# concealed weapon carry



## Sqd4LT (Apr 11, 2013)

Hi there guys, i'm new to this forum but not to the life of volunteer EMS. I served the fire dept for about 2 years and have served the squad going on 5years. After the incident in Georgia yesterday with the firefighters being held hostage i'm wondering if that will help change some laws in places to allow us to conceal carry. I live in one of those places that don't let us conceal carry unless we are a sworn officer of the law. Luckily my captain is a police officer and I run with him most of the time so I know he's packin his glock. Before I get bashed by the anti gun people on here I think if you are going to carry a weapon to protect human life you should have to go through more then an 8 hour course to get your CCWP (Concealed Carry Weapon Permit). It would be nice to go thru the training that the police do, maybe that is something each agency could arrange with the local PD if they lift the no carry law.


----------



## Achilles (Apr 11, 2013)

Some first post...
Emt/ paramedic had an entire discussion about this on facebook yesterday.


----------



## mcdonl (Apr 11, 2013)

My opinion... its not our job on an EMS call.

Dont get me wrong... I CCW, I shoot IDPA... I am well trained but it is not my job.

I would be a tactical EMS provider in a heartbeat if I could, and then it WOULD be my role.


----------



## Household6 (Apr 11, 2013)

That's not my job..

And ammo for my .45 is too expensive right now.


----------



## joshrunkle35 (Apr 11, 2013)

It's not my job to be armed to protect others, but I don't like being denied the right to protect myself.


----------



## Handsome Robb (Apr 11, 2013)

mcdonl said:


> My opinion... its not our job on an EMS call.
> 
> Dont get me wrong... I CCW, I shoot IDPA... I am well trained but it is not my job.
> 
> I would be a tactical EMS provider in a heartbeat if I could, and then it WOULD be my role.



Not necessarily true. Our TEMS team is unarmed. Usually near the back of the stack if they actually make entry.

I'm all for guns, working on getting into a CCW class as we speak but a 6x9 foot box also known as my ambulance is no place for a firearm.

If you have EMS carrying you now brought a firearm into play on every single call you go on for the simple fact that you're carrying it...

I think something needs to change, I don't think the answer is a gun. TASERs have always seemed like a good option to me.


----------



## mcdonl (Apr 11, 2013)

Yeah Robb... I have little knowledge of TEMS so I yield to your experience. I agree though that the ambulance is no place for a gun. Too many things can go wrong.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Apr 11, 2013)

joshrunkle35 said:


> It's not my job to be armed to protect others, *but I don't like being denied the right to protect myself*.



This is the whole thing right here.

Every individual has an inherent natural right to self-defense.

That right should not be suspended just because you show up at work, or go a movie theater, or a school, or anywhere else.


----------



## bonesaw (Apr 11, 2013)

Robb said:


> Not necessarily true. Our TEMS team is unarmed. Usually near the back of the stack if they actually make entry.
> 
> I'm all for guns, working on getting into a CCW class as we speak but a 6x9 foot box also known as my ambulance is no place for a firearm.
> 
> ...





> Now you are bringing a taser into play every single call. Why should I not be able to ccw because you are not confident to carry yourself?


edit-
If we are talking about ccw and not open carry on a duty belt set up I am all for it, it is an issue if it's out in the open and visible to pts/bystanders etc.....
Concealed is concealed and all of that....


----------



## RocketMedic (Apr 11, 2013)

Give EMS the right to deny service until calls are completely safe, assign PD to every call, or arm EMS.

I know this incident will have an impact on my work.


----------



## CFal (Apr 11, 2013)

Rocketmedic40 said:


> Give EMS the right to deny service until calls are completely safe, assign PD to every call, or arm EMS.
> 
> I know this incident will have an impact on my work.



town I currently work in (not for) used to dispatch PD to all EMS calls because the cops are first responders, they stopped doing that but I heard they might start again.


----------



## Trashtruck (Apr 11, 2013)

Rocketmedic40 said:


> Give EMS the right to deny service until calls are completely safe, assign PD to every call, or arm EMS.
> 
> I know this incident will have an impact on my work.



Umm...we do deny service until calls are completely safe. Do you not do this?


----------



## EpiEMS (Apr 11, 2013)

I'd love to see somebody do a good study of which of those three strategies results in the lowest number of providers injured or killed. My bet is on assigning PD to every call. I love that method.


----------



## eprex (Apr 12, 2013)

Halothane said:


> This is the whole thing right here.
> 
> *Every individual has an inherent natural right to self-defense.*
> 
> That right should not be suspended just because you show up at work, or go a movie theater, or a school, or anywhere else.



This gets a bit tricky when actually applied to the real world. What's to stop people from saying they were defending themselves when they weren't? A recent court case comes to mind.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Apr 12, 2013)

eprex said:


> This gets a bit tricky when actually applied to the real world. What's to stop people from saying they were defending themselves when they weren't? A recent court case comes to mind.



Incidents involving those lawfully carrying guns are extremely rare.


----------



## eprex (Apr 12, 2013)

Halothane said:


> Incidents involving those lawfully carrying guns are extremely rare.



You stated that everyone has the right to defend themselves. Are you now only referring to licensed gun carriers?


----------



## mycrofft (Apr 12, 2013)

This has been _*thrashed to death*_ on this forum including by folks with experience with law enforcement, military, folks who have been involved with on the job violence, and others. I think it is safe to characterize the responses, backed by citations and polls, as saying (about 80%) that using EMS work as an excuse to carry guns is not a real EMS concern. 20% say "we don't get it" and insist that they want and have a right to carry loaded firearms on the job (and maybe off, seeing as how they keep going an about "CWP" ).

(If you are carrying a weapon on your job in a holster on your "utility belt", that is not a "concealed carry" anyway).

Have fun on the forum.

"Mycrofft",
Major, USAF/CaANG (retired)
XXX County Sheriff Dept (CHS) (retired)
and a trained firearm owner.

EIT:
PS: a characterization of the latest (2008) US Supreme Court ruling (wkipedia):

and I quote:


In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for _traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home_"[9][10] but also stated that "_the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose_". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment." 

So, no armed drive-through window attendants at Starbucks. No armed ER doctors. No walking down the street with a loaded firearm even in plain sight unless it is specifically and locally allowed....unless you are in need of it for immediate personal defense.


----------



## usalsfyre (Apr 12, 2013)

eprex said:


> This gets a bit tricky when actually applied to the real world. What's to stop people from saying they were defending themselves when they weren't? A recent court case comes to mind.



I doubt you're particularly familiar with the actual details of the case I think you're referring to...

The "family business" is firearms training, specifically handguns, concealed carry, and self defense. There's no "trickiness" in the real world, games with circumstances usually come out pretty quickly. 

Folks....mindset is key. A gun is a tool that makes it easier to survive/defend yourself but by no means the only one. It really comes down to making a conscious choice how far you're willing to go to defend yourself from a potentially deadly situation and figuring out how to apply that to situations you may find yourself in.


----------



## mycrofft (Apr 12, 2013)

*Roger that.*

...and how to avoid them.
"The best defense against attack is not to be there when the blow falls". (Noguchi-sensei, 1970).


----------



## DrParasite (Apr 12, 2013)

mycrofft said:


> No walking down the street with a loaded firearm even in plain sight unless it is specifically and locally allowed....unless you are in need of it for immediate personal defense.


you sure about that?  the USSC might made their ruling, but I am not sure your conclusion was accurate[YOUTUBE]RyJFD6BhQFY[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## eprex (Apr 12, 2013)

usalsfyre said:


> I doubt you're particularly familiar with the actual details of the case I think you're referring to...
> 
> The "family business" is firearms training, specifically handguns, concealed carry, and self defense. There's no "trickiness" in the real world, games with circumstances usually come out pretty quickly.
> 
> Folks....mindset is key. A gun is a tool that makes it easier to survive/defend yourself but by no means the only one. It really comes down to making a conscious choice how far you're willing to go to defend yourself from a potentially deadly situation and figuring out how to apply that to situations you may find yourself in.



I think you're making assumptions, but I was vague so I don't blame you for it.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Apr 12, 2013)

eprex said:


> You stated that everyone has the right to defend themselves. Are you now only referring to licensed gun carriers?



No.

You are missing the point.


----------



## eprex (Apr 12, 2013)

DrParasite said:


> you sure about that?  the USSC might made their ruling, but I am not sure your conclusion was accurate[YOUTUBE]RyJFD6BhQFY[/YOUTUBE]



Jesus christ that guy was annoying.

'No sir, you can't have my first name'


----------



## eprex (Apr 12, 2013)

You said



Halothane said:


> This is the whole thing right here.
> 
> Every individual has an inherent natural right to self-defense.
> 
> That right should not be suspended just because you show up at work, or go a movie theater, or a school, or anywhere else.



And then you said



Halothane said:


> Incidents involving those lawfully carrying guns are extremely rare.



So what is your point exactly? Enlighten me


----------



## Carlos Danger (Apr 12, 2013)

Halothane said:


> This is the whole thing right here.
> 
> Every individual has an inherent natural right to self-defense.
> 
> ...



Since you are the one who is being cryptic and who appears to be making a passive attempt at pointing out a perceived flaw in my reasoning, a more appropriate question is, what is _your_ point?

I made 2 simple, straightforward statements in a total of 4 sentences.

You are certainly free to disagree, but I don't think I can make my point any clearer.

Perhaps you should take the time to do some research and enlighten yourself, rather than expecting to be spoon fed?


----------



## ffemt8978 (Apr 12, 2013)

Play nice or become the focus of my complete and undivided attention.


----------



## mycrofft (Apr 12, 2013)

Posters, how does this impact EMS? I haven't seen the words "ROSC", "IV", "EKG", or "belt/boots" for paragraphs.

I move we ban second amendment posts from the site. We have established that emergency MEDICINE does not include or require bearing arms. Re-hashing just irritates those who are going to be here for a while, and the fly by nights who have to aggressively discuss their urban gunfighter dreams will leave because there isn't ENOUGH about guns and such.


----------



## errey (Apr 12, 2013)

If its really that much of a concern for your safety wear body armour which many EMS personnel wear here.


----------



## Bullets (Apr 12, 2013)

My issue with this always lied in states that freely issued CCW permits, like Florida. So the state says they trust you to carry a firearm when you are just walking around shopping for Ho-Hos at the Walmart, but as soon as you put on a uniform and pick up NARCOTICS! then we cant trust you to carry that sidearm with you.

Seems hypocritical

Employer policy non-withstanding, as they have the right to set whatever policy the see fit


----------



## RocketMedic (Apr 12, 2013)

Trashtruck said:


> Umm...we do deny service until calls are completely safe. Do you not do this?



Do we? Do we scout the call, account for all occupants of the home, secure all firearms and post guards everywhere and only then go in, or do we show up, knock on the door and bravely venture into the unknown with a hopeful "theres no one obviously here trying to kill me". This situation the firefighters found themselves in was unavoidable- they were ambushed by a gunman inside a residence, probably with limited access, and how do you try and escape when it means probable death for you or a good friend?

EMS, as a whole, goes into potentially dangerous places all the time. Here in Oklahoma, a majority of the homes I visit have firearms, alcohol, and stressed-out people. Its a nasty combination I combat by staying in the home as little as possible and only really following the "Lifenet" when it is a verifiably safe scene, ie a nursing home or Grandma really is home alone. 

This incident has taught me to never get complacent, be ready to make a break for it if I can, and be prepared to get violent fast if needed, be it a fist, a knife, or a gun if I can get it. I might also need to talk and wait it out, as these guys did. Not having a firearm hobbles my potential responses considerably, but I do share the general sentiments of the board that EMS providers as a whole are not trained enough to carry without massive changes to existing policies and procedure. Sending police to more calls is a nonstarter here- that would literally take thousands of officers for no benefit in OKC alone. 

Operationally, Fire is getting cancelled a lot less. More people = more control.


----------



## RocketMedic (Apr 12, 2013)

errey said:


> If its really that much of a concern for your safety wear body armour which many EMS personnel wear here.



Body armor is just armor, it is passive threat mitigation. The best way to mitigate a threat is to avoid it. Failing that, massive, overwhelming force to neutralize that threat immediately. EMS leadership that thinks a vest = scene safety, a substitute for real deterrents or a deterrent in and of itself are idiots. The vest is the last part of a system of passive and active defenses.

Personally, I want to run every call with a fire team of 11Bs, armor and rifles, clearing homes and ensuring evildoers stay away from me. I cant do that, so I settle for a hefty dose of politeness and lots of people on-scene and short exposures.


----------



## truetiger (Apr 12, 2013)

I'm not going to imply that it is our job to secure a scene/perform law enforcement duties, however, it IS our JOB to come home every night. A concealed firearm is just that, concealed. The patient/by standers won't know its there until the patient/ by standers become a threat to the crew warranting the use of deadly force to defend a life.

I work in a county that is 700+ square miles and maybe has 3 deputies on at time, if we're lucky. Routinely sending them on EMS calls isn't an option. Their ETA's to scenes are already extended to begin with. If the scene becomes unsafe, its just you and your partner.

To those who argue that concealing a firearm introduces a gun to the scene, out in the rural area you must assume that there already is a firearm on the scene and treat the scene as such. The idea behind "conceal" and carry is that nobody knows its there. Keep it appropriately concealed and they won't know to grab for it. 

If your every day Joe is allowed to bring his concealed firearm to places such as Wal Mart, restaurants, etc, why am I a bad guy for wanting my concealed weapon in places that have a significantly higher risk of incident?


----------



## CFal (Apr 12, 2013)

EpiEMS said:


> I'd love to see somebody do a good study of which of those three strategies results in the lowest number of providers injured or killed. My bet is on assigning PD to every call. I love that method.



Assigning PD to every call is the best method in my opinion, especially when the police are trained as FRs and may get there faster, potentially life saving

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/9/1058.long


----------



## usalsfyre (Apr 12, 2013)

eprex said:


> I think you're making assumptions, but I was vague so I don't blame you for it.





eprex said:


> _** Quoted post removed **_



Eprex, you're being a passive aggressive for reasons no one can begin to understand. At this point I, and I would bet most others have NO idea exactly what you're trying to say other than some VERY vague notion your a pacifist. Which is your prerogative, but probably won't work out in your favor if you chose to play the game of hitting people up for reactions then trying to make them feel stupid for that reaction in real life. If you have a point, make it. If not, stop trying to hold yourself up as intellectually superior. 

Anecdotally I have found very few TRUE pacifist (the I would never harm another even if they were harming me) have ever seen the evil people are capable of inflicting on each other. There's a fairly popular blogger out there that has a post about hauling your "inner animal" out and having a good look at it. Probably something everyone should think about.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Apr 12, 2013)

I meant what I said about playing nice...


----------



## nemedic (Apr 12, 2013)

ffemt8978 said:


> I meant what I said about playing nice...



Maybe they are into playing rough............


----------



## mycrofft (Apr 12, 2013)

Maybe the word "you" ought to be ruled out and the word "I" put in. Don't talk about other people's issues, talk about your own feelings and issues. I can't be responsible for other people's stuff, but I can be about my own. Nuff said, bowing out.


----------



## DrParasite (Apr 14, 2013)

truetiger said:


> If your every day Joe is allowed to bring his concealed firearm to places such as Wal Mart, restaurants, etc, why am I a bad guy for wanting my concealed weapon in places that have a significantly higher risk of incident?


Because the public (and many in this field) want you to remain a soft target, that people know they can both push around and attack because you aren't allowed to carry weapons to shoot back.  

I'm far from a gun nut, but as Bullets said, it's a very hypocritical point of view.



CFal said:


> Assigning PD to every call is the best method in my opinion, especially when the police are trained as FRs and may get there faster, potentially life saving
> 
> http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/106/9/1058.long


Did you actually read the article?  it says having cops with defibs save lives.  it makes sense, there are more cops than firemen, more cops than ems workers, and they are already in their cards, so their response times are lower.  I am totally ok with having cops respond to all cardiac arrests, as they should; after all, they are going to a potential homicide until proven otherwise (after all, a death needs to be investigated).

nowhere does the article say PD should respond to ALL calls.  further, the arguement can also be made that they need no EMS training at all, since their are now public access defibs, so they just show up, apply the defib, and cpr the person (since time is needed and EARLY CPR and defib save lives).


----------



## Carlos Danger (Apr 14, 2013)

mycrofft said:


> Posters, how does this impact EMS?



It has a lot to do with EMS, because EMS folks can find easily themselves in the similar types of hazardous situations that police do.

Remember, when second count, the cops are only minutes away...



mycrofft said:


> I move we ban second amendment posts from the site. *We have established that emergency MEDICINE does not include or require bearing arms.* Re-hashing just irritates those who are going to be here for a while, and the fly by nights who have to aggressively discuss their urban gunfighter dreams will leave because there isn't ENOUGH about guns and such.



Of course emergency medicine per se does not require the use of weapons.

But the individual's right to protect themselves does. Not the least of which are those who frequently venture into dangerous places in order to help others. 

No one has yet been able to explain why an on-duty paramedic (or meter maid, or parking ticket-issuer, or anyone else) / CCW holder's right to self protection should be any less recognized when that person is on duty than when they are off.

Hospitals have armed guards.

I know for a fact that many police officers would not want to go into the types of places that paramedics frequently do, if they were not allowed to carry their weapons.


----------



## Bullets (Apr 14, 2013)

Halothane said:


> It has a lot to do with EMS, because EMS folks can find easily themselves in the similar types of hazardous situations that police do.
> 
> Remember, when second count, the cops are only minutes away...
> 
> ...



Heck there is a hospital in NJ that has its own POLICE DEPARTMENT!

While carrying a firearm is not directly related to medical treatment, as long as EMS personnel going to continue to be the targets of criminals, this issue is going to present itself. While sending LE to every call is ideal, in many systems it isnt a reality. In urban areas the cops have more calls then units available, so routine medical calls take lower priorities. In rural areas you have more miles to cover and less units to do it. Only in true suburban areas will you get cops on every call.

And until someone can explain why someone who holds a valid CCW permit must relinquish that right when they go on duty, it still wont make any sense


----------



## errey (Apr 14, 2013)

Oh the irony of this thread


----------



## Handsome Robb (Apr 14, 2013)

I'm still wondering what kind of uniforms y'all wear to carry concealed and not have to do backflips and yoga moves to get to said concealed firearm.

Where do you plan on concealing it? Only plausible spot I could think of would be an ankle holster and even then constantly kneeling with the hem of your pants riding up you're risking displaying the fact that you have a firearm.


----------



## STXmedic (Apr 14, 2013)

Robb said:


> I'm still wondering what kind of uniforms y'all wear to carry concealed and not have to do backflips and yoga moves to get to said concealed firearm.
> 
> Where do you plan on concealing it? Only plausible spot I could think of would be an ankle holster and even then constantly kneeling with the hem of your pants riding up you're risking displaying the fact that you have a firearm.



Actually, one of my favorite uniform shirts to wear (when I'm not in a tshirt  ) would make for very easy concealment and access:


----------



## Bullets (Apr 14, 2013)

Robb said:


> I'm still wondering what kind of uniforms y'all wear to carry concealed and not have to do backflips and yoga moves to get to said concealed firearm.
> 
> Where do you plan on concealing it? Only plausible spot I could think of would be an ankle holster and even then constantly kneeling with the hem of your pants riding up you're risking displaying the fact that you have a firearm.



Under your weak arm in a shoulder holster

take your button down shirts to any uniform supplier and they should be able to replace buttons 3 and 4 with snaps. On the surface they look like buttons but behind them they snap closed. Knife your hand between the plackets and they unsnap, allowing easy access to your firearm


----------



## usalsfyre (Apr 14, 2013)

Bullets said:


> Under your weak arm in a shoulder holster
> 
> take your button down shirts to any uniform supplier and they should be able to replace buttons 3 and 4 with snaps. On the surface they look like buttons but behind them they snap closed. Knife your hand between the plackets and they unsnap, allowing easy access to your firearm



Which also puts your hand in a very weak position if things go to rodeo...

The problem with CC...with handgun carry period even, is that you generally can't present it fast enough when surprised at the distances EMS deals with people. I've done the drills, even against a world class speed shooter I can be on top of him before he can make a good move to the gun.

Law enforcement officers generally have their gun out of they think things may get hinky. Most CCW instructors advise the same. By far the best tool you have sits on top of your shoulders. Watch your surroundings, what you say and how you say it. That's done far more to protect me than a gun. Off duty is one thing, I can set my distance and choose the situations I get myself into. On duty is another.


----------



## Rialaigh (Apr 14, 2013)

Bullets said:


> Heck there is a hospital in NJ that has its own POLICE DEPARTMENT!
> 
> While carrying a firearm is not directly related to medical treatment, as long as EMS personnel going to continue to be the targets of criminals, this issue is going to present itself. While sending LE to every call is ideal, in many systems it isnt a reality. In urban areas the cops have more calls then units available, so routine medical calls take lower priorities. In rural areas you have more miles to cover and less units to do it. Only in true suburban areas will you get cops on every call.
> 
> *And until someone can explain why someone who holds a valid CCW permit must relinquish that right when they go on duty, it still wont make any sense*




A concealed carry permit allows you to concealed carry in the areas that the government says are okay and your own property. As far as I know none of us have a government given right to defend ourselves while at work (when the work is not on your property). 

I'm not a fan of introducing firearms into the back of an ambulance period. And for those that say our job is dangerous, we go into the same situations as police, we are on unsafe scenes all the time, etc. I would argue being an industrial plant worker causes more injuries a year per 1,000 employees than EMS. 

I think EMS as a whole is a fairly safe industry. 

http://www.emsedsem.org/Prior Articles/EMS_Fatalities from JEMS.pdf


If you go off these statistics they say that 10 EMS workers were killed by homicide between 1992-1997, lets just assume 5 years. That's 2 deaths per year. 

They assumed 150,000 EMS workers as well based of BLS statistics. Thats 1.33 homicides per 100,000 EMS workers per year. The average homicide rate in the US is 4.7.

Okay so EMS workers are only on the job 40 hours a week lets say. So if you take the 1.33 and multiply it by 4.2 (this would assume every EMS worker on the job all day and night every day of the week). You get 5.6, which is really only marginally higher then the rate in the US as a whole. 

Granted small sample size but it was the only study I could pull up real quick. Fact is if you take out traffic related deaths from our job I believe that being an EMS professional is actually quite safer than many other jobs despite all our "dangerous situations" and "unfriendly people" that we deal with. 


I'm not a huge fan of this debate but I am just not sold that there is ANY evidence at all that any of the homicides in the last several years in EMS were in any way preventable by having firearms. And if you believe the numbers of 10 homicides in 5 years through the 90's I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue that even the benefit of preventing all 10 of them would outweigh the risk of having 150,000 EMS professionals carry firearms on them all the time on the job...


----------



## Action942Jackson (Apr 14, 2013)

In Kentucky, we have a new state law that prohibits public employers (Governments) from not allowing personnel to open or conceal carry.  It also prohibits governments the ability to ban guns on public property.  This was a recent bill that passed in February.  We are an open carry state as well.  We also do not have to register our guns.

So, majority of services are washing their hands clean and telling people you fire a gun your carrying its your own ***.  And if you decide to open carry, we will find a way to fire you.  There are two agencies in the state that have taken the proactive route and their entire department either conceals or open carries, but they are providing the necessary training beyond CCDW to do so.  

My county doesn't want any such liability so they've washed their hands clean. My wife is an EMT to the county to my south and almost came home in a casket the other day because of a crazed teenager going for a gun.  What makes matters worse was PD WAS on scene and didn't do anything about it until the kid had the gun in his hand.  

I've had three knives pulled on me while trying to work patients, majority of them while in the back of an ambulance. I've also had a shooter return to an active shooting scene and open fire on the cops, less then 50 ft from where my partner and I were.  

So, I pack, I've gotten my CCDW, and I currently carry my Sig P250 .45 Compact on my hip on duty. I will be attending further firearms training at my own expense.  Windbreaker over the weapon for concealment.  You can bash me with what ya want.  But my 1 year old son has almost paid the price of not having a mommy or daddy during our careers because of stupid people, retarded cops, and a crazed teen.  Our safety cannot be guaranteed by no one else but ourselves.


----------



## Action942Jackson (Apr 14, 2013)

It's HB500 and it specifically pertains to Firefighers, EMTs, and Paramedics.


----------



## wanderingmedic (Apr 14, 2013)

if you cant/ are not willing to deal with the danger public servants face, then find a new job. these threats to our safety have been around since the beginning of EMS. we risk ourselves so that others have a chance to survive. it does not matter how well armed, or armored we become, first responders will always face danger in the line of duty.


----------



## Action942Jackson (Apr 14, 2013)

azemtb255 said:


> if you cant/ are not willing to deal with the danger public servants face, then find a new job. these threats to our safety have been around since the beginning of EMS. we risk ourselves so that others have a chance to survive. it does not matter how well armed, or armored we become, first responders will always face danger in the line of duty.



Please stop with the hero mentality. As far as not being able to face these "threats" I've been a paramedic for 7 years and a EMT for 2, for a total of 9 years in this business.  I've had my fair share of dealing with these "threats".  

Lets just use your logic shall we?  If you claim that we accept these dangers.  Then whats the point in cops carrying guns, if they accept the dangers of being a cop? What's the point in arming our military, if by the jobs nature it is dangerous and they signed up for it? 

You and you alone are responsible for your safety.  Aka, "Scene Safety".

If we continue to turn a blind eye to this and not start now to take proactive approaches to our safety.  Whether its cops responding to all of our calls or carrying.  We are just as stupid as the fools who commit the crimes against us. 

Due to living in rural America where I have 5 cops for 30k people and 204 sq miles.  We cannot have a cop on every one of our scenes.  It's just unfortunately gonna happen.  And unfortunately.  In rural America, everyone is armed and there are a few crazy lunatics.


----------



## JPINFV (Apr 14, 2013)

eprex said:


> Jesus christ that guy was annoying.
> 
> 'No sir, you can't have my first name'


More annoying than the police officers conducting an illegal stop, and after his initial attempt to leave, an illegal detainment?


Also... since it bears repeating, treadmills and seatbelts would save more EMS lives than guns or knives. Strange how there's always an excuse on why those aren't needed.


----------



## Rialaigh (Apr 14, 2013)

JPINFV said:


> More annoying than the police officers conducting an illegal stop, and after his initial attempt to leave, an illegal detainment?
> 
> 
> *Also... since it bears repeating, treadmills and seatbelts would save more EMS lives than guns or knives. Strange how there's always an excuse on why those aren't needed*.




This, pointing back to the study I posted you can read how many died in vehicle accidents, and I bet many more than that died of ACS or Strokes during that same time period.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Apr 14, 2013)

Rialaigh said:


> A concealed carry permit allows you to concealed carry in the areas that the government says are okay and your own property. As far as I know none of us have a government given right to defend ourselves while at work (when the work is not on your property).
> 
> I'm not a fan of introducing firearms into the back of an ambulance period. And for those that say our job is dangerous, we go into the same situations as police, we are on unsafe scenes all the time, etc. I would argue being an industrial plant worker causes more injuries a year per 1,000 employees than EMS.
> 
> ...


Rights are Rights, they are not granted by the government.  Governments can attempt to restrict Rights, but they do NOT grant Rights.

And show me a law that says you are required to become a victim and are not allowed to defend yourself while you are at work...

I'll wait....


----------



## Aidey (Apr 14, 2013)

ffemt8978 said:


> Rights are Rights, they are not granted by the government.  Governments can attempt to restrict Rights, but they do NOT grant Rights.
> 
> And show me a law that says you are required to become a victim and are not allowed to defend yourself while you are at work...
> 
> I'll wait....



In this case it is a little of both. Governments allow a long list of public and private entities to restrict gun rights on their premises. If it was an absolute then more places would have laws saying no one but a private person in their own home can restrict access if you have a gun.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Apr 14, 2013)

Aidey said:


> In this case it is a little of both. Governments allow a long list of public and private entities to restrict gun rights on their premises. If it was an absolute then more places would have laws saying no one but a private person in their own home can restrict access if you have a gun.



Not entirely true...

There is no law that says you must give up your inherent Right to Self Defense simply because you go to work.  There are laws that restrict how you can defend yourself, but there is none that says you can not defend yourself.


----------



## Aidey (Apr 14, 2013)

But there is also no law saying that everyone must grant access to people with a gun. That omission means that access can be restricted. It might not be directly restricted by the government, but they also aren't outlawing it.


----------



## Handsome Robb (Apr 14, 2013)

Bullets said:


> Under your weak arm in a shoulder holster
> 
> take your button down shirts to any uniform supplier and they should be able to replace buttons 3 and 4 with snaps. On the surface they look like buttons but behind them they snap closed. Knife your hand between the plackets and they unsnap, allowing easy access to your firearm



Gotcha. Ours zip up with fake buttons covering the zipper. Blauer makes them. Wouldn't work for me unless I paid out the nose to have all my uniform shirts re-issued in the 5.11 style.


----------



## Rialaigh (Apr 14, 2013)

ffemt8978 said:


> Not entirely true...
> 
> There is no law that says you must give up your inherent Right to Self Defense simply because you go to work.  There are laws that restrict how you can defend yourself, but there is none that says you can not defend yourself.



And there is no law saying you can't quit and find another job that allows you to practice your right to self defense on private property. When you step off of your property onto property maintained and owned by someone else you are going from a right to self defense to a privilege granted to you by that property owner.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Apr 14, 2013)

Rialaigh said:


> And there is no law saying you can't quit and find another job that allows you to practice your right to self defense on private property. When you step off of your property onto property maintained and owned by someone else you are going from a right to self defense to a privilege granted to you by that property owner.



Prove it...


----------



## JPINFV (Apr 14, 2013)

I think the catch here is that you always have a right to self defense. However, the tools available to exercise that right can be restricted by both society and property owners.


----------



## Rialaigh (Apr 14, 2013)

ffemt8978 said:


> Prove it...



Private property owners can grant access to property based on contingencies. I can have you over for a cookout on my private property, you can get drunk, that's all within the law, then I can have you removed because your drunk (or any other reason at all). I can then create a policy that says your free to come to my property but if you drink on it I will have you removed. I'm not taking away your "right" to drink, I'm taking away your privilege to drink on my property. 

To put it in better terms people always should have the right to food or the right to sustenance for life, That does not mean I have to let you eat on my property. I am not "killing you" or condemning you to dying of starvation because you can't eat on my property. I'm just telling you you have to do it elsewhere. 


The back of an ambulance is not public property, Neither is the station you run out of. Private property owners make the rules. When you step off the curb into the back of an ambulance you are entering private property and if the property owner doesn't want firearms on the ambulance, you abide or find another job.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Apr 14, 2013)

Rialaigh said:


> Private property owners can grant access to property based on contingencies. I can have you over for a cookout on my private property, you can get drunk, that's all within the law, then I can have you removed because your drunk (or any other reason at all). I can then create a policy that says your free to come to my property but if you drink on it I will have you removed. I'm not taking away your "right" to drink, I'm taking away your privilege to drink on my property.
> 
> To put it in better terms people always should have the right to food or the right to sustenance for life, That does not mean I have to let you eat on my property. I am not "killing you" or condemning you to dying of starvation because you can't eat on my property. I'm just telling you you have to do it elsewhere.
> 
> ...


Now we're getting somewhere...

Like I said earlier, the government doesn't grant rights but it can restrict them.  And through those restrictions, private property owners can impose restrictions.  However, restricting a right is a far cry from turning it into a "privilege" as you stated.

To continue with a side note, you stated "The back of an ambulance is not public property, Neither is the station you run out of."  Wouldn't this depend upon if you are a public agency or a private company?


----------



## ffemt8978 (Apr 14, 2013)

JPINFV said:


> I think the catch here is that you always have a right to self defense. However, the tools available to exercise that right can be restricted by both society and property owners.



This is the point I am trying to make.  However, a restriction on a right does not turn that right into a privilege.


----------



## Rialaigh (Apr 14, 2013)

ffemt8978 said:


> Now we're getting somewhere...
> 
> Like I said earlier, the government doesn't grant rights but it can restrict them.  And through those restrictions, private property owners can impose restrictions.  However, restricting a right is a far cry from turning it into a "privilege" as you stated.
> 
> To continue with a side note, you stated "The back of an ambulance is not public property, Neither is the station you run out of."  *Wouldn't this depend upon if you are a public agency or a private company*?



No, public property is a subset of state or federal property. Stations, the property they lie on, and ambulances would fall under a different subset of state (or county or city) property. 


And as far as restricting a right verse turning it into a privilege. I am not of the belief that people have the "right" to defend themselves with any means they feel necessary at any time and any place. I am of the belief that people have the right to reasonably defend themselves. The reasonably applies to choice of defense, time, and place. I believe anything above and beyond that is a privilege


----------



## Aidey (Apr 14, 2013)

Rialaigh said:


> The back of an ambulance is not public property, Neither is the station you run out of. Private property owners make the rules. When you step off the curb into the back of an ambulance you are entering private property and if the property owner doesn't want firearms on the ambulance, you abide or find another job.



Besides the back of the amb and your station, you've got the the schools, hospitals, jails, nursing homes, libraries, court houses, etc that all have signs saying "Weapon Free Zone" or something along those lines. There are plenty of places we go into that do not allow people to carry.


----------



## Rialaigh (Apr 14, 2013)

Back to the original topic though. I haven't looked but I didn't really see anyone bring up a percentage or study on "preventable" homicides in EMS. And by preventable I mean preventable if the EMS provider had been carrying a weapon. I am just not of the belief that there are enough preventable homicides or injuries preventable by carrying to justify the significant risk.


----------



## Rialaigh (Apr 14, 2013)

Aidey said:


> Besides the back of the amb and your station, you've got the the schools, hospitals, jails, nursing homes, libraries, court houses, etc that all have signs saying "Weapon Free Zone" or something along those lines. There are plenty of places we go into that do not allow people to carry.



Libraries are the only place in that list considered public property if I am not mistaken, and I have no issue if you want to argue we can carry in libraries, I'm fine with that. Everything else on that list is a different subset of property.


----------



## JPINFV (Apr 14, 2013)

Aidey said:


> Besides the back of the amb and your station, you've got the the schools, hospitals, jails, nursing homes, libraries, court houses, etc that all have signs saying "Weapon Free Zone" or something along those lines. There are plenty of places we go into that do not allow people to carry.


The only way those signs prevent people from carrying is if you pull it off the wall and beat them over the head with it.


----------



## JPINFV (Apr 14, 2013)

Rialaigh said:


> Private property owners can grant access to property based on contingencies. I can have you over for a cookout on my private property, you can get drunk, that's all within the law, then I can have you removed because your drunk (or any other reason at all). I can then create a policy that says your free to come to my property but if you drink on it I will have you removed. I'm not taking away your "right" to drink, I'm taking away your privilege to drink on my property.




Drunk in pub-lic?


----------



## Aidey (Apr 14, 2013)

Rialaigh said:


> Libraries are the only place in that list considered public property if I am not mistaken, and I have no issue if you want to argue we can carry in libraries, I'm fine with that. Everything else on that list is a different subset of property.



That was my point. Plenty of places we go every day already prohibit carrying a gun. We really aren't "in public" all that much.


----------



## BandageBrigade (Apr 15, 2013)

Aidey said:


> Besides the back of the amb and your station, you've got the the schools, hospitals, jails, nursing homes, libraries, court houses, etc that all have signs saying "Weapon Free Zone" or something along those lines. There are plenty of places we go into that do not allow people to carry.



Excluding special circumstances such as jails and the like; in many cases if I walk into a place (that has a gun or weapons free zone sign) with a concealed firearm and you find out. All that can happen is you call the cops and I maybe get a trespassing charge.


----------



## DrParasite (Apr 15, 2013)

Rialaigh said:


> \As far as I know none of us have a government given right to defend ourselves while at work (when the work is not on your property).


wait what?  you don't have a right to defend yourself at work?  

So let me get this straight: you are working on the ambulance, in my house treating my mom, and I decide to start beating you with a baseball bat.  for no reason at all, other than I'm drunk.  you don't have a right to do anything to stop me?

or you ar working and I, who is your boss, and I start yelling at you, and end up hitting you with a chair... you don't have the right to defend yourself?

or your back on the truck, and I am high as a kite on PCP.  you get called to the unknown problem, no PD available, so they send you to check it out.  Once you knock on the door, I answer and start beating the crap out of you, just because I can.  Just so we are all clear, based on your statement, you can't do anything about it, because you don't have a "government given right to defend [yourself] while at work."  

Everyone has the right to defend themselves, when faced with a threat to their life or limb.  No one goes to work expecting not to come home.  Yes, we should all avoid said bad situations, let the LEOs handle them, but if push comes to shove, and you end up trapped in a bad situation where your life is threatened, you absolutely have a right to defend yourself and go down fighting.  and anyone who tells you otherwise if a F'n moron.


----------



## Rialaigh (Apr 15, 2013)

DrParasite said:


> wait what?  you don't have a right to defend yourself at work?
> 
> So let me get this straight: you are working on the ambulance, in my house treating my mom, and I decide to start beating you with a baseball bat.  for no reason at all, other than I'm drunk.  you don't have a right to do anything to stop me?
> 
> ...



I said government given right, as in Law. And it was in specific reference to guns....as the discussion topic says. 

I am all for the right to reasonable defense. That means reasonable force (weapon choice or defense choice), reasonable time, and reasonable place...


----------



## BandageBrigade (Apr 15, 2013)

Rialaigh said:


> Back to the original topic though. I haven't looked but I didn't really see anyone bring up a percentage or study on "preventable" homicides in EMS. And by preventable I mean preventable if the EMS provider had been carrying a weapon. I am just not of the belief that there are enough preventable homicides or injuries preventable by carrying to justify the significant risk.



Not stating that I am for or against carrying on duty, but is one preventable homicide not enough to make you think attitudes or policy's need changed?


----------



## JPINFV (Apr 15, 2013)

Rialaigh said:


> I said government given right, as in Law. And it was in specific reference to guns....as the discussion topic says.



In political theory, rights are not granted by the government. They may be enumerated, but they aren't "granted." 

Of course theory and practice tend to differ, especially in non-free societies.


----------



## FLdoc2011 (Apr 15, 2013)

Rialaigh said:


> Back to the original topic though. I haven't looked but I didn't really see anyone bring up a percentage or study on "preventable" homicides in EMS. And by preventable I mean preventable if the EMS provider had been carrying a weapon. I am just not of the belief that there are enough preventable homicides or injuries preventable by carrying to justify the significant risk.



What's the significant risk?  You bring it up like there's would be a known, significant risk JUST from the act of concealed carry.

The act alone just doesn't bring that risk in my opinion.   In just about every state you have a large number of citizens who routine concealed carry or open carry on a daily basis and there haven't been stories of guns suddenly going off, or carriers shooting each other or cities turning into Wild West frontiers.... 

I think it's an individual decision.   If the state law doesn't forbid it then I think you guys should be able to.   It could certainly be within the companies domain (a public agency may be different) to not allow it,  but if not then I have no problem with it.

I personally conceal carry, but I do it for protection of me and my family.   It is by no means in the hope or thought of preventing a crime I may come across. It is a tool for personal protection and something I would have no trouble you guys have available as well.


----------



## Clipper1 (Apr 15, 2013)

FLdoc2011 said:


> I personally conceal carry, but I do it for protection of me and my family.   It is by no means in the hope or thought of preventing a crime I may come across. It is a tool for personal protection and something I would have no trouble you guys have available as well.



Do you carry while working in the  hospital?  The administration approves?

Is there at least a secure locker for you and the Paramedics to place your weapons in at work? 

Considering all the bad situations which have occurred in the ERs because of weapons and close working conditions, I don't see this as a wise decision.  I am all for personal protection at home but when your hands are busy working a patient, you may not notice how vulnerable you weapon is.


----------



## FLdoc2011 (Apr 15, 2013)

Clipper1 said:


> Do you carry while working in the  hospital?  The administration approves?
> 
> Is there at least a secure locker for you and the Paramedics to place your weapons in at work?
> 
> Considering all the bad situations which have occurred in the ERs because of weapons and close working conditions, I don't see this as a wise decision.  I am all for personal protection at home but when your hands are busy working a patient, you may not notice how vulnerable you weapon is.



I don't carry at work.   Personal decision with many factors.... Just not practical for what I do, I'm sure hospital admin would not "approve", and I'm at times back and forth from a local VA hospital (federal facility so legally no weapons).

But what bad situations are you referring to?  Are these bad situations involving a lawful firearm carrier, or are these gang bangers who were carrying a glove loose in their waistband or someone intent on causing harm coming in with that intention....  different scenarios than what I think is being proposed here.


----------



## Rialaigh (Apr 15, 2013)

BandageBrigade said:


> Not stating that I am for or against carrying on duty, but is one preventable homicide not enough to make you think attitudes or policy's need changed?



1 life is not even close enough for me to even think about it. To make good economical decisions (Especially in healthcare) you have to put a value on a life. And frankly arming 150,000 (or even a significant fraction) EMS workers that deal with drunks, druggies, violent patients, and the like on a daily basis in cramped situations, darkness, chaos, etc etc...seems like a terrible idea. Frankly I would bet that if we armed 150,000 EMS workers who worked full time we would have more then 10 shootings this year that involved the patient taking the gun or accidental discharge. The study I pulled up showed 10 total homicides over 5 years (who knows if any were preventable) 

I hate to be cold and calculated about a persons life but you have to be when making good economical decisions.


----------



## Rialaigh (Apr 15, 2013)

FLdoc2011 said:


> *What's the significant risk?*  You bring it up like there's would be a known, significant risk JUST from the act of concealed carry.
> 
> The act alone just doesn't bring that risk in my opinion.   In just about every state you have a large number of citizens who routine concealed carry or open carry on a daily basis and there haven't been stories of guns suddenly going off, or carriers shooting each other or cities turning into Wild West frontiers....
> 
> ...




EMS workers as a generalization get in physical altercations with patients on a very very frequent basis in cramped spaces. The EMT that I was with 2 weeks ago got bit by a 20 year old female, broke skin through her sweatshirt and tshirt on the shoulder, and It took every bit of all 3 of us to get her held down to the stretcher. Having a gun in any situation like that is not going to help me worth a darn and its going to be a decent risk to have a loaded (especially one in the chamber) fire arm in a situation in which both my hands are tied up doing something (like attempting to hold the patient) and the patient is still not controlled. 

The only inherent risk to carrying concealed is yourself. There are many risks however to carrying concealed *within an EMS setting*.


----------



## usalsfyre (Apr 15, 2013)

Rialaigh said:


> I am all for the right to reasonable defense. That means reasonable force (weapon choice or defense choice), reasonable time, and reasonable place...


How in Hades do you make THAT determination beforehand?


----------



## Bullets (Apr 15, 2013)

Rialaigh said:


> 1 life is not even close enough for me to even think about it. To make good economical decisions (Especially in healthcare) you have to put a value on a life. And frankly arming 150,000 (or even a significant fraction) EMS workers that deal with drunks, druggies, violent patients, and the like on a daily basis in cramped situations, darkness, chaos, etc etc...seems like a terrible idea. Frankly I would bet that if we armed 150,000 EMS workers who worked full time we would have more then 10 shootings this year that involved the patient taking the gun or accidental discharge. The study I pulled up showed 10 total homicides over 5 years (who knows if any were preventable)
> 
> I hate to be cold and calculated about a persons life but you have to be when making good economical decisions.



How many EMTs were assaulted last year? There is more to this then just instances of homicide


----------



## CFal (Apr 15, 2013)

DrParasite said:


> Because the public (and many in this field) want you to remain a soft target, that people know they can both push around and attack because you aren't allowed to carry weapons to shoot back.
> 
> I'm far from a gun nut, but as Bullets said, it's a very hypocritical point of view.
> 
> ...



I did read it, it is just one of the reasons for assigning PD to EMS calls.


----------



## JPINFV (Apr 15, 2013)

Bullets said:


> How many EMTs were assaulted last year? There is more to this then just instances of homicide




Assault!=right to use deadly force. 

Unfortunately, firearms are one trick ponies. Shoot someone who assaulted you with their fists and there's a good chance you're the one going to jail. Also assaults from psych/neuro/altered patients by and large don't count. That's just a perk of the job.


----------



## errey (Apr 15, 2013)

JPINFV said:


> Assault!=right to use deadly force.
> 
> Unfortunately, firearms are one trick ponies. Shoot someone who assaulted you with their fists and there's a good chance you're the one going to jail. Also assaults from psych/neuro/altered patients by and large don't count. That's just a perk of the job.



100% agree, so are we treating our victim, I mean patient after we shoot them :unsure:  On a serious note I don't see any good that would ever come from it.  Not that my opinion matters as my country would never allow this, however the thought of having to defend myself while working doesn't even cross my mind.  I am way more worried of getting in some type of traffic accident then someone trying to shoot me, plus I don't think it's very professional just as I wouldn't think it would be professional if my doctor was carrying a gun while examining me.  I can see where potential problems could arise, for instance one who is carrying a gun may feel more confident to handle a certain situation rather than calling for authorities.  And the consequences of you using your firearm on the job could be career ending.  If the general populace and the government thought it was necessary for EMS personnel to carry a firearm they would of issued you one.  Oh and to whoever provided those stats, those ten homicides of EMS personnel was that on or off the job you never mentioned?


----------



## Clipper1 (Apr 15, 2013)

FLdoc2011 said:


> But what bad situations are you referring to?



Lawful carry by armed Security and Police in the ER.  There are also reasons why Police and Correction Officer place their weapons in a secure box before entering certain areas.


----------



## Bullets (Apr 15, 2013)

JPINFV said:


> Assault!=right to use deadly force.
> 
> Unfortunately, firearms are one trick ponies. Shoot someone who assaulted you with their fists and there's a good chance you're the one going to jail. Also assaults from psych/neuro/altered patients by and large don't count. That's just a perk of the job.



im not saying assault automatically requires deadly force

But just looking at successful homicides doesnt show the whole story either.


----------



## DrParasite (Apr 15, 2013)

JPINFV said:


> Shoot someone who assaulted you with their fists and there's a good chance you're the one going to jail. Also assaults from psych/neuro/altered patients by and large don't count. That's just a perk of the job.


Not always.  People have been beaten to death with their fists.

and assaults by psychs absolutely do count.  cops can and have used their guns when psych patients have threatened them.  usually when they are armed and refuse to drop their weapons.  Just because they are crazy doesn't mean they have the right to hurt their providers

do I want to shoot anyone?  absolutely not.  does any cop want to shoot anyone?  well, maybe a select few, but they are by far the minority.  But I still want to go home after every shift, using whatever means I can.


----------



## Action942Jackson (Apr 15, 2013)

If we don't do something, we are all stupid for doing nothing.  Something has to change.  This isn't the 1970s were your invited for tea and crumpets by the family in the afternoon after the call you ran saved their child's life in the morning.  How many incidents of public safety hostage situations, being shot on duty, assaulted happened in the 1970s vs today?


----------



## DrParasite (Apr 15, 2013)

btw, sometimes we are just lucky that the bullet doesn't kill a paramedic.... but I know that doesn't count for some peoples numbers about EMS personnel who are killed in the line of duty

http://statter911.com/2013/04/15/88...all-berekely-ca-firefighter-grazed-by-bullet/


----------



## JPINFV (Apr 15, 2013)

DrParasite said:


> Not always.  People have been beaten to death with their fists.


I won't argue that it doesn't happen. However the vast vast majority of assault by fists don't rise to that level. 



> and assaults by psychs absolutely do count.  cops can and have used their guns when psych patients have threatened them.  usually when they are armed and refuse to drop their weapons.  Just because they are crazy doesn't mean they have the right to hurt their providers


So your psych patient is resisting restraints and smacks you. You're going to back off and draw down on the patient? Shoot them if they continue to resist?

It's about the right tool for the job, and this is like using a sledge hammer when a pin hammer would work.


----------



## Action942Jackson (Apr 15, 2013)

You know the difference of intent when you are slapped vs. someone goes for your throat.  That's the difference.  Slapped, eh.   Perk of the job.  You go for my throat.  You will die.  Plain and simple.


----------



## JPINFV (Apr 15, 2013)

Action942Jackson said:


> If we don't do something, we are all stupid for doing nothing.  Something has to change.  This isn't the 1970s were your invited for tea and crumpets by the family in the afternoon after the call you ran saved their child's life in the morning.  How many incidents of public safety hostage situations, being shot on duty, assaulted happened in the 1970s vs today?



The "OMG WE MUST DO SOMETHING... ANYTHING," attitude only results in I intended consequences, and never anything good.


----------



## Rialaigh (Apr 15, 2013)

Bullets said:


> How many EMTs were assaulted last year? There is more to this then just instances of homicide



 You can't start shooting everyone that assaults you (I mean I guess you could make a case that you could). I have very little faith that firearms are going to prevent the majority of assaults that EMS is subjected to. If you are going to give EMS firearms and allow them to shoot people that assault them you also have to give them handcuffs and tasers. There has to be some escalating scale of force used, you can't just go from nothing to shooting people. 

If you shot every person in the back of the ambulance that threatened to kill or harm you and then physically hit you or kicked you how many people would you have hurt/killed last year...a lot more then the 10 EMS personnel that the study I posted were killed over 5 years. 

We can't start making our life that much more valuable then our patients life. There has to be some form of balance. The same reason cops don't shoot every single person that puts their hand in their pocket, would less cops get shot at each year, yes, but would way more innocent civilians be shot each year, yes. 




usalsfyre said:


> How in Hades do you make THAT determination beforehand?



There has to be a line. If I have the right to defend myself from the government as well then I should have the right to carry an anti aircraft gun every time I am anywhere because heaven forbid someone try to use an aircraft to shoot at me. Drug cartels are starting to use submarines to bring drugs into the US, does that mean I can arm my little salt water fishing boat with torpedo's? 

There has to be reasonable justification that carrying could have a possible difference. 



Action942Jackson said:


> If we don't do something, we are all stupid for doing nothing.  Something has to change.  This isn't the 1970s were your invited for tea and crumpets by the family in the afternoon after the call you ran saved their child's life in the morning.  How many incidents of public safety hostage situations, being shot on duty, assaulted happened in the 1970s vs today?



I would put money more assaults happened on duty in the 80's and 90's verse today (when you take out clinical psych patients). I sure as heck have not seen anything to indicate otherwise.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Apr 15, 2013)

Rialaigh said:


> I would put money more assaults happened on duty in the 80's and 90's verse today (when you take out clinical psych patients). I sure as heck have not seen anything to indicate otherwise.



You might want to check with DT4EMS about that...


----------



## Rialaigh (Apr 15, 2013)

ffemt8978 said:


> You might want to check with DT4EMS about that...



I went out of my way to post a study supporting what I am saying, I haven't seen a single piece of data supporting carrying guns at all in this thread...

and honestly, I don't care enough about this topic to search out the other side 

homicides is about the 30th "leading" cause of death in EMS...it is waaay down the list.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Apr 15, 2013)

It doesn't have to be a homicide to be a problem.  How about violent assaults?


----------



## Rialaigh (Apr 15, 2013)

ffemt8978 said:


> It doesn't have to be a homicide to be a problem.  How about violent assaults?



Need to be dealt with with non lethal means when possible, The difference between physical restraint and guns are too great. There ought to be at least one option between the two. I'm not a believer that concealed carry will prevent violent assaults in EMS, by the time the assault begins in a cramped space you only have two options, let the assault continue or shoot the person. Neither of those options reduces injuries, fatalities, or medical costs.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Apr 15, 2013)

Rialaigh said:


> Need to be dealt with with non lethal means when possible, The difference between physical restraint and guns are too great. There ought to be at least one option between the two. I'm not a believer that concealed carry will prevent violent assaults in EMS, by the time the assault begins in a cramped space you only have two options, let the assault continue or shoot the person. Neither of those options reduces injuries, fatalities, or medical costs.



Wow...


Just wow.


----------



## DrParasite (Apr 15, 2013)

Rialaigh said:


> I went out of my way to post a study supporting what I am saying, I haven't seen a single piece of data supporting carrying guns at all in this thread...


What type of data are you looking for?  

I have read an articles about EMS crews being armed and assault going down (openly carrying), an article saying EMS are soft targets and will continue to be attacked, and there have been published cases of EMS crews being held hostage, held at gun point, assaulted, and even killed while working.  

Then there is the logic of "gun free zones;" all the law abiding citizens will not have firearms, but the bad guys will ignore them, bring their guns, and be able to shoot everyone knowing the victims are following the law and unable to shoot back.  So i know the ambulance people aren't armed, and there are only two of them; what's the wrost they can do to me if I wanted to threaten them with harm if they didn't do what I say?

I'm not saying concealed carry is the answer.  In fact, I'd argue openly carrying is much more of a deterant to assaults, but that also means that an expection can be made that you would draw should the situation arise.  But that's another topic.

So again I ask, what data do you want, and how much do you want?


----------



## RocketMedic (Apr 15, 2013)

Yesterday, I restrained a cooperative man. He was a schizophrenic, 180 pound, muscular, pleasant, hungry man who wanted help with the voices in his head and violent thoughts. I was polite and professional, but we were both safe with him in appropriate 4-point restraints. We had a great time, hes a pleasant patient and we offloaded with him laughing and generally happy.  My partner understood perfectly, but u/a at an ER, another medic commented to me that "You know you can't restrain people, that's illegal. You're taking their rights." I got blown off when I informed him that my use of restraints is no different than a seat belt- they are there for patient and crew safety. According to this medic, this paragon of goodness and Starcare, the most appropriate answer is to simply wait until there's a fight, then "choke him out or use oxygen". Yeah. That's the level of stupidity we're dealing with. Safe, calm, cooperative patients and transports are "illegal", but undocumented assaults with possible serious injury to both parties are OK. As for whether the fight starts, let's roll the dice. "But he's being unlawfully detained" doesn't fly. The restraints are four extra seatbelts protecting us from eachother and ourselves.

I have never actually been in a true knock-down fight alone in a truck. Maybe its luck, or maybe its because I restrain preemptively. Maybe its both. Yes, there are times when I with I had a revolver or a holdout gun in my pocket, but those are also times where I should be getting out of the house. I'm all for carry too, but lets get there the right way and implement it in such a way that we educate and train our people appropriately. Mr. "Restraints-Are-Bad" is not who I want on a belligerent drunk, and he's certainly not the one who needs to have a firearm on-duty.

Universal carry, mandatory training just like the police. Thats the only way EMS carry is workable.


----------



## Rialaigh (Apr 15, 2013)

DrParasite said:


> What type of data are you looking for?
> 
> I have read an articles about EMS crews being armed and assault going down (openly carrying), an article saying EMS are soft targets and will continue to be attacked, and there have been published cases of EMS crews being held hostage, held at gun point, assaulted, and even killed while working.
> 
> ...



I haven't seen any concrete data showing EMS is more of a target for homicides, shootings, and stabbings, then the general public. I would say we are at a much much much greater risk for assault. However I can't see a lot of situations in which carrying concealed prevents an assault or reduces fatalities or injuries in assaults. I have seen data showing that in a situation in which there are people fighting without guns no one gets shot. And in situations in which guns are introduced more people get shot....that's just a fact. Introducing guns into the back of an ambulance where on 99.99% of calls there were previously no firearms, is increasing the risk of a firearm related incident. I don't see any data showing that the benefit of having firearms outweighs this risk.


----------



## Rialaigh (Apr 15, 2013)

ffemt8978 said:


> Wow...
> 
> 
> Just wow.



wow what, show me I am wrong. Situations in which you shoot the the patient instead of the patient punching you in the face does not solve more problems then it creates...its not a good solution to EMS assaults.


I guess lets look at this very simply. Law enforcement has been doing this for years. There is a reason they use non-deadly force in the VAST MAJORITY of assaults on officers. Because it is the best option we currently have available (mostly in the form of a TASER). If law enforcement was forced to shoot every person that they had previously tased do you think we, the general public, would like LEO's very much....they would be killing thousands of people a year. EMS is no different, the VAST majority of incidents can be safely mitigated with a TASER while introducing a much more minimal risk into the environment of the assault. Why insist on guns when we have a much better solution that reduces risk, increases utilization, and requires less training to use effectively.


----------



## DrParasite (Apr 15, 2013)

Rocketmedic40 said:


> I have never actually been in a true knock-down fight alone in a truck. Maybe its luck, or maybe its because I restrain preemptively. Maybe its both.


one of my coworkers was.  on a 911 job, she picked up a psych who was calm.  no PD with her.  she was in the back of the ambulance alone, and while transporting, the EDP unbuckled herself, and promptly whooped her ***.  She suffered permanent brain damage from having her head repeatedly slammed into the side of the ambulance, was out of work for more 6 months, while she relearned how to walk, talk and function.  

to this day, she still can't see well, she forgets things, she has issues with bright lights, and she hasn't set foot on an ambulance since.

So yeah, it does happen.  i don't think having a firearm would have helped in her case, but it absolutely doesn't happen to EMS providers.


----------



## Aidey (Apr 15, 2013)

Not to down play what happened to your coworker, but how many EMS people have brain damage from assaults vs ambulance crashes? Like JP has said before, seat belts and cardio would save way more lives than anything. Every time something happens people start screaming we need guns, but when a crash happens, people don't give vehicle safety nearly as much attention.


----------



## Rialaigh (Apr 15, 2013)

Aidey said:


> Not to down play what happened to your coworker, but how many EMS people have brain damage from assaults vs ambulance crashes?



Or strokes... :unsure:


----------



## RocketMedic (Apr 15, 2013)

Aidey said:


> Not to down play what happened to your coworker, but how many EMS people have brain damage from assaults vs ambulance crashes? Like JP has said before, seat belts and cardio would save way more lives than anything. Every time something happens people start screaming we need guns, but when a crash happens, people don't give vehicle safety nearly as much attention.



Ambulance crashes cannot be prevented by patient restraints. Fights can be.


----------



## JPINFV (Apr 15, 2013)

Rocketmedic40 said:


> Ambulance crashes cannot be prevented by patient restraints. Fights can be.




So your firearm is going to stop the psych patient from charging you in the ambulance?


----------



## truetiger (Apr 15, 2013)

Anyone see the story about the Cali fire fighters fired on while on an ems call?


----------



## Aidey (Apr 15, 2013)

Anyone see the story about the Alabama FF who shot another FF on a call, while trying to take down a cow?


----------



## Clipper1 (Apr 15, 2013)

truetiger said:


> Anyone see the story about the Cali fire fighters fired on while on an ems call?



An 88 y/o decided he didn't want treatment decided to exercise his right to defend himself.


----------



## truetiger (Apr 15, 2013)

I'm not sue why you down play violence on ems? You cite ambulance crashes, which are addressed by cevo and courses like it, this topic addresses violence against us.


----------



## Aidey (Apr 15, 2013)

truetiger said:


> I'm not sue why you down play violence on ems? You cite ambulance crashes, which are addressed by cevo and courses like it, this topic addresses violence against us.



CEVO is just one thing, and I bet nearly every person killed in an ambulance or POV crash while responding has taken CEVO...and they still died. Concealed carry doesn't address violence against EMS. It just complicates things.


----------



## JPINFV (Apr 15, 2013)

truetiger said:


> I'm not sue why you down play violence on ems? You cite ambulance crashes, which are addressed by cevo and courses like it, this topic addresses violence against us.



Except that in all but a small minority of incidences, having a firearm does nothing to protect you either because it is not proportional to the point of illegality to use it or because it's impractical (21 foot rule).


----------



## RocketMedic (Apr 15, 2013)

JPINFV said:


> So your firearm is going to stop the psych patient from charging you in the ambulance?



If needed, yes. Better their neutralization than my injury.


----------



## Aidey (Apr 15, 2013)

Rocketmedic40 said:


> If needed, yes. Better their neutralization than my injury.



Are you really prepared to shoot every drunk/psych/drugged out pt who doesn't comply when you pull a gun on them?


----------



## RocketMedic (Apr 15, 2013)

Aidey said:


> Are you really prepared to shoot every drunk/psych/drugged out pt who doesn't comply when you pull a gun on them?



No, but I am prepared to shoot every drunk that poses a risk to my life by assaulting me, if I judge there is a risk to my life. If I cannot avoid, outrun, or outfight trouble, I can neutralize it.

A gun would not be my first option, but it does massively expand my defensive options. Take DrParasite's partner0. She was placed in a life-threatening scenario, partially of her own creation, and nearly died for it. If something similar happened to me, Id rather have a gun and  end the fight than risk dead at the crazed hands of an EDP.


----------



## mycrofft (Apr 16, 2013)

*Far be it from me to be a wetter blanket than I am usually...*

When I first started here, no one would call the madness of arming ambulance and fire personnel. Now I read lots of folks bringing up the opposing opinion. Good on us.

I sincerely hope and doubt that anywhere nearly as many of the fine people on this forum are half as "prepared" to shoot someone as they say, or think they are.

Of course, carrying a firearm, knife, or plumber's helper will have one that much more prepared to act, since we all know "When you have a hammer with you, it's amazing how everything you see needs a good bash". Or shot, stabbed, or plunged. 

The study I/we undertook here last year about homicides on prehospital EMS by patients or bystanders (very rare), the polling we've done here, and commonsense (EMS companies can't keep their people proficient and equipped to do their medical jobs as it is, much less the conniptions related to carrying firearms on the job) all indicate that this black hole of EMTLIFE, while it is resurgent, is as valid a use of time as arguing about working EMS on horseback in an urban environment or making patients walk to the ambulance. Constitutional amendment arguments about finding an excuse to carry guns have naught to do with saving or assisting people.


----------



## RocketMedic (Apr 16, 2013)

Horse EMS would rock.


----------



## Hockey (Apr 16, 2013)

Aidey said:


> Anyone see the story about the *Alabama *FF who shot another FF on a call, while trying to take down a cow?




Need I say more?


----------



## AtlasFlyer (Apr 16, 2013)

There are more ways to defend yourself than *just* with a gun.

Guns have their place (I'm 100% pro gun rights and fully support FULL 2nd amendment rights), but the close quarters of the back of an ambulance is a challenging tactical environment. I'm not going to say a complete NO to EMS carrying, but there are alternatives that don't involve firearms in that situation.

ANYTHING is a weapon or a defensive mechanism, particularly in a close-contact situation. A pen, clipboard, laptop, the heel of your hand, elbows... No one is ever 100% completely safe, but for as useful a tool as a gun is (and that's what a gun is, a tool), it's not the right tool for every situation. 

If you are going to CCW as an EMS worker, secure that weapon at ALL times, consider some close-quarters training, as pilots who participate in the FFDO program have to. A gun in the cockpit of an airliner is not a bad thing, but pilots in the FFDO program undergo specific training to learn how to best & safely utilize a gun in the close confines of an aircraft cockpit environment.


----------



## Bullets (Apr 16, 2013)

JPINFV said:


> I won't argue that it doesn't happen. However the vast vast majority of assault by fists don't rise to that level.
> 
> 
> So your psych patient is resisting restraints and smacks you. You're going to back off and draw down on the patient? Shoot them if they continue to resist?


Hyperbole


Rialaigh said:


> You can't start shooting everyone that assaults you (I mean I guess you could make a case that you could). I have very little faith that firearms are going to prevent the majority of assaults that EMS is subjected to. If you are going to give EMS firearms and allow them to shoot people that assault them you also have to give them handcuffs and tasers. There has to be some escalating scale of force used, you can't just go from nothing to shooting people.


Hyperbole


Aidey said:


> Are you really prepared to shoot every drunk/psych/drugged out pt who doesn't comply when you pull a gun on them?


Hyperbole


Lots and lots of hyperbole in this thread

I have yet to see one post in this thread advocating EMS shoot anyone who looks at you funny or pisses you off on a bad day

Everyone who has presented an argument for EMS to carry a firearm has done so within the confines of appropriate force-on-force response

And ive yet to see a valid reason for denying someone who holds a valid CCW permit their right to carry when working, provided their employer allows it. The rules for carrying are the same whether you are working or not


----------



## Aidey (Apr 16, 2013)

That wasn't hyperbole. It was a dead serious question. One of the core tenants of gun safety is to never point a gun at something/someone you aren't prepared to shoot. 

Just because you are able to dismiss all the arguments against concealed carry in EMS doesn't mean they aren't valid. Guns are a poor self defense tool in the EMS setting. We operate in close quarters and the 21 foot rule applies. We go into a lot of places where you are not allowed to carry. And saying "they will never know" is beyond a crappy excuse to violate someone else's property rights.


----------



## CFal (Apr 16, 2013)

I'm a big 2A supporter as well, but I feel that assigning PD to every call would be safer and more effective.  Kind of like that old cliche "I carry because they don't issue me a police officer".  Close quarters in the back of an ambulance would be a tricky situation to be with with a gun, but that also isn't the only place we can get assaulted, though it is probably the most dangerous.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Apr 16, 2013)

CFal said:


> I'm a big 2A supporter as well, but I feel that assigning PD to every call would be safer and more effective.  Kind of like that old cliche "I carry because they don't issue me a police officer".  Close quarters in the back of an ambulance would be a tricky situation to be with with a gun, but that also isn't the only place we can get assaulted, though it is probably the most dangerous.



Who's going to fund the extra officers?  As was already pointed out earlier in this thread, urban PD has enough call volume as it is, rural PD usually has an extended response time so suburban law enforcement would be the only situation where this would be viable.


----------



## RocketMedic (Apr 16, 2013)

Aidey said:


> That wasn't hyperbole. It was a dead serious question. One of the core tenants of gun safety is to never point a gun at something/someone you aren't prepared to shoot.
> 
> Just because you are able to dismiss all the arguments against concealed carry in EMS doesn't mean they aren't valid. Guns are a poor self defense tool in the EMS setting. We operate in close quarters and the 21 foot rule applies. We go into a lot of places where you are not allowed to carry. And saying "they will never know" is beyond a crappy excuse to violate someone else's property rights.



That "rule" is more along the lines of "youre going to get hurt too", not an absolute. Today, my plan if I am attacked is massive, overwhelming blunt trauma delivered at close contact repeatedly until the threat is neutralized. Questionable in the extreme. A little 5- or 6- shot revolver or small semiauto turns that Beating for Life into a winnable situation for my partner and I.


----------



## RocketMedic (Apr 16, 2013)

AtlasFlyer said:


> There are more ways to defend yourself than *just* with a gun.
> 
> Guns have their place (I'm 100% pro gun rights and fully support FULL 2nd amendment rights), but the close quarters of the back of an ambulance is a challenging tactical environment. I'm not going to say a complete NO to EMS carrying, but there are alternatives that don't involve firearms in that situation.
> 
> ...



You win this thread forever.


----------



## AtlasFlyer (Apr 16, 2013)

Rocketmedic40 said:


> You win this thread forever.




yay me.


----------



## truetiger (Apr 16, 2013)

A gun would be an absolute last resort...reserved for a situation in which your life is in danger and you cannot escape it by any other means. CCW is intended for close quarters, notice the qualifying distance is 21 ft? Here in Missouri they also teach sightless self defense shooting.

Back in December an agency I work part time for experienced an on scene shooting. The crew responded to an unconscious person just outside of town. When they arrived on scene they noticed things didn't seem right. They requested law enforcement, which had about a 10 min eta. Law enforcement arrives, patient is loaded, and they begin treatment. As they prepared to depart the scene, 3 shots were fired, one striking a deputy sheriff in the neck. He was thrown in the back of the rig with the patient as his FTO attempted to secure the scene. 

That crew was extremely lucky. They were lucky there were two deputies riding together, as one had just been hired and was on FTO, they were lucky the deputies had a relatively short eta for that county, and they were lucky they weren't held up before the deputies arrive. Motives behind the shooting are still kind of unclear. Either the man was angered by law enforcement showing up or another rumor has it he was baiting the ambulance to steal the narcs.

Now those of you against allowing EMS to carry, how do you explain to those crew members that there are other means to self defense? That man was armed with a 20g shotgun. If there had been only one deputy, now what? Who would of secured that scene while the deputy was loaded? What if he would of advanced toward the downed deputy/crew?


----------



## Aidey (Apr 16, 2013)

So were the medics inside the amb or outside at the time of the shooting?


----------



## truetiger (Apr 16, 2013)

The medic was in with the patient, the emt was around back telling the deputies they were departing for the hospital.


----------



## Rialaigh (Apr 16, 2013)

truetiger said:


> A gun would be an absolute last resort...reserved for a situation in which your life is in danger and you cannot escape it by any other means. CCW is intended for close quarters, notice the qualifying distance is 21 ft? Here in Missouri they also teach sightless self defense shooting.
> 
> Back in December an agency I work part time for experienced an on scene shooting. The crew responded to an unconscious person just outside of town. When they arrived on scene they noticed things didn't seem right. They requested law enforcement, which had about a 10 min eta. Law enforcement arrives, patient is loaded, and they begin treatment. As they prepared to depart the scene, 3 shots were fired, one striking a deputy sheriff in the neck. He was thrown in the back of the rig with the patient as his FTO attempted to secure the scene.
> 
> ...




Individual scenarios do nothing. You have to consider benefit and risk. For exmaple


A bomb went off at the Boston marathon (2 actually) exploding out of backpacks. I want a bomb squad on every call in a public place that has an unattended bag. I mean, there is always a potential risk of bomb....


It would be absurd to assume we could have that dispatched on every call. The cost is flat out to high, it just doesn't make sense (at least I hope it doesn't to you). 


There is a cost to carrying a gun on duty, there is also a benefit, I just have not seen any evidence that the benefit OUTWEIGHS the cost. The majority of assaults that occur on EMS workers are by people that are not in their right frame of mind, these are not preventable if you have 36 guns with you (aside from shooting every one of those patients). I'm not sure that any of the homicides that happened in EMS in the past few years were really preventable in any way, most if not all of them were do to ambushes that having a gun would not help with at all. 

Again, someone point me to some statistics, something about preventable homicides or something. I just don't see it...

I'm not anti gun....I'm pro good solution...Taser>Gun every day of the week in the back of an ambulance for injury prevention


----------



## truetiger (Apr 16, 2013)

So if someone is not in their right frame of mind they are just free to do harm to us? Lethal force is not about frame of mind, it is about saving your own life. It is reserved for when all other methods have failed and it's you or him.


----------



## Lamiae (Apr 16, 2013)

usalsfyre said:


> Which also puts your hand in a very weak position if things go to rodeo...
> 
> The problem with CC...with handgun carry period even, is that you generally can't present it fast enough when surprised at the distances EMS deals with people. I've done the drills, even against a world class speed shooter I can be on top of him before he can make a good move to the gun.
> 
> Law enforcement officers generally have their gun out of they think things may get hinky. Most CCW instructors advise the same. By far the best tool you have sits on top of your shoulders. Watch your surroundings, what you say and how you say it. That's done far more to protect me than a gun. Off duty is one thing, I can set my distance and choose the situations I get myself into. On duty is another.




This is a very good point and I just wanted to emphasize it. 

As providers, our safety should always come first. You should never hesitate to call for LEOs on-scene if you suspect they are needed. As stated, the best protective item we have is our brain. The way I view asking for police support is the same way I view giving a pt Oxygen: if the thought crosses my mind, then I do it, no hesitation. On a call, if you have even a vague, momentary thought that LEOs are necessary to keep you safe, call for them. Discuss it with your partner, their perception and input should help.


----------



## Rialaigh (Apr 16, 2013)

truetiger said:


> So if someone is not in their right frame of mind they are just free to do harm to us? Lethal force is not about frame of mind, *it is about saving your own life*. It is reserved for when all other methods have failed and it's you or him.




No they are not free to harm us. The point that I have been posting is that despite the fact that we get assaulted and every once in a while an EMS worker dies at the hands of a patient, There is 0 solid evidence presented in this thread that guns will actually reduce assaults or deaths of EMS workers. There is also the fact that when you introduce a gun into a scene that previously had no firearm you are increasing the risk on the scene. There is more chance of someone being injured or killed by a gun at a scene that has a gun then at a scene that does not have a gun...its just a fact.


And in the study I posted 10 EMS workers were killed by homicide over 5 years, that is about the same as the nation average for civilian homicides. There is no evidence that any of those 10 homicides would or could have been preventable by someone carrying concealed...


----------



## truetiger (Apr 16, 2013)

It's sad you want a body count to prove its need. 10 is 10 too many. Not saying it would of prevented any of those, but at least they would of had the option. All we're asking is the chance to at least go down with a fight.


----------



## Clipper1 (Apr 16, 2013)

truetiger said:


> All we're asking is the chance to at least go down with a fight.



This statement clearly demonstrates more education is needed for scene safety. If you are looking for a fight, you will find one and you will lose.     You knowingly take a life when there were other options, you will lose.  Having a gun sometimes makes people think that is the only option thus making them forget all other safety alternatives.   Once you pull your gun one or both of you will lose.  This is not a scene from Third Watch where you can write the hero script.  Pulling a gun is real with real consequences even if everyone does live.  The burden of proof that it was a justified shoot is totally on you just as any other uniformed officer has learned.


----------



## hogdweeb (Apr 16, 2013)

Anyone ever think,, I have a gun, you have a gun, and they have a gun..who has the biggest? We wont know until the gun smoke clears, will we? 

On another note, look at sandy Hook. We all know it was one individual. If one or two civilians or teachers had some form of self defense other then 911, it could have been ended before it started, or the causalities could have been significantly less. 

remember a few months back in upstate New York, the building was set on fire and the arsonist opened up on fire fighters as they were arriving? Yes, LEOs were on scene, but if they hadnt yet been and one of the firefighters, or a by stander had a shot and took advantage of it? 

I am saying we should all be able to carry because we want to, but if we operate in a high violence area where LEOs arent always readily available for whatever reason, we should have the right for higher means of self defense other then waiting and staging. Right?


----------



## Rialaigh (Apr 16, 2013)

truetiger said:


> *It's sad you want a body count to prove its need*. 10 is 10 too many. Not saying it would of prevented any of those, but at least they would of had the option. All we're asking is the chance to at least go down with a fight.



If you think that creating policies that would lead to 0 deaths would be in any way efficient then I would urge you to go back and take an economics class or two on how to best make decisions. 


I am going to make a huge leap, and some of you may not agree, but just consider this.

I think that if we put a gun in the hands of every EMS worker full time at work and at home then I would make this assumption

The number of suicides of EMS workers by gun would be HIGHER then the reduction in homicides. In other words we would actually kill more EMS workers then we would save, even not accounting for all the other risks. 

Not for sure on this at all but just consider this as a possibility, look at high stress workers that have access to firearms all the time and the suicide rate that results (the military). 

Just a thought


----------



## truetiger (Apr 16, 2013)

Not sure how you came up with that....I'm not saying that a ccw policy will result in zero homicides. The idea behind ccw is giving us a fair chance. Your second assumption is pure bullsh*t. A ccw policy would allow, not require us to be able to carry. Most of us ( at least in my neck of the woods) already own firearms. How is being able to carry my Glock 27 going to cause me to be suicidal and put one in my head?


----------



## Rialaigh (Apr 16, 2013)

truetiger said:


> Not sure how you came up with that....I'm not saying that a ccw policy will result in zero homicides. The idea behind ccw is giving us a fair chance. Your second assumption is pure bullsh*t. A ccw policy would allow, not require us to be able to carry. Most of us ( at least in my neck of the woods) already own firearms. How is being able to carry my Glock 27 going to cause me to be suicidal and put one in my head?



It's  a fact, in populations that have a higher percentage of owned/carried firearms there is a higher percentage of firearm related suicides. Combine that with the fact that in populations with higher stress jobs, especially those that deal with injured people, people with psychiatric issues, and death, the suicide rate is much higher. I'm not making it up...it's just true.

It's like the fact that people who own guns experience more gun accidents, people who don't own guns don't experience accidental shootings...its just fact..


----------



## truetiger (Apr 16, 2013)

Your point is in valid. 99% of my co workers already own firearms, many of which already have a ccw. How is allowing them to carry at work going to translate into a higher suicide rate. They will be carrying guns they already own. A gun is a tool. It does not cause someone to kill themselves or another person. If they want to kill themselves, they will find a way.

Take Great Britain for example, they've banned guns. They have an extremely low rate of gun murders, 35. However they have a violent crime rate that is 4 times that of the US. How is this possible? Criminals are using other means, not just guns.


----------



## STXmedic (Apr 16, 2013)

Rialaigh said:


> It's  a fact, in populations that have a higher percentage of owned/carried firearms there is a higher percentage of firearm related suicides. Combine that with the fact that in populations with higher stress jobs, especially those that deal with injured people, people with psychiatric issues, and death, the suicide rate is much higher. I'm not making it up...it's just true.
> 
> It's like the fact that people who own guns experience more gun accidents, people who don't own guns don't experience accidental shootings...its just fact..



No :censored::censored::censored::censored:?... And it's a fact that people who live in South Africa are more likely to experience an attack by a hippo than somebody in the US. Poor argument, right? So is yours. If somebody wants to kill themselves, they don't need a gun to do it. Oh, and how about being more proactive and effective on helping employees in these high-stress jobs from wanting to kill themselves in the first place. And like true said, nobody is recommending forcefully making all ems carry a weapon. Most people who would choose to carry would most likely already own a forearm anyway, further invalidating your argument of an increase in suicide rates.


----------



## Rialaigh (Apr 16, 2013)

PoeticInjustice said:


> No :censored::censored::censored::censored:?... And it's a fact that people who live in South Africa are more likely to experience an attack by a hippo than somebody in the US. Poor argument, right? So is yours. If somebody wants to kill themselves, they don't need a gun to do it. Oh, and how about being more proactive and effective on helping employees in these high-stress jobs from wanting to kill themselves in the first place. And like true said, nobody is recommending forcefully making all ems carry a weapon. Most people who would choose to carry would most likely already own a forearm anyway, further invalidating your argument of an increase in suicide rates.



Just because your more likely to be killed by a hippo in South Africa doesn't make my argument less right. Are you saying we shouldn't base decisions off of demographics and statistics? 


I am all about being proactive and effective in helping employees in high stress jobs.

 By the same token I am all about choosing the most effective tools to prevent workplace violence and injuries. I (and many others on here) are of the belief the guns are not the most effective tool for that job. Do I agree we need something else to help limit assaults on EMS workers, yes I do. Do I think some form of taser would effectively do that job, yes I do. Do I think CCW guns would effectively do that job, no I do not.


----------



## STXmedic (Apr 16, 2013)

Rialaigh said:


> Just because your more likely to be killed by a hippo in South Africa doesn't make my argument less right. Are you saying we shouldn't base decisions off of demographics and statistics?
> 
> 
> I am all about being proactive and effective in helping employees in high stress jobs.
> ...



I stated in my post that the SA comparison was a poor argument. It was intentionally so. 

I'm still undecided on whether I think EMS providers should be allowed ccw on duty. I understand the pros and cons, and am undecided on which side has the most benefit. There are many very good arguments on not allowing EMS ccw on duty. Your suicide argument is not one of those. I have seen your argument and the research for it in reference of possession of guns in general and gun control. That argument holds more water in that arena (though I am certain what side of that argument I'm on). Do not confuse the two areas, they are two different subjects.


----------



## Rialaigh (Apr 16, 2013)

PoeticInjustice said:


> I stated in my post that the SA comparison was a poor argument. It was intentionally so.
> 
> I'm still undecided on whether I think EMS providers should be allowed ccw on duty. I understand the pros and cons, and am undecided on which side has the most benefit. There are many very good arguments on not allowing EMS ccw on duty. Your suicide argument is not one of those. I have seen your argument and the research for it in reference of possession of guns in general and gun control. That argument holds more water in that arena (though I am certain what side of that argument I'm on). Do not confuse the two areas, they are two different subjects.



I agree, there are many different subjects in the area's of gun possession and utilization. 

I think instead of looking at it as the "right" to carry guns on duty we should be looking for the "best" solution. Not the one that makes us feel like our rights are not being taken away or infringed upon. 

Lets find the best way to prevent and limit injuries as a result of assaults on EMS workers. I think almost all of us can agree there are likely other tools out there other then guns that will provide a much wider range of use in controlling a violent patients behavior and prevent/limiting injuries to EMS workers and patients.


----------



## truetiger (Apr 16, 2013)

So what's the best solution when the attacker is wielding a 20g shotgun? A taser? I think not, we had a women that was tased 7 times before the deputy could gain the upper hand and arrest her.


----------



## DrParasite (Apr 16, 2013)

Rialaigh said:


> And in the study I posted 10 EMS workers were killed by homicide over 5 years, that is about the same as the nation average for civilian homicides. There is no evidence that any of those 10 homicides would or could have been preventable by someone carrying concealed...


And is there any evidence that had any of the 10 homicides would not have been prevented by an armed EMT?  how would you find solid evidence proving that anyway?

Let me ask you this, since you brought up homicides in public safety, what is the homicide rate for law enforcement over the past 5 years?  if those officer hadn't been armed, would they still be dead?  And since I am pretty sure the answer would be yes, by your logic, shouldn't we take their guns away, since it doesn't affect the homicide rate?


----------



## RocketMedic (Apr 16, 2013)

truetiger said:


> So what's the best solution when the attacker is wielding a 20g shotgun? A taser? I think not, we had a women that was tased 7 times before the deputy could gain the upper hand and arrest her.



M4 with ACOG.


----------



## Tigger (Apr 16, 2013)

DrParasite said:


> And is there any evidence that had any of the 10 homicides would not have been prevented by an armed EMT?  how would you find solid evidence proving that anyway?
> 
> Let me ask you this, since you brought up homicides in public safety, what is the homicide rate for law enforcement over the past 5 years?  if those officer hadn't been armed, would they still be dead?  And since I am pretty sure the answer would be yes, by your logic, shouldn't we take their guns away, since it doesn't affect the homicide rate?



Of course not, that's a rather shortsighted line of thinking. Police officers don't only carry guns to keep themselves from being hurt or killed so taking their guns away would certainly be a detriment on their effectiveness.


----------



## JPINFV (Apr 16, 2013)

Since the police were brought into it, if guns are the end all, be all chance to "go down fighting" and for defense, why do police bother to carry all of the other defensive tools (tazers, asp batons, chemical sprays) in addition to a firearm? After all, shouldn't all they need is their firearm?


----------



## ffemt8978 (Apr 16, 2013)

JPINFV said:


> Since the police were brought into it, if guns are the end all, be all chance to "go down fighting" and for defense, why do police bother to carry all of the other defensive tools (tazers, asp batons, chemical sprays) in addition to a firearm? After all, shouldn't all they need is their firearm?



I was wondering when this would be brought up...


----------



## JPINFV (Apr 16, 2013)

ffemt8978 said:


> I was wondering when this would be brought up...




Well, I try not to make rhetorical statements, but this thread is starting to feel like a convention of orthopedic surgeons. When you point out that the hammer isn't working, they all cry back in chorus that all we need is a bigger hammer.


----------



## usalsfyre (Apr 16, 2013)

A few thoughts....



truetiger said:


> CCW is intended for close quarters, notice the qualifying distance is 21 ft?


21ft is a lot different from in the holster leaning over your patient.  



truetiger said:


> Here in Missouri they also teach sightless self defense shooting.


Bull scat. Horse puckey. "Sightless" shooting means you miss unless you can touch the muzzle to your target. I've missed targets that were almost within arms reach because I was trying to shoot too fast and not using any form of effective sight picture. Anyone who says they can teach you to shoot without sights is lying.  



truetiger said:


> Back in December an agency I work part time for experienced an on scene shooting. The crew responded to an unconscious person just outside of town. When they arrived on scene they noticed things didn't seem right. They requested law enforcement, which had about a 10 min eta. Law enforcement arrives, patient is loaded, and they begin treatment. As they prepared to depart the scene, 3 shots were fired, one striking a deputy sheriff in the neck. He was thrown in the back of the rig with the patient as his FTO attempted to secure the scene.


Ok...at that point its time to leave. Why were they sitting on scene with a penetrating trauma to begin with? Now you have two penetrating traumas. At this point the best "scene safety" you can provide is to move the scene somewhere else. Anything else is piss poor decision making by the crew. 



Rialaigh said:


> Not for sure on this at all but just consider this as a possibility, look at high stress workers that have access to firearms all the time and the suicide rate that results (the military). Just a thought


Then lets take guns away from the military and cops. As has been pointed out, this is a crap argument. You've seen I'm not ultra-hep on CCW on the ambulance but this isn't the way to refute it. 



truetiger said:


> So what's the best solution when the attacker is wielding a 20g shotgun? A taser? I think not, we had a women that was tased 7 times before the deputy could gain the upper hand and arrest her.


The "solution" is hope the guy can't aim. Even if I have a handgun. If you've studied use of guns for defense very much you'll realize a handgun is a mighty ineffective tool. If I show up to a gunfight with a handgun its because I didn't know I was going to a gunfight. You're going to shoot it out with your Glock 27 against a 20ga shotgun? Good luck ....

Added to this, if he's got the gun out and aimed? I'm dead. I can not beat an already pulled gun. 

A taser is not much better, I can still be incapacitated by it and curb stomped into oblivion. 

If you are assaulted in EMS it is most likely going to be a surprise, contact distance affair where blunt force trauma is your primary concern. A firearm likely won't help you in this type of assault. Neither will a taser, and often times not whatever kung-fu is en-vogue that week (I say this as both a competitive practical shooter and a martial arts practitioner). What will is keeping yourself out of that spot period. The number one reason I've seen people get assaulted by drunks and psychs is a a basic lack of decency in dealing with them (n=1....but yeah) Treat people with respect. Learn the signs of impending assault. Don't turn your back on unstable patients. Look for your exits. Using your head will keep you far safer than a gun. Remember....you win every fight you don't have. Before you accuse me of being anti-gun, I seriously doubt you will find a more pro-gun person on this board. But EMS is just not a situation they fit into well.


----------



## DrParasite (Apr 16, 2013)

JPINFV said:


> Since the police were brought into it, if guns are the end all, be all chance to "go down fighting" and for defense, why do police bother to carry all of the other defensive tools (tazers, asp batons, chemical sprays) in addition to a firearm? After all, shouldn't all they need is their firearm?


you ever seen a cop perform a felony traffic stop?  they don't have their chemical sprays drawn.

You ever see a cop go into a potentially bad scene?  usually his hand is on his gun, not on his pepper spray.

You ever see how a cop deals with a person who won't follow their commands?  they usually have the taser out, hoping they won't have to use it, but ready to do so should the situation warrant it.  You ever see how a cop deals with an armed person who won't follow their commands? the usually have their sidearm drawn, hoping they won't have to use it, but ready to do so should the situation warrant it.

I work with people who used to carry ASP batons on the ambulance.  They were in an urban area, they didn't get cops on every call, and management definitely didn't approve of them.   But the entire shift had them in their pockets, just in case.  the idea was better to be terminated or taken away in cuffs than to be taken away in a body bag.  I am not saying I agree, and I never worked for that particular agency, but I guess it was better than carrying a gun.

Do I really think cops should turn in their guns?  absolutely not.  But everyone needs to understand that cops carry guns to protect themselves from people who would do them lethal harm.  They don't carry them to protect others.

one last comment about the cops; I know quite a few uniformed law enforcement officers, and a couple non-uniformed (detectives, goon squad, narcotics, and a few white shirts).  the uniformed guys always wear their belts, which has their guns, batons, handcuffs, spray, etc. the non-uniformed guys only carry their guns (and cuffs), and they know they will call for uniformed  backup for most incidents, and only draw if they encounter a life threatening situation.

Drawing a gun is a last resort, when you are faced with a threat to your life.  And quite honestly, if drawing a firearm (and not firing) ends that threat, because the assailant got scared or ran away, than the firearm did its job.  But if it's a threat to your life, and you do draw your gun, be prepared to fire until the threat is neutralized, and hope you don't have to.


----------



## JPINFV (Apr 16, 2013)

DrParasite said:


> you ever seen a cop perform a felony traffic stop?  they don't have their chemical sprays drawn.


We're not performing felony traffic stops. 


> You ever see a cop go into a potentially bad scene?  usually his hand is on his gun, not on his pepper spray.



If you're going into a scene where you think you need a gun before entering, then the proper answer is not to enter until the police get there. 



> You ever see how a cop deals with a person who won't follow their commands?  they usually have the taser out, hoping they won't have to use it, but ready to do so should the situation warrant it.  You ever see how a cop deals with an armed person who won't follow their commands? the usually have their sidearm drawn, hoping they won't have to use it, but ready to do so should the situation warrant it.



1. We don't issue commands. 
2. We, in general, don't deal with criminals who have firearms. 
3. The vast vast majority of assaults do not involve firearms. 



> I am not saying I agree, and I never worked for that particular agency, but I guess it was better than carrying a gun.


Yet there's an entire side arguing that a gun is the only thing they need.



> and they know they will call for uniformed  backup for most incidents, and only draw if they encounter a life threatening situation.


...and people in this thread are saying that they would draw for situations that are much less than life threatening. 



> Drawing a gun is a last resort, when you are faced with a threat to your life.  And quite honestly, if drawing a firearm (and not firing) ends that threat, because the assailant got scared or ran away, than the firearm did its job.  But if it's a threat to your life, and you do draw your gun, be prepared to fire until the threat is neutralized, and hope you don't have to.



The problem is that when you only have a hammer, everything is a nail. Unfortunately bolts are more common than nails.


----------



## DrParasite (Apr 17, 2013)

ummm, i don't go into scenes that are unsafe.  I have gone into scenes that have become unsafe.  I have gone into scenes for medical emergencies involving gang members, many of whom might have had firearms on them.  I had gone to scenes where the drunk too a swing at me.  and I have had EDPs get combative with me in the back of the ambulance.  not saying having a gun is the answer (in fact, I will say it isn't), but you might not get a cop to beat you to the scene.  In the cities, I have seen a druggie punch his mother on the porch while we waited on the sidewalk for the local PD to arrive (nice easy ride, no lights, no sirens).  Initial call was for an unknown problem btw.

You asked why PD carry other stuff besides firearms; that's to non-lethally handle a non-life threat.  All those examples I listed was in response to your comment about other stuff PD has; none of it has anything to do with EMS.

Firearms are used to defend yourself in a life threatening situation.  If someone is coming at you with a weapon, that's a life threat.  If someone is threatening you with a weapon, that's a life threat (in which case, drawing a gun would be followed by leaving the scene, not firing).  If the 300lb man high on drugs is charging at you, that is a life threat, if you perceive it to be.  Sometimes just drawing a weapon can make people behave, enough for you and your partner to retreat until PD arrives and secures the scene.  and if they never make it, oh well, sucks for that patient.

Just out of curiosity, are you advocating giving EMS crews ASP batons, chemical sprays & tazers?  let me ask you this: when you end up confronted with a life threatening situation, and you can't retreat, and your non-lethal tools aren't working, what do you propose the crews do?

Oh, and on this very topic, http://www.ems1.com/ems-news/1432188-ohio-firefighters-carry-concealed-weapons/


----------



## JPINFV (Apr 17, 2013)

DrParasite said:


> You asked why PD carry other stuff besides firearms; that's to non-lethally handle a non-life threat.  All those examples I listed was in response to your comment about other stuff PD has; none of it has anything to do with EMS.



Rhetorical question was, and still is, rhetorical. 

Police carry less lethal weapons because not every situation involves necessitating lethal force. As such, it gives them options between going hands on and killing the other person. In this thread, we have people who only want to carry firearms and think that they can shoot the 88 year old with dementia who is trying to smack them upside the head (it's an "assault" after all. Oh, and press charges while you're at it... since assault/battery is illegal). Oh, wait, we're supposed to ignore the idea that the vast majority of assaults aren't the life threatening type... right? (hint: rhetorical question with heavy sarcasm). 



> If the 300lb man high on drugs is charging at you, that is a life threat, if you perceive it to be.



It's a life threat if the police officer or prosecutor or jury decides it's not. If all of them agree that the 300 lb man high on drugs wasn't a life threat before you shot him, than go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.  



> Just out of curiosity, are you advocating giving EMS crews ASP batons, chemical sprays & tazers?  let me ask you this: when you end up confronted with a life threatening situation, and you can't retreat, and your non-lethal tools aren't working, what do you propose the crews do?



No. I'm advocating that if  you're going to carry a firearm for "safety" (quotes since people are throwing out situations that, by and large, would not raise to the level that justifies lethal force), that you need something in between. What happens when the gun crowd encounters someone who's dangerous, but not to the level justifying lethal threat? Again, hammers are great... until you get a nut. 




> Oh, and on this very topic, http://www.ems1.com/ems-news/1432188-ohio-firefighters-carry-concealed-weapons/



Thanks for posting an article that forces me to agree with the anti-gun crowd. 

"“At what point does that person pull a gun on this armed emergency  worker and not have an advantage? Unless they’re going to walk around  with it in their hand all the time, they’re not going to have time to do  all these wonderful things that they think they can do,” she said."

If you're ambushed, your screwed. You aren't going to take your glock and start providing covering fire... you're going to run like hell. If you've taken a knee to talk to the patient when you get attacked from behind, then that firearm isn't going to do a lick of good either. Gang territory (like one of the commenters in the article talked about)? Um, yea... you're going to get a shootout over narcotics against gang members? ROFL. If a gang member points a gun at me and wants my mo-phen, they can have it. It's not worth my life over someone else's narcotics.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Apr 17, 2013)

JPINFV said:


> No. I'm advocating that if  you're going to carry a firearm for "safety" (quotes since people are throwing out situations that, by and large, would not raise to the level that justifies lethal force), that you need something in between. *What happens when the gun crowd encounters someone who's dangerous, but not to the level justifying lethal threat? Again, hammers are great... until you get a nut. *



The problem with this concern is that it just doesn't happen. 

When is the last time you heard about a CCW holder shooting someone for no reason? Not saying it's never happened, but it is not exactly a big a problem. You have probably been in the presence of an armed CCW holder many, many times and never had any idea.

This is not about creating "armed paramedics", this is about simply allowing private citizens who legally hold a CCW to exercise the same rights at work that they do when they are off the clock.


----------



## Aidey (Apr 17, 2013)

There is a difference between no reason and a bad reason. There may not be very many cases of shootings for no reasons, but there have been plenty for bad reasons. Introducing guns into an environment where people with poor training are dealing with vulnerable populations is asking for an increase in shootings for bad reasons.


----------



## Carlos Danger (Apr 17, 2013)

Aidey said:


> There is a difference between no reason and a bad reason. There may not be very many cases of shootings for no reasons, but * there have been plenty for bad reasons.* Introducing guns into an environment where people with poor training are dealing with vulnerable populations is asking for an increase in shootings for bad reasons.



I do not think this is true. I've never even heard of it happening. Again, I'm not saying that it never has, just that it is very uncommon. 

I think that CCW holders tend to be better trained and/or more cautious than you give them credit for. The Wichita Eagle looked at some stats and found that of over 51,000 CCW permit holders, only 27 had been convicted of a gun crime. I've seen similar stats for Texas and other places.

So the idea that a CCW holder is more likely to be involved in a gun crime is false. In fact, the opposite is true.


----------



## firecoins (Apr 17, 2013)

Need to have a gun, to misuse it.


----------



## Aidey (Apr 17, 2013)

Halothane said:


> I do not think this is true. I've never even heard of it happening. Again, I'm not saying that it never has, just that it is very uncommon.



You don't think there has ever been a questionable shooting involving someone legally carrying a gun? Cops don't even have a 100% "good shoot" rate. 

We aren't talking about general public CCW holders dealing with other people in the general public. We are talking about people who are specifically called to help who are dealing with vulnerable populations they aren't trained to handle properly. We have a higher responsibility to the people we encounter, we know something is wrong with them, we know they need help. Do you really think that introducing guns into that environment isn't going to result in some very questionable shootings?


----------



## truetiger (Apr 17, 2013)

Why does being a paramedic lower the threshold for shooting someone? A threat is a threat, whether I'm at Wal Mart, work, or home. I'm not sure why you think paramedics who carry are going to be trigger happy lunatics. Many paramedics already do carry, and you have no idea. They obviously aren't going around shooting up the place.


----------



## Clipper1 (Apr 17, 2013)

truetiger said:


> Why does being a paramedic lower the threshold for shooting someone? A threat is a threat, whether I'm at Wal Mart, work, or home. I'm not sure why you think paramedics who carry are going to be trigger happy lunatics. Many paramedics already do carry, and you have no idea. They obviously aren't going around shooting up the place.



Where are these Paramedics who are carrying?

Some of the hospitals in the toughest neighborhoods have metal detectors and Police at the entrances. The few EMTs or Paramedics who have been caught carrying were quickly relied of their weapons. If the weapon was not legally registered and  CC permit in hand, they were turned over to the Police.  Even with the CC they were subject to any charges arrising from carrying a weapon into a hospital which is a no carry zone in most states unless you are law enforcement. Once they got through their legal mess with whatever charges on their record, they were then subject to whatever punishment their company and the state saw appropriate.

If these Paramedics are carrying in your area, are they violating the no carry places?  Are they taking these guns into jails, prisons and psych facilities? What are they using for lock boxes if their company obviously aren't providing one?

I think if there are Paramedics who are carrying it is probably in areas with very little crime and the weapon is more of a "ha ha" we are carrying just to defy their company's policy and not really for protection.  Those who work in rough areas know the dangers a gun can bring and put their security on their scene safety skills and the Police.  They know if it is known Paramedics are carrying weapons they will no longer have trust as a health care provider. Ask some of the Public Safety Officers who used to try playing two roles and see the problems they had gaining trust to provide medical care while having a gun at their side.


----------



## Aidey (Apr 17, 2013)

truetiger said:


> Why does being a paramedic lower the threshold for shooting someone? A threat is a threat, whether I'm at Wal Mart, work, or home. I'm not sure why you think paramedics who carry are going to be trigger happy lunatics. Many paramedics already do carry, and you have no idea. They obviously aren't going around shooting up the place.



It doesn't lower the threshold to shoot someone, it raises the threshold  of responsibility to not harm people. Especially when we know ahead of  time that we are going to be dealing with difficult people. I am not saying we have to accept being assaulted, but there are other, better, options than CCW. 

If CCW in EMS is allowed on a national level, how many people with dementia, hypoglycemia, encephalopathy, psychiatric problems etc will be shot by EMS personnel with crappy training in how to deal with those people before there will be a massive backlash?


----------



## truetiger (Apr 17, 2013)

We had been picking this girl up for bs chest pain for the last week (2 transports 2 AMA's). She'd fake going unconscious and then complain of chest pain, always meeting us outside. We go last night for an "unconscious person", turns out she's in custody. We had no idea we had been visiting an active meth lab. You never know exactly what kind of scene you're getting yourself into. There was nothing in the dispatch info that would trip a deputy being sent. These guys (and gals) cooking the meth will do anything to stay out of jail/keep cooking, including taking you out. Wouldn't you want a firearm? You know they have more than a few.


----------



## Clipper1 (Apr 17, 2013)

truetiger said:


> These guys (and gals) cooking the meth will do anything to stay out of jail/keep cooking, including taking you out. Wouldn't you want a firearm? You know they have more than a few.



Would you really shoot a gun in a meth lab?


----------



## RocketMedic (Apr 17, 2013)

Clipper1 said:


> Would you really shoot a gun in a meth lab?



If the alternative is getting shot, stabbed or beaten, yes.


----------



## Aidey (Apr 17, 2013)

Rocketmedic40 said:


> If the alternative is getting shot, stabbed or beaten, yes.



What if the alternative is getting blown up?


----------



## JPINFV (Apr 17, 2013)

Halothane said:


> The problem with this concern is that it just doesn't happen.
> 
> When is the last time you heard about a CCW holder shooting someone for no reason? Not saying it's never happened, but it is not exactly a big a problem. You have probably been in the presence of an armed CCW holder many, many times and never had any idea.
> 
> This is not about creating "armed paramedics", this is about simply allowing private citizens who legally hold a CCW to exercise the same rights at work that they do when they are off the clock.



The problem with this concern is that it's exactly what people in this thread are advocating when they throw out the term "assault" and argue that they can use their CCW every time their assaulted.


----------



## Bullets (Apr 17, 2013)

Aidey said:


> If CCW in EMS is allowed on a national level, how many people with dementia, hypoglycemia, encephalopathy, psychiatric problems etc will be shot by EMS personnel with crappy training in how to deal with those people before there will be a massive backlash?



Why is the assumption that CCW holders are poorly trained? Many states have educational and training requirements to obtain your CCW, or otherwise show proof of a firearms safety course, qualification, or some other type of course that admittedly varies from state to state, but does exist.

What makes you think that CCW holders are any less trained then a cop? Cops have to qualify twice a year on a laughably simple test. I know people who arent cops who go shooting and train far more often then twice a year.




Aidey said:


> What if the alternative is getting blown up?



A perfect example of threat assessment and evasion. When faced with a life threatening situation, the first instinct isnt to draw down and start blasting ala Hot Fuzz. Examine your threat, determine your course of action and act. When you enter a building, do you note the exits? Windows and doors? MEth labs have certain things that give hints as to their true purpose. NJSP has been running excellent courses in clandestine labs recently.


----------



## Aidey (Apr 17, 2013)

Bullets said:


> Why is the assumption that CCW holders are poorly trained? Many states have educational and training requirements to obtain your CCW, or otherwise show proof of a firearms safety course, qualification, or some other type of course that admittedly varies from state to state, but does exist.
> 
> What makes you think that CCW holders are any less trained then a cop? Cops have to qualify twice a year on a laughably simple test. I know people who arent cops who go shooting and train far more often then twice a year.



Let me be even clearer since ya'all seem to think I'm implying CCWs have poor _gun_ training. I am saying EMS as a whole has a horrific lack of training when dealing with the non-neurotypical. _*That *_is the lack of training that is going to get patients shot.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Apr 17, 2013)

Aidey said:


> Let me be even clearer since ya'all seem to think I'm implying CCWs have poor _gun_ training. I am saying EMS as a whole has a horrific lack of training when dealing with the non-neurotypical. _*That *_is the lack of training that is going to get patients shot.



You could have stopped right there...


----------



## Aidey (Apr 17, 2013)

Well, yeah. But I've already been misunderstood twice. I don't want anyone thinking that I'm saying that EMS CCW holders have less training than the general public CCW holders.


----------



## RocketMedic (Apr 18, 2013)

Aidey said:


> What if the alternative is getting blown up?



I'll take a maybe over a sure thing when it comes to getting maybe-killed. Not all meth labs explode from a few gunshots or a harsh word.

Look, Aidey, I'm not for unrestricted carry. Atlas_Flyer had the best solution of all, intensive and specialized training with an emphasis on avoidance and then proper use of a weapon. But you and the other naysayers cannot remove the fact that we, as EMS, do go into people's homes, out into the wilderness, etc, and perform medical care unarmed, unsecure and unprepared to get into a fight.  There is no realistic way to send police on every call, nor is there a good way to secure every scene remotely. I guarantee that that fire crew in Georgia thought everything was normal until they stepped in and Rambo stepped out to meet them- inside the home. 

EMS carry will result in a few shootings a year, yes. It will also result in a few deaths. It will also result in fewer assaults and fewer injuries to EMS workers.


----------



## Clipper1 (Apr 18, 2013)

Rocketmedic40 said:


> EMS carry will result in a few shootings a year, yes. It will also result in a few deaths. It will also result in fewer assaults and fewer injuries to EMS workers.



How do you figure that?

Once you make it well known that EMS is carrying a gun you will no longer be viewed as a neutral health care professional. You will be met with distrust and now place a bullseye on your back just as Police Officers have to deal with. You also make your truck even more inviting since there is a chance of scoring not only narcotics but now any weapons you might have in your vehicle. 

In the meth house scenario, the patient was outside of the house. There was no reason to enter someone's home if you already have the patient. You are not the police and should not engage a situation because you think it is a "meth hous". Get your patient and get the hell out of there even if you think the patient is faking chest pains. You can sort out the faking part when you are a safe distance away at the hospital.  Most of EMS involves scene safety and commonsense.  Unless you are drawing your gun on every call and keep it drawn, you probably are not going to prevent much of anything.  The ones who could hurt you the most are probably the ones you suspect the least. You will have a greater chance of being murdered by a family member or lover than on the job as an EMT.


----------



## RocketMedic (Apr 18, 2013)

Clipper1 said:


> How do you figure that?
> 
> Once you make it well known that EMS is carrying a gun you will no longer be viewed as a neutral health care professional. You will be met with distrust and now place a bullseye on your back just as Police Officers have to deal with. You also make your truck even more inviting since there is a chance of scoring not only narcotics but now any weapons you might have in your vehicle.
> 
> In the meth house scenario, the patient was outside of the house. There was no reason to enter someone's home if you already have the patient. You are not the police and should not engage a situation because you think it is a "meth hous". Get your patient and get the hell out of there even if you think the patient is faking chest pains. You can sort out the faking part when you are a safe distance away at the hospital.  Most of EMS involves scene safety and commonsense.  Unless you are drawing your gun on every call and keep it drawn, you probably are not going to prevent much of anything.  The ones who could hurt you the most are probably the ones you suspect the least. You will have a greater chance of being murdered by a family member or lover than on the job as an EMT.



You're on a routine call for reported "chest pain". Like so many other days, you and your crew reach a home, make entry into the home (she can't get up) and go to the back bedroom- only to find that your only way out is now blocked by a crazed white guy with a shotgun and a hockey mask. He grins and starts talking about how you're his sacrifices and are going to be acceptable to God.


----------



## akflightmedic (Apr 18, 2013)

Rocketmedic40 said:


> You're on a routine call for reported "chest pain". Like so many other days, you and your crew reach a home, make entry into the home (she can't get up) and go to the back bedroom- only to find that your only way out is now blocked by a crazed white guy with a shotgun and a hockey mask. He grins and starts talking about how you're his sacrifices and are going to be acceptable to God.



If you are going to create such a rare statistical scenario as justification/evidence, I am going to have to extrapolate that as well and say what are the odds that the particular medic on duty that day is one of the few who will choose to carry? To line up that maniacal man with the odds of the medic carrying....we are now in some very rarely visited territory on the statistical scale.

Unless with your example you are making the gigantic leap that if this were approved, every medic/emt would carry...which again is astronomical odds.


----------



## Clipper1 (Apr 18, 2013)

Rocketmedic40 said:


> You're on a routine call for reported "chest pain". Like so many other days, you and your crew reach a home, make entry into the home (she can't get up) and go to the back bedroom- only to find that your only way out is now blocked by a crazed white guy with a shotgun and a hockey mask. He grins and starts talking about how you're his sacrifices and are going to be acceptable to God.



If you see "Jason" coming at you in a house by surprise with a shotgun, chain-saw, ice pick or Q-tip, I doubt if you will be able to get your concealed weapon out quick enough or with enough skill to do any good.  

Maybe you should take an EMS self defense class and see more realistic and practical scenarios which actually could be of some use. You also should avoid watching scary movies before a shift. The real world can be scary and there are situations which require being alert and using your head for altenatives rather than imagining Jason is lurking behind every corner.  

There are also many situations where it would just be stupid to carry a gun such as in places where there are combusibles and explosive materials or in crowds.


----------



## mycrofft (Apr 18, 2013)

*CCW does not equal armed at work.*

Just to surface for a moment:

Anyone note that this is NOT a CCW concern? Law enforcement gets CCW so they can be armed and responsive 24/7 because they have a duty to respond 24/7. Having a firearm on your uniform belt does not require nor will it give you the permit to carry loaded guns, concealed or otherwise, around on your off time.

As I noted last year or sometime ago, most LE is wise to dodges to get a CCW permit (becoming a "coroner's deputy" is an old and venerable if useless one, same for most "bodyguard" applications). 

If you want to argue about right to carry, get out of your chairs,_* right now*_, strap on your holster or get out your rifle, load your weapon, carry it in plain sight (no "CCW" necessary, right?) then walk one mile out and one mile back in a commercial or retail district and see what happens. GO by an elementary school if possible. Stop by and go inside McDonald's. Drive with it on the front passenger seat and bust a stop sign and see the reaction when pulled over. "Put the rubber on the road" for this discussion and report back.


----------



## mycrofft (Apr 18, 2013)

Clipper1 said:


> If you see "Jason" coming at you in a house by surprise with a shotgun, chain-saw, ice pick or Q-tip, I doubt if you will be able to get your concealed weapon out quick enough or with enough skill to do any good.
> 
> Maybe you should take an EMS self defense class and see more realistic and practical scenarios which actually could be of some use. You also should avoid watching scary movies before a shift. The real world can be scary and there are situations which require being alert and using your head for altenatives rather than imagining Jason is lurking behind every corner.
> 
> There are also many situations where it would just be stupid to carry a gun such as in places where there are combusibles and explosive materials or in crowds.



Responded to an old victorian house at night with a rapist/knife murderer at large, no idea if he was still there after raping/killing one woman then chasing her housemate through the building stabbing her in the back. (He turned out to be about a mile away trying to hitch a ride, still had knife, had gotten dressed without washing off blood).We all had dilated pupils and feelers on our backs. 

Arming the  two ambulance and three ALS people (and about eight firefighters) as well as deputies and police would not have been good.


----------



## MrJones (Apr 18, 2013)

I always enjoy these "carry concealed/don't carry concealed" discussions, regardless of the context. My bottom line - if you're doing it right, no one will ever know that you're carrying. They shouldn't even know if you're licensed to do so.


----------



## RocketMedic (Apr 18, 2013)

I rarely agree with MrJones, but I will here. 

Clipper1 and ak, if I meet Jason, at least one person is getting hurt, possibly more, before help arrives. A well-used gun may make that person him, not me.

akflightmedic, would you go unarmed on an all-Afghan fob that is unfamiliar to you with no immediate support? what about the countryside? would you expect a 68w to? After all, they arent trained like true infantry, right, and may take bad shots.


----------



## RocketMedic (Apr 18, 2013)

mycrofft said:


> Just to surface for a moment:
> 
> Anyone note that this is NOT a CCW concern? Law enforcement gets CCW so they can be armed and responsive 24/7 because they have a duty to respond 24/7. Having a firearm on your uniform belt does not require nor will it give you the permit to carry loaded guns, concealed or otherwise, around on your off time.
> 
> ...



This depends on your state. CA has some fairly asinine law, Oklahoma less so. This is actually completely legal in Arizona or Alaska, and in most of the nation with a valid CCW. Most CCWs are shall-issue, meaning you need no justification for it. Here, most of my patients have firearms in the home, vehicle, or on them.


----------



## CFal (Apr 18, 2013)

In I'm currently in you don't even need a concealed weapons permit to carry concealed.


----------



## Clipper1 (Apr 18, 2013)

MrJones said:


> I always enjoy these "carry concealed/don't carry concealed" discussions, regardless of the context. My bottom line - if you're doing it right, no one will ever know that you're carrying. They shouldn't even know if you're licensed to do so.



Your employer and all who partner with you should be aware of you carrying a gun.   Your employer should have a say if they want to be responssible for your actions.  If there are rules in place against carrying a gun on the job, you have to right to seek other employment. Good luck trying to draw unemployment while looking for another job.  If you are knowingly violating state concealed weapon laws by entering a no carry zone like a hospital or whatever public arena, you should be held accountable and face whatever penalties. We have a zero tolerance policy for those who  think they can carry a gun on our ambulances, aircrafts or hospitals if they are not on duty law enforcement. Even with on duty law enforcement there are rules which apply for certain situations and areas regarding their weapon.

 Your partner should have the right to refuse to be with you if they feel you are not trained adequately or have the temperment to be carrying a weapon. They may fear you more than any "Jason" character. 


Usually those who are the most pro for carrying a weapon on an ambulance without acknowledging any negatives are the ones who should not carry a weapon at all.


----------



## Clipper1 (Apr 18, 2013)

Rocketmedic40 said:


> This depends on your state. CA has some fairly asinine law, Oklahoma less so. This is actually completely legal in Arizona or Alaska, and in most of the nation with a valid CCW. Most CCWs are shall-issue, meaning you need no justification for it. Here, most of my patients have firearms in the home, vehicle, or on them.



Post your employer's policy for you carrying a weapon while working as an EMT or Paramedic.  Also post the insurance carrier which okays this and provides coverage. Does the insurance or the union promise to get you an attorney when you shoot someone?  You had better check these policies very closely.


----------



## MrJones (Apr 18, 2013)

Clipper1 said:


> ...Usually those who are the most pro for carrying a weapon on an ambulance without acknowledging any negatives are the ones who should not carry a weapon at all.



Consider yourself challenged: Provide empirical proof to substantiate this claim.


----------



## RocketMedic (Apr 18, 2013)

Clipper1 said:


> Post your employer's policy for you carrying a weapon while working as an EMT or Paramedic.  Also post the insurance carrier which okays this and provides coverage. Does the insurance or the union promise to get you an attorney when you shoot someone?  You had better check these policies very closely.



I do not carry at work for this reason, PPI WOULD TERMINATE my employment. However, why should I cede my right to self-defense in favor of a criminal complaint against an attacker? According to PPI, no force or minimal force can be used to protect yourself. The policy is vague for a reason- questionable actions = termination. Complaints or lawsuits = termination. Legislation to allow EMS providers to carry would remove liability from the employer. As for insurance, most CCWs do not have it. We do not shoot random people, we are literally only to shoot to stop immediate life threats. When Im carrying, I will gladly sacrifice my wallet and truck to escape. My backpack? Sure. Shoes, phone, gun? No. The next step in that chain is murder. 

My state also has a law that immunizes me from civil and criminal complaints levied by criminals for damages incurred during the commission of a crime. Other states do not. A ccw shooting is always reviewed by law enforcement. 

Whats your answer when a crew is murdered? "Whoops, sorry?" "Its a risk?"

Why not use OSHAs general-duty clause to mandate an armed guard on every truck?


----------



## Bullets (Apr 18, 2013)

CFal said:


> In I'm currently in you don't even need a concealed weapons permit to carry concealed.



You don't have to rub it in Vermont.... 

Utah has unlicensed open carry

When I was in college, I walked to the gun shop, bought a M1 Carbine and openly carried it back to the fraternity through the town square and campus.  One cop stopped us, only because he was interested in also buying an M1 carbine and wanted to talk to us about it.  We went back to the house and talked shop about the rifle for a while, no issues

If I did that in NJ, I'd get shot by the cops

depends on your local laws and attitudes

I know our agency has no policy on concealed carry, but that's because NJ doesn't issue ccw permits


----------



## Clipper1 (Apr 18, 2013)

MrJones said:


> Consider yourself challenged: Provide empirical proof to substantiate this claim.



Just read the posts here and you will see enough to substantiate that.  You have some who are want to have a shoot out in a meth lab. Some want to go down fighting.  Some who use the word asault loosely. Some who disrespect the polices of their employer. You have a few who would ignor NO CARRY zones.  Some also believe the CCW training of a couple hours is adequate and then you have some places where that is not even required to carry a gun.

The total lack of consistency in training, state laws and availabilty of guns make this dicussion on the same level as discussing the many different certs in EMS.   If EMS can not agree on what to call the levels and how much training for each, this gun issue is out of reach for any agreement also.  

It is also interesting to see the change in arguments through the years. Not that long ago there were a lot of Public Safety Officers who did a duel role of Police and Paramedic. Those who liked the medical side thought it was a conflict of interest to carry both a gun and a stethoscope in civilian life. Believe it or not we had the same violent acts a few years ago and even 50 years ago. The only difference is the internet gets the news out faster and every media outlet wants to out do the others in headlines.   Now it seems the patient is forgotten in all of these pro gun arguments.  

Commonsense would say you will be of no use to the patient if you and only your partner are engaging in a gun battle with someone.  Get the need help first before trying to get yourself, your partner and the patient killed. If you escalate the situation it will not end well.  Some pro gun arguments presented here are like saying the 15 seconds you saved by running through a red light doing 60 mph at a busy intersection will save a life.


----------



## DrParasite (Apr 18, 2013)

Rocketmedic40 said:


> I do not carry at work for this reason, PPI WOULD TERMINATE my employment.


as would many other places





Rocketmedic40 said:


> However, why should I cede my right to self-defense in favor of a criminal complaint against an attacker? According to PPI, no force or minimal force can be used to protect yourself. The policy is vague for a reason- questionable actions = termination. Complaints or lawsuits = termination.


in case you didn't get your employers message, you are the least important thing.  if the public attacks you, you can't fight back (the public is more important than you).  if the anyone files a complaint or lawsuit, you are immediately terminated (they would rather maintain the relationship with the public than you, even if you are right).  Anything "questionable" happens, and you are terminated.  See, PPI would rather you get hurt or killed than you defend yourself against a person who would do you harm; after all, you are replaceable, and they need the public's favor to stay in business.  how is that for a warm and tingly?


Rocketmedic40 said:


> My state also has a law that immunizes me from civil and criminal complaints levied by criminals for damages incurred during the commission of a crime. Other states do not. A ccw shooting is always reviewed by law enforcement.


that's awesome.  and ANY shooting (whether CCW or not) should be reviewed by law enforcement.  hell, any shooting by law enforcement is reviewed by law enforcement.


Rocketmedic40 said:


> Whats your answer when a crew is murdered? "Whoops, sorry?" "Its a risk?"


that's the attitude that many agencies have to crews getting assaulted: "it's just part of and a risk of the job." some places won't even allow crews to file charges against the attacker.


----------



## DrParasite (Apr 18, 2013)

Clipper1 said:


> Your partner should have the right to refuse to be with you if they feel you are not trained adequately or have the temperment to be carrying a weapon. They may fear you more than any "Jason" character.


If I can't refuse to be with my partner because they are an idiot when it comes to EMS, how can you justify refusing to work with someone because they don't have the right temperament to carry a weapon?

and as a side note, i know quite a few cops that don't have the temperament to carry weapons, and yet they are still law enforcement officers.  I am still not sure how they passed the psych exam to become cops


----------



## Bullets (Apr 18, 2013)

Clipper1 said:


> The total lack of consistency in training, state laws and availabilty of guns make this dicussion on the same level as discussing the many different certs in EMS.   If EMS can not agree on what to call the levels and how much training for each, this gun issue is out of reach for any agreement also.



The problem i have with using the police as the bar for training is that is see these cops everyday, as i work for the police department. 95% of these guys dont own other firearms, dont shoot outside of the two qualification shoots a year, and couldnt care less about firearms. The training and testing is laughable.

This isnt a reasonable argument. Police training varies almost as widely from state to state as EMS training does, even within the state between municipal and state agencies. Would you would suggest that a NJ officer is more of a cop then a NC officer, despite the NJ officer having twice as much training. 

1000 rounds, a 20 minute test and a day of training on "Use of Force" policy is not sufficient to certify someone to carry and use a firearm, yet we put officers on the street with this level of training everyday. Citizen CCW owners put far more rounds through their weapons then our departments average officer. 

It should be the same training for cops and CCW holders


----------



## Clipper1 (Apr 18, 2013)

DrParasite said:


> If I can't refuse to be with my partner because they are an idiot when it comes to EMS, how can you justify refusing to work with someone because they don't have the right temperament to carry a weapon?



If you are knowingly breaking a company policy as well as local or state laws for carrying a concealed weapon while on duty, your partner should not have to suffer the consequences of your actions.     If you are bragging about shooting people for no reason except maybe the color of their skin or that they live in the wrong neighborhood or you are pulling your weapon on every medical call because you saw a Friday the 13th rerun the night before, yes your partner has every right to fear working with you.


----------



## DrParasite (Apr 18, 2013)

Clipper1 said:


> If you are knowingly breaking a company policy as well as local or state laws for carrying a concealed weapon while on duty, your partner should not have to suffer the consequences of your actions.     If you are bragging about shooting people for no reason except maybe the color of their skin or that they live in the wrong neighborhood or you are pulling your weapon on every medical call because you saw a Friday the 13th rerun the night before, yes your partner has every right to fear working with you.


show of hands:  how many CCW permit holders "brag about shooting people for no reason except maybe the color of their skin"?   Hmmm.

how many people "are pulling your weapon on every medical call because you saw a Friday the 13th rerun the night before"?  hmmm.  

i don't see many hands being raised.  do you?


----------



## truetiger (Apr 18, 2013)

I keep seeing this argument about people pulling their gun on every medical call, some of you act like armed medics will be pulling their weapons out all the time. As someone has already said, many of you are around ccw holders every day without ever knowing it, obviously they aren't pulling their weapons daily.


----------



## Clipper1 (Apr 18, 2013)

Bullets said:


> The problem i have with using the police as the bar for training is that is see these cops everyday, as i work for the police department. 95% of these guys dont own other firearms, dont shoot outside of the two qualification shoots a year, and couldnt care less about firearms. The training and testing is laughable.
> 
> This isnt a reasonable argument. Police training varies almost as widely from state to state as EMS training does, even within the state between municipal and state agencies. Would you would suggest that a NJ officer is more of a cop then a NC officer, despite the NJ officer having twice as much training.
> 
> ...



Citizen CCW owners do more than a 1000 rounds?  Many will also not do more than that in a life time of owning a weapon. CCWs are easily obtained in some states after a 4 hour class at a gun show. Some might require hands on and some don't.

If your law enforcement are as poorly trained as you are saying, maybe it is better to start getting them up to a decent level before trying to hand out CCWs to every joe smo on the street just like EMS should get its levels consistent before adding more alphabet.


----------



## Aidey (Apr 18, 2013)

truetiger said:


> I keep seeing this argument about people pulling their gun on every medical call, some of you act like armed medics will be pulling their weapons out all the time. As someone has already said, many of you are around ccw holders every day without ever knowing it, obviously they aren't pulling their weapons daily.



I've already pointed out we are not talking about the general public dealing with other people in the general public. Some of the most questionable situations involving mentally altered patients at my agency have also involved the people that would be the first to carry on the job if they could. I have no doubt that some of those patients would have ended up shot, and in all the cases the provider came out fine, without needing a gun.


----------



## Clipper1 (Apr 18, 2013)

DrParasite said:


> show of hands:  how many CCW permit holders "brag about shooting people for no reason except maybe the color of their skin"?   Hmmm.
> 
> how many people "are pulling your weapon on every medical call because you saw a Friday the 13th rerun the night before"?  hmmm.
> 
> i don't see many hands being raised.  do you?



Looking at the EMS wire you could be wrong. Just recently there was a NY Paramedic on the front page with his comments and gun collection.

There are also a few comments made here which should raise some red flags for their employer to be concerned about.


----------



## truetiger (Apr 18, 2013)

Aidey said:


> I've already pointed out we are not talking about the general public dealing with other people in the general public. Some of the most questionable situations involving mentally altered patients at my agency have also involved the people that would be the first to carry on the job if they could. I have no doubt that some of those patients would have ended up shot, and in all the cases the provider came out fine, without needing a gun.



That is purely your assumption. As a CCW holder the 2nd last thing i would want to do is shoot someone, the last thing would be to not come home.


----------



## Clipper1 (Apr 18, 2013)

truetiger said:


> That is purely your assumption. As a CCW holder the 2nd last thing i would want to do is shoot someone, the last thing would be to not come home.



You would have much more of a chance of being shot working in fast food, a quik mart or some ERs.  If you are that afraid, rethink your job.  You will also find that there is a greater chance of dying in a MVC or getting hit by a city bus than shot.  With the "fighting stance" some have taken with their pro gun attitude, putting temptation into your hands when you are working in EMS may only lead to bad things. You may not have to shoot someone to find yourself out of a job and  having your family's financial well being threatened.  It is good for drama to talk about not coming home but remember you have a home now.   Take a self defense class designed for EMS and don't rely on a gun getting you out of situations. Learn more about hazmat and don't shoot a gun in a meth lab. Approach an ammonia fire with caution and learn from the mistakes of others.  Write to some of the former law enforcement officers who are now serving prison time for what they (and co-workers) believed to be a justified shoot. They might still have their life but the lives of their loved ones have been changed forever as they are in hiding in fear of their lives which no gun will ever give them security.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Apr 18, 2013)

To all - 

Tone down the rhetoric and hyperbole and provide factual basis for your arguments or this thread will go the way of all the other concealed carry threads here.

But if you truly want to debate concealed carry using only those methods, then there are plenty of firearms and anti-firearms forums out there to do it.


----------



## DrParasite (Apr 18, 2013)

Clipper1 said:


> Looking at the EMS wire you could be wrong. Just recently there was a NY Paramedic on the front page with his comments and gun collection.


please cite your link(s).  I did a quick search and found nothing.

BTW, having a gun collection and shooting people for no reason are two vastly different issues.  please try to stay on topic, and explain how they apply to CCW, especially on an ambulance.


----------



## Aidey (Apr 18, 2013)

truetiger said:


> That is purely your assumption. As a CCW holder the 2nd last thing i would want to do is shoot someone, the last thing would be to not come home.



Without going into a long drawn out explanation, it is not purely my assumption. That might be your goal as a CCW holder, but n=1.


----------



## Clipper1 (Apr 18, 2013)

DrParasite said:


> please cite your link(s).  I did a quick search and found nothing.



http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/staten_island/bravest_crying_shame_Ez4sgNRTlOPVLGiSJ146qK




> BTW, having a gun collection and shooting people for no reason are two vastly different issues.  please try to stay on topic, and explain how they apply to CCW, especially on an ambulance



If you relate violence, gun laws and everything which is wrong with the world to Jews and blacks, it may not take much to set you off.  Looking the other way is not the way to prevent violence. If you know someone you work with might have issues, would you really advocate for him to carry on the job.

Do you carry a gun on the job and does your employer know? How often do you go to the gun range? Do you keep a lock box in the ambulance which can not be removed easily?  Do you carry the gun into the hospitals and other public places where CCW are not usually allowed?


----------



## Carlos Danger (Apr 18, 2013)

mycrofft said:


> If you want to argue about right to carry, get out of your chairs,_* right now*_, strap on your holster or get out your rifle, load your weapon, carry it in plain sight (no "CCW" necessary, right?) then walk one mile out and one mile back in a commercial or retail district and see what happens. GO by an elementary school if possible. Stop by and go inside McDonald's. Drive with it on the front passenger seat and bust a stop sign and see the reaction when pulled over. "Put the rubber on the road" for this discussion and report back.



What are you talking about?


----------



## Carlos Danger (Apr 18, 2013)

Clipper1 said:


> Citizen CCW owners do more than a 1000 rounds?  Many will also not do more than that in a life time of owning a weapon.



Are you kidding me? You clearly don't know many CCW holders. They tend to be very active with training; I bet many train more than a typical cop does. 

It's nothing at all for someone to go out and fire a few hundred rounds on a saturday afternoon. In fact it is quite common.



Clipper1 said:


> If you are that afraid, rethink your job.  You will also find that there is a greater chance of dying in a MVC or getting hit by a city bus than shot.



It has nothing to do with being afraid of your job.

It is simply about retaining the same rights at work as you have when you are not at work.


----------



## Clipper1 (Apr 18, 2013)

Halothane said:


> Are you kidding me? You clearly don't know many CCW holders. They tend to be very active with training; I bet many train more than a typical cop does.
> 
> It's nothing at all for someone to go out and fire a few hundred rounds on a saturday afternoon. In fact it is quite common.
> 
> ...



I think you are over estimating those who are CCW. Some got it just because they could when it became popular.  I would imagine there are some who might read some of your posts and decide to go for their CCW permit.  I know young and old, men and women who have CCW permits and even own a couple of nice guns which they haven't shot since they got their permit.  Alot of us don't go to the range even once a year but still have a gun and a permit. When some of the states first started allowing CCW, it was new and cool. Good times for the gun shop owners back then. 

Your employer also has rights.  You might have the right to smoke at home but that does not mean you can on the ambulance.  Some apartments also ban smoking. You comply or move. The lease you sign give the landlords that right. Your work agreement to abide by the policies set forth by the employer.  You have the right to get another job if you don't agree with your employer.  Why do you think you have the right to violate your company's policy? Do you also refuse to wear the uniform?  

When you get a CCW, you also agree to abide by the regulations pertaining to that permit. Being an EMT does not give you the right to violate those either.


----------



## Aidey (Apr 18, 2013)

Halothane said:


> It is simply about retaining the same rights at work as you have when you are not at work.



Then how come people aren't throwing a fit over not being able to say whatever they want while in uniform or on the clock? When people post stupid stuff on Facebook and get in trouble, everyone chides them for being stupid. But when they want to carry a gun on duty they are just trying to protect their rights.


----------



## Rialaigh (Apr 18, 2013)

I have thought about this some more after reading all the replies and I have come to a conclusion, that I think I could agree with. 

I would be okay with CCW on ambulances, in the station, and etc. If 

1. All EMS must pass physical testing that includes the use of physical force to restrain people, similar to law enforcement training. If your not willing to go to the ground with a patient and fight for your gun in training then you don't get to carry a gun. 
2. All EMS who CCW must also carry tasers and handcuffs and be allowed and required to use them in accordance with the use of force continuum. I don't think we should be giving people one tool to do 5 jobs, if they want the most deadly tool then they will be required to carry the other tools necessary to effectively do all 5 jobs. 
3. If you work in a dangerous area with repeat encounters requiring use of force then you will be required to wear protective gear of some form on calls (vest, etc). 
4. EMS who CCW will be required to wear recorders on calls. 



I'm fine with giving EMS the tools to do the job if you give them all the tools. If your not willing to carry everything needed to effectively do the job then you can't carry any of it. This is not a profession where you get to pick and choose based on personal preference when your talking about your personal safety and the safety of others. 



If you think this is unreasonable and you should be able to be 300 pounds, completely out of shape, not trained in physical restrain and use of force, and carry a gun, then I vote we take everything except monitors and 14 gauge needles off the trucks, if they look bad we will just start huge needles run big bags of fluid wide open, intubate and shock them, if they look fine we will just take the to the hospital....


Carry all the tools to get the job done. If you want any of the tools, then be responsible enough to have the best tools and know how to use them all...


----------



## Medic Tim (Apr 18, 2013)

Rialaigh said:


> I have thought about this some more after reading all the replies and I have come to a conclusion, that I think I could agree with.
> 
> I would be okay with CCW on ambulances, in the station, and etc. If
> 
> ...



at this point woundn't it be easier and cheaper to just hire more police and put them through the 150 hour emt class and have them first respond in place of fire.


----------



## Bullets (Apr 18, 2013)

Aidey said:


> Then how come people aren't throwing a fit over not being able to say whatever they want while in uniform or on the clock? When people post stupid stuff on Facebook and get in trouble, everyone chides them for being stupid. But when they want to carry a gun on duty they are just trying to protect their rights.



Because when you accept employment you agree to whatever their social media policy is

And the same would occur with CCW, you agree to whatever policy the employer allows.

The point here is that there should be a discussion with employers to develop and set a policy one way or the other. I would be interested in knowing how many agencies actually have a policy on CCW. I know mine doesnt because NJ doesnt issue


----------



## RocketMedic (Apr 18, 2013)

Clipper1 said:


> Citizen CCW owners do more than a 1000 rounds?  Many will also not do more than that in a life time of owning a weapon. CCWs are easily obtained in some states after a 4 hour class at a gun show. Some might require hands on and some don't.
> 
> If your law enforcement are as poorly trained as you are saying, maybe it is better to start getting them up to a decent level before trying to hand out CCWs to every joe smo on the street just like EMS should get its levels consistent before adding more alphabet.



The only pistol I own with less than a thousand rounds fired is my .38. My .45 has about 1200 through it, and Im pretty familiar with a Beretta 92. 

Clipper, your bias is showing.


----------



## RocketMedic (Apr 18, 2013)

Aidey said:


> Then how come people aren't throwing a fit over not being able to say whatever they want while in uniform or on the clock? When people post stupid stuff on Facebook and get in trouble, everyone chides them for being stupid. But when they want to carry a gun on duty they are just trying to protect their rights.



Facebook cannot literally stab you or choke you until you die.


----------



## DrParasite (Apr 18, 2013)

Clipper1 said:


> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/staten_island/bravest_crying_shame_Ez4sgNRTlOPVLGiSJ146qK
> 
> If you relate violence, gun laws and everything which is wrong with the world to Jews and blacks, it may not take much to set you off.  Looking the other way is not the way to prevent violence. If you know someone you work with might have issues, would you really advocate for him to carry on the job.


I believe the appropriate response to that is n=1 (am I using this right??).  you can't judge an entire culture (in this case, CCW people) by one racist paramedic.  I know 100 nice people who like minorities and jews.  they don't want to shoot people.  racists are everywhere, you can't based everyone based on a very small minority.  I can also assure you, the majority of the paramedics in both FDNY and NYC EMS aren't racist idiot.  Out of 3,200 FDNY EMS people, if 3 are racist, that's only 0.09% of the entire staff.  how do you think that responds to the general public?


Clipper1 said:


> Do you carry a gun on the job and does your employer know? How often do you go to the gun range? Do you keep a lock box in the ambulance which can not be removed easily?  Do you carry the gun into the hospitals and other public places where CCW are not usually allowed?


hahahaha, do I?  I don't even own a handgun.  I don't have a CCW permit.  If I did have both, would i want to carry on the ambulance?  absolutely.  note: I am not saying I would, just that I would want to.  

if I did how often  would I draw it? not unless it was an imminent life threat.  and the only place I could take remove it would be places where law enforcement was not allow to bring theirs (jails, court, secure psych facilities, etc).  and if I was doing my job right, no one would know i had it on me, unless I needed to draw it to save a life or defuse a threat to my life.  and yes, if my employer were to discipline me for it, that is his prerogative, but at least I will be going home to my wife


----------



## JPINFV (Apr 18, 2013)

Rocketmedic40 said:


> Facebook cannot literally stab you or choke you until you die.





...and paramedics getting stabbed and chocked is, by far, a minority of the assaults that occur. However, the pro-CCW crowd (and, for the record, I'm for "shall-issue" laws) equate any and all assaults, regardless of the circumstances including contributing disease pathology to an immediate threat to the life of the provider. 


...and yes... I don't have the requested faith in the *average *EMS provider to believe that some patient with an altered mental status (be it psych, biochemical, trauma, tox, etc) isn't going to get shot for not going with the program. If I can't trust the average EMS provider with RSI, why would I trust them with a firearm?


----------



## RocketMedic (Apr 19, 2013)

JPINFV said:


> ...and paramedics getting stabbed and chocked is, by far, a minority of the assaults that occur. However, the pro-CCW crowd (and, for the record, I'm for "shall-issue" laws) equate any and all assaults, regardless of the circumstances including contributing disease pathology to an immediate threat to the life of the provider.
> 
> 
> ...and yes... I don't have the requested faith in the *average *EMS provider to believe that some patient with an altered mental status (be it psych, biochemical, trauma, tox, etc) isn't going to get shot for not going with the program. If I can't trust the average EMS provider with RSI, why would I trust them with a firearm?



I dont particularly care about the disease pathology of someone trying to hurt or kill me. If I can identify and correct that pathology, cool. But once you try and hurt or kill me, Im operating in self-preservation mode, not help mode.


----------



## JPINFV (Apr 19, 2013)

Rocketmedic40 said:


> I dont particularly care about the disease pathology of someone trying to hurt or kill me. If I can identify and correct that pathology, cool. But once you try and hurt or kill me, Im operating in self-preservation mode, not help mode.




So you have no qualms about shooting a patient with a brain injury who is resisting you? You'll shoot a psych patient who is combative? After all, if they try to hurt you, you're automatically in self-preservation mode, right?


----------



## RocketMedic (Apr 19, 2013)

JPINFV said:


> So you have no qualms about shooting a patient with a brain injury who is resisting you? You'll shoot a psych patient who is combative? After all, if they try to hurt you, you're automatically in self-preservation mode, right?



Thats not what I said and you know it. However, if either of those patients pose a threat to my life, yes, I would. Psychosis is not a reason to allow a patiebt to injure, cripple or kill you.


----------



## Clipper1 (Apr 19, 2013)

DrParasite said:


> I believe the appropriate response to that is n=1 (am I using this right??).  you can't judge an entire culture (in this case, CCW people) by one racist paramedic.  I know 100 nice people who like minorities and jews.  they don't want to shoot people.  racists are everywhere, you can't based everyone based on a very small minority.  I can also assure you, the majority of the paramedics in both FDNY and NYC EMS aren't racist idiot.  Out of 3,200 FDNY EMS people, if 3 are racist, that's only 0.09% of the entire staff.  how do you think that responds to the general public?
> hahahaha, do I?  I don't even own a handgun.  I don't have a CCW permit.  If I did have both, would i want to carry on the ambulance?  absolutely.  note: I am not saying I would, just that I would want to.
> 
> if I did how often  would I draw it? not unless it was an imminent life threat.  and the only place I could take remove it would be places where law enforcement was not allow to bring theirs (jails, court, secure psych facilities, etc).  and if I was doing my job right, no one would know i had it on me, unless I needed to draw it to save a life or defuse a threat to my life.  and yes, if my employer were to discipline me for it, that is his prerogative, but at least I will be going home to my wife




There are more incidents than just this and they have even been discussed here.  Maybe a more thorough search on your part might give you a better view of the other side presented here.  

If you draw a gun on someone, you will be facing a lot more than just a slap on the wrist discipline from your employer. Anytime you point a gun at someone, it is a serious whether you intend to shoot someone or not. 

Do all of the hospitals allow EMTs to carry guns within their walls? 


Have you not gone home to your wife without carrying a gun for the past several years?


----------



## Bullets (Apr 19, 2013)

JPINFV said:


> So you have no qualms about shooting a patient with a brain injury who is resisting you? You'll shoot a psych patient who is combative? After all, if they try to hurt you, you're automatically in self-preservation mode, right?



If the person is assaulting me and i have a reasonable belief that they intend to kill me, then i will respond with equal force to subdue or end the attack. At that point the patient-provider relationship is over and now its an attacker assailant issue. 

Just because a patient is combative does not result in the use of lethal force. You continue to offer that as soon as a patient becomes difficult then EMTs are going to start mag dumping into the patient. This is ridiculous hyperbole and near offensive. I would hate to work with the providers you work with who have instilled this belief in you that EMTs are micron away from a shooting spree

Ive never had a combative patient who was combative due to a head injury who was actually strong enough to make me feel in danger.


----------



## Bullets (Apr 19, 2013)

Clipper1 said:


> There are more incidents than just this and they have even been discussed here.  Maybe a more thorough search on your part might give you a better view of the other side presented here.
> 
> If you draw a gun on someone, you will be facing a lot more than just a slap on the wrist discipline from your employer. Anytime you point a gun at someone, it is a serious whether you intend to shoot someone or not.
> 
> ...



Both sides can find instances of misuse of firearms. Look at NYPD at the Empire State Building recently, or LAPD shooting those ladies months back. Trained police officers who were unable to place rounds on a stationary target or a target moving in a linear direction. 

Again, the rules that would apply to civilian CCW would apply, it would be up to the individual to make themselves aware of each hospitals policy and determine if carrying is feasible. 

When i go home, i have a firearm and am always secure in my residence


----------



## Aidey (Apr 19, 2013)

It really is not that hyperbolic. There are people out there who believe that any physical threat is reason to use deadly force. I work with several people like this. They are the loudest proponents of CCW at work, and they are also the same people who have been involved in very questionable physical altercations with pts.


----------



## RocketMedic (Apr 19, 2013)

Aidey said:


> It really is not that hyperbolic. There are people out there who believe that any physical threat is reason to use deadly force. I work with several people like this. They are the loudest proponents of CCW at work, and they are also the same people who have been involved in very questionable physical altercations with pts.



...and on the flipside, we have people who legitimately believe that peace, love and mercy are the only tools we should ever have to defend ourselves.

Atlas_Flyer had the best solution yet.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Apr 19, 2013)

I see the hyperbole continues in this thread so it can join the rest of the concealed carry threads here.


----------

