# Firearms for EMS



## fortsmithman (Jul 30, 2011)

This thread is not about arming EMS with sidearms.  This is about rural EMS who may encounter wildlife such as bears and cougars.  In my area we have black bears, cougars, wolves, and wolverines as predators.  There have been call where we have gone into the bush to treat someone in an area where we might run into a wild predator.   My ideal firearm would either be a rifle of at least ab .270 calibre or a 12 gauge winchester defender shotgun with 00 buckshot.  The firearm would remain locked up stored empty with ammunition also locked up in a separate area.  It would only be taken out and loaded only when in an area where we may run into a predator.  When we've completed the call an were safely on our way the firearm would be emptied and stored in a secure area.  I would like to know from other rural EMS personnel how they feel about this.


----------



## adamjh3 (Jul 30, 2011)

Specific training would be needed. Not everyone should be able to use it.


----------



## rmabrey (Jul 30, 2011)

fortsmithman said:


> This thread is not about arming EMS with sidearms.  This is about rural EMS who may encounter wildlife such as bears and cougars.  In my area we have black bears, cougars, wolves, and wolverines as predators.  There have been call where we have gone into the bush to treat someone in an area where we might run into a wild predator.   My ideal firearm would either be a rifle of at least ab .270 calibre or a 12 gauge winchester defender shotgun with 00 buckshot.  The firearm would remain locked up stored empty with ammunition also locked up in a separate area.  It would only be taken out and loaded only when in an area where we may run into a predator.  When we've completed the call an were safely on our way the firearm would be emptied and stored in a secure area.  I would like to know from other rural EMS personnel how they feel about this.



I will have to disagree with the loading and unloading. IMO it just offers more opportunity for a ND. The less you manipulate a firearm the better.


----------



## JPINFV (Jul 30, 2011)

rmabrey said:


> I will have to disagree with the loading and unloading. IMO it just offers more opportunity for a ND. The less you manipulate a firearm the better.


More possibility than storing a loaded fire arm?


----------



## rmabrey (Jul 30, 2011)

JPINFV said:


> More possibility than storing a loaded fire arm?


Im thinking about it more and it would really depend on how it was stored in the ambulance. If its shoved in an external cabinet propped against an O2 tank it would be pretty dangerous, but if it were secured properly no.


----------



## JPINFV (Jul 30, 2011)

Stored properly or not, the complete lack of use would make storing it loaded seem more dangerous than only being loaded when in use. Additionally, if you accidentally make a shotgun go off while loading or unloading, then you shouldn't be touching a firearm.


----------



## Flightorbust (Jul 30, 2011)

in situations like that couldnt you just as easly have SO or DOW respond?


----------



## rmabrey (Jul 30, 2011)

JPINFV said:


> Stored properly or not, the complete lack of use would make storing it loaded seem more dangerous than only being loaded when in use. Additionally, if you accidentally make a shotgun go off while loading or unloading, then you shouldn't be touching a firearm.



Its more common then you think. Called a "Slam Fire", I normally classify most Accidental Discharges as really a Negligent Discharge, Slam Fires are one case where it truly is a AD.

I have no knowledge of how often the OP would be loading or unloading, but if its to the point where its even being considered then it probably often. I see no problem with keeping it loaded and secured. A loaded weapon will not just go off.


----------



## WuLabsWuTecH (Jul 30, 2011)

It happens so rarely out here that we deal with wildlife that it just would be one more piece of equipment on the truck taking up space and adding responsibility.


----------



## Cup of Joe (Jul 30, 2011)

I personally think that if an EMT needs a firearm or weapon, then the scene is not safe.  If I wanted a gun, I'd become a cop or take advantage of the second amendment awarded to me by the Constitution.  My opinion, everyone's entitled to their own.


----------



## bigbaldguy (Jul 30, 2011)

I think if you rolled up on a scene and there was any chance a bear was waiting for you then you probably shouldn't be getting out of the truck. Even if you happened to be able to get to the truck, get the gun out load it and get a shot off you might just be dealing with a much more angry bear. That's not to say that bears aren't a legitimate risk in rural and even some urban areas. There are options for deterring bears that would entail far less liability, training, and expense than carting a rifle/shot gun around. There are bear sprays (super strength pepper sprays), and air horns, both have been proven effective in many situations.


----------



## JPINFV (Jul 30, 2011)

jcalNYC said:


> I personally think that if an EMT needs a firearm or weapon, then the scene is not safe.  If I wanted a gun, I'd become a cop or take advantage of the second amendment awarded to me by the Constitution.  My opinion, everyone's entitled to their own.




1. I'm pretty sure that the wild beasts encountered in NY City and rural areas aren't necessarily the same, neither is the availability of police backup. 

2. The second amendment doesn't work that way, and never will work that way.


----------



## mycrofft (Jul 30, 2011)

*No comment.*

except to say, don't confuse a loaded firearm with a loaded firearm plus a round in the chamber.


----------



## Aidey (Jul 30, 2011)

jcalNYC said:


> I personally think that if an EMT needs a firearm or weapon, then the scene is not safe.  If I wanted a gun, I'd become a cop or take advantage of the second amendment awarded to me by the Constitution.  My opinion, everyone's entitled to their own.



The OP is from the NTW. They have bears, moose and several other large animals that can kill a human easily. People there don't do anything outside without guns.


----------



## JPINFV (Jul 30, 2011)

mycrofft said:


> except to say, don't confuse a loaded firearm with a loaded firearm plus a round in the chamber.


Non-issue. All firearms are loaded with one in the chamber until proven otherwise.


----------



## rmabrey (Jul 30, 2011)

JPINFV said:


> Non-issue. All firearms are loaded with one in the chamber until proven otherwise.



Well said


----------



## bigbaldguy (Jul 30, 2011)

Aidey said:


> The OP is from the NTW. They have bears, moose and several other large animals that can kill a human easily. People there don't do anything outside without guns.



Bear attacks are definitely a legitimate risk in certain parts of the states and canada. As we push further and further into bear country it's certainly reasonable to assume emergency services will increasingly have run ins with big angry critters (I hear moose can be lethal during mating season). I just think that the liability of carrying a firearm to deal with relatively rare encounters far outweigh the benefits when less lethal means are available. That said I have never had to face an 8 foot tall grizzly with nothing more than a giant can of pepper spray. I'm pretty sure though I wouldn't be any more confident facing one with a shotgun. Either way I'm pretty sure I'd be needing a change of pants post encounter.


----------



## JPINFV (Jul 30, 2011)

Oh, and if we really want to be safe, over under that's stored broken down. They're easy to reassemble and you instantly know if it's loaded or not.


----------



## medicdan (Jul 30, 2011)

JPINFV said:


> 2. The second amendment doesn't work that way, and never will work that way.



It also doesn't work for our northern neighbors in Canada. Sorry, that's absolute. It's clear the OP works in a region where animals can really pose a problem-- and where the scene can become unsafe by the entirely normal presence of a wild animal... one that could wander over while you're inside a residence, or with fairly little notice. We are invading in their normal environment, so need to be respectful, but aware of the dangers, and prepared to intervene if/when it truly becomes unsafe.


----------



## bigbaldguy (Jul 30, 2011)

So I'm doing a little research on bear pepper sprays and found out that there is actually a legal limit for the amount of "hotness" that regular pepper spray can have but the "hotness" of bear spray is 3 to 5 times hotter. Sounds like a can of bear spray might be the way to go if your looking to tuck some pepper spray in your pocket.


----------



## lightsandsirens5 (Jul 30, 2011)

JPINFV said:


> Non-issue. All firearms are loaded with one in the chamber until proven otherwise.



Well, even when proven otherwise, they are treated the same.


----------



## JPINFV (Jul 30, 2011)

lightsandsirens5 said:


> Well, even when proven otherwise, they are treated the same.



Not really. I have no problem cleaning my unloaded shotgun. I have a big problem cleaning it when it's loaded.


----------



## Cup of Joe (Jul 31, 2011)

JPINFV said:


> 1. I'm pretty sure that the wild beasts encountered in NY City and rural areas aren't necessarily the same, neither is the availability of police backup.
> 
> 2. The second amendment doesn't work that way, and never will work that way.



1.) Why would you go into what could possibly be a dangerous situation without law enforcement or even a property owner who called 911?  I might have a different mindset because I'm from the city, but I wouldn't just run into an area where I could be attacked by a bear, and not be able to at least see the ambulance.  If I couldn't see the ambulance, then I'm not going in without police.  

2.) Of course not.  If it did, we'd all really be screwed.  But the second amendment does allow the right to citizens to arm themselves.  Didn't say I was for or against it.  If you want a gun, you have the right to get one, according to the Constitution (following local, state, and federal regulations)

P.S., I have been outside the city and stayed in areas like this.  So I'm not completely oblivious.  Also, everyone has a different opinion on whether EMTs should carry guns, and I think it really can't be justified.  My opinion.


And this has nothing to do with my point or to support the thread, not trying to be an ***, but have any EMTs or Paramedics actually been attacked in that area?  Just wondering...


----------



## BoondockMedic (Jul 31, 2011)

*Probably creates more problems than it solves*

While in some cases it might certainly be useful, the majority of the time a weapon carried in the truck will just be a burden.  It *must* be secured at all times, and more heavily protected from theft than even your drug boxes.  Stolen/missing meds can get you fired, firearms can be used against you or others.

In the event carrying was authorized by your agency, I can't imagine many states have liability laws protecting EMS personnel for weapons-related issues - those statutes are usually written solely for law enforcement personnel.  What, precisely, are the ramifications for you if you discharge the weapon at an animal and something goes radically wrong?  Did you wound the dangerous animal or kill it?  If wounded, are you going to now track it down and finish it off?  Because while you're doing that, you're not doing EMS.

Any call at which you deployed the weapon would mean that you must also keep physical control of the weapon at all times, so you can't lay it aside to perform CPR, essentially taking you out of your designated role.

Weapon training and regular qualification would probably also be required, by your insurance carrier if not your agency.

I know this sounds like hand-wringing, but I have a background as a municipal police officer ( years ago before my current situation ), and you *must* give some thought to these kinds of scenarios if you carry a weapon on duty.  Personally I would not do so as an EMS provider (rural volunteer), your situation may vary.


----------



## JPINFV (Jul 31, 2011)

jcalNYC said:


> 1.) Why would you go into what could possibly be a dangerous situation without law enforcement or even a property owner who called 911?  I might have a different mindset because I'm from the city, but I wouldn't just run into an area where I could be attacked by a bear, and not be able to at least see the ambulance.  If I couldn't see the ambulance, then I'm not going in without police.



So basically, anything wilderness wise you wouldn't enter without the police? Have you ever been camping... without the police?



> 2.) Of course not.  If it did, we'd all really be screwed.  But the second amendment does allow the right to citizens to arm themselves.  Didn't say I was for or against it.  If you want a gun, you have the right to get one, according to the Constitution (following local, state, and federal regulations)



That right, as it currently stands, is a very limited right that has finally gotten teeth (caselaw) is the past couple years (District of Columbia v Heller for federal land, 2008. McDonald v Chicago, incorporated against the states, 2010). Basically, you've had the "right" to own a gun for defensive purposes in your house for a little over a year. Additionally, SCOTUS was very careful to limit the scope of that ruling to private property only. So the second amendment is fairly week in reality. 

Additionally, I'm really not concerned about the people who would own and carry firearms under the second amendment. I'm much more concerned about those who would carry without regard to what the law says period. 



> P.S., I have been outside the city and stayed in areas like this.  So I'm not completely oblivious.  Also, everyone has a different opinion on whether EMTs should carry guns, and I think it really can't be justified.  My opinion.



So you have stayed in areas when not working as an EMT that you would refuse to enter sans law enforcement as an EMT? Isn't this just a little cognitive dissonance?


----------



## bstone (Jul 31, 2011)

If you're licensed to carry a gun and your service provides law enforcement approved training and you have the real risk of running into a dangerous animal then YES you should have someone be able to make the scene safe and secure. If you're in the brush and there is the chance an animal will attack (or it already has, which is why you are there) then the scene is NOT safe. Many places this rural do not have LE available, so if the EMS providers can make the scene safe then go for it.

For those who say that an EMT with a lawful weapon makes the scene unsafe, well, let's just agree to disagree.


----------



## guttruck (Jul 31, 2011)

IMO if you think it's going to hit the fan ..............stage and call a LEO


----------



## Aidey (Jul 31, 2011)

bigbaldguy said:


> I think if you rolled up on a scene and there was any chance a bear was waiting for you then you probably shouldn't be getting out of the truck. Even if you happened to be able to get to the truck, get the gun out load it and get a shot off you might just be dealing with a much more angry bear. That's not to say that bears aren't a legitimate risk in rural and even some urban areas. There are options for deterring bears that would entail far less liability, training, and expense than carting a rifle/shot gun around. There are bear sprays (super strength pepper sprays), and air horns, both have been proven effective in many situations.



I have a friend who lives in Alaska. Up there they call bear spray "seasoning".


----------



## RealMedic (Jul 31, 2011)

*FIREARMS in EMS*

I think this issue would only be applicable to our Canadian EMS friend who initiated this post and has not respnded to one post to date. (excreatment stirring?) That said I can't think of any rural areas in the US where this would even be an issue. That NW area sure is pretty country though as is alot of Alberta and BC as well. Too bad US medics can't go & work there it's nice. Heck, I'd be willin to give revenue canada a little slice of my pay to be able to go work some gigs around there places. Anyway, nuff said. Thanks


----------



## fortsmithman (Jul 31, 2011)

With my service we run a crew of 3 minimum.  Sometimes 4.  So if we were to have the option of a firearm then one could handle the firearm while the remaining two or three treat the pt.


----------



## RealMedic (Jul 31, 2011)

*He's back*

Ok good to hear back from the author. Same response. This is really a wilderness/rural area like NW territories issue. Not applicable here in the USA. Be well friend.


----------



## Cup of Joe (Jul 31, 2011)

JPINFV said:


> So basically, anything wilderness wise you wouldn't enter without the police? Have you ever been camping... without the police?
> 
> ...
> 
> So you have stayed in areas when not working as an EMT that you would refuse to enter sans law enforcement as an EMT? Isn't this just a little cognitive dissonance?



Been camping for weeks without a gun.  Had no issues.  Still alive.  Everything I've said about going into the wilderness without calling police was never my stance on the thread topic.  I'm simply providing an alternative solution to arming EMTs.  Do I think at times it could be a waste of police resources? absolutely.  Do I think rural areas should arm EMS crews with guns? no.  

If the OP is SO concerned for his safety that he believes he NEEDS a gun, then talk to your supervisor or whoever is in charge, and voice your concerns.  The internet is only going to start debates that lead to nowhere.

Edit:  Saw the OP's post on crew sizes:  I could see that if you had 3 or 4 people  you *could* have one person on the crew who has received additional training who would be in charge of making sure the scene is safe.  But I still can think of ways where things can go wrong.  Honestly, I'm not from your area and don't know how much of a threat these animals are to people in your area.  My city mentality says "more guns = more problems."


----------



## Sasha (Jul 31, 2011)

bigbaldguy said:


> I think if you rolled up on a scene and there was any chance a bear was waiting for you then you probably shouldn't be getting out of the truck. Even if you happened to be able to get to the truck, get the gun out load it and get a shot off you might just be dealing with a much more angry bear. That's not to say that bears aren't a legitimate risk in rural and even some urban areas. There are options for deterring bears that would entail far less liability, training, and expense than carting a rifle/shot gun around. There are bear sprays (super strength pepper sprays), and air horns, both have been proven effective in many situations.



Cant you just scare the bear? Dont you just make yourself bigger?

Sent from LuLu using Tapatalk


----------



## bstone (Jul 31, 2011)

Sasha, you can try. Then the bear will eat you.


----------



## Cup of Joe (Jul 31, 2011)

Sasha said:


> Cant you just scare the bear? Dont you just make yourself bigger?
> 
> Sent from LuLu using Tapatalk


----------



## Aidey (Jul 31, 2011)

RealMedic said:


> Ok good to hear back from the author. Same response. This is really a wilderness/rural area like NW territories issue. Not applicable here in the USA. Be well friend.



Did we give Alaska back to Russia and I missed the memo?


----------



## Sasha (Jul 31, 2011)

bstone said:


> Sasha, you can try. Then the bear will eat you.



Well how rude of the bear 

Sent from LuLu using Tapatalk


----------



## fortsmithman (Jul 31, 2011)

With my service we would keep the rifle locked up at our base.  Since when not on a call both our ambulances are kept at the base.  The rifle would only be unlocked and loaded if we had a call out in a bush area and could not get an RCMP escort, where the wildlife that would kill are at.  Most people in the northern part of Canada do take a firearm with them when going out on the land.  I believe it's the same in Alaska.


----------



## fortsmithman (Jul 31, 2011)

jcalNYC said:


>



Dinner time.


----------



## alias (Aug 2, 2011)

We avoid risks in life so we can make it safely to death.


----------



## mycrofft (Aug 3, 2011)

*Tasering Gentle Ben*

http://www.avma.org/reference/backgrounders/taser_devices_bgnd.asp 
Sasha, the looking bigger deal works if you can look bigger than the griz, and it isn't hungry...or amorous....or just had a hard day at the salmon run...


----------



## johnrsemt (Aug 3, 2011)

It is just not in Alaska that there are problems:  and not just for response for a bear attack.

  If you respond to a rancher or hiker injured  (fell, broken leg for example);  in Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Colorado, Washington St, Oregon, California:  when you are dispatched they won't always send a ranger or deputy with the call.
  You get to the scene and a Bear or Mtn Lion is attracted by the scent of blood from injured person;  or a moose is in the area;  (moose have attacked people even when not in mating season).

   So it is a legitamate concern;  but would have to be covered on an area by area basis.  Plus, you will run into problems if someone on the truck is afraid of guns, etc.


----------



## Bullets (Aug 3, 2011)

guttruck said:


> IMO if you think it's going to hit the fan ..............stage and call a LEO



ok, in the areas we a talking about, there arent municipal police forces. the areas are serviced by state or federal troopers, RCMP, or maybe county officers. We are talking response times in hours by car, and then into the wilderness by foot or quad. Maybe you get air support IF they troopers are in the area training or running flight ops, but thats a total crap shoot. If you live in areas like this, your familiar with the use of firearms, cause you have been shooting, hunting and trapping since you were 10 years old. firearms safety has been drilled into you from the youngest age. If i have to go out into an area, and the only person i have to rely on to defend myself is me, then im bring some firepower. 

Cops drive around with loaded shotguns and carbines every day and they dont just go off, properly mounted in an over head rack with a lock, there shouldnt be an issue


----------



## ol' poke (Aug 3, 2011)

fortsmithman said:


> This thread is not about arming EMS with sidearms.  This is about rural EMS who may encounter wildlife such as bears and cougars.  In my area we have black bears, cougars, wolves, and wolverines as predators.  There have been call where we have gone into the bush to treat someone in an area where we might run into a wild predator.   My ideal firearm would either be a rifle of at least ab .270 calibre or a 12 gauge winchester defender shotgun with 00 buckshot.  The firearm would remain locked up stored empty with ammunition also locked up in a separate area.  It would only be taken out and loaded only when in an area where we may run into a predator.  When we've completed the call an were safely on our way the firearm would be emptied and stored in a secure area.  I would like to know from other rural EMS personnel how they feel about this.



Back to the original question.... A 12 gauge shotgun with 00 buckshot would be ideal.  I would suggest a pump action over a semi-auto to avoid possible jams.  Also consider a .44 magnum or greater handgun as another possibility that could easily be carried in a holster, thus freeing up your hands to treat your patient.  I would avoid a high-power rifle as while this time of firearm is quite effective at longer ranges, there are just better options available for the closer ranges you would encounter in an EMS situation.


----------



## fortsmithman (Aug 3, 2011)

ol' poke said:


> Back to the original question.... A 12 gauge shotgun with 00 buckshot would be ideal.  I would suggest a pump action over a semi-auto to avoid possible jams.  Also consider a .44 magnum or greater handgun as another possibility that could easily be carried in a holster, thus freeing up your hands to treat your patient.  I would avoid a high-power rifle as while this time of firearm is quite effective at longer ranges, there are just better options available for the closer ranges you would encounter in an EMS situation.



The Winchester defender is a pump action as for the the pistol that would be a nono here in Canada.  Here in Canada not even our police can carry their sidearms off duty.  Besides I would much rather use a rifle or a shotgun as a defensive weapon.  My choice would be a Lee-Enfield no 4 or no 5 the calibre for those who don't know is .303 british  It has a detachable 10 round magazine.  The power of the cartridge is equal to a .308 win.


----------



## Sasha (Aug 3, 2011)

johnrsemt said:


> It is just not in Alaska that there are problems:  and not just for response for a bear attack.
> 
> If you respond to a rancher or hiker injured  (fell, broken leg for example);  in Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Colorado, Washington St, Oregon, California:  when you are dispatched they won't always send a ranger or deputy with the call.
> You get to the scene and a Bear or Mtn Lion is attracted by the scent of blood from injured person;  or a moose is in the area;  (moose have attacked people even when not in mating season).
> ...



How do you fend off a mountain lion? Aren't you supposed to throw things and make noise to scare it away?


----------



## fortsmithman (Aug 3, 2011)

Sasha said:


> How do you fend off a mountain lion? Aren't you supposed to throw things and make noise to scare it away?



.308 win does a good job of the Cougar.


----------



## Sasha (Aug 3, 2011)

I'm talking about without killing it. Wouldn't you rather just scare it off?


----------



## Sandman-EMT (Aug 3, 2011)

Sasha said:


> I'm talking about without killing it. Wouldn't you rather just scare it off?



If I'm afraid of getting killed or recieving copious amounts of stitching, no, not really!


----------



## Sandman-EMT (Aug 3, 2011)

> Do I think at times it could be a waste of police resources? absolutely.  Do I think rural areas should arm EMS crews with guns? no.  My city mentality says "more guns = more problems."




I suppose it's all in what you are used to. I would feel pretty safe with pepper spray to ward off most animals, but you couldnt pay me enough to respond to an inner city call without being armed! The extremely strict gun laws in most cities equals out laws with guns and everyone else vunerable! Just my opinion!


----------



## Sasha (Aug 3, 2011)

Maybe a gun with like tranquilizers or something instead of bullets. That way no one is in danger of killing someone else and the animal doesn't get killed either but it's no longer a threat.


----------



## Sandman-EMT (Aug 3, 2011)

Sasha said:


> Maybe a gun with like tranquilizers or something instead of bullets. That way no one is in danger of killing someone else and the animal doesn't get killed either but it's no longer a threat.



well, that will work!


----------



## ffemt8978 (Aug 3, 2011)

Sasha said:


> Maybe a gun with like tranquilizers or something instead of bullets. That way no one is in danger of killing someone else and the animal doesn't get killed either but it's no longer a threat.



Tranquilizers are not immediate effect weapons.


----------



## Bullets (Aug 3, 2011)

Sasha said:


> Maybe a gun with like tranquilizers or something instead of bullets. That way no one is in danger of killing someone else and the animal doesn't get killed either but it's no longer a threat.



No, tranquilizers arent immediately effective, there is still enough time for a grizzly, a black bear, or a cougar to get to me before the drug takes effect. A male grizzly can run at about 30 mph, thats 1 ton of angry claws and teeth covering 100yds in under 6 seconds, a 220lb cougar can jump 40ft from a stand still and can run up to 40mph. i cant run that fast or jump that high, im a soft fleshy meat sack. 

So if it comes to me and and animal ripping my face off, i know a .30-06 from my M1 garand works the first time, every time. I have no desire to put it to sleep for a little. Me or him, and i like to win.

Best bet is a rifle in .303 or 30-06, depends on whats readily available in your area. If your looking for a shotgun, cant go wrong with a mossberg 500, alternate loads of 00 buckshot and a slug. I would look into similar gun retention solution used by LEOs. They make off-the-shelf locks that can mount behind you head into the wall between your cab and box holding the firearm parallel to the box, or a bracket that holds fire arm muzzle down or muzzle up between the front seats. i find muzzle down to be the best configuration for easily removing yourself and the firearm in a controlled fashion from the vehicle.


----------



## bigbaldguy (Aug 3, 2011)

ffemt8978 said:


> Tranquilizers are not immediate effect weapons.



They are on Dexter!


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 3, 2011)

Bullets said:


> Best bet is a rifle in .303 or 30-06, depends on whats readily available in your area.



You can pick up a military surplus M-1 Garand for about $200 in the US.


----------



## rwik123 (Aug 3, 2011)

bigbaldguy said:


> They are on Dexter!



Yeah the writers are kind of using their creative license. Etorophine (the sedative used in deter) is a large game animal tranquilizer. In almost all cases even very diluted, it would be fatal in humans. Maybe dexter has another vial of narcan loaded up since its an opioid. Would naloxone work as an antagonist in this case and totally reverse the effects?

What if someone misses or hits an odd spot where the needle cannot penetrate? Gimme a gun


----------



## ArcticKat (Aug 3, 2011)

fortsmithman said:


> .308 win does a good job of the Cougar.




Depends on what she looks like.


----------



## bigbaldguy (Aug 4, 2011)

rwik123 said:


> Yeah the writers are kind of using their creative license. Etorophine (the sedative used in deter) is a large game animal tranquilizer. In almost all cases even very diluted, it would be fatal in humans. Maybe dexter has another vial of narcan loaded up since its an opioid. Would naloxone work as an antagonist in this case and totally reverse the effects?
> 
> What if someone misses or hits an odd spot where the needle cannot penetrate? Gimme a gun



This particular sedative is so powerful it is always shipped with it's antidote. According to wickpedia.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 4, 2011)

bigbaldguy said:


> This particular sedative is so powerful it is always shipped with it's antidote. According to wickpedia.


----------



## Akulahawk (Aug 4, 2011)

JPINFV said:


> You can pick up a military surplus M-1 Garand for about $200 in the US.


Only if you're _really _lucky... Otherwise, about the best deal for them is the CMP. Their cost is about 2x that for a functional rifle whose bore is almost shot-out, but could still be used in a pinch if need be.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 4, 2011)

Akulahawk said:


> Only if you're _really _lucky... Otherwise, about the best deal for them is the CMP. Their cost is about 2x that for a functional rifle whose bore is almost shot-out, but could still be used in a pinch if need be.


I was under the impression that the CMP rifles, while used, abused, repaired, and abused some more, where still functional rifles.


----------



## bigbaldguy (Aug 4, 2011)

JPINFV said:


>



Etorphine is often used to immobilize elephants and other large mammals. Etorphine is available legally only for veterinary use and is strictly governed by law. Diprenorphine (M5050), also known as Revivon, is an opioid receptor antagonist that can be administered in proportion to the amount of etorphine used (1.3 times) to reverse its effects. Veterinary-strength etorphine is fatal to humans. For this reason the package as supplied to vets always includes the human antidote as well as Etorphine.

From wiki


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 4, 2011)

bigbaldguy said:


> Etorphine is often used to immobilize elephants and other large mammals. Etorphine is available legally only for veterinary use and is strictly governed by law. Diprenorphine (M5050), also known as Revivon, is an opioid receptor antagonist that can be administered in proportion to the amount of etorphine used (1.3 times) to reverse its effects. Veterinary-strength etorphine is fatal to humans. For this reason the package as supplied to vets always includes the human antidote as well as Etorphine.
> 
> From wiki


...yet I don't see a single footnote in that entire passage.


----------



## systemet (Aug 4, 2011)

Regarding etorphine (I think we had this discussion a few months back).

It's just a potent opiod.  It's not categorically fatal to humans.  In fact it was trialed for the treatment of cancer pain in the 70s [1].  There's case reports in the literature of intentional overdose with respiratory depression responsive to as little as 0.8mg narcan [2].  

It just doesn't have a current FDA accepted use in humans, but is used in vetinary medicine, where it's useful for sedating large animals, due to it's high potency (1,000 - 80,000 times the potency of morphine, dependent upon the species considered)[3].

So, like any opiod, if you give too much, apnea will ensue, which, if untreated, will be fatal.  It sounds like the agent probably doesn't offer benefits over other currently available opiods.  It's the old Paracelsus, only the dose separates the poison from the cure.




[1] Blane GF, Robbie DS.Trial of etorphine hydrochloride(M99 Reckitt) in carcinoma pain: preliminary report. Br J Pharmacol. 1970 May;39(1):252P-253P.

[2] Sterken J, Troubleyn J, Gasthuys F, Maes V, Diltoer M, Verborgh C.Intentional overdose of Large Animal Immobilon.Eur J Emerg Med. 2004 Oct;11(5):298-301.

[3]Lancet. 1977 Jul 23;2(8030):178.
Immobilon: curiously strong.


----------



## Akulahawk (Aug 4, 2011)

JPINFV said:


> I was under the impression that the CMP rifles, while used, abused, repaired, and abused some more, where still functional rifles.


Their "Rack Grade" rifles can be had for about $400 or so _if_ they have them in stock. Those _are_ functional rifles, however, they're not going to be very accurate. These rifles would have been sent back to an armory for rebuild.

Their "Field Grade" rifles can be had for about $500 and are serviceable. Some very good shooters can be had in this category. These are within US Army spec.

Their "Service Grade" can be had for about $600 and their barrels are usually quite good, and can be made to be excellent shooters without too much extra work. 

Surplus rifles can be found for around $200, but they won't be the Garand. I'd love to get my hands on a K31 or a Springfield '03 or '03A3... Never overlook bolt guns for self protection. They'll do the job if you do yours.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 4, 2011)

For what ever reason, I could have sworn I saw rack grade there a a week or two ago for about $200. Of course if the guns, in reality, aren't worth shooting, what's the point of buying them through CMP?


----------



## Bullets (Aug 4, 2011)

if cost is a concern, you can find russian capture german K98s on sites like gun broker.com for under $200, solid bolt action with a good round, 8mm is a nice shot. You can also find yugoslav copies of mosin-nagants for under $100. Bolt action have less moving parts, so there is less stuff to fail

I dont know what the laws in canada are, but the saiga shotgun is a nice PDW. 3 in the tube plus one in the chamber, just a pistol grip, no butt stock, and a folding foregrip that can be vertical and horizontal. its a small piece but its great for close quarters work


----------



## ol' poke (Aug 4, 2011)

The situation I envision the OP encountering is attending to a patient in the bush and encountering a dangerous animal.  In that situation, the threat of a bear/puma/moose attach would best be defended by a 12 gauge shotgun with 00 buckshot.  While a .30 caliber rifle does provide a longer range, if the threat is >50 meters away, would it not be best to just avoid it, or load-n-go while keepng a watchful eye?  And if it's closer and/or closing, the spread of buckshot vs. a single projectile would offer better protection as well.  Especially considering the stress level.

I love this thread!  Pictures of an M1 Garand racked in the back of a bus is pretty funny!  :rofl:



Sasha said:


> How do you fend off a mountain lion? Aren't you supposed to throw things and make noise to scare it away?



You are correct!  Throw lead-things and the making the noise of a firearm discharged in their direction is sure to scare them away (only if you miss!) purple = sarcasm


----------



## RocketMedic (Aug 5, 2011)

In the OPs context, I can definitely see a reason to carry a firearm with proper training. A bear or moose may or may not be deterred by noise or spray.
For suburban or urban EMS the liability for the company would be huge. We are not law enforcement nor are we guards. Firearms could indeed confer a certain degree of security but they would also make us targets for violence and theft.
For most Stateside work, a Taser seems ideal.


----------



## RocketMedic (Aug 5, 2011)

Sasha said:


> Maybe a gun with like tranquilizers or something instead of bullets. That way no one is in danger of killing someone else and the animal doesn't get killed either but it's no longer a threat.



If you're deploying a weapon you need to be prepared to use it. Tranquilizers sound good but are not often as effective as kill loads in situations when you need to shoot.


----------



## angrynuni (Aug 5, 2011)

Living in Arizona, well, I have no problem with it.  Though I may be jaded by my states complete lack of concern for people with guns.

As for having them issued, I don't know, maybe?  That's more expensive for companies who already don't like spending.  From a "oh but is it safe?!!!!" stand point I could care less, you're already being trusted with a huge vehicle, drugs, needles, etc ...


----------

