you just made a statement that would justify carrying of firearms.:blink:



Yea, the same statement could also be used to justify carrying a bazooka or a handgrenade too.

A person can justify any of their actions in their own mind.


----------



## medic417 (Jan 9, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> medic417 said:
> 
> 
> > Yea, the same statement could also be used to justify carrying a bazooka or a handgrenade too.
> ...



And it is obvious you have justified in your mind that you know what is best for everyone else.


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (Jan 9, 2012)

Does any one else prefer to use the tool between their ears and not the one in their hands?

_Typed one-handed as I reload at the range._


----------



## medic417 (Jan 9, 2012)

Mountain Res-Q said:


> Does any one else prefer to use the tool between their ears and not the one in their hands?
> 
> _Typed one-handed as I reload at the range._


Tools allow you to implement what the brain says needs done. Work smarter not harder.


----------



## nwhitney (Jan 9, 2012)

For the love of the One Eyed Flying Spaghetti Monster (or whatever deity you prefer) will someone please close this thread?!


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 9, 2012)

medic417 said:


> Veneficus said:
> 
> 
> > And it is obvious you have justified in your mind that you know what is best for everyone else.
> ...


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jan 9, 2012)

nwhitney said:


> For the love of the One Eyed Flying Spaghetti Monster (or whatever deity you prefer) will someone please close this thread?!



It hasn't violated any of our forum rules yet, although it has come close.

As such, it has become the focus of my complete and undivided attention.


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 9, 2012)

nwhitney said:


> For the love of the One Eyed Flying Spaghetti Monster (or whatever deity you prefer) will someone please close this thread?!



Don't be a killjoy

I am having fun.


----------



## tacitblue (Jan 9, 2012)

I have found these armed EMS debates usually divide into lines based on a person's political persuasion. I happen to be a liberal who favors gun control, and I also believe that arming EMS providers makes as much sense as arming emergency nurses and physicians. They face the same threat of attack as we do, and often in my area, are physically assaulted more often then we are. 

When the zombie apocalypse comes to fruition, pick up your guns. Until then, your fears are irrational.


----------



## nwhitney (Jan 9, 2012)

ffemt8978 said:


> It hasn't violated any of our forum rules yet, although it has come close.
> 
> As such, it has become the focus of my complete and undivided attention.



Fair enough


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (Jan 9, 2012)

ffemt8978 said:


> It hasn't violated any of our forum rules yet, although it has come close.
> 
> As such, it has become the focus of my complete and undivided attention.



BTW, I missed Sheriff-ffemt too...


----------



## Tigger (Jan 9, 2012)

18G said:


> Hmmm.... and you felt safe transporting a patient with a firearm? Are you crazy? PD would be summoned to take possession of the firearm before we go anywhere. Not to mention, no hospital around here would ever approve of a firearm being brought into their facility and I highly doubt most hospital security is okay with handling a firearm and being responsible for it.



For what it's worth every hospital should have a procedure for dealing with this, what happens when someone that's carrying comes through triage? Not everyone has a means to secure their firearm in their vehicle, and the hospitals that I am familiar with have safe for patient firearms.


----------



## 18G (Jan 9, 2012)

medic417 said:


> Why?  They are not threatening me.  They are legal to carry.  I stated that it was explained they would have to turn over to security at the hospital.  If security is so incompetent to not be able to secure the firearm they should not be security.  But if they really are LE can meet ambulance at hospital and secure for them.  Many hospitals actually have lock boxes that the patient can even place the firearm or other valuables in and reclaim it when released from the hospital.
> 
> It is not the gun that kills people it is the person with it.  When you read the criminal stats of people that are licensed to carry you will find less criminal activity than you will from all the rest of mankind.  So if they are legal odds are more in your favor that they intend you no harm than the patients that aren't licensed to carry whether they are carrying or not.



I won't be betting my life or anyone else's on that logic. An ambulance and hospital is no place for a patient to have a firearm period. As Vene pointed out.... you don't always know what state your patient is in or when they will decide to shoot you in the face. Good luck finding a place to run or hide in the back of your ambulance. Just avoid the entire possibility by NOT transporting a patient armed with a weapon of any sort.

And most hospital security staff don't even carry guns. Most may not even know how to safely handle a firearm. Again, not a good situation.


----------



## 18G (Jan 9, 2012)

Tigger said:


> For what it's worth every hospital should have a procedure for dealing with this, what happens when someone that's carrying comes through triage? Not everyone has a means to secure their firearm in their vehicle, and the hospitals that I am familiar with have safe for patient firearms.



If someone is stupid enough to bring a gun with them to a hospital that raises a red flag right there. I feel pretty confident that the general public is well aware that you don't bring guns to hospitals or schools. If they are that ignorant than the gun gets placed "somewhere" relatively safe until PD can arrive to take possession of it. I been to a lot of different hospitals and never seen one that had dedicated gun storage lockers. 

And a person's firearm is more secure locked in their vehicle than in a hospital.


----------



## Shishkabob (Jan 9, 2012)

Should EMS providers have the right to be armed if they want? Yes.


Will it happen?  No.






18G said:


> If they are that ignorant



You work in EMS, right?


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (Jan 9, 2012)

Let me fix that for ya...



Linuss said:


> Should Americans have the right to be armed if they want? Yes.
> 
> Will it happen?  Not until we uphold the constitution.



BTW, missed ya too Linuss...


----------



## Tigger (Jan 9, 2012)

18G said:


> I won't be betting my life or anyone else's on that logic. An ambulance and hospital is no place for a patient to have a firearm period. As Vene pointed out.... you don't always know what state your patient is in or when they will decide to shoot you in the face. Good luck finding a place to run or hide in the back of your ambulance. Just avoid the entire possibility by NOT transporting a patient armed with a weapon of any sort.
> 
> And most hospital security staff don't even carry guns. Most may not even know how to safely handle a firearm. Again, not a good situation.



Perhaps where you are this is the case, but I can assure that it is not the case everywhere. I know of hospitals with their own police departments, as well as some that use private firms to provide security with armed guards. Even at facilities without armed staff, often times they are still trained to safely handle a firearm, which is not exactly a difficult skill. 



18G said:


> If someone is stupid enough to bring a gun with them to a hospital that raises a red flag right there. I feel pretty confident that the general public is well aware that you don't bring guns to hospitals or schools. If they are that ignorant than the gun gets placed "somewhere" relatively safe until PD can arrive to take possession of it. I been to a lot of different hospitals and never seen one that had dedicated gun storage lockers.
> 
> And a person's firearm is more secure locked in their vehicle than in a hospital.



Again, maybe where you are people are more aware, but that just isn't the case in some places. Hell one of the hospitals where I work in hospital doesn't even have a "firearms prohibited" sign that is clearly visible due to construction right now. In places where concealed carry is common (like much of Colorado), people do bring guns to hospitals on occasion for one reason or another. Sometimes they get dropped off at the ER, necessitating security to take possession of their firearm.

Now mind you, I still do not support EMS providers carrying firearms, rather I'm just pointing out generalizations don't do much for either side's argument given that local conditions often vary quite a bit.


----------



## enjoynz (Jan 9, 2012)

Maybe in the back streets/hills of drug run South American EMS might think about such measures as guns. Not that I'd see it as really being of any benefit.

A bullet-proof vest and helmet would be a better option,if you feel that you are going to work under those conditions.
Then again, going by a policeman friend of ours,they are very restrictive to wear. I can't imagine doing effective CPR wearing one ( I would be interested to know if any of the members on the site that have done so?).

As I think I've said on here before....New Zealanders don't have "The Right to bear arms." like Americans do...nor would I ever want it to be like that here.


----------



## R99 (Jan 9, 2012)

enjoynz said:


> Maybe in the back streets/hills of drug run South American EMS might think about such measures as guns)



Been to Mangere or Papakura lately lol


----------



## mycrofft (Jan 9, 2012)

Not closed yet? Don't make me bring out the angry nun again!

5=4 :deadhorse:

carry on without me and The Penguin.


----------



## Remeber343 (Jan 9, 2012)

CPR with a ballistics vest on is not difficult at all.


----------



## RocketMedic (Jan 9, 2012)

Depends...doing patient care in an IOTV is rediculous.


----------



## bigbaldguy (Jan 9, 2012)

Somebody said crossbow. Screw the gun I wanna crossbow.


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (Jan 9, 2012)

bigbaldguy said:


> Somebody said crossbow. Screw the gun I wanna crossbow.



WALKING DEAD... I've lot my cross bow and machete...


----------



## enjoynz (Jan 9, 2012)

R99 said:


> Been to Mangere or Papakura lately lol



Well actually if you have to know, I worked in Manurewa, so I'm pretty up with the play on both those areas and lived in Auckland for 15 years.
NZ is nothing compared with the States (hence why they still deem our police force should not carry guns on their person!).
The drug lords and rings in South America are even worse!
Mind you, the crim's in the areas you refer too...learnt most of want they know by following American gang culture...and over active minds
because of X-box and play station (which have probably been stolen in their last spree!):glare:

P.S. Sorry if I'm getting off topic!


----------



## DrParasite (Jan 9, 2012)

Bullets said:


> if i need pd, i can request them and they are usually quick. they understand that if EMS is requesting, then fecal matter is striking the air circulating device.
> 
> but we operate independantly of PD, and its not just one city in NJ, many larger towns and cities operate this way. Newark, Jersey City, Camden, Paterson, Woodbridge, Edison, Perth Amboy, Atlantic City, PD just isnt an automatic dispatch, EMS needs to have its head on a swivel and always be situationally aware. I never really thought of it as a big deal. It wasnt until i came to EMTLife when i discovered that some systems send a radio car to EVERY call


Lets add Irvington, New Brunswick, North Brunswick, Plainfield, Elizabeth to that list of places where a cop doesn't arrive first at an EMS call.  

Outside of NJ, the list includes Detroit, Philly, Flint Mi, St Louis, Baltimore (City).  What do five of those cities, plus Newark and Camden have in common?  They are 7 out of 10 of the most dangerous cities according to the FBI (http://os.cqpress.com/citycrime/2011/City_Lo-Hi_2011.pdf)

You call for help, and hope a cop is around the corner and available to assist.

I don't think aiming and shooting at an assailant will save your life.  

I do think having a gun visible in a holster might make a person think twice about trying to hurt you, and act like a really good deterant.  but if they are going to do anything, no, having a gun won't save you.


----------



## Tigger (Jan 10, 2012)

DrParasite said:


> I do think having a gun visible in a holster might make a person think twice about trying to hurt you, and act like a really good deterant.  but if they are going to do anything, no, having a gun won't save you.



I think there is a lot to be said for this effect, and I agree completely. Obviously though if you're openly carrying a gun, you better be ready to use it.


----------



## SteveTP (Jan 10, 2012)

bigbaldguy said:


> Somebody said crossbow. Screw the gun I wanna crossbow.



I used to attack paramedics, then I took an arrow to the knee


----------



## firetender (Jan 10, 2012)

*What a surprise!*

This thread is circling the drain. Unless someone does something of redeeming value soon, it's bye-bye.


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 10, 2012)

firetender said:


> This thread is circling the drain. Unless someone does something of redeeming value soon, it's bye-bye.



I thought I did rather well with it.


----------



## firetender (Jan 10, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> I thought I did rather well with it.


 
that was 24 posts ago. 

I just saw ffemt's post and will defer to his judgment.


----------



## Bullets (Jan 10, 2012)

DrParasite said:


> I do think having a gun visible in a holster might make a person think twice about trying to hurt you, and act like a really good deterant.  but if they are going to do anything, no, having a gun won't save you.



while i am in favor of armed citizens, my views on open-carry are not as accepting. I think it invites trouble because people freak out when they see a non-cop OMG GUNZZ!!!! 

If a EMS project like Jersey City Medical Center EMS "strongly recommends" their providers to purchase a ballistic vest, basically admitting "you WILL be treating in a hot zone in JC, and you WILL be shot at, and you WONT get PD on every call" i dont see why they cant offer a LEO-quality firearms certification class. If your going to tell your employees that we expect you to operate in warm and hot zones or on scenes that can rapidly become unsecured even with a PD presence, then i dont see why an adequatly trained and qualified EMT or Medic cant carry a firearm IF THEY SO CHOOSE.

Arming a medic DOES NOT EQUAL a medic blasting everything that moves. With the proper training and education EMS can be like senior LEOs who go their entire careers without firing their sidearm outside of training and qualification. There was a time when i believe Elizabeth staffed their EMS units with LEO/EMTs

While i would love to have every scene be safe and stay safe, anyone who has worked a day in an urban environment knows that scene safety is a myth. Scenes may be safe at times but can evolve. This is why i advocate everyone take a Street Survival class either at a conference or through their local City PD. It teaches one how to continually assess a scene, observe peoples movements, identify persons who may be carrying a firearm, ect. It makes a provider more situationally aware




Also, CPR in a ballistic vest (IIIA) is not difficult, just hot, speaking from experiance


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 10, 2012)

firetender said:


> that was 24 posts ago.



I guess I should add something smart then...

How about a look on home range resources?

A home range resource is genrally defined and accepted as a small area of resources, the minimum necessary for the survival and reproduction of a primate of which they will aggresively defend until death.

People are primates.

When fearful of extrinsic violence to the point of needing a weapon for defense, without rehashing the pathological fear topic, let us examine the treat of violence on home range.

While I will concede that there are occasionally humans who prey on other humans, the event is rather rare.

Defense of shelter.

While people often equate their home not only as shelter, but as a safe haven, there is considerable psychological stress placed on a person when it is invaded. 

Usually for the purpose of stealing material possession. The same with robbery or a nonviolent theft of a person.

The aggresor does not usually intend to incite a conflict, as with any predator killing/driving off potentil future prey is counter productive. Worse still is being wounded when attacking.

The threat of violent response, particularly from somebody who does not appear a threat, (aka concealed carry) can only possibly result in an instant escalation of attack. (shoot first) or drive the aggresor to a more helpless target.

however, when extrapolated to EMS, aside from general resource plundering for gain, a more complex situation develops.

Why would somebody use violence against an EMS provider?

The easy answer is to steal drugs or money. But that contradicts my own observations of EMS assaults. 

More assaults I am familiar with again EMS persons are from altered patients. 

Second to that patients or bystanders who feel they have been wronged/neglected.

Finally as an aggression against an authority figure.

In the circumstances that lead up to this emotional attack, an EMS provider is likely to be at rest and unaware or actively providing patient care. (with limited control or awareness of the surroundings.

As is commonly accepted by experts, it is not the initial scene that presents danger, it is the changing scene.

(this is where the Wyatt Earps of the firearm community usually state they are hyperaware of all situations and equally ready to react by outdrawing any attacker.) I can only logically conclude this overconfidence of ability is perpetuated by the "safety blanket" of being armed themselves. The knowledge of the ability to kill an attacker imparting a sense of superiority. (with one or 2 awards or certs tossed in to icing the cake)

But most people who engage in gunfights that I have had the opportunity to discuss this with usually point out that taking cover is the first step if you want to be successful or survive the encounter.

This argument negates the "quick draw" superiority.

The only other alternative is to enter a scene with suspicion and intention to "neutralize it." Which is where I think the most critical judgement error befalling an armed EMS provider can occur. The perception of a threat that does not exist. AKA delusion. (perhaps paranoia)

The defense of others. 

Now I don't usually find myself in a position where I happen upon an attack or threat in progress. (or notice if I do) But were an EMS provider to say, find himself witnessing a domestic dispute, which party would present the greatest threat to be eliminated between 3rd parties?

A terribly wrong decsion could be made here.

The chance of witnessing an obvious crime in progress requiring the defense of life or limb is so remote, that it might be more prudent to wear a helmet, neckbrace, and knee pads to mitgate being hit by a car. (as a pedestrian or other vehicle operator)

Back to home range resources. 

Is there the possibility that an attacker is trying to usurp reproductive rights and capability from an EMS provider?

Perhaps, but I am guessing that is extremely rare, and probably no more likely than any particular civillian.

But if you felt so insecure about that, why would you even go into such an area? If you worry it is while providing care post contact, then it falls under the same auspice of repelling an attacker as above.

The removal of minimal resources to survive.

I won't spend long on this because in any first world nation, the minimum survival resources are hardly an issue, and especially not for EMS providers. I just cannot see an attacker coming to push an EMS provider off his/her property, or removing enough wealth to make survival impossible. 

The defenders of society and the true faith.

What really is on an ambulance you would risk your life over? A gas card? Some medical equipment? Drugs?

Is it just the idea that somebody would "dare steal from or threaten you" that incites this need of being armed? I think in LE circles that is called contempt of cop. Are we now dealing with contempt of EMT?

This whole post points back in the direction that it is likely unfounded (delusional/paranoia) fear that is driving the need to feel secure by having a weapon. 

There is no reasonable threat against home range resources.

The logical threats cannot be effectively responded to with force.

The "what if" scenarios are so remote that nothing short of phobia explains it.

When suffering from delusions, phobia, or other psychosis like paranoia, it is generally accepted in not only Western society, but in the US as well, those people are unfit to carry or own a weapon. Even if they have not snapped yet, it could be triggered by any event and their hyperawareness/hyperresponsiveness.

Of course I expect the obligatory reply of "Not every who owns a gun is psycho."

So let me just get this out of the way now. 

Not all psychatric abnormailties negatively interfere with life function under normal circumstances, but are brought out during times of acute uncompensatable stress or chronic unresolved stress. Both are risk factors in EMS. 

A person suffering from a psych disorder can snap at any moment. If you have an already present delusion, what is to say you will not suffer from another inappropriate perceptipon when placed under stress? Like a kid pulling out a camera before you blast him down?

Nothing that is consciously controlable.

But finally, have you ever met a crazy person who believed they had a problem and not everyone else?

"People just don't understand me." is a favorite patient phrase of mine.


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 10, 2012)

Bullets said:


> Arming a medic DOES NOT EQUAL a medic blasting everything that moves. With the proper training and education EMS can be like senior LEOs who go their entire careers without firing their sidearm outside of training and qualification. There was a time when i believe Elizabeth staffed their EMS units with LEO/EMTs



I'll buy that argument when EMS providers undergo the same prehiring selection process as police officers.


----------



## enjoynz (Jan 10, 2012)

Ok...well as Firetender put it...my first post was circling the drain...(2nd one was not helped, by a certain member)...I'm going to put down what I honestly feel, about arming EMS workers.

It's the sillest thing I've ever heard (No offence to the 1st poster).

The whole point of an EMS worker is to preserve life, not take it away..Leave that job, to the cops.
It doesn't matter what country you work in, ambulance officers (EMS workers) are always going to be in the firing line (so to speak).
Hence the 'Safety first' part of your training, that is drummed into your brain from the start.

Because you are working with people that are in pain...The 'fight or flight' is going to either make things ease or hard for you.

And as Veneficus said....if you are carrying drugs, there is always the danger of becoming a target. It the nature of the beast we are dealing with, in the modern world!
Pointing a gun at them is only going to make the job more dangerous.
What are you going to do if you are working on a patient and his friend thinks you are not doing a good enough job of it and pulls YOUR gun on YOU, while you have your hands full???


----------



## medic417 (Jan 10, 2012)

enjoynz said:


> Ok...well as Firetender put it...my first post was circling the drain...(2nd one was not helped, by a certain member)...I'm going to put down what I honestly feel, about arming EMS workers.
> 
> It's the sillest thing I've ever heard (No offence to the 1st poster).
> 
> ...



Most of us are not saying to arm all EMS personnel.  
No scene is truly safe so having all tools available is a good ideal and in many areas waiting on law enforcement is not an option.
The gun would only be pulled as a last resort honestly after trying to run/take cover.  Those of us that carry do not yank it out and shoot everyone that looks sideways at us like the old western movies portray.  So only time it would be pulled is if it is the last option besides death.  W/o a firearm once that point is reached the only option is death.  

Again the gun is concealed.  The patients friends are not going to see it thus they are not going to be able to pull it.  

I personally do not want everyone in EMS to carry.  Heck many in EMS scare me that they are even allowed to be in EMS with all the equipment that can harm people.  But for those that are properly educated it should not be an issue.  And again no one would even know a gun was there because it is concealed.  
Ok I've beat the horse beyond death and it's not like anyone is gonna change their opinions for or against.  
:deadhorse:


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 10, 2012)

Can anyone produce even a single case in a modern nation where an EMS provider was killed and might have survived had they had a firearm?

Is there even a single case where an EMS provider actually did fire on somebody while in mortal peril in the same nations?


----------



## DrParasite (Jan 10, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> Can anyone produce even a single case in a modern nation where an EMS provider was killed and might have survived had they had a firearm?


probably not, because it's very very hard to definitively say if someone would have survived had they had a firearm.  plus, if a having a firearm deters the assailant, and prevents the case from occurring, than it wouldn't be a documentable case  





Veneficus said:


> Is there even a single case where an EMS provider actually did fire on somebody while in mortal peril in the same nations?


All of Israel's EMS personnel carry firearms. I have read articles where they shot someone and once the threat was mitigated, they began treating the person.  I think it was in JEMS magazine.


----------



## medic417 (Jan 10, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> Can anyone produce even a single case in a modern nation where an EMS provider was killed and might have survived had they had a firearm?
> 
> Is there even a single case where an EMS provider actually did fire on somebody while in mortal peril in the same nations?



You know anything stated would be anecdotal because there is no real record of EMS attacks, accidents, etc.  I am aware of firearms carried in EMS and used by EMS to protect the crew but can I back it up?  No so no point in posting.  The few things heard about come when it makes the news. So even if a news report is posted how accurate is it?  

Any that died it would only be opinion one way or the other whether a gun might have been a useful tool and kept them alive.  

Really you have posted a question that is impossible to answer.  I could rephrase your questions to support my argument and you also would be unable to provide anything conclusive.  

Time to give up beating your dead horse.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jan 10, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> Can anyone produce even a single case in a modern nation where an EMS provider was killed and might have survived had they had a firearm?
> 
> Is there even a single case where an EMS provider actually did fire on somebody while in mortal peril in the same nations?



While we can debate whether or not a firearm would have made a difference in these cases because each situation is different, here are some where it's possible it may have.

http://emtlife.com/showthread.php?t=1559 non-fatal for EMS
http://emtlife.com/showthread.php?t=11109 fatal (and possibly the exact scenario you were asking for)
http://emtlife.com/showthread.php?t=22425 non-fatal for EMS
http://emtlife.com/showthread.php?t=24010 non-injury

As to the second part of your question, I haven't heard of any that I can provide documentation for.


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 10, 2012)

ffemt8978 said:


> While we can debate whether or not a firearm would have made a difference in these cases because each situation is different, here are some where it's possible it may have.
> 
> http://emtlife.com/showthread.php?t=1559
> http://emtlife.com/showthread.php?t=11109
> ...



Briefly looking over those articles I am of the opinion the weapon would have to have been open carried in order to offer any help as a deterent.

Many of the arguments I have seen here are for concealed carry.

If some agency wants to lobby to legislate laws for EMS responders to carry and wield weapons. Train and regularly recertify said providers, and screen applicants as thoroughly as law enforcement agencies do, I could support EMS providers being armed.

I cannot support an EMS provider carrying a weapon, especially concealed, acting in an official capacity, and having absolutely ineffective if any oversight at all.

Not only for the protection of the public, but for thier own.


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 10, 2012)

medic417 said:


> You know anything stated would be anecdotal because there is no real record of EMS attacks, accidents, etc.  I am aware of firearms carried in EMS and used by EMS to protect the crew but can I back it up?  No so no point in posting.  The few things heard about come when it makes the news. So even if a news report is posted how accurate is it?
> 
> Any that died it would only be opinion one way or the other whether a gun might have been a useful tool and kept them alive.
> 
> ...



I would settle for a news article.

If there is absolutely no documentation, even if inaccurate, then the chances of it must be so low that the "what if scenario" truly is psychotic paranoia.


----------



## medic417 (Jan 10, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> I would settle for a news article.
> 
> If there is absolutely no documentation, even if inaccurate, then the chances of it must be so low that the "what if scenario" truly is psychotic paranoia.



Being prepared for a real possibility is not paranoia. Every day people are attacked and thankfully occasionally the attempt is against a person with the tools to defend so they survive .  Your blanket statement serves you not well young Jedi wannabe.  

As previously stated there are many things in  medicine that are never done but by very few yet many still learn and equip themselves. By your reasoning guess they are just paranoid.


----------



## fortsmithman (Jan 10, 2012)

The only time I could see a fiream being used in EMS in my area is for a wilderness call where we have a crew of 3 with 2 treating the pt and the third standing watch for bears.  The firearm would be a rifle.


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 10, 2012)

medic417 said:


> As previously stated there are many things in  medicine that are never done but by very few yet many still learn and equip themselves. By your reasoning guess they are just paranoid.



You must really think people are fools.

To equate a barely used medical procedure "just in case" to a almost nonexistant threat against your person which can only be assuaged by carrying around a weapon for?

I seriously need to find and repost the instructions for making a tinfoil hat.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jan 10, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> I seriously need to find and repost the instructions for making a tinfoil hat.



I wouldn't recommend that.


----------



## Hunter (Jan 10, 2012)

ffemt8978 said:


> While we can debate whether or not a firearm  would have made a difference in these cases because each situation is  different, here are some where it's possible it may have.
> 
> http://emtlife.com/showthread.php?t=1559 non-fatal for EMS
> http://emtlife.com/showthread.php?t=11109 fatal (and possibly the exact scenario you were asking for)
> ...





You know i think number 2 is probably an example of something where if they were carrying they may have been able to defend themselves...


----------



## WhiskeySix5 (Jan 11, 2012)

This seems to have turned into the classic argument. My personal stance is that I believe in the "right to carry", and I do carry off duty. However, I do not feel that my right to carry should extend to my function in an "Official" capacity with an EMS agency. I think this blurs the line between LEO and EMS operations. Furthermore, to be quite frank.... based on many of the EMT and Paramedics I have seen, I would be downright frightened to have one of them carry a gun, as I believe carrying can give someone a false sense of empowerment. The truth is, even in the police academy we were taught to attempt to de-escalate a situation, rather than start blasting away.

Mine is not a "CONSTITUTIONAL" argument, but rather an argument that states it just does not make sense. What happens to the patient we "were" treating, before you decided to shoot the gangbanger outside the door because you felt you were in danger? Now we have folks throwing rocks, shooting at the ambulance, and dragging us out of the box because they are pissed off. Yep, you shot 3 of them before they got the gun out of your hands, and beat you to death, and me 1/2 to death. City hall now has a 5 day protest in front of it, because an EMT shot a civilian while on a call, because he was a drug dealer, and you said you were going to get him off the street, but in actuallity what you said was lets get the PT off the street and into the box. There are no charges filed against the guy who shot us because the city really wants to make this go away as quietly as possible. Me? I can't work now due to my injuries, but we are not getting any benefits from the city because you acted under your "individual" right, not under an official capacity. A review board found that I was guilty of not doing enough to stop you, and worse yet, guilty of gross negligence and abandonment for not treating and protecting the patient we were originally called for, so the State permanently revoked my patch as well.

Granted, that situation is probably a bit of a stretch...but by how much? How easy could it be to wind up in that situation? Oh, I hear you already jumping up and down screaming.... Better fired from work then dead right? Except, you wound up dead anyway?

I figure, if the EMS (MDA) in Israel can manage to treat and transport unarmed, I think we can manage to do it over here. If we get to a point where we are openly attacked by hostile forces, then have no fear partner...I will be riding shotgun with my AK and a pistol on my side... until then, I will leave the guns out of healthcare.


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 11, 2012)

WhiskeySix5 said:


> This seems to have turned into the classic argument. My personal stance is that I believe in the "right to carry", and I do carry off duty. However, I do not feel that my right to carry should extend to my function in an "Official" capacity with an EMS agency. I think this blurs the line between LEO and EMS operations. Furthermore, to be quite frank.... based on many of the EMT and Paramedics I have seen, I would be downright frightened to have one of them carry a gun, as I believe carrying can give someone a false sense of empowerment. The truth is, even in the police academy we were taught to attempt to de-escalate a situation, rather than start blasting away.
> 
> Mine is not a "CONSTITUTIONAL" argument, but rather an argument that states it just does not make sense. What happens to the patient we "were" treating, before you decided to shoot the gangbanger outside the door because you felt you were in danger? Now we have folks throwing rocks, shooting at the ambulance, and dragging us out of the box because they are pissed off. Yep, you shot 3 of them before they got the gun out of your hands, and beat you to death, and me 1/2 to death. City hall now has a 5 day protest in front of it, because an EMT shot a civilian while on a call, because he *was a drug dealer*, and you said you were going to get him off the street, but in actuallity what you said was lets get the PT off the street and into the box. There are no charges filed against the guy who shot us because the city really wants to make this go away as quietly as possible. Me? I can't work now due to my injuries, but we are not getting any benefits from the city because you acted under your "individual" right, not under an official capacity. A review board found that I was guilty of not doing enough to stop you, and worse yet, guilty of gross negligence and abandonment for not treating and protecting the patient we were originally called for, so the State permanently revoked my patch as well.
> 
> ...



You forgot the word "alleged" untill there is a conviction 

BUt otherwise I agree with this post 100%  It is not a stretch at all. But I would also add that even if they don't beat you down right away at the scene, they can take their anger out on an entirely different crew at a time and place of their choosing.


----------



## Bullets (Jan 11, 2012)

WhiskeySix5 said:


> Now we have folks throwing rocks, shooting at the ambulance, and dragging us out of the box because they are pissed off.



what if people already do this to EMS on a semi-regular basis?


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 11, 2012)

Bullets said:


> what if people already do this to EMS on a semi-regular basis?



Find another place to work.

I have been locked in a box from an angry mob who I have no doubt would have dragged us out because they felt us white EMS people were not doing enough to help their relative who was in arrest with an unknown downtime because the patient was not white.

I am very glad nobody on the truck was stupid enough to start firing out, because then we would have been locked in a box with people shooting in.

At the same agency we also had medics assaulted from false 911 calls because they always called the cops when responding to a particular place and somebody got busted and felt if the EMS crews didn't always call the cops first the situation could have been avoided.

the only person who I knew who carried at that agency did so out of fear of his homophobic coworkers, not threats outside the agency.


----------



## WhiskeySix5 (Jan 11, 2012)

Bullets said:


> what if people already do this to EMS on a semi-regular basis?



Yep, been in that environment in a sandy local overseas. We were hit with bottles, rocks, and anything else not too heavy to throw. I did not shoot them either...until they shot at me, or tried to blow me up... then it was time to shoot


----------



## DrParasite (Jan 11, 2012)

WhiskeySix5 said:


> I figure, if the EMS (MDA) in Israel can manage to treat and transport unarmed, I think we can manage to do it over here.


which would be a great argument, except for the fact that I read in JEMS that MDA do their job while armed.


----------



## DrParasite (Jan 11, 2012)

WhiskeySix5 said:


> Yep, been in that environment in a sandy local overseas. We were hit with bottles, rocks, and anything else not too heavy to throw. I did not shoot them either...until they shot at me, or tried to blow me up... then it was time to shoot


good call.  shooting someone isn't  your first reaction to a bad scene.  but when you are trapped in a scene and you can't leave, don't you wish you had more to do than scream for help on the radio and thrown a 4x4 at the person?

Famous last words: I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6


----------



## ricardo007 (Jan 11, 2012)

We are not Cops!


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jan 11, 2012)

ricardo007 said:


> We are not Cops!



That has nothing to do with the argument at hand.  On a side note, there are places where EMS is also law enforcement.  I believe the call it a PSO (Public Safety Officer).


----------



## WhiskeySix5 (Jan 11, 2012)

DrParasite said:


> which would be a great argument, except for the fact that I read in JEMS that MDA do their job while armed.



Wow, my nephew did 12 months with them, never saw an armed EMT, nor did he see them use weapons, although they are an extension of the IDF? In fact, 65% of the medics on the box there were volunteers from another country. 

Please send me that link in JEMS, I would like to read more about it...


----------



## WhiskeySix5 (Jan 11, 2012)

DrParasite said:


> good call.  shooting someone isn't  your first reaction to a bad scene.  but when you are trapped in a scene and you can't leave, don't you wish you had more to do than scream for help on the radio and thrown a 4x4 at the person?
> 
> Famous last words: I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6



I understand the last words, I guess I am struggling to understand how so many medics on this site are working in Beirut and Syria where they routinely are trapped, under fire, and need to shoot their way out of a situation?

I mean, I have only been doing this off and on since 1987 so I am relatively new to the field...in my short tenure, I have yet to see the scenario above, and I have worked in some pretty gnarly areas, including 3rd world countries and war zones.

Just sayin...


----------



## DrParasite (Jan 11, 2012)

WhiskeySix5 said:


> Wow, my nephew did 12 months with them, never saw an armed EMT, nor did he see them use weapons, although they are an extension of the IDF? In fact, 65% of the medics on the box there were volunteers from another country.
> 
> Please send me that link in JEMS, I would like to read more about it...


it was an old article (several years), I am trying to find it. for you.


----------



## DPM (Jan 12, 2012)

Out of curiosity, how many people on this thread have had to use a firearm in anger / been on the receiving end? I'd be interested to see who / how many from the pro-armed team have been in that situation. 

When is was in Northern Ireland shootings / executions / bombings were still a very real problem and I was issued a personal protection weapon as I lived off Camp. I didn't meet one Fire Fighter or EMT (and I met a few) who felt that they wanted to be armed. 

My point is, even in a situation where the locals were at one time armed by Ghadafi, Fire and EMS were confident in the PSNI (the cops) to protect them on a call. Is this more an argument that EMS providers want to be armed because they feel vulnerable due to a lack of PD support?


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 12, 2012)

DPM said:


> Out of curiosity, how many people on this thread have had to use a firearm in anger / been on the receiving end? I'd be interested to see who / how many from the pro-armed team have been in that situation.
> 
> When is was in Northern Ireland shootings / executions / bombings were still a very real problem and I was issued a personal protection weapon as I lived off Camp. I didn't meet one Fire Fighter or EMT (and I met a few) who felt that they wanted to be armed.
> 
> My point is, even in a situation where the locals were at one time armed by Ghadafi, Fire and EMS were confident in the PSNI (the cops) to protect them on a call. Is this more an argument that EMS providers want to be armed because they feel vulnerable due to a lack of PD support?



I think it really has nothing to do with cops.

People in the US are afraid of the Bogeyman.

at any moment...

it could be you...


----------



## Akulahawk (Jan 12, 2012)

Veneficus said:


> I think it really has nothing to do with cops.
> 
> People in the US are afraid of the Bogeyman.
> 
> ...


While being armed is nothing to do with cops, in a very real sense, they do not show up to "save the day" except in some very unusual circumstances. A lot of times what they end up doing is taken report and file it, later the detective might follow up and do some additional investigation and perhaps the person responsible is arrested and brought into the justice system. Law enforcement in the United States is under no obligation to protect any one particular person, just society as a whole.

While I am not afraid of the Bogeyman, I know several people that have been actively targeted by persons who clearly do not have peaceful intentions in mind. These same several people live in my county. In particular, these folks were very obviously targets for robbery. How do I know? If you look at the behavior of the attacker, and their accomplices, it becomes very obvious that they weren't approaching another person for the purpose of saying hello, rather they were approaching from a very tactical standpoint, choosing their approach to their victim in such a way that their victim could be somewhat easily overpowered. Now these particular episodes did not make the news simply because of one of two things. One, the would-be victim was aware of the setup and was able to leave and in that instance was actively followed for short distance, before it became obvious that the would-be victim was heading to a place where more assistance was readily available. In a second instance, with a separate individual, three people approached him in an attempt to block him from escaping. The gentleman in question was going to be the victim position themselves in such a way that he had his back protected and could visualize the other three persons that were attempting to bracket him. In that instance, a few rather strong commands to back away and, very obviously getting ready to draw firearm and use it caused those three persons to rethink their plan. They beat a rather hasty retreat and left. Had it been a slow news night, and somebody had the video available of that event, that might have made the news. Because nobody got shot, the news was uninterested.

Now in case you are perhaps thinking that these folks were actively seeking out crime or were involved in a criminal element themselves, you would be sorely mistaken. Other than these incidents, neither these individuals have ever been involved in a criminal act by criminal elements, and the closest they ever got anything like that was seeing it on TV. Simply because there are 300 million of us in the country and there are perhaps a few thousand orders per year that are not guided by a criminal element upon criminal element. There are a lot more crimes involving use of force such as robbery and assault with a deadly weapon crimes the door are of people actually being killed as a result of crime. Most of the time, events like this do not result in anything other than the would-be victim turning the tables on their attacker and the attacker runs. And of course no one get shot because the incident didn't rise to that level where deadly force needed to be imminently used. Thankfully, the amount of violent crime in this country has decreased over the past couple of decades but it is still a concern and still prevalent enough to be a concern. Put another way, most of us will never be a victim of violent crime, most of us will never have to perform CPR or have a fire in our house that is in a place where it's not normally expected, like the fireplace or the kitchen stove. Yet we tell the general public that they should be CPR trained and that they should have a fire extinguisher in the house because of the what if that happens problem.

Simply because I am armed doesn't mean that I go out to places where I think problems might happen rather I go to those places where I normally do anyway, unarmed. My behavior, other than a heightened awareness, does not change.

I am generally not a big fan of these threads, simply because people are entrenched from both sides of the pro-gun/anti-gun argument begin to each attempt to convert the other to their side. I do not profess to know what is best for everyone, I however know what is best for me in my situation because I am in it. Because I do not profess to know what is best for everyone, the furthest I will go is to simply suggest that everyone look at their own situation, do their own research, and determine for themselves what is best.


----------



## Sandog (Jan 12, 2012)

I just wonder, how many on this thread are full of foo foo?


----------



## Akulahawk (Jan 12, 2012)

Sandog said:


> I just wonder, how many on this thread are full of foo foo?


Probably far too many. I get my information from a subject matter expert in the use of force. This particular guy that I get my information from is no keyboard commando, he has very good credentials and is a sole-source presenter for California POST. He is very aware of the use of force issues that occur in the general public and within the law enforcement community.

In general I do not think that EMS workers should be required to be armed because we should be seen by the public as being a neutral party. That means of course that ideally, EMS will not be seen as a threat, and therefore not come under attack simply because they happen to "be there".

Choosing to be armed, outside of the law enforcement community, or the military, is an intensely personal decision. When I choose to be armed in a given situation, I have weighed the consequences of being armed. Currently I do not carry on campus when I am at school because, while it is legal for me to do so, I would end up being expelled from the program I am in and that is an outcome that I do not desire. The campus itself is generally very safe, because there are law enforcement assets on campus with a very very short response time. This is, of course not the case off-campus.


----------



## DPM (Jan 12, 2012)

I'm sure I'm seeing this from my point of view because I'm a European, but I'm having a hard time imagining a situation where I would actually need to have a firearm. If on a call 'Jo Crack-head' wants to try and shoot me, there's not a lot I can do about it. As a former Soldier I don't want to hang around and get into a gun fight on his terms, I'll take my chances and give him a moving target while I GTFO of there.

The Police in the US are armed and that doesn't seem to stop them getting shot at, why would EMS be any different?


----------



## DrParasite (Jan 12, 2012)

DPM said:


> Out of curiosity, how many people on this thread have had to use a firearm in anger / been on the receiving end? I'd be interested to see who / how many from the pro-armed team have been in that situation.


another question would be how many have ever had a firearm aimed at you while on work?





Akulahawk said:


> In general I do not think that EMS workers should be required to be armed because we should be seen by the public as being a neutral party. That means of course that ideally, EMS will not be seen as a threat, and therefore not come under attack simply because they happen to "be there".


Ideally yes, but we all know we don't live in an ideal world.


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 12, 2012)

Akulahawk said:


> While being armed is nothing to do with cops, in a very real sense, they do not show up to "save the day" except in some very unusual circumstances. A lot of times what they end up doing is taken report and file it, later the detective might follow up and do some additional investigation and perhaps the person responsible is arrested and brought into the justice system. Law enforcement in the United States is under no obligation to protect any one particular person, just society as a whole.
> 
> While I am not afraid of the Bogeyman, I know several people that have been actively targeted by persons who clearly do not have peaceful intentions in mind. These same several people live in my county. In particular, these folks were very obviously targets for robbery. How do I know? If you look at the behavior of the attacker, and their accomplices, it becomes very obvious that they weren't approaching another person for the purpose of saying hello, rather they were approaching from a very tactical standpoint, choosing their approach to their victim in such a way that their victim could be somewhat easily overpowered. Now these particular episodes did not make the news simply because of one of two things. One, the would-be victim was aware of the setup and was able to leave and in that instance was actively followed for short distance, before it became obvious that the would-be victim was heading to a place where more assistance was readily available. In a second instance, with a separate individual, three people approached him in an attempt to block him from escaping. The gentleman in question was going to be the victim position themselves in such a way that he had his back protected and could visualize the other three persons that were attempting to bracket him. In that instance, a few rather strong commands to back away and, very obviously getting ready to draw firearm and use it caused those three persons to rethink their plan. They beat a rather hasty retreat and left. Had it been a slow news night, and somebody had the video available of that event, that might have made the news. Because nobody got shot, the news was uninterested.
> 
> ...



I think the point and intention is somehow twisted.

I don't see anyone here who is suggesting an individual should not carry or be able to carry a weapon. I am certainly not suggesting that. I firmly support the individual right to carry a weapon. (i'll even help you pick one out and show you how to use it)

What I am suggesting is that in the course of their official duty, EMS providers should not be armed against a delusional threat under the same auspices as a person who is not officially responding. AKA somebody minding their own business as you describe in your post.

Like I said, if you want armed EMS providers, that is fine. But there needs to be specific laws, training, oversight, and rigorous selection of employees in place, which does not exist right now.

Right or wrong, there is going to be significant fallout if somebody gets shot or killed. Not least of which is making any EMS provider a target for retribution, similar to what police officers face. That will require a constant defensive awareness in every area of the country, exactly the same as a law enforcement officer. (Obviously there are too many consequences in addition to discuss here, this is only one example.)

But the overt fear mongering of certain aspects of US society coupled with volume of exposure EMS providers to violence and crime, in my trained observation imparts a delusional impression on the need for deadly force while performing EMS functions.

Again for emphasis, a private citizen carrying a weapon is fine. But once you become an "official" or act in official capaicty, it is too complex a situation to allow the tenents that apply to individuals to be the default governance.


----------



## WhiskeySix5 (Jan 12, 2012)

DrParasite said:


> it was an old article (several years), I am trying to find it. for you.



Thank you sir


----------



## WhiskeySix5 (Jan 12, 2012)

Sandog said:


> I just wonder, how many on this thread are full of foo foo?



Hmmmm, I could not begin to speculate as I do not know anyone on here personally, but I know what I have done, and where I have been so I can only speak from my experiences.


----------



## WhiskeySix5 (Jan 12, 2012)

Akulahawk said:


> In general I do not think that EMS workers should be required to be armed because we should be seen by the public as being a neutral party. That means of course that ideally, EMS will not be seen as a threat, and therefore not come under attack simply because they happen to "be there".
> 
> Choosing to be armed, outside of the law enforcement community, or the military, is an intensely personal decision. When I choose to be armed in a given situation, I have weighed the consequences of being armed.



Well said.


----------

