Some sobering stats.......

Status
Not open for further replies.
Medicine in any form, has always been about ethics, not laws. Maybe the state doesn't have any specific law against carrying a firearm on an ambulance, but then again, there's no specific law against me saying improper things to a patient, because that's protected under the 1st admendment. It doesn't mean you should do it. The fact that Luno sees firearms as a means of coercion and deterrence, the two things that they tell you in the police academy you should not use them for, coupled with his use of action movie slogans to justify them and his assertion that he is allowed to carry in EMS "due to the elevated threat level" reinforces my point, that usually the people who want to carry the guns the most should be the last people you give them too.
I remember when they passed the "Federal Carrying Act for Law Enforcement", and I got an image in my mind from it. It was about some overzealous, yokel sheriff from a jerkwater town deciding that if he was gonna be visiting the big city, he needs to be armed. He goes into Penn Station, and witnesses a heated argument. Not being use to people fighting, he assumes this is pretty bad, and whips out his piece to "control the situation". Someone sees him and screams "Terrorist!" and all of the Amtrak police, the National Guardsmen with the M-16's, and maybe even an MTA or NYPD cop for good measure all simulatenously draw... Pandemonium ensues, and in the middle of a crowd of a couple thousand, shots ring out, and all because someone thought they needed the "protection."
 
You seem to be the one that views a firearm as a means of coercion and deterrence, not Luno. You took a statement he made to prove a point and characterized it using adjectives like "coercion", "gun nut" "overzealous" in an attempt to confuse the facts of this discussion with emotionally charged words in an effort to prove your viewpoint is correct.

His reference to the "threat level" does not necessarily apply to the National Threat Level. He could have been talking about the percieved threat level to the providers of his agency. You're the one that assumes the moment he mentions threat level that he's the more concerned with killing terroists that providing medical care.

Let me ask you this question in all seriousness, since you're of the belief that the streets will flow with blood and there will be a shoot-out like the North Hollywood Bank Robbery if EMS providers carry weapons.

How many people that have been licensed to carry a firearm have committed a crime with that firearm? Do the research, you'll be suprised.

On the issue of ethics, let me ask you this question. If it is ethically wrong for EMS providers to carry a firearm, then explain to me why it is ethically acceptable for military medics to be armed, or why it is ethically acceptable for tactical EMS providers to be armed.
 
As I said before, a tactical medic and an army medic are in situations where they are expected to be armed. They are there standing, in uniform, that says "I AM ARMED". They are classified differently than normal emergency service providers, which is why the rules of warfare do not allow you to shoot an ambulance. Granted, those rules go out the window, but they are still in place, and ethically, if we are classified as people who do not have weapons on us, we should abide by that. If you really want to say "The 2nd admendment allows me to be armed. Therefore it is always okay to be armed," it's some pretty poor and dangerous reasoning.
In terms of "overzealous", I was refering to my hypothetical armed yokel cop, not Luno. No offense to cops, but people like that do exist. Lastly, if you go back to his posts, I argued back and forth many times with him that firearms, in the hands of professionals, are not supposed to serve the role of coercion or deterence, which was part of his justification for carrying a concealed firearm. He was arguing that they can and do.
As for the "blood running in the streets", now you're putting words in my mouth. My position is that EMS providers are not supposed to serve the role of applying deadly force, which is what, professionally, a gun is for, therefore, a non-tactical, 911 response EMS worker, volunteer or paid, has no business endangering the lives of himself, his partner, or his patient by carrying a firearm. At least no one has taken the position that "If we all had guns, then there would be LESS violence, because everyone wouldn't want to mess with anyone." Trust me, people have made this arguement to me before.
As for people who are licensed commiting crimes, I really don't care, nor is it relevant. I don't enforce the law so people commiting crimes really isn't my concern. What IS my concern is public safety, and seeing as there were 28,663 people dead from firearms in 2000, 1,006 of which were accidental/unintentional deaths, and 11,071 intentional/homicides (the rest were suicides), I will stand by my position that someone who carries a firearm for the wrong reason and the wrong state of mind poses a grievous threat to public safety.
Leave shooting people to the professionals. Spend the time you do on the range with an anatomy and physiology book, or become a cop and use your knowledge of firearms to your advantage. You'll do so much better.
 
Asys - do you work for FDNY EMS? Or another NYC agency? You talk about NY a lot, just wondering.
 
Well, reading the banter back and forth certainly is interesting to say the least. Small example that I think may be of some relevance:

Got involved in a foot pursuit at the ER of a suspect that had somehow managed to sneak past the officers that were there to babysit him. My partner and I were in the lead with armed hospital security, and city cops in the back. Another medic went to get the ambulance because everyone knew this would end badly. It did. ER security "super-cop" decided it would be a good idea to plant his feet, and shoot the running suspect in the leg to "incapacitate" him. Our suspect got shot in the head, not to mention the fact that supercop had to shoot past my partner and myself to bring this guy down. With required trips to the range, training in bringing down a dangerous felon, how could supercop have done something so stupid???

I believe inthe general need for guns, though in my personal opinion the Constitution does not defend it. My man is in the Army, and soon to be in Iraq, I want him armed. I do not, however believe in the production of Tek-9s, AKs and various other assault rifles and hollow-point rounds that are designed in their very nature, to penetrate our vests by gangbangers who buy them illegally ont he street. My will to survive my shift and go home to the man that I love greatly contradicts my desire to rid idiots, zealots, and those that are not sworn of firearms. I dont think any of us have the right to carry, PERIOD. The 2nd amendment, if translated literally applies to "formed militias" whom average Joe is not. When I was talking to Luno earlier I stated that it is good that he stand up for his opinion, and I shouldve said the same to Asys.

The very nature of our profession is to protect life, to set an example, to project an image of self-respect, and confidence. How I ask does one inspire confidence with a gun strapped to their ankle? Arent we supposed to be better than the people we treat? And are we if we use the excuse that we are finely trained and finely tuned? Super cop may have been finely trained, but I dont imagine he will be carrying a gun for some time.

I stand firm in the belief that I WILL go home at the end of my tour, and if I get into a fight with a pt, my only hope is that I will never have to pull that knife, that I can hold my own until help arrives. BUT, if it doesnt and I have to use a weapon against a pt, I am now reacting as a human being fighting for survival and be damned my agencies policies on how I am supposed to fairly fight the good fight and get killed in process. I will do what I have to do because my life was in danger.

I see both sides, understand both arguments and agree with points from both persons. There will never be a solution to your arguments, gentlemen, and attempting to persuade the other is a futile attempt.
 
Originally posted by rescuejew@Aug 16 2005, 10:02 PM
I dont think any of us have the right to carry, PERIOD. The 2nd amendment, if translated literally applies to "formed militias" whom average Joe is not.
Click to expand...
Might I recommend that you read this?

Is the Second Amendment an Individual Right?

You are absolutely correct that the security officer was in no way justified in shooting a fleeing suspect, at least in my opinion.
 
I read it...and this is why an opinion is what it is. I certainly have no basis to contradict the DOJ or the Supreme Court for that matter. But I do believe that we are trying to make a document with antiquated definitions applicable to modern society. Times have changed, to be cliche'. The document you asked me to read, which I did with much enthusiasm, makes a reference to "a formed militia not being synonymous to todays Ntl. Guard"

Back in the day, it is defined that a militia was an organized group of "all able-bodied men". Would it not be the same as the national guard being that they are a group of organized, able-bodied men? I am simply saying that trying to mold the language of our forefathers to modern times may not be the truth we seek. It is apparent that this language is easily twisted to fit both sides of this argument. I am in no way advocating changing this amendment in the Constitution, but I am simply saying that a different approach must be taken.

I just cant, in my true opinion and in good conscience, advocate battling a gun problem with more guns. I have been around guns, and am used to them, my sister is a city cop, my man is in the Army and a lot of my network of friends work in Law Enforcement. I am on the fence about how I would feel if someone I knew and trusted implicitely brought a gun onto my bus. I dont know when I will work that out. But THE SYSTEM needs to change. What purpose do hollow-point bullets serve? (they kill cops, and us) Why would one need a Tek-9 in an urban area? (to kill rival gangmembers) Just 2 examples. Believe it or not, I'm a republican and I think people are concerned with the rights of the bloods and crypts more so than the safety of our officers, firemen and medics. We are not holding these people accountable and questioning their motives for attaining and using such desctructive weapons. Until we do this, this battle will wage, without end.
 
IMHO, Knives are just as dangerous as guns if left in the wrong hands. 2nd, knives on-scene are just bad juju all the way around.

There are better ways of defending yourself against a combative pt. One is use the velcro straps, we were taught that in our EMTB class, second, have a plan, if the pt is combative to begin with, get assistance from another unit or PD to have the assist you in getting this pt to the ER.

Also give the pt a choice, either he can calm down and ride with you or he can remain in his/her current state and get a ride with PD, their choice. One big thing here is SCENE SAFETY. If the scene requires you go in with a weapon for "defense" its not worth going to that scene w/o PD dispatched.

If all else fails get some defensive training to help protect yourself as well as your partner. People like DT4EMS are seeing the effects of this and are thinking of ways to help you as a provider deter a pt from causing bodily harm to you, your partner, or themselves.

With weapons you are the OFFENSIVE, w/o weapons and you have the proper training, you can become DEFENSIVE. Also to keep your butt out of the court room, never move towards the pt, let the sorry pt come to you then you have witnesses say that the pt attacked you.

My humble thoughts on the subject.

BTW, I own several guns of several calibers, this doesnt make it right for me to tote one around as if my life depended on it. Same way with the knives in my kitchen.

Cap'n Panic

The one the only the scrawny lil one to pick on. :unsure:
 
Originally posted by Cap'nPanic@Aug 17 2005, 01:14 AM
IMHO, Knives are just as dangerous as guns if left in the wrong hands. 2nd, knives on-scene are just bad juju all the way around.
Click to expand...
You can't blow the back off someone's skull from 50ft away with a knife. You can't cut a seatbelt to save someone's life with a gun. Guns and knives are apples and oranges.
 
On a side note,

I would like to thank everyone for keeping this discussion clean, lively, thought provoking and within the forum guidelines at all times.

It is obvious that we have people on both sides of this issue that hold firm to their beliefs, but have shown that they are capable of having a lively discussion without resorting to insults and personal attacks.

To everyone, thank you from the moderating team.
 
you're welcome ffemt :D

And before I go to bed let me first respond to Cap'n'Panic:

I am not advocating the use of the knife I carry on my person. A knife which I use for much more purposeful things (like a screwdriver, and mostly cutting the paper sheath of an empty o2 bottle)

What I am saying, and I apologize if I did not make myself clear, it is after all 0230, is that if MY LIFE WERE IN DANGER, I would fight without thinking twice about the "rules of engagement". I am frequently put in situations where I call for PD, where I get into fights, when dispatch narrative sounds shady and I stage and wait for PD. I dont approach a scene with a disregard for mine or my partners safety. We are very careful and though I have been assaulted several times, I am proud to say that I have restrained, but never hurt, anyone.

There may come they day when someone backs me into a corner who is much bigger than myself and tries to kill me. Trust me, my sister was pistol-whipped last year. She is a great cop, but sh*t sometimes happens and we have to think about what we will do in the event that it does. If it came down to me or some hood, I choose me, plain and simple. It may never happen in my career that I have to make that decision, but since we are speaking with regard to supposition...

I simply am not willing to lay down my life to someone because the SOP says I have to fight fair. I am not above hair-pulling! :P Seriously though, there is a vast difference between pacifism and antagonism.
 
Rescuejew pretty much backs up my point. I have nothing wrong with defending myself, my partner, or my patient. My point was that a gun is not an appropriate means of self-defense in EMS. I will concede the point that there may be no specific law against an EMS provider, even a non-tactical one, carrying a weapon. However, working in EMS, you do not enjoy the same priveleges a private citizen does. A police officer, a military medic, even a tactical medic, are given the authority to use deadly force if necessary by the appropriate agency. Even if you have a permit, even if you have a license to carry, even if you are an off duty police officer, if, while working in the capacity as an Emergency Medical Services provider, you shoot and kill someone, you CAN be held criminally a civily liable for wrongful death, even if the guy had a knife and was about to stab you. Your medical director and supervisor do not have that authority to allow you to use deadly force in an official capacity. You can believe me now, or believe me later when your house gets taken away and your service shuts its doors.
 
Originally posted by asysin2leads@Aug 17 2005, 02:43 PM
Rescuejew pretty much backs up my point. I have nothing wrong with defending myself, my partner, or my patient. My point was that a gun is not an appropriate means of self-defense in EMS. I will concede the point that there may be no specific law against an EMS provider, even a non-tactical one, carrying a weapon. However, working in EMS, you do not enjoy the same priveleges a private citizen does. A police officer, a military medic, even a tactical medic, are given the authority to use deadly force if necessary by the appropriate agency. Even if you have a permit, even if you have a license to carry, even if you are an off duty police officer, if, while working in the capacity as an Emergency Medical Services provider, you shoot and kill someone, you CAN be held criminally a civily liable for wrongful death, even if the guy had a knife and was about to stab you. Your medical director and supervisor do not have that authority to allow you to use deadly force in an official capacity. You can believe me now, or believe me later when your house gets taken away and your service shuts its doors.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that's true in the state you live in, but where I'm at the right to self defense does not disappear when I put on my EMS uniform. Washington law pretty clearly spells out when deadly force is justified, and even goes so far as to state that if you're arrested for defending yourself and a jury rules it was self-defense, the state must reimburse you for ALL costs associated with the incident.
 
Asys you make a valid point that a medical director or service admin cannot advise you TO USE deadly force. They also can not remove your right in self-defense.

I also want to thank everyone for keeping this debate alive and clean as well.

I can appreciate Asys's position on not wanting a firearm on the ambulance, but I will not say that no person, no time should ever be allowed to be armed. It should come as no surprise that I believe a private citizen should be allowed to carry a firearm, but that comes with a heavy responsibility as well.

Any person that carries a firearm MUST realize that in every situation there is at least one firearm present..........their's and it can be used against them. I have not taught a handgun retention course where I have not disarmed veteran officers. I am not any better than them, I just know how. Dirtbags practice how to as well.

I am also a certified instructor in the "Tactial Duty Knife" we teach fellow officers how to properly cut seatbelts and such, but also how to use the knife in a "Last Ditch Defense" against a person who is about to disarm them and they are on the losing end of the fight. Deadly force is deadly force. Not a military course of knife use, strictly defensive and a last resort. WHY? Because officers have had to resort to a pocket knife for defense and had no training.

I have found a lot of people after attending a firearm safety course chose not to carry concealed. They felt the responsibility too great. So again I say, train and in training people can make better decisions for themselves.
 
Well said!
 
Originally posted by asysin2leads+Aug 17 2005, 01:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (asysin2leads @ Aug 17 2005, 01:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cap'nPanic@Aug 17 2005, 01:14 AM
IMHO, Knives are just as dangerous as guns if left in the wrong hands. 2nd, knives on-scene are just bad juju all the way around.
Click to expand...
You can't blow the back off someone's skull from 50ft away with a knife. You can't cut a seatbelt to save someone's life with a gun. Guns and knives are apples and oranges. [/b][/quote]
You can throw a knife into someones head and kill them or leave them brain damaged. Remember there are people who throw knives at targets as a hobby, I wouldnt doubt it if my head would be an easy target for them.

Also if you have a knife on you, dont count on that knife to save your life. Your pt could overpower you can turn the knife back on you and leave you dead.

I understand that you would fight to keep your life but it also wouldnt look too good in the papers when a headline reads: "Paramedic stabs and kills patient". Thats when your company will likely shut its doors and you will lose your house.

I honestly think if you checked into some defensive classes Im sure with training and in that training you would make a better decision. Remember the most basic thing we were taught: SCENE SAFETY. If you get an eerie feeling in the middle of your assesment, its time to figure out a way to leave the scene w/o abandoning your pt. Follow your gut and you'll avoid more situations than you'll get into.

-Cap'nPanic

The one the only the loser :D
 
Originally posted by ffemt8978+Aug 17 2005, 04:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ffemt8978 @ Aug 17 2005, 04:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-asysin2leads@Aug 17 2005, 02:43 PM
Rescuejew pretty much backs up my point. I have nothing wrong with defending myself, my partner, or my patient. My point was that a gun is not an appropriate means of self-defense in EMS. I will concede the point that there may be no specific law against an EMS provider, even a non-tactical one, carrying a weapon. However, working in EMS, you do not enjoy the same priveleges a private citizen does. A police officer, a military medic, even a tactical medic, are given the authority to use deadly force if necessary by the appropriate agency. Even if you have a permit, even if you have a license to carry, even if you are an off duty police officer, if, while working in the capacity as an Emergency Medical Services provider, you shoot and kill someone, you CAN be held criminally a civily liable for wrongful death, even if the guy had a knife and was about to stab you. Your medical director and supervisor do not have that authority to allow you to use deadly force in an official capacity. You can believe me now, or believe me later when your house gets taken away and your service shuts its doors.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that's true in the state you live in, but where I'm at the right to self defense does not disappear when I put on my EMS uniform. Washington law pretty clearly spells out when deadly force is justified, and even goes so far as to state that if you're arrested for defending yourself and a jury rules it was self-defense, the state must reimburse you for ALL costs associated with the incident. [/b][/quote]
And again you miss my point that when you put on an EMS uniform, and you are working under a medical director's license and the authority of your local service, THE RULES ARE DIFFERENT when it comes to what you can and can't do. Take for instance, crashing your car. Crash your car, it's a civil matter and falls on the actions of the driver alone. Crash an ambulance, and it falls on not only you, but your supervisors, the municipality, and the medical director. The same goes for shooting someone (justified or not), when you are on duty. I really have a hard time understanding why this concept, to people who act under the same guidelines I do, and supposedly have been trained in law enforcement, is so difficult to grasp.
 
Cap'n'Panic: I have to respond to this because I feel chastised. I am trying to keep my responses clean but telling me that I can make a "better decision" is not the appropriate comment, I'm afraid. I have made the appropriate decision, FOR ME. If you dont like it, then make a different one for yourself. I have tried to say this twice before and I will reiterate it one more time before I stop responding alltogether. I am VERY aware of scene safety. We practice it EVERY DAY, on every call. I know how to protect myself, keeping myself close to an exit, without anyone blocking me, knowing where my partner is at all times, etc. You seem to be implying that since I carry a knife in my pocket, I am ignorant to scene safety and need remediation in self defense tactics. Heres a proposition: Travel to Durham, you can sleep on the couch, and I'll get the paperwork squared away so you can do a ridealong and then you can tell me how inappropriate my decisions are regarding how I treat a scene.

This forum is supposed to be about sharing opinions, not attacking everyone elses. Just because I dont agree with average Joe being able to carry, or carrying concealed on a bus, or that I disagree with you about using my knife, does not mean I have the right to tell anyone here that their opinion is wrong. It differs from mine, thats all. Sure, its easy to get heated when differing opinions come out, but it takes a real maturity to know when not to attack the feelings of others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top