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?
Specializes in burn ICU, SICU, ER, Trauma Rapid Response.
I wonder if maybe some of these "bad guys" obtain their guns from people that so desperately need to be a hero during their morning commute, that they risk leaving the firearms unattended in their vehicle all day/night? Wait, "bad guys" don't break into or steal cars now do they?
Wow! What an incredibly inaccurate and insulting way mischarecterise a lot of people.
I carry a firearm in my truck. I was very happy that I did so during the LA riots. It's why I am still here today. The desire to not be a helpless victim is NOT a desperate need to be a hero.
I also carry a fire extinguisher in my truck at all times. This has come on handy several time. I carry them both for the same reason. It's reasonable and prudent to be prepared for unexpected events
Yes, gun are legal in Canada. But, we don't just leave them in our car while we go to work.
Pretty broad brush there. I have Canadian friends that would disagree with you. I invite you to go to AR15.com and go to the Canadian sub-forum and ask them about it lol.
Citizens with their personal weapons did nothing to prevent the invasion of the continental US during WWII. That was handled by our standing army.
Where did you learn US history?
I think what he was referring to was theories that our familiarity with shooting and firearms ownership has always given the United States somewhat of an edge in being able to mobilize large groups of civilians in a relatively short time.
There are also theories, and a questionable quote, from a Japanese Admiral stating that the continental United States would be not be successfully invaded due to the already armed civilian population. The theories suggest that the population being armed was a factor when enemy leaders have developed strategies to attack the United States, one of the reasons why they have always attempted to attack our foreign interests and ability to project offensive power rather than directly invading the United States.
There are some notable US soldiers who attribute their success to their civilian firearm ownership, Alvin York being a legendary example of his civilian honed skills leading to his success on the battlefield.
Switzerland is also famous for arming their civilians with automatic rifles as a deterrent to invasion.
Specializes in burn ICU, SICU, ER, Trauma Rapid Response.
You are referring to Newton's Third Law right?
Well you are right in that 45 auto will typically have 300 ft/lbs of energy a the muzzle and a bullet weighing only 185 grains or so does not have the kinetic energy upon impact to physically lift and throw a 175lb human.
That being said, I think what the others are trying to say is that it is very difficult to remain standing when you receive a chest of 185 grain bullet traveling 900 feet per second delivering 300 ft/lbs of energy and you stop all of that within a micro second on a palm sized area of your chest.
It can be certainly done, there are many videos of people taking center mass shots and continuing the fight.
Liken it to standing up and taking a baseball bat full in the chest swung by a professional player. The bat is significantly less ft/lbs of energy than a 45 but you get the picture.
I have never seen anyone who took a center mass hit with a 45 ACP remain standing. I have seen people take a 3 round burst of 223 into the chest and hardly even slow down. I watched my platoon leader hit a guy in the chest with 3 solid hits from an M9 (9mm) and the guy didn't even stop running until the driver of the truck behind us hit him with a blast of 00 buck. Unfortunately for that truck driver the guy had a hand grande in each hand. I often think that if he had been put down with the first 3 rounds , that soldier who was driving the truck might still be alive. I think about him often.
I think what he was referring to was theories that our familiarity with shooting and firearms ownership has always given the United States somewhat of an edge in being able to mobilize large groups of civilians in a relatively short time.
There are also theories, and a questionable quote, from a Japanese Admiral stating that the continental United States would be not be successfully invaded due to the already armed civilian population. The theories suggest that the population being armed was a factor when enemy leaders have developed strategies to attack the United States, one of the reasons why they have always attempted to attack our foreign interests and ability to project offensive power rather than directly invading the United States.
There are some notable US soldiers who attribute their success to their civilian firearm ownership, Alvin York being a legendary example of his civilian honed skills leading to his success on the battlefield.
Switzerland is also famous for arming their civilians with automatic rifles as a deterrent to invasion.
There were a whole lot of more compelling reasons why neither Japan nor Germany invaded the mainland United States. An armed civilian population was so far down on that list as to be completely negligible.
The Second Amendment is NOT the reason why Canadians are not "speaking Japanese or German" today.
There were a whole lot of more compelling reasons why neither Japan nor Germany invaded the mainland United States. An armed civilian population was so far down on that list as to be completely negligible.
The Second Amendment is NOT the reason why Canadians are not "speaking Japanese or German" today.
I was blown away with your argument, very compelling.
I would agree though, the Second Amendment played a very minor role in any modern conflict but it undoubtedly played at least a tiny role.
The role of the Second Amendment could be more directly felt in older conflicts such as the War of 1812 or even the Civil War, even had a role in WWI.
I would like for you to look up a Texas police officer who gave 2 head shots on weapon carrying, body armor wearing civilians when they were trying to instigate a mass shooting event. We take our weapons training seriously. God Bless Texas.
I remember that, it happened in Garland, two guys with assault rifles got out of a car and started firing at the Garland police officer and a security guard. The police officer shot both of them in the head, both of the attackers were wearing body armor, it was over in 15 seconds.
Here's another log to throw on this fire. Effective next month, Texas is going from Concealed Carry permits to License to Carry permits; yes if you have a CC permit you will be allowed to "open" carry so you'll start seeing a lot of Texans with a hand gun holstered on their hip or in a shoulder harness. And just for fun...in Texas you could be arrested for carrying brass knuckles or a Bowie knife in public but it's ok to carry an AR 15 in public. You do no need a permit to carry a rifle or shotgun in public in Texas, The Lone Star State.
Respectfully, you are wrong. Do a little research. I can shoot a 40 cal or a 45 with one hand, it doesnt knock me around at all.
Respectfully, you are wrong. Re-read Newton's Third Law of Physics: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, if the impact itself is sufficient to knock someone off their feet, the recoil from the shot must ALSO be sufficient to knock someone off their feet. I shoot both .40 S&W and .45 ACP pistols and I have also shot handguns with more powerful rounds than those, same as you, with ONE hand, and like you, wasn't knocked down. If I happened to be wearing a vest and managed to get shot in the vest, chances are I'd feel it much like getting punched in the chest really hard, but I wouldn't likely even so much as fall over from the impact itself.
Sorry, to tell you this, but I have done the research.
Respectfully, you are wrong. Re-read Newton's Third Law of Physics: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, if the impact itself is sufficient to knock someone off their feet, the recoil from the shot must ALSO be sufficient to knock someone off their feet. I shoot both .40 S&W and .45 ACP pistols and I have also shot handguns with more powerful rounds than those, same as you, with ONE hand, and like you, wasn't knocked down. If I happened to be wearing a vest and managed to get shot in the vest, chances are I'd feel it much like getting punched in the chest really hard, but I wouldn't likely even so much as fall over from the impact itself.
Sorry, to tell you this, but I have done the research.
I am going to repost this because I think you missed my comment.
You are referring to Newton's Third Law right?
Well you are right in that 45 auto will typically have 300 ft/lbs of energy a the muzzle and a bullet weighing only 185 grains or so does not have the kinetic energy upon impact to physically lift and throw a 175lb human.
That being said, I think what the others are trying to say is that it is very difficult to remain standing when you receive a chest of 185 grain bullet traveling 900 feet per second delivering 300 ft/lbs of energy and you stop all of that within a micro second on a palm sized area of your chest.
It can be certainly done, there are many videos of people taking center mass shots and continuing the fight.
Liken it to standing up and taking a baseball bat full in the chest swung by a professional player. The bat is significantly less ft/lbs of energy than a 45 but you get the picture.
Well you are right in that 45 auto will typically have 300 ft/lbs of energy a the muzzle and a bullet weighing only 185 grains or so does not have the kinetic energy upon impact to physically lift and throw a 175lb human.
That being said, I think what the others are trying to say is that it is very difficult to remain standing when you receive a chest of 185 grain bullet traveling 900 feet per second delivering 300 ft/lbs of energy and you stop all of that within a micro second on a palm sized area of your chest.
It can be certainly done, there are many videos of people taking center mass shots and continuing the fight.
Liken it to standing up and taking a baseball bat full in the chest swung by a professional player. The bat is significantly less ft/lbs of energy than a 45 but you get the picture.
Just added the above...
I have never seen anyone who took a center mass hit with a 45 ACP remain standing. I have seen people take a 3 round burst of 223 into the chest and hardly even slow down. I watched my platoon leader hit a guy in the chest with 3 solid hits from an M9 (9mm) and the guy didn't even stop running until the driver of the truck behind us hit him with a blast of 00 buck. Unfortunately for that truck driver the guy had a hand grande in each hand. I often think that if he had been put down with the first 3 rounds , that soldier who was driving the truck might still be alive. I think about him often.
What's being conflated here is STOPPING someone with actually knocking someone off their feet with a handgun. The M9, in military situations, is usually loaded with Ball ammo. In civilian situations (like police or CCW) the rounds usually are HP. All quality HP rounds will penetrate about the same distance, expand to about the same diameter, and usually don't overpenetrate. Ball ammo doesn't expand. I'm not surprised at what you saw.
The .45 ACP round does have an excellent (and earned) reputation for being a "man stopper" round. The 9mm will do it's job, but the shooter has to be more precise in their aim to make that happen reliably. Incidentally, similar experiences with the .38 S&W revolvers during a small war back in the late 1800's is the reason why the US Military went to the .45 ACP.
As far as the baseball bat to the chest comment is concerned, yes, the energy content is lower, but it's also delivered over a longer time, allowing greater energy transfer to occur. In other words, you get the hit and you get a continuing push for as long as the person wielding the bat continues their follow-through. Same with a punch. I might be able to hit you with less ft/lbs but the fact that I'm still swinging AFTER the hit connects and there's a closed kinetic chain behind my fist all the way to the ground (my feet) means that I can more easily actually knock someone off their feet than if I shot them. The likelihood that I stopped someone from continuing the fight after I punched them is much lower than if I shot them.
What's being conflated here is STOPPING someone with actually knocking someone off their feet with a handgun. The M9, in military situations, is usually loaded with Ball ammo. In civilian situations (like police or CCW) the rounds usually are HP. All quality HP rounds will penetrate about the same distance, expand to about the same diameter, and usually don't overpenetrate. Ball ammo doesn't expand. I'm not surprised at what you saw.
The .45 ACP round does have an excellent (and earned) reputation for being a "man stopper" round. The 9mm will do it's job, but the shooter has to be more precise in their aim to make that happen reliably. Incidentally, similar experiences with the .38 S&W revolvers during a small war back in the late 1800's is the reason why the US Military went to the .45 ACP.
I keep my 45 loaded with the "flying ashtray" rounds.
I want to gauge opinions based on our CURRENT situation after the shooting yesterday in San Bernadino, CA. 
emtb2rn, BSN, RN, EMT-B
2,942 Posts
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Citizens with their personal weapons did nothing to prevent the invasion of the continental US during WWII. That was handled by our standing army.
Where did you learn US history?