Kip Teitsort of DT4EMS.com uses this poster to express a brilliant analogy on arming EMS/Fire providers.
Like a reanimated zombie you just can’t kill, the debate over EMS/Fire responders carrying concealed weapons (CCW) on duty is back on its feet. Kelly Grayson weighed-in on the Virginia issue over at his blog, and EMS World picked up another story out of Ohio.
This debate annoys me as much as the political banter of an election year, and for the same reason. Each side is so focused on their philosophical rants that they miss out on the conversation we should be having. It starts with the simple question, “Will ______ issue or policy substantially change my everyday life?”
For the issue of concealed carry on duty, the clear answer is, “NO.” Regardless of the CCW policy outcome in Virginia and Ohio, EMS/Fire providers will still face the largest likelihood of line of duty deaths (LODD) from cardiovascular disease and motor vehicle collisions. We are our own worst enemies.
But what about all the assaults on providers? We have to do SOMETHING!!
Absolutely. Action must be taken on a national level to teach EMS providers how to evade and defend themselves from the most common healthcare-atmosphere assaults.
Here’s where we can start the conversation that SHOULD be taking place. Take a look at the EMS section of The Secret List and the “Assault on Staff” log in the DT4EMS forums. You will find instances of providers being shot or stabbed. CCW may or may not have changed those outcomes, we will never be sure.
But you can be sure of something else. CCW won’t change the fact that EMS/Fire personnel will continue to get physically assaulted. Far more common are the “empty hand” assaults on providers who haven’t been trained in simple evasion and defense of said threats. According to the Use-of-Force Continuum, these assaults should not be answered with lethal force on the part of the provider via CCW. This may be a shock to some, but getting punched or kicked by a patient-turned-assailant doesn’t justify a lethal-force response.
The conversation needs to be directed toward first addressing the most common assaults. Training like Defensive Tactics for EMS/Fire is the logical first step. When we, as an industry, have taken steps to mitigate non-lethal assaults through basic training, then (and only then) we can begin having the lethal-force/CCW conversation that so many want to jump into today.
No related posts.
Excellent points. It’s a hot-button topic, with passionate opinions on each side, but it’s not a substantive issue for the profession.
If only we’d debate vehicle design and driving safety as vigorously and as passionately.
Agreed. Thanks for your original post on the issue, as well.
Screw CCW just give me a taser
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for CCW and carry off duty, but the instances in which I would need to use lethal force on duty are so remote that I may never come across such an instance in my entire career. Adequate awareness of your surroundings, whether or not you carry a CCW, is the most important thing that will keep you safe. I tell every partner that I ride with that if they feel something is off or wrong and think we shouldn’t be there, all they have to do is motion to me and we are gone. My and my partner’s safety is always top priority. There are many more instances where a taser would be a better tool than a CCW. Most of the threats you encounter on the scene are not of a nature that would require deadly force, as you have stated. Even though I would like to carry a taser, it’s use would still be of the few and far between category. Even though it isn’t needed, nor would I ever see myself using it on duty, I am with Kelly Grayson in saying that if given the opportunity I would carry. Because, even though the situation that it would be needed is 1 in a million, it is still a life or death situation. The same goes for surgical cricothyrotomy. It is a 1 in a million procedure, but when it is needed, it is the only thing that could save their life.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I think you’ll like my reply to the taser comment in the following post…
http://edumedicblog.com/2012/09/part-ii-ccw-on-duty-and-the-conversation-we-should-be-having/
We are not law enforcement, user of force continuum doesn’t apply to us.
Thanks for your comment. I’ve replied to it in the following post…
http://edumedicblog.com/2012/09/part-ii-ccw-on-duty-and-the-conversation-we-should-be-having/
Pingback: Part II – CCW on duty… and the conversation we SHOULD be having | EduMedic Blog
Pingback: Concealed Carry for EMS: 2 Questions | Everyday EMS Tips
No, we are not law enforcement, we are citizens and that is exactly why we need to be able to defend ourselves and those around us, INCLUDING law enforcement, if necessary. Lets not forget that we HIRE LEOs to HELP defend us, they are NOT required to, and they do NOT guarantee to keep us safe. That is OUR personal responsibility as citizens and workers. Have we forgotten what personal responsibility is, in this liberal, nanny society? Most LEOs support the right of citizens to carry concealed weapons. Saying that we are talking about “getting punched or kicked by a patient” is just ridiculous. That statement is very insulting to the responsible, trained person that carries concealed. We are talking about life threatening situations or situations that cause grave bodily injury, which may involve weapons, and in some cases, yes, even being punched and kicked can lead to grave injury or death. The point is, that making it sound like we have nothing to worry about except “minor” injuries is just naive, and makes the argument biased against our having 2nd Amendment rights, both ON and OFF the job. Our right to self defense is inborn, not given by the government, so it can’t be taken away. The 2nd Amendment is simply a confirmation of that right that we have.
A follow up point: People really need to be educated about self defense weapons such as guns and knives. They are simply TOOLS, with both good and bad purposes, depending on who is holding them. A major point is that many people have grown up only seeing guns in violent movies and violent news reports. How often do some people hear about the MILLIONS of times that guns SAVE lives every year? Very rarely. Studies prove that over 90% of media reports on guns are negative. Millions of people like to target shoot, hunt, or defend themselves, and shooting sports are safer than riding a bicycle, downhill skiing and a long list of other sports. We need to stop believing the media demonization of guns, and learn about guns good uses. I consider a gun to be one of the greatest lifesaving tools, in the right hands. It ranks up there with a defibrillator, and statistically, it is FAR more effective at saving lives. Yes, both can be dangerous in the wrong hands. But we don’t throw away good tools simply because they required training to use properly.
You seem to be assuming that this is an anti-gun blog. It isn’t.
Your analogy between guns and defibrillators is not an effective one, and really just invites opposition. The easiest question for anyone playing devil’s advocate to your analogy would be, “Okay, how many felons currently serving time used a Zoll as their weapon of choice?”
My analogy was about how guns can be lifesaving devices, even though they are potentially dangerous. (just like a defib, and in fact a gun can be more effective, statistically than a defib) I was making no reference to a defib being used as a weapon, that is a connection that you made. Just politely pointing that out. : )
You seem to be making a reference to a felon’s access to weapons, which I did not address, and their access will remain despite how many guns the law abiding possess. (black market, theft, etc)
Romansten9, I’m not convinced you read my original post. This has not ever been (nor will it become) a Second Amendment issue. If it was that simple, this would have been decided and put to rest a very long time ago.
I’m also not convinced that you reviewed the reporting forums I suggested for readers. The vast majority are “empty-hand” assaults that should be mitigated with simple self-defense training. Yes, there are fatal assaults, but having a CCW doesn’t change whether or not you get shot or stabbed. It just changes whether or not you get to shoot back, while doing nothing for the dozens of other areas of self-defense training we could provide.
My point is that you are talking about 2 different issues. The title of your post is talking about CCW’s. And then in the content of the post, it talks about more than just the use of firearms. I’m fine with addressing firearms and other methods of self defense, but the title doesn’t fit the article in that regard. The statement about not needing to use lethal force against “punches and kicks” is the statement that responsible gun owners could take as offensive, and it sounds like something coming from the anti-gun crowd. To imply that a person with a CCW is automatically going to “shoot first and ask questions later” is making the average CCW permit holder look irresponsible. And, as I briefly addressed earlier, getting punched/kicked is something that can range from a minor thing to a very major injury. People can suffer bodily injury or death from punches/kicks, and BOTH of these justify the use of lethal force in most states. NO, I’m not saying to use lethal force as a first option, unless absolutely necessary. People should know other forms of self defense. But, if a firearm is needed, its better to have one and not need it, then need it and only wish you had it. Proper training is a must, of course. You say that we must have the “non lethal” conversation first. I had that conversation 25 years ago. My colleagues and I trained for it, along with many others across the nation. How much more time are you suggesting that we wait? : )
“The vast majority are “empty-hand” assaults that should be mitigated with simple self-defense training.”
Yes, I agree. But apply that logic to EMS and ask yourself this: Since the “vast majority” of patients in the ambulance require “simple” treatments, what do with do with some of those advanced tools that rarely get used? Does rarity of use have anything to do with wanting those tools available, should the need arise? I would answer absolutely not. When it comes to self defense, I want EMS providers to have a thorough knowledge of basic and advanced tools for self defense, and no need to “wait” for either one. I support thorough training for both, beginning today.
We can agree on the point about training for both, but I still advocate a progression of skills and knowledge from basic to advanced. There is a need to provide for the simplest version first. This is why we don’t teach intubation to first responders or lay people in CPR classes. In the same way as a rural communities typically move from volunteer EMS, to full-time BLS, to full-time ALS over the course of YEARS, we need to start laying a foundation for the EMS CCW argument now… understanding that it could be YEARS before it is accepted by employers.
The part that I didn’t touch on in my original post is that we have no precedence for how our organizational insurance providers will react to this. There exists a very real possibility that liability rates would increase substantially for organizations permitting EMS CCW. Employers would then be even less likely to move in a progressive style. This is another reason for steady progression instead of alarmist demands for EMS CCW immediately.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I can see that you are looking at this as sort of a “system wide” (or almost “nationwide perspective”)and something that the EMS community needs to embrace all together. I am looking at it on a more individual basis. Many people are going to carry at work (in their EMS job, or many other jobs) if there is no company policy against it. And some carry even if there is a company policy against it, because they would rather be fired than give up an important tool that could save their life. The fact is that the 2nd Amendment is SUPPOSED to overrule any local laws or company policies. In fact it does, but we live in a country that ignores the authority of the Constitution. (see, I told you it ultimately comes back to the 2nd Amendment!) : ) So, we may be waiting a long time before this is a “nationwide norm” in EMS, but individuals are NOT going to wait another day to defend their own life. The old saying holds true: “I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6″ We really need to get back to our authority as individuals in the U.S. “We the People” means that the people are ABOVE the government, including the Police and Military. It seems that many have forgotten this. Self defense is a PERSONAL responsibility. We hire the Police/Military to HELP defend us, but they make no guarantees to do so, and they often arrive too little too late. Instructions in handling a firearm can begin with any capable adult. Its not the same as “working your way up” from CPR to intubation. We are talking about a basic human right here, the right to survive an attack. Yes, it takes training, but its not a career ladder to climb, its something that need to start today, an on an individual basis, not in waiting for the EMS system to finally get on board. If your employer doesn’t like it, too bad. Its unconstitutional to restrict the right to bear arms, if my employer doesn’t like that, I’ll find a new job.
Pingback: Armed EMS – Reactive or Proactive? | The Unwired Medic
Pingback: Tubes and Guns and Training, Oh No | Rogue Medic