Is it time to start arming firefighters?

[Thermactor]

I think it's time that we, as a nation, had a conversation about the role guns can play in aiding firefighters in their work.

A visionary legislator from Georgia has introduced legislation to that effect, with broad bipartisan support.

http://gapundit.com/2014/01/31/cooke-introduces-bill-to-arm-firefighters-times-georgian-local-news/

“There have been a number of recent incidences of firefighters being ambushed or taken hostage, either within Georgia or other states. The aim of this bill is to allow firefighters, within the state of Georgia and with local department approval, to carry a weapon for personal protection. It is my hope that, with passage of this bill, the incidents that have occurred would stop in the future

But this goes beyond personal safety, which is by itself a huge deal.
Firefighters need firearms to perform their job.

Firefighters are already equipped with axes to break down doors.

How about arming them with shotguns loaded with breaching rounds to simply take it off its hinges? That would be faster than breaking through a door with an axe, and it would work where the axe wouldn't. The shotgun load can be tailored to the type of door.

How about needing to break a window that is inaccessible? Use the shotgun with bean bag rounds, or other less-lethal projectiles.

They could also toss a fire extinguisher into the middle of a blaze and fire at it with a handgun or rifle to create a firefighting conflagration of extinguishing chemicals, quickly dousing the flame and saving lives.

The possibilities are endless and I think it's time we give firefighters the tools they truly need. All it takes is a politician holding a press conference in front of the cameras with a lot of grim-faced firefighters standing behind him as he appeals to the nation for their right to carry on duty.

Your thoughts on this excellent idea?

 

[xxjumbojimboxx]

They could also toss a fire extinguisher into the middle of a blaze and fire at it with a handgun or rifle to create a firefighting conflagration of extinguishing chemicals, quickly dousing the flame and saving lives.

Thats was the funniest thing I've read all day. Thanks

 

[Sam1911]

Lol. Sure, why not?

They should have as much right to be armed as anyone else, but I don't see much point in devoting public funds to make that happen.

A few one-in-ten-million chance incidents of firefighters being assaulted really doesn't equate to a national need to divert firefighting training and equipment budgets into making them armed agents.

Hell, I'll bet there've been nearly as many trash collectors, meter maids, and dog-catchers assaulted. Arm them too on the public dime?

Cool idea but firefighter have enough gear and special training to deal with. Banging around inside a smoke-filled house about to collapse on them, guns are pretty much just an impediment.


Now, if we wanted to consider a bill to direct police agencies to provide officers to accompany fire crews, that might make some sense.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

I think it's time that we, as a nation, had a conversation about the role guns can play in aiding firefighters in their work.

I can get behind that.

But this goes beyond personal safety, which is by itself a huge deal.
Firefighters need firearms to perform their job.

I don't really think it does. It sounds like the problem is Firefighters being ambushed, not that the firefiighters are having trouble performing their regular firefighting duties. IMO a pistol on their person is reasonable.

Firefighters are already equipped with axes to break down doors.

How about arming them with shotguns loaded with breaching rounds to simply take it off its hinges? That would be faster than breaking through a door with an axe, and it would work where the axe wouldn't. The shotgun load can be tailored to the type of door.

I am not sure if it is faster than those rams they use. This sounds dangerous as you cannot see what is beyond the door you just blasted.

How about needing to break a window that is inaccessible? Use the shotgun with bean bag rounds, or other less-lethal projectiles.

They could also toss a fire extinguisher into the middle of a blaze and fire at it with a handgun or rifle to create a firefighting conflagration of extinguishing chemicals, quickly dousing the flame and saving lives.

NO and especially NO.

I would not want bullets flying AND flames closing in. Visibility is very poor in the middle of a fire or when trying to see in. This may be recipe for getting someone shot.

ETA: I think this guy is trolling and he done trolled me... I guess I am interwebs gullible...

 

[Sam1911]

I am not sure if it is faster than those rams they use. This sounds dangerous as you cannot see what is beyond the door you just blasted.

Not to give unintended credibility to the idea by arguing against it with undue seriousness, but ...

What is quite likely to be on the other side of a locked or jammed door a firefighter is trying to get open in a desperate hurry? Perhaps trapped people who've been told to drop to the floor and crawl to an exit door?


I greatly like the idea of protecting our first responders, but this bill has all the markings of "political theater," rather than a realistic effort that will go somewhere.

 

[SVTOhio]

I'll start off by saying no, just no. I understand most your comments are based in sarcasm so we obviously see your view on the topic. I'm a full time paramedic running on a PRIVATE company running the primary 911 for a population of about 100,000 people. We work very close with the local fire departments and police departments. We have a role and they have their roles. None of our roles or the fire departments roles need a firearm to be succeeded. It's simply as that. If anything it will make our jobs harder and more complicated, and possibly more unsafe.

 

[Thermactor]

The ideas for the practical uses of guns in firefighting that I threw out there are conjecture. While I have been to a number of NFPA conferences, I'm not a Subject Matter Expert on firefighting.
But I am an advocate for the 2nd Amendment and I don't think that firefighters should go to the scene being afraid of an ambush. Attacks on firefighters happen, that's a fact.

So if you want to narrow the scope of the discussion to allowing them to carry a concealed, unobtrusive handgun, that's fine.

 

[Thermactor]

I'll start off by saying no, just no. [...] I'm a full time paramedic. [...] None of our roles or the fire departments roles need a firearm to be succeeded. It's simply as that. If anything it will make our jobs harder and more complicated, and possibly more unsafe.

That's my next thread.
http://www.ems1.com/safety/articles/1364037-Ohio-officials-consider-arming-paramedics/

GERMAN TOWNSHIP, Ohio — Paramedics are trained to rush to the scene of an emergency and save lives, but more and more often they are finding themselves to be the target of an attackers.

 

[JSH1]

"Is it time to start arming firefighters?"

No

 

[roccoracer]

I am a firefighter and I carry.

 

[Sol]

'round these parts, a call about a fire brings in the police, EMS and fire dept.

They can arm themselves, not with my tax dollars though. 2 or 3 firestations, 5 fires a year if lucky and a bunch of mostly unused equiptment and nice trucks.

The most work they do a year is in parades.

 

[roccoracer]

'round these parts, a call about a fire brings in the police, EMS and fire dept.

They can arm themselves, not with my tax dollars though. 2 or 3 firestations, 5 fires a year if lucky and a bunch of mostly unused equiptment and nice trucks.

The most work they do a year is in parades.

I wish. I am a volunteer and maybe we are different but we go to over 200 calls a year and have poor outdated equipment. Our station was built in 1912 and we have to store much of our equipment in places other than the station. It is tiny.

Also fire departments no longer respond to only fires. We respond to car accidents, flooding, medical emergencies, trees down, search and rescue and so many other things.

 

[SVTOhio]

I wish. I am a volunteer and maybe we are different but we go to over 200 calls a year and have poor outdated equipment. Our station was built in 1912 and we have to store much of our equipment in places other than the station. It is tiny.

Also fire departments no longer respond to only fires. We respond to car accidents, flooding, medical emergencies, trees down, search and rescue and so many other things.

I also run on a volunteer fire department that runs all the primary 911 for my local community of 3,000 people.

 

[4thPointOfContact]

It may or may not be time to start arming firefighters, but it's definitely past time to stop discriminating against their being armed. Why should firefighters be denied the basic human right to protect their lives and liberty?

 

[Sol]

Meh they do some of that too. Since we have a dedicated EMS, it cuts their workload down majorly.

Downed trees are not uncommon but that's just roping off the area and calling in a private company to remove it.

Same for power lines. Yellow tape and a call to the electric company.

There are many cats around here, I'm sure a few get stuck in the trees.

In the summer it's a hoot. You can catch the fire inspector guy in a speedo tanning in front of the firestation. I don't know if he's trying to "get babes" or something but it is defiantly weird. Tuff job, somebodies gotta do it.

 

[SSN Vet]

interesting concept...but I think you'll find that post civil rights movement, most states make it illegal for firefighters to even point a fire hose at a person.

I'd suggest letting firemen be firemen and if they need protection support them with armed security.

My uncle was in the Michigan National Guard and rode shotgun on fire trucks during the Detroit race riots. Rioters would light buildings on fire and then shoot the firemen when they showed up.

 

[Red Wind]

It may or may not be time to start arming firefighters, but it's definitely past time to stop discriminating against their being armed. Why should firefighters be denied the basic human right to protect their lives and liberty?

100% agree. The 2A applies to them as well,... I should hope.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

No, it is not time to a firefighters more so than anybody else. No, they do not need firearms to perform their jobs.

However, if you want them armed on tax $, then you better make them full blown leos like many arson investigators. Who is going to pay for that?

 

[captmoto]

No. I am a retired firefighterof 32 years. I worked in some of the nastiest ghetto areas of Los Angeles County. I only ever felt really in fear 2 times. I've been threatened but we were able to defuse the situation most of the time before the cops arrived. Never had any problem with people on fires.
Firemen that want to carry guns need to go get in the cop line.
I always believed in an exception though for riots though because honestly in 92 probably 50% were carrying against policy.

 

[Red Wind]

That's why we wear seat belts and carry fire extinguishers,Capt.

That one or two time possibility.

 

[leadcounsel]

I think it's time that we, as a nation, had a conversation about the role guns can play in aiding firefighters in their work.

A visionary legislator from Georgia has introduced legislation to that effect, with broad bipartisan support.

http://gapundit.com/2014/01/31/cooke-introduces-bill-to-arm-firefighters-times-georgian-local-news/

But this goes beyond personal safety, which is by itself a huge deal.
Firefighters need firearms to perform their job.

Firefighters are already equipped with axes to break down doors.

How about arming them with shotguns loaded with breaching rounds to simply take it off its hinges? That would be faster than breaking through a door with an axe, and it would work where the axe wouldn't. The shotgun load can be tailored to the type of door.

How about needing to break a window that is inaccessible? Use the shotgun with bean bag rounds, or other less-lethal projectiles.

They could also toss a fire extinguisher into the middle of a blaze and fire at it with a handgun or rifle to create a firefighting conflagration of extinguishing chemicals, quickly dousing the flame and saving lives.

The possibilities are endless and I think it's time we give firefighters the tools they truly need. All it takes is a politician holding a press conference in front of the cameras with a lot of grim-faced firefighters standing behind him as he appeals to the nation for their right to carry on duty.

Your thoughts on this excellent idea?

Eh, just one more piece of equipment for them to carry around and be trained on, have NDs with and lose - and they already have enough stuff to deal with.

They have as much right to personal safety but they already carry significant equipment that actually has daily uses, I cannot see adding several more pounds along with the responsibilities that come with carrying a gun to be worth the cost or effort.

Breaching rounds for the doors? Perhaps, but the ax seems to work pretty well without the risk.

Breaking windows? Perhaps. But doesn't that just give more oxygen to the fire? Maybe there's legit needs to break windows they can't reach, but that seems counter productive in airing the fire.

Shooting tanks of chemicals thrown into rooms? Okay, that's where this really takes a turn for fantasy? Have you ever seen a house or building fire? It's all dark, smokey, and/or a wall of flames. It's fantasy to think that a shot could safely be made to ignite a tank, and that the exploding tank would be safe to any possible surviving occupants or the structure.

I want firefighters to focus on their tasks at hand, not be juggling another piece of equipment - particularly a lethal one. Ever see the gear they wear? Where, exactly, are you going to put a weapon and have them have the field of vision and dexterity to use it properly?



I'd be more supportive of simply have a police detail - which generally occurs anyway - to accompany the firefighters in high-risk areas. Let the cops, with the AR15s and riot guns, stand overwatch while the fire fighters do their jobs.

The suggesting of passing a law arming firefighters is an example of the problem in the USA. Politicians trying to create laws which are bad and dumb which will change entire industries for the worse, spend billions of dollars (for all the "studies" and "research" and "testing" and "fielding new equipment") for a problem that is either non-existent or has a much simplier and nearly free solution (allow them to carry a concealed weapon on their person, or put a police detail on high-risk missions). Creating laws to address problems that don't exist is political theater - akin to "gun control" and other nonsense.

Instead, spread money evenly among the departments to ensure that actual fire-fighting equipment is modern and updated and maintained.

 

[MedWheeler]

As a police officer who frequently doubled as a firefighter during my shift, including driving fire apparatus to the scene and "puttin' the wet stuff on the red stuff", I can say firsthand my gun belt got in the way a lot.

Firefighters are already well-equipped to defend themselves against the types of harassment they're most-likely to encounter. Pike poles, Halligan bars, axes, heavy water streams, and the sheer number in which they tend to respond, do them well.

This is, as of now, a relative non-issue.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Personally, I think if it's time to that it's wise to arm firefighters in defense of their work... It's time to let the places burn are rebuild elsewhere.

 

[wojownik]

All for the idea of individuals exercising their 2A right.

HOWEVER, I'm generally not at all supportive of the concept of arming yet another gov't agency.

There are already several departments who allow selected staff to carry. Most of those are Fire Marshals and are generally commissioned officers with the police powers.

However, an official policy arming other firefighters and EMTs can get sticky very fast - the firefighter is a government employee, but generally one without police powers. But now the firefighter is now an armed government employee potentially stuck in any number of scenarios that will present catch-22s for the firefighter as an individual, and for the fire department as an organization.

And, not to get too mired in the mundane, many insurance companies may be hesitant or refuse to cover FD employees or a department , which may be a major sticking point for smaller and volunteer fire departments.

I took a scout group on a tour through a local FD station. It's been a while since I've been at a station, and I was amazed (as were the kids) at the array of protective (chem/bio/rad), rescue gear, electronics, river rescue, detection gear, and so forth. Impressively well equipped and well-trained in their profession. Do they have the bandwidth to go through even more training? And would the training and requirements of carrying a firearm interfere with their other duties? I'm no expert, but I'd venture to say ... yes.

Here is one odd anecdote of FD and police powers. Either for illustration, or entertainment value ... I've actually never told this to anyone except for my wife: I had a off-duty county fireman (possibly a fire marshall) who badged me in a mall parking lot, and then attempted to detain me because he saw (what he thought was) an infant in my car seat while I was coming back to the car from shopping. It got heated (on his end) quickly, while I stated matter-of-factly at least a dozen times "It's a doll" (apparently the older kid put her dolly in the baby seat).

He was unarmed (aside from a gold badge he kept showing me). But imagine if an undertrained individual was armed in a situation like this? Could it have gone sideways? The incident ended awkwardly, with the firefighter realizing he was in error, but without apologizing noted that he had already called in my plates to the county police who were on the way. (I said "good - I have a plastic doll, and you just called in a false police report - how do you think this is going to go?").

Soooo ... what does that have to do with this topic? Training. Training. Training. Here is a fireman attempting to exercise a police power (investigate, attempt to detain), and he quite evidently had no training. Adding firearms to this equation ... if a department can't carry the burden of training for armed firefighters, they should not go down that road as a policy.

Personal evaluation. This particular firefighter noted he recently had to deal with a bad incident where someone left a kid in a car. Apparently that did not end well for the kid. However, he brought that baggage forward, and created an incident where there never should have been. Everyone has a bad day/week/month. Maybe (for the sake of discussion) this is an individual who perhaps should not be carrying on duty, had that even been a departmental policy. A fire department may need to add that screening and occasional eval capability, if they are going to allow firearms to be carried.

Liability. This also goes back to training. A department is going to need to deal with the consequences if a firearm is discharged by a department employee, and there is any question at all as to whether that discharge was justified. And the consequences for the department will be there whether there is an official policy, or if the firefighter carries individually, at his own volition.

 

[Old Fuff]

Firefighters have enough to worry about without getting into issues such as self protection. In a civil disorder environment they should be provided with professional police or National Guard protection.

And those agencies should go about doing the protecting in a manner that will insure that those who are endangering firefighters quickly discover that they've made a bad mistake.