Concealed Carry...as a nurse? - page 18

by mcknis

26,841 Views | 223 Comments

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... Read More


  1. 1
    Quote from dirtyhippiegirl
    You did look at the massive population differences between Alaska and DC, right?
    Population differences between Alaska and DC ... Alaska has approx. 100,000 more people.

    710,231 vs. 601,723 (2010 US census data)

    American FactFinder - Community Facts
    American FactFinder - Community Facts
    hiddencatRN likes this.
  2. 1
    This is awesome! You can shoot someone, and then save their life. Wait, is that a conflict of interest?... That said, if you have a carry permit and like to carry off-duty that is your right. On-duty (except in a war zone) I believe it is incompatible with the ethics of nursing.
    malamud69 likes this.
  3. 1
    Quote from nurse2033
    This is awesome! You can shoot someone, and then save their life. Wait, is that a conflict of interest?... That said, if you have a carry permit and like to carry off-duty that is your right. On-duty (except in a war zone) I believe it is incompatible with the ethics of nursing.
    I wonder though, is it really incompatible? I do tend to agree with you, I would not want to have a gun in the hospital/work setting. At home, maybe so. But just to play devil's advocate a little bit...

    A nurse wants to help people, keep people alive, make people healthy. If someone causes you (the nurse) or your co-workers or your patients harm, or actively threatens to do so, with intent to act...wouldn't protecting them and yourself fall under the whole keeping people alive and helping them descriptions?
    I mean, you make the exception for a war zone. I would think a nurse or HCW who has a gun in the workplace has it for protection. I don't mean your typical patient with dementia who lashes out at you because they are scared, or even the jerk-face ones who know better and still threaten harm if you don't give them what they want. I mean those that you hear about in the news, the crazies who bust into the ER and start shooting, or have a gun and wave it around and threaten to use it.
    I would sincerely hope that a person who has enough brains and logic to obtain a nursing licence would also not be the type to aim a loaded weapon at some idiot who threatens her because she won't wipe his butt.

    Jus' sayin'...
    Last edit by uRNmyway on Feb 15, '13
    redhead_NURSE98! likes this.
  4. 8
    LMBO, I just came on this after posting my last message, wanted to share.

    RunBabyRN, maelstrom143, monkeybug, and 5 others like this.
  5. 0
    Bahahaha!
  6. 0
    Quote from Altra
    Population differences between Alaska and DC ... Alaska has approx. 100,000 more people.

    710,231 vs. 601,723 (2010 US census data)

    American FactFinder - Community Facts
    American FactFinder - Community Facts
    We do have more people here than in DC...
    They are pretty spread out though...are you aware of how big Alaska is??
    The second largest city in the state has fewer than 50k people...

    population density is the issue...
  7. 1
    Ah ... you mean it's not the guns???
    RunBabyRN likes this.
  8. 5
    Quote from Altra
    Ah ... you mean it's not the guns???
    Nope, not the guns...people kill people, sometimes they use guns.
    RunBabyRN, maelstrom143, uRNmyway, and 2 others like this.
  9. 4
    Very well stated. Guns, knives, baseball bats and swords are inert objects that while dangerous and deadly, they cannot just walk by themselves and start killing or injuring people. To make these weapons dangerous, there need to be a person behind the weapon. In all honesty, almost every politician, talking heads and the vast majority of anti-gun supporters forget that the greatest and most deadliest weapon that is available to us is the human mind. No amount of gun bans , knife bans or any weapons ban you can think of will stop a person or persons to hurt and kill a large amount of people when he or she or even they, decide to make their desires a bloody reality.
    RunBabyRN, uRNmyway, tewdles, and 1 other like this.
  10. 2
    Quote from dinobotprime
    Very well stated. Guns, knives, baseball bats and swords are inert objects that while dangerous and deadly, they cannot just walk by themselves and start killing or injuring people. To make these weapons dangerous, there need to be a person behind the weapon. In all honesty, almost every politician, talking heads and the vast majority of anti-gun supporters forget that the greatest and most deadliest weapon that is available to us is the human mind. No amount of gun bans , knife bans or any weapons ban you can think of will stop a person or persons to hurt and kill a large amount of people when he or she or even they, decide to make their desires a bloody reality.
    Interesting first post. I'm reasonably convinced that everyone, regardless of their stance on gun-control issues, understand that guns don't grow legs and run around shooting left, right and center.

    You are of course correct in that the intent to cause harm stems from the human mind, not from an inanimate object.

    We've all heard the expression "if looks could kill". We know, they can't. Thoughts can't kill (another person) either. The human mind/person needs to use physical force, some sort of tool, weapon, implement or vector to kill.

    You mention guns, knives, baseball bats and swords, making them sound interchangeable. Are they?
    Why do you think mass murderers and spree killers favor guns over baseball bats?

    Guns: You can kill a large number of people in a short time period and from a safe distance. Psychological/ego boost r/t instilling fear.
    Baseball bat or knife: Up-close and messy and rather time-consuming plus you run the risk of your potential victims gaining the upper hand and disarming you. Scary scenario for most perpetrators.

    Both knives and guns (or pretty much any object) can be deadly. One-on-one they are probably both equally frightening and dangerous. With one assailant against a large group of people, in my opinion the gun definitely has a greater potential to cause serious harm to many people.

    You're right, no law or ban will stop people from killing each other. Guns just makes it rather easy to do for those who are so inclined.
    wooh and tewdles like this.


Top