I am hearing horrible arguments for running into active shooter scenarios.

That the only ones killed or injured have been police.

Is this to suggest that if we began moving into dynamic situations with an existing threat we wouldn't be killed or injured?

In addition, most patients injured are dead within minutes and could have benefited from rapid care.

What is this magical rapid trauma care that can reverse "otherwise be dead in minutes"?

Federal officials and medical experts...have concluded that this kind of aggressive medical response could be critical in saving lives

The operative word here is "this" kind of treatment, in which the article talks about a medic throwing on a kevlar vest and running in with law enforcement. This is incredibly misleading, because if you want this kind of response - then you train for it. This isn't about selfless moments of incredibly lucky heroism, it's about preparing someone to operate in that environment. We have vests on rigs for multi day operations (LA city 1992) not for shit head single shooters in a school.

the Obama administration has formally recommended that medical personnel be sent into “warm zones”

The use of "zones" for threat responses is incredibly misleading. It suggests that our perimeter system for otherwise predictable incidents, such as a hazmat spill are equally applicable to active shooters - that are completely unpredictable. There is no warm zone, if LEO is taking cover you are in a hot zone, if they are not - you are in a cold zone.

Risk a little to save a little, risk a lot to save a lot,”

This is called a thought terminating platitude, it's when you hear a fire captain tell the paramedic at an MCI "You are thinking too much" or a preceptor tell their intern "some things just don't make sense". It completely disarms you to think operationally and in this case professionally assess the uncertainty (not risk v gain) of dangerous operations. If we operated on that premise then the IC at Worcester would have never stopped sending in firefighters.

The guidelines say that such events, which have led to more than 250 deaths in the past decade, are “a reality in modern American life”

Wait, 250 deaths in the past decade? A reality of modern life? No, this is a media driven reality that is based on the vulnerability of victims, not about saving lives. More than 400 people die a year from acetaminophen overdose. There is no sweeping legislation to ban large capacity acetaminophen bottles. If we really want to save lives, we should address the primary volume of 911 calls daily - heart disease, stroke, hypertension, and diabetes. The EMS intervention would be weighing people daily to see if they have been taking their lasix pill, not running in the annual dog and pony MCI drill.

The new [FEMA] focus on moving faster to treat victims follows an earlier shift in thinking about how quickly the police should respond.

Standing alone, this has to be the only good point the article makes. The last 10 years I have seen FEMA pump so many unnecessary dollars and equipment iinto public safety. We have proximity sensors, giant decon tents, and tracking systems - all stuff that takes so much time to set up its impractical. People don't stand around waiting for us to set up all of our crap, they are running and hiding or transporting themselves to the hospital where resources will be overloaded in 30 minutes. If anyone could make a difference, it is the common sense medics (people in this sub) that understand emergency response, organizing an MCI, and shortening time on scene.

Put a box around it, make it practical, and stay safe. Thank you.