OP
OP
fortsmithman
Forum Deputy Chief
- 1,335
- 5
- 38
I admit I'm alooousy typistt. LOL
Should EMS be armed
- Thread starter fortsmithman
- Start date
I admit I'm alooousy typistt. LOL
I imagine the people using such weapons can probably shoot for your head, not just center of mass.
medicp94dao
Forum Crew Member
- 83
- 4
- 0
I dont think we should be armed.... Its hard enough finding quality EMT's that are in EMS for the right reasons ( taking care of those who need us ), Just imagine giving that certain someone on your department, squad, etc.... a firearm.. you all know who I am talking about... and then let him/her loose on the street!!!!!!! That is a very scary thought.
TransportJockey
Forum Chief
- 8,623
- 1,675
- 113
That's my thought on it as well
A concealed weapons permit is extremely easy to get. The ones who are going to take the advice given on this forum or who will rush out to get one will not be the good ole boys like reaper and AJ who may have been shooting guns since they could walk. It will be the ones who have not held a gun in their life before hearing they could get a concealed weapons permit and carry on an ambulance. Or, it will be the 18 year old who has been shooting people on the video games since they were 2 y/o and thinks it is real cool.
A gun will then give some the confidence and the stupidity to enter into scenes that they normally wouldn't without PD backup or to get a little more confrontational believing their backup is in their pocket.
You will also have up to 8 EMT(P) volunteers responding to some scenes or 4 FD engine EMT(P)s plus two ALS ambulance EMT(P)s and maybe two more private ambulance EMT(P)s. That is a lot of people at scene who could be carrying a weapon with only a concealed weapons permit training. It doesn't take much to get one excited person to set off a very bad situation. I think we've all seen what happens when some get very cocky in numbers.
Couple that with the appearance of some who show up to the scene who even if there is an ambulance in the background, you would have a difficult time getting even others in EMS to believe you are an EMT(P), and there will be potential for things to go very wrong if someone is carrying a weapon either openly or concealed.
Allowing many to carry weapons who have very minimal education and training with a gun is no different than putting EMT(P)s on ambulances who are not properly prepared to use the equipment and meds they have access to for patient care.
A gun will then give some the confidence and the stupidity to enter into scenes that they normally wouldn't without PD backup or to get a little more confrontational believing their backup is in their pocket.
You will also have up to 8 EMT(P) volunteers responding to some scenes or 4 FD engine EMT(P)s plus two ALS ambulance EMT(P)s and maybe two more private ambulance EMT(P)s. That is a lot of people at scene who could be carrying a weapon with only a concealed weapons permit training. It doesn't take much to get one excited person to set off a very bad situation. I think we've all seen what happens when some get very cocky in numbers.
Couple that with the appearance of some who show up to the scene who even if there is an ambulance in the background, you would have a difficult time getting even others in EMS to believe you are an EMT(P), and there will be potential for things to go very wrong if someone is carrying a weapon either openly or concealed.
Allowing many to carry weapons who have very minimal education and training with a gun is no different than putting EMT(P)s on ambulances who are not properly prepared to use the equipment and meds they have access to for patient care.
reaper
Working Bum
- 2,817
- 75
- 48
Vent,
I agree fully with your statement. I stated earlier that If it ever was to happen, That those allowed to carry should have to go through academy training in firearm use and have full testing, same as LEO.
Vent, Do you remember back in the mid to late 80's, when City of Miami Fire/Rescue tried something like this? I don't remember the outcome of it and could not find any articles on it. They tried it due to extremely violent times in the city, at that time.
BTW, I waited until I could walk to start shooting. Before then, they kept knocking me down!!
I agree fully with your statement. I stated earlier that If it ever was to happen, That those allowed to carry should have to go through academy training in firearm use and have full testing, same as LEO.
Vent, Do you remember back in the mid to late 80's, when City of Miami Fire/Rescue tried something like this? I don't remember the outcome of it and could not find any articles on it. They tried it due to extremely violent times in the city, at that time.
BTW, I waited until I could walk to start shooting. Before then, they kept knocking me down!!
Of course I do. I was in the middle of it.
I have owned a weapon most of my life and also learned to shoot very young thanks to my dad. I do have a concealed weapons permit and carried regularly for many years. However, when we got to work we were ordered to place our guns in a special locker.
To continue my lecture and these are things I did learn in the late 70s and 80s when my area was extremely violent.
If you shoot someone who is unarmed, you will be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.
If you are going to engage in a gun confrontation with someone who is armed, you will have to be able to draw and aim your concealed weapon before they shoot you.
If your concealed weapon is easily accessible for you, there is a good chance it is easily accessible to someone else.
If you believe you will ever use your weapon on the job, you should be wearing a vest.
If those on the street know or even think you are carrying a weapon, you become as easy target because those on the other side of the law know you are not the police.
If you have little to no experience shooting a weapon, you will be more like Barnie Fife than Rambo. You will probably end up shooting yourself or someone other than the intended target.
The streetwise hoodlums who are familiar with the police will know you have very little experience by your stance, actions and talk.
Last edited by a moderator:
scottyb
Forum Crew Member
- 81
- 0
- 0
I don't think there is a cut and dry answer to this. In some areas with low police numbers, slow response times. There has been a growing number of localities in upstate new york that have been lowering police numbers and/or completely dissolving local police forces and turning over patrol/response to the county sheriff. I think if the ems service becomes part of a police unit, yeah. if it is part of the fire department or independent, no. I think it is up to each locality/departments to decide what is best for their districts. Too often a scene can appear secure or safe not requiring police presence, and it can turn in an instant. Not being able to defend yourself is not a place I like to be. I guess I am not sure exactly what I think the right answer is.
johnnyreb132
Forum Crew Member
- 36
- 0
- 0
I voted yes because I believe in Second Amendment rights and I don't want to be a hyprocite. For my entire life I've been around guns and understand the proper use and safety techniques. However, some people should never be allowed to use a gun and all need to learn about how to use one.
- Why not have one .38 on an ambulance, locked away and concealed, by which only one EMT, who has been specifically and sufficiently educated and trained, can access in the event of a worst case scenario?
- Every EMT has a low power airsoft pistol (but then whats the point?)
- Stockpile Red Ryder BB Guns in a cabinet
- Or the best option which is to just give EMTs a non-lethal weapon (ex. tasers)
medic417
The Truth Provider
- 5,104
- 3
- 38
No such thing exists. People die from tazers. Less lethal would be best statement to use here. Problem is you may need more than 1 shot and also tazers do not stop all attackers.
reaper
Working Bum
- 2,817
- 75
- 48
Vent, I was referring to a trail they did with arming their medics. Had two very close family friends that were both Captains with City of Miami. I can't ask them what the turn out was, as they are both Deceased now. I was just wondering how that trial came out in the end?
If you have time to unlock your secure compartment and get out your gun, you have time to get away.
If you think you need to unlock your secure compartment before going in, you need to not go in.
I support the individual right to bear arms. I shoot regularly, and have been "trained" how to use a firearm for the purpose of combat. But the civillian environment in the US is not combat. There are laws and public opinions that make using a firearm very complicated.
Rather than reproduce them I ask if you haven't to see my replies in the other thread as I spent considerable time typing them up to try and demonstrate how wrong things could go and some of the potential pitfalls you may want to consider.
If you absolutely feel you must carry a gun. Well... If you must you must. But please think of all the consequences before you draw rather than after.
I would also encourage you to speak with not only your LEO friends on the matter, but the local prosecutors as well.
"Never underestimate the power of an angry mob."
If you shoot somebody and the community goes nuts and gets out the rope, torches, and pitchforks demanding your head on a plate. They do have the ability to raise such a fuss with the elected officials to get it. You could spend a fortune and years in legal proceedings.
Some will say that is better than being dead, and I agree 100%, but there are alternative ways to not get dead, and as I pointed out before, the likely scenarios I see where a firearm would be of assistance are already heavily stacked against you,
"Great warriors do not fight to win, they win then fight."
Sun Tzu
(words to live by)
Last edited by a moderator:
You consider what has happened recently in Oakland, CA with the accidental shooting by a BART Police Officer. Since January the city and store owners have endured millions of dollars of damage done to their property. Now, the entire BART Police Department may be disarmed. So if PD are being closely scrutinized for carrying firearms, how do you think the public will accept EMT(P)s carrying? LEOs would prefer to squelch a situation before it gets out of control. If an EMT(P) pulls a gun at scene, it is now out of control.
I believe this is the article reaper was looking for:
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/1991-09-04/news/guns-n-hoses/1
AJ Hidell
Forum Deputy Chief
- 1,102
- 3
- 0
Okay, so what if we did something like the Federal Flight Deck Officer program that they do to arm airline pilots who want to carry? It's a pretty intensive program that is equivalent of any law enforcement training, and far exceeds any CHL training, as well as having stringent pre-qualifications and being completely voluntary. And employers cannot override it. Anyone got a problem with that?
medic417
The Truth Provider
- 5,104
- 3
- 38
Of course some will have trouble with it, EMS people can never agree to anything.
What if we just try to stick to the medical part of EMS instead of trying to be Police Officers also? We haven't gotten our main role as medical providers right at this time. And don't give me the line about "for our own protection". The majority of us have survived by playing it smart and calling for backup and not confronting a dangerous situation headon with a gun in hand. This isn't a western movie where you are going to "outdraw" someone. If you have to get your concealed weapon unconcealed, you will probably be shot. If you have enough time to get your gun out of concealment and aimed accurately at the person, you probably have enough time to get away from trouble.
The guns are just for some who want to play it up tough and will probably crap in their panties if they are confronted with a situation or get someone else like their partner killed.
AJ, not everyone here is a soldier with extensive military experience AND a former police officer. While carrying a gun and shooting people may be second nature to you, it is not advisable for all. You signed up for the military and a police force knowing guns were a part of the job. Except for "Public Safety Officers", the Paramedic should be concerned about carrying a stethoscope. Some people in EMS can barely keep up the few skills they have now and you want them to also maintain profiency in weapons also?
The pilot is not a good example since the pilot is trapped on a plane and death will probably be the option either way. Rarely do hijackings end well. However, that should not always be the case for an EMT(P). There are more options on the ground than in the sky.
medic417
The Truth Provider
- 5,104
- 3
- 38
LOL. Your analogy's slay me. I agree many have no business carrying a gun, in fact many have no business in EMS even at the basic level.
It is not people like you carrying a gun that I think the poor decisions are going to come from. It is the person with the ink still wet on their card that thinks they are some special forces operative.
I forsee somebody getting into a confrontational situation, out comes a gun, some shots are fired and a person is dead. The EMS shooter gets tossed under the bus, life is ruined, career over, maybe jail, and possibly an massively irate community taking their anger out on other public servants.
I don't think a course will help, I think there needs to be a certain mindset that is not very common to responsibly carry a weapon. Also, there should be a LAW addressing the use of force by EMS, for no other reason than to protect the providers who do carry.
Given the effort that would take, I think efforts are better focused elsewhere for EMS.
I guess my main issue is not whether or not EMS carries a weapon, it is who exactly in the ranks is carrying the weapon. I am not really sure how to go about addressing that.
If we start making EMS people take LE training, how do we differentiate that from forcing Fire providers to be in EMS? How do we stop the municiple powers that be from using EMS providers in a dual LE/EMS role to save money?
I don't think those with civillian training (read LE) should be prohibited from carrying a weapon. Military training would not suffice because while weapon safety doesn't change, the environment, rules of engagement, responsibilities of using force, and local politics change considerably.
This is definately a tricky topic.
a good faith effort
Because I am not adverse to qualified responsible carrying or use of a weapon, I decided to make a good faith effort to find a way to make this possible.
Several Years ago when I was working on a more rural unit, a deputy approached the people at the EMS station about a tactical medics for the SWAT team. Several of us, including myself stated up front we would not be anything more than we were nor get anycloser to the action unless we too were armed and authorized to use force. The SO decided they did not want to front the money, time, or training for that and a medic in the cold zone would be just fine.
It was then suggested that in order to carry out this idea, without us being actual deptuties ourselves, and not to be conscripted LEOs the idea was to have us be part of the Posse. (an idea long extinct in most parts of the country) But I did find this:
http://www.mcso.org/index.php?a=GetModule&mn=Posse
of interest may be the QAP (qualified armed posseman)
That would satisfy my unyielding criteria for legal protection of those who may need to use force. It would also allow a screening process to select out those wanting to be Jason Bourne.
I would still rather spend the time better educating providers to medicine instead of weapons qualifications, but I do often get tired of only providing criticism without attempting to embrace an opposing view and offer a solution.
Because I am not adverse to qualified responsible carrying or use of a weapon, I decided to make a good faith effort to find a way to make this possible.
Several Years ago when I was working on a more rural unit, a deputy approached the people at the EMS station about a tactical medics for the SWAT team. Several of us, including myself stated up front we would not be anything more than we were nor get anycloser to the action unless we too were armed and authorized to use force. The SO decided they did not want to front the money, time, or training for that and a medic in the cold zone would be just fine.
It was then suggested that in order to carry out this idea, without us being actual deptuties ourselves, and not to be conscripted LEOs the idea was to have us be part of the Posse. (an idea long extinct in most parts of the country) But I did find this:
http://www.mcso.org/index.php?a=GetModule&mn=Posse
of interest may be the QAP (qualified armed posseman)
That would satisfy my unyielding criteria for legal protection of those who may need to use force. It would also allow a screening process to select out those wanting to be Jason Bourne.
I would still rather spend the time better educating providers to medicine instead of weapons qualifications, but I do often get tired of only providing criticism without attempting to embrace an opposing view and offer a solution.
I am a very big advocate of gun rights, the right to carry, and the right to defend yourself.
Especially being from Chicago, where the powers that be deny me the right to do so.
However, I feel that guns have no place in the ambulance, unless on the belt of a police officer, and preferably in a triple retention holster.
If I had the right I would carry a firearm everywhere I went, except where prohibited by law, and work.
A taser is a better option. Or Mace. Or both, as the situation calls for it.
I don't think we should be defenseless, but guns and psychs, or drunks, or drug abusers just do not mix.
Especially being from Chicago, where the powers that be deny me the right to do so.
However, I feel that guns have no place in the ambulance, unless on the belt of a police officer, and preferably in a triple retention holster.
If I had the right I would carry a firearm everywhere I went, except where prohibited by law, and work.
A taser is a better option. Or Mace. Or both, as the situation calls for it.
I don't think we should be defenseless, but guns and psychs, or drunks, or drug abusers just do not mix.