Personal protection on duty...

[Smoke14]

Our company policy does not allow an employee to carry any type of weapon. That said, what my employer doesn't know won't kill me...

 

[firecoins]

I always where a condom to work.

 

[Handsome Robb]

I always where a condom to work.

:rofl:

 

[usafmedic45]

Our company policy does not allow an employee to carry any type of weapon. That said, what my employer doesn't know won't kill me...

Until they find out and your name becomes mud and you're unable to ever find work in that state again.

 

[Handsome Robb]

My personal protection at work:

 

[Tigger]

Our company policy does not allow an employee to carry any type of weapon. That said, what my employer doesn't know won't kill me...

Honest question, would you tell your partner?

If you told me, I would take us out of service and back to base. I don't care how much of a pro you are with guns, we are not having a firearm on any ambulance that I am working on. I even feel shaky when a LEO comes with and brings his weapon. There's just too many things that could go wrong.

I always where a condom to work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWa9BOcOFQA

Slightly distributing, but still a great episode.

 

[Akulahawk]

Quite frankly, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with carrying a concealed firearm on the ambulance. Handguns don't magically fire by themselves if they stay in their holster. It's those times when the handgun is handled that there's some danger present. Here's where employers have issues with handguns on their ambulances: liability. If someone is injured by an employee and the employer allows (or doesn't disallow) firearms/weapons on the ambulance, it could be argued in civil court that the company can be held partly responsible for the injury caused by the employee's discharge of the firearm and therefore have to pay much $$$$$$$ to settle the claim. Insurance carriers know this, and therefore will generally require that the company have a "no weapons on duty/on company property" rule as a condition of providing liability coverage. They most certainly can provide armed employee coverage... at additional cost, and it won't be insubstantial. Armed guard companies generally have similar insurance... and some of their employees may be armed. How do they minimize their exposure? Their rules would stated something to the effect "only authorized employees may carry weapons on duty".

If it weren't for the liability thing, this wouldn't be an issue at all.

I rarely carry at work... but then again, I don't have to. I have certain other sharp tools available to me that I can use if need be (even though their use as weapons is prohibited). Of course, if I need help, that can get to me some time less than about... 2 -15 minutes, depending upon where my backup is. The closest Sheriff's Deputy? About 15-20 minutes going Warp 3 1/2. Fortunately, nothing bad usually happens out where I'm at.

 

[Tigger]

Quite frankly, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with carrying a concealed firearm on the ambulance. Handguns don't magically fire by themselves if they stay in their holster. It's those times when the handgun is handled that there's some danger present. Here's where employers have issues with handguns on their ambulances: liability. If someone is injured by an employee and the employer allows (or doesn't disallow) firearms/weapons on the ambulance, it could be argued in civil court that the company can be held partly responsible for the injury caused by the employee's discharge of the firearm and therefore have to pay much $$$$$$$ to settle the claim. Insurance carriers know this, and therefore will generally require that the company have a "no weapons on duty/on company property" rule as a condition of providing liability coverage. They most certainly can provide armed employee coverage... at additional cost, and it won't be insubstantial. Armed guard companies generally have similar insurance... and some of their employees may be armed. How do they minimize their exposure? Their rules would stated something to the effect "only authorized employees may carry weapons on duty".

If it weren't for the liability thing, this wouldn't be an issue at all.

I rarely carry at work... but then again, I don't have to. I have certain other sharp tools available to me that I can use if need be (even though their use as weapons is prohibited). Of course, if I need help, that can get to me some time less than about... 2 -15 minutes, depending upon where my backup is. The closest Sheriff's Deputy? About 15-20 minutes going Warp 3 1/2. Fortunately, nothing bad usually happens out where I'm at.

I am not afraid of firearms, and enjoy using them recreationally on occasion. I would consider owning a firearm if I were not a college student, given the difficulties associated with storing it, and the whole being near-broke thing.

It just doesn't seem like a good idea for anyone, regardless of training, to produce a firearm during an "event" in the back of an ambulance. Quarters are close and it seems like it would be easy for control of the firearm to become compromised. Again, I'm not trained in anyway, so this is conjecture.

 

[Meursault]

My personal protection on duty is the public knowledge that we are but a helpful and subservient tax-funded taxi service. When that fails, cops and lots of them.

I'm spoiled in that Boston's a nice enough city that I don't have to worry about bullets aimed at me and the towns where I work 911 are even less crime-ridden. Since I don't worry about non-patients trying to kill me, and I find the idea of trying to kill my patients problematic, I can't see a reason to carry a weapon.

Thanks for bringing up this never-discussed issue.

 

[systemet]

Quite frankly, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with carrying a concealed firearm on the ambulance. Handguns don't magically fire by themselves if they stay in their holster.

Strawman.

No one's arguing that they're concerned a holstered weapon is going to suddenly discharge without anyone engaging the firing mechanism and injure someone.

What's being argued is that the benefit obtained by arming EMS providers is probably outweighed by the amount of training required, and the risk of the patient or a bystander gaining access to the weapon in close quarters.

It's those times when the handgun is handled that there's some danger present. Here's where employers have issues with handguns on their ambulances: liability. If someone is injured by an employee and the employer allows (or doesn't disallow) firearms/weapons on the ambulance, it could be argued in civil court that the company can be held partly responsible for the injury caused by the employee's discharge of the firearm and therefore have to pay much $$$$$$$ to settle the claim. Insurance carriers know this, and therefore will generally require that the company have a "no weapons on duty/on company property" rule as a condition of providing liability coverage.

I'm sure this is probably part of it. I don't know a lot about US gun law, other than that the right to bear arms is constitutionally-protected, and that this allows a range of concealed and open carry for civilians subject to certain permits in certain states.

Wouldn't there also be a legal difference between you carrying as a private citizen, and then carrying while being employed by the ambulance service? I would assume that there are certain legal standards that any company providing armed security would need to meet, right?

I think there's a few questions that need to be answered in this situation:

* How many professional EMS providers are there in the US right now?

* What would be the cost / logistics of training each one to an acceptable level for using a firearm at work?

* What's the anticipated number of accidental / self-inflicted firearms injuries we'd see if everyone was carrying? (I know the good answer is zero, but in practical terms this will be a non-zero number)

* In how many situations would EMS be required to kill someone?

* How many paramedics and EMTs are injured or killed in a given year in the US, in situations where having access to a firearm might prevent this from happening?

There's also a certain argument that carrying is option-limiting. If you're attacked in close quarters, and a wrestling match ensues, you now have to retain your weapon, and you have to make a decision as to whether you're going to attempt to draw and fire on the assailant.

If this is a true life-or-death struggle, then maybe the risk is worth it to draw the weapon. If it's not though, you've just introduced a weapon into the situation.

 

[RocketMedic]

Having a gun wont stop a fight, but it will give you a potent tool to end it. Not everyone should have a gun, but the idea can be valid.
A Taser would be far more useful in our line of work.

 

[systemet]

Having a gun wont stop a fight, but it will give you a potent tool to end it. Not everyone should have a gun, but the idea can be valid.
A Taser would be far more useful in our line of work.

It might be. But then there's a couple of other potential issues:

* If you point a TASER at someone, are they going to think it's a gun, and react accordingly?

* If people we're responding to know we're carrying TASERs, does that up the ante? Do we end up in a situation where now we're seen as law enforcement, and the level of violence increases?

 

[Veneficus]

I don’t know what is worse, the fact I keep reading this topic or the fact I choose to post about this in contra to my promise to myself not to get involved in EMS stupidity.

I have personally been assaulted and/or battered, threatened even stalked by patients, family members, bystanders of unknown relation, and once even locked in the back of a squad seeking refuge from an angry mob hoping the local sheriff would show up in time to help in my career.

I cannot recall one instance where having a gun would have helped.
I am not anti-gun. I am anti-stupid. In every post or debate I have ever been in on this topic, “protection” was either equated with or escalated to a gun.
Let’s think the matter through.

First off, if you are so afraid of violence, and feel that having a weapon will either protect you from it or equalize the situation, you might want to seek some cognitive behavioral therapy for your borderline personality disorder if not your outright psychosis before you get on a truck again.

The first rule of EMS is to not enter an unsafe scene. If you arm yourself with a deadly weapon and enter a dangerous or potentially dangerous scene, you do so with predetermined intent to use or escalate violence which may result in a fatality. Considering most EMS agencies and many EMS providers can be demonstrated to outright ban the carrying or use of firearms on duty, you look less like an EMT trying to defend themselves and more like a lone gunman looking for trouble.

You also run a strong risk of over confidence because of your “protection” and err on the side of recklessness instead of caution when choosing your scenes.
Concealed vs. accessible

If a weapon is highly concealed, it is not accessible. This means in the split second or so you realize danger as you are bending over your patient engaged fully in an assessment or treatment, you might be wasting your only chance at escape or at least seeking cover, trying to outdraw a melee or missile attack.

Now at the gun range when you are facing down a threatening piece of paper, you might have the time, presence of mind and fine muscle control to focus all your attention on hitting your target. But with the adrenaline rush of immediate danger, you probably won’t. You also wouldn’t be the first or even tenth patient I saw who shot themselves playing quick draw in front of a mirror practicing your ability to outdraw an already aggressive attacker. (aka cleaning their gun)

Most medical guidelines for force indicate the minimum required. I can’t think of one medical condition that requires deadly force in order to benefit the patient. If you are thinking defending an imminent threat to others, you have moved out of the realm of protection into vigilante Batman. While most castle laws give you the right not to retreat, when you respond, you insert yourself into that situation, you are not a law abiding bystander.

But let’s move past that and get into the guts of the matter… Actually pulling the trigger. When you gun down the altered mental status patient (diabtetic, demented,intoxicated, etc), you are going to find yourself in serious legal trouble. No law enforcement or legal mind I know is going to give you a pass on murder because you wear an EMT uniform and have a pathological way of dealing with your anxieties. I have the experience of finding a barricaded demented patient holding a gun, as soon as we saw it, we ran away and hid(to sound heroic we “took cover”), and waited for the LEO response, which in that neighborhood was never quick. If you fire and don’t kill instantly, you just initiated a gun fight. If you do, you entered a scene with willful and premeditated intent on violence.

What if you miss? Unlike in the movies (and a few LEO minds I have run into) bullets don’t disappear when they miss. Especially in urban and lightweight construction suburban environments, over penetration is a serious issue. So what is your legal defense to killing some kid in the next house, or shooting the wrong person in your paranoid craze with your close combat expert hallucination?

So Wyatt Earp, when you enter the hospital, are you going to secure your firearm in the glovebox or lockbox in the truck when you walk into the hospital? In my home state, only a Sworn LEO can knowingly enter a hospital with a firearm. I have heard the argument, “What they don’t know it won’t hurt them.” So, what other laws does your first aid training entitle you to ignore? In fact, I am pretty sure that kind of behavior would cause an EMS board to yank your certification if you were caught. Not to mention, blatantly ignoring whatever law you choose doesn’t make you worthy to enter my house and treat my family in their hour of need.

So I know a couple of lawyers. Both friends of mine, no, I am not their client. They both charge in the area of $750 an hour plus a premium for a court appearance, up front in criminal cases. You think your agency or malpractice insurance is going to cover that? Your guilt may be determined by 12 of the most ignorant people in the country. Guilty or not, you are going to be facing a wrongful death suit. Your employer is going to do everything in their power to make sure the blame lands solely on you.

Systemet already detailed the dangers of introducing a weapon into a violent encounter. +100.

I have considerable respect for my LEO friends. If you start a gunfight, or are even involved in one, when they do respond, you put their lives in danger. In the dark or at distance, they may have to choose in a split second if they are going to shoot you or not. Why would you do that to them? If they hesitate whoever is shooting at you may be the one they are looking at.

I can also assure you, in any response with LE, the person holding the gun draws the most attention. So you might take a beatdown anyway from your assailant while the cops are worried about disarming you.
I haven’t even talked about the danger of accidentally shooting yourself or your partner. But by now you should get the idea.

I agree there is considerable danger that faces EMS providers. I agree it is getting worse. But the fact that people always equate protection with gun, and do not start talking about nonlethal or controllable melee weapons before a firearm demonstrates their total ignorance of the situations that pose a danger to EMS persons. Not one expert I know or have even heard of advocates EMS providers entering or continuing violent conflict. One of those gun safety rules I always followed was not to point your gun at anything you don’t want to shoot. Another was don’t pull your gun until you are ready to shoot. The moment you do it becomes life or death for the other party. You just created a situation where somebody will probably be seriously hurt or killed. You are also no better off if you are both killed.

EMS providers need to be trained in recognizing and reacting to dangerous situations. Far more training then they get and more practice. But that training needs to be recognition, avoidance, and escape. Mandatory ballistic armor usage is probably a good idea too.

There are many steps to avoid danger before escalating to a missile weapon. Personally I would consider that a major failure on my part before it even came to that.

The fact that you think you need a firearm for protection, or the best form of protection, in the course of your EMS duties demonstrates your serious lack of judgment. If that is your level of paranoia and response, it might be time to find a different line of work; at the very least some psychiatric/psychological help which would probably reasonably preclude you from gun ownership anyway.

I think too many people today are transferring the anxieties of their life stressors to the dangers faced at work and having no other ability, intelligence, or options, feel that the preservation of the ability to use violence to “protect” themselves at work is seriously misdirected.

I stress the word feel, because once you eliminate the emotion from the argument, there is no intelligence left to it.

 

[Smash]

Hey Vene, welcome back! It's great to see you again. Well, see your typing anyway!

And plus eleventybillion for that post. I guess I shouldn't be, but I'm always a bit surprised when this conversation comes up (again) because it just never occurs to me that there should ever be a firearm in an ambulance. I grew up in a rural area where hunting is a way of life. I enjoy recreational pistol shooting. But I have never been in, nor could ever imagine, a situation that would be improved by me or any other EMT having a gun.

 

[clibb]

I wear a kevlar vest when I work and I have a different one when I'm with SWAT.
Me being armed with a gun when I work is just another weapon for a psych patient to grab and another way to get me killed while on duty. Cops have extensive training with weapons they know how to handle situations when someone is going for the gun. If you want to be armed while working the streets, you should probably go for a different badge instead of the EMS one.

 

[Akulahawk]

Good seeing you again, Vene!! I'll respond in-line....

I don’t know what is worse, the fact I keep reading this topic or the fact I choose to post about this in contra to my promise to myself not to get involved in EMS stupidity.

I have personally been assaulted and/or battered, threatened even stalked by patients, family members, bystanders of unknown relation, and once even locked in the back of a squad seeking refuge from an angry mob hoping the local sheriff would show up in time to help in my career.
Sounds like your situational awareness failed you on multiple occasions because clearly, you were able to completely avoid the violence...

I cannot recall one instance where having a gun would have helped.
I am not anti-gun. I am anti-stupid. In every post or debate I have ever been in on this topic, “protection” was either equated with or escalated to a gun.
Let’s think the matter through.

First off, if you are so afraid of violence, and feel that having a weapon will either protect you from it or equalize the situation, you might want to seek some cognitive behavioral therapy for your borderline personality disorder if not your outright psychosis before you get on a truck again.
Thinking a weapon will protect you if you don't have the training to back it up is completely insane. I
The first rule of EMS is to not enter an unsafe scene. If you arm yourself with a deadly weapon and enter a dangerous or potentially dangerous scene, you do so with predetermined intent to use or escalate violence which may result in a fatality. Considering most EMS agencies and many EMS providers can be demonstrated to outright ban the carrying or use of firearms on duty, you look less like an EMT trying to defend themselves and more like a lone gunman looking for trouble.
If you enter an unsafe scene, armed or not... you may be escalating the situation as it is. If you look at the underlying reason why EMS agencies and Providers ban firearms on duty, it's because their liability carrier demands it as a condition of providing liability coverage.
You also run a strong risk of over confidence because of your “protection” and err on the side of recklessness instead of caution when choosing your scenes.
Overconfidence? At least for me, this is not an issue. When I'm armed, I'm actually MORE cautious about where I go. I go the same places I'd go unarmed... Jail/Prison, Courthouses, and sterile areas of airports are the only places that require aforethought.
Concealed vs. accessible

If a weapon is highly concealed, it is not accessible. This means in the split second or so you realize danger as you are bending over your patient engaged fully in an assessment or treatment, you might be wasting your only chance at escape or at least seeking cover, trying to outdraw a melee or missile attack.
I compete... and I have learned that I can draw my weapon from concealment about as fast as I can draw from a Level III retention holster. Yes, I have trained with both... I'm also acutely aware of how long it takes to draw a weapon from the holster. My first reactions will be towards gaining time or distance from my attacker or attempting to control my attacker. Hmmm... something that LE is trained to do too.
Now at the gun range when you are facing down a threatening piece of paper, you might have the time, presence of mind and fine muscle control to focus all your attention on hitting your target. But with the adrenaline rush of immediate danger, you probably won’t. You also wouldn’t be the first or even tenth patient I saw who shot themselves playing quick draw in front of a mirror practicing your ability to outdraw an already aggressive attacker. (aka cleaning their gun)
My firearm stays in it's holster unless I'm doing one of 3 things: competing, training, or cleaning. When I'm competing, training, or cleaning, I take my weapon deliberately "cold" until it's time to deliberately put the weapon into a "hot" status.

I have no doubt that I'll lose fine motor skills. That's why I carry a Glock. It's no more complicated than a revolver to operate.
Most medical guidelines for force indicate the minimum required. I can’t think of one medical condition that requires deadly force in order to benefit the patient. If you are thinking defending an imminent threat to others, you have moved out of the realm of protection into vigilante Batman. While most castle laws give you the right not to retreat, when you respond, you insert yourself into that situation, you are not a law abiding bystander.
Medical conditions do NOT require deadly force to resolve. If I'm thinking about defending an imminent threat to other (or myself), we have moved way beyond medical use of force guidelines and into self-preservation. There are no medical conditions that a patient has that requires me to give up my life or the life of others. When I respond to an incident, while I'm not an "innocent bystander" I'm also have no duty to enter a scene until it's secure. And I won't.
But let’s move past that and get into the guts of the matter… Actually pulling the trigger. When you gun down the altered mental status patient (diabtetic, demented,intoxicated, etc), you are going to find yourself in serious legal trouble. No law enforcement or legal mind I know is going to give you a pass on murder because you wear an EMT uniform and have a pathological way of dealing with your anxieties. I have the experience of finding a barricaded demented patient holding a gun, as soon as we saw it, we ran away and hid(to sound heroic we “took cover”), and waited for the LEO response, which in that neighborhood was never quick. If you fire and don’t kill instantly, you just initiated a gun fight. If you do, you entered a scene with willful and premeditated intent on violence.
Hmm. You found a barricaded, demented, armed person and you took cover. What would I have done while armed? Same thing. My job isn't to go hunting for violent people. That's LE's job. Oh, and the law won't give a cop a "pass" for committing murder either. It's kind of illegal... even if you wear a badge. There's justifiable homicide, but murder isn't justifiable.
What if you miss? Unlike in the movies (and a few LEO minds I have run into) bullets don’t disappear when they miss. Especially in urban and lightweight construction suburban environments, over penetration is a serious issue. So what is your legal defense to killing some kid in the next house, or shooting the wrong person in your paranoid craze with your close combat expert hallucination?
My defense is simple: No intent to injure or kill anyone other than the person I intended to shoot at. It's the same defense I'd have if I weren't on duty... because LE isn't my job.
So Wyatt Earp, when you enter the hospital, are you going to secure your firearm in the glovebox or lockbox in the truck when you walk into the hospital? In my home state, only a Sworn LEO can knowingly enter a hospital with a firearm. I have heard the argument, “What they don’t know it won’t hurt them.” So, what other laws does your first aid training entitle you to ignore? In fact, I am pretty sure that kind of behavior would cause an EMS board to yank your certification if you were caught. Not to mention, blatantly ignoring whatever law you choose doesn’t make you worthy to enter my house and treat my family in their hour of need.
In my home state, there are very few places I really can't go armed. Most hospitals aren't in that list. My Paramedic training doesn't entitle me to ignore the Penal Code. My CCW authorizes me to carry loaded and concealed in public, on/in school grounds & buildings, and most public buildings. I can't carry in Federal buildings, courtrooms/courthouses, airport sterile areas, or while picketing. My education as a CCW holder instructs me about that stuff.
So I know a couple of lawyers. Both friends of mine, no, I am not their client. They both charge in the area of $750 an hour plus a premium for a court appearance, up front in criminal cases. You think your agency or malpractice insurance is going to cover that? Your guilt may be determined by 12 of the most ignorant people in the country. Guilty or not, you are going to be facing a wrongful death suit. Your employer is going to do everything in their power to make sure the blame lands solely on you.
Malpractice insurance doesn't cover firearms use... unless it was medically misapplied. An employer's general liability insurance won't cover it either, except at an additional cost. It is available as armed guard companies carry the type of insurance needed for defending an employee's use of a weapon on-duty. Having a rule about no weapons at work falls squarely into the realm of placing all the firearm-related liability on the employee.
Systemet already detailed the dangers of introducing a weapon into a violent encounter. +100.

I have considerable respect for my LEO friends. If you start a gunfight, or are even involved in one, when they do respond, you put their lives in danger. In the dark or at distance, they may have to choose in a split second if they are going to shoot you or not. Why would you do that to them? If they hesitate whoever is shooting at you may be the one they are looking at.
I won't be starting a gunfight, though I might be involved in one.. but not by my own choice. If I have the chance, I'll bug out. If I don't have that option, I would rather fight than choose to simply wait to be shot. Would I wait for LE to show up? Do you remember the Virginia Tech incident? Do you know how long it took before the shooter was engaged by Police? They very well may put up a perimeter in place to prevent an armed gunman from escaping the area, but they won't go "hunting" unless they can safely do it. That means they also won't attempt a rescue either unless they can safely do it. Everyone inside that perimeter would be effectively sacrificed to protect the public at large, which is their duty.
I can also assure you, in any response with LE, the person holding the gun draws the most attention. So you might take a beatdown anyway from your assailant while the cops are worried about disarming you.
I haven’t even talked about the danger of accidentally shooting yourself or your partner. But by now you should get the idea.

I agree there is considerable danger that faces EMS providers. I agree it is getting worse. But the fact that people always equate protection with gun, and do not start talking about nonlethal or controllable melee weapons before a firearm demonstrates their total ignorance of the situations that pose a danger to EMS persons. Not one expert I know or have even heard of advocates EMS providers entering or continuing violent conflict. One of those gun safety rules I always followed was not to point your gun at anything you don’t want to shoot. Another was don’t pull your gun until you are ready to shoot. The moment you do it becomes life or death for the other party. You just created a situation where somebody will probably be seriously hurt or killed. You are also no better off if you are both killed.
And I am no better off if I'm the only one killed. If I have to draw my weapon, it means that someone is a grave threat to me and I have to stop that threat. It's the same decision I must make if I'm not armed with a firearm and must find a way to stop the threat. If I have to apply deadly force to stop a threat, a deadly force will be applied in whatever manner I can apply it. This is whether or not the threat is my patient. I do not lose my right to self defense simply because I'm working.
EMS providers need to be trained in recognizing and reacting to dangerous situations. Far more training then they get and more practice. But that training needs to be recognition, avoidance, and escape. Mandatory ballistic armor usage is probably a good idea too.
Recognition, avoidance, and escape are all great to do, but being taught that stuff does nothing for the instances when trouble chooses you and you can not avoid or escape the threat.
There are many steps to avoid danger before escalating to a missile weapon. Personally I would consider that a major failure on my part before it even came to that.
You can still do all those steps and yet be attacked. You yourself have been a victim of the failure of those steps.
The fact that you think you need a firearm for protection, or the best form of protection, in the course of your EMS duties demonstrates your serious lack of judgment. If that is your level of paranoia and response, it might be time to find a different line of work; at the very least some psychiatric/psychological help which would probably reasonably preclude you from gun ownership anyway.
The carrying of a firearm on or off-duty for personal protection has nothing to do with a lack of judgment or a mental disorder. It has everything to do with determining the best manner of dealing with lethal force threats.
I think too many people today are transferring the anxieties of their life stressors to the dangers faced at work and having no other ability, intelligence, or options, feel that the preservation of the ability to use violence to “protect” themselves at work is seriously misdirected.

I stress the word feel, because once you eliminate the emotion from the argument, there is no intelligence left to it.

You have not eliminated emotion from the argument, I see places that involve an appeal to it. Do I carry a firearm at work? No. I have weighed the options available to me and I know what I is in my environment that I may use as a weapon, in less-lethal and lethal varieties, for the purpose of self-preservation. There is no intelligence in allowing yourself to become a victim or to lose your own life because work says so.

Vene, please understand that I do hold you in high regard. I did learn from what you have posted above, and consider your opinion as valid as any other. I get my information from a California State SME for use of force and from lawyers that specialize in firearms/use of force issues for California. Their input over the years partly shaped the decisions I make about what I do and when. I do not pretend to think that my answer is the only correct answer and that my knowledge about this subject is generalizable to the rest of the nation.

 

[systemet]

If you look at the underlying reason why EMS agencies and Providers ban firearms on duty, it's because their liability carrier demands it as a condition of providing liability coverage.

I can't claim to have insight into the thought processes of a US EMS agency's management team, but I would suspect that it's more than just the cost of liability insurance. I acknowledge that this is probably a factor, but I think there are other issues too.

Medical conditions do NOT require deadly force to resolve. If I'm thinking about defending an imminent threat to other (or myself), we have moved way beyond medical use of force guidelines and into self-preservation. There are no medical conditions that a patient has that requires me to give up my life or the life of others. When I respond to an incident, while I'm not an "innocent bystander" I'm also have no duty to enter a scene until it's secure. And I won't.

I've been lucky to never be seriously injured in a confrontation in EMS. Most of these have developed very rapidly, have not presented the opportunity to escape (although sometimes this opportunity has presented itself after an initial confrontation -- and I've taken it). Some of the situations I've seen coming, others have been a complete surprise. In the times when I've been surprised, in a percentage, when I look back, I can see that I made an error of judgment / scene management / situational awareness. In other situations I can honestly shrug my shoulders and say that this was just unpredictable human behaviour, often complicated by mental illness or drugs.

Looking back on my personal experience, which I realise is the plural of anecdote, I don't think any of those situations would have been improved if I had a gun on my hip. Almost all these situations have ended up in the clinch range, with the attacker, or some combination of myself, the attacker and a couple of other people, ending up on the ground.

Now, I've been fortunate. I've "won" these confrontations. And I'm sure if I was faced with someone with a knife and had the distance and time to draw and fire a handgun, I'd wish I had one. But having a firearm present would have made many of the previous situations where we were clinched up far more dangerous. I'm not sure if this would be any more dangerous than having a large hunting knife on my hip, perhaps even less so at clinch range. But I wouldn't want to have a knife on my person and accessible, either.

Maybe this concern becomes less with a concealed weapon, but I think I'd still be worried about retention. And once someone is trying to access that weapon, there's a very good chance it's going to have to get used. I think personally, I'd rather be unarmed, than have that firearm (or large hunting knife).

Perhaps I don't understand guns, or self defence. I have trouble thinking that drawing a concealed weapon is going to deter an assailant. I would assume that once you're drawing the weapon, you're in a situation where if the attacker is already close to you, you're firing immediately --- and if they're closing distance, you're going to have to fire quite quickly too, before that's no longer an option. Given most of the situations I've been in have resulted in us being in clinch range before I've had true awareness of what's happening, and have involved people who aren't rational, I feel like being armed would cause more problems than it would solve.

The only way I can see armed EMS working, is if you have a third provider present, whose sole job is to provide protection. This person might as well have intermediate weapons, and could probably be a cop. Then they can devote their entire attention to the scene itself, and not be distracted by providing medical care. But this is getting very much like just having the cops on every call. I don't think I can see this working.

There's always risk with this job. It's hard to control, and difficult to minimise. It's always possible to imagine situations where a firearm might be useful. But there's a question as to how often that's going to actually occur. I think it's going to be hard to justify carrying firearms in most EMS roles in the US / Canada.

 

[medicnick83]

I was actually crapped out the other day when arriving on a MVA because I didn't have a helmet.

I buy most of my own stuff but the helmet costs R1500 (Rands) and I can't afford that, so I e-mailed the guy who apparently can help me - no reply yet for 2 days... lol!

I wonder if he'll actually help.

 

[Veneficus]

Good seeing you again, Vene!! I'll respond in-line....


Vene, please understand that I do hold you in high regard. I did learn from what you have posted above, and consider your opinion as valid as any other. I get my information from a California State SME for use of force and from lawyers that specialize in firearms/use of force issues for California. Their input over the years partly shaped the decisions I make about what I do and when. I do not pretend to think that my answer is the only correct answer and that my knowledge about this subject is generalizable to the rest of the nation.

The red doesn't really work for an easy reply.

But I will try to respond as best I can.

You seem to think that there is a high enough probability that you may find yourself in a situation where you are likely to be randomly or purposefully attacked that will require lethal force. How often has this actually happened to anyone you know? What was the outcome? In the right or not, if you have to hire a lawyer it will cost a lot. They generally don't work for free.

Intending no offense, but most of the arguments I have seen for EMS to have a firearm seem to be something along the lines of "the bogey man might jump out and get me at any moment." sure, the language isn't that bad, but it turns into the same "what if" scenario as the most obscure medical conditions. That is at best delusional fear. (a delusion being an improper perception of a stimulous)

If you were walking down the street in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Israel, you might have a realistic argument, but the chances of being involved in a random conflict of violence in the US, are so small, I cannot realistically see it as anything but paranoia.

As for problems getting me into bad situations. You are right, there was usually a failure somewhere. You see, I didn't always know as much as I do today.
Some were failure to recognize, some were just poor judgement of either overconfidence or the desitre to help. However, the person showing up every shift where I worked was beyond my control.

As far as the emotion, I know a thing or two about primate behavior. Most of the pro-carry arguments I see in all environments revolve around an undefined fear reinforced with segregation and propaganda.

Preserving the ability to use violence against such a threat is a natural response.

But is the threat really that great or real?

Without invoking Godwin's law, but required for this discussion, look at modern tyrants. Take your pick from Iran, Afghanistan, the former Saddam in Iraq, through Africa, Syria, East Asia, etc.

They put out propaganda and imagry of a constant threat. Either from themselves or external force. The residents and citizens then begin to suspect and see danger where none really exists or is disproportionately low. They start thinking pictures and icons of said leaders allow them to always be watching always aware. But it is really an internally perceived threat of conscience.

Intending no disrespect, but if you see danger or the realistic and probable threat of in your everyday life and work outside the military or law enforcement, you probably need to move out of that 'hood or get your head checked out, because there are at least 2 personality disorders and 2 psychosis that could be qualified. (I never met somebody suffering from such disorders that believed anything was wrong with them)

I also noticed a lot of "I" and "me" in your argument of why you should be permitted to carry a firearm. It raises 2 questions.

1. Does everyone who argues for CCW in EMS have your level or training, proficency, and cool head? I am going to guess no. Not by a long shot.

2. You can't have a policy or rule that allows some EMS people to carry on duty and not others. It is not just a matter of qualification. I have met some psycho gun nuts who have the most numerous firearm qualifications around. Do you really want to open it up to everyone?

I think it is a great disservice to perpetuate the idea that we should always be prepared to defend out life from unforseen danger. (with or without the use of violence) I probably have a better chance of being struck by lightning than I do actually needing to defend my life with violence. But I am not wearing lineman's boots and gloves when I leave the hospital today "just in case." I probably face a realistic threat of being hit by a car, but I am not going to wear a helmet or feel the need to have a gun in order to burn down the person driving the 2 ton weapons they are propelling at me.

As for court battles and consulting lawyers before hand. Definately smarter than after the fact, but I would wager a considerable amount what I am told about having the best story in court and advocate of public opinion still is going to cost a lot of money. How much have you saved up for just such an event?

What if you perceived a threat shot the person and you were wrong?