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?
If your first shot didn't disable the bad boy, wouldn't he shoot back? Putting me right next to his target?
But there is a corresponding fantasy on the part of many gun owners that their performance in the controlled setting of a range or a training course proves that they are able to cope with a very uncontrolled and chaotic active shooter incident.
It ain't necessarily so...and all the technical jargon and bumper-sticker slogans won't make it so.
Its far from a fantasy. It isn't the delusion that they will perform perfectly but the fact that they will not lay down and be a victim. That they will do everything they possibly can to be able to return home to their family. Also yeah you wouldn't want to be anywhere near someone with a gun firing at an assailant solely for the fact if it doesn't neutralize them then they will fire back. It doesn't take a kill shot to disable someone and it also doesn't take a head shot. Your worst choice is a head shot since it is a smaller area and more movement. In all of my training course they have said that in a mass shooting to aim for the crotch/lower intestines (unless you can see they are wearing a full body) and shot to take them down then when down do a head shot or if there are other assailants they make respond to the cries and take the same action with the rest. They will bleed out or they will be in excruciating pain allowing for escape.
My my goal isn't to save the day, purely just want to make it out and home to my baby
Specializes in Med/Surg, OR, Peds, Patient Education.
Killings in America are the result of our violent society, and a segment of our population who have no value for human life. Passing more gun laws will do absolutely nothing to keep guns out of these people's hands. All about money? I would like to think its all about our constitution.
When people mention the Constitution's Second Amendment, it might be wise to remember when our Constitution was written. It might be prudent to remember our history and the type of weapons that were available at the time that the Constitution was written. These weapons were muskets, not multi shot weapons, or high powered weaponry.
The Constitution states an armed "well regulated militia." The Armed Services, as we know it today, had not been formed. It was a different time and place.
Our nation has more available guns, more gun owners, some legal gun owners and some illegal gun owners than any other industrialized, developed nation.
We have more deaths, related to guns, some accidental deaths, some suicidal deaths, and other deaths due to criminal violence than any other developed, industrialized nation.
Since you state that "this is a violent society," would it not be common sense to try to limit the numbers of guns that were available?
Yes, I do say that the NRA has "purchased" Congress, and that the NRA is a shill for the gun industry.
Do I think that nurses and other medical personnel should carry concealed weapons at work? No, I do not. If there is an active shooter on the premises call 911, or have security guards available who are well educated as to what to do in an active shooter situation. Have all personnel trained to know to stay safe and keep patients safe in a hospital, or other health care facility, during an active shooter situation. The answer is certainly not having "everyone being armed and shooting," when there are innocent bystanders, and patients in harm's way.
When people mention the Constitution's Second Amendment, it might be wise to remember when our Constitution was written. It might be prudent to remember our history and the type of weapons that were available at the time that the Constitution was written. These weapons were muskets, not multi shot weapons, or high powered weaponry.
The Constitution states an armed "well regulated militia." The Armed Services, as we know it today, had not been formed. It was a different time and place.
Our nation has more available guns, more gun owners, some legal gun owners and some illegal gun owners than any other industrialized, developed nation.
We have more deaths, related to guns, some accidental deaths, some suicidal deaths, and other deaths due to criminal violence than any other developed, industrialized nation.
Since you state that "this is a violent society," would it not be common sense to try to limit the numbers of guns that were available?
So, using these parameters, our 1st Ammendment obviously doesn't apply to phone conversations, email, Internet message boards, etc?
Can we instead agree that that's not how it works?
Specializes in OR, Nursing Professional Development.
So, using these parameters, our 1st Ammendment obviously doesn't apply to phone conversations, email, Internet message boards, etc?
Can we instead agree that that's not how it works?
Well, actually, as long as it isn't the government doing the restricting, the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to those things. Hence why message boards can create terms of service, workplaces can discipline employees for inappropriate email usage, etc.
Well, actually, as long as it isn't the government doing the restricting, the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to those things. Hence why message boards can create terms of service, workplaces can discipline employees for inappropriate email usage, etc.
An unnecessary addendum, don't ya think?
It's naturally assumed 1st Ammendment means "It's the government doing it" otherwise it's not a 1st Ammendment issue.
When people mention the Constitution's Second Amendment, it might be wise to remember when our Constitution was written. It might be prudent to remember our history and the type of weapons that were available at the time that the Constitution was written. These weapons were muskets, not multi shot weapons, or high powered weaponry.
Yeah, I've heard your liberal talking points before. I like how you conviently leave out the part in the 2nd Amendment that says "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Im not sure how they could have spelled that out any simpler for you. Suggesting that they would have restricted the ownership of certain types of weapons is not consistent with the language used in the Constitution. Would you agree that a cannon that could launch a 42 lb steel ball up to 2 miles is considered "high powered weaponry?" Where does it say, "the right of the people to keep and bear muskets, but not a howitzer, shall not be infringed?" Oh, and the Constitution that was written way back then is the same document I, and your President, swore to defend. Not just the parts we like, but ALL of it.
We do have a violent culture in America, and banning guns from law abiding citizen will do nothing to change that. I thank God that I have the right to protect my family instead of having to "learn to be safe" until the police arrive to save me. The police are not there to save us, they are there to clean up the mess. Just ask the family of the 14 people slaughtered in California.
I wonder if you have 'any respect for animals' like you have for guns and as for a nurse carrying a gun is absolutely bizarre.
No, that sentence is absolutely bizarre. I haven't read all the posts, so I may have missed something. Who was talking about respecting animals? I don't know about respect for animals, but I pray for them every day....right before I eat them.
I want to gauge opinions based on our CURRENT situation after the shooting yesterday in San Bernadino, CA. 
NurseNHowell
93 Posts
Its far from a fantasy. It isn't the delusion that they will perform perfectly but the fact that they will not lay down and be a victim. That they will do everything they possibly can to be able to return home to their family. Also yeah you wouldn't want to be anywhere near someone with a gun firing at an assailant solely for the fact if it doesn't neutralize them then they will fire back. It doesn't take a kill shot to disable someone and it also doesn't take a head shot. Your worst choice is a head shot since it is a smaller area and more movement. In all of my training course they have said that in a mass shooting to aim for the crotch/lower intestines (unless you can see they are wearing a full body) and shot to take them down then when down do a head shot or if there are other assailants they make respond to the cries and take the same action with the rest. They will bleed out or they will be in excruciating pain allowing for escape.
My my goal isn't to save the day, purely just want to make it out and home to my baby