I've been a lurker for awhile, and I know that this post has been brought up 1-2 times in the last 2 years that I've been an RN. So... you grouchy old farts that would rather I'd revive an old post can just stuff a sock in it. I want to gauge opinions based on our CURRENT situation after the shooting yesterday in San Bernadino, CA.
Truth be told, One single caregiver with a concealed carry permit could have shut this couple down before they hit 14 fatalities.
I plan on getting my CC in January, but I know as an RN, should my handgun be discovered, I'll probably lose my license. It will stay in my car when I am at work. If someone wants to carry out mayhem at my workplace, we are ALL sitting ducks. It is not ok or fair. What are your thoughts?
Tell us how the 14 hour weapon training that armed security guards in California receive superior to the 16-24 hours weapon training a CCW holder in California gets.
Next tell us why you think putting a badge on and shooting 100 rounds a year while missing up to 25 of those rounds turns you into an excellent shooter.
You're demanding that I explain things I never said or implied ... also known as a straw man tactic, which doesn't work on me either.
You're trying to distract us from the obvious fact that you're unable to address the concerns raised by those who object to cc in a healthcare setting.
Unless a nurse gets the same tactical training and experience as cops, in my opinion a nurse with a gun is just as bad even worse than a terrorist with a gun. All these conceal carry arguments will do no good. Who will be the "brave" nurse to take the first shot at a terrorist with an automatic weapon? You be dead before you get the first shot off. Being good at shooting range or shooting deer or an animal is not the same as standing up and shooting a person. Just look at the many errors cops make daily during shootings and they are pros. The best thing is to close down these gun shops and gets automatic weapons off the street. Pass gun law restrictions and register every gun to its user and for crying out loud pass background check laws. Its all common sence.
1. Don't take a shot at a guy with an automatic weapon because I'll be dead before I get the first shot off? Are you insane? He's going to kill me if I don't. I fail to see the moral high ground in not at least trying to defend oneself. If I lose, I lose. If I don't try, I surely lose. But maybe I win. An automatic weapon is no advantage in the average room. No long gun has the advantage in the average room. Also consider the shooter has everyone in the room to shoot; I only have one and he doesn't know I can shoot back.
2. Close down "these gun shops"? What gun shops? What is gained by disarming me? Cutting the horns off the antelope in a herd doesn't make the herd safer; it just allows the lions an easier meal.
3. What automatic weapons off the streets? Legal machine guns are VERY expensive to buy and the process to get them is very difficult. That's why you seldom see one. Perhaps you're referring to illegal machine guns. If that's the case, how do you propose to get them off the streets? Pass a law against them? That's already been done. What else do you propose?
4. Register every gun to its user? That's a great way for the government to disarm the law abiding public because they (the law abiding public) will be the only ones registering their weapons. Criminals, of course, won't bother. Which group is it committing the crimes? Do you get a vasectomy because your neighbor has too many kids? You affect the wrong group.
5. Background checks as "common sense"? You really ought to reconsider your idea. Who gets background checks? The law abiding public or the criminals? Which group is causing the problems? The law abiding public or the criminals?
If you were a criminal and knew you couldn't pass a background check, what would you do? Would you go to the gun shop just to be embarrassed when you got turned away for failing your NICS check? Or would you go visit the local black market guy who will sell you a gun out of the trunk of his car for a price? Your expectation that criminals will submit to background checks is akin to expecting the local dopers will present a script for their crack at the CVS. Sorry, but that's not "common sense". To tell you the truth, it's anything but.
You could take every legal gun off the streets in America and your problems with terrorists and crazy people would continue as before. If you can buy crack in your town, you can buy black market guns, and probably from the same people. A total prohibition would merely fuel a new opportunity for the black market to expand their product line. Expect some territorial competition similar to what's happening in Chicago. That's not the way we should go.
Specializes in E/R, Med/Surg, PCU, Mom-Baby, ICU, more.
You're demanding that I explain things I never said or implied ... also known as a straw man tactic, which doesn't work on me either.
You're trying to distract us from the obvious fact that you're unable to address the concerns raised by those who object to cc in a healthcare setting.
In order to carry concealed you need a permit. To get a permit you need a weapons class. The weapons class has more hours than an armed security guard weapons class.
As for the cops do you remember typing this: "Are you saying that all concealed carriers have the skills of that particular off-duty cop?" but than turning right around and saying "Who's talking about policemen? I'm talking about concealed carry by health caregivers."?
Do you feel being protected by armed security guards who have less training than a CCW holder? Did you even have any clue just how little training police officers got?
Very easy to rip off an prospective illegal buyer of guns because they surely will not call the police because you ripped them off. While their are some private sales going on at the site you mentioned there are quite a lot of FFL dealers there.
There are currently more than 50,000 firearms listed by private sellers on that site, they aren't exactly exceedingly rare.
Since I AM a conceal carry, I thought I'd leave my thoughts. I live in Washington state and in my state to have a CC permit you must go thru criminal background checks (state and FBI) AND Mental health checks. So if you've done a stint at the looney bin or the psych ward NO Permit.
I have always felt that everyone needs to carry some form of protection. There are those that don't believe in guns which is fine. I have a .380 auto which I keep mainly in my car. It won't do any good if someone starts shooting up the store I'm in and I left my gun in the car. There are also Stun guns, tasers etc. Some criminals are more afraid of a police taser than a gun. My point is that there are many ways to protect yourself.
As a caregiver, I believe that we should be allowed to carry if we decide to. I also believe in being responsible about it and taking classes to learn when and how to use your firearm. I also carry in my lunch bag an 8 million volt stun gun. It's so loud that it made me jump when I first discharged it. It is made by stun-tec and is rated as one of the best. they make a flashlight version for $100 which would be easy to carry at work and come in handy when doing night shift.
One has only to look to Chicago to see what happens when you have extremely tough gun laws....You get the HIGHEST Murder rate in the country. WHY????? Simple, Criminals DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW!! Once everyone understands that, maybe they'll stop whining about gun laws. Reduce the guns to the people and crime increases. THAT is something our forefathers understood when Britian denied the people guns, soldiers were taking over homes, livestock and doing what ever they wanted. Once the people began to carry guns, the British could no longer do what they wanted. Same applies to Criminals. Shoot the *&%$^$%!!! in my opinion.
Having a hard time wondering why people trust security guards with 14 hour courses more than a CCW holder who has 16-24 hour courses
Actually, the State of California doesn't exactly set the specific requirements for initial CCW training. It delegates that to each County Sheriff. The minimum is 4 hours as that's the minimum allowed for renewal every 2 years. The State does set a maximum for training at 24 hours, which usually truly results in to 64 hours. How does this happen? PC 832 training is also known as "Arrest and Firearms" and usually is split into 2 classes, Arrest & Control and Firearms, at 40 hours and 24 hours respectively. The Arrest class is almost always a prerequisite course to the Firearms course. I have taken that entire course. PC 832 is the minimum amount of training required to exercise law enforcement powers. Sheriffs can require the "Firearms" portion of PC 832 as the minimum training but if they do, ALL of the CCW applicants would be required to take that course. Sheriffs usually require either an 8 hour class or a 16 hour class. The content of the course covers legal use of force (when to shoot, when not to shoot), firearms safety, basic marksmanship, and the like. PC 832 covers much of the same material but the use of force stuff is expanded a bit and there's a bit more range time. Academy firearms training isn't much more advanced than that, they just spend more time learning police shotgun techniques, occasionally police patrol rife techniques, and low light techniques for all 3.
All courses spend quite a bit of time emphasizing the legal use of firearms, so all you really get out of a 16 hour course vs an 8 hour course. Security guard firearms class is 14 hours and is designed to teach someone about firearms use for loaded and exposed. The standards are often less stringent than CCW or LE training and the armed security guard isn't really armed to protect YOU, they're armed to protect THEM. Security guards aren't allowed to carry concealed unless they're also separately licensed to carry concealed, using exactly the same CCW license that other CCW carriers have.
My simple advice is that if you're thinking of getting a CCW, don't just take the minimum course(s) to get the license, seek out more training so that you have more options at hand, not just the gun, when a problem arises.
In order to carry concealed you need a permit. To get a permit you need a weapons class. The weapons class has more hours than an armed security guard weapons class.
As for the cops do you remember typing this: "Are you saying that all concealed carriers have the skills of that particular off-duty cop?" but than turning right around and saying "Who's talking about policemen? I'm talking about concealed carry by health caregivers."?
Do you feel being protected by armed security guards who have less training than a CCW holder? Did you even have any clue just how little training police officers got?
I remember it - I was responding to a story told by another poster regarding a single off duty cop who happened to have the skills to actually save the day on one single occasion. You are deliberately distorting what I wrote. And we know why.
You still haven't addressed the concerns raised by many posters regarding concealed carry by health caregivers.
I don't feel protected by any armed person I don't know.
I remember it - I was addressing a story told by another poster regarding a single off duty cop who also had the ability to actually save the day. You are deliberately distorting what I wrote. And we know why.
You still haven't addressed the concerns raised by many posters regarding concealed carry by health caregivers.
I don't feel protected by any armed person I don't know.
I hope you don't feel protected by a cop you don't know either.
Since I AM a conceal carry, I thought I'd leave my thoughts. I live in Washington state and in my state to have a CC permit you must go thru criminal background checks (state and FBI) AND Mental health checks. So if you've done a stint at the looney bin or the psych ward NO Permit.
I have always felt that everyone needs to carry some form of protection. There are those that don't believe in guns which is fine. I have a .380 auto which I keep mainly in my car. It won't do any good if someone starts shooting up the store I'm in and I left my gun in the car. There are also Stun guns, tasers etc. Some criminals are more afraid of a police taser than a gun. My point is that there are many ways to protect yourself.
As a caregiver, I believe that we should be allowed to carry if we decide to. I also believe in being responsible about it and taking classes to learn when and how to use your firearm. I also carry in my lunch bag an 8 million volt stun gun. It's so loud that it made me jump when I first discharged it. It is made by stun-tec and is rated as one of the best. they make a flashlight version for $100 which would be easy to carry at work and come in handy when doing night shift.
One has only to look to Chicago to see what happens when you have extremely tough gun laws....You get the HIGHEST Murder rate in the country. WHY????? Simple, Criminals DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW!! Once everyone understands that, maybe they'll stop whining about gun laws. Reduce the guns to the people and crime increases. THAT is something our forefathers understood when Britian denied the people guns, soldiers were taking over homes, livestock and doing what ever they wanted. Once the people began to carry guns, the British could no longer do what they wanted. Same applies to Criminals. Shoot the *&%$^$%!!! in my opinion.
I don't really understand why Chicago is the rallying cry for those opposed sensible gun laws. Chicago does not actually have the "highest murder rate in the country", it's not even in the top 30. Two suburbs, which aren't subject to Chicago's gun laws are 11th and 15th, and Chicago's strict gun laws were repealed by 2010.
There are no proposals to ban all guns, the current 'liberal' proposal in congress is for universal background checks, the premise of which you seem to agree with; maximize the ratio of good guys with guns to bad guys with guns.
Except where universal background checks are the law, private sellers don't have to conduct a background check, which once again is the point. Currently on armslist.com alone there are more than 50,000 firearms available from private sellers. Buying things from private parties on the internet is actually pretty common, despite the risk of a scam, although if you're a criminal trying to get a gun that probably isn't your biggest concern. If it's not particularly difficult to obtain a gun without a background check, it's not all that helpful that some transfers do require it, yet you seem to be arguing that since some transfers do require a background check we shouldn't be concerned that avoiding them is pretty easy.
Very easy to rip off an prospective illegal buyer of guns because they surely will not call the police because you ripped them off. While their are some private sales going on at the site you mentioned there are quite a lot of FFL dealers there.
Even if there are 50,000 guns up for sale on armslist.com, the instant that the buyer and seller are in different states, a properly licensed FFL must be involved to receive the firearm, do the background check, determine that the firearm is legally releasable, and release the firearm to the buyer.
I could probably go online right now, buy a Colt AR-15, have it shipped to my local dealer, who then receives the firearm. Guess what happens when I try to pick it up? I can't take physical possession. Colt AR-15 rifles are banned in California. In effect, I'd own a gun that I can't do anything with. Same thing happens with any other firearm that gets shipped over state lines... it has to be legal for me to purchase it here.
Another thing to remember (that I've said many times thus far) is that even if the sale does happen within the same state and Fed law requiring FFL brokerage doesn't apply, State Law may require it, and in the even that the State doesn't, if two people use one of those online sales sites, that contact is traceable. The prudent seller does get some basic info just to protect themselves. They just have to be certain that the other party is legally a resident of the same state.
Machine guns (not semi-auto only guns) are highly regulated, from proper (and inspected) storage to obtaining Federal permission if they're crossing state lines. An M-4 (new M16) only costs about $2000 new, but a "transferable" machine gun of the same type could easily cost >$20,000. Trust me, machine gun owners aren't all that keen to use their machine guns in a crime, and they really don't.
I don't really understand why Chicago is the rallying cry for those opposed sensible gun laws. Chicago does not actually have the "highest murder rate in the country", it's not even in the top 30. Two suburbs, which aren't subject to Chicago's gun laws are 11th and 15th, and Chicago's strict gun laws were repealed by 2010.
There are no proposals to ban all guns, the current 'liberal' proposal in congress is for universal background checks, the premise of which you seem to agree with; maximize the ratio of good guys with guns to bad guys with guns.
Usually one of the highest murder rate cities was in New Jersey. That state has very, very stringent controls on firearms and regularly interferes with legal interstate travel of people that own firearms. Chicago was up there, especially in sheer numbers of murders. The "repeal" of Chicago's gun laws happened in 2010 because of a specific Federal court case that went to the Supreme Court. That case was known as McDonald v. Chicago, and it applied the 2nd Amendment to the entire US. Ultimately that case led to Illinois adopting CCW laws for all, not just Chicago Aldermen and Law Enforcement.
In terms of sheer numbers, Chicago has been near the top (or at the top) of the list for a while.
Even if there are 50,000 guns up for sale on armslist.com, the instant that the buyer and seller are in different states, a properly licensed FFL must be involved to receive the firearm, do the background check, determine that the firearm is legally releasable, and release the firearm to the buyer.
I could probably go online right now, buy a Colt AR-15, have it shipped to my local dealer, who then receives the firearm. Guess what happens when I try to pick it up? I can't take physical possession. Colt AR-15 rifles are banned in California. In effect, I'd own a gun that I can't do anything with. Same thing happens with any other firearm that gets shipped over state lines... it has to be legal for me to purchase it here.
Another thing to remember (that I've said many times thus far) is that even if the sale does happen within the same state and Fed law requiring FFL brokerage doesn't apply, State Law may require it, and in the even that the State doesn't, if two people use one of those online sales sites, that contact is traceable. The prudent seller does get some basic info just to protect themselves. They just have to be certain that the other party is legally a resident of the same state.
Machine guns (not semi-auto only guns) are highly regulated, from proper (and inspected) storage to obtaining Federal permission if they're crossing state lines. An M-4 (new M16) only costs about $2000 new, but a "transferable" machine gun of the same type could easily cost >$20,000. Trust me, machine gun owners aren't all that keen to use their machine guns in a crime, and they really don't.
Someone not legally allowed to own a firearm isn't really all that limited because they still have about 1000 firearms for sale in their own state, and while it's certainly easier to buy in-state, it's hardly impossible to buy a gun from someone in another state, there are even ways to have it shipped by UPS or Fed Ex without triggering a background check, but again, just buying one of the hundreds available in your own state is the easiest choice.
AR-15's aren't actually illegal in California. "AR-15" is a pretty non-specific term since there are many AR-15 variants out there made by multiple manufacturers. Depending on the combination of features and AR-15 variant might be illegal, but there are also a large number of california-compliant AR-15 variants, mainly through the use of a "bullet-button" which simply replaces a finger-operate button to release the magazine with one that uses a bullet. There are currently 230 AR-15 variants for sale in California on the site.
Contacts are not really traceable, at least in any significant way. There is no record of the firearms serial number that is being sold, and the seller can provide a buyer with direct contact info which means the site has no idea who actually is purchasing the gun.
I agree that a responsible seller would voluntarily make sure they are selling to someone who can legally buy a gun, despite not being required to in many instances, which is why it shouldn't be any hardship to require that they do that since they are doing it anyway.
I want to gauge opinions based on our CURRENT situation after the shooting yesterday in San Bernadino, CA. 
heron, ASN, RN
4,655 Posts
You're demanding that I explain things I never said or implied ... also known as a straw man tactic, which doesn't work on me either.
You're trying to distract us from the obvious fact that you're unable to address the concerns raised by those who object to cc in a healthcare setting.