EMT/Fire Fighters and gun control

[Sasha]

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.

 

[FF-EMT Diver]

Ok Im gonna join in medic417, you make some good points and I agree a lot seeing what I do sometimes as a medic. but on the truck I don't feel it has any place I would be more afraid of my hotheaded partner for the day get me into a situation because he's got a gun and he can be Mr. badself and that puts me into a position to have to defend myself, Not to speak of the possible inability to shoot and me being in close proximity to their gun.

For the sake of it take GOOD classes on Verbal jitsu, Self defence, and learn how to take their gun if they're in close proximity.

Also the threat is stopped when they're dead or incapacitated, And I train with a doubletap to the Chest and one to the head in case they're smart crminal with body armor.

 

[Ms.Medic]

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.

 

[fortsmithman]

Ummm, Nope your wrong, If I shoot, yeah its definetly to kill. I dont play games.

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.

 

[Ms.Medic]

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.

Actually, point is,,,every scene imo should be unsafe. And, like carrying a weapon wouldnt have them thinking that we were cops, right ? Um, wrong. And a cop on EVERY call ??? I think my words were "every chance possible".

 

[Ms.Medic]

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.

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.

 

[fortsmithman]

If ou're going to use a firearm read some firearms publications. Combat Handguns is a good publication read anything written by Massad Ayoob he runs a company called Lethal Force Institute. From my understanding he will teach when to shoot and the legalities civil and criminal. Massad Ayoob's company website is at.
http://www.ayoob.com/


By the way I am not anti firearms I am pro firearms ownership.

 

[ffemt8978]

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.

 

[reaper]

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!


I have a question. Should LEO not be allowed to carry a firearm? I mean according to most of the logic here, they will be shot at more, if they are armed. So if we disarm them, no one will shoot at them!


How many of the people replying here against this, has ever been attacked on duty and shot at on duty???? I have been attacked and shot at three times, being hit once.

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.

I know that most will not see the light on this subject. But, until you are the one being shot at, you won't understand the need. I don't think you are wrong in your thoughts. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. I just think you don't see the need, until you are the one praying you get home to see your kids!

 

[fortsmithman]

They are a threat, until the clip is emptied!:

It's not a clip they're called magazines. As well they're not called guns they're weapons or firearms.

 

[fortsmithman]

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.

OK but also the same psychological screening LEOs go through should also be followed.

 

[Shishkabob]

"This is my rifle, this is my gun. This ones for fighting, this ones for fun"



It annoys me when people say clip too... R Lee Ermy described it best in his show Mail Call: Paper clips go inside magazines, therefor, clips go inside magazines.

A stripper clip is used to put ammunition inside of a magazine.

 

[reaper]

It's not a clip they're called magazines. As well they're not called guns they're weapons or firearms.

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!

 

[reaper]

OK but also the same psychological screening LEOs go through should also be followed.

That's why I stated that they recieve the same training as LEO!

 

[fortsmithman]

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!

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.

 

[reaper]

You say potato, I say spud!

 

[MedicAngel]

I too think IF you MUST carry then go through the classes, training and range time a LEO does. If you want to carry a tazer then fine, are you ready to be tazed just like they are? I have seen what that does to a person and no thank you!!

 

[medic417]

When I was involved in law enforcement many many years ago we did not get anything but pass or fail during our firearms qualifications. Why? Because if you scored high it would be easier for an attorney to attempt to prove you could have just wounded the criminal, and based on some peoples attitudes on here is easy to see how they could sway the jury with that. Also we were always taught as someone else mentioned not to say I shot to kill but I shot to stop the threat.

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.

Point of concealed carry is no one will know you have a gun. It's not like I'm going to strap on my 44 in a low hung fast draw holster begging someone to try me, you will never know whether I have my 40 or 9 or nothing. Why? Because a smart service will not make it required to have a gun but they also will not say you can not carry concealed.

 

[Sasha]

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.

Carrying a fire arm is part of a cop's job. It is not part of an EMT or Paramedic's job.

Point of concealed carry is no one will know you have a gun.

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.

 

[AJ Hidell]

Carrying a fire arm is part of a cop's job. It is not part of an EMT or Paramedic's job.

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.