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?
Akulajawk: I agree that there is no reasonable or fair way to prevent someone who meets the legal requirements for cc from getting one. Also agree that you have the right to defend yourself.
I have to disagree that a facility has no right to exclude cc from a caregiving. Unless they are allowed to pick which caregivers can cc and which cannot, then the only sensible thing to do is to exclude it across the board. There is no way an unstable, unskilled or foolish person should be allowed to provide care while armed.
Specializes in E/R, Med/Surg, PCU, Mom-Baby, ICU, more.
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.
Gerrymander? Do you even know what that word means?
Rachel Jeantel testified TWICE that Martin made it back to the place he was staying at. Yet he was shot 70-100 yards away from that place. Looks like you get you opinions by what the media tells you rather than by researching.
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.
Fair point, taking the amendment out of context is probably more accurate. As you correctly point out, you can't just read part of the amendment and ignore the rest. The amendment grants the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the context of a well regulated militia. The preferable interpretation that "militia" refers to an armed citizenry still has the term well-regulated as a condition of that right. And as Akulahawk pointed out, much of the current interpretation comes from Heller which found that not only does amendment apply to individuals, it also allows for restrictions on who can possess firearms and what those firearms can be, so long as it is not a broad ban on gun possession not based on specific criteria.
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?
Unless you include frightened police officers, you have a point. The hordes of accidental shooters are probably hanging out with the hordes of gunmen planning to invade healthcare facilities.
Gerrymander? Do you even know what that word means?
Rachel Jeantel testified TWICE that Martin made it back to the place he was staying at. Yet he was shot 70-100 yards away from that place. Looks like you get you opinions by what the media tells you rather than by researching.
Yes, I know what gerrymandering means and that's precisely what you are doing when you ignore what is known about Zimmerman's character and behavior before and since the shooting. Just like what political parties are doing when they carefully draw district boundaries to favor their own party and disadvantage their opponents. It's called "metaphor".
You are using a deliberate misreading of my post as an excuse to derail the discussion into something completely irrelevant.
Your hole deepens every time you try to make me feel stupid... I suggest you stop digging.
Akulajawk: I agree that there is no reasonable or fair way to prevent someone who meets the legal requirements for cc from getting one. Also agree that you have the right to defend yourself.
I have to disagree that a facility has no right to exclude cc from a caregiving. Unless they are allowed to pick which caregivers can cc and which cannot, then the only sensible thing to do is to exclude it across the board. There is no way an unstable, unskilled or foolish person should be allowed to provide care while armed.
I didn't say that a facility has no right to exclude CC from the hands of a caregiver. In fact, I said the opposite, if you closely read what I wrote. If I chose to carry at work, I could lose my job over it. My work prohibits its employees from carrying weapons while working. I'm very acutely aware of objects nearby that can be used as an impact weapon. What I said is that they cannot prohibit me from defending myself if I'm attacked. My part is simply to use only that amount of force that is necessary to prevent further harm to myself and no more force than that.
I just happen to disagree with your assertion (however remote) that anyone that provides care while armed is or could be unstable, unskilled, or foolish. Someone that's unstable, unskilled, or foolish shouldn't be providing care anyway, regardless if they're armed or not.
Specializes in Med/Surg, OR, Peds, Patient Education.
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.
Somehow I do not think that a musket/s carried by one or even two persons could kill the number of people killed in Sandy Hook, the theater in Colorado, or the Planned Parenthood Clinic, also, in Colorado, or the resent massacre carried out in California by two people with military weapons.
A musket usually cannot hit the broad side of a barn, and must be constantly reloaded unlike guns/weapons today.
Do you really wish to see several nurses, shooting at the active shooter when patients and visitors are within harm's way. Do these nurses have the training with using weapons in a sudden, unexpected, stressful situation? Most hospitals, today, have security guards who must keep up with the training necessary to respond to crisis situations, and many were former military personnel.
You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.
Somehow I do not think that a musket/s carried by one or even two persons could kill the number of people killed in Sandy Hook, the theater in Colorado, or the Planned Parenthood Clinic, also, in Colorado, or the resent massacre carried out in California by two people with military weapons.
A musket usually cannot hit the broad side of a barn, and must be constantly reloaded unlike guns/weapons today.
Do you really wish to see several nurses, shooting at the active shooter when patients and visitors are within harm's way. Do these nurses have the training with using weapons in a sudden, unexpected, stressful situation? Most hospitals, today, have security guards who must keep up with the training necessary to respond to crisis situations, and many were former military personnel.
You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.
Just interjecting a little history here.
Compared to modern firearms, you are correct with regards to the abilities of muskets, but it is a myth to think that they were inaccurate rifles. For a common infantryman a Kentucky rifle had an effective range of 80-100 yards but for a skilled and trained marksman the range could go up to 200-300 yards.
This was a major turning point and issue during the war. American marksman were instead of just shooting in the direction of the enemy were actually taking aimed shots.
Keep in mind that during the Revolutionary War there was not a single weapon available to the uniformed armed forces that was not available to the every ordinary citizen including cannon, and warships. In fact, before the navy was truly formed (and after to a degree) merchantmen were converting their ships into actual cannon toting warships.
It wasn't until the 1934 National Firearms Act that machine guns, explosives, and suppressors were regulated. Until then they were largely purchased through mail order and the law was only really passed because of the war on alcohol and the rise of the organized crime.
It wasn't until the Gun Control Act of 1968 that regulation in earnest began, prompted by the JFK and MLK assignations.
Is the possibility of being hit by friendly fire somehow worse than the actuality of an active shooter going room to room executing everyone? Would you support nurses carrying firearms if they took a small arms combat course or there was some kind of formal training course they could take?
If 1 or 2 people were armed in that conference room the odds that the terrorists would have just been able to take their time and execute 14 people would have diminished.
I just don't understand how you guys can be on your what...335th? shooting this year, twice this week, and STILL think the answer is more guns! Do you not know what life is like in every first world country except the united states? It honestly frightens me.
Chicago is "gun free" and has the highest gun related homicide rate in the country, but practically everyone is armed in Texas, and shootings are rare there.
I didn't say that a facility has no right to exclude CC from the hands of a caregiver. In fact, I said the opposite, if you closely read what I wrote. If I chose to carry at work, I could lose my job over it. My work prohibits its employees from carrying weapons while working. I'm very acutely aware of objects nearby that can be used as an impact weapon. What I said is that they cannot prohibit me from defending myself if I'm attacked. My part is simply to use only that amount of force that is necessary to prevent further harm to myself and no more force than that.
I just happen to disagree with your assertion (however remote) that anyone that provides care while armed is or could be unstable, unskilled, or foolish. Someone that's unstable, unskilled, or foolish shouldn't be providing care anyway, regardless if they're armed or not.
You're right, I misread your post ... that's what comes of reading something only once and too fast (I was on a lunch break) Sorry:sorry:
For the record, what I'm trying to assert is that there is no legitimate way to know whether a given armed person is unstable or incompetent, let alone exclude them from caregiving if they are. Yes, they shouldn't be caregivers in the first place, but we know that some are anyway. Half the vent threads on this site are about scary or crazy co-workers.
I want to gauge opinions based on our CURRENT situation after the shooting yesterday in San Bernadino, CA. 
heron, ASN, RN
4,654 Posts
Akulajawk: I agree that there is no reasonable or fair way to prevent someone who meets the legal requirements for cc from getting one. Also agree that you have the right to defend yourself.
I have to disagree that a facility has no right to exclude cc from a caregiving. Unless they are allowed to pick which caregivers can cc and which cannot, then the only sensible thing to do is to exclude it across the board. There is no way an unstable, unskilled or foolish person should be allowed to provide care while armed.