That's an accurate statement... and it's accurate because there has never been any research done on the topic. However, there is research, conducted by the CDC during the Obama Administration, that concluded "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies"
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent and
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/c...reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence
That is 100% correct. And as a result, we are known as a soft target, because everyone KNOWS that EMS is not armed.
in NYC, More NY EMS workers are getting attacked on the job. The same claim cannot be said for those we interact with... At what point do we, as an industry, no longer want to be considered a soft target?
see the study from the CDC above.
As I have said numerous times, I'm not saying we should be carrying firearms. In fact, I have never carried a firearm on an ambulance, a firetruck, or in any emergency vehicle, nor do I really have any desire to. I'm not advocating for "here is your stethoscope, here is your glock" standards, because that is a recipe for disaster, and not one I would ever advocate for.
But if you carry 24/7/365 (lawfully and legally), why do your weapon retention and firearm proficiency cease to exist the moment you step foot on an ambulance? Why should a person become more vulnerable because they are going into potentially dangerous situations?