# Should EMS be armed



## fortsmithman (Mar 31, 2009)

Although there is another thread about ems carry firearms the thread has no poll.  So I will be creating one with a poll.


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 31, 2009)

God I hope we are armed... kinda hard to do CPR without em!


Joking aside, yes.


----------



## fortsmithman (Mar 31, 2009)

Maybe the reason I feell as I do is because I'm from Canada where our firearms laws are totally different from that of the USA.


----------



## exodus (Mar 31, 2009)

I voted no, because primarily PD is close enough so you can get out safely. BUT, I do think that rural EMS should be armed and have to go through special training for firearms handeling first off, then have to log a few hours on the range each month to keep up.


----------



## BLSBoy (Mar 31, 2009)

Unless you are on a Tactical Medical Team, NOT IN A MILLION YEARS!

We already have enough idiots and yahoos who are in it for the low educational requirements, flashy lights, sirens, and cool uniforms. Now we can attract more cause we can carry?

Not to mention our job is PATIENT CARE! Or have people forgotten that LEOs are for protection. 


We will never advance our profession.......:glare:


----------



## fortsmithman (Mar 31, 2009)

exodus said:


> I voted no, because primarily PD is close enough so you can get out safely. BUT, I do think that rural EMS should be armed and have to go through special training for firearms handeling first off, then have to log a few hours on the range each month to keep up.



I'm rural and a few times I wished we had a rifle because we in bear country as well we have had sightings of cougars (the one on 4 legs).  But for the most part I don't feel the need for a firearm and we pretty just have in town calls.


----------



## aandjmayne (Mar 31, 2009)

I dont think that we should necessarily be armed, but I do think that in some areas bullet proof vests should at least be offered. Ive heard stories of emts getting hurt because they were trying to help someone that the shooter wanted dead


----------



## Veneficus (Mar 31, 2009)

Sometimes.


----------



## AJ Hidell (Mar 31, 2009)

As Veneficus alludes, this is a very poor poll.  What is it asking?  Is it asking if we should be armed as a matter of policy?  Or is it asking if we should be allowed that option individually?  Too many variables to give a black-and-white answer without specifics.  And what exactly does "armed" mean anyhow?


----------



## fortsmithman (Mar 31, 2009)

What I want to know is peoples initial attitudes towards armed EMS.  Not policy but peoples gut reaction to the question.  With my service if someone asked to carry a concealed firearm they woud be told no.  Heck we are not allowed to use handcuffs to restrain a pt our protocols prohibit handcuffs.  Besides that it's darn near impossible to get a permit to carry a pistol concealed here in Canada.  The only non LEO job that can get a carry permit (not concealed) are armoured car guards.


----------



## AJ Hidell (Mar 31, 2009)

Thinking men don't have gut reactions to broad, nebulous semantic theories.  They have gut reactions to specific ideas.  Despite the poll, I don't really see any difference between this thread and the previous one.  It's a biased poll.  It's like asking if people are pro-life or pro-death.  It doesn't give enough information to offer any discussional validity.


----------



## trevor1189 (Mar 31, 2009)

Voted no. I am definitely in favor of gun rights and the right to carry, but I definitely wouldn't want to shoot someone protecting myself then have to go tend to their gsw's. :wacko:

Around here if there is a call that seems dangerous PSP gets dispatched and goes in first to secure the scene while the ambulances stage away from the scene until given the order to move in.

Maybe pepperspray and bullet proof vests would be a good compromise in "dangerous calls."


----------



## fortsmithman (Mar 31, 2009)

I'd wear body armour if issued.


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 31, 2009)

fortsmithman said:


> I'd wear body armour if issued.




See, you said "if issued".

If a gun was issued, you'd be carrying that as well.



Do you wear a vest now?  I guarantee no EMS agency will bar you from wearing it on the inside of your shirt.


----------



## lightsandsirens5 (Mar 31, 2009)

Poll is kind of narrow. I don't think that we should be "armed". Rather, I think EMS should not be prohibited from conceled carry.


----------



## firecoins (Mar 31, 2009)

fortsmithman said:


> Maybe the reason I feell as I do is because I'm from Canada where our firearms laws are totally different from that of the USA.



I even heard rumors Canada was a totally different country.  :sad:  

Where is that rimshot thing?


----------



## firecoins (Mar 31, 2009)

fortsmithman said:


> I'd wear body armour if issued.



I always need protection for other bodies.  

Rimshot.

At least you didn't say bullet proof.  Than someone would correct you and say bullet resistant.


----------



## fortsmithman (Mar 31, 2009)

firecoins said:


> I always need protection for other bodies.
> 
> Rimshot.
> 
> At least you didn't say bullet proof.  Than someone would correct you and say bullet resistant.


No suck thing as a bullet proof vest if I were to wear a vest it would have to be lvl 3 or 4.  Not lvl 2 which is worn by a majority of peace officers.  I would wear that lvl because  in my neck of the woods while we don't have many pistols we have more rifle and shotguns here.  The calibres we are dealing with here are anywhere from a .270 to .300 win magnum.


----------



## JPINFV (Apr 1, 2009)

See, the problem with bear arms is that they are an infection risk.


----------



## firecoins (Apr 1, 2009)

fortsmithman said:


> No suck thing as a bullet proof vest



lol see what I mean.  It never fails.


----------



## fortsmithman (Apr 1, 2009)

firecoins said:


> lol see what I mean.  It never fails.



I admit I'm alooousy typistt. LOL


----------



## Veneficus (Apr 1, 2009)

fortsmithman said:


> No suck thing as a bullet proof vest if I were to wear a vest it would have to be lvl 3 or 4.  Not lvl 2 which is worn by a majority of peace officers.  I would wear that lvl because  in my neck of the woods while we don't have many pistols we have more rifle and shotguns here.  The calibres we are dealing with here are anywhere from a .270 to .300 win magnum.



I imagine the people using such weapons can probably shoot for your head, not just center of mass.


----------



## medicp94dao (Apr 1, 2009)

I dont think we should be armed.... Its hard enough finding quality EMT's that are in EMS for the right reasons ( taking care of those who need us ), Just imagine giving that certain someone on your department, squad, etc.... a firearm.. you all know who I am talking about... and then let him/her loose on the street!!!!!!! That is a very scary thought.


----------



## TransportJockey (Apr 1, 2009)

lightsandsirens5 said:


> Poll is kind of narrow. I don't think that we should be "armed". Rather, I think EMS should not be prohibited from conceled carry.



That's my thought on it as well


----------



## VentMedic (Apr 1, 2009)

A concealed weapons permit is extremely easy to get. The ones who are going to take the advice given on this forum or who will rush out to get one will not be the good ole boys like reaper and AJ who may have been shooting guns since they could walk. It will be the ones who have not held a gun in their life before hearing they could get a concealed weapons permit and carry on an ambulance. Or, it will be the 18 year old who has been shooting people on the video games since they were 2 y/o and thinks it is real cool. 

A gun will then give some the confidence and the stupidity to enter into scenes that they normally wouldn't without PD backup or to get a little more confrontational believing their backup is in their pocket. 

You will also have up to 8 EMT(P) volunteers responding to some scenes or 4 FD engine EMT(P)s plus two ALS ambulance EMT(P)s and maybe two more private ambulance EMT(P)s. That is a lot of people at scene who could be carrying a weapon with only a concealed weapons permit training. It doesn't take much to get one excited person to set off a very bad situation. I think we've all seen what happens when some get very cocky in numbers. 

Couple that with the appearance of some who show up to the scene who even if there is an ambulance in the background, you would have a difficult time getting even others in EMS to believe you are an EMT(P), and there will be potential for things to go very wrong if someone is carrying a weapon either openly or concealed.

Allowing many to carry weapons who have very minimal education and training with a gun is no different than putting EMT(P)s on ambulances who are not properly prepared to use the equipment and meds they have access to for patient care.


----------



## reaper (Apr 1, 2009)

Vent,

I agree fully with your statement. I stated earlier that If it ever was to happen, That those allowed to carry should have to go through academy training in firearm use and have full testing, same as LEO.

Vent, Do you remember back in the mid to late 80's, when City of Miami Fire/Rescue tried something like this? I don't remember the outcome of it and could not find any articles on it. They tried it due to extremely violent times in the city, at that time.

BTW, I waited until I could walk to start shooting. Before then, they kept knocking me down!!


----------



## VentMedic (Apr 1, 2009)

reaper said:


> Vent,
> 
> Vent, Do you remember back in the mid to late 80's, when City of Miami Fire/Rescue tried something like this? I don't remember the outcome of it and could not find any articles on it. They tried it due to extremely violent times in the city, at that time.


 
Of course I do. I was in the middle of it. 

I have owned a weapon most of my life and also learned to shoot very young thanks to my dad. I do have a concealed weapons permit and carried regularly for many years. However, when we got to work we were ordered to place our guns in a special locker. 

To continue my lecture and these are things I did learn in the late 70s and 80s when my area was extremely violent.

If you shoot someone who is unarmed, you will be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.

If you are going to engage in a gun confrontation with someone who is armed, you will have to be able to draw and aim your concealed weapon before they shoot you. 

If your concealed weapon is easily accessible for you, there is a good chance it is easily accessible to someone else.

If you believe you will ever use your weapon on the job, you should be wearing a vest. 

If those on the street know or even think you are carrying a weapon, you become as easy target because those on the other side of the law know you are not the police.

If you have little to no experience shooting a weapon, you will be more like Barnie Fife than Rambo. You will probably end up shooting yourself or someone other than the intended target. 

The streetwise hoodlums who are familiar with the police will know you have very little experience by your stance, actions and talk.


----------



## scottyb (Apr 1, 2009)

I don't think there is a cut and dry answer to this.  In some areas with low police numbers, slow response times.  There has been a growing number of localities in upstate new york that have been lowering police numbers and/or completely dissolving local police forces and turning over patrol/response to the county sheriff.  I think if the ems service becomes part of a police unit, yeah.  if it is part of the fire department or independent, no.  I think it is up to each locality/departments to decide what is best for their districts.  Too often a scene can appear secure or safe not requiring police presence, and it can turn in an instant.  Not being able to defend yourself is not a place I like to be.  I guess I am not sure exactly what I think the right answer is.


----------



## johnnyreb132 (Apr 1, 2009)

I voted yes because I believe in Second Amendment rights and I don't want to be a hyprocite.  For my entire life I've been around guns and understand the proper use and safety techniques.  However, some people should never be allowed to use a gun and all need to learn about how to use one.  



Why not have one .38 on an ambulance, locked away and concealed, by which only one EMT, _who has been specifically and sufficiently educated and trained_, can access in the event of a worst case scenario?

Every EMT has a low power airsoft pistol (but then whats the point?)

Stockpile Red Ryder BB Guns in a cabinet

Or the best option which is to just give EMTs a non-lethal weapon (ex. tasers)


----------



## medic417 (Apr 1, 2009)

johnnyreb132 said:


> Or the best option which is to just give EMTs a non-lethal weapon (ex. tasers)
> [/LIST]



No such thing exists.  People die from tazers.  Less lethal would be best statement to use here.  Problem is you may need more than 1 shot and also tazers do not stop all attackers.


----------



## reaper (Apr 1, 2009)

VentMedic said:


> Of course I do. I was in the middle of it.
> 
> I have owned a weapon most of my life and also learned to shoot very young thanks to my dad. I do have a concealed weapons permit and carried regularly for many years. However, when we got to work we were ordered to place our guns in a special locker.
> 
> ...




Vent, I was referring to a trail they did with arming their medics. Had two very close family friends that were both Captains with City of Miami. I can't ask them what the turn out was, as they are both Deceased now. I was just wondering how that trial came out in the end?


----------



## Veneficus (Apr 1, 2009)

johnnyreb132 said:


> Why not have one .38 on an ambulance, locked away and concealed, by which only one EMT, _who has been specifically and sufficiently educated and trained_, can access in the event of a worst case scenario?]





If you have time to unlock your secure compartment and get out your gun, you have time to get away.

If you think you need to unlock your secure compartment before going in, you need to not go in.

I support the individual right to bear arms. I shoot regularly, and have been "trained" how to use a firearm for the purpose of combat. But the civillian environment in the US is not combat. There are laws and public opinions that make using a firearm very complicated.

Rather than reproduce them I ask if you haven't to see my replies in the other thread as I spent considerable time typing them up to try and demonstrate how wrong things could go and some of the potential pitfalls you may want to consider.

If you absolutely feel you must carry a gun. Well... If you must you must. But please think of all the consequences before you draw rather than after. 

I would also encourage you to speak with not only your LEO friends on the matter, but the local prosecutors as well. 

"Never underestimate the power of an angry mob."
If you shoot somebody and the community goes nuts and gets out the rope, torches, and pitchforks demanding your head on a plate. They do have the ability to raise such a fuss with the elected officials to get it. You could spend a fortune and years in legal proceedings.

Some will say that is better than being dead, and I agree 100%, but there are alternative ways to not get dead, and as I pointed out before, the likely scenarios I see where a firearm would be of assistance are already heavily stacked against you,

"Great warriors do not fight to win, they win then fight."
Sun Tzu

(words to live by)


----------



## VentMedic (Apr 1, 2009)

Veneficus said:


> I would also encourage you to speak with not only your LEO friends on the matter, but the local prosecutors as well.
> 
> "Never underestimate the power of an angry mob."
> If you shoot somebody and the community goes nuts and gets out the rope, torches, and pitchforks demanding your head on a plate. They do have the ability to raise such a fuss with the elected officials to get it. You could spend a fortune and years in legal proceedings.


 
You consider what has happened recently in Oakland, CA with the accidental shooting by a BART Police Officer. Since January the city and store owners have endured millions of dollars of damage done to their property. Now, the entire BART Police Department may be disarmed. So if PD are being closely scrutinized for carrying firearms, how do you think the public will accept EMT(P)s carrying? LEOs would prefer to squelch a situation before it gets out of control. If an EMT(P) pulls a gun at scene, it is now out of control.

I believe this is the article reaper was looking for:

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/1991-09-04/news/guns-n-hoses/1


----------



## AJ Hidell (Apr 1, 2009)

Okay, so what if we did something like the Federal Flight Deck Officer program that they do to arm airline pilots who want to carry?  It's a pretty intensive program that is equivalent of any law enforcement training, and far exceeds any CHL training, as well as having stringent pre-qualifications and being completely voluntary.  And employers cannot override it.  Anyone got a problem with that?


----------



## medic417 (Apr 1, 2009)

AJ Hidell said:


> Okay, so what if we did something like the Federal Flight Deck Officer program that they do to arm airline pilots who want to carry?  It's a pretty intensive program that is equivalent of any law enforcement training, and far exceeds any CHL training, as well as having stringent pre-qualifications and being completely voluntary.  And employers cannot override it.  Anyone got a problem with that?



Of course some will have trouble with it, EMS people can never agree to anything.


----------



## VentMedic (Apr 1, 2009)

medic417 said:


> Of course some will have trouble with it, EMS people can never agree to anything.


 
What if we just try to stick to the medical part of EMS instead of trying to be Police Officers also? We haven't gotten our main role as medical providers right at this time. And don't give me the line about "for our own protection". The majority of us have survived by playing it smart and calling for backup and not confronting a dangerous situation headon with a gun in hand. This isn't a western movie where you are going to "outdraw" someone. If you have to get your concealed weapon unconcealed, you will probably be shot. If you have enough time to get your gun out of concealment and aimed accurately at the person, you probably have enough time to get away from trouble. 

The guns are just for some who want to play it up tough and will probably crap in their panties if they are confronted with a situation or get someone else like their partner killed. 

AJ, not everyone here is a soldier with extensive military experience AND a former police officer. While carrying a gun and shooting people may be second nature to you, it is not advisable for all. You signed up for the military and a police force knowing guns were a part of the job. Except for "Public Safety Officers", the Paramedic should be concerned about carrying a stethoscope. Some people in EMS can barely keep up the few skills they have now and you want them to also maintain profiency in weapons also? 

The pilot is not a good example since the pilot is trapped on a plane and death will probably be the option either way. Rarely do hijackings end well. However, that should not always be the case for an EMT(P). There are more options on the ground than in the sky.


----------



## medic417 (Apr 1, 2009)

VentMedic said:


> What if we just try to stick to the medical part of EMS instead of trying to be Police Officers also? We haven't gotten our main role as medical providers right at this time. And don't give me the line about "for our own protection". The majority of us have survived by playing it smart and calling for backup and not confronting a dangerous situation headon with a gun in hand. This isn't a western movie where you are going to "outdraw" someone. If you have to get your concealed weapon unconcealed, you will probably be shot. If you have enough time to get your gun out of concealment and aimed accurately at the person, you probably have enough time to get away from trouble.
> 
> The guns are just for some who want to play it up tough and will probably crap in their panties if they are confronted with a situation or get someone else like their partner killed.
> 
> ...



LOL. Your analogy's slay me.   I agree many have no business carrying a gun, in fact many have no business in EMS even at the basic level.


----------



## Veneficus (Apr 1, 2009)

AJ Hidell said:


> Okay, so what if we did something like the Federal Flight Deck Officer program that they do to arm airline pilots who want to carry?  It's a pretty intensive program that is equivalent of any law enforcement training, and far exceeds any CHL training, as well as having stringent pre-qualifications and being completely voluntary.  And employers cannot override it.  Anyone got a problem with that?



It is not people like you carrying a gun that I think the poor decisions are going to come from. It is the person with the ink still wet on their card that thinks they are some special forces operative.

I forsee somebody getting into a confrontational situation, out comes a gun, some shots are fired and a person is dead. The EMS shooter gets tossed under the bus, life is ruined, career over, maybe jail, and possibly an massively irate community taking their anger out on other public servants. 

I don't think a course will help, I think there needs to be a certain mindset that is not very common to responsibly carry a weapon. Also, there should be a LAW addressing the use of force by EMS, for no other reason than to protect the providers who do carry.

Given the effort that would take, I think efforts are better focused elsewhere for EMS. 

I guess my main issue is not whether or not EMS carries a weapon, it is who exactly in the ranks is carrying the weapon. I am not really sure how to go about addressing that.

If we start making EMS people take LE training, how do we differentiate that from forcing Fire providers to be in EMS? How do we stop the municiple powers that be from using EMS providers in a dual LE/EMS role to save money?

I don't think those with civillian training (read LE) should be prohibited from carrying a weapon. Military training would not suffice because while weapon safety doesn't change, the environment, rules of engagement, responsibilities of using force, and local politics change considerably.

This is definately a tricky topic.


----------



## Veneficus (Apr 1, 2009)

*a good faith effort*

Because I am not adverse to qualified responsible carrying or use of a weapon, I decided to make a good faith effort to find a way to make this possible.

Several Years ago when I was working on a more rural unit, a deputy approached the people at the EMS station about a tactical medics for the SWAT team. Several of us, including myself stated up front we would not be anything more than we were nor get anycloser to the action unless we too were armed and authorized to use force. The SO decided they did not want to front the money, time, or training for that and a medic in the cold zone would be just fine. 

It was then suggested that in order to carry out this idea, without us being actual deptuties ourselves, and not to be conscripted LEOs the idea was to have us be part of the Posse. (an idea long extinct in most parts of the country) But I did find this:

http://www.mcso.org/index.php?a=GetModule&mn=Posse

of interest may be the QAP (qualified armed posseman)

That would satisfy my unyielding criteria for legal protection of those who may need to use force. It would also allow a screening process to select out those wanting to be Jason Bourne.

I would still rather spend the time better educating providers to medicine instead of weapons qualifications, but I do often get tired of only providing criticism without attempting to embrace an opposing view and offer a solution.


----------



## EMT-G36C (Apr 1, 2009)

I am a very big advocate of gun rights, the right to carry, and the right to defend yourself.

Especially being from Chicago, where the powers that be deny me the right to do so.

However, I feel that guns have no place in the ambulance, unless on the belt of a police officer, and preferably in a triple retention holster.

If I had the right I would carry a firearm everywhere I went, except where prohibited by law, and work.

A taser is a better option. Or Mace. Or both, as the situation calls for it.

I don't think we should be defenseless, but guns and psychs, or drunks, or drug abusers just do not mix.


----------



## mycrofft (Apr 2, 2009)

*Where was the poll selection...*

...for "Oh, hayel NO!".


----------



## curt (Apr 2, 2009)

Yes, I think I'd feel quite comfortable with my pard and I carrying tasers, not more, not less. Still, it's no excuse to forgo standard precautions and LEO backup.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Apr 2, 2009)

Yep, LEO back up...which can be 30-45 minutes away around here plus they have no obligation to protect us.  :glare:

http://www.emtlife.com/showpost.php?p=134839&postcount=123


----------



## AJ Hidell (Apr 2, 2009)

EMT-G36C said:


> ...guns and psychs, or drunks, or drug abusers just do not mix.


So that's why the cops dump all the psychs, drunks, and drug abusers on us, eh?

Now it all makes perfect sense.


----------



## Sasha (Apr 2, 2009)

mycrofft said:


> ...for "Oh, hayel NO!".



I like your answer best.


----------



## EMT-G36C (Apr 2, 2009)

AJ Hidell said:


> So that's why the cops dump all the psychs, drunks, and drug abusers on us, eh?
> 
> Now it all makes perfect sense.



If they're leaving them with you, request they accompany you?

Never had a bad experience with LEOs, so I dunno what to tell ya.

But I work for a private. Maybe 911 is different.


----------



## curt (Apr 2, 2009)

ffemt8978 said:


> Yep, LEO back up...which can be 30-45 minutes away around here plus they have no obligation to protect us.  :glare:
> 
> http://www.emtlife.com/showpost.php?p=134839&postcount=123


Yeah, and we could also get struck by lightning. My taser could misfire and hit me in the face, the police might not come to a request for backup, and your gun might secretly be james bond's backwards-shooting gun, and Jesus might come back in the middle of the throwdown. Stop throwing what ifs, we're working on commonalities here. If we stopped and looked at every little what if, besides missing the big picture, we'd never reach a conclusion. In most urban locations, I wouldn't think that, unless there are extreme circumstances at hand, the police would be more than 12 minutes away at the most.

 As far as one taser shot not being enough, that's why my pard's got a taser too.


----------



## EMT-G36C (Apr 2, 2009)

curt said:


> Yeah, and we could also get struck by lightning. My taser could misfire and hit me in the face, the police might not come to a request for backup, and your gun might secretly be james bond's backwards-shooting gun, and Jesus might come back in the middle of the throwdown. Stop throwing what ifs, we're working on commonalities here. If we stopped and looked at every little what if, besides missing the big picture, we'd never reach a conclusion. In most urban locations, I wouldn't think that, unless there are extreme circumstances at hand, the police would be more than 12 minutes away at the most.
> 
> As far as one taser shot not being enough, that's why my pard's got a taser too.


Good post, backed hard.


----------



## AJ Hidell (Apr 2, 2009)

curt said:


> As far as one taser shot not being enough, that's why my pard's got a taser too.


So is his Taser that much better than yours, or is he just a better shot?

If yours didn't do the job, what makes you think yours will?

You guys obviously have no realistic concept of what the Taser is, what it does, or what it's limitations are.  It's great for offensive use against an unarmed man.  But EMS has no business going offensive against an unarmed man in the first place.  What we are talking about here is self-DEFENSE.  And I would hope that none of you are stupid enough to actually reach for a taser during an armed confrontation.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Apr 2, 2009)

curt said:


> Yeah, and we could also get struck by lightning. My taser could misfire and hit me in the face, the police might not come to a request for backup, and your gun might secretly be james bond's backwards-shooting gun, and Jesus might come back in the middle of the throwdown. Stop throwing what ifs, we're working on commonalities here. If we stopped and looked at every little what if, besides missing the big picture, we'd never reach a conclusion. In most urban locations, I wouldn't think that, unless there are extreme circumstances at hand, the police would be more than 12 minutes away at the most.
> 
> As far as one taser shot not being enough, that's why my pard's got a taser too.



Who was discussing what if's?  

I was mentioning the FACT that where I live, the AVERAGE LE response time is 20 minutes with 30-45 minutes happening about 25% of the time.  

I was also discussing the FACT that LE is under no legal obligation to protect an individual, and cited a relevant court case.

And while urban environments account for a large percentage of the population, the majority of the area in the country is considered rural.  It is not fair, accurate, or realistic to apply urban standards to a rural setting, and vice versa.


----------



## trevor1189 (Apr 2, 2009)

Just got back from a ride along shift today and found out that we DO have bullet resistant vests... I'll sleep better now.h34r:


----------



## curt (Apr 2, 2009)

AJ Hidell said:


> So is his Taser that much better than yours, or is he just a better shot?
> 
> If yours didn't do the job, what makes you think yours will?
> 
> You guys obviously have no realistic concept of what the Taser is, what it does, or what it's limitations are.  It's great for offensive use against an unarmed man.  But EMS has no business going offensive against an unarmed man in the first place.  What we are talking about here is self-DEFENSE.  And I would hope that none of you are stupid enough to actually reach for a taser during an armed confrontation.



No, we're assuming I've missed somehow, misfired, or the guy stayed up long enough to swat out the barbs. There's no guarantee that my pard's will work either, but two shots are better than one, I suppose.

 Tasers, as I see them, are strictly defensive weapons. We wouldn't want to start an offensive anyway. As far as nonlethal (exceptions recognized) weaponry goes, the taser's probably the best we could ask for right now- it's going to be able to stop someone who's so junked out on a whole pharmacy unlike pepper spray (not to mention the advantage of not making the truck reek of the capsaicin), but we can shoot and know it's not going to go through the wall and kill little Suzy Bystander in the head, as well as standing a pretty good chance of not reducing the guy to a bloody pile on the floor. 

 Now, if tasers cause digital contraction, then it's most certainly a bad idea to tase someone who's got a gun. If they don't, then I don't see why incapacitating them is so much worse of an idea than killing them outright. Of course, I'm thinking of the deep urban environment in which a taser's limited reach isn't necessarily a crippling factor in a throwdown. 

 My first goal if I see a gun getting produced is seeking out shelter or escape. If neither are available or good choices at the time, my secondary goal should be removing myself from the threat or vice versa. No matter what, the goal should be survive, and by any means necessary, even if it means making like a tree and leaving.


----------



## AJ Hidell (Apr 2, 2009)

But if we give medics Tasers, aren't a lot of them going to be emboldened to stand their ground and fight it out rather than just departing the danger zone?  Aren't we going to have a lot of medics running into dangerous scenes that they would not have entered if they didn't have the Taser?  What if the Taser puts someone's eye out?  What if it kills someone?  What if it is taken from them and used against them?


----------



## fortsmithman (Apr 2, 2009)

AJ Hidell said:


> But if we give medics Tasers, aren't a lot of them going to be emboldened to stand their ground and fight it out rather than just departing the danger zone?  Aren't we going to have a lot of medics running into dangerous scenes that they would not have entered if they didn't have the Taser?  What if the Taser puts someone's eye out?  What if it kills someone?  What if it is taken from them and used against them?


I'd rather be tasered than shot.


----------



## EMT-G36C (Apr 2, 2009)

fortsmithman said:


> I'd rather be tasered than shot.



I was going to say something similar.


----------



## AJ Hidell (Apr 2, 2009)

And I'd rather have the ability to shoot someone before they shoot me.

You see, there's not really a big difference in what we "want".  It's just that I am willing to take responsibility for my own safety and you are not.


----------



## catskills (Apr 3, 2009)

I voted NO.

This is what police officers are for.  Police support in my area is awesome.  

The image of EMS  should be we help people.  Once word gets out we shoot people, folks get the wrong idea what we are all about and they will not trust us. :unsure:


----------



## scottyb (Apr 3, 2009)

catskills said:


> I voted NO.
> 
> This is what police officers are for.  Police support in my area is awesome.
> 
> The image of EMS  should be we help people.  Once word gets out we shoot people, folks get the wrong idea what we are all about and they will not trust us. :unsure:



I am not sure I totally agree with that.  I am not talking about your opinion, but your reasoning.  People still trust police officers, at least, that is the majority opinion as I know it.  I think in areas where it is warranted due to response times and or police support, the population would probably at least understand it if not fully support it, as long as they are given the facts.


----------



## silver (Apr 3, 2009)

No, I have a hard enough time convincing people that I am not a police officer, nor do i care if what they did or will do is legal.


----------



## Sasha (Apr 3, 2009)

> And I'd rather have the ability to shoot someone before they shoot me.



So you're going into all calls with a gun drawn, then? I could imagine any other way you'd be able to pull the trigger first.


----------



## BossyCow (Apr 3, 2009)

I have guns. Several. I enjoy shooting, hunting, and skeet. 

I have enough respect for firearms to know that the enclosed metal box of an ambulance is not the optimum location for discharging a firearm. My local ER will not allow firearms within its walls. We had to transport a LEO who had been injured, before getting into the ambulance, he had to leave his weapon with another officer because otherwise he would have been refused admitance to the ER. 

Of course, on duty officers, who are escorting prisoners to the ER for treatment remain armed. But when the LEO pt disrobes for an exam, where does the gun go? Who is responsible for its security, making sure it doesn't get into the hands of another pt? 

I love our local LEOs. They have had my back more times than I can count. But, to me, it's a matter of focus. When I am on a scene, I want to be able to do my job. My job is patient care. 

There are a lot of posts on here about the conflict between the fire service and EMS. I would suggest that those of you who think EMS should carry weapons, read some of those posts. Only substitute Law Enforcement for Fire. If you want to shoot people, arrest people, and generally be a bad A** M. F. with everyone very impressed with your personal power, join a law enforcement agency.  There are those positions of tactical medic. But if you can't use your brain to either avoid or de-escalate a dangerous situation, then you have other issues besides your right to carry a weapon.


----------



## BLSBoy (Apr 3, 2009)

scottyb said:


> I am not sure I totally agree with that.  I am not talking about your opinion, but your reasoning.  People still trust police officers, at least, that is the majority opinion as I know it.  I think in areas where it is warranted due to response times and or police support, the population would probably at least understand it if not fully support it, as long as they are given the facts.



You don't get into urban areas often, do you?


----------



## reaper (Apr 3, 2009)

BossyCow said:


> I have guns. Several. I enjoy shooting, hunting, and skeet.
> 
> I have enough respect for firearms to know that the enclosed metal box of an ambulance is not the optimum location for discharging a firearm. My local ER will not allow firearms within its walls. We had to transport a LEO who had been injured, before getting into the ambulance, he had to leave his weapon with another officer because otherwise he would have been refused admitance to the ER.
> 
> ...



But, no one is talking about shooting people or arresting people! They are talking about defending themselves. Not all situations can be de-escalated or avoided. There are times when self defense comes into play.


----------



## reaper (Apr 3, 2009)

BLSBoy said:


> You don't get into urban areas often, do you?



I have worked Urban areas my whole career. Some worse then NJ would ever see. I still see trust of LEO's in the majority of the public!


----------



## BLSBoy (Apr 3, 2009)

reaper said:


> I have worked Urban areas my whole career. Some worse then NJ would ever see. I still see trust of LEO's in the majority of the public!



Majority of _public_ and majority of our _patients_ are two completely different things. 
I try my very best to set myself apart in looks from LEOs. Neon green jacket with reflective striping and PARAMEDIC on the back, pink shears, hat with MICP patch on it, and I do NOT wear my badge. 
I still get mistaken when I am seen from behind and I have no jacket on. 
I have been assaulted several times because I looked similar to a LEO. 

I have the utmost respect for my Brothers in Blue, but to say they are well respected would be an overstatement. 
It really is sad, but it seems to be the culture. Hate "da man" and authority.


----------



## reaper (Apr 3, 2009)

Those are a small majority! Do you really think that anyone breaking the law is ever going to respect the law?


----------



## BLSBoy (Apr 3, 2009)

Ever hear an 8 year old who thinks you are the cops tell you to f*&k off?
I'm pretty sure they don't teach that in school.


----------



## reaper (Apr 3, 2009)

BLSBoy said:


> Ever hear an 8 year old who thinks you are the cops tell you to f*&k off?
> I'm pretty sure they don't teach that in school.



Yes, quit often. It is called culture they are raised in and a few more terms I will not say here!


----------



## fortsmithman (Apr 3, 2009)

If one enters a scene and the pt is pointing a pistol at you if the pt sees you trying to draw a pistol you get shot.  One of our members while working EMS down east had a firearm pointed at her I think herand her partner were able to talk the pt out of it.


----------



## reaper (Apr 3, 2009)

Yeah, OK!!!!!!!


----------



## BLSBoy (Apr 3, 2009)

Its becoming more and more prevalant. 
You have marches in Oakland to protest the killing of a POS who MURDERED four Brother Officers. 
Children telling adults to piss off, to censor it, since the modagods would stroke out should we put what happens in real life here. 
I honestly just don't see the respect that was once there anymore. 
I was raised to honor and respect authority. It wasn't all that long ago I was being raised. 
Living and working where I do, I see the complete opposite.


----------



## reaper (Apr 3, 2009)

You hit the nail on the head! You have to actually care about raising your children first!


----------



## BLSBoy (Apr 3, 2009)

How bout actually _caring_ for the kids in the first place, instead of treating them like the accidental tax breaks they are treated as?:glare:


----------



## AJ Hidell (Apr 3, 2009)

BLSBoy said:


> How bout actually _caring_ for the kids in the first place, instead of treating them like the accidental tax breaks they are treated as?:glare:


Problem is, it's so expensive to prove who the daddy is.


----------



## curt (Apr 3, 2009)

AJ Hidell said:


> But if we give medics Tasers, aren't a lot of them going to be emboldened to stand their ground and fight it out rather than just departing the danger zone?  Aren't we going to have a lot of medics running into dangerous scenes that they would not have entered if they didn't have the Taser?  What if the Taser puts someone's eye out?  What if it kills someone?  What if it is taken from them and used against them?



Oh dear, you've gone and broke my sarcasm detector.



AJ Hidell said:


> And I'd rather have the ability to shoot someone before they shoot me.
> 
> You see, there's not really a big difference in what we "want".  It's just that I am willing to take responsibility for my own safety and you are not.



So, since I'm guessing you know what you're talking about (no sarcasm intended), what exactly ARE the crippling limitations to a taser that makes a handgun such a massively superior choice? It's not like it takes any longer to shoot than a handgun- unless you plan on adopting a bystander or anyone within the next quarter-mile life-incompatible method of spray and pray. In an urban environment, you need to make sure your bullets are going to go where you mean them to, otherwise it'd be far too easy to accidentally kill little Suzy Bystander or Danny Dad up the street, so I don't see why it'd take terribly much longer to use a taser.

 Also, how is not outright killing the guy not taking responsibility for my safety? If he can't shoot me, he can't shoot me, and he'll reach that state much faster by riding the lightning than by bleeding out and that's all that matters.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Apr 4, 2009)

curt said:


> Yes, I think I'd feel quite comfortable with my pard and I carrying tasers, not more, not less. Still, it's no excuse to forgo standard precautions and LEO backup.



Yep, Tasers are real effective.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--slow-speedchase0329mar29,0,4189872.story


----------



## medic417 (Apr 4, 2009)

ffemt8978 said:


> Yep, Tasers are real effective.
> 
> http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--slow-speedchase0329mar29,0,4189872.story



And watch an episode of cops.  Many times they have to taze more than once or with multiple tazers to get the poor criminal to cooperate. 

Tazers are not effective on everyone and they are a one shot then reload if you miss.  Odds are you will just piss the person off then instead of killing you quick they will play a little before killing you.


----------



## Sasha (Apr 4, 2009)

medic417 said:


> And watch an episode of cops.  Many times they have to taze more than once or with multiple tazers to get the poor criminal to cooperate.
> 
> Tazers are not effective on everyone and they are a one shot then reload if you miss.  Odds are you will just piss the person off then instead of killing you quick they will play a little before killing you.



And reaching for your gun to shoot them wont piss them off?


----------



## Sasha (Apr 4, 2009)

BLSBoy said:


> How bout actually _caring_ for the kids in the first place, instead of treating them like the accidental tax breaks they are treated as?:glare:



Kids now and days need a good bum beating once in awhile. 

Time outs are ineffective, especially if the kid could entertain themselves.


----------



## amberdt03 (Apr 4, 2009)

Sasha said:


> Kids now and days need a good bum beating once in awhile.



i agree. where was cps when i was getting my a$$ spanked. i once got spanked in front of 2 cops and they didn't even say a word to my mom. people are way too sensitive now days.


----------



## curt (Apr 4, 2009)

Nothing wrong with a little bit of pain punishment. It's a simple concept- you touch the stove, you get burned, you don't touch the stove again. The problem is that some nutcase parents out there just don't know when to put the brakes on it. They're obviously the minority, but in order to effectively address the issue, some feel that we need to target everyone- especially since these abusive spastics don't exactly walk around making it known to everyone and their headshrinker what it is they're doing. It's too bad some people just have no self-control.


----------



## AlaskaEMT (Apr 5, 2009)

With the proper training, yes, of course.  

It takes 12 weeks to become a police officer.  No disrespect to LEO's, but 12 weeks translates into EMT-B for us.  I'm tired of hearing about EMS providers getting stabbed and shot.


----------



## BLSBoy (Apr 5, 2009)

AlaskaEMT said:


> It takes 12 weeks to become a police officer.  No disrespect to LEO's, but 12 weeks translates into EMT-B for us.  I'm tired of hearing about EMS providers getting stabbed and shot.



HUH!?
12 weeks. 
40 hrs/week. 
480 hrs. 

EMT=120 hrs (roughly)

FAIL.

I am more concerned about idiot EMT drivers, fat pieces of lard, non EMTs on ambulances, back injuries, the weight of the Stryker Power Cot, and the upcoming 2009 MLB season then I am about getting shot or stabbed. 

Why? I have a better chance of getting injured/killed by those events then I am by someone shooting or stabbing me. 

Do some research, and tell me what the greatest threat (at least statistically) for EMS responders is. 

Shooting/stabbings are oversensationalized.


----------



## VentMedic (Apr 5, 2009)

BLSBoy said:


> HUH!?
> Why? I have a better chance of getting injured/killed by those events then I am by someone shooting or stabbing me.
> 
> Do some research, and tell me what the greatest threat (at least statistically) for EMS responders is.


 


Here are two interesting studies with statististis:

*Firefighters*

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/osfff.pdf



> In *2007, a total of 102 on-duty firefighter death*s occurred in the U.S. This is a sharp increase over
> the 89 firefighter fatalities that occurred in 2006, but returns to the long-term trend of close to 100
> on-duty deaths annually. The largest share of deaths (36 deaths) occurred on the fire ground. Stress,
> exertion, and other medical-related issues, which usually result in *heart attacks or other sudden*
> ...


 
http://www.objectivesafety.net/2007APHAEMSHO.pdf​ 
*EMS Occupational Statistics*​ 


> 74% of the deaths are transportation related. 1/5 of ground transport fatalities were struck by moving vehicles.​
> 11% were cardiovascular.​


 


> [FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]*Transport and ergonomics safety hazards are the biggest*[/FONT][/FONT]
> [FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]*issues in EMS injury and fatality*[/FONT][/FONT]​
> 
> [FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]*Both are devoid of acceptable safety standards, and*[/FONT][/FONT]
> ...


 
[FONT=Arial,Bold]*We need to get the core responsibilites required for EMS right before taking on additional duties. *[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Bold]*Carrying a gun is not a good substitute for your inability to move out of harm's way or to think before you act in any situation. The gun will not make up for poor training, alertness/awareness or being too out of shape to move for even the simplest tasks required of the job. . *[/FONT]​


----------



## reaper (Apr 5, 2009)

BLSBoy said:


> HUH!?
> 12 weeks.
> 40 hrs/week.
> 480 hrs.
> ...



What does that have to do with anything?


----------



## BLSBoy (Apr 8, 2009)

reaper said:


> What does that have to do with anything?



Since I was listing what affected me, that affects me. It is much heavier then the regular version.


----------



## CAOX3 (Apr 8, 2009)

AlaskaEMT said:


> With the proper training, yes, of course.
> 
> It takes 12 weeks to become a police officer.  No disrespect to LEO's, but 12 weeks translates into EMT-B for us.  I'm tired of hearing about EMS providers getting stabbed and shot.



12 weeks, and a bachelors degree usually.


----------



## AJ Hidell (Apr 8, 2009)

CAOX3 said:


> 12 weeks, and a bachelors degree usually.


LOL!  In a parallel universe, maybe.



> In 2003, one-third of all officers worked for police departments that required at least some college course work for new officers. Eighteen percent of all police departments required new officers to have taken some college classes, with nine percent requiring two years of college and *one percent requiring a four-year degree*." Local law enforcement agencies were three times as likely to have a college requirement in 2003 as in 1990.


----------



## daedalus (Apr 8, 2009)

CAOX3 said:


> 12 weeks, and a bachelors degree usually.



LAPD requires a pulse, a GED, and the ability to speak english.

FYI, medical ethics prohibits providers from doing harm. The police have their job to do. We have our own. It is not in our job description to use force. EMS should not ever be armed with anything more than two ams connected to a critically thinking and educated brain.


----------



## ErinCooley (Apr 8, 2009)

I'm a fan of gun rights, and guns in general (I have my own pistol and permit, and my husband is a collector.  We probably have close to 50 in our home)

However, I don't trust myself or my partners well enough for a gun to be on an ambulance with me.  Its too easy to be overpowered by your own weapon in such a small space and personally I dont want to be driving an ambulance when my partner loses his gun, and we both get shot with it.


----------



## U2623 (Apr 8, 2009)

*So I lost my old account and had to create a new one...*

Anyways, used to be username Mongoose. Working on a 911 BLS rig in LA I was unfortunate enough to be in two active shooter situations within my first four months of work. I worked 1900-0700, and the second time was shot at directly (overdose, guy was afraid of getting caught, panicked, and ended up punching his own ticket gsw to the head), and spent several minutes kissing the pavement with the signature "krack!" sounds of three bullets breaking the sound barrier above my head, my partner's head, and the Co FD medic's head.

Did I wish I was armed so I could shoot back?? Absolutely not. Right then I had secure cover AND concealment w/exfil if needed. My biggest concern was other people getting hit and having a possible MCI on my hands. EMT's get awarded a lot of responsibility with the limited amount of hours they are trained in. We don't need conflicting responsibility! Someone put it well earlier in this post, we are prevented from causing harm. Our liability is high enough, the last thing we need is for some ricky-rescuer to morph into ricky-Rambo and peg a bystander or three in the process. 

Also, do you really want to wrestle with some psych that is trying to get your gun? What if it goes off and hits an O2 tank? Or your driver? Get a metal clipboard, take some Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, MCMAP, or Krav Maga if you feel you must, and just focus on your first priority being removing your person from the threat as fast as possible.


----------



## AJ Hidell (Apr 8, 2009)

U2623 said:


> Anyways, used to be username Mongoose. Working on a 911 BLS rig in LA I was unfortunate enough to be in two active shooter situations within my first four months of work.


Louisiana is a dangerous place.


----------



## Micro_87 (Apr 8, 2009)

I believe that we should be armed...but not on our person possibly maybe having a small cal. maybe a 9mm in a lock box in the rig, idk this is a hard topic...


----------



## VentMedic (Apr 8, 2009)

Micro_87 said:


> I believe that we should be armed...but not on our person possibly maybe having a small cal. maybe a 9mm in a lock box in the rig, idk this is a hard topic...


 
If you have time to get your gun out of a locked box, you have time to get yourself to safety. If you are getting your gun out of a locked box, you are looking to engage a person in a confrontation. That will also change the way the prosecution and the jury will perceive a situation when you do use your weapon.


----------



## Webster (Apr 8, 2009)

Unless you're a tactical medic or in the armed forces, weapons and EMS don't mix.  Period.


----------



## AJ Hidell (Apr 8, 2009)

Webster said:


> Unless you're a tactical medic or in the armed forces, weapons and EMS don't mix.  Period.


You want to tell us about your vast experienced with armed EMS that supports your contention?


----------



## fortsmithman (Apr 8, 2009)

Micro_87 said:


> I believe that we should be armed...but not on our person possibly maybe having a small cal. maybe a 9mm in a lock box in the rig, idk this is a hard topic...



A 9MM is not a small calibre a small calibre would be .22 .25 or a .32 .  The time spent unlocking the pistol would be better spent putting your foot on the gas and leaving the scene with your partner.


----------



## U2623 (Apr 8, 2009)

U2623 said:


> Anyways, used to be username Mongoose. Working on a 911 BLS rig in LA I was unfortunate enough to be in two active shooter situations within my first four months of work.



For clarification, Los Angeles, Antelope Valley area to be more specific. Night shift.


----------



## Summit (Apr 9, 2009)

I never go out without at least a couple of ATGMs and possibly a tactical nuke.


----------



## Webster (Apr 9, 2009)

AJ Hidell said:


> You want to tell us about your vast experienced with armed EMS that supports your contention?



I have none, and didn't pretend to have any.  That's just my opinion.


----------



## DavethetrainWreck (Apr 9, 2009)

BLSBoy said:


> How bout actually _caring_ for the kids in the first place, instead of treating them like the accidental tax breaks they are treated as?:glare:


The same thing about caring also applies to those rich workaholic parents who send there kids to stringent private schools, hire expensive tutors, and organize play dates with other emotionally neglected kids. take some time to do something spontaneous with your kid to show you care. kids need parents they can touch and talk to not some snobs who shell out money for high priced education and  fancy toys. also tel the kid you love him/her once in awhile and actually mean it.


----------



## DavethetrainWreck (Apr 9, 2009)

scottyb said:


> I am not sure I totally agree with that.  I am not talking about your opinion, but your reasoning.  People still trust police officers, at least, that is the majority opinion as I know it.  I think in areas where it is warranted due to response times and or police support, the population would probably at least understand it if not fully support it, as long as they are given the facts.


In many settings people trust police officers. but in the many large urban settings there is  a greater number of cops which means there are also bigger number of dirty cops which give all cops a bad name and that is what creates that distrust. I'm not saying that distrust doesn't get out of hand but its still an issue to be dealt with. but I digress. we don't need to be armed if we trust our gut enough to call for police backup before we walk on scene if something doesn't look right. also the image of gun or any other weapon on someone's belt can be rather intimidating and can add to patient's anxieties and case them to be less trusting and open and that can get in the way of patient care.


----------



## VentMedic (Apr 10, 2009)

Good video:

*If I Only Had a Gun*

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=7310933


----------



## April992 (Apr 13, 2009)

The city I work in requires us paramedics to wear bullet proof vests. Even practicum students are required to wear them and are at a cost of approx. $700, reimbursed upon hiring by the city. I personally think that we should carry some sort of self defence tool. I am a small person and have no physical means to protect myself from a drunk drugged overweight pt. Whether it be a pistol, taser, night stick, etc. I personally feel that it is warranted especially working in a city where bullet proof vests are REQUIRED; there must be a reason for this.


----------



## RDUNNE (Apr 13, 2009)

im at war with myself. on one hand i think that ems personnel should be given bullet resistant vests, where on the other hand it would most likely cause someones head to swell and make them wanna be a hero. but i deffinatly dont think we should be given guns. thats just asking for trouble. we have LEOs for a reason. let them do their job.


----------



## fortsmithman (Apr 14, 2009)

April992 said:


> The city I work in requires us paramedics to wear bullet proof vests. Even practicum students are required to wear them and are at a cost of approx. $700, reimbursed upon hiring by the city. I personally think that we should carry some sort of self defence tool. I am a small person and have no physical means to protect myself from a drunk drugged overweight pt. Whether it be a pistol, taser, night stick, etc. I personally feel that it is warranted especially working in a city where bullet proof vests are REQUIRED; there must be a reason for this.



EMS armed with sidearms in Canada.  It will never happen since the current conservative government is a minority government.  If they tried to reduce our firearms laws then the liberals and NDP will bring down the govt.   If that were to happen then the liberals will probably our next govt.  I hope that never happen since I'm a card carrying conservative.


----------



## medic417 (Apr 14, 2009)

I do not want to see it mandatory but I see nothing wrong with those educated, trained, and licensed to carry to carry concealed firearm.  No one would ever know who or if anyone was carrying.  But at least if some one chose to carry they would have another self defense option.


----------



## Hopeless Romantic (May 2, 2009)

No EMTs should not be armed. Atleast not with guns.

Arming somone is a lot of work. You need to buy the tool. Then provide adequate training for said tool. Not to mention liability issues. If you use excessive force on somone, if someone takes it from you and hurts someone else. There's a lot to think about in regards to this question.

I do think that some form of self defense training is needed. I've been training for almost 5 and a half years. I agree that it could get hairy with patients and family members or whoever, but to hand out weapons is absurd.


----------



## DV_EMT (May 2, 2009)

well...

im a strong believer in the right to bear arms. I believe that we should be allowed to carry them, but only given the circumstances that we're working in a dangerous or crime filled area.

but thats just me


----------



## medic417 (May 7, 2009)

DV_EMT said:


> well...
> 
> im a strong believer in the right to bear arms. I believe that we should be allowed to carry them, *but only given the circumstances that we're working in a dangerous or crime filled area*.
> 
> but thats just me



So you are saying anywhere in the world today?  There is no safe place.  Many drug rings have moved operations to small farm and ranch areas as the podunk deputy is to dumb or ill equiped to deal with them.


----------



## EMT1 (May 8, 2009)

Each person is responsible for protecting his / her self, you should not expect someone else to protect you. You should take the required training to use a hand gun, practice with it, keep up with your area laws and hand gun skills just as you keep training and updating your EMS skills.
LEO'S can not be with you 100% of the time.
How many calls for gun shots  have you guys answered that the LEO'S prevented? If LEO'S could prevent violence we would have a lot less calls. I am sure if they could prevent all violence they would do so, but the simple fact is they can not. The best they can do after the incident is call EMS to take care of the person that has been stabbed, shot or beaten, take pictures and gather information so they can find and prosecute the person responsible for committing the crime. 
But if you do not want to train and maintain the skills needed and required to carry a hand gun, then please do not do so you would only endanger yourself and others.

Yes EMS should get proper and ongoing training with hand guns and learn to protect yourself.

Just my opinion….


----------



## Hopeless Romantic (May 8, 2009)

EMT1 said:


> Each person is responsible for protecting his / her self, you should not expect someone else to protect you. You should take the required training to use a hand gun, practice with it, keep up with your area laws and hand gun skills just as you keep training and updating your EMS skills.
> LEO'S can not be with you 100% of the time.
> How many calls for gun shots  have you guys answered that the LEO'S prevented? If LEO'S could prevent violence we would have a lot less calls. I am sure if they could prevent all violence they would do so, but the simple fact is they can not. The best they can do after the incident is call EMS to take care of the person that has been stabbed, shot or beaten, take pictures and gather information so they can find and prosecute the person responsible for committing the crime.
> But if you do not want to train and maintain the skills needed and required to carry a hand gun, then please do not do so you would only endanger yourself and others.
> ...



I would much rather see a weapon other then a gun. There are plenty of tools out there that you can use to inflict damage. A gun isn't the end all be all weapon. Its not like on TV where you get shot once and your dead. I'm sure many of the seasoned EMTs can back me on this, but getting shot once doesn't usually kill a person. It takes repeated shots to vital areas.


----------



## EMT1 (May 8, 2009)

Hopeless Romantic said:


> I would much rather see a weapon other then a gun. There are plenty of tools out there that you can use to inflict damage. A gun isn't the end all be all weapon. Its not like on TV where you get shot once and your dead. I'm sure many of the seasoned EMTs can back me on this, but getting shot once doesn't usually kill a person. It takes repeated shots to vital areas.



I agree with what you said. I was not implying to kill anyone just that you have the option to protect your self if you choose to do so, by any means you choose. There is no such thing as one shot one kill that is not the debate. The debate is whether EMS should be allowed to carry fire arms to protect themselves.


----------



## firemedic7982 (May 8, 2009)

johnnyreb132 said:


> I voted yes because I believe in Second Amendment rights and I don't want to be a hyprocite.  For my entire life I've been around guns and understand the proper use and safety techniques.  However, some people should never be allowed to use a gun and all need to learn about how to use one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If the gun is locked in a cabinet, and only one person has access to it, what the hell is the point? Hey mister.... hang on dont shoot me yet until my partner goes back to the truck and gets the gun out of the locked cabinet...


----------



## firemedic7982 (May 8, 2009)

medic417 said:


> No such thing exists.  People die from tazers.  Less lethal would be best statement to use here.  Problem is you may need more than 1 shot and also tazers do not stop all attackers.




Do a little more research. There has NEVER been a death where the Tazer was documented as the direct cause of death.

I think you may be referring to death due to excited delerium. If you write to the Tazer corporation they will be happy to send you a copy of the Tazer comendium that was comiled strictly by unbiased outsources. You may also search the us circuit courts for the hundreds of cases where the Tazer corporation has been named as the direct cause of someones death. To this day there have been NO convictions.


----------



## medic417 (May 8, 2009)

firemedic7982 said:


> Do a little more research. There has NEVER been a death where the Tazer was documented as the direct cause of death.
> 
> I think you may be referring to death due to excited delerium. If you write to the Tazer corporation they will be happy to send you a copy of the Tazer comendium that was comiled strictly by unbiased outsources. You may also search the us circuit courts for the hundreds of cases where the Tazer corporation has been named as the direct cause of someones death. To this day there have been NO convictions.



The fact that the tazer aggravated the individuals pre existing condition still means it caused death.  That would be like me claiming that a gun never killed a person because in fact in only expedited the shock that eventually would have killed them any way.  The facts are that people have died after being tazed that would not have died otherwise at that moment.


----------



## firemedic7982 (May 8, 2009)

you sure about that one?

So that same person that died after being Tazed wouldnt have died from the same cause; excited delerium, if he would have fought with 5 cops, and had the snot beat out of him?

I think you are misguided. Im not personally attacking you, and I dont want this to turn into a pissing match, but I think your information is wrong. 

The Tazer does not kill people. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a Tazer to kill you! Look at the dynamics of how it works, it cannot kill you. 

If someone dies after being tazed, they did NOT die from being tazed. They died from excited delerium, which is precipitated by a lot of things. Therefore the Tazer did NOT kill them. 

Ive been tazed MANY times. I have been Tazed many times will attatched to a 12 lead EKG before, after, and while being Tazed. Other than the fact that its not all that comfortable to be tazed, it cannot kill you!


----------



## medic417 (May 8, 2009)

firemedic7982 said:


> you sure about that one?
> 
> So that same person that died after being Tazed wouldnt have died from the same cause; excited delerium, if he would have fought with 5 cops, and had the snot beat out of him?
> 
> ...



Thus you made my point, the actions of the tazer caused the persons death.  They would not have died at that moment had they not been tazed.  The tazer triggered the excited delirium or aggravated other pre existing so it killed them, no matter what spin you put on it.


----------



## firemedic7982 (May 8, 2009)

Ok. You are correct. Yes If they had not been Tazed at that particular second, they MAY not have died right then.


----------



## medic417 (May 8, 2009)

firemedic7982 said:


> Ok. You are correct. Yes If they had not been Tazed at that particular second, they MAY not have died right then.



LOL.  I mean come on I could claim guns and bullets never killed anyone and you could not argue based on what you presented.  Shock is what killed them not the gun/bullet.  I mean the person would have died anyway at some point, the bullet just expedited it.  Surely you are not trying to claim that if left alone they would have died in a few minutes anyway?  No the result of being tazed led to and contributed to their death just like the bullet does.


----------



## Sasha (May 8, 2009)

Don't you love semantics?


----------



## medic417 (May 8, 2009)

Sasha said:


> Don't you love semantics?



Hey why are you making this a racial discussion?


----------



## nibejeebies (May 9, 2009)

I really dont think that EMTs and Medics should be running around with Guns unless theres a darn good reason for it. 

For Example, 
The Guy in Canada whtat runs alot of Rural Wilderness calls with Wild Life, but with that It should be a tranq gun not a actual gun.  

I agree with the Idea of Vests, in areas of High Crime, as well as in todays tring times where some one will shoot at anyone with uniform becuase they are a "Rep of the Man" 

Correct me if I'm wrong but isnt Our Jobs to save and prolong life?  How does an EMT/Medic shooting some one acomplish either?


----------



## subliminal1284 (May 9, 2009)

The only medics that should have guns are military medics.


----------



## nibejeebies (May 9, 2009)

subliminal1284 said:


> The only medics that should have guns are military medics.



Actual Guns firing Actual Bullets Should be restricted to Military Medics. Fully agreed. 

But some consideration should go for other types of medics.  Wilderness Medics for example. Should they not carry anything when responding on a mountain trail to get to a hiker with a femur fracture and comes across a mountain loin, or a rabid bear?


----------



## subliminal1284 (May 9, 2009)

I may be wrong but I dont think they would be responding by themselves, there would also be police and park rangers both of which have guns.


----------



## HotelCo (May 9, 2009)

Depends where you are. (More specifically, how available PD is to assist). Even then, the Providers who carry should have the same training as LEOs in firearms. That includes qualifying every few months.

I wonder how the public would feel about their EMS providers being armed.


----------



## lakersmedic (May 26, 2009)

Yes, I think we should be armed for sure.  I think we run into crazy and dangerous people daily, and sometimes the cops are not always there.  We have to feel safe too.


----------



## Sasha (May 26, 2009)

Oh god. Why is this topic back!?


----------



## VentMedic (May 26, 2009)

lakersmedic said:


> Yes, I think we should be armed for sure. I think we run into *crazy and dangerous* people daily, and sometimes the cops are not always there. We have to feel safe too.


 
Are you going to shoot them?  

Dangerous people will have more street smarts than you and hardened criminals will not hesitate to kill you or your partner if you pull a gun on them.

Crazy people could care less if you have a gun and unless you are prepared to kill them, they will kill you once they get your gun.  If you have no police training, this will be very, very easy for them.  You will be too busy peeing in your pants while trying to get your gun out of your hiding place to aim at the person.  In this time, you could be hauling arse to safety until backup arrives.  

The best way is to learn scene safety and wait for backup.  You don't have to play cowboy and get some bystander or your partner killed by your own weapon.  Confronting either the crazy or dangerous with a weapon is not a very smart thing to do.


----------



## VentMedic (May 26, 2009)

Sasha said:


> Oh god. Why is this topic back!?


 
They probably just watched some shoot 'em up show and think it is a real cool thing to have a gun. Or, they have not been to a GSW call to know what damage a gun can do.

As you can tell, I have no patience for those that will probably do more harm because they lack arms training and commonsense more than the crazy and the dangerous.

BTW, welcome to the forum lakersmedic. You just entered this thread after 13 pages of a very long debate.


----------



## medic417 (May 26, 2009)

Sasha said:


> Oh god. Why is this topic back!?



I didn't know it left.  Thought it was just taking a nap.  :wacko:


----------



## Sasha (May 26, 2009)

medic417 said:


> I didn't know it left.  Thought it was just taking a nap.  :wacko:



It's come to life again. Holy heck, to the zombie shelter!


----------



## medic417 (May 26, 2009)

Sasha said:


> It's come to life again. Holy heck, to the zombie shelter!



Quick grab your gun.  OOPs you said no to them.B)


----------



## Sasha (May 26, 2009)

medic417 said:


> Quick grab your gun.  OOPs you said no to them.B)



Honestly, the only use for EMS having a gun that I can see is if there was a zombie takeover....The EMS peeps are always eaten! But as I don't see that happening anytime soon... they're useless.

When it does happen.. shoot 'em in the head.

That was a joke, by the way, I don't really believe in zombies.. (She says as she hides her zombie survival guide.)


----------



## VentMedic (May 26, 2009)

Sasha said:


> That was a joke, by the way, I don't really believe in zombies.. (She says as she hides her zombie survival guide.)


 
You obviously have not seen what is being recruited by some FDs, ambulances and EMS companies.  News flash: They are now on both coasts of the U.S.

The TV trauma/EMS shows are also beginning to look more like the "Invasion of the Zombies" horror flick rather than anything that even closely resembles a medical drama.


----------



## JPINFV (May 26, 2009)

Sasha said:


> Honestly, the only use for EMS having a gun that I can see is if there was a zombie takeover....The EMS peeps are always eaten! But as I don't see that happening anytime soon... they're useless.
> 
> When it does happen.. shoot 'em in the head.



I was wondering who on here owned this bag...

http://zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=33826&st=0&sk=t&sd=a


----------



## Shishkabob (May 26, 2009)

That guy scares me.

PS--- anyone find it ironic that the things at the bottom are called "Z-pak"?  =P


----------



## fma08 (May 26, 2009)

VentMedic said:


> They probably just watched some shoot 'em up show and think it is a real cool thing to have a gun. Or, they have not been to a GSW call to know what damage a gun can do.



Seeing/treating at 21yo with a self inflicted GSW to the head and still alive when you're only 20 does give one a fairly good idea. People do not place enough emphasis on scene safety. If they did, they would realize that there is no reason for EMS to be armed... Aside from possibly tactical EMS like SWAT...


----------



## VentMedic (May 26, 2009)

Ah geez Linuss and JPINFV!

Now someone is going to ask where to get those bags to add to their personal jump bag collection.


----------



## fma08 (May 26, 2009)

PS, where can I get one of those jump bags? I got a cozy spot on the back of my bike for it  It's a Trek... 21 speed... B)


----------



## medic417 (May 26, 2009)

VentMedic said:


> Ah geez Linuss and JPINFV!
> 
> Now someone is going to ask where to get those bags to add to their personal jump bag collection.



Hey vent will you buy me one?


----------



## JPINFV (May 26, 2009)

VentMedic said:


> Ah geez Linuss and JPINFV!
> 
> Now someone is going to ask where to get those bags to add to their personal jump bag collection.



Hehehe...

Since it's relative, here's the 18 page thread about that pack on EMTCity...

http://www.emtcity.com/index.php?showtopic=14388


----------



## NC13 (May 26, 2009)

Thats what PD is for.


----------



## Seaglass (May 26, 2009)

In general, I'd say no. Treating a patient requires getting very close and using both hands, which means that a patient could easily grab the gun. Besides, a lot of firearms training programs are best case scenarios, and I wouldn't trust them to turn out people who can actually hit their target in a high-pressure situation. However, I'm a fan of letting different areas set policies as they see fit. Meanwhile, letting wilderness and tactical medics carry makes sense to me. 

I also think that everyone should at least know how to unload a gun, but that's not especially relevant to EMS. (And yeah, I know, there's no such thing as an unloaded gun... but I can think of some stories that could've been prevented if people had a clue.)


----------



## medic417 (May 26, 2009)

So back to topic should EMS be armed?  Yes, and legged also.  Hard to do the job w/o either.


----------



## VentMedic (May 26, 2009)

medic417 said:


> So back to topic should EMS be armed?


 
What part of zombie attacks did you not think was relevant to this thread?

It also provided useful information for securing a new personal jump bag. 
Don't worry. I've got you on my Christmas list.


----------



## HotelCo (May 26, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> I was wondering who on here owned this bag...
> 
> http://zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=33826&st=0&sk=t&sd=a



Wow...

He needs to get himself a girl.


----------



## HotelCo (May 26, 2009)

I give you his "ACLS Module"

http://zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=44640


----------



## JPINFV (May 26, 2009)

That tank won't last an hour when using a NRB and I doubt it'll last a day at any decent flow rate with anything except maybe the oximyzer.


----------



## Afflixion (May 26, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> I was wondering who on here owned this bag...
> 
> http://zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=33826&st=0&sk=t&sd=a



I own that bag as well as a Blackhawk! Special OPs aidbag... what's wrong with that? I carry it daily (well for the last 12 months at least)... It's a great aidbag but problem is when fully stocked it weighs about 30-40pounds. :/

Back to the subject matter... I am kind of half and half between this. I can see both sides of the point. On one side I see the whole "unass yourself" and get to cover, but you must keep in mind that is not always an option... On the other hand I agree with AJs thinking that if you have the training to carry/operate  a firearm you should be able too. As for the matter of it being concealed how I carry my XD40 is on a belt holster in the small of my back I could draw that relatively fast, at least fast enough to disable the target. People keep thinking that when one has a weapon aimed at them the other will fire immediately if any sudden movements are made which the exact opposite is true for 95% of the general population, most people will hesitate.

Just keep in mind most LEOs never fire their weapons at people their entire careers.


----------



## VentMedic (May 26, 2009)

Afflixion said:


> People keep thinking that when one has a weapon aimed at them the other will fire immediately if any sudden movements are made which the exact opposite is true for 95% of the general population, most people will hesitate.


 
You haven't worked many city areas where little 14 y/os will shoot at a second's notice. We see at least two shootings a shift with many of the victims being under 19. They don't know they are supposed to hesitate. I would rather not shoot a crazed kid if I can avoid it. 

I also suppose you have not be in a riot situation where people are just crazed by the masses. 



> I carry my XD40 is on a belt holster in the small of my back I could draw that relatively fast, at least fast enough to disable the target.


SCENE SAFETY. You are not in Iraq if you are working in the streets of the U.S. Don't try to out shoot someone where others could get caught in the cross fire. 



Afflixion said:


> Just keep in mind most LEOs never fire their weapons at people their entire careers.


 
They train and retrain for situations involving their guns and how to diffuse various situations. 

When they do fire their weapons they face serious scrutiny. They also don't become LEOs just to shoot people. Their gun just happens to be part of the job. Why should those in EMS become so willing to do what most LEOs hope they don't have to do? Maybe those in EMS don't have the same education about guns that LEOs do? Maybe some in EMS are just caught up with all that shoot 'em up stuff on TV and the uniform? Maybe they feel they can not get any respect just as an EMT? Maybe a gun will make up for their other deficiencies? 

You might want to follow the news about what the 27 y/o BART LEO (Bay Area, SF) is now going through when he "accidentally" fired his weapon and killed a trouble maker. Regardless of how the court determines the innocence or guilt of this young man, his life is over. As well, his family (wife and child) will also continue to live in fear and have this scandal following them for a very long time. As well, much of that will also be in hiding. This one death has cost innocent people thousands of dollars from the rioting and millions for the local cities. 

Think very carefully about carrying that weapon and shooting someone. Is it really worth the lives of your family? Could you not learn to cover yourself by being trained better with scene safety? Do you really feel the need to get confrontational with someone to see who can outdraw the other? 

Some in EMS can barely cover the training required of them to get a job as an EMT. Then, some can not keep up with the few skills they are given to do. Now you expect them to keep their shooting abilities current also?


----------



## Sasha (May 26, 2009)

VentMedic said:


> Don't worry. I've got you on my Christmas list.




But on which list? The naughty or nice list?



> I own that bag as well as a Blackhawk! Special OPs aidbag... what's wrong with that? I carry it daily (well for the last 12 months at least)... It's a great aidbag but problem is when fully stocked it weighs about 30-40pounds. :/



Are you a medical professional that works remote duty? If so, you carry that bag proudly. If not... Why are you carrying it?


----------



## Afflixion (May 26, 2009)

As such I did not even vote in the poll. I believe that the first priority of an EMT/P should be their own safety followed by their partners. Now I'm not saying a firearm is the answer to said problem's as me personally in reference to where I worked on an ambulance (El Paso, TX and Tucson, AZ) I would not have considered carrying a firearm as those are rather peaceful towns if you will, but not every place is created equal. I have worked in suburban, urban and rural areas and all have different necessities. I do not believe shooting everyone is the answer but in some VERY limited situations it is called for. I agree giving EMT Johnny a firearm will deteriorate from his need for initial scene safety BUT those who are qualified to use firearms _maybe_ could be allowed. By qualified I mean personnel who are prior LEO, military, EMT-T certified, etc not your average schmuck who comes in off the street with nothing but a C2C license. As numerous people have stated this question is not quite so clean cut as some people are trying to make it out to be.


----------



## mycrofft (May 26, 2009)

*Folks, Brother Afflixion is in Iraq.*

I am enjoying the people making fun of arming stateside EMT's. What are you going to do, have your partner"keep him covered" while you take care of the pt.?

I do not mean to point at individuals, but people who feel more secure with a firearm outside a war zone (not a pretend war zone, a real one) make me very uneasy. Sorry, that's how I've come to feel through experience and training. I still think that the word most often uttered after a ginshot stateside is "...damn!!" o)


----------



## Afflixion (May 26, 2009)

Sasha said:


> Are you a medical professional that works remote duty? If so, you carry that bag proudly. If not... Why are you carrying it?



ah shucks you found me out! lol I actually read through what that guy has in there half it seemed like he broke into our class IX supply (medical supply) and stole it the other half is ridiculously unneeded. I'm still wondering how he got a mutli-dose morphine... Someone lost their job over that.


----------



## VentMedic (May 26, 2009)

mycrofft said:


> I still think that the word most often uttered after a gunshot stateside is "...damn!!" o)


 
It seems that word is also said a few times in Iraq when some civilians (and U.S. soldiers) become the victims of U.S. fire. 

I don't know of many soldiers we are now seeing in the hospitals that want to have much to do with weapons again.  Those that are employed in  health care want to carry a stethoscope and not a gun.   They have fought for peace and would rather not bring the violence home with them.  Some do go into law enforcement but with the hopes of never using their weapon unless absolutely necessary.    For that they are very thoroughly trained.


----------



## Afflixion (May 26, 2009)

mycrofft said:


> I am enjoying the people making fun of arming stateside EMT's. What are you going to do, have your partner"keep him covered" while you take care of the pt.?
> 
> I do not mean to point at individuals, but people who feel more secure with a firearm outside a war zone (not a pretend war zone, a real one) make me very uneasy. Sorry, that's how I've come to feel through experience and training. I still think that the word most often uttered after a ginshot stateside is "...damn!!" o)



It's not that I feel more secure as I do not carry my XD40 with me every time I go out. Though on a funny side note when I was on midtour leave I had to stop and look for my M4 whenever I left somewhere for about 3 days not physically but I'd look around the room for a second before I called myself a retard and carried on. Back to the main point of the matter... I carry my firearm on me when I'm traveling by car a considerable distance, in a place that's known to be not so friendly and etc.


----------



## mycrofft (May 26, 2009)

*Aff, you're a trained professional.*

I've only "carried" for a couple weeks at a time in exercises but, yeah, check your gigline and make sure you have your sidearm and chem gear, all reflex.

Coroner's deputies and CSI pesonnel often carry and have CWP's so they can _*get out of*_ scenes where the bystanders and possibly the perps can get assaultive, not to arrest people as on TV. Work stops, go bye bye NOW.:sad:


----------



## Afflixion (May 26, 2009)

VentMedic said:


> It seems that word is also said a few times in Iraq when some civilians (and U.S. soldiers) become the victims of U.S. fire.
> 
> I don't know of many soldiers we are now seeing in the hospitals that want to have much to do with weapons again.  Those that are employed in  health care want to carry a stethoscope and not a gun.   They have fought for peace and would rather not bring the violence home with them.  Some do go into law enforcement but with the hopes of never using their weapon unless absolutely necessary.    For that they are very thoroughly trained.



Eh, gunshots don't bug me I acknowledge they're there but that's about it... but loud noises such as people slamming doors and stuff... oh and fireworks...I hit the deck.


----------



## ffemt8978 (May 26, 2009)

Sasha said:


> Oh god. Why is this topic back!?



Ummm...maybe because somebody used the "Search" function before posting?


----------



## AJ Hidell (May 26, 2009)

ffemt8978 said:


> Ummm...maybe because somebody used the "Search" function before posting?


And God Bless them for that!


----------



## medic417 (May 26, 2009)

ffemt8978 said:


> Ummm...maybe because somebody used the "Search" function before posting?



So when did you fix the search button because based on stethoscopes its been broken for a while.


----------



## Explorer127 (May 26, 2009)

BLSBoy said:


> Unless you are on a Tactical Medical Team, NOT IN A MILLION YEARS!
> 
> We already have enough idiots and yahoos who are in it for the low educational requirements, flashy lights, sirens, and cool uniforms. Now we can attract more cause we can carry?
> 
> ...



My sentiments exactly..


----------



## guardian528 (May 26, 2009)

no.

no.

no.


----------



## medic417 (May 26, 2009)

yes 


yes



yes



What are we debating?


----------



## daedalus (May 26, 2009)

medic417 said:


> yes
> 
> 
> yes
> ...



NO NO NO NO
AND. I hate you just cause you said yes to something I oppose!

/extreme sarcasm


----------



## medic417 (May 26, 2009)

daedalus said:


> NO NO NO NO
> AND. I hate you just cause you said yes to something I oppose!
> 
> /extreme sarcasm



As do I.  That is I hate me to but for different reasons.  My shrink says I have some sort of complex.


----------



## AJ Hidell (May 27, 2009)

BLSboy said:
			
		

> Or have people forgotten that LEOs are for protection.


If they're so good at it, how come they're always getting killed?

No thanks.  I'll take responsibility for my own safety.


----------



## Shishkabob (May 27, 2009)

EMS is part public health and part public safety.  

LEOs get guns, Firefighters get axes, what do we get?

"If you don't stay back, I'll open my OB kit and get my sterilized scalpel!"


----------



## JPINFV (May 27, 2009)

Trauma shears and traction splints...

Leather restraints...

chemical restraints.


----------



## Shishkabob (May 27, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> Trauma shears and traction splints...


  "hold still while I try to cut you with blunt scissors!



> chemical restraints.



Yay lawsuit.


----------



## JPINFV (May 27, 2009)

I've always wanted a haldol loaded dart gun.


----------



## Shishkabob (May 27, 2009)

How about hydrochloric acid filled super soakers?


----------



## Melbourne MICA (May 27, 2009)

*The arms race*

Without burying myself under a mound of complaints by second amendment rights advocates can I just say the whole notion of gun ownership by citizens scares the crap out of me. And as for EMS types being loaded - what exactly do you think will be achieved by having a concealed Glock in your kick? 

If all the school shootings etc in the US and elsewhere taught anybody anything its that events will unfold so quickly and so chaotically that whether you have a piece or not will be irrelevant - not one of these shootings has been intercepted and prevented by a gun toting citizen or even by a legally armed security operative with some level of arms and/or combat training.

(PS Venty - I watched the ABC docu link you posted - absolutely spot on)

And that's what we are talking about here are we not? Armed Combat - Real bullets, real guns, real dead people  - real emotions and real chaos. If you start drawing a weapon or even using it on someone don't expect them to stand there and take it - they will shoot back, if they haven't already done so in the first place.

The ramifications on EMS personnel if we carry any sort of lethal weapon are too horrible to contemplate - deaths, horrific injuries, reprisals, revenge, blood feuds, stereotyping of ambos in uniform, wrongful death suits, litigation, insurance claims and the lifelong effect on EMS staff involved in a shootout - and you may not even have to discharge your weapon to suffer long term psychological trauma.

It may seem incongruous to some but the impartiality of EMS, backed up with common sense, training, experience and a painstakingly earned reputation for caring and professionalism in the community is and has always been our best defense against threats to our welfare.

There was a catchy slogan the gun lobby here adopted after the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania some years ago when the government tightened the screws on gun ownership even tighter.

They used to have a bumper sticker you could proudly display on your car window.

The slogan said: "Guns don't kill people - people kill people". 

I added another line to it. "So how can you trust any person with a gun?"

Guns have no place on EMS - ever.

MM


----------



## Melclin (May 27, 2009)

Melbourne MICA said:


> Without burying myself under a mound of complaints by second amendment rights advocates can I just say the whole notion of gun ownership by citizens scares the crap out of me. And as for EMS types being loaded - what exactly do you think will be achieved by having a concealed Glock in your kick?
> 
> If all the school shootings etc in the US and elsewhere taught anybody anything its that events will unfold so quickly and so chaotically that whether you have a piece or not will be irrelevant - not one of these shootings has been intercepted and prevented by a gun toting citizen or even by a legally armed security operative with some level of arms and/or combat training.
> 
> ...



The point of that SSAA slogan, Melb, was that if a person wants to kill someone, they will. If they don't have a gun, they'll use a knife. The anti-gun lobby also misses the fact that here in Australia, the vast majority of homicides are not committed by guns sold legally. Taking legal guns away from perfectly law abiding gun owners (like me, if u didn't guess) doesn't stop anyone from being killed for the most part.   

*Back on topic *:...The first thing that comes to mind when I think of EMS being armed is having to add a line to the "Agitated Patient" guideline. Something like : 'and make sure they don't grab your gun'. In Aus, at least, I could only see them being a liability. And hindrance to gaining the trust of patients, esp psych patients. Tell you what I wouldn't mind as an option at least...those nifty little stab vests that the British coppers wear. Indistinguishable from normal clothing, light and dirty-blood-filled-syringe resistant - a winning combination.


----------



## Melbourne MICA (May 27, 2009)

*Biting my tongue*



Melclin said:


> The point of that SSAA slogan, Melb, was that if a person wants to kill someone, they will. If they don't have a gun, they'll use a knife. The anti-gun lobby also misses the fact that here in Australia, the vast majority of homicides are not committed by guns sold legally. Taking legal guns away from perfectly law abiding gun owners (like me, if u didn't guess) doesn't stop anyone from being killed for the most part.
> 
> *Back on topic *:...The first thing that comes to mind when I think of EMS being armed is having to add a line to the "Agitated Patient" guideline. Something like : 'and make sure they don't grab your gun'. In Aus, at least, I could only see them being a liability. And hindrance to gaining the trust of patients, esp psych patients. Tell you what I wouldn't mind as an option at least...those nifty little stab vests that the British coppers wear. Indistinguishable from normal clothing, light and dirty-blood-filled-syringe resistant - a winning combination.



I could diverge from the thread topic gladly but I won't. I'll just reprise my *NO vote* for guns on EMS and leave it at that.

MM


----------



## wolfwyndd (May 27, 2009)

Ok, not having read ALL the posts yet (but most of the 1st page) I'm gonna give my 'gut reaction' to the question.  I voted NO because as BLSBoy said, our job is patient care.  IF we can't restrain / subdue a patient with what we generally carry on the ambulance scene safety dictates that we should back out and let LEO's in to do their job.  In my opinion if a patient is that violent about being take in somewhere there's very little to stop him from taking a weapon away from one of US and using it against us.  As an industry, we aren't trained to use weapons and there's no reason why we should.  

I'm even on the fence about tactical medics being armed for a couple of reasons.  1. They are going in WITH several tactical members who ARE armed so why add more?  2. Even military combat medics loose their Geneva Convention protections if they use their personal weapon offensively.  (Not defensively) So . . . . . . do they need a personal weapon or not?


----------



## reaper (May 27, 2009)

I have never seen a Tac medic or LEO that uses their weapon offensively? They are all for defense and for a good reason.


----------



## VentMedic (May 27, 2009)

I could even see guns being used against each other in EMS. Look at the headlines we have had with battles between Fire and EMS that got physicial even at scene. And those are just the ones that make headlines. Some don't have cool enough heads to be professional with each other so imagine what a weapon added to the mix would do.


----------



## Melclin (May 27, 2009)

VentMedic said:


> I could even see guns being used against each other in EMS.  Look at the headlines we have had with battles between Fire and EMS that got physicial even at scene.  And those are just the ones that make headlines.  Some don't have cool enough heads to be professional with each other so imagine what a weapon added to the mix would do?



Good god, I'd hate to think. Out of interest, what do they argue about? I just can't imagine that situations where one didn't clearly have a more relevant expertise than the other, comes up that often. I don't wanna hijack the thread or anything, I've posted enough offtopic stuff already. If there's some link you could post or maybe pm?


----------



## VentMedic (May 27, 2009)

Melclin said:


> If there's some link you could post or maybe pm?


 
Here's two. I was looking for a few that happened in SF with its EMS and Fire controversies. But, they've made so many headlines it is difficult to track all of them. Of course with CA allowing convicted felons to hold certifications, how do you monitor all the possibilities.

*Firefighter cuts EMT: Assault or Horseplay?*
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/category/bureaucracy/page/5/

*Controversy erupts after Tenn. fire crew refused to help EMS*

http://www.ems1.com/ems-products/pa...upts-after-Tenn-fire-crew-refused-to-help-EMS


----------



## SauceyEMT (May 27, 2009)

There is no reason for EMS to carry firearms. The fact is, without proper training (and sometimes even with it) your gun is more likely to be used against you than by you. Part of the reason that EMS generally get cooperation from sh!theads is because you're not a threat. You're not armed, and likely to hurt someone. Adding a gun to the mix is just a bad idea. We (the police) constantly have to focus on gun retention. We are always conscious of who is near our gun side. EMS professionals don't have the ability to do that when you're focusing on CPR, tubing, administering drugs, starting lines, loading stretchers, etc. Your focus is on patient care, stick to that. If a scene isnt safe, avoid it or back out and call PD for help. 

As for body armor, many cities issue body armor to their EMS. In Boston EMS, all field personnel are issued body armor and many wear it. It's not a bad idea.


----------



## Sasha (May 27, 2009)

AJ used to be a cop.... So I don't think he hates them. Unless he's got a self loathing complex!


----------



## Afflixion (May 27, 2009)

wolfwyndd said:


> I'm even on the fence about tactical medics being armed for a couple of reasons.  1. They are going in WITH several tactical members who ARE armed so why add more?  2. Even military combat medics loose their Geneva Convention protections if they use their personal weapon offensively.  (Not defensively) So . . . . . . do they need a personal weapon or not?


In regards to your number one... a tactical medic in a stack team without a weapon is a liability. As it is you usually only have 4 or 5 in a stack team you use the few numbers you have to cover sections of the room/ area to be cleared... the number 2 man has a life expectancy of about 15 seconds. without being armed you are involved in cross fire, unable to clear your area of the room properly, and you will basically be dead weight. In response to your number two... The Geneva conventions? give me a break by us not wearing giant red crosses on our sleeves and kevlars we lost our Geneva and ILW protections as it is. I have manned the M240B, M2, M249 because if you don't your screwed the enemy doesn't care your a medic other than the fact it's better to shoot you than anyone else there even more so than the few officers who have the courage enough to leave the wire because they're combat experienced is limited and thats giving them credit, NCOs are all (should be at least) able to perform 2 jobs ahead of and 2 jobs behind their current placement. Currently I carry my standard issue M9 9mm Berreta Pistol (which has the stopping power of an ant) and I requested an M4 (5.56mm carbine rifle) which I also carry. At no time is a LEO/ tacmedic taking the offensive and in the GWT now we do not take the offensive any more but for a few limited situations.


----------



## mycrofft (May 27, 2009)

*Sure, arm 'em in Okfuskee County*

so they can fight off the Oklahoma State Patrol...
(not).

I forgot about weapons retention, reason our officers don't carry in jail.

Aw, Aff, they care that you're a medic. Don't feel neglected. They'll shoot at you as soon as they are not so busy shooting back at everyone else, especially if you're wearing the red cross.

(When US started re-painting aircraft to reduce infrared signature, the traditional/legal red cross on white background became a black cross on flat drab green background, or maybe dark gray).


----------



## Shishkabob (May 27, 2009)

Gah, mycrofft, quit putting text in the title box!  It makes me confused.


----------



## mycrofft (May 27, 2009)

*Only you and Sasha. You know,*

I've never seen you two together at the same time, have I.....
Sorry, bad habit from blogging.


----------



## Afflixion (May 27, 2009)

No i get shot at first when they notice my cool giant backpack!


----------



## Seaglass (May 27, 2009)

Melbourne MICA said:


> ... not one of these shootings has been intercepted and prevented by a gun toting citizen or even by a legally armed security operative with some level of arms and/or combat training.



"Off-duty cop stops shooting" stories are pretty common in the police magazines. A few pro-gun organizations also keep logs of civilians who somehow defend themselves or others using guns.


----------



## RU2TENTZZZ (May 27, 2009)

If we are to be armed then train in pepper spray or stun guns...


----------



## medic417 (May 27, 2009)

RU2TENTZZZ said:


> If we are to be armed then train in pepper spray or stun guns...



Read the discussion then you will see why if armed be fully armed.


----------



## SauceyEMT (May 28, 2009)

Sasha said:


> *AJ used to be a cop*.... So I don't think he hates them. Unless he's got a self loathing complex!



Exactly why it makes the comment worse.


----------



## SauceyEMT (May 28, 2009)

reaper said:


> I have never seen a Tac medic or *LEO that uses their weapon offensively?* They are all for defense and for a good reason.



Cops are now routinely trained in offensive firearms use. To be specific, they are training essentially to hunt "active shooters." In other words, when the psycho gun nut goes to your local school, or mall, or workplace and walks casually through executing all of the people he feels wronged him, the police are now trained most places, to actively seek out and engage the bad guy. I guess in a round about way, it is both defensive and offensive.

We (in my state) are not required to identify ourselves, give commands, beg for you to drop your gun, etc. If you are actively shooting at or looking for innocent people shoot, we are authorized to seek you out and neutralize the threat. It is a result of the Columbine school shootings, because at that time, officers had been trained to sit outside and wait for SWAT teams. That is no longer the preferred response.


----------



## AnthonyM83 (May 28, 2009)

Walking into this one late, but I wouldn't have a problem with EMS being armed if they went through (at minimum) as extensive training as police officers go through. I say at minimum, because they'll probably need more education and refreshers, since they won't have ongoing field experience and coworker/DA discussions to supplement original training.

So, basically I'm saying only way I'd feel comfortable is if they had full police training (and background testing). SO, basically, if you're a cop, I'd be fine with it. Otherwise, you'd have no idea how much you have no idea about regarding issues on carrying on duty.


----------



## AJ Hidell (May 28, 2009)

VentMedic said:


> I could even see guns being used against each other in EMS. Look at the headlines we have had with battles between Fire and EMS that got physicial even at scene.


I can guarantee you that this would happen a lot less often if EMS was armed.  Might make the Oklahoma State Police think twice before assaulting us too.


----------



## Lifeguards For Life (May 28, 2009)

I believe some departments allow staff who are also employed elsewhere as LEO's to carry while on duty. And some Departments such as Shores are tri certified as firefighters, LEO's and Medics. but all in all i don't think mainstream EM providers need to be armed.


----------

