concealed weapon carry

[Rialaigh]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

A few thoughts....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.