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?
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22–4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
That's part of the Heller decision. What Heller established is that the right to bear arms is an individual right that is not unlimited, it can be restricted in terms of who can possess firearms, what firearms can legally be owned, where those firearms can be carried, and the process of obtaining a firearm can be subject to screening measures.
In other words, according to the Heller majority opinion, the second amendment guarantees the right for many, but not all people to possess certain firearms in certain places.
The NOLO summarized version:
And, although the Supreme Court's decision adopted the broader, individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Court also made it clear that the right to own a gun continues to have a number of significant qualifications or restrictions, including:
Not everyone can own a gun. The right does not extend to felons or the mentally ill.
Guns cannot be carried everywhere. Laws forbidding individuals from carrying firearms in "sensitive" places, such as schools and government buildings, will probably stand.
Certain restrictions on the sale of guns are allowed. Laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms will most likely stand.
Individuals do not have the right to carry certain types of guns. The right does not protect guns that are not generally owned for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. Just what kind of handguns may be possessed is not explicitly set forth in the opinion (apart from the one specific reference to sawed-off shotguns, which are not allowed). The Court did endorse the "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons,'" but did not state whether such weapons include assault weapons or semi-automatic weapons.
Concealed weapons. Laws forbidding people to carry concealed weapons on their person (or in a place close at hand, such as the glove compartment of a car) probably remain valid.
Sentence enhancements. A variety of criminal laws provide for increased punishment of offenders who use weapons when committing a crime. Heller does not affect the validity of these laws.
Isn't that interesting. So gun-restricitions did not seem to lower California's homicide rate?
I don't think that can be true though, there are so many on here assuring me that restricting gun access would reduce crime.
And conversely I thought less restricted gun ownership was supposed to reduce crime. California has actually had sharp decrease in gun related crimes although probably not related to gun control measures since they don't really have anything close to comprehensive measure in place which is really all that could be reasonably expected to produce measurable results. Mainly, if you aren't allowed to purchase a gun in California all you have to do is avoid an FFL, which is pretty easy to do. The only current proposed gun control measure at the federal level is to make background checks a requirement of all transfers, which unless someone believes there is absolutely nobody who shouldn't own a gun seems like common sense at the very least.
We have irresponsible people driving cars. People drink and drive, they drive while sleep deprived, they text, eat, read ect while driving, they get angry and drive their cars into crowds of people. People have accidently ran over children from improper operation of cars. We don't have enough car control. I say we ban cars and require everyone to take public transportation. After all, the bus and train drivers are highly trained and are required to go to driving school. Let's leave the driving to the professionals, since the average citizen is too irresponsible to be behind the controls of a 3500 lb dangerous weapon like a car. Besides, the constitution doesn't say a damn thing about people having a right to drive their own car. Think about all the lives we will save.
Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?
That's actually pretty apt comparison; a car is something that has useful, lawful purpose but can also pose a threat to others. So we place restrictions on who can drive a car, we have a screening process on allowing someone to drive a car, there are certain types and characteristics of cars that are not legal, there are places where you can't drive a car, etc. Seems pretty reasonable when it comes to cars.
But only looking at gun related homicides and violence, the data is murkier.
"There's no question that Chicago sees more gun violence than the rest of the country. Using data on mass shootings -- defined here as incidents in which four or more people were shot -- we can compare Chicago to the rest of the country. Since 2013, Chicago has seen 207 people wounded in mass shooting incidents and 32 killed -- far more than any other city."
Chicago violence may go back to the Mayor, It was this idiot who told the police and public to let the rioters have their space to destroy.
Cities with mayors hard on criminals will have less violence, I have seen places that were considered murder capital of their countries become some of the safest cities in the world due to a mayor with a iron fist running the city
In 2013 a total of 32,719 were killed by cars while 8,454 were killed by guns. Sounds a lot more rational than your use of the word gerrymandering.
Not sure where you got your data. According to the CDC, 11,208 people died via firearm discharge (in the "homicide" category) during 2013. This number does not include suicides or unintentional firearm deaths.
If you add those 21,456 deaths, the total number of dead via firearm for 2013 is 32,664.
Specializes in Med/Surg, OR, Peds, Patient Education.
We have irresponsible people driving cars. People drink and drive, they drive while sleep deprived, they text, eat, read ect while driving, they get angry and drive their cars into crowds of people. People have accidently ran over children from improper operation of cars. We don't have enough car control. I say we ban cars and require everyone to take public transportation. After all, the bus and train drivers are highly trained and are required to go to driving school. Let's leave the driving to the professionals, since the average citizen is too irresponsible to be behind the controls of a 3500 lb dangerous weapon like a car. Besides, the constitution doesn't say a damn thing about people having a right to drive their own car. Think about all the lives we will save.
Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?
However, one must have a license to drive a car, and if you own a car you must carry Liability Insurance, to compensate someone who is injured or their vehicle damaged due to your negligence, or DUI. In order to obtain a license you have to study and be tested via a written and behind the wheel test. Not doing these things subjects you to arrest and loss of license if you are "pulled over," for speeding, or having defective equipment or a mere "spot check," as is common during the holiday season.
Perhaps gun owners should be required to carry liability insurance on all their firearms, with higher rates on the high powered weapons. Perhaps we should be required to obtain re-licensure every few years, with proof of insurance.
This is completely off topic. Please start your own thread.
I'll agree it's off topic, but be honest. The whole discussion has meandered away from the original OP. That's the way debates work. That's the way AN works.
Besides, I think it was a rhetorical comment.
If off topic comments bother you, you can always just ignore them. Highlighting them simply gives them more attention.
I'll now take my off topic self back to the observers position.
What i find it appalling rediculois and hilarious at the same time is that when a drunk kills someone the driver is blamed, not the alcohol or the car. When someone gets shot and killed it always seems to be the guns fault...why is that?
I want to gauge opinions based on our CURRENT situation after the shooting yesterday in San Bernadino, CA. 
MunoRN, RN
8,058 Posts
That's part of the Heller decision. What Heller established is that the right to bear arms is an individual right that is not unlimited, it can be restricted in terms of who can possess firearms, what firearms can legally be owned, where those firearms can be carried, and the process of obtaining a firearm can be subject to screening measures.
In other words, according to the Heller majority opinion, the second amendment guarantees the right for many, but not all people to possess certain firearms in certain places.
The NOLO summarized version:
Gun Ownership Rights Under Heller | Nolo.com