Age and firearms

[Mountain Res-Q]

Are we talking in general, or is this a rehash of the carrying on the EMS-job thread?

Carry in general? As long as a proper CCW permit is issued to respectable/upstanding citizens... sure... one of these days I will be doing so.

Carry on the job? Not a fan of the idea in general and wouldn't do so if given the option. If packing heat is strongly suggested on a pure-EMS job, then I don't think I want that gig. On the other hand, in SAR we are allowed to carry as long as we have the appropriate permit from the Sheriff. In fact, several of our people carry on some calls (mostly the mounted team with pistols and rifles), but anyone could carry assuming they fullfilled the legal requirements... but I don't...

On ambo, we were told that it was completely aganst company (even with CCW permit) and it was a firable offense.

 

[JPINFV]

Yeah, they would have been arrested for carrying a firearm in a school zone. :wacko:

Which is probably a good reason why no one was armed.

 

[JPINFV]

It could have been, or it could have just added more to the casualty list.

They could be on that list either way. When Cho (VTech) was first confronted with any resistance, he killed himself. Personally, if I had the choice of either hiding or confronting an active shooter, I'd rather die confronting and trying to prevent death than by running away. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

 

[Fir Na Au Saol]

It could have been, or it could have just added more to the casualty list.

Well the "gun free zones" sure as heck did NO good whatsoever. Not at Columbine, Virginia Tech, or any other "victim disarmament zone" where all these mass shooting seem to happen. Nobody is shooting up gun shows or police stations that's for sure. And then there is the Appalachian School of Law where armed STUDENTS stopped a killer.

And most likely, if Klebold and Harris or Cho had known that CCW was legal and allowed in those schools, they would have never tried their attacks in the first place.

 

[Mountain Res-Q]

I guess the real question would be:

If you are willing and agreeable to carry a gun (either in general or on the job), would you be willing to use it on another human, knowing that it could possible be fatal? That would be a hard one for most of us (those not from Texas ) that got in medicine/emergency services to help others, not hurt them. And if you say yes to that, then at what point or for what reasons would you consider using it? To defend self? Family? Others? To prevent a crime? What level of crime? Remember, if you want to carry one, then you must be willing to deploy it. If you are willing to deploy it, you must be willing to use it. For some of us (Texans, ex-LEO, ex-military, etc...) that might not be an issue... for others, the desision to carry and use isn't so easy. How hard is it for military folks and LEOs to deal with the afteraffects of such and action, despite the fact that they got into that field knowing it was a possibility? how much harder would it be for EMSers with no such background who got into a lifesaving field?

BTW... 26... non military... would like to carry one day for personal protection (especially on SAR calls in the middle of knowhere - mtn lions and such), but don't now and would never on Ambo...

 

[Sasha]

Well the "gun free zones" sure as heck did NO good whatsoever. Not at Columbine, Virginia Tech, or any other "victim disarmament zone" where all these mass shooting seem to happen. Nobody is shooting up gun shows or police stations that's for sure. And then there is the Appalachian School of Law where armed STUDENTS stopped a killer.

And most likely, if Klebold and Harris or Cho had known that CCW was legal and allowed in those schools, they would have never tried their attacks in the first place.

So are you advocating that we arm students or teachers??? Yeah, let a student get in a disagreement with a teacher and shoot them or vice versa! People can't be trusted to handle arguments responsibly outside of school and without guns, but you want to arm them??

 

[Fir Na Au Saol]

So are you advocating that we arm students or teachers??? Yeah, let a student get in a disagreement with a teacher and shoot them or vice versa! People can't be trusted to handle arguments responsibly outside of school and without guns, but you want to arm them??

This same argument has been trotted out every time a new concealed carry law has been proposed and it's been WRONG every single time. And of course BANNING guns on campuses has worked SO well. NOT! Likewise banning guns in hospitals has totally eliminated violence there too. http://www.emtlife.com/showthread.php?t=13128

If people can't be trusted with guns then they can't be trusted with cars or any other motor vehicle.

The "mayhem in the streets" argument was used when Florida proposed their CCW law. And it was totally wrong. Violent crime went DOWN and it has in EVERY State that has since passed a CCW law. While crime has remained high in those places where CCW is not allowed. Washington DC effectively banned private gun ownership and earned the highest violent crime rate in the US and much of the world.

If somebody is going to resort to violence in a minor argument, they'll use any weapon available. It is the PERSON and their behavior NOT the instrument.

And yes, I would arm teachers and those students legally old enough to own handguns and qualify for Concealed Carry licenses.

 

[usafmedic45]

They could be on that list either way. When Cho (VTech) was first confronted with any resistance, he killed himself. Personally, if I had the choice of either hiding or confronting an active shooter, I'd rather die confronting and trying to prevent death than by running away. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Exactly what I was thinking. It's better to live on your feet than die on your knees as the saying goes. Almost none of the school shooters have gotten into a firefight with an equally (or closely matched) armed opponent....in fact, I can only find corroboration of firefights involving Charles Whitman in 1966, Keith Ledeger in 1994, a kid in Alaska in 1997, the two Columbine shooters, the Red Lake, MN shooter, and the gunman from the Case Western shooting . That is a small minority of the 40 or so school and university shooters in US history. The rest either surrendered immediately, hunkered down somewhere, tried to run away or committed suicide.

 

[JPINFV]

So are you advocating that we arm students or teachers??? Yeah, let a student get in a disagreement with a teacher and shoot them or vice versa! People can't be trusted to handle arguments responsibly outside of school and without guns, but you want to arm them??

The people who would be willing and able to arm themselves would be the more stable of people. Ideally CCW permits wouldn't be handed out like candy ("will issue" states), but not limited to people with a strict need (police, armed transport, etc. Most "shall issue" areas). Besides, nothing is stopping spmeone from illegally carrying anyways.

Now, this said, I fully endorse schools from limiting the ability of on campus residents, especially first and second years, from having guns in the dorms due to the presence of EtOH and the amount of binge drinking that occurs.

 

[Shishkabob]

So are you advocating that we arm students or teachers??? Yeah, let a student get in a disagreement with a teacher and shoot them or vice versa! People can't be trusted to handle arguments responsibly outside of school and without guns, but you want to arm them??

Texas is a huge CCW AND open carry state.


I've yet to have a customer pull a gun on me from telling them they can't return an item.

 

[JPINFV]

I guess the real question would be:

If you are willing and agreeable to carry a gun (either in general or on the job), would you be willing to use it on another human, knowing that it could possible be fatal? That would be a hard one for most of us (those not from Texas ) that got in medicine/emergency services to help others, not hurt them. And if you say yes to that, then at what point or for what reasons would you consider using it? To defend self? Family? Others? To prevent a crime? What level of crime? Remember, if you want to carry one, then you must be willing to deploy it. If you are willing to deploy it, you must be willing to use it. For some of us (Texans, ex-LEO, ex-military, etc...) that might not be an issue... for others, the desision to carry and use isn't so easy. How hard is it for military folks and LEOs to deal with the afteraffects of such and action, despite the fact that they got into that field knowing it was a possibility? how much harder would it be for EMSers with no such background who got into a lifesaving field?

That's a very important point. If you're going to carry you have to be willing to deploy it. A concealed weapon does no good if it's not drawn when needed. Similarly, if you aren't willing to kill the person you're drawing on (and if you're drawing, your aiming to kill. There is no such thing as shooting to wound. You draw, you aim to kill. You shoot. You shoot to kill. Period.), then all you are doing is giving the criminal a free gun with ammo.

 

[Dominion]

I voted to not carry but I didn't get the point if the 'carry' in question was referring to on the job or personal.

Personal:

I already carry. I have a Springfield XD Compact 45 and for the home we have a Remington 870.

On the Job:
I'm just on the other side of the fence for not carrying. I would be interested in seeing the efficacy of lightweight/durable body armor in areas where the rate of attack on EMS personnel is high. I don't think it's so much of an issue where I live but I can see it being an issue in other areas of the country.

 

[JPINFV]

Exactly what I was thinking. It's better to live on your feet than die on your knees as the saying goes. Almost none of the school shooters have gotten into a firefight with an equally (or closely matched) armed opponent....in fact, I can only find corroboration of firefights involving Charles Whitman in 1966, Keith Ledeger in 1994, a kid in Alaska in 1997, the two Columbine shooters, the Red Lake, MN shooter, and the gunman from the Case Western shooting . That is a small minority of the 40 or so school and university shooters in US history. The rest either surrendered immediately, hunkered down somewhere, tried to run away or committed suicide.

The Charles Whitman/UT Austin incident is interesting to learn about in large part because several members of the community ended up responding to the incident and provided counter fire. The counter fire caused Whitman to lay low in the tower and use the drains to fire down on limiting his ability to aim and saving lives. In the end, the team that advanced on the tower included members from several different police organizations and a civilian (which, if memory serves me correctly, arrived at the base of the tower in two separate independent groups that linked up).


A similar incidence that advocates, at the least, private ownership of fire arms was the North Hollywood shootout. Cliff Notes: Bank robbers with illegal fully automatic weapons and heavy body armor outmatched police. Police ended up borrowing several high powered rifles from a local gun shop. Thankfully, the only two deaths were the robbers.

 

[usafmedic45]

If you are willing and agreeable to carry a gun (either in general or on the job), would you be willing to use it on another human, knowing that it could possible be fatal?

I was actually a little mad that the burglar dropped the machete so fast that I didn't have time to put a couple of rounds center mass while he was still armed. Seemed like all the time I spent target shooting was for naught and the sleazebag was only going to get a handful of years for his crime. To me, as soon as someone becomes an imminent threat to me or anyone else, I lose most, if not all, my concern for their wellbeing. It's just a matter of how you go about assigning value to human life. If you believe that there is an inherent value regardless of a person's action (such as Sasha does), then you might have a more difficult time pulling the trigger than someone who is a strict pragmatist (such as myself).

I would actually give the mountain lion in the SAR scenario mentioned the benefit of a warning shot that I would not give a human. I would also probably lose more sleep over killing a mountain lion that I would some low rent gangsta or some crazed Chinese grad student. At least the mountain lion was of some value to it's environment.

So are you advocating that we arm students or teachers??? Yeah, let a student get in a disagreement with a teacher and shoot them or vice versa! People can't be trusted to handle arguments responsibly outside of school and without guns, but you want to arm them??

Sasha, your bias is showing again. Either bring up some evidence that people who have concealed carry permits are as or more likely than the general population to use their weapon inappropriately or stop trying to argue using some seriously poor debate form.

Here's a question for everyone since we are all medical professionals: If you have to shoot someone and you don't inflict an immediately lethal wound (GSW to the head for instance), would you feel obligated to try to help that person (assuming they were the most critically injured or even the ONLY injured person)?

 

[TransportJockey]

Texas is a huge CCW AND open carry state.


I've yet to have a customer pull a gun on me from telling them they can't return an item.

Tx is not an open carry state. Last I checked it's been illegal there for years

 

[usafmedic45]

Tx is not an open carry state. Last I checked it's been illegal there for years

It's only legal in Texas to open carry weapons during hunting and related transit, on your own property or for legitimate self-defense (imminent threat?). What's is surprising is that Indiana has a legal licensed open carry law but Texas apparently does not.

 

[JPINFV]

Here's a question for everyone since we are all medical professionals: If you have to shoot someone and you don't inflict an immediately lethal wound (GSW to the head for instance), would you feel obligated to try to help that person (assuming they were the most critically injured or even the ONLY injured person)?

Once they are secure (and they won't be secure until at least someone else is on scene to provide cover or are out cold), then yes. The point of the threat/use of deadly force is to meet the treat/use of deadly force against innocent people. Once that threat is over, then there is no more reason for the deadly force and medical care should be rendered. Otherwise, it would be like saying that inmates deserve no care for any injuries sustained.

 

[TransportJockey]

It's only legal in Texas to open carry weapons during hunting and related transit, on your own property or for legitimate self-defense (imminent threat?). What's is surprising is that Indiana has a legal licensed open carry law but Texas apparently does not.

My mistake. I know that compared to NM the OC laws are very stringent. I'm decently big into it, considering it's my preferred method of carry

 

[usafmedic45]

My mistake. I know that compared to NM the OC laws are very stringent. I'm decently big into it, considering it's my preferred method of carry

I was actually surprised to learn that information as well. I figured Texas would have an approach similar to New Mexico's.....

 

[Shishkabob]

Tx is not an open carry state. Last I checked it's been illegal there for years

By open carry, I mean you can, to an extent, walk around with a pistol somewhat showing (but not on a direct view hip holster) and not even catch the eye of the police many times. See it all the time. Legal or not, it's tolerated, like mary-j in Jamaica. It's not the "out of sight, out of mind" type of thinking.

Unless, of course, you irk the cops.