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 concealed carry among healthcare workers has got my attention peaked. Recently, another Allnurses member started a thread (up to 22 pages presently) about what nurses can do as a result of these horrific events.
This post is not meant to reflect my personal stance on this issue, although I can inform that I am not a CCL holder (however interested), nor is it meant to be a bashing session from either side, but I am interested in seeing how many individuals have their concealed carry license, and if they carry while they are at work (and, yes I am well aware of the legal stance healthcare facilities take as being gun free zones)?
I, also, am aware of some of our members being both nurses and current/former law enforcement officers, so what is your take on this issue?
The person that shot me had a acute psychosis attack that went untreated, was suicidal, came to a point that he shot me seven times and subsequently committed suicide.
He went through the proper channels to be a legal gun owner, yet, the gun he used was a "straw" gun...serial numbers were sawed off, so the investigators couldn't trace the gun sale.
I have heard more stories of people who were "gun enthusiasts" and family people and pillars of their community, but then gun down their family and kill themselves. There are at least 1-3 incidents in my state per year.
No one never knows when a personal "crisis" is going to occur, and how they are going to react. That's a reality. People do "snap" and react violently. And some make a choice to use a gun.
Ok sure, but compare gun crimes where victim knows aggressor, much less related to them to those where both are strangers.
First, if someone snaps, they will do so with or without a gun. Have any stats on 'snappers' who use knifes, bats, frying pans, etc?
Besides, a few cases a year don't mean as much as you say. Case in point: how many cases, in your state, of male relatives who abuse kids? Because it happens, should I bar my child's uncles, grandparents, heck, maybe even her father from seeing her? Or maybe I shouldnt ever put her in school or let her play sports because it happens that teachers and coaches abuse too. See what I mean?
Ok sure, but compare gun crimes where victim knows aggressor, much less related to them to those where both are strangers.
First, if someone snaps, they will do so with or without a gun. Have any stats on 'snappers' who use knifes, bats, frying pans, etc?
Besides, a few cases a year don't mean as much as you say. Case in point: how many cases, in your state, of male relatives who abuse kids? Because it happens, should I bar my child's uncles, grandparents, heck, maybe even her father from seeing her? Or maybe I shouldnt ever put her in school or let her play sports because it happens that teachers and coaches abuse too. See what I mean?
^ I see your perspective, however, domestic violence, child abuse, goes underrreported. The point I think the PP is getting at, is if a gun is readily available, the option to use it has more magnitude than a gun.
My perp went out and got a gun, and let me KNOW it...because of the power it entailed for him, because HE felt powerless.
Again, the relativity of a person in crisis carries some form of hopelessness and powerlessness. That's why people do lash out. The point from MY perspective is what we should do about WHEN these individuals are presented and the intent to use a gun. Again, I'm more focused on what solutions I can provide, because you can't get rid of every gun. It's impossible, and illogical to believe that. What is logical, is thinking up solutions to access to mental health, education,
whatever solutions we need, because the cost of survivors of gun violence isn't cheap, and it effects us all.
I conceal carry at work legally. I have a permit. (I do not work in the medical field at this time). I have NEVER drawn my gun. But if it became necessary in order to protect myself or someone else, I would use it.
I live in th UK now in England but originally from northern Ireland. I hate guns and am for tight gun control which we have. However organised crime still will get hold of guns. It's strange I live in an inner city area which has gun and knife crime in a WYoming worse than northern Ireland (Manchester). I like that police in England are not armed despite in recent year 2 occasions were armed cops may have saved lives. I feel the less guns in circulation the better.
I have my CHL. I live in Texas I do not carry at work as it is against policy for employees other than security to carry. I work at a clinic which is not protected under the 30.06 law since it is not a hospital so the patients can carry though they are strongly encouraged not to and that we have the right to refuse service as we are not an emergency room. There have been several times when myself and the other 20 CHL holders (both nurses and doctors) have felt that our one security guard would not be enough if we had an active shooter. We were actually told by our director what she didn't know wouldn't hurt her directly meaning if she can't see the gun or its in the car she won't say anything. I have never drawn my weapon but there have been times late at night at gas stations that I felt threatened enough to keep my hand on the handle in case I did need to use it. Criminals don't follow laws which is why I felt the need for a gun in the first place. In my hometown of 3000 people we had 8 officers. Those officers were amazing at their job but they can't be everywhere at once, it's the same with the security at work.
In regards to my earlier post, of 2.4 deaths per 100,000 I was mistaken. It is 4 deaths per 100,000. Keep in mind that Alaska is 1/3 the size of the lower 48.
As far as I know firearms have only one use and are designed to cause injury of varying degree. People and the other items you speak of are used for many different and positive things the majority of the time.
I guess I have missed out on something in life. In my fifty adult years I have worked in all areas of many cities and rural locations and never felt the need to carry a firearm. This includes many jobs where all the work was done in the worst areas of town..ie the hood.
Billybob you have obviously never been a small sized female surrounded by 6 foot guys hasselling you and/or trying to rape you. That one scary moment gave me all the push I needed to officially take the CHL class and carry a weapon at all times I can. If someone ever attempts to assault me again I will have protection. You can't call 911 when the thugs take your phone.
What steps would that be??? Magically growing 2 feet??? I took a step its called a gun, a can of mace only had enough for 1-2 predators, most guns hold 6-8 bullets. Simple math wins.
It is unfortunate you got into that position. I would take steps to make sure that it did not happen again.
You can only control some things. You can not control the actions of another person that has no allegiance to you. Even then, you can only control their actions with their consent only. I can pretty much guarantee that 6 normal-sized males can overpower one normal-sized female with relative ease.
When I carry, I don't go anywhere armed that I didn't go unarmed. Why? I'm not a cop. I'm only responsible for my own safety and that of my family. Period. If I'm lucky enough to be able to call 911, they still won't be able to get to me fast enough to make a difference. The fight, should there be one, will be long-over by the time they get there.
Even as a relatively not so small male, I can still strongly articulate sufficient disparity of force when confronted with several other males that I would be completely justified drawing and firing in self-defense, should I feel sufficiently threatened, even if those other males are unarmed.
I would greatly enjoy it if there weren't any need for any weapons... anywhere. Unfortunately, even a rock can be a deadly weapon if used correctly. We don't live in that idealistic world where there are no weapons and there's nothing but peace.
The person you said that to could change her route to and from her car, to and from work, pack-up with friends/co-workers, and the like... but she can't always count on that even being possible. She can even take martial arts classes... all that helps. All that avoidance stuff goes out the window when 6 guys corner her in an area that's not well lit or well covered by cameras (which would record the whole event without changing the outcome) and overpower her.
Bad guys only have to succeed once to get what they want. You have to succeed 100% of the time to ensure they don't get it from you. And a good defense involves layers. You want to make yourself unappealing as a target. They'll go after someone else who will be easy prey.
It's sad, but that's the way things are, and have been for a long time. I wish it wasn't that way.
uRNmyway, ASN, RN
1,080 Posts
Ok sure, but compare gun crimes where victim knows aggressor, much less related to them to those where both are strangers.
First, if someone snaps, they will do so with or without a gun. Have any stats on 'snappers' who use knifes, bats, frying pans, etc?
Besides, a few cases a year don't mean as much as you say. Case in point: how many cases, in your state, of male relatives who abuse kids? Because it happens, should I bar my child's uncles, grandparents, heck, maybe even her father from seeing her? Or maybe I shouldnt ever put her in school or let her play sports because it happens that teachers and coaches abuse too. See what I mean?