Ever Carry a Gun on the Ambulance ?

[AnthonyM83]

If you for any reason feel as though you need a gun or even a vest on duty you're doing a piss poor job of evaluating scene safety. That's what the police are for. LEO, Military, and Tactical people being exempt of course.

Negative. That statement implies that the presence of police makes your scene safe or that a good scene survey will identify all potential threats. It also implies that scenes do not suddenly change without warning. It also makes the assumption that police are available for every single potentially unsafe scene.

My experiences tell me different, despite being more aware of my environment than most others.

Despite all that, I wouldn't feel comfortable with 99.5% of my coworkers carrying a gun. Being allowed to carry a weapon in an official capacity (with all the liability behind it) would require extensive training that just might not be worth it. I know too many EMS personnel who would abuse it, too.

As far as being assaulted due to being mistaken as a cop, it happens. Usually, it's just a shove or attempted swing or lunge from EtOH or psych patients. Most bad guys don't just start firing into scenes, but I know on our scenes, it can be very hard to determine who is PD, FD, and Ambulance. Only difference is duty belt and badge shape, and for more observant eyes the ballistic vest underneath. But if everyone's leaning over someone, from a distance no difference. But even cops don't get random shooters at scenes that much, so of course cases of EMS being actually shot would be rare.

BUT I have verbally been told by patients and bystanders that they thought I was cop on a NUMBER of occasions.

[cdcmj]

I am glad to some attitudes shift towards a sheep/following someone over the bridge mentality to one of taking responsibility for one's self. The phrases 'usually' and 'for the most part' keep getting flung around when describing LEO's being your savior. For real!!?

As emergency workers and public entities, we all should be even more aware of the limitations of our own services. I dont know where anyone else works, but here, theres never a guarantee your armed white horse will arrive right when you need them, and how about the one in a million chance factor...anyways, I could go on, but its atleast healthy as a group to hopefully recognize and be conscience of the real dangers we face as a profession, and the possibilities of leveling the playing field.

[Fox800]

Are you serious man? Were in that document does it entail anything about firearms? From what I gather it includes data from violent attacks i.e. assaults, some kid stole grandma’s handbag ect. There is no mention in regards to firearms at all, nor does it specially depict anything remotely close to resembling a firearm apart from homicide which you don’t necessary need a firearm to be an offender. Within that document it also states that the rates are not necessarily accurate.

You’ll find that Australia has draconian firearm laws for a reason, we have strict licensing and storage laws - not everyone walks around with a weapon. While I take into account your reference to population I think you’ll still find Australia has reasonably low incidences relating to firearms. I’m not taking into consideration incidences relating to drunken pub/club brawls ect. While we still have some gang violence going around shooting people it’s really not all that common.

You guys are always rambling on about how the public don’t respect EMS over there, if you start carrying firearms do you think you’ll be winning any popularity contests any time soon? Respect from the public must be gained by displaying professional and trustworthy behaviour, this is why the Australian public voted EMS as one of the most trusted professions ever, once you start carrying firearms around people will become intimidated and if a paramedic shot a patient, how many people would feel comftable calling for help, let alone the beating you guys will have from the media. If you guys have problems with the public harassing EMS or bashing your medics then you need to looking into ways to deal with this, if its not a safe situation to be in then move away.

Oh and another thing, when you make reference to whackers lighting up people, wearing badges, driving erratically, wearing radios and papers and the lists growns on and on – how can you possibly trust these people to carry a firearm? Wont they just display the gun and rome around acting like try hard cops provoking the situation so they actually get to shot people?

I really dislike guns so I may be biast and I have no idea what’s it’s like in the US but really, paramedics carrying guns? Its insane.

I'm aware that my citation doesn't mention firearms, it mentions violent crime as a whole. You need to look at the bigger picture, not just guns. The purpose of carrying a firearm under a government-issued license isn't to scare someone off, win an argument, fire warning shots, or to "just shoot someone in the leg" as anti-gun activists so often advocate. It's an absolute last resort when you are threatened with death or serious bodily harm. Likewise, I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make. That because Australia or the UK have essentially banned civilian ownership of firearms, that paramedics are safer and at lower risk of death or serious injury from violence? I know for a fact that UK ambulance trusts are experiencing an epidemic of violence against their crews. So much so that they've had to enact PR campaigns to publicize it.

So while firearms related violence may be down, violence as a whole has been on the rise in your country.

What would cause more uproar here? "Paramedic brutally stabbed to death by patient" or "Paramedic shoots, kills man in attempted stabbing". At least in my area, it would be the first. I can argue that I'm in an equal amount of danger from a violent (but unarmed) psychiatric patient, a patient on PCP, a patient who weighs twice as much as me, someone trained in martial arts, than as someone who just happens to have a firearm on their person when I'm alone in the back of the ambulance with them.

In reference to whackers waving guns around, that really isn't feasible, at least not in my state. That's referred to as brandishing a firearm, which is cause for arrest, confiscation of your firearm, and revocation of your handgun license. In Texas, you aren't allowed to draw your concealed firearm unless you are prepared to discharge it, thus committing deadly force to protect a life. It's that simple. The gun doesn't come out unless you're pulling the trigger. "Wont they just display the gun and rome around acting like try hard cops provoking the situation so they actually get to shot people?" Doing something like that forfeits any legal protection and will lead to you being prosecuted and losing all self-defense justifications/immunities.

The fact is, the police cannot, and will not be everywhere they need to be 24/7, including with you on your scene. Some like to rely on government-sponsored dial-a-prayer (aka 911, 999, 111, whatever your emergency access number is). Then there are those of us who like to hedge our bets, and take some responsibility for our own safety and well-being. There will be patients that will go from calm and cooperative to violent brawls in .02 seconds, and law enforcement will be nowhere near. There will be calls that are dispatched as "falls" or "unconscious" and turn out to be fatal shootings/stabbings. Or "diabetic emergencies" that are violent psychiatric calls. On duty, I don't really have a choice to enhance my self-protection through the responsible and discreet use of firearms. Off duty, I do.

If you are having a problem with being mistaken for law enforcement, maybe it's time to look at a different uniform. One without dark-colored uniform shirts, similar-looking patches, a leather belt with 5,000 pouches, etc.

I really didn't want this to degenerate into a gun control argument with our friends with backwards-flushing toilets, but it is. Let's get back on topic: firearms in ambulances NOT in public view, for self-protection.

[Riblett]

I carry a stun gun on and off duty. I have an hour drive to work at 5am and often have to walk a long way to and from my vehicle into my apartment. It is very much a defensive-only weapon. You must make physical contact with the person in order to use it. It incapacitates the person for about thirty seconds, which is enough time to safely remove myself from the situation. I also serves as a flashlight and fits right on my belt, so no one is the wiser. It has a safety switch and takes two steps to fire, so it is not likely to be accidentally discharged. I think it is the perfect weapon for EMTs.

I originally had it just for personal protection off duty, but then I started working in a rural county with no first responders and slow PD response times. With no first responders it is just the two of us on calls in these really rough areas. If things do take a turn for the worst it takes a while for PD to get there. I know we are not allowed to carry firearms or even knives that are greater than 4 inches in length. But I don't think the policy specifies stun guns, and I would rather ask permission than forgiveness. I would not use it unless I thought that myself or my partner was in serious danger, and in that situation possible disciplinary action would be the last thing on my mind. Like Fox said, I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

[BushyFromOz]

That because Australia or the UK have essentially banned civilian ownership of firearms

No, not at all. Semi automatic rifles are banned with the exception fo certain "professional shooters" i.e sports (not hunting) and some calibres of hand guns.

People are free to own firearms provided it is limited to certain types and calibres, and that you have a legitimate reason. Sport/game shooting is a reason, clubs are a reason, self defence is not considered a legitimate reason.

[Fox800]

That flashlight/stun gun combo is a pretty neat concept. I have a metal-bodied flashlight that make a decent contact weapon if needed but I'm gonna check out your idea.

[Fox800]

No, not at all. Semi automatic rifles are banned with the exception fo certain "professional shooters" i.e sports (not hunting) and some calibres of hand guns.

People are free to own firearms provided it is limited to certain types and calibres, and that you have a legitimate reason. Sport/game shooting is a reason, clubs are a reason, self defence is not considered a legitimate reason.

"Before a person can buy a firearm, they must obtain a Permit To Acquire. The first permit has a mandatory 28 day delay before it is first issued. In some states (e.g. Queensland, Victoria, and New South Wales), this is waived for second and subsequent firearms of the same class. For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defence is not accepted as a reason for issuing a licence. Each firearm in Australia must be registered to the owner by serial number. "

You and I have very different definitions of "free".

[JPINFV]

Just remember, when seconds count the police are minutes away. Besides, per the US court system, the police do not have any specific duty to protect the citizens. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department and Warren v District of Columbia for case law.

[HellsBells]

The theory is that EMS should never be anywhere dangerous without police is all good and dandy till you get called for a sick person that turns in to a gun fueled domestic violence. Anyways, at the very least, i think it is ridiculous that I am denied by law to carry pepper spray on the job, whereas my grandma carries it 24/7

I think that carrying pepper spray on duty is a terrible idea, at least if you panic and decide to spray the patient in the back of the ambulance.

As far as the issue of carrying a gun on duty, I've never felt the need to do so, and never known anyone who has done so. Of course I live in Canada, where the idea of carrying a concealed weapon is basically unheard of. I do however, think that wearing a ballistic vest is a good practice and offers some protection from both physical assault and blunt trauma related to MVC's.

There will be patients that will go from calm and cooperative to violent brawls in .02 seconds, and law enforcement will be nowhere near. There will be calls that are dispatched as "falls" or "unconscious" and turn out to be fatal shootings/stabbings. Or "diabetic emergencies" that are violent psychiatric calls. On duty, I don't really have a choice to enhance my self-protection through the responsible and discreet use of firearms. Off duty, I do.

I think that the most prudent course of action is to retreat and leave the scene in these cases. If your gun truly is well "concealed" how long will it take to remove it and defend yourself with it? Are you seriously saying that you would consider shooting someone who was altered due to a diabetic emergency? There is always the what if scenario where one is confronted by violence they can't safely walk (or run) away from, but I think those instances are rare.

But, I do agree that in instances where society breaks down (i.e. Hurricane Katrina, LA riots) it would be good for piece of mind to be packing some heat.

[Fox800]

If your gun truly is well "concealed" how long will it take to remove it and defend yourself with it? Are you seriously saying that you would consider shooting someone who was altered due to a diabetic emergency? There is always the what if scenario where one is confronted by violence they can't safely walk (or run) away from, but I think those instances are rare.

But, I do agree that in instances where society breaks down (i.e. Hurricane Katrina, LA riots) it would be good for piece of mind to be packing some heat.

In a well-concealed holster with a shirt tucked over it...very quickly. Maybe 1 second. I've never really timed how long it would take in full uniform with duty belt. And no, I'm not saying I would shoot an altered diabetic patient. You twisted my words around, blatantly so. I know you're better than that.