So I got to thinking about paramedics and guns the other day. I am going to school to become a paramedic/EMT and this often works hand in hand with law enforcement. Depending on the setting and the statutes of the state/city/county blah blah blah... the paramedics are sometimes there first. Some times second, and sometimes they are the only ones there such as in some parts of montana where it is a one cop county. I am not all knowing on this topic. But it is worth discussion and exploration. The amount of equipment in an ambulance is expensive. I would wager it is much more expensive than the average squad car. I don't know how much it costs to produce a medic vs. a police officer. But I am willing to bet that the medic costs more. Police academy is roughly 6 or so months varying from state to state. Paramedics ranging from 18 months to 4 years depending on how much schooling you want to do. That is just the medic using the equipment. Now for the equipment itself- the AED's, the drugs, IV's, and the whole other kit and such amounts to alot of money. It is a valuable investment on the city's part or the ambulance company which works in tandem with them. I have trolled a few forums about the topic on some EMT blogs and there is a bit of a debate as to what they should do. There are unconfirmed reports where they don't start rolling unless they are packing heat. There are videos on youtube that should medics wearing body armor because of their encounters while on the job. Some would say tasers are going to do the job. Some may be right. However there are also reports of false calls just to get the female EMT's into the house for ambush. I have yet to discover a case where this has successfully happened but I have read about it on various forums. Some say it would interfere with the mission at hand of saving lives. Well it is tough to save lives when you are being attacked or killed. EMT's enter some pretty hairy areas and bad parts of town. I would advocate it for personal defense only, not as a supplement of law enforcement power. I would have it as a standard person with an open carry or concealed carry situation. As long as they are a law abiding citizen I see no harm in them owning/carrying a weapon for defense. As long as they are not conscripted into law enforcement I think they would be fine. I have heard that most of the problems that arise with paramedics happen is when they are mistaken for law enforcement. This would help those communities without a legion of cops I think, and it would make paramedics less of a target when on the job. The ambulance alone is loaded with goodies that drug runners and mob doctors could use for their own ends.
..... if they open carry, they will simply make themselves targets. Interesting topic though, I have trying to find regs on whether or not volunteer fire fighters can carry firearms. Not so much for house fires, however search and rescue is my concern.
Well you could have it so they could only carry concealed if they wanted to carry at all. I'll agree that having a weapon visible may cause unwanted reactions. But being unarmed with a truck full of goodies is just stupid.
Paramedics carrying firearms creates an interesting dichotomy in my lowly opinion. To become an EMT/Paramedic one of the things necessary is a desire to help other human beings - particularly those suffering from a medical emergency. But, carrying a firearm presumes that it could/would be used at sometime for some reason. By shooting an aggressor, the paramedic essentially will be creating more work for themselves, so... if/when the paramedic shoots someone, do they shoot them with the intent to kill, or do they shoot them in a less vital area? Therein lies the dichotomy -- almost everyone who has taken a firearms class knows that - regardless of what is depicted on the silver screen by Hollywood - you don't shoot to wound, you shoot to kill!
One of my favorite blogs to read is by a male nurse who is also a gun enthusiast including concealed carry. Unfortunately he doesn't post much anymore, but there are several years of history and some fascinating reading there. http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/
I don't see the dichotomy. The EMT's desire is to help other human beings. Sometimes that necessitates hurting yet other human beings.
The EMT is trying to help other human beings by alleviating their pain and suffering. The dichotomy arises when the EMT becomes the cause of the pain and suffering. The additional dichotomy lies in the EMT's decision making process - Do I shoot to wound them, thereby creating work for myself because I'll have to probably treat the injury I've inflicted? Or do I say "The hell with it!" and kill them?
If somebody is threatening the paramedic or his patient, the paramedic is shooting to prevent pain and suffering of the paramedic and his/her patient. The miscreant who chooses to attack the paramedic is the one that is causing pain and suffering by their actions. There is only one ethical way to shoot somebody--and that is to shoot to stop them from attacking--which means shoot them center of mass and hope they stop. If you think you can just "wound" then you don't have justification to shoot. (this is unless you are a soldier, which is a different thing). Then again, I was raised by an M.D. who believed in use of lethal force for self defense.
Indeed the paramedic could be making more work for himself, or another paramedic by shooting another person. They don't have to have lethal munitions, although I think that would be a much more effective deterant. Medicine bags will do the trick quite nicely unless the guy is hopped up on drugs. Tasers can do quite well unless it is winter(thick coats/leather largely render tasers worthless, prongs sometimes don't penetrate). Some would say mace is a good idea, but then you have the blow back problem and whether or not mace will do the job. And if the medic can see or breathe, now he is the problem and he has compromised security even more. Securing an ambulance is just like securing a convoy. Either have support vehicles and staff or you arm the ambulance, or have security ride with them that is a secondary paramedic, but then why not just let the medics arm themselves... It's easy to go in a circle over this. I guess I would just advocate for personal choice and leave it at that.
I've been thinking about this topic some more, and I guess my viewpoint goes back to the days when if a person was a conscientious objector then s/he would serve as a medic or an ambulance driver. This would allow them to participate in the war effort in a meaningful manner, yet not be fully involved in combat. My remedy to the situation would be to have armed personnel (police or security) ride along with the ambulance crew to protect them and the equipment. However, in an age of massive budget deficits in the public budget, having ride-along police/security is an additional expense, and I think the funds spent could be better used elsewhere. With that in mind, I then think that the solution would be to allow EMT's/Paramedics to be armed if they so chose.
If they take a firearms course I see no reason why they should not be allowed to carry while on the job.
Medical personnel SHOULD be allowed to arm themselves if they want to. Now, if they decide to, they should go through handgun training with the local police department and qualify with the weapon.
