Concealed Carry...as a nurse? - page 9
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
1Jan 31, '13 by LadyFree28, BSN, RNI appreciate those who have commented on my situation. I returned to school obtain my BSN (May 2012 graduate, licensed in June) about 1 year after the trauma, and I am starting my RN career as a PICU RN in Monday.
And the bystanders who helped me survive were registered gun owners, including a new mom who was walking her baby and intervened during the struggle...her husband is a CO, and had a gun securely locked in her home. A person who was driving by worked for the police, and had a licensed to carry as well, and there were gun fire exchanged. He was not hurt and helped me get away after I was shot, and it did cause my attacker to retreat. A lot of factors were involved, and I take that in consideration during this topic. It was a high tense, yet structured way to help me survive the immediate danger, and that was successful.
0Jan 31, '13 by LadyFree28, BSN, RNI am in support of responsible gun owners. I am concerned about how to make more responsible gun owners. We have both rights, as well as responsibilities as citizens. If that responsibility is to tweak laws and provide strategies, which may include more in depth screenings, reestablishment of a comprehensive mental health program, or the other options I suggested in my previous post, any discussion and common sense solutions should at least be a start.
5Jan 31, '13 by klone, BSN, RNQuote from Jeweles26Michael Moore addressed this issue in "Bowling for Columbine". No, Canadians are not less violent (nor are Europeans that all have fewer gun deaths than we do ).The difference between Canada's and the US's violent crime rates has less to do with availability of guns and more to do with demographics. Chicken or the egg I guess. Are there less guns in Canada because Canadians are less violent and so we are less concerned with protecting ourselves, or is there less crime there because there are no guns as opposed to because people are just less violent to begin with?
1Jan 31, '13 by tewdlesAmericans were guaranteed a right to bear arms in our constitution...that is a unique feature of our freedoms when compared to other countries.
Repealing that right is not going to go over well for the country that fought for its freedom with those weapons that were then protected.
Do we have a gun violence problem in this country...indeed...and the fact that it is costing the lives of our children is horrifying. We are not going to give up gun ownership...period, ain't never going to happen...we can, however, do better in reducing the availability of magazines and weapons that are designed for warfare.
I am very much willing to discuss the issues. Our legislators ought to be willing to talk about it also.
1Jan 31, '13 by woohQuote from AngelfireRNYeah, but how many kids can someone walk into a school and kill with a knife? Or a lead pipe?I agree that a criminal will find a means to commit a crime if a legally procured firearm is not readily available, knives, shivs, a lead pipe, or bare hands come to mind.
6Jan 31, '13 by AngelfireRNQuote from woohYeah, but how many kids can someone walk into a school and kill with a knife? Or a lead pipe?
It was an illustrative point.
A better question? How many could be killed with a legally procured firearm versus an illegally procured one? A gun is a gun, no matter how one arrived at possession. It's the possessor who determines the outcome.
3Jan 31, '13 by Lucky724I have a cc permit, I carry my gun with me most places but not into work. Anything can happen anywhere..a hospital..a nursing home..Target..Petsmart..its about moving the odds in my favor (or being able to come to the defense of someone else) if needed. I do keep my gun locked in my car (the gun is locked inside the console then the car is locked). Yes, the car could get broken into but so could my home or my purse stolen..my gun was legally purchased and registered - doesn't mean a ill intent person couldn't use it but if they pawned it maybe I would get it back.
Look, all this talk about banning high powered rifles etc..as others have posted on here - someone can shoot another person with a 6 shot revolver and kill them. A high powered weapon was not used in the Sandy Hook situation and AR does not stand for assult rifle as many people believe. Banning guns is a feel good response because frankly, I don't think anyone really knows what to do about the escalation of violence..I personally think our court system is too easy on some criminals and too harsh on others..are we going to ban cars because some people get DUI's or ban candy because some people's teeth go bad or they are overweight? Common sense needs to be used and sadly, BOTH sides of the political party line seems to have lost theirs and only found a lust for money, fame and arguing. All this is just my humble opinion....Last edit by Lucky724 on Jan 31, '13 : Reason: correction
7Jan 31, '13 by pmabrahamGood day:
There are stats, including very recent stats, that five to ten bullets is not enough for the legal use of self defense to stop attackers; the 2nd amendment includes the statement about no infringement; and limiting the amount of ammunition a gun can use does infringe (especially since criminals may bring multiple guns, and will disregard any magazine limit).
The current laws proposed deals with the looks (cosmetics) of guns; not the functionality of guns. The AR in AR-15 does not even stand for "assault rifle"; the initials stand for Armalite. It came out later in the news that only hand guns were used in the Sandy Hook tradgedy. The Bushmaster AR-15 was left in the trunk.
Feinstien's original assault weapon ban (which like the current one proposed was just based on the cosmetic features of a gun) was in place when Columbine happened.
Almost all mass shootings are in gun free zones.
You have Chicago with the toughest gun laws in America where there are more gun deaths than over in Afghanistan against our troops.
As AngelfireRN wrote, "It's the possessor who determines the outcome."
Citizens should not be penalized for wanting to buy guns, wanting to buy ammunition for guns, wanting high capacity magazines (keeping in mind that legally we can only by semi-automatic guns which shoot one bullet at a time -- there's no spray of bullets like in a machine gun), etc. to defend themselves from criminals.
I do sympathize with those who have been hurt by guns as well as those who know how to defend themselves without guns.
Personally, I don't plan on carrying any time soon; but should I want to use my 2nd amendment right, I don't want it infringed because people don't understand the 2nd amendment or believe that Sandy Hook and other tragedies like it would have been prevented by cosmetic-based gun laws where the authors of those laws cannot even get the caliber of various bullets right when they speak (that's like any of you who are already a CNA, LPN, LVN, RN, etc. to ask your plumber to come up with nursing rules when the plumber isn't even in nursing school or went to one).