EMT/Fire Fighters and gun control

[Veneficus]

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.

I am not questioning whether an employer should be able to tell you how to protect yourself. But let's face it, most minimlly trained EMS providers can't make an informed decsion on when to put somebody on a backboard. You want to add a firearm to the mix?

If a provider was working out in the bush somewhere,a provider may need a firearm for protection from the indiginous species. (people in the urban jungle excluded)

But many of the replies here I have seen seem to not be based on risk/benefit comparison but a "what if" situation that even the most experienced people have never been in and sounds like they expect a gunfight like the O.K. Corral.

"when the psych patient pulls a gun I will pull mine quicker and shoot him or "After I take cover, the advancing under coverfire gunman is going to come finish me off. But I will surprise him and shoot him dead."

Please I have put it to geat minds and could not find one instance. Can anyone find a documented instance of this happening outside of a military environment or a state under siege?

What's next? Make sure you have a backup weapon too? Back up to the back up? Pretty soon you look like Swartzenegger in "Commando" and you haven't even picked up your medical gear yet. Maybe a some urban Cammies to hide in? How about a gillie suit? Is "Scene safe" gonna mean you stopped a mile up the road and checked the area out from the scope of your M82A3 and cautiously advance while your partner covers you to the address because the cops can't come to help you with such a high risk entry because they are tracking down the dude that held up Krispy Kreme?

This just in...

"Paramedics dynamically enter a residence shoot woman and 2 children dead, after securing the scene, they procede to work the cardiac arrest victim, to find out on arrival that the ET tube was in the esophagus."


Think my reply sounds stupid? ask some non ems providers to read the comments here.

 

[VentMedic]

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.

Before advising someone to just use their permit to carry or concealed weapons permit as a justification to use the gun at their place of employment, they must read their permit laws very carefully. These rules will vary from state to state so it is not wise to make this a blanket statement for carrying a weapon at work.

It takes very little to get a concealed weapons permit in most states. They will usually advise that you must consult with your employer or make your employer aware that you will be carrying a weapons on their property. The ambulance is part of their property. If the rules of the concealed weapons permit are abided by, you would be very limited to where you could run calls. If you store the gun in the ambulance, you again would be subject to the rules of carrying a weapons in a vehicle. If you must leave your weapon behind in the ambulance, you would need secure storage and hope that gun does not fall into the wrong hands. If you are working with a patient or at a crowded scene, losing control of your weapon to the patient can be a serious issue as one police officer found out earlier this week in a CA emergency room.


Some of the restrictions: (the wording of two very different states: ND and FL)

ND

State law prohibits firearms and dangerous weapons (concealed or otherwise) in liquor establishments, gaming sites and at any public gathering, including: sporting events, schools or school functions, churches or church functions, political rallies or functions, musical concerts, publicly owned or operated buildings, and publicly owned parks where hunting is not allowed.​

FL​

790.06(12) - No license issued pursuant to this section shall authorize any person to carry a concealed weapon or firearm into any place of nuisance as defined in s. 823.05; any police, sheriff, or highway patrol station; any detention facility, prison, or jail; any courthouse; any courtroom, except that nothing in this section would preclude a judge from carrying a concealed weapon or determining who will carry a concealed weapon in his or her courtroom; any polling place; any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district; any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof; any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms; any school administration building; any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose; any elementary or secondary school facility; any area vocational-technical center; any college or university facility unless the licensee is a registered student, employee, or faculty member of such college or university and the weapon is a stun gun or nonlethal electric weapon or device designed solely for defensive purposes and the weapon does not fire a dart or projectile; inside the passenger terminal and sterile area of any airport, provided that no person shall be prohibited from carrying any legal firearm into the terminal, which firearm is encased for shipment for purposes of checking such firearm as baggage to be lawfully transported on any aircraft; or any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law. Any person who willfully violates any provision of this subsection commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s 775.082 or s. 775.083.

 

[ffemt8978]

But many of the replies here I have seen seem to not be based on risk/benefit comparison but a "what if" situation that even the most experienced people have never been in and sounds like they expect a gunfight like the O.K. Corral.

"when the psych patient pulls a gun I will pull mine quicker and shoot him or "After I take cover, the advancing under coverfire gunman is going to come finish me off. But I will surprise him and shoot him dead."

Please I have put it to geat minds and could not find one instance. Can anyone find a documented instance of this happening outside of a military environment or a state under siege?

Hmm...I've looked, but all I could find was this
http://www.emtlife.com/showthread.php?t=11109
but wait, that doesn't apply to your theory because the medic was unarmed and was therefore killed. And therein lies the crux...how many more of us must be killed by our patients or bystanders before something constructive and productive is done about it?

And for those of you that think it's LE job to protect you, I've got a newsflash for you. LE is under NO OBLIGATION to protect you. If you believe otherwise, you may want to check out Warren vs District of Columbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia)

 

[Veneficus]

Hmm...I've looked, but all I could find was this
http://www.emtlife.com/showthread.php?t=11109
but wait, that doesn't apply to your theory because the medic was unarmed and was therefore killed. And therein lies the crux...how many more of us must be killed by our patients or bystanders before something constructive and productive is done about it?

And for those of you that think it's LE job to protect you, I've got a newsflash for you. LE is under NO OBLIGATION to protect you. If you believe otherwise, you may want to check out Warren vs District of Columbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia)

I read that when it was first posted. The article does not say whether the EMT was shot in the back or what. It also shows that he tried to flee, not make a stand. (maybe his partner is alive because he let that person go first) and not to be mean, but looking at his picture, he was not a small target, reducing his silhouette wasn't much of an option. Also It wasn't until after they heard the action of a weapon they decided to leave. Which was way too late. Some other safety tips like having planned an egress may also have helped. How about rule #1, anytime a patient leaves your site in an area familiar to them it is to retrieve a weapon until proven otherwise?

Are you stipulating that if they heard the action of a weapon and decided to respond in kind the outcome would have been different? That is a very strong supposition. I have never been in a CQB gun fight other than laser tag or paintball, but from that experience and the logic of the situation, 2 people launching rounds in a confined space seems like 2 people would end up dead. (maybe even the other partner) The more people you add shooting the more likely everyone will get hit. Let's come back down to reality and realize we are all not Navy SEALS (though maybe a few are or were) and in a fast reaction gun fight it is not going to happen like we imagine at the range. Clausewitz would call it "the fog of war."

Most EMTs are not going to enter a scene with the plan of "if this goes bad, we will have perpendicular crossfire, one will advance while the other provides coverfire... etc." Even if they do have such plan, it may not work out the way they expect. Look at how many cops end up shooting other cops. We haven't even considered hostages or bystanders.

Maybe some body armor would have served him (and others) better? We will never know. But if you have it, probably best to wear it all the time, not just when you think you will need it.

I do not think it is anyone's responsibility to protect me. Which is why in a stressful situation you may find me thinking and acting instead of praying and hoping divine intervention will save me. I see people pray for help all the time, I have seen very few results. So at the very least the odds are not good. I think there was also a supreme court case that absolved police from a duty to protect.

But lets look at some other important details. There are new people, possibly still in school here with that "save the world" "action Jackson" attitude reading this. People who may look up to YOU Who may think if you say a gun is needed they follow suit. Maybe without your knowledge or skill. Maybe with a different set of rules or laws. Now this person may feel more confident carrying a gun. Making a confrontation more likely.

It was suggested that I made an arguement EMS providers would increase the likelyhood of being assaulted by carrying weapons. I stand by the opinion it likely would. But the same does not hold true of LE. There is considerable animosity harbored towards LEOs and the frequences of direct attacks on police by firearms seems considerably higher than EMS.

In the recent incident in Oakland, people were cheering the shooter! As I said many pages ago, you shoot somebody in a bad neighborhood, even in the right, and you may not make it out that day. Consider yourself a target if you go back.

Next we'll be having a discussion on EMS providers having to wear a
balaclava to protect their identity. How many wear a nametag now? You really think that is safe? Maybe if you are "Mike Smith" it might be. Certianly not with my last name, and you'll more likely need that gun when somebody shows up at your door than you would have when you met them on scene.

As for "returning fire." In a populated area, if fired upon you are going to return fire at what exactly? A muzzle flash? Where you think the shots are coming from? At the guy holding a gun standing behind his abused girlfriend? Or are you going to try to out draw your concealed weapon the girl who pulls a gun on you when you initially thought you would have no need of your weapon? Are you going to decide to back away or eliminate the 80 year old altered LOC patient that thinks you are breaking down his door to kill him on the welfare check and opened fire on you? (provided he hasn't already killed you because you didn't go in with your gun drawn) God help you if you did go in with a drawn weapon.

Like I said, you want to carry on duty, that is your decision, but put me on the record as saying it will not be the panecea of protection you think it will be.

 

[el Murpharino]

Would the individual ambulance companies have the final say in whether or not we could carry weapons if a law was passed allowing us to do so? I'm pretty sure most ambulance companies will say the risk/reward is too high. We are a dime a dozen to many companies, and in essence expendable. Additionally, companies feel how they are perceived in the public eye is paramount...the risk of a public relations nightmare stemming from an innocent civilian shot by a trigger-happy EMT far outweighs the alternative. Professional police officers have shot unarmed and uninvolved civilians in their zest to "stop the threat". Imagine how most prehospital providers would act in similar situations?

 

[fortsmithman]

With Concealed carry permits having restrictions on wear you can carry and where you can't the only solution would be for police services to take over EMS and have all EMTs and paramedics sworn in as LEOs. If that were to happen how many EMTs and paramedics would resign and find new careers. Because that would be the only way for EMS personnel to carry concealed since civilian carry permits have a lot of restriction on where you can carry. LEOs don't have those restrictions.

 

[Sasha]

With Concealed carry permits having restrictions on wear you can carry and where you can't the only solution would be for police services to take over EMS and have all EMTs and paramedics sworn in as LEOs. If that were to happen hw many EMTs and paramedics would resign and find new careers. Because that would be the only way for EMS personnel to carry concealed since civilian carry permits have a lot of restriction on where you can carry. LEOs don't have those restrictions.

I'd leave the profession if we were forced to be LEOs.
Also, if EMTs and Paramedics are allowed to carry guns, I'd prefer to work with people who WEREN'T carrying.

 

[ClarkKent]

EMT should not be carrying a gun. We are here to save lives, NOT TAKE THEM. But I do believe that EMT should be able to defend them self. I do not see a problem with carrying a tazer, it does not take a life, but will save yours.

 

[reaper]

EMT should not be carrying a gun. We are here to save lives, NOT TAKE THEM. But I do believe that EMT should be able to defend them self. I do not see a problem with carrying a tazer, it does not take a life, but will save yours.

I prefer to not bring a taser to a gun fight!h34r:

 

[RMSP05]

I prefer to not bring a taser to a gun fight!h34r:

I second that, it would be about as effective as bringing a knife to a gun fight, eitherway you are on the loosing side.

 

[AJ Hidell]

Would the individual ambulance companies have the final say in whether or not we could carry weapons if a law was passed allowing us to do so? I'm pretty sure most ambulance companies will say the risk/reward is too high.

If they come to that conclusion, then they didn't do a risk/reward assessment at all. The statistics show that EMS providers suffer among the highest rate of violence of all professions. Now, try and find me some statistics showing that EMS personnel dole out a significant amount of violence. Show me the reports. Show me the numbers. Show me any concrete evidence that EMS personnel are highly likely to engage in violent behavior. You can't do it. If a company chooses to limit their personnel's ability to protect themselves and others, it is not because of any evidence to support the move. It's strictly out of ignorant fear. And that goes to perfectly illustrate the nature of the discussion we are having here. Those that have the facts are for it. Those who have nothing but irrational, emotionally driven, ignorant fears are against it. And those people would never let the facts get in the way of their opinions.

As for this nonsense about having to be an LEO, and people leaving EMS if you force them to be LEOs, where the heck do you come up with that kind of stuff? Do you just make this stuff up as you go in an order to sidetrack the discussion? It's a non-factor that has no relevance to the topic at hand.

 

[Veneficus]

AJ,

Do you think that putting a firarm in the hands of a young person (in EMS or not) that the feeling of increased power or invulnerability isn't increased?

I agree with you EMS and ED professionals are subject to a high level of violence. I agree something should be done. I just disagree a firearm is the answer. (I am not antigun, I will be at the range Saturday, you can rent an STG 44 here, among some other vintage and modern automatic weapons, very cool)

Some of the other posts are exactly correct too, I would not want to bring a tazer or a knife to a gunfight.

It is clearly evident that emergency providers find themselves the victims of violence. Some are even seriously injured or killed. I have been assaulted by patients, both in and out of the hospital. I have fortunatly never had to stare down a gun or knife point in such a role, but I have wrestled with my fair share, and the fact that nobody could reach for a weapon (aka a gun) on me (unless you count trauma sheers) made things much easier.

The idea of a tazer, pepper spray and the like seem just as useless to me.

But let's be candid. Most of the EMS people I am involved with teaching are not ready for the responsibility of bringing a firearm to work. (or anywhere else for that matter) But once it is decided it is ok to carry a firearm it cannot be ok for AJ, Reaper, or me and not ok for anyone else. If it is for and under the auspice of "protection" then you cannot exclude anyone.

While not as sacred as it used to be, healthcare providers do still carry some measure of accepted neutrality. Most of the people I have been involved in altercations with were somehow impaired. ETOH, Psych, diabetics, hepatic encephalitis. We have laws and rules guiding what force we can use against these people. Frankly I think the rules suck. They can hurt me, but I cannot hurt them and I am expected to help.

The weapon I am most worried about being assualted with in a healthcare setting is a needle. They are everywhere. I always seem to have one (or several) in arm's reach. (not because of the possibility of infection, because it is a piece of stainless steel readily available)

Many people could carry a weapon their entire career and nobody would be the wiser. But what happens if you pull out a gun and shoot somebody at work today? The civil and criminal litigation that follows will not be easy or pleasant. Will you still have a job? What if you are found to not be in the right by a jury? Nevermind you, will the 18 year old EMT or 21 year old medic just starting out even be able to afford an attorney for civil and criminal defense? How about a good one? I am willing to bet most employers would not only not provide one, but they would hang that former employee out to dry with the attorney they bought for themselves.

How many people would accept a questionably safe scene because "if things get bad I can protect myself..."? I wouldn't. From talking with you here I doubt you would make that mistake. But as a role model (whether you choose to be or not) concealed carry of a firearm for "protection" seems like a dangerous advocacy. Especially as pointed out under current law.

In my home state, as of this year there is no "duty to retreat." But there is no duty to go into the home of an altered mental status person and assess his medical condition and render aid either. The law wasn't written for that and I doubt its intent or even applicability is going to be an affirmative defense.

 

[AJ Hidell]

Do you think that putting a firarm in the hands of a young person (in EMS or not) that the feeling of increased power or invulnerability isn't increased?

The minimum age is 21 in every state that I am aware of, with the exception of military and veterans. Yes, that is still young, but not exactly kids. And it is older than required to be a security guard, who can carry a gun professionally with no more training than a CHL holder. How often do we hear of 18-21 year old security guards unjustifiably killing people with their handguns? Not near as often as we hear of cops doing the same thing with much more training. Go figure. In Texas, since the CHL was instituted, not a single case of unjustifiable homicide has been seen with a CHL holder. So where is the evidence to support your theory?

But let's be candid. Most of the EMS people I am involved with teaching are not ready for the responsibility of bringing a firearm to work.

I know you feel that way, but it's just an emotional theory with no statistical evidence to back it up. EBM, remember?

I agree something should be done. I just disagree a firearm is the answer.

There is no "the answer", as there are many different risks. To quote the WOPR from "War Games", the only winning move is not to play. Not coming to work because there is no "the answer" to all of our hazards is not an option. Therefore, the prudent move is to address those hazards that can be addressed, and to continue to look for answers to the others.

 

[fortsmithman]

How many would leave EMS and find another career if they were required to either carry a firearm or work with another who is. I wonder if people's attitude towards this topic is based on where they grew up. How many who say no are from areas that have strict firearms laws. How many who say yes are from areas where there are lax firearms laws where getting a permit is easy. There are many argu,ents for carrying and not to carry. Can we just agree to disagree.

 

[AJ Hidell]

Good riddance to them.

But your partner -- nor anyone else -- should never even know that you are carrying in the first place, so it's a moot point.

 

[Sasha]

But your partner -- nor anyone else -- should never even know that you are carrying in the first place, so it's a moot point.

I think your partner should know if you choose to carry a firearm. I think I'd have a coronary if I found out the person I've been sitting next to for the last 12 hours had a gun.

 

[reaper]

You would be surprised at the amount that carry and no one is the wiser. I do not carry on duty, since I am not allowed. But, I have seen some that carry and don't care if it is wrong.

So, unless you are doing a pat down on every partner you have, never assume that they are not carrying! Just a thought for you all!

 

[VentMedic]

You would be surprised at the amount that carry and no one is the wiser. I do not carry on duty, since I am not allowed. But, I have seen some that carry and don't care if it is wrong.

So, unless you are doing a pat down on every partner you have, never assume that they are not carrying! Just a thought for you all!

At several hospitals they can easily find out and you had better disclose it before you enter a locked facility such as a jail, prison, psych facility or detention ward at a hospital. You may also go through a scanner or be wanded. We DO NOT allow employees or anyone from the outside except LE to carry a weapon in our hospital. If you are carrying illegally you will have to answer for it. It may also be confirmed with your employer that it is okay for you to be carrying. Our LEOs usually know what EMS agencies allow conceal weapons on duty, which is none, so they have no problem holding your weapon until your shift is over.

I seriously would not encourage EMS providers on this forum to carry weapons where it may end their career very quickly by lawful reasons or by misuse. If you are caught with the weapon in any of the areas restricted on your permit and you are in violation of the law. Even knowing you are in violation in these areas means you will easily lie which makes you of questionable character to even hold a position that deals with public responsibility. Period.

 

[Veneficus]

How many would leave EMS and find another career if they were required to either carry a firearm or work with another who is. I wonder if people's attitude towards this topic is based on where they grew up. How many who say no are from areas that have strict firearms laws. How many who say yes are from areas where there are lax firearms laws where getting a permit is easy. There are many argu,ents for carrying and not to carry. Can we just agree to disagree.

I think we are having a good academic discussion. I know I have gained some insight and looked at a different perspective. Look how far we have made it without a thread lock. We need to have more threads like this.

 

[reaper]

Vent,

I agree that it is uncommon down there, due to the heavy security at the hospitals. I was stating that it does happen, by people that do not care about the laws. Since probably 95% of hospitals do not have metal detectors or security personnel with wands, at the ambulance entrances. It is hard to catch these people!