Is it time to start arming firefighters?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why should a fire fighter rely on someone else to protect him or her? Will the protector be there every time they are needed? I do not think fire fighters should be armed as a whole or supplied a firearm by the town. But I do not disagree with them having a privately owned firearm.
 
Exactly. A firefighter can't carry a policeman in his pocket. And firemen get into some pretty bad bush sometimes.
 
I'm opposed to arming anyone, except those who are required to be armed as part of their job, but if they wish to arm themselves as a matter of personal choice while on duty, I would fully support their right to do so.

I do not see a firearm as practical tool for fighting fires, but do see it as a practical tool for a person to defend himself.
 
TimSr said:
I'm opposed to arming anyone, except those who are required to be armed as part of their job, but if they wish to arm themselves as a matter of personal choice while on duty, I would fully support their right to do so.

I do not see a firearm as practical tool for fighting fires, but do see it as a practical tool for a person to defend himself.
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
In combat the purpose of a Medic was not to engage the enemy, rather to support those who were.

The job of a firefighter is to engage the fire and they don't need to be armed to do that. The Police are charged with protecting the firefighter. The police have their job and purpose just as does the firefighter. Pretty sure fighting a fire is pretty much a full time job.

You want to help the firefighter? Make vest available to those who have to fight fires in the less desirable areas. That or just let those areas burn to the ground.

Just My Take
Ron
 
There's another angle to this.
It starts with a T and ends with errorism.
If an attack were to take place and the attacker remained on the scene, or if other attackers waited in the wings for police response to create another attack, having firefighters armed and ready would give them a tactical advantage in the modern urban battlespace.
 
i dunno....something about carrying a loaded gun into a fire doesnt sound quite right.....

ide imagine they would have to take into consideration the possibility of a round cooking off while chambered.
 
Old Fuff said:
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.
Click to expand...
Agree 100%.
 
M-Cameron said:
i dunno....something about carrying a loaded gun into a fire doesnt sound quite right.....

ide imagine they would have to take into consideration the possibility of a round cooking off while chambered.
Click to expand...
bite your tongue. that would only happen in a tragedy where a firefighter loses his life, heaven forbid.
 
Thermactor said:
There's another angle to this.
It starts with a T and ends with errorism.
If an attack were to take place and the attacker remained on the scene, or if other attackers waited in the wings for police response to create another attack, having firefighters armed and ready would give them a tactical advantage in the modern urban battlespace.
Click to expand...
No offense but what you are imagining is largely fantasy.

Do police and National Guard not exist in this fictitious world? Police are nearly always going to respond with fire fighters, especially in any circumstances where there is any probability for terrorism or shootings, such as high-crime areas. During the most dangerous times, such as the urban riots we've seen lately, there are swarms of law enforcement and often National Guardsmen.

Division of labor is the key here. Let the firefighters do their job, and the police do theirs.

Start arming firefighters, and then you've got firefighters standing guard and keeping overwatch instead of firefighting, thus reducing their effectiveness. Let's assume that firefighters are armed but their arms and hands are occupied by their axes and hoses, and they get opened up on by "terrorists" with rifles. How exactly does the shotgun loaded with bean-bags do anything to help them? How about the handguns buried 4 layers deep in their protective gear? Presumably complex ambushes will be flanking or from behind or above... so again, the guns your propose they carry will be ineffective and cumbersomely slow to bear.

It's not just equipment, it's training and mindset. That's a piece you ignore. Military and police spend careers training and mindset for fighting, ambushes, etc. These skills are not transferable to firefighting, nor vice versa. It's like asking your auto mechanic to do your taxes.

Who IS better trained and equipped? The PD which has AR15s, body armor, and can stand back and keep overwatch for ambushes.

I hadn't considered the liability and insurance angles, and these are two other great reasons this is a really, really bad idea.
 
Last edited:
Thermactor said:
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?
Click to expand...
The part about tooling in an extinguisher is a big nono. An extinguisher is a highly pressurized vessel. Heating it's contents increases pressure and weakens the vessel. In essence it becomes a bomb. Shooting at a fire extinguisher is almost certainly going to create dangerous ricochet as well, especially with a handgun or shotgun, but now you have a high pressure vessel with a small puncture blowing off pressure unimpeded...at that point you have a rocket. I have been told by firemen that in a fully engulfed situation that a fire extinguisher is one of the most dangerous things in the building.
 
I'm opposed to arming anyone, except those who are required to be armed as part of their job, but if they wish to arm themselves as a matter of personal choice while on duty, I would fully support their right to do so.

I do not see a firearm as practical tool for fighting fires, but do see it as a practical tool for a person to defend himself.
Click to expand...

I'll just add to my previous comments that I was not impressed with the "protection" offered by the police in Ferguson or Baltimore.

It's easy to tell firemen, "just don't respond" until the fire call turns into a rescue.
 
leadcounsel said:
No offense but what you are imagining is largely fantasy.

Do police and National Guard not exist in this fictitious world? Police are nearly always going to respond with fire fighters, especially in any circumstances where there is any probability for terrorism or shootings, such as high-crime areas. During the most dangerous times, such as the urban riots we've seen lately, there are swarms of law enforcement and often National Guardsmen.

Division of labor is the key here. Let the firefighters do their job, and the police do theirs.

Start arming firefighters, and then you've got firefighters standing guard and keeping overwatch instead of firefighting, thus reducing their effectiveness. Let's assume that firefighters are armed but their arms and hands are occupied by their axes and hoses, and they get opened up on by "terrorists" with rifles. How exactly does the shotgun loaded with bean-bags do anything to help them? How about the handguns buried 4 layers deep in their protective gear? Presumably complex ambushes will be flanking or from behind or above... so again, the guns your propose they carry will be ineffective and cumbersomely slow to bear.

It's not just equipment, it's training and mindset. That's a piece you ignore. Military and police spend careers training and mindset for fighting, ambushes, etc. These skills are not transferable to firefighting, nor vice versa. It's like asking your auto mechanic to do your taxes.

Who IS better trained and equipped? The PD which has AR15s, body armor, and can stand back and keep overwatch for ambushes.

I hadn't considered the liability and insurance angles, and these are two other great reasons this is a really, really bad idea.
Click to expand...
You just took my argument and blew a hole through it like a Brenneke slug. Thanks a lot!
 
Post 22 for the win

I was a volunteer firefighter in the 70's. We got called into a mutual aide call in the low end part of an ajoining city. We were met by rock throwers.
Guy on the monitor turned it on them and that was the end of that, much to the dismay of the ladder guys who grabbed halligan tools and plkes.
BTW, half of us were ccw.
 
I'd support a few extra guys in the truck with guns to protect them, but when actually fighting a fire either the gun will be mostly inaccessible or covered with water/foam etc. Then should they get trapped there is the issue of rounds "cooking" off being a potential hazard to their rescuers.

Only idiot looters/rioters want to hinder putting out the fire, the police should be dealing with them before the firemen even arrive.
 
No.

Just send some cops to each fire to protect them from the &%$@!'s. They have enough to do trying to put out the fires.
 
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.
Click to expand...

You clearly don't know what a Collins tool/Seagrave axe is used for. You can't rip down drywall or cut an escape vent through roofing shingles with a shotgun. Axes are primarily used in search and rescue--where a fireman might be weighed down with 60+ pounds of protective gear including an O2 mask and bottle. Guns are a VERY bad idea around O2 bottles.

Firefighters' equipment is very specialized, any CCW has to be compatible and NOT interfere with the gear they need to do their jobs.
 
roccoracer said:
Why should a fire fighter rely on someone else to protect him or her? Will the protector be there every time they are needed? I do not think fire fighters should be armed as a whole or supplied a firearm by the town. But I do not disagree with them having a privately owned firearm.
Click to expand...
Their own personal firearm, no problem IMO.
 
No, and here's why.....

I disagree with arming first responders(certified or volunteer firefighters-EMTs).
This action can create a whole series of legal and civil liability issues for many municipalities big & small.
To arm or permit firearms for firefighters/EMTs would lead to the public employees wanting sworn LE officer status & benefits, :uhoh: .
Would these FD members get LEAP pay? LEOSA status? Would they only carry guns on duty? :scrutiny:
If so, what type? Who pays for or mandates the formal re-quals or skill training?

Also, doing licensed security work, I can tell you first hand many of the local fire-rescue and FD fire-fighters I've seen in critical incidents think or act like they are cops, :rolleyes: .
They are not. I've seen fire-rescue guys gripe & moan at crime scenes but turn around and wine about HIPPA laws or "privacy" when you ask them for help, :mad: .

I've also seen local criminal court and civil actions where EMTs or fire fighters testified about a crime scene or events at a scene.
Should they now get involved and act as sworn LE agents of the government?
Also, where would it stop? Would parking enforcement have guns and badges? Trash collectors? Meter readers? Janitors? Do you really want a 1984 style police state government? :uhoh:

In my metro area, a contract security guard just shot at a citizen over a flat tire at a public bus depot. :confused:
About 3 years ago, a county code enforcement official shot at a road rage guy who was swinging punches(no weapons). The county employee was cleared but reprimanded for having a firearm in a public vehicle.
 
Interesting thread. I have been a fire fighter for 30 years. When I respond to our station house, the first thing I do is take my pistol out of the holster and lock it in the console of my vehicle. What a PITA packing a gat under bunker gear would be...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top