Firearms & GT (Split from NYPD Aux. thread)

[SAR-EMT1]

Nah.. if you want a laugh Mr Nall, lets discuss - for a ludicrous albeit short amount of time the following:

LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS OF EQUIPING C- 182's with NAPALM and FLIR in order to target and destroy Counter-Drug "Targets of Opportunity" ...

.... OOOH  I CANT JUST SEE THE NEW BOMB/Nav/Combat WINGS NOW 

[Major Lord]

Now, really, napalm would be just silly!  Its way to heavy for a 182! I suggest white phosphorus...  FLIR would be fine. Do we need to get the FAA approve it as an "instrument"?

[RogueLeader]

I suggest white phosphorus...  Do we need to get the FAA approve it as an "instrument"?

I could be "instrument" rated for white phosphorus? great when can I start training?

[DNall]

I think the approvals are already taken care of...

http://specialmissions.cessna.com/index.htm

WP might be a problem, they won't even let us drop piss bottles from the plane. 

[SARMedTech]

And we have yet to hear a legitimate reason for a ground team to be armed other than "something might happen".  Well, that can happen at any time to any person in any place and the vast majority of folks seem to get along ok. 

I think ground team members should probably worry more about having the proper equipment to treat for bad reactions to bee stings, which is probably more than 100 times as big a risk to our personnel. 

While I can see both the pros and cons of having armed CAP members out there, since it inevitably brings about the question of liability, lets get liability coverage for medical personnel first, then tackle carrying firearms. I agree with you RiverAux.

[SARMedTech]

Absoluty....if we are going to talk about taking something on Ground Teams because "something might happen"....let's talk about requiring EMTs on the Ground Team.  Let's get the insurance to cover EMTs and make them an offical part of CAP.

You are about 9000 times more likely to have a heart attack on a GT mission than get shot at by some random bad guy.

But unless that EMT-B has a cath lab in his back pocket, you're still pretty screwed by having said heart attack. Couldn't resist.

Everyone has brought forth the best points of both sides. Good for when you stumble upon the crazy armed person in the woods, bad when the crazy armed person in the woods is a senior member.

If someone REALLY wanted to push it, I don't see why LEO's couldn't carry concealed, just for the fact that they're typically POST certified, know the responsibility in carrying a weapon on a daily basis, are are probably going to be  a little lest ept to doing the whole drop down holster/mac 10 chuck norris type thing.

Unfortunately, the letter of the law probably will not change until something bad happens. Who says CAP and the FAA aren't similar at all?

Yes. because we all know that the only emergent treatment for an accute MI is cath lab access (please read with intended sarcasm). Ever here of the protocol for nitro and ASA...Im guessing not.

[SARMedTech]

Hopefully the people you allow on GT with you aren't likely to have a heart attack,

The number one cause of line-of-duty deaths in the Fire Department is heart attacks. What makes anyone think we're any better?

Not better so much as not carrying that much weight with limited ability to breath fresh air. Not saying we're immune by any means, but it's no more or less likely than needing to defend yourself, not in my experience anyway.

If a CAP member has a CCW then there is no regulation in CAP that trumps a state CCW permit.

Wanna bet? You wouldn't be breaking the law to violate CAP regs, but don't think that'll protect you from being tossed out of the org. I know people that have carried weapons in their vehicles on GT with the idea that if it gets bad enough they need it then it's worth more than staying in CAP. I wouldn't recommend that though.

I recently had a patient die during an EMS run. We got to his house and I had to knock in the door to break the safety chain to get to him. He was laying on the floor and screamed "Oh God Help me! Im going to die" That is, in fact what he did. He had no history or coronary disease, no blocked arteries, he simply experienced an SCA and dropped dead where he stood. If its guns or liability covered EMTs...go with the EMTs every time.

[fyrfitrmedic]

Hopefully the people you allow on GT with you aren't likely to have a heart attack,

The number one cause of line-of-duty deaths in the Fire Department is heart attacks. What makes anyone think we're any better?

Not better so much as not carrying that much weight with limited ability to breath fresh air. Not saying we're immune by any means, but it's no more or less likely than needing to defend yourself, not in my experience anyway.

If a CAP member has a CCW then there is no regulation in CAP that trumps a state CCW permit.

Wanna bet? You wouldn't be breaking the law to violate CAP regs, but don't think that'll protect you from being tossed out of the org. I know people that have carried weapons in their vehicles on GT with the idea that if it gets bad enough they need it then it's worth more than staying in CAP. I wouldn't recommend that though.

I recently had a patient die during an EMS run. We got to his house and I had to knock in the door to break the safety chain to get to him. He was laying on the floor and screamed "Oh God Help me! Im going to die" That is, in fact what he did. He had no history or coronary disease, no blocked arteries, he simply experienced an SCA and dropped dead where he stood. If its guns or liability covered EMTs...go with the EMTs every time.

EMS rule of thumb number umpteen: if a patient says they're gonna die, they may be right.

[SJFedor]

Absoluty....if we are going to talk about taking something on Ground Teams because "something might happen"....let's talk about requiring EMTs on the Ground Team.  Let's get the insurance to cover EMTs and make them an offical part of CAP.

You are about 9000 times more likely to have a heart attack on a GT mission than get shot at by some random bad guy.

But unless that EMT-B has a cath lab in his back pocket, you're still pretty screwed by having said heart attack. Couldn't resist.

Everyone has brought forth the best points of both sides. Good for when you stumble upon the crazy armed person in the woods, bad when the crazy armed person in the woods is a senior member.

If someone REALLY wanted to push it, I don't see why LEO's couldn't carry concealed, just for the fact that they're typically POST certified, know the responsibility in carrying a weapon on a daily basis, are are probably going to be  a little lest ept to doing the whole drop down holster/mac 10 chuck norris type thing.

Unfortunately, the letter of the law probably will not change until something bad happens. Who says CAP and the FAA aren't similar at all?

Yes. because we all know that the only emergent treatment for an accute MI is cath lab access (please read with intended sarcasm). Ever here of the protocol for nitro and ASA...Im guessing not.

Nitro and ASA are short term treatments until definitive intervention is able to be done. You don't fix an AMI with nitro and ASA, you just increase bloodflow around the blockage and delay the death of muscle until you can get into a CCL.

But you already knew that.   

[SARMedTech]

Absoluty....if we are going to talk about taking something on Ground Teams because "something might happen"....let's talk about requiring EMTs on the Ground Team.  Let's get the insurance to cover EMTs and make them an offical part of CAP.

You are about 9000 times more likely to have a heart attack on a GT mission than get shot at by some random bad guy.

But unless that EMT-B has a cath lab in his back pocket, you're still pretty screwed by having said heart attack. Couldn't resist.

Everyone has brought forth the best points of both sides. Good for when you stumble upon the crazy armed person in the woods, bad when the crazy armed person in the woods is a senior member.

If someone REALLY wanted to push it, I don't see why LEO's couldn't carry concealed, just for the fact that they're typically POST certified, know the responsibility in carrying a weapon on a daily basis, are are probably going to be  a little lest ept to doing the whole drop down holster/mac 10 chuck norris type thing.

Unfortunately, the letter of the law probably will not change until something bad happens. Who says CAP and the FAA aren't similar at all?

Yes. because we all know that the only emergent treatment for an accute MI is cath lab access (please read with intended sarcasm). Ever here of the protocol for nitro and ASA...Im guessing not.

Nitro and ASA are short term treatments until definitive intervention is able to be done. You don't fix an AMI with nitro and ASA, you just increase bloodflow around the blockage and delay the death of muscle until you can get into a CCL.

But you already knew that.   

Yes, as a matter of fact, I did know that nitro and ASA are short terms stops gaps, but also that they are field protocol in most places. And for my money, increasing any blood flow possible during an MI is a good thing. You seem to be saying that since we arent going to be carrying around a portable cath lab (which by the way are going the way of the dodo in terms of diagnostics in favor of the new cardiac CT) we shouldnt be doing anything to try to help. And perhaps you havent read the literature that has shown that ASA properly administered can stop an MI. If a have a diaphuretic patient, turning blue around the lips and clutching his chest, Im gonna take whatever steps I can to assist in the field.  One thing I have noticed about the 'anti-EMT' crowd on this board is that they dont quite seem to realize that if we find a patient that we can assist and we are 10 miles out in the middle of nowhere, even the best EMS system or helicopter could be an hour away. Do you want to be the one that stands there and watches a patient die, taking vitals every 5 minutes (per protocol for an unstable patient) until they finally die. Not me. They may die anyway but its not going to be because I didnt do anything and everything I could to help them

[SJFedor]

Absoluty....if we are going to talk about taking something on Ground Teams because "something might happen"....let's talk about requiring EMTs on the Ground Team.  Let's get the insurance to cover EMTs and make them an offical part of CAP.

You are about 9000 times more likely to have a heart attack on a GT mission than get shot at by some random bad guy.

But unless that EMT-B has a cath lab in his back pocket, you're still pretty screwed by having said heart attack. Couldn't resist.

Everyone has brought forth the best points of both sides. Good for when you stumble upon the crazy armed person in the woods, bad when the crazy armed person in the woods is a senior member.

If someone REALLY wanted to push it, I don't see why LEO's couldn't carry concealed, just for the fact that they're typically POST certified, know the responsibility in carrying a weapon on a daily basis, are are probably going to be  a little lest ept to doing the whole drop down holster/mac 10 chuck norris type thing.

Unfortunately, the letter of the law probably will not change until something bad happens. Who says CAP and the FAA aren't similar at all?

Yes. because we all know that the only emergent treatment for an accute MI is cath lab access (please read with intended sarcasm). Ever here of the protocol for nitro and ASA...Im guessing not.

Nitro and ASA are short term treatments until definitive intervention is able to be done. You don't fix an AMI with nitro and ASA, you just increase bloodflow around the blockage and delay the death of muscle until you can get into a CCL.

But you already knew that.   

Yes, as a matter of fact, I did know that nitro and ASA are short terms stops gaps, but also that they are field protocol in most places. And for my money, increasing any blood flow possible during an MI is a good thing. You seem to be saying that since we arent going to be carrying around a portable cath lab (which by the way are going the way of the dodo in terms of diagnostics in favor of the new cardiac CT) we shouldnt be doing anything to try to help. And perhaps you havent read the literature that has shown that ASA properly administered can stop an MI. If a have a diaphuretic patient, turning blue around the lips and clutching his chest, Im gonna take whatever steps I can to assist in the field.  One thing I have noticed about the 'anti-EMT' crowd on this board is that they dont quite seem to realize that if we find a patient that we can assist and we are 10 miles out in the middle of nowhere, even the best EMS system or helicopter could be an hour away. Do you want to be the one that stands there and watches a patient die, taking vitals every 5 minutes (per protocol for an unstable patient) until they finally die. Not me. They may die anyway but its not going to be because I didnt do anything and everything I could to help them

:clap: First off, I'm absolutely not anti-EMT since I work in that arena as well.

Second off, you need to come off the soapbox just a little bit. I'm, by no means, trying to offend any medical personnel anywhere, which was understood, since you rehashed a post from months ago, and no one got tweaked about it, especially since we have EMT's, EMT-P's, RN's, and MD's on this board. I was making an analogy that yes, it may be good for us to have an EMT on board a GT, but they will not be the end all fix all, which was understood. You'll notice in the original post I ended the paragraph with "Couldn't resist", hinting the sarcasm.

I'm not sure why exactly you're getting all roused up about this, especially since you're A) very new to this forum, B) don't know me, my knowledge, or moreso, my wierd sense of humor and wit, and C) reading way too deeping into the wrong part of the post.

So please, for everyone's sake, just let it go. It was a small quip a long time ago.

[Flying Pig]

FYI....that ball on the C-206 is a Gyro stabalized camera....not a FLIR.  Nice plane though.  We have the same exact set up on our 206.

[SARMedTech]

Absoluty....if we are going to talk about taking something on Ground Teams because "something might happen"....let's talk about requiring EMTs on the Ground Team.  Let's get the insurance to cover EMTs and make them an offical part of CAP.

You are about 9000 times more likely to have a heart attack on a GT mission than get shot at by some random bad guy.

But unless that EMT-B has a cath lab in his back pocket, you're still pretty screwed by having said heart attack. Couldn't resist.

Everyone has brought forth the best points of both sides. Good for when you stumble upon the crazy armed person in the woods, bad when the crazy armed person in the woods is a senior member.

If someone REALLY wanted to push it, I don't see why LEO's couldn't carry concealed, just for the fact that they're typically POST certified, know the responsibility in carrying a weapon on a daily basis, are are probably going to be  a little lest ept to doing the whole drop down holster/mac 10 chuck norris type thing.

Unfortunately, the letter of the law probably will not change until something bad happens. Who says CAP and the FAA aren't similar at all?

Yes. because we all know that the only emergent treatment for an accute MI is cath lab access (please read with intended sarcasm). Ever here of the protocol for nitro and ASA...Im guessing not.

Nitro and ASA are short term treatments until definitive intervention is able to be done. You don't fix an AMI with nitro and ASA, you just increase bloodflow around the blockage and delay the death of muscle until you can get into a CCL.

But you already knew that.   

Yes, as a matter of fact, I did know that nitro and ASA are short terms stops gaps, but also that they are field protocol in most places. And for my money, increasing any blood flow possible during an MI is a good thing. You seem to be saying that since we arent going to be carrying around a portable cath lab (which by the way are going the way of the dodo in terms of diagnostics in favor of the new cardiac CT) we shouldnt be doing anything to try to help. And perhaps you havent read the literature that has shown that ASA properly administered can stop an MI. If a have a diaphuretic patient, turning blue around the lips and clutching his chest, Im gonna take whatever steps I can to assist in the field.  One thing I have noticed about the 'anti-EMT' crowd on this board is that they dont quite seem to realize that if we find a patient that we can assist and we are 10 miles out in the middle of nowhere, even the best EMS system or helicopter could be an hour away. Do you want to be the one that stands there and watches a patient die, taking vitals every 5 minutes (per protocol for an unstable patient) until they finally die. Not me. They may die anyway but its not going to be because I didnt do anything and everything I could to help them

:clap: First off, I'm absolutely not anti-EMT since I work in that arena as well.

Second off, you need to come off the soapbox just a little bit. I'm, by no means, trying to offend any medical personnel anywhere, which was understood, since you rehashed a post from months ago, and no one got tweaked about it, especially since we have EMT's, EMT-P's, RN's, and MD's on this board. I was making an analogy that yes, it may be good for us to have an EMT on board a GT, but they will not be the end all fix all, which was understood. You'll notice in the original post I ended the paragraph with "Couldn't resist", hinting the sarcasm.

I'm not sure why exactly you're getting all roused up about this, especially since you're A) very new to this forum, B) don't know me, my knowledge, or moreso, my wierd sense of humor and wit, and C) reading way too deeping into the wrong part of the post.

So please, for everyone's sake, just let it go. It was a small quip a long time ago.

Here's what get's me "roused":

1. We are actually having a discussion about arming ground team members when the necessity for deploying deadly force during a SAR sortie is so minute as to render it almost moot. I can understand the idea for a .22 survival rifle with an air crew which may go down, but the idea of having GTs armed, as one person suggested with 1911A1's is just silly.

2. The fact that the discussion about GTs carrying guns took up 10 pages and that this actually being something that would become a regulation is miniscule at best.

3. The fact that in the field, whether on a "live" sortie or an EX in the SAR environment the chances of coming upon a situation which requires more than "emergency first aide" is exponentially greater than a situation where you would need to use deadly force. Especially (as with the CGAUX) the CAP membership is aging (not meant to be an insult-just a fact) and the likelihood of things like heart attacks, etc is increasing.

4. There are numeous things which require more than first aide in the field which an EMT or medic is capable of handling and it is simply ludicrous not to have the liability coverage and medical direction in place so that they can. Things that come to mind are bee stings and other envenomations which could lead to anaphylaxis, broken bones, falls which would require c-spine motion restriction, the ability to monitor a patients pulse O2 level and on and on...

5. By not taking serious steps toward allowing EMTs and Medics to do what they are trained to do, the CAP is opening itself up for even greater liability when the parents of some cadet find out there was something that could have been done, but because CAP doesnt want to come into the 21st century, it wasnt and their child is left with permanent damage or dies.

I am not saying that EMS personnel in the field is the do all and end all to SAR/ES. But it seems a little ridiculous to recognize these personnel so that they can be identified in the field when in fact they are not allowed to do anything that any medically untrained person can do. You dont need a license to apply a pressure bandage, to pull out a splinter or put aloe vera gel on a burn. CAP is sending a profoundly mixed message: lets have EMS folks out there, but lets tie their hands so they can really do anything. And if they are going to restrict us to emergency first aide, can someone please point me to the regs where that is define, ie: you can do this but not this.

With due respect, Sir, how new I am to this forum has nothing to do with the opinions I express. They come from the standpoint of a trained, professionally licensed pre-hospital emergency medical services provider. I am more than happy to buff up boo-boos...that doesnt bother me at all. But CAP is really turning a blind eye to the fact that more than scraped knees and sunburns occur in the field. It provides liability for pilots, which are an integral part of SAR, but not for EMTs which can be just as vital. In my opinion, whether you resepect it or not, this is a fundamental disconnect.

[JC004]

...

1. We are actually having a discussion about arming ground team members when the necessity for deploying deadly force during a SAR sortie is so minute as to render it almost moot. I can understand the idea for a .22 survival rifle with an air crew which may go down, but the idea of having GTs armed, as one person suggested with 1911A1's is just silly.
...

Agree.  .44 Magnum or nothing.  (but I want a waiver to carry my XD. it gets lonely)      

[Al Sayre]

I was once asked by a Law Enforcement Officer if I carried a concealed pistol because I was expecting some kind of trouble...  I answered that if I was expecting trouble I'd be carrying an M14 and a bandolier of grenades...   

[SJFedor]

Here's what get's me "roused":

1. We are actually having a discussion about arming ground team members when the necessity for deploying deadly force during a SAR sortie is so minute as to render it almost moot. I can understand the idea for a .22 survival rifle with an air crew which may go down, but the idea of having GTs armed, as one person suggested with 1911A1's is just silly.

2. The fact that the discussion about GTs carrying guns took up 10 pages and that this actually being something that would become a regulation is miniscule at best.

3. The fact that in the field, whether on a "live" sortie or an EX in the SAR environment the chances of coming upon a situation which requires more than "emergency first aide" is exponentially greater than a situation where you would need to use deadly force. Especially (as with the CGAUX) the CAP membership is aging (not meant to be an insult-just a fact) and the likelihood of things like heart attacks, etc is increasing.

4. There are numeous things which require more than first aide in the field which an EMT or medic is capable of handling and it is simply ludicrous not to have the liability coverage and medical direction in place so that they can. Things that come to mind are bee stings and other envenomations which could lead to anaphylaxis, broken bones, falls which would require c-spine motion restriction, the ability to monitor a patients pulse O2 level and on and on...

5. By not taking serious steps toward allowing EMTs and Medics to do what they are trained to do, the CAP is opening itself up for even greater liability when the parents of some cadet find out there was something that could have been done, but because CAP doesnt want to come into the 21st century, it wasnt and their child is left with permanent damage or dies.

I am not saying that EMS personnel in the field is the do all and end all to SAR/ES. But it seems a little ridiculous to recognize these personnel so that they can be identified in the field when in fact they are not allowed to do anything that any medically untrained person can do. You dont need a license to apply a pressure bandage, to pull out a splinter or put aloe vera gel on a burn. CAP is sending a profoundly mixed message: lets have EMS folks out there, but lets tie their hands so they can really do anything. And if they are going to restrict us to emergency first aide, can someone please point me to the regs where that is define, ie: you can do this but not this.

With due respect, Sir, how new I am to this forum has nothing to do with the opinions I express. They come from the standpoint of a trained, professionally licensed pre-hospital emergency medical services provider. I am more than happy to buff up boo-boos...that doesnt bother me at all. But CAP is really turning a blind eye to the fact that more than scraped knees and sunburns occur in the field. It provides liability for pilots, which are an integral part of SAR, but not for EMTs which can be just as vital. In my opinion, whether you resepect it or not, this is a fundamental disconnect.

Well, you and I see eye to eye on a lot of these issues. My point, however, was that I was trying to make a dry, sarcastic, and almost rhetorical remark to someone commenting that our teams aren't in the best of shape and may be more at risk for AMI's, etc. However, with CAP at the current state it's in, with the current leadership, and the current corporate mentality, they do not wish to expose themselves to the liability of one of their members exceeding their scope of practice, even if they are properly licensed, and opening up the corporation for a substancial loss.

Personally, my belief is that if we have people who are trained beyond first aid, and they want to use said training in a CAP capacity, that national not only allow this, but require them to execute a hold harmless and disconnect, as well as requiring them to carry their own malpractice insurance policy.

You bring a lot of good points to the table; however, I feel like you went ahead and picked my post out of there, because it had something medically related, and attempted to berate me with it, which I do not take kindly to. It was a sarcastic remark from months ago, and it did not require your interjection, or demonstration of your own knowledge of AMI stabilization and treatment procedure.

I'm by no means doubting you're not a good EMT-B/I/P or whatever acronyms you list after your name, but you're coming off really cocky, engaging, and provoking, and what keeps these boards as stable as they are is that this type of behavior previously mentioned is not condoned or tolerated. Be friends with everyone, exchange information, and learn. It's not worth getting into a pissing contest with people on here, and I think you know that just as well as everyone else.

[ZigZag911]

I remain unconvinced that firearms are a necessary or desirable piece of mission equipment....and before you point out that NJ is largely urban/suburban, we have areas where a UDF team runs more risk of coming under fire than almost anywhere else in the country....in which case our SOP is as follows:

1) DUCK
2) Get out of Dodge ASAP
3) Report to IC who will notify LE

Now, if  phasers were available, I might reconsider!

[ZigZag911]

In the interests of clarity I should state for the record that my last post was facetious....I am interested, however, in hearing if there are substantiated reports of incidents on missions in which a weapon would have prevented some unfortunate event??

[SJFedor]

In the interests of clarity I should state for the record that my last post was facetious....I am interested, however, in hearing if there are substantiated reports of incidents on missions in which a weapon would have prevented some unfortunate event??

I'm sure someone can dredge up a story about a guy who knows a guy who knows their cousin's friend's nephew's former roommate's GTL almost got eaten by a bear, but survived because the GTL beat the bear senseless with only a shoe string and a granola bar, and had he had a weapon, the cadets would have been less scarred from this.   

[ZigZag911]

I'm sure someone can dredge up a story about a guy who knows a guy who knows their cousin's friend's nephew's former roommate's GTL almost got eaten by a bear, but survived because the GTL beat the bear senseless with only a shoe string and a granola bar, and had he had a weapon, the cadets would have been less scarred from this.   

That's pretty much what I expected....