Sasha
Forum Chief
- 7,667
- 11
- 0
Well, medic417, I think we will have to agree to disagree. None of us know for sure, it's all speculation. You're for it, I'm oppose. Neither one of us are right, and neither one of us are wrong.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nobody shoots to injure. Nobody shoots to kill (non-military)
You shoot to stop the threat
Ummm, Nope your wrong, If I shoot, yeah its definetly to kill. I dont play games.
No scene is ever safe. If they will not properly fund EMS how can we expect them to send a cop on every call? Searching every patient will definitely have patients thinking we are cops.
Point is you had no reason to think scene was unsafe, but it was.
Here in Canada I read various firearms related publications from the USA. From what I've read people who state they shoot to kill rather than shoot to stop the threat are the ones who lose civil lawsuits brought on by the badguy or his family. They are also the ones who get sent to jail. Another way of saying shooting to stop the threat is shooting to live. That is by shooting the bad guy so that one can live.
Ummm, Nope your wrong, If I shoot, yeah its definetly to kill. I dont play games.
Well, honestly, who isnt going to sue over that ??? In todays time, your gettin sued whether you shoot, or you were shot...And, am I going to shoot someone in hopes that they say oh nevermind, you shot me, Im not going to shoot back,,,usually when you pull a gun out, on someone who has a loaded weapon, someones going down.......Im not chancing it.....Im shooting to kill.
And if you go to court with comments like those, you will lose like fortsmithman said. You try to stop the threat, no more, no less. If the threat can't be stopped short of killing them, so be it. But if the subject is obviously incapacitated and is no longer a threat, then you stop shooting.
They are a threat, until the clip is emptied!:
They are a threat, until the clip is emptied!
I think one should be able to carry personal CCP on duty, if the right training is taken. They should have to receive the same training as LEO. This should all be on a case by case basis.
It's not a clip they're called magazines. As well they're not called guns they're weapons or firearms.
OK but also the same psychological screening LEOs go through should also be followed.
It's not a clip pistols carry magazines assault rifles carry magazines as well. They are pistols and rifles. Maybe the USA should start a miltary cadet system for youth. Here in Canada we have Army Cadet, Air Cadets, and Sea Cadets for youth 12 yrs to 18 yrs. In cadets one learns to call a magazine a magazine and not a clip.A clip is internal as in a handgun. A magazine is external as in an assault rifle.
They are not call handfirearms or longfirearms. They are handguns and longguns!
I like the point someone else mentioned based on the arguments some have made that us having concealed handguns would make us more likely to get attacked, so take guns from the cops and that would by those theory's stop the attacks.
Until you use it, once. Then the news headlines will be "Paramedic Shoots Patient" or something. And then in public's view, every person on an ambulance carries a gun.Point of concealed carry is no one will know you have a gun.
Irrelevant. That's like saying it's a taxi driver's job to drive, so we shouldn't transport patients. The cop's job is to protect the public. This isn't about our job. The job has nothing to do with it. This is about protecting yourself. That's not a job. That's a right. That's the whole point. The job should have no say and no bearing on your choice or ability to defend yourself. The law says it's legal. That should be the end of the discussion. As medic417 noted, if your employer presumes to supercede that right, then he is taking liability for your safety, should you suffer from their disarmament. Conversely, if they take no position on the situation, they have no liability for your actions. Ignorance is bliss, and to not address it at all is the most legally prudent position for an EMS agency to take.Carrying a fire arm is part of a cop's job. It is not part of an EMT or Paramedic's job.