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?
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.
It might be wise for you to remember that when the Constitution was written a musket would have been the equivalent to an assault weapon at the time. That's fine if you wish to point out that the NRA is a shill for the gun industry. Bloomberg is a shill for the anti-gun industry.
Oh, and you go ahead and call 911 for your active shooter. Maybe they'll be nice and patient when they see you are on the phone and stop shooting out of consideration of your conversation.
I think it's humorous or maybe just sad that people are so afraid of a concealed carrier accidentally shooting someone yet we rarely hear about such a thing happening in the news. There's already millions of permits out there in the United States but where are all the stories of the hordes of accidental shootings?
How about getting the facts correctly. Trayvon Martin made it back to the place he was staying at and he came back 70 yards and attacked Zimmerman.
Let's not gerrymander history, OK? I'm not going to relitigate the Martin case. My point is that Zimmerman has a history of violent and unstable behavior that, nonetheless, does not preclude him from legally owning guns or, as far as I know, obtaining a cc permit.
A "well regulated Militia" by definition is an Army or force of ordinary citizens vice professional Soldiers
Sort of, the word "militia" by itself refers to a group of citizen soldiers, which can be either an organized or unorganized militia. The term "well regulated" in the context of a group of soldiers means well organized and well trained, so "well regulated militia" isn't referring to just ordinary citizens with guns. As a gun owner, I'm all for taking the other option, which is that it refers to general gun ownership but with sufficient restrictions on possession of guns, but we can't really just ignore parts of the amendment and suggest it's just referring to unlimited possession of guns by everyone.
Why concealed carry? Just have them sitting on your hip or slung across your shoulder. Maybe they could become standard equipment.
Hospitals could start operating more like veterinarians and animal hospitals.
"We have brought Grandma in, she has had a good life, but is getting a bit old and we don't really have time to look after her. We would like her to go quickly".
No problem, take her out the back, bang!, all sorted.
"That leg is badly broken, you will never be able to run again". Pull the curtain, bang. Sorted.
Patient loads easier and they would be more willing to try and get better.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
There are a couple ways of interpreting "well regulated", one is that it refers to a well organized and trained group of soldiers, another is that it refers to possession being sufficiently restricted through regulations (laws).
im not misquoting anything. I suggest you go back and read my post, along with the quote above it. I was filling in the part that person I quoted left out.
Just a couple points that I picked out after reading the past 2-3 pages. First, the text of the 2nd Amendment does NOT refer to the National Guard or any other standing army. The National Guard was created a few DECADES after the Constitution was ratified, along with the Bill of Rights. The "well-regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment means "well trained." The idea was that a well-trained citizenry would be ready and capable of taking up arms against any enemy of the United States, Foreign or Domestic. The citizenry also had exactly the same weaponry as the Military, from knives and bayonets to muskets and rifles to cannons to well-armed ships. In any event, the Supreme Court found in the Heller decision that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms. What's important about that decision is that it applied only to Federal territories and Districts (like Washington D.C.) and not the individual states. The McDonald decision just 2 years later applied the 2nd Amendment to the individual states as well.
Furthermore, while there is no 5 gun law regarding sales of firearms by private individuals, one cannot make sufficient numbers of transfers without triggering at least an investigation into whether or not a defacto business of dealing firearms has been established. Some cops got themselves into a LOT of trouble (and convicted) for doing exactly that, even though they were using properly licensed FFL dealers for the actual transfers. That investigation typically begins when someone has made 5 or more firearm transfers OUT of their possession in a year.
As to screening out the "George Zimmerman's" of the world from owning guns, that's a very tough thing to do in the United States because we have this thing known as "due process of law." Government may NOT deprive someone of their rights without it. This is why cries to prevent people on the "no fly list" or the "terror watch list" or any other such list are doomed to fail. Even if the Government was able to pass such a bill into law, it would be immediately challenged on multiple constitutional grounds and the challenge would easily win using any of them.
Now then, as a Resident and Citizen of the United States, my rights remain with me regardless of where I am. I have a right to defend myself against confrontation. I may lose my job because of it, but I do not lose my right to do so. While I'm at work, I have a variety of means to do so and I have help available within seconds. When I'm not at work, I would be often very lucky to have a cop show up when I call 911 within minutes of the call. I have been a dispatcher for a small public agency and I dealt with law enforcement calls on a daily basis. The fastest response we ever had was 8 minutes. The slowest was 82 minutes, both calls were for verified life-threatening incidents. Both of those calls had "Code 3" responses from 3 different agencies. Both were active DV. With either, had the victim died, none of the agencies (including mine) would have been successfully sued due to Governmental Immunity and the fact that Government (LE in particular) has no particular obligation to protect anyone specifically unless police protection is specifically extended to an individual.
If my life is in danger from someone else, if I'm able to, I'll "dial" 1911 before I dial 911 because if that ever happens, it'll be over in seconds, help would be minutes (or hours) away. In a way, it's much like a fire extinguisher. I have one but I hope I never have to use it, and most people never will.
For me, this is also very personal. I have a good friend that nearly got abducted. She's alive today because she drew her handgun and was getting ready to shoot when the guy that was going to drag her into an unmarked van saw her draw, shouted at the driver, dove back into the van and left the area very quickly. Yes, that was caught on video... he had a knife and was advancing toward her quickly.
I want to gauge opinions based on our CURRENT situation after the shooting yesterday in San Bernadino, CA. 
AndyB
176 Posts
Are you saying nurses are not supposed to be able to defend themselves? I find that bizarre.