Concealed Carry...as a nurse? - page 10
With the current news over gun control and gun rights legislation being pushed through Congress as a result of the tragedies of Aurora, CO, Newtown, CT and the others like them, the thought of... Read More
5Quote from macawakeI am flattered by your quotation of my little comment, and I can assure you, that it reflects the attitude of most Americans. As to rates of violence and access to guns, I am not a scholar and so, will not profess any expertise in this matter. However, I would like to point out one fact that, I think, illustrates the complexity of human violence. In my country (the United States) the implements used most frequenly in the commission of homicides are, wait for it . . . household utensels and sporting equipment. The primary "weapon of choice" here is a knife, usually retrieved from a kitchen drawer in the home in which the homicide is committed. Baseball bats, crow bars, and hand tools (for example, screw drivers and hammers) follow in "popularity."I don't live in utopia, but I do live in a country that has significantly fewer gun-related deaths and overall lower rates of homicides. . . I agree with County Rat who wrote "the most powerful fighting system in the world is using one's intelligence to make sure that, if the fight starts, you are not there".
I do not offer these facts as proof of the validity of any position on gun control. The only point that I would like to make is that human violence is, and always has been, much more complex than the presence or absence of weapons. It grieves me to write it, but human beings have a penchant for violence. We work hard to raise decent children who see violence as something to avoid. Most of the time we succeed; sometimes we do not and the result is tragic and frightening.
1Feb 4, '13 by uRNmywayTo add to what you said CountyRat, and to repeat what I said before, linking your country's low crime rates with low gun availability is misleading too.
How Switzerland Developed a Gun Culture That Works | TIME.com
2Quote from Jeweles26We agree. And thank you for the link to the Time article. While I dispute a few minor comments written by the author, I agree with her completely on her major thesis; that violence (not just violence with guns, but all violence) results from very complex social and individual failures, and that the right to own weapons (in fact, all rights) includes a solumn responsibility to act in a moral way that acknowledges the rights of others and sometimes, requires one to limit the exercise of his or her rights in deference to the needs and rights of others.To add to what you said CountyRat, and to repeat what I said before, linking your country's low crime rates with low gun availability is misleading too.
How Switzerland Developed a Gun Culture That Works | TIME.com
Her description of youth shooting clubs teaching Swiss children to be sharpshooters is exactly the way it was in the United States when I was young. I learned to shoot at the Cottontail Ranch Summer Camp in Topanga Canyon, California, and later honed my marksmanship as a Boy Scout. The availability of semi-automatic rifles (which were the weapons with which we practiced) did not cause us to be violent because we learned marksmanship in a cultural context of moral standards: Killing is a horrible sin. Using a weapon to force someone to do something that they do not want to do is evil. Threatening your fellow citizens is evil, will disgrace you and your family, and land you in jail, which is what you would deserve. We were reminded frequently that all rights come with obligations to use those rights in a morally correct way, and that our country would only remain free if its citizens fulfilled those moral obligations.
I do not think that we have successfully transferred those moral imperatives to many people now living in the United States. In fact, I expect to be criticized just for daring to use forbidden words like, “morals,” and even worse, “sin!”
Most violence in the world is committed without guns, so obviously, guns are not the cause of violence. The presence of several guns in a home does not cause the people living in that home to become more violent that they would become if they had only one gun, because guns do not create violence. People create violence, and people are complicated, functioning on many levels. Fewer guns will not equate to less violence. Life is just not that simple, that black and white.
2Quote from woohThat is true, wooh, but it provokes two questions that we should think about. First, if someone does do damage with a knife or gun, how will they be stopped by unarmed victims? The second question that comes to mind is, how do we figure into the equatiom the many lives that are saved every day by private citizens using guns legally to stop violent crimes. In most of those cases no shots are fired. The violent individual usually runs away when he discovers that his intended victim is not as helpless as he thought.Fewer guns may not = less violence. Fewer guns likely may = less destructive violence. I can do a lot more damage with 6 bullets in a couple minutes than I can with one knife.
Do you see what I mean when I write that simplistic, one solution fits all proposals fail to address what is actually a complex problem?
0Feb 4, '13 by woohIf someone does do damage with a knife, I'm a lot more likely to be able to defend myself unarmed than I am against someone with a gun.
How do crime victims defend themselves in England? People all over the world are able to defend themselves without arming themselves with guns.
Is it really a good idea to arm people that admit their aim is too bad to depend on a taser? Sure, she might stop her assailant, but how many other people are going to get shot until she finally hits her intended target?
How many people are keeping a gun in their house for self-defense, and end up with a member of that household getting shot?
And why is all that carnage ok just because someone lives in an area with different "socio-economics" (aka, there are scary black people) and wants to defend themself? Get rid of the guns, and you won't have to work so hard to defend yourself.
Of course, forgot self defense, then we have people claiming we have to defend ourselves from the government. The government that has nuclear weapons, but yeah, it's your Glock that's gonna save you from the big bad government.
By the way, why is your solution of arming everybody any less simplistic than taking guns away?
0Feb 5, '13 by uRNmywayWooh, since your comment seemed aimed at me, I'll respond. If I WERE to get a gun, I would be responsible about it and go to target practice. Can you even do that with a taser? If I admit that aim is an issue, I would strive to improve it, for my protection and that of those around me who I might accidentally hit while trying to defend myself.
As for people getting injured with a gun being kept in their home...well, that is what safes are for. Personally, if I had a gun, it would be kept in that safe at all times when I am home, and the only people with the combination would be myself and my fiance. But several of us have tried to argue responsible ownership.
And none of us has said that carnage is ok. Carnage is never ok, no matter what neighborhood or socio-economic class you are from. The reality though is that people from lower socio-economic classes are more likely (not everyone of course, just more likely than higher socio-economic groups) to engage in criminal activity, if only to make ends meet and support their families. And someone who plans to engage in criminal activity is unlikely to do so with a registered weapon. Do you think that making guns illegal would limit their accessibility to those who use them in this context? Has that happened with drugs? Nope. So, making guns illegal or less accessible would not reduce their availability to those who would use them to hurt or engage in crime, but WOULD make them less available to those who would genuinely use them for protection and nothing else. And of course, as others have said, violent crimes are committed using many other weapons than just guns.
Oh, and why is it that people keep making this about skin color? Like AngelFire said, there are definitely some scary white people too. Heck, statistically speaking, there are a lot more Caucasian serial killers than any other ethnic background. A violent criminal is someone I want to protect myself from, no matter what color their skin is.
Of course, guns are not the final answer. As I said in one of my first posts on this thread, there are many things that need to be worked on. Better mental health screenings as well as treatment and follow-up. Better education, especially in more at-risk settings (ie. inner city schools), focusing on the importance of education, since so many kids come from families who just don't value a good education. Or just look at the influence of gangs and drug cartels all over the US. I was watching a documentary a few nights ago on cartels in the US, and it's a scary thing!
I mean, I don't have the answers, and I don't pretend to have them. But until either weapons are no longer available to ANYONE, or I can fully depend on law enforcement to protect me and my loved ones, then people need to have some way to defend themselves.
And let's not forget the zombie apocalypse people! :P
2Feb 5, '13 by uRNmywayAnd Wooh, I also wanted to say that even if we disagree on this, I still very much respect your knowledge, your caring, as well as your optimism, although I think the utopia needed for what you suggest is still very far out of reach in the US currently.
0Quote from AngelfireRNNevermind, I realized I was going to post something that might make it fairly easy to identify me.Atlanta...geesh. I feel for you. My cousin works in Birmingham, another works in Tuscaloosa. Metal detectors in the ERs in both hospitals.
I remember going to DCH in Tuscaloosa and being wanded in the ER. Blew my mind. That was ten years ago, before I wised up.
0Quote from Jeweles26Heh, I remember asking a friend in Atlanta, when she was considering working at Grady, if they made scrubs with built-in Kevlar. That's the only way I would do it.Yeah, I remember before I moved, that year in Montreal, it was mid-February before we had the year's first murder. I don't think I even locked my door at night. Now, in Atlanta, I think there is at least one murder mentioned in the news every day. I lock my door at all times, day or night. Ok, I know the population of Atlanta altogether is much higher, but still. A month and a half vs. every day occurrence? With that much violent crime, I definitely see why people in the South are so gun-happy!
1Quote from redhead_NURSE98!You should google the principal who stopped the shooting at the school in Pearl, Mississippi. He's had to live with consequences. He saved lives, and he's treated like a pariah. Not that that should stop anyone from acting, but honestly, you have to be "downtrodden" before a liberal cares about your life.I spend more time at the desk than most nurses, so I'm the first person that gets their face blown off. When I start carrying, if I feel a visitor that's been a horse's butt might come back later armed, I won't be hesitating to go to my car and carry it in. I'll work out the legal issues later. And polish my resume. I can hear it now. "Thanks for saving lives. You know we have to fire you, right?" lol
0Quote from pa715Wow, judgmental much? Don't like Alabama? In the immortal words of Lewis Grizzard, a great American, "Delta's ready when you are, we can have you in Cleveland by evening."I think the best thing that your employer should do is hire a safety officer (a vet to give them a job and put their skills to good use as a civilian) to be on-site should any threats occur. I think it's absurd you would bring a gun to work and even think of killing a patient. You work in pain management which is one of the most difficult areas of healthcare and those patients may have some mental health issues, etc. But you choose to work there and work to care for these patients. Alabama is a very racist crazy state so I am not surprised that this is tolerated there.