The Emergency Medical Service (EMS) color guard holds a unique and often unrecognized place in ceremonial traditions. While frequently mistaken for firefighter units due to similar appearances, a closer look reveals their distinct identity: the blue Star of Life on a white background patch. This emblem proudly signifies their life-saving mission.

Our Terms

• Color Guard – A color guard is a formation of at least three people, two guards and one color (US) bearer. You can add color bearers to the left of the US, but we don’t add on more guards, unless the team is going for the historical look with guards behind each bearer and one at each side.
• Bearer – A color bearer holds a flagstaff that has a color attached to it.
• Guard – guards are at each end of the row of color bearers and are most often armed.

What Should EMS Color Guards Carry?

The choice of what an EMS color guard carries is a subject of ongoing discussion. Currently, teams may carry rifles, swords, fire axes, or the more recently adopted (e)spontoon. Some units opt to be unarmed.

Unarmed Guards: A Practical, Yet Unconventional, Choice

An unarmed presentation is the most cost-effective option, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with it. However, it can appear unconventional given that most observers are accustomed to the armed military color guard tradition.

A common misconception is that EMS color guards should be unarmed because “EMS saves lives, they don’t take them” (more on this in a moment). This statement fundamentally misunderstands the historical and symbolic role of an armed color guard: the protection of the colors. The staffs carried are, in fact, symbolic weapons—spears. Arguing for unarmed guards based on the “saving lives” premise would logically lead to merely holding the colors by hand. Furthermore, since 1898, the last infantry charge with the color guard at the center of the formation, the color guard has been purely ceremonial; the “protection” of the colors is symbolic, not literal combat.

Carried to its logical conclusion, enforcement of no weapons would lead to The Flagstaff Ban.

In essence, the protection of the colors in a military color guard is far more than a mere procedural act. It is a powerful, living symbol that encapsulates the identity, history, honor, discipline, and enduring spirit of a military unit and the nation it serves, and, by extension, this same identity, history, honor, discipline, and enduring spirit is also carried forth by civil and civilian teams.

Exploring Armed Options: Tradition, Symbolism, and Practicality

• The Espontoon: Historically, during the Revolutionary War, the spontoon (also called the “espontoon”) served as an officer’s mark of office. Notably, two spontoons could be combined and wrapped with blankets to form a litter for carrying the wounded. While this presents a compelling historical link and a practical, albeit sharp-edged, dual purpose, spontoons can be an initial expense. Pointed metal does not play well with flag material.
• The Ceremonial Fire Axe: While some EMS squads are affiliated with fire departments, carrying a fire axe doesn’t necessarily align with the core mission or symbolism of an EMS color guard.
• The Sword/Saber: Though ceremonial, the sword or saber, with its sharp tip and high cost, also lacks a direct or logical connection to the EMS profession’s symbolism.
• The Rifle: The rifle remains the most traditional and widely accepted weapon for protecting the colors in any color guard. It is the default choice unless a specific tool or an unarmed approach (as seen in scout programs) is more appropriate. A few firefighter teams in the Northeast have also maintained the tradition of carrying rifles.

Ultimately, there is no single “right” or “wrong” item for an EMS color guard to carry. However, any argument to mandate or restrict what every team carries must be supported by a solid, justifiable basis, which does not exist. The decision must reflect a balance of tradition, symbolism, cost, and practicality for each individual unit.

Challenging the “No Rifles” Mandate: A Decision-Making Perspective

The current push to ban EMS color guards from carrying rifles, despite a lack of substantial basis, highlights a critical failure in the decision-making process. Effective decision-making isn’t about gut feelings or arbitrary mandates; it’s a structured approach designed to lead to informed, justifiable outcomes. When examining the call to disarm EMS color guards, it often falls short of these fundamental principles.

Let’s break down why this “no rifles” argument lacks a solid foundation, viewed through the lens of rational decision-making:

1. Identifying the Problem/Decision: What is the Actual Issue Being Addressed?

• The Alleged Problem: Those advocating for the ban rarely articulate a clear, demonstrable problem that carrying rifles by EMS color guards creates.
  1. Is it a safety hazard (despite most ceremonial rifles being inert)?
  2. Is it a misrepresentation of EMS values?
  3. Is it public perception?
• The Decision Proposed: To prohibit EMS color guards from carrying rifles.
• The Flaw: Often, the “problem” is vaguely defined or based on an emotional reaction rather than a tangible issue. For a sound decision, the problem must be clearly identified and its scope understood. Without a specific problem, the proposed “solution” (the ban) is a decision made in a vacuum.

2. Gathering Relevant Information: What Data Supports the Ban?

• Information Presented (or Lacking): When the “no rifles” argument is made, what evidence is brought forward?
  • “EMS saves lives, they don’t take them”: As previously discussed, this reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the symbolic role of a color guard and the historical “protection of the colors.” Since 1898, the color guard has been purely ceremonial; the protection is symbolic, not literal combat. The rifle, like the flagstaff itself, derives from a martial tradition where these items were weapons (spears). To argue this, one would logically have to demand EMS color guards hold flags by the corners, eschewing a staff.
  • Safety Concerns: Are there documented instances of injuries or incidents caused by ceremonial rifles in EMS color guard settings? Typically, there are none, as these are non-firing, ceremonial pieces of equipment.
  • Public Perception: Is there widespread public outcry or confusion stemming from EMS color guards carrying rifles? Anecdotal evidence usually outweighs empirical data in these discussions.
• The Flaw: A sound decision-making process requires gathering relevant, factual information. Arguments based on misconceptions (like the “saves lives, doesn’t take them” fallacy) or a lack of empirical data (e.g., no documented safety issues or widespread negative public perception) are inherently weak. Without concrete information demonstrating a clear detriment, the basis for a ban crumbles.

3. Identifying Alternatives: Have All Options Been Considered?

• Existing Alternatives: Identified and explained above (unarmed, espontoon, sword).
• The Flaw: A rush to ban one option (rifles) without thoroughly evaluating all alternatives against clearly defined criteria (e.g., cost, symbolism, training requirements, public understanding, practicality) leads to a poor decision. If the goal is to enhance the EMS color guard’s image or safety, are there other, less restrictive ways to achieve that?

4. Evaluating the Alternatives: Is There a Justifiable Basis for Exclusion?

• The Argument for Banning Rifles: Often, the argument against rifles is rooted in a misinterpretation of symbolism or an emotional aversion, rather than practical or historical reasons. There is no inherent conflict between the historical symbolism of “protection of the colors” (which the rifle represents) and the modern life-saving mission of EMS. The ceremonial rifle is merely a piece of equipment used to execute a traditional drill.
• The Flaw: Forcing a ban requires a solid, justifiable basis to exclude a particular piece of equipment, especially one as historically significant to the color guard tradition as the rifle. If the evaluation is biased, incomplete, or based on faulty premises (like confusing ceremonial items with actual weapons of war in context of a color guard), it leads to an arbitrary decision. The absence of a strong, evidence-based argument for the ban is precisely why it lacks legitimacy.

The Fallacies in the Argument Against Rifles

The statement “EMS saves lives, they don’t take them,” when used to argue against EMS color guards carrying rifles, is primarily a Non Sequitur logical fallacy.

Here’s why:

1. Non Sequitur (Does Not Follow): This is the most direct fit. A non sequitur is a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.
   • Premise: EMS’s primary mission is to save lives.
   • Conclusion (implied): Therefore, EMS color guards should not carry rifles.
   • The conclusion does not logically follow from the premise. The mission of EMS (saving lives in an emergency) is entirely distinct from the symbolic, ceremonial role of a color guard, where the rifle represents tradition and the “protection of the colors.” There’s no logical bridge connecting the two.

While “Non Sequitur” is the core fallacy, it also contains elements of other related fallacies:

• Red Herring: This fallacy involves presenting an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue. The “EMS saves lives” statement diverts the conversation away from the actual purpose and symbolism of a color guard (tradition, honor, ceremonial display) and towards a literal, functional description of EMS’s day-to-day operations. It’s a distraction from the discussion of ceremonial standards.
• False Analogy (or Weak Analogy): This occurs when an analogy is used, but the two things being compared are not alike in the relevant aspects. In this case, it attempts to draw an analogy between the literal act of saving lives (or not taking lives) and the symbolic act of carrying a ceremonial rifle. The rifle in a color guard is not a weapon for taking lives; it’s a symbolic prop in a ceremonial drill, rooted in historical military tradition. The analogy breaks down because the contexts (real-world function vs. ceremonial symbolism) are fundamentally different.

A Call for Principled Decision-Making

The push to ban rifles from EMS color guards bypasses the critical steps of sound decision-making. It often starts without a clearly defined problem, lacks relevant supporting information, fails to thoroughly explore alternatives, and bases its exclusion on flawed evaluations.

Applying the decision-making process reveals that the call to ban rifles for EMS color guards, without a robust, fact-based rationale, is an example of an unsubstantiated and arbitrary mandate that undermines the principles of informed governance and tradition.

DrillMaster Recommends

Freedom of choice and definitely not decisions based on fear of possible perception. Education is what is needed in the EMS community and not a mandated forbiddance.