[GregRN]

Laws will vary by state. However, in most states, carrying a LOADED gun, even if transporting to/from a gun range, would be illegal or require a permit. Transporting a gun that is empty and the ammo is kept separate is usually fine. However, if your facility makes it illegal to have guns on the property, then it should be secured or confiscated. HIPAA (NOT HIPPA...pet peeve) protects medical information only, and doesn't protect them if they are breaking the law. There is no such thing as "HIPAA client privilege" outside of medical information.

[AirforceRN]

Wow, this is like a whole other world to me...I'm so glad that us Canadians aren't allowed to carry weapons, concealed or otherwise. The idea of patients coming into a hospital with a weapon scares the poop out of me. In some ways the US and Canada are very much alike, in other ways we aren't on the same page, or even in the same book.

[GregRN]

Originally Posted by AirforceRN2b

Wow, this is like a whole other world to me...I'm so glad that us Canadians aren't allowed to carry weapons, concealed or otherwise. The idea of patients coming into a hospital with a weapon scares the poop out of me. In some ways the US and Canada are very much alike, in other ways we aren't on the same page, or even in the same book.

The argument is that a policy or law banning firearms isn't going to keep someone who WANTS to bring a firearm from doing so. Even the guy in this example, who claims it was an accident, was able to bring a firearm on campus. Unless everyone is being searched, a policy or law banning firearms doesn't make a place any safer than a facility that doesn't have a policy or law. Cruel world.

[tasmier]

Originally Posted by AirforceRN2b

Wow, this is like a whole other world to me...I'm so glad that us Canadians aren't allowed to carry weapons, concealed or otherwise. The idea of patients coming into a hospital with a weapon scares the poop out of me. In some ways the US and Canada are very much alike, in other ways we aren't on the same page, or even in the same book.

Well... I have to say it is amazing how some people still think this way.

My bf is a former police officer and currently a licensed and practicing P.I. and Security (PSD) provider here in Indiana (pays a bit more than public service work).

I showed him this post and he laughed but also said it was pretty sad that people really believed that laws actually protect people from criminals. The whole reason they are called criminals is that they do not obey the law to begin with. The creation of laws that do nothing but inable a law abiding citizen (usually the only person that obeys laws to begin with) from protecting themselves usually does nothing but turn people into victims.

While gun laws vary by state it is not the hospital that always makes the policy regarding the carrying of a weapon. There are a few states that do not give certain agencies the right to prohibit a lawfully licensed (if that states requires licensing for ccw) from carrying a weapon anywhere other than on federal grounds or courthouses.

Unless the applicable state law dictates that weapons can not be carried on hospital grounds or there is a provision in the state ccw law that specifically advises that certain business owners (yes a hospital is a business) are allowed to prohibit firearms then they can not do so.

Now as to the topic of how "safe" our Canadian neighbors are with their gun laws, he pointed me in the direction of some interesting facts:

"an article by Canada's National Post columnist David Frum where he revealed that "Canada's overall crime rate is now 50 percent higher than the crime rate in the United States." Moreover, "Since the early 1990s, crime rates have dropped in 48 of the 50 states and 80 percent of American cities. Over that same period, crime rates have risen in six of the 10 Canadian provinces and in seven of Canada’s 10 biggest cities."

He also cites the most recent complete data available from both countries that shows that in 2003, the violent crime rate in the United States was 475 per 100,000 people; while up north, there were 963 violent crimes per 100,000 people. The figure for sexual assault in Canada per 100,000 people was more than double that of the United States: 74 as opposed to 32.1; and the assault rate in Canada was also more than twice that of the states: 746 to America's 295 for the people.

Also, in 2005, Toronto had 78 murders; that’s a 28 percent increase in homicides since 1995.

"The situation hasn't improved for Canada; it has here," he wrote.
"Moreover, this shift in crime rates between the two countries has occurred while dozens of U.S. states have adopted ‘right-to-carry’ and ‘shall-issue’ handgun laws. During the same period, Canada’s gun laws have gotten more restrictive, with the national gun registry being implemented," he added.

[AirforceRN]

Yup...Canada just isn't as high and mighty as we used to believe we were. Of course, you have to consider the source...Mr. Frum, although born Canadian has been an outspoken defender of the States and was actually one of the few foreign nationals to ever work in the White house (speech writer for GW Bush). There is no love lost between us and Mr. Frum and his ability to spin subjects to his advantage is well known.
His article was a subject of controversy in Canada for a period of time. Although the numbers were accurate, a study by StatsCanada (our census people) released in 2001 showed that to compare the US with Canada with respect to crimes would be misleading due to our very different definitions of things such as violent crime, rape and assault (http://www.statcan.ca/bsolc/english/...0035X&CHROPG=1) .
Furthermore, one of the quotes posted by tasmier was incomplete...the full paragraph is
"But those 78 Toronto homicides in 2005 represent a 28% increase over the 61 homicides recorded in Toronto in 1995. Meanwhile, the three U.S. cities cited by the Star each achieved dramatic decreases over the past decade: Chicago down 46% from 823, Washington down 46% from 365, Baltimore down 17% from 322."
Its true, Toronto had a horrible year with respect to murders in 2005 (3.1 / 100000), but it still had a lower rate than Chicago (19/100,000), Washington (3.7 / 100000) or Baltimore (40 / 100000). We were heading in the wrong direction, but we are still ahead of that race, although Washington is surprisingly close. Looking at trends would probably be more accurate than comparing only two years, but that is another study.
I stand by my comments about guns. I understand that it is the criminals that will commit the violent crimes, but it is the finders of weapons who will commit the stupid acts. It happens everywhere, people accidently shooting people, people commiting suicide with available weapons. I would prefer it if guns were banned altogether but I am happier with only the police and criminals having weapons than every Tom Dick and Harry having a glock in their underwear drawer.

[tasmier]

The funny thing is the cities you quoted as having higher murder rates are extremely anti-gun.

In fact, the three states wherein your quoted cities reside, are actually states that either have very restrictive gun permit laws or who outright criminalize the carrying of ccws.

Illinois is famous for being severly anti-gun and currently does not allow the carry of concealed weapons.

In fact Chicago won't even let their retired police officers carry firearms under the U.S. National CCW act for Law Enforcement (and retired Law Enforcement).

Washington just this year got their anti-gun legislation turned over by the appeals court as being unconstitutional. Until just a month ago no one was allowed to carry firearms, in fact it was hard to even own a gun.

Maryland also has restrictive permit laws and is a "may" issue state.

Statistically, violent crime, has gone down in those areas that have adopted "shall issue" ccw laws.

Canada's statistics have gone UP since the anti-gun legislation was enacted and crime rates have dropped in U.S. states that have adopted "shall issue" ccw permit laws (and yes most states require some type of firearms training to obtain a weapon).

Of course you can always say that is has to get worse before it gets better but somehow I don't think that argument means much to those people who it gets worse for.

As far as to the differences in terminology that reports says that comparisons can be made of the following:

Incident Level:

Homicide, Robbery, Aggravated Assault, Break and Enter, Theft, Motor Vehicle Theft, and Arson.

It does not recommend comparisons of Sexual Assault statistics because "the American UCR crime index contains only one narrow version of sexual assault." It differs because Canada has three types of sexual assault which is not gender specific or confined to sexual intercourse.
In plain speak the U.S. is tracking Forcible Rapes whereas Canada is tracking three different forms of sexual assault.

Now this is most likely due to the fact that certain assault would be tracked in the Assault statistics of the American UCR.

That being said, it would mean that the Assault statistics of the American UCR would be higher as certain assaults that may be of a sexual nature but NOT forcible rape would add to the statistics in that category.

The fact is that BOTH the Assault and Sexual Assault (Forcible Rape in the American UCR) statistics are STILL lower than that reported for Canada in the last several years (same timeline) since Canada has enacted tougher gun legislation.

That is not to say that every tom dick and harry needs to be "packin". However there is nothing wrong with having responsible, well-trained citizens, carrying firearms (responsibly) and the statistics show this.

On the side note I would like to add that this is not a U.S. vs. Canada issue. While I have never been to Canada there are many things about your country that I like. It should also be mentioned that neither I nor my BF are big fans of GW (My BF is even ex-military and doesn't agree with some of the things GW is doing).

The fact is that both of our countries have their issues, I just don't see how turning people into victims ever helps.

[AirforceRN]

Okay, so this will be a long post with quite a bit of cut and paste, but I want to be as complete as I can be...we'll start with violent crime:

Total Selected Violent Crimes<O:p</O:p
Although the direct comparison of each country’s violent crime total is inappropriate, it is possible to compare the total of the three comparable violent offences: homicide, aggravated assault, and robbery.<O:p</O:p
Despite a tendency to simply compare Canada’s violent crime rate with the FBI’s violent crime index, this type of comparison is inappropriate. First and foremost, Canada’s violent crime rate contains a greater number of violent offences, including homicide, attempted murder, assault (3 levels), sexual assault (3 levels), robbery, other sexual<O:p</O:p
offences, and abductions. The FBI only includes four main offences in the violent crime index – homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The FBI’s exclusion of simple assault, which is the leading contributor to Canada’s violent crime rate, makes this comparison impossible.<O:p</O:p
Therefore, a new “total selected violent crimes” category must to created, which includes the total comparable violent crimes: homicide, robbery and aggravated assault. As described earlier, the Canadian aggravated assault category would include assault levels 2 and 3 and attempted murder.


<O:pNext...sexual assult...</O:p
<O:p2.1 Sexual Assault<O:p</O:p
Due to significant definitional differences, it is impossible to compare sexual assault in Canada to forcible rape in the United States.<O:p</O:p
Following the Canadian Criminal Code, the Canadian UCR compiles statistics on three types of sexual assault: aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, and simple sexual assault. These three sections are not grouped together but are spread along the offence seriousness scale to match their respective maximum penalties.<O:p></O:p>
In contrast, the American UCR crime index contains only one narrow version of sexual assault. The offence of forcible rape is limited to forced sexual intercourse by a male against a female. This crime differs from the Canadian sexual assault offences, which are neither gender-specific nor confined to sexual intercourse. Although Canada does not describe sexual assault in the Criminal Code, sexual assault can be defined as an assault of a sexual nature that does not require sexual penetration. Therefore, comparing the Canadian sexual assault offence and American offence of forcible rape would not be reliable.


and finally, assult:
1.3 Aggravated Assault<O:p</O:p
By combining three Canadian offences (aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and attempted murder), it is possible to compare aggravated assault.
<O:p</O:p
The Canadian Criminal Code defines aggravated assault as an assault that “wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant” (s. 268.1). The American definition is remarkably similar, describing the offence as “an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury” (FBI<O:p</O:p
1984: 16). Additional elements distinguish the American offence from the Canadian one. Assaults involving the use of a weapon and attempted murder are included in the American offence.9 While the Canadian offence of aggravated assault may include a weapon, an assault with a weapon, which does not fulfill the definition above, is scored as a separate offence. Similarly, attempted murder is scored independently.<O:p</O:p
To create a comparable Canadian aggravated assault category requires combining three Canadian offences: aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and attempted murder. The effects of classification differences should be noted. In both countries, assault or the threat of assault, which is a necessary component of robbery, is not counted if the incident also involves a robbery. However, if a robbery co-occurs with an attempted murder, Canada scores the attempted murder, while the United States counts the robbery since aggravated assault, which includes attempted murder, remains a required element of robbery. As a result, the Canadian rate will be inflated, given that 3.7% of attempted murders also involve a robbery.10 This classification difference, however, is negligible when examining its effect on the entire category. The Canadian rate of aggravated assault would be inflated by only 0.1%. Finally, it is important to note that the United States sub-classifies aggravated assault offences according to the weapon used (firearms, knives & cutting instruments, personal weapons, and other weapons). Cross-national comparison on the use of weapons in aggravated assaults may be feasible using the Canadian incident-based survey, which records this type of information.

All of this info is from Feasibility Study on Crime Comparisons Between Canada and the United States (2001) and should be available at: http://www.statcan.ca/english/resear...XIE2001000.pdf
It also includes other offences which should and should not be compared.
As for the cities stated in my previous post, I don't know why they were chosen, you'd have to ask Mr. Frum, its from his paper. You can access this paper at: http://www.aei.org/publications/pubI...pub_detail.asp

I hope this answers your question. I'm not a law guy myself, just fiercely proud to be Canadian. All of this has gotten away from the original post though and I apologize to MsPiggy for hijacking her thread.
</O:p

[MsPiggy]

Wow, very informative posts. I guess what I'm really getting at was, is this incident really frightened me for some reason. We have had crisis prevention training etc, but are working with patients that are often in mental crisis along with being intoxicated/high on whatever, how best to keep ourselves as nurses safe when we have have no safety measures in place but our wits?

I'm pretty good with going with my gut & have calmed many patients that were just not aware of their actions BUT ther have also been plenty of times where I felt the hairs raise on the back of my neck and really was worried about the outcome & was not able to get to a phone and dial 911..

Perhaps i'm just getting to old to work in this area of nursing anymore, I love substance abuse work but geez..

ps. no worries about hijacking the thread, it's very interesting reading, esp the politics of it all, where do our rights as caregiivers fall into it all I wonder?
MsP (pardon any spelling errors, long day!)

[AirforceRN]

MsPiggy, I think most nurses have a special gift which allows them to have better than normal gut instincts. The fact that you have survived as long as you have is a testament to that. Think of some of the other people you know...do you think they would be able to talk down a strung out addict or be able to follow their guts to a safe conclusion when it comes to weapons? You acted appropriately and you should be proud. As I said before, I would have pooped my pants. Nothing like a code brown in the middle of a "situation" to really liven things up.

[MsPiggy]

Lol,,yea I've come close to that a few times & thank you for the compliment. I think what keeps me coming back to this area of nursing is the occasional former pt that stops by to say Hello & just tell me that they are doing well :0) That makes it all worth it.

It is very draining emotionally, and I'm thinking of taking a break for a yr & doing something else.

It's just maddeningly frustrating that my employer thinks absolutely nothing of safety issues, but I know it's like this at most places nowadays.