EMS workers allowed to carry weapons...

[Aidey]

Why is it all or nothing? Why is it either defenseless or gun?

 

[DesertMedic66]

Why is it all or nothing? Why is it either defenseless or gun?

That's what I'm trying to figure out (but not getting anywhere). Everyone I've talked to out of work (myself included) all agree that a non-lethal option would be a better for EMS. Self defensive courses, tasers, etc.

 

[Sandog]

Your very quick to claim someone is against the constitution yet, have you ever even served this great nation to support that constitutional flag you wave so dearly.

EMS are to help the sick and injured, why do you feel you are so much in danger that you need firearms? I do not think the public would be so receptive to medical individuals claiming to help, carrying a gun.

The possibilities of something going very wrong, far outweigh the need for your false sense of security.

Your for the second amendment but yet your fine with no being able to bear arms where the federal government says you can't? Well that confusing. You should want to bear arms everywhere you go no matter what. If I visit the president I should have the right to bear arms because it is in the second amendment to bear arms.

Good point.

 

[nwhitney]

I believe a very important point is being missed here.

Private agencies who do not allow firearms to be carried by their employees during working hours are not violating their employees second amendment rights.

Interesting points from both sides and for me if given the option to carry I wouldn't.

 

[medicsb]

Why? Why is it reasonable?

Because there isn't a demonstrable need for firearms as a means of self-defense for EMS. There is nothing whatsoever indicating that guns would have any impact on death or injury of EMSers.

Why is it reasonable for me to be otherwise defenseless against someone that wants to do me harm simply because I put a uniform on?

But, you are NOT defenseless. Even without a gun. So I don't get what you are trying to say.

 

[Shishkabob]

Your for the second amendment but yet your fine with no being able to bear arms where the federal government says you can't? Well that confusing. You should want to bear arms everywhere you go no matter what. If I visit the president I should have the right to bear arms because it is in the second amendment to bear arms.

Funny, quite sure I Never said I agree with it.

Your very quick to claim someone is against the constitution yet, have you ever even served this great nation to support that constitutional flag you wave so dearly..

I have a DD-214 with my name on it that says otherwise

Can't write much more due to being on my phone at work.

 

[ffemt8978]

If you want to challenge somebody's service history, DO IT ELSEWHERE!

If you want to debate the Bill of Rights, DO IT ELSEWHERE!

If you want to discuss EMS, then continue on.

 

[DesertMedic66]

Funny, quite sure I Never said I agree with it.



I have a DD-214 with my name on it that says otherwise

Can't write much more due to being on my phone at work.

But you did say you don't see a reason why they are banned other places. Which implies that you see a reason they are banned in federal areas. Which in turn means you do not support the 2nd amendment (according to what you were telling us). If you support the 2nd then you shouldn't see a reason they are banned anywhere because you have the right to defend yourself...


And to keep my comment about EMS I agree with Medicsb

 

[Sandog]

If you want to challenge somebody's service history, DO IT ELSEWHERE!

If you want to debate the Bill of Rights, DO IT ELSEWHERE!

If you want to discuss EMS, then continue on.

Guns has nothing to do with EMS, so I think I am done.

 

[Sandog]

Funny, quite sure I Never said I agree with it.



I have a DD-214 with my name on it that says otherwise

Can't write much more due to being on my phone at work.

Well, thanks for your service.

 

[Bullets]

That's what I'm trying to figure out (but not getting anywhere). Everyone I've talked to out of work (myself included) all agree that a non-lethal option would be a better for EMS. Self defensive courses, tasers, etc.

Ok, lets examine the other less-lethal options currently in use by Law Enforcement and assume laws would change to allow EMS to carry these

Hands and Feet-While a viable first line of defense, i am sure everyone here has had an experience where physical manipulation has not been up to the task. Either the mental status is severely altered so the assailant isnt affected, or the physical size of the assailant is greater then that of the assailed

Baton-Simply not enough room in a ambulance to deploy and wield effectively, training is more rigorous due to places where you can and cant strike. Assailant ducks and you strike them in the head? You are liable for injures, as ASP and Monadonack both state that head strikes are only to be used if intending to kill. Difficult to use in a one on one fight (PR-24 would be better but its hard to carry)

OC Spray-Use inside an ambulance highly impracticable, possibility of the assailed to be caught in fog. Some people are resistant to the effects of OC spray

Taser-Limited capacity, 1 shot and you have to reload. Contact tazing not as effective as cartridge delivery. To use contact tasing one must remove cartridge

Sidearm-Deployment inside ambulance may result in hearing damage, higher level of training and licensing required to carry

The intention isnt to arm EMS so they can use the firearm to enforce laws or gain compliance. It is to simply allow currently licensed individuals to continue carrying. its not a requirment to carry, its just an option for those who are already allowed to

Also, Carry would be under your armpit or belly band, draw through button front of shirt

 

[mycrofft]

We can't teach everyone to give oxygen properly/appropriately, how can we expect anything better than that regarding lethal force? The ONLY, only, alternative that can be used as a normative standard for deploying and utilizing lethal force is a law enforcement or military-based prehospital EMS system. Period.

 

[firetender]

Having a gun in your possession shifts your consciousness.

It is a big deal to carry a concealed weapon because if there is a hint of feeling you're not safe, the first thoughts go to questions like; Should I use it? Now? When? How?

In EMS, the place your thoughts need to be is on your role; to assist in preserving life.

Your focus shifts and now, it's living in the potential of you vs. them.

Ain't EMS complicated enough without adding this :censored::censored::censored::censored: to it?

 

[truetiger]

I don't think having a concealed weapon is going to shift your focus from patient care. If you have to consider using your weapon, your focus would have already shifted from pt care to survival. The weapon is meant to be a last resort in a situation in which getting fired would be the last thing on your mind.

 

[DrParasite]

We have stated reasons why carrying a weapon in the back of an ambulance is not a good idea (heck in my area PD has to remove their gun in order to ride with us). Small places and guns don't exactly mix.

Oddly enough, I agree with you. firearms in the back of an ambulance are not a good mix. It's can be treated as a controlled environment (similar to a jail), where no one has a gun, but the issue becomes the outside can't be controlled, and threats can come from outside that sheetmetal covered areas.

I do not think the public would be so receptive to medical individuals claiming to help, carrying a gun.

I think that a person who was actually sick and in need of help would not care if the person who was helping them had a gun or not.

Private agencies who do not allow firearms to be carried by their employees during working hours are not violating their employees second amendment rights.

a private agency can make their own rules. that's corporate america, if you want to work at that company, you agree to follow their rules. but you do give a great reason why all 911 EMS should be not private

The intention isnt to arm EMS so they can use the firearm to enforce laws or gain compliance. It is to simply allow currently licensed individuals to continue carrying. its not a requirment to carry, its just an option for those who are already allowed to

and not only that, a LEO has all those options, so if the situation is escalated, they can properly answer. so if a bad guy pulls a gun on them, they aren't only able to respond with a tazer.

Not for nothing, but if I'm forced to defend myself with a firearm, than my life is in imminent danger. more often than not, the danger isn't coming from inside the ambulance, and even if it is, it's very very rarely a life threat (usually leaving the ambulance allows LEO to deal with the issue). If I'm armed, i will not be drawing to enforce laws, nor will I be doing so to ensure compliance. Only to protect my life and the life of my partner when we are facing an imminent danger to our life.

 

[11569150]

I guess ill add my two cents:
I work in a very rural county on a private ambulance. We run medical aids by ourselves with no fire support. Our county has experienced cut backs for the sherrifs office and their response time to assist us can be upwards of 40 mins to an hour. Almost every house we respond to has pot gardens and well armed shady occupants. Many times our crews are met with entirely hostile residents even on the "standard" calls that wouldn't warrent police assistance (I.e. anything except violence related calls, attempted suicides, etc.) In our company I know for a fact that most of us have CCW permits and at any given time you can bet all our rigs have at least on concealed weapon on board. This has been going on for years and I will tell you that not one instance has occurred where a weapon was drawn, fired, etc that I am aware of and certainly no "overly excited EMT-related shootings have occurred." We carry our concealed weapons not as a first, second, or even third resort but as a very last ditch attempt to escape with our lives. Long narrow driveways with little turnaround room make escape very difficult in an ambulance and if it comes down to a resident firing at us first than you can bet we will certainly return fire. Many of our medics are trained swat medics as well and know how to keep a level head. Do I feel that legally having guns in an ambulance is a good idea? Absolutely. Do I think that some boogereaters out there in our profession shouldn't even be allowed to carry mace let alone a gun? Absolutely. There's a lot of different types of people in our profession just like everywhere else but the idea in general is a fantastic idea to help improve the safety of first responders everywhere.

 

[DT4EMS]

Give EMS the same "level" of training, all the other "protection" options and I am in. The training can't be the "same" because the desired outcome is different. Otherwise:

 

[11569150]

One more thought: I am in support of emts being allowed to carry CONCEALED firearms. Open carry would open up a whole new can of worms because you are moving from personal protection to implied law enforecement.

 

[mycrofft]

I guess ill add my two cents:
I work in a very rural county on a private ambulance..... There's a lot of different types of people in our profession just like everywhere else but the idea in general is a fantastic idea to help improve the safety of first responders everywhere.

(I shortened the quote).
Man, the grape and weed belt of Calif is not similar to most of our co-paticipants' experience,you have my respect. How often have you had to produce a firearm? Heck, you might wind up at an outdoor scene looking at a wild boar sometime!

I think very rural/frontier situations are different than the vast majority of prehospital work in the USA. (Aussies, how about your Outback?).

truetiger, yeah, but..."I don't think having a concealed weapon is going to shift your focus from patient care. If you have to consider using your weapon, your focus would have already shifted from pt care to survival". There is precious little time to "consider". Unless you draw the weapon at the first inkling of danger, in close quarters the aggressor will prevail (heck, will most likely prevail in any situation if the aggressor gets the "first punch" in), so if you feel the working environment is that dangerous, to be meaningful, the weapon has to be ON HAND, LOADED, maybe/maybe not SAFETY OFF, at all times...and so becomes dangeous in and of itself and through increased likelihood of theft and loss (ask me about the federal marshals who left their sidearms under the front seat then came back and put an inmate in the back seat before they re-holstered... h34r: )

Overall, this thread is better than many in the past that devolved into caliber matching exchanges.

 

[Doczilla]

Yes. People underestimate how much time and training it takes to use a pistol in enough time to make a difference.

Thousands of rounds. Transitions, stress shooting, immediate action.....