Gun owners need basic medical training

No doubt everyone alive needs to learn the basics of first aide.

But, I thought the video was just a scare tactic to get me to learn first aide. How about just say that the need for first aide can come about at any time?

The only thing I learned from the video was the fact that the police have to secure the area before the paramedics will treat the victims. What I got from the video is that if I call 911 for a firearms related injury to me or my family, and I feel that I am secure, I will tell the 911 operator that there is an accident and paramedics are needed, that is it. The cops show up anyway, but the quicker the better, am I right?
 
The only thing I learned from the video was the fact that the police have to secure the area before the paramedics will treat the victims. What I got from the video is that if I call 911 for a firearms related injury to me or my family, and I feel that I am secure, I will tell the 911 operator that there is an accident and paramedics are needed, that is it. The cops show up anyway, but the quicker the better, am I right?
Click to expand...

If the paramedics arrive first you may still be in the same boat as if you told the dispatcher it was a firearms related injury. The first thing EMTs are trained to do as they near a scene is to assess scene safety. If they feel the scene is unsecure for any reason they will wait for police to arrive and secure the scene before they procede.
 
I agree with the many who said that "everyone" needs some level of first aid and CPR. There are so many situations in life where a person MAY need to use it, whether on a family member, friend, neighbor or stranger. I was lucky enough to be trained in the Air Force for my entire career, but I have already gotten my daughter her first course (and I have begun firearm safety with her, as well).

While I am NOT for mandatory safety training for all who own firearms, I think it is a wise decision for an individual to make. Likewise, I detest motorcycle helmet laws (luckily, not present in Texas), since I like the wind in my hair...but I still think it's a wise decision to choose to wear one (and I usually do). :D
 
Are you going to get close enough to apply first aid to your assailant? Are you going to give them a second chance to do you harm?
Click to expand...

It depends on the situation at hand. Even cops do it both ways. I've seen cops give first-responder type treatment to folks after they're handcuffed and no longer a threat, and I've seen cops wait until backup arrives if the guy is still resistant. Granted, we've got handcuffs and the application of the cuffs generally means that active resistance is over, but there are times when we don't have handcuffs and we're still obligated to take the person into custody and provide first aid.

That said,I've arrested a person when all I had was a roll of duct tape. That makes a very efficient handcuff. The rule of thumb for us is, if the person is still resistant, we cannot administer first aid until they're in custody. Once they're in custody, we have a responsibility to administer first aid.

Depending on your state laws, there might be an obligation to assist once the threat has ended. There might not be. There might also be certain legal presumptions regarding the obligation of the victim to, at a minimum, notify first-responders to administer aid.

But, I would agree that all persons over the age of 10 or 12 years need basic first-aid training. Stop-the-bleeding, Heimlich, and CPR as a basic minimum.
 
Last edited:
Are you going to get close enough to apply first aid to your assailant?
Click to expand...
I'd like to think so - assuming the threat is over.
The goal of self defense is to stop the threat, not to kill, plus, I don't like to think of myself as the kind of person that would stand by and watch someone bleed out - even if they had tried to take my stuff. But, that's less about them than it is about me.

I absolutely agree that everyone should have at least basic first aid training. As a group of people that tend to take some time preparing for the worst it does seem like most gun owners would make that choice. After all, you're far more likely to need to take advantage of first aid training than self defense training.
 
There is no doubt that knowing basic first aid and perhaps even more in depth medical training would be beneficial in a bad situation.

However, it is a perishable skill that you need to keep up on and that is just as important as doing it in first place. Its not the hardest thing in the world to remember when you have a few minutes to think about it, but you most likely won't have a few minutes to do so in a dire situation. You can lose consciousness in about 30 seconds from a femoral artery bleed. So with that said, you must also be able to apply first aid to yourself. We did a pretty extensive medical training exercise, and applying a tourniquet one handed in a timely fashion can be quite difficult. Am I saying everyone needs to be a Corpsman or Medic? No. Though, most CCW holders feel it's better to have a gun and not need it, than not have it and need it. Why not the same for lifesaving skills? To be honest, with all the dangers in the world that don't concern a gun, not having those skills can be more dangerous for your family or yourself than situations involving self defense, IMO.
 
I strongly believe that if you own a gun and keep it in the home for self-defense, carry it for protection or as a job requirement, bring it to the range, etc., you should also learn basic medical skills (shooter's aid) to provide basic medical care until EMS can arrive on scene. You must be able to stop and control bleeding and/or maintain an airway at a minimum until help arrives.
Click to expand...

I'm not on board with this at all. Guns are less dangerous than cars, buses, tractors, motorcycles, milling machines, lathes, saws, cranes, sky diving, ladders, surfing, bicycling......and the list goes on. Do we need for everyone who engages in one of these far riskier behaviors to learn basic medical skills?

There are a lot of things people should know. How to render first aid is only one of many. However, this is a free country and people are free to learn as much or as little as they want. Owning guns is a right and that right should in no way be tied to some requirement that the owner have any medical training whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to think so - assuming the threat is over.
The goal of self defense is to stop the threat, not to kill, plus, I don't like to think of myself as the kind of person that would stand by and watch someone bleed out - even if they had tried to take my stuff. But, that's less about them than it is about me.
Click to expand...

LOL, if the bad guys end up in a position where they need first aid, maybe they should have prepared a little better for the consequences of the fight.

I personally have no wish to expose myself further to the threat that the will continue to have which is a biohazard threat.

The goal is to stop the threat, sure enough. I have no goals about trying to keep alive a person that threaten the lives of my family and self. I will call 911 for them so long as I can do so without risk. That is the sum total of obligation I feel I have to helping them.
 
Like I said: it's not about what they do or don't deserve - it's about the kind of person I try to be. But that's really more an issue of religion than fire arms related tactics.
But either way, knowing basic first aid is a good idea. You'd think they could add it to HS health classes. Granted it's something you need to keep up on, but some is better than none.
 
completing a basic first-aid course is a requirement for a driver license.
Click to expand...

If the problem is likely to be solved by just "basic first-aid" it is not likely to be lethal anyway.

If you want to roll CPR into "basic first-aid" maybe.

But doing CPR on a person with no blood is not going to help much.

One reason it is not normally used on the battlefield.

It is far more likely a way of keeping folks from getting driver's licenses in the first place, something common in may parts of the rest of the world.
 
I have been CPR certified since I was 14 years old, and knock on wood have never had to use it- I came close once. I agree it is something that would be helpful for most people to know, and be trained in, as well as basic first aid.

As to those who suggest that basic first aid cannot help anything lethal, then you have probably never taken a basic first aid class. Thanks to many years taking and teaching first aid, I can provide immediate assisstance to victims of cardiac arrest, gunshot wound, rattlesnake bite, electrocution, seizures, and broken limbs. I may not be able to heal a persons injuries, but basic first aid for life threatening cases is simply designed to keep the person alove until medical professionals arrive.

I do not, however, think it should be a requirement for a drivers license. I think it raises too many concerns about adding hinderences to the DL that might affect different races differently, due to having qualified instructors, where they are located, reading comprehension, etc. Even something that is not explicitly discriminatory can have discriminatory effects.
 
As to those who suggest that basic first aid cannot help anything lethal, then you have probably never taken a basic first aid class.
Click to expand...

I retired as a paramedic many years ago.

What you are describing is well past basic first aid.
 
Another reason my EDC belt is a life support/CQC rescue use. You can make it very tight and stop bleeding.
 
Another reason my EDC belt is a life support/CQC rescue use. You can make it very tight and stop bleeding.
Click to expand...

This may be a bit overkill, but I carry two CATII tourniquets, some guaze, and compression bandages in my truck. I'd be pretty upset with myself if I was in a situation where I had oppurtunity but not the tools too help either myself or someone else. I was also doing tree work for a while, where a tourniquet may be a bit more neccesary than everyday life.
 
@brickeyee- applying pressure to arterial bleeding, placing a seizure victim on their side while removing furniture/area hazards, and CPR are things that I have taught 11 and 12 year olds and, with continued practice, can be effectively used to help save someone's life. I am not talking about stabilizing someone, but simply knowing how to respond to provide that first immediate response. I think people misunderstand what First Aid is meant to achieve, especially in the case of life-threatening injuries/incidents.
 
So what should we all do while we wait for all these great ideas to come to fruition?
Click to expand...

That's easy, you go work on educating yourself. Nothing comes to fruition without individual participation gone domino. Basic first aid and CPR is fairly basic stuff to learn and everyone should take the classes.

ABC. Airway, Breathing, Circulation. First 3 things to check.

Perhaps Gangbangers should take the classes since their chosen line of work is dangerous.
 
I agree=all should have basic medical training esp CPR. I know a local HS made it mandatory for all graduating some years back. I dont know about today.
 
Everyone who is able should understand the basics of first aid. As many as possible should consider getting trained and certified in first aid/CPR and AED. Nearly all public places, airplanes, and large stores now have AEDs. Their use is responsible each year for saving many lives. They are easy to use but require a little training.

Whether and when to give assistance is a personal decision based on many factors. But you can't do it if you don't know how, even for a loved one.
 
I am once again astonished at how vigorously some folks protect their own ignorance.

Too much trouble to learn a basic skillset? Really?

Four stages of denial:

1) That never happens.

2) Well, it will never happen to me.

3) If it did happen, it wouldn't be that bad.

4) There was nothing I could have done.

pax
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top