Firefighter Paramedic killed with his own gun

[VentMedic]

Am I suggesting that anyone should carry on an ambulance?

No, I suggested it and if you read my posts over the past couple of days you will see why.

Again, how do you discriminate when the statute says it is really, really easy to get a concealed weapon permit? If you are 18 and get the permit, you can carry. What would decide who should and shouldn't carry a weapon on an ambulance? Who will assume the brunt of responsibility for additional training and liabilty? If the employer offers the training, that would make them directly liable and they must justify the length and quality of the training just as LE agencies must do each time there is an officer involved shooting.

 

[Jon]

Here's a decent study by a former Paramedic.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/heal...Carrying_gun_raises_risk_of_getting_shot.html

Posted on Mon, Oct. 12, 2009


Penn study: Carrying gun raises risk of getting shot

Decent in what way?

It fails to consider the difference between a legally owned firearm and a firearm carried illigally by a career criminal.

 

[VentMedic]

Am I suggesting that anyone should carry on an ambulance? If it takes 2 hours to cover the legalities, safety, and range qualification, then 2 hours works for me. Competency is more important than clock hours.

Those 2 hours are primarily spent reading the rules. There is not much time spent on a range. In fact, I only had to do 5 shots and not kill anybody in the process. I just had to show I knew how to point a gun at a paper target safely. It didn't really matter if I knew how to shoot or not. My mother was 82 when she got her permit with her condo pals and that was all they had to do as well. In fact, I think the instructor on the range stopped them after one shot and gave them the permit if they promised not to shoot again.

 

[VentMedic]

Decent in what way?

It fails to consider the difference between a legally owned firearm and a firearm carried illigally by a career criminal.

Jon, you have been reading JEMS too long.

This is an over simplied article in a newspaper.

Pull up the original article.

Charles C. Branas, Therese S. Richmond, Dennis P. Culhane, Thomas R. Ten Have, and Douglas J. Wiebe. Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault. American Journal of Public Health, 2009; DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099

 

[JPINFV]

Abstract

Using cross‐sectional time‐series data for U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes, without increasing accidental deaths. If those states without right‐to‐carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, county‐ and state‐level data indicate that approximately 1,500 murders would have been avoided yearly. Similarly, we predict that rapes would have declined by over 4,000, robbery by over 11,000, and aggravated assaults by over 60,000. We also find criminals substituting into property crimes involving stealth, where the probability of contact between the criminal and the victim is minimal. Further, higher arrest and conviction rates consistently reduce crime. The estimated annual gain from all remaining states adopting these laws was at least $5.74 billion in 1992. The annual social benefit from an additional concealed handgun permit is as high as $5,000.

Lott, JR, Mustard, DB. Crime, Deterrence, and Right‐to‐Carry Concealed Handguns. The Journal of Legal Studies. 1997. 26:1

Abstract

An analysis of the effects of right‐to‐carry laws on crime requires particular distributional and structural considerations. First, because of the count nature of crime data and the low number of expected instances per observation in the most appropriate data, least‐squares methods yield unreliable estimates. Second, use of a single dummy variable as a measure of the nationwide effect of right‐to‐carry laws is likely to introduce geographical and intertemporal aggregation biases into the analysis. In this paper, we use a generalized Poisson process to examine the geographical and dynamic effects of right‐to‐carry laws on reported homicides, rapes, and robberies. We find that the effects of such laws vary across crime categories, U.S. states, and time and that such laws appear to have statistically significant deterrent effects on the numbers of reported murders, rapes, and robberies.

Plassmann, F, Tideman, TN. Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say. The Journal of Law and Economics. 2001. 44:52

 

[VentMedic]

Lott, JR, Mustard, DB. Crime, Deterrence, and Right‐to‐Carry Concealed Handguns. The Journal of Legal Studies. 1997. 26:1



Plassmann, F, Tideman, TN. Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say. The Journal of Law and Economics. 2001. 44:52

The NRA websites are full of these articles which have largely been funded by gun enthusiasts.

And JPINFV you need to know this happens in medicine as well.

 

[JPINFV]

I'm sure that the Brady Campaign also supports such studies as well.

 

[VentMedic]

I'm sure that the Brady Campaign also supports such studies as well.

Exactly.

However, I know what I have been through personally and even under gun fire during riot times, I still felt my primary duty was to the patient and did not feel like picking up a gun to shoot someone although I easily could have in some situations.

I hope you aren't considering carrying a gun in your med school rotations? At least don't in your pedi rotations because these kids need a health care provider and not another gangsta to look up to.

 

[Jon]

The NRA websites are full of these articles which have largely been funded by gun enthusiasts...

And Handgun Control, Inc (Brady Campaign)'s website is full of articles funded by those that are anti-gun. However, the ones that seem to actually specifically look at LEGALLY owned and carried firearms are some of the ones you might feel "are largely funded by gun enthusiasts". Where as the ones on the Brady site often manipulate the numbers... they'll add in intentionally self-inflicted injuries/deaths, blur the line between legal and illegal gun use in the study population, etc.

...

I hope you aren't considering carrying a gun in your med school rotations? At least don't in your pedi rotations because these kids need a health care provider and not another gangsta to look up to.

How is one a gangsta because they might be carrying a firearm responsibly?

 

[VentMedic]

How is one a gangsta because they might be carrying a firearm responsibly?

I see way too many very young children in our ED and ICU who are injured due to guns and gang related issues. The last thing they need is justification from those who are there to help them that guns are okay. We want to get them into programs to deter the violence and not sign them up for a concealed weapon permit. They've probably already got that part.

After you see a few kids die from senseless killing involving weapons, you start looking for other answers rather than just telling them to shoot a gun when they get angry.

How many children or anyone of any age have you seen die from being shot from something very senseless?

But then, I guess we do need more pedi organ donors so maybe you can justify teaching them that guns can be good in that respect while representing a medical professional.

How many times have you been shot at while on an ambulance? Did you shoot back or seek an escape route?

 

[18G]

Injury prevention is something EMS fails at as a whole and it is (or should be) one of our primary responsibilities. Why do we not have more injury prevention programs and exert the effort to prevent the injuries from occurring? The FD spends a great deal of money and resources on fire prevention. I don't see how injury prevention is any less important.

It would be nice to see a "injury prevention week" where EMS can go into schools, set up in the community, and do education and offer seminars on stuff like gun safety, seatbelts, bicycle safety, being safe in the Summer (ie swimming, fireworks, etc), and just reinforce the importance of safe actions. And hand out bike helmets, do car safety seat checks, offer free or reduced cost car seats.

We need to start being more aggressive and recognize that we do have the reach and ability to prevent injuries.

On the gun issue, I personally do not like guns. Never have. But I see no problem with people be allowed to own and carry them. It is a right to be able to arm and defend yourself with a firearm. As far as EMS carrying firearms, unless your also a police officer you DO NOT need to be introducing a weapon into the situation! Bad idea.

 

[JPINFV]

not another gangsta to look up to.

I'm a "gangsta" now because I enjoy shooting? Yo dawg, let's go down to da range and pop some caps into some skeet!

 

[JPINFV]

I see way too many very young children in our ED and ICU who are injured due to guns and gang related issues. The last thing they need is justification from those who are there to help them that guns are okay. We want to get them into programs to deter the violence and not sign them up for a concealed weapon permit. They've probably already got that part.

After you see a few kids die from senseless killing involving weapons, you start looking for other answers rather than just telling them to shoot a gun when they get angry.

There is nothing wrong with guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. Similarly, the people who have CCW permits are not the ones causing violence. If a CCW permit holder is 'busting a cap' (gotta use my "gangsta" talk after all since CCW proponents=gangstas) because s/he's angry than s/he is doing something drastically wrong. CCW permit is not carte blanche just like a police badge isn't carte blanche.

How many children or anyone of any age have you seen die from being shot from something very senseless?

... and kids die from such senseless things as car accidents and sports. Can we ban cars and sports now too?

 

[ExpatMedic0]

I would have to agree that most gun violence is not from law abiding citizens with CC licence. In fact I have seen some study's done in in areas with more CCL's and registered guns in the hands of citizens per capita and violent crimes plummeted in those areas.

Ive had a concealed carry licence for over 5 years now but most people would never guess me for the type in person.

and if we want to talk accidents... lets talk car accidents. They kill more people every year than the entire course of the Vietnam war. compare that to gun deaths.

 

[VentMedic]

I'm a "gangsta" now because I enjoy shooting? Yo dawg, let's go down to da range and pop some caps into some skeet!

There is a big difference between you skeet shooting at some country club or range and the kids in the gangs that shoot each other in the street.

Are you going to tell the kids how cool guns are? Do you want to be known to these kids as an EMT or Physician or as someone carrying a cool gun?

Seeing an eight y/o coming into the ED with his brains dripping out of his skull because his friend thought it was cool to play with a gun whether they are part of a gang or because Daddy has some cool guns is not a good thing.

I just don't believe those who are representing a medical profession should tell kids how cool it is to shoot a gun.

There is nothing wrong with guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. Similarly, the people who have CCW permits are not the ones causing violence. If a CCW permit holder is 'busting a cap' (gotta use my "gangsta" talk after all since CCW proponents=gangstas) because s/he's angry than s/he is doing something drastically wrong. CCW permit is not carte blanche just like a police badge isn't carte blanche.

People who carry a gun may also feel "more secure" and may be more likely to take risks. They may not wait for PD backup if they have their own "backup". They may also be more confrontational. I have worked with several EMTs, Paramedics and FFs during the 80s when this was debated in Florida and those were definitely not the ones who should ever have a gun on their person at work due to their attitudes about "the scum of the earth" aka the patients.

... and kids die from such senseless things as car accidents and sports. Can we ban cars and sports now too?

So you are all for giving guns to everyone including 18 y/os with a 2 hour class?

People don't drive cars with the intent that they will have to kill someone with it. People do put a gun in their car or on their person with the intent that the may have to kill someone with it. Isn't that what the gun is for? If you sense your life is going to be in danger, you carry and should know that you will have to use deadlly force? I do own a gun and have it in my home. If someone breaks in and threatens myself or my family, I am not going to attempt to shoot their gun out of their hand like in the movies, I will go for a kill shot.

However, as a person with advanceing medical knowledge, for sports you might want to read about the research being done with football players and boxers. Both sports and car manufacturers do strive to make their game or vehicles safer through better construction and education. Gun manufacturers market their weapons for killing either of an animal or a human. They don't make it safer by putting foam bullets in it or making it so you will miss whatever you are shooting at.

However, there are several who may never have given a thought about the real consequences that can occur with a gun. They may purchase it after reading the many threads on an EMS forum because some anonymous poster gave reasons that sounded good. There has also be advice that it is your right to carry and your employer can't stop nor do they even have to know. Many here are still trying to figure out EMS and caring for a patient but now you want them to carry a weapon to possibly use deadly force on their patients? LEOs go into their job everyday with that reality that they may have to use their gun but should someone who wants to be a medical professional have to be presented with the same expectations everyday when working on an ambulance? Is this any different than expecting someone to fight fires who only wants to do patient care? And yes so will argue that only a few will carry but again what few and should their (company and employees) insurance rates be raised because a few want to carry a gun? Should the employer require proof of competency from the employee if they are carrying on ambulances? Will the employer then be more liable for the training provided? Will there be a new expectation from the public if EMS providers retreat from a situation when they are armed? Will the public expect them to act without PD because the EMT(P)s are now armed?

Why doesn't someone answer the questions I have posed because they are the ones that were addressed indepth when this was a choice the FDs made? They are the ones you would have to present logically before your employer, the insurance carriers and the legislators. Emotional crying and whining about "the right to carry a gun" are not enought.

 

[ffemt8978]

The original case was during the Liberty City Riots and Mariel...10 years prior to that incident.

Again, do you think 2 hours of training is enough to put a gun in the hands of every EMT on an ambulance?

I wasn't talking about training requirements...I was just clarifying that something that you claimed was illegal was not actually illegal. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[VentMedic]

I would have to agree that most gun violence is not from law abiding citizens with CC licence. In fact I have seen some study's done in in areas with more CCL's and registered guns in the hands of citizens per capita and violent crimes plummeted in those areas.

Ive had a concealed carry licence for over 5 years now but most people would never guess me for the type in person.

Does your company know you are carrying a gun on the job? Is there a specific policy for it? Does the college know you are carrying a gun to class?

There isn't a "type" that gets a concealed weapon permit. Most of the retirees in Florida have a permit and own a gun which most keep in their house. Since it is so easy to get many get it just because they can.

and if we want to talk accidents... lets talk car accidents. They kill more people every year than the entire course of the Vietnam war. compare that to gun deaths.

Are you saying the Vietnam War wasn't all that bad?

Look at the number of just the U.S. young men and women who went into that war situation or any war situation and compare it with the total number of people in the U.S. who drive a car. Look then at the number of hours stretching several decades that people drive their cars versus the years the Vietnam War lasted. You may also be counting just the U.S. soldiers who died and ignoring the death to all the soldiers and the civilians. I don't consider 3 to 4 million dead Vietnamese, 1.5 to 2 million dead Laotians and Cambodians, and 58,159 dead U.S. soldiers to be insignificant.

People often toss in the stats for just the dead U.S. soldiers in Vietnam and rarely think about the death it brought overall. But then, if they are the enemy should they be counted? If they are civilians, shouldn't they have known better than to be in a place where they could be shot or assassinated. It is clearly all their own fault as some would lead you to believe.

We may never know how many actually died in the Vietnam War since some still want to just call it a "conflict".

What about the death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan? Maybe that would be an even better number for you to use in your argument for guns. Right now compared with other wars, the death toll for the U.S. is very low. But, look at the total number of soldiers from all countries, Police Officers and civilians.

Now, the things you also seem to be forgetting is that the soldier is trained to use a weapon, knows what war is about and knows what he/she will be expected to do. I don't think it is fair to do that comparison with an 18 y/o who didn't enlist with the Armed Forces but rather he/she signed up for an EMT class to do patient care in the U.S. and not in the middle of a battle field.

 

[VentMedic]

I wasn't talking about training requirements...I was just clarifying that something that you claimed was illegal was not actually illegal. Nothing more, nothing less.

At this time there is not one ambulance service or FD that allows carry.

But, are you okay with the training requirements? Do you believe a few short hours with very little gun experience will protect someone on the job? Are we over training out LEOs? Wow, maybe we could save hundreds of thousands of dollars by just having them take the 2 hour conceal weapons course.

Do you carry with the full knowledge of your employer or volunteer agency? But then should it be different because you are a volunteer and not really a paid employee?

 

[JPINFV]

There is a big difference between you skeet shooting at some country club or range and the kids in the gangs that shoot each other in the street.

Are you going to tell the kids how cool guns are? Do you want to be known to these kids as an EMT or Physician or as someone carrying a cool gun?

Seeing an eight y/o coming into the ED with his brains dripping out of his skull because his friend thought it was cool to play with a gun whether they are part of a gang or because Daddy has some cool guns is not a good thing.

I just don't believe those who are representing a medical profession should tell kids how cool it is to shoot a gun.

Ever thought that maybe if kids were taught about firearms then some of the "accidents" (a gun left loaded and out isn't an "accident," it's stupidity and negligence on the part of the gun owner), then many of the accidents wouldn't happen? I was taught to shoot at a young age and never had an urge to break into my father's gun cabinet to play with the fire arms. Of course storing guns unloaded in a gun display case is different than loaded in a bedside table or in a shoe box in the top of a closet.

Similarly, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most gang members don't legally conceal carry and most people who legally conceal carry are in no way interested in some grand shootout with gang members. It's in no way logical to compare legal and competent gun ownership to criminals.

People who carry a gun may also feel "more secure" and may be more likely to take risks. They may not wait for PD backup if they have their own "backup". They may also be more confrontational. I have worked with several EMTs, Paramedics and FFs during the 80s when this was debated in Florida and those were definitely not the ones who should ever have a gun on their person at work due to their attitudes about "the scum of the earth" aka the patients.


So you are all for giving guns to everyone including 18 y/os with a 2 hour class?

What should the minimum requirements be then? I'm going to stick with legal and practical training followed by qualification (and qualification should be more than 1 shot) as a standard. If it takes 3 hours or 30 minutes, then so be it. As I said earlier, the end result is more important than the length of time it takes.

People don't drive cars with the intent that they will have to kill someone with it. People do put a gun in their car or on their person with the intent that the may have to kill someone with it. Isn't that what the gun is for? If you sense your life is going to be in danger, you carry and should know that you will have to use deadlly force? I do own a gun and have it in my home. If someone breaks in and threatens myself or my family, I am not going to attempt to shoot their gun out of their hand like in the movies, I will go for a kill shot.

So... you own a gun because you want to shoot and kill someone?

No one legally carries a fire arm to kill someone. They legally carry a fire arm to protect themselves, and possible others, from harm and when danger is present, the person who is legally carrying a gun should act to end the threat. Now, yes, I agree that the intent to stop a threat and shooting to kill is one in the same, however shooting someone in the back and killing them is not going to qualify as a justifiable homicide.

However, as a person with advanceing medical knowledge, for sports you might want to read about the research being done with football players and boxers. Both sports and car manufacturers do strive to make their game or vehicles safer through better construction and education. Gun manufacturers market their weapons for killing either of an animal or a human. They don't make it safer by putting foam bullets in it or making it so you will miss whatever you are shooting at.

I find absolutely nothing wrong with hunting provided that the carcass is used for something other than a trophy. Should we deter kids from fishing since fishing gear is only used to harm, and in the end kill, fish? Are fishing gear manufacturers inherently bad because any advance results in more killing of animals?

 

[VentMedic]

Ever thought that maybe if kids were taught about firearms then some of the "accidents" (a gun left loaded and out isn't an "accident," it's stupidity and negligence on the part of the gun owner), then many of the accidents wouldn't happen? I was taught to shoot at a young age and never had an urge to break into my father's gun cabinet to play with the fire arms. Of course storing guns unloaded in a gun display case is different than loaded in a bedside table or in a shoe box in the top of a closet.

I was taught also at a young age and I do have a concealed weapon permit which I already stated how easy it is to get. I do have a gun in my house that is accessible to me. Everyone in my house has had gun training. However, being in a nice middle class neighborhood is a big difference from where the hospital I work at and the kids I see coming in with trauma from weapons. Most did not have Ward Cleaver around to teach them how to shoot safely and many don't even know their fathers. They had very different lessons in life than you or I. Shooting skeets at the country club just doesn't compare with drive bys for turf wars and drug deals.

Similarly, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most gang members don't legally conceal carry and most people who legally conceal carry are in no way interested in some grand shootout with gang members. It's in no way logical to compare legal and competent gun ownership to criminals.

So our standards should be the same as those who carry illegally? If posed with a threat aren't you going to kill the person threatening you which is why you have a gun with you at all times? Is that much different from the criminals who have their own perceptions of a threat?

What should the minimum requirements be then? I'm going to stick with legal and practical training followed by qualification (and qualification should be more than 1 shot) as a standard. If it takes 3 hours or 30 minutes, then so be it. As I said earlier, the end result is more important than the length of time it takes.

I've already stated what an EMT should have many times in my posts but here it is again.
If the EMT wants to carry a gun on an ambulance for protection at work knowing there is a chance they will have to use it, they should get no less than the same firearms training the LEO gets and the same competencies should be mandated as well as extensive training in the use of deadly force.

So... you own a gun because you want to shoot and kill someone?

Why are you carrying a gun on an ambulance? To hunt deer? The argument has be for protection so unless you are afraid a deer will charge at you in LA, why else would you carry a gun? If you have that gun and you believe you are in danger, aren't you going to defend yourself? Or, is it just to look cool and fit in with the cool EMTs on the EMS forums who are pro-gun? Maybe so the kids will like you better if you don't have a teddy bear to offer them which distracting them from other painful treatment?

No one legally carries a fire arm to kill someone. They legally carry a fire arm to protect themselves, and possible others, from harm and when danger is present, the person who is legally carrying a gun should act to end the threat. Now, yes, I agree that the intent to stop a threat and shooting to kill is one in the same, however shooting someone in the back and killing them is not going to qualify as a justifiable homicide.

Will the 2 hour course and a couple shots on the range give the EMT enough training to know when to pull the trigger or how to pull it safely? Again, the argument is for protection and if that is the reason you are carrying while at work on an ambulance, you had better be able to follow through correctly when presented with a situation. You can not expect the bad guys to just run if you say you've got a gun or even manage to get it out of concealment to show them.

I find absolutely nothing wrong with hunting provided that the carcass is used for something other than a trophy. Should we deter kids from fishing since fishing gear is only used to harm, and in the end kill, fish? Are fishing gear manufacturers inherently bad because any advance results in more killing of animals?

As I have stated over and over, I am not opposed to gun ownership or hunting. I just find it ridiculous that you compare hunting rabbit with the potential you have to kill a human being while working on an ambulance. As a private citizen, it is doubtful you will be exposing your life and car to a really bad area or going into a crack house everyday as you might while working on an ambulance. Thus, if you just stayed to hunting in the country or skeet shooting at the country club while taking the "safe" way to drive there, you will probably never be presented with much risks. If you take the gun with you on an ambulance and are assigned a not so good area, do you not think there is a possiblity you may have to use a gun if you had one? And again, are you just going to shoot the gun out of their hand like in the movies or will you have the courage to kill that person? I personally believe you should not be put into a situation where that gun gives you the confidence to confront the bad guy and you have have been following your EMT training for scene safety.