Should guns be banned in hospitals?

[Judi Lynn]

Posted on Monday, 01.16.12Posted on Monday, 01.16.12
Should guns be banned in hospitals?

The South Florida hospital association is once again asking the Legislature to ban guns in hospitals, but the gun lobby is adamantly opposed and legislators are showing little interest.

By John Dorschner
[email protected]

In Florida, it’s against the law to carry a gun into a school, an athletic event, a jail, a police station or a local government meeting. Not so with hospitals, where it remains perfectly legal to pack heat.

For years, Linda Quick of the South Florida Hospital and Healthcare Association has wanted to change that. Just before each session of the Legislature, when her group publishes its agenda, it includes a talking point: “Add ‘licensed hospitals and nursing homes’ to the Safety Zone provisions of the Concealed Weapons Law.”

The agenda item is once again on the association’s list as the 2012 legislative session gets under way. “It’s just common sense,” says Quick. “You don’t want guns in schools. Why on earth would you want them in hospitals?”

Fat chance, says Marion Hammer, the Tallahassee lobbyist for the National Rifle Association who has fought successfully for years against adding hospitals to the list. “NRA would oppose a bill that panders to the anti-gun political agenda of South Florida organizations,’’ she wrote in an email to The Herald.

More:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/16/2592595/should-guns-be-banned-in-hospitals.html

[jonthebru]

1. In answer to your question.

Yes.

[likesmountains 52]

2. Should this even be a question? Good lord....

[elleng]

158. EXACTLY!!!

[Suich]

3. I'm with Linda Quick...

"Why on earth would you want them in hospitals?"

[prismpalette]

91. ALZ patient in possession...omg..

I hope the NRA is on hand when a dementia or ALZ patient is in possession...omg..makes my head explode! Or a psych patient in possession, are these people terminally stupid???

[CTyankee]

303. Quick, call the NRA! They have a solution for this head shot wound!

That's funny...

[dmallind]

4. Sure - as long as they can somehow guarantee one will never be needed there.

I look forward to seeing their plans to do that.

[primavera]

279. Right, because you just never know...

... when some newborn in the nursery or some semiconscious patient in recovery is going to pull a 9mm on you and you'll have to return fire.

Such marvelously cyclical logic you guys employ: people should be allowed to bring guns everywhere because they might have to defend themselves against people who are allowed to bring guns everywhere. By this reasoning, is there ANYPLACE where guns aren't appropriate? I guess we'll just have to load up our toddlers, too, because every preschooler needs to pack heat so that they can defend themselves against all of the other preschoolers who need to be armed to the teeth against all of the other armed to the teeth preschoolers, right?

[dmallind]

281. Yep that's right

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/nyregion/gunman-wounds-nurse-and-guard-at-bronx-hospital.html?_r=1

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,342333,00.html

http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/9053912-418/shooting-prompts-barricade-situation-at-uic-medical-center.html

Top 3 of 189,000,000 hits.


All in very highly gun-controlled jurisdictions. Criminals willing to shoot people don't care about where you think guns should be allowed or not I'm afraid. So again - is there another way to keep them out that these places obviously didn't try?

[primavera]

283. Kind of makes you wish...

... that there weren't wackos with guns there, doesn't it?

[dmallind]

285. Yep - but how do you prevent wackos from getting them

Please give details. Please remember there are hundreds of millions of guns here, that they can be made from scratch by any competent machinist, and that our government has been signally incapable of banning anything else that people can make themselves throughout history, from booze to drugs to RFID signal grabbers.

Now how does that hospital - or even the government - keep that wacko from getting guns so that self defence is not a need? And by the way how, even in this implausible paradise, do we handle 250lb wackos with crowbars, say?

[primavera]

286. Strawman

We manage to keep guns out of courtrooms every day of the week. We manage to keep them off of airplanes. Even in the bygone days of the wild west that today's gun slingers are so enamored with, people often had to turn in their guns to the local sheriff upon entering a town, and that, too, worked. It is infinitely possible to prevent guns from being allowed into particular spaces, proof of it lies all around you.

As for the bigger question of how to prevent wackos from getting guns in the first place, there too exist solutions, such as stricter background checks and licensing requirements for guns. In order to obtain a driver's license, one has to demonstrate not only proficiency in operating a vehicle, but knowledge of the law, plus adequate eyesight, plus the absence of afflictions like epilepsy that might compromise the applicant's ability to safely operate a vehicle. And the driver has to re-establish this over and over and over again, every four years, for as long as s/he wishes to exercise the privilege of operating a vehicle on public roads. And that's just to be allowed to drive a car down the street to the supermarket! Gun proponents want free and unlimited access to devices whose single purpose is to inflict deadly harm on other living beings, with no greater requirement than that they pass a criminal background check, and they piss and moan about closing the gun show loophole that circumvents even that one pathetically inadequate precaution. You want to know how to keep guns out of the hands of wackos? Look to the countries of the developed world that have, one and all, embraced vastly stricter gun control laws and have for generations been reaping the reward of per capita gun fatality rates that are but a tiny fraction of ours.

[PavePusher]

287. A few things....

1. "We manage to keep guns out of courtrooms every day of the week." How do you think that is done? Are you prepared for the expense of doing that for hospitals which are both more numerous, larger and probably have more entrances than courts? How do you propose to pay for this?

2. "people often had to turn in their guns to the local sheriff upon entering a town" So you are O.K. with violation of two Amendments of the Constitution, on whim of a local official? Not for me, thanks.

3. "And the driver has to re-establish this over and over and over again, every four years, for as long as s/he wishes to exercise the privilege of operating a vehicle on public roads." No, I don't. I got my driver's licence in Vermont some 26 years ago. Renewed by mail every 4 years, no tests required. In fact, thanks to the USAF, I haven't spent more than a week total in the state over the last 21 years. Note also that driving on public roads is not a Constitutionally protected Right, "...keep and bear..." is. You can make it one if you want: Amendment process.

4. "single purpose is to inflict deadly harm on other living beings" Umm, no. Patently false.

5. "they piss and moan about closing the gun show loophole that circumvents even that one pathetically inadequate precaution" What "loophole"? What "circumvention"?

6. "per capita gun fatality rates that are but a tiny fraction of ours" What were the rates prior to their "gun control"? What were the rates after? Was there a marked change?

[primavera]

288. ... and a few responses

1.) Most hospitals and other public facilities already retain security staff. Having them ask persons carrying guns to not bring them into the facility would probably not add that much to their burden.

2.) No, generally, I'm not okay with local officials violating the Constitution. In this case, however, there's no violation of the Constitution, only a violation of what a handful of extreme right-wing judges have recently and falsely claimed the Constitution says. The same wingnut judges, I might add, who gave us Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, and countless other equally flawed decisions that, I would hazard to guess, you probably find as reprehensible as most of us here on DU do.

3.) Interesting, I don't know anything about Vermont law, so will have to take your word for it that they don't require an eyesight test in order to renew your license. Every state that I've ever lived in has required at least that much. You said you're in the Air Force? Perhaps there's a different renewal process for active military, predicated upon the assumption that, of you're fit for active duty, you're probably not blind. Nonetheless, I imagine that, when you complete your renewal by mail application, you have to attest that you are still competent to operate a motor vehicle, that you aren't blind, that you don't have epilepsy, that you have no convictions for drunk driving, etc., etc., and misrepresentation of those material facts on your application can result in suspension of your license and other penalties. As for whether keeping and bearing is a right that extends beyond the militia, see above.

4. Umm, yes, absolutely true. A gun does not make toast, it does not spray paint, it does not make photocopies, the one and only thing it does is fire deadly projectiles at high velocity. That's it, that is all it does. No one's health was ever improved by being shot.

5. That would be in reference to people buying and selling guns through unlicensed dealers, frequently out of the trunks of their cars, with no background checks being conducted.

6. Absolutely. To be sure, the change did not occur within 30 seconds of the law being signed (one of gun proponents' favorite strawmen seems to be that if a gun control law's effects are anything less than instantaneous, surely it must not be effective), but over the span of decades, yes, absolutely, there has been a gradual but steady and cumulatively substantial decrease in per capita gun deaths.

Have a nice day.

[PavePusher]

289. ...and counter-response. 8>)

1. You have missed the point entirely. How do you propose to stop criminals? Do you think that asking them politely will work? I've been in numerous hospitals. As an example, the U of Arizona Medical Center... huge place. I've never seen more than two "security" guards in the place (yes, there probably are more) and never any at an actual entrance. That place has literally hundreds of exterior doors. And if you do stop the lawful (those carrying only for non-criminal defensive purposes), how do you propose to ensure their security once they have been disarmed? Will a guard be at their side for the duration of their business?

2. So how do you explain Kelo? Sometimes the conservative bastards are right, and sometimes the liberal bastards are wrong. Welcome to reality. Firearm ownership has never been predicated on militia membership. Even if it is, we're all technically in the militia anyway.

3. Nope, nothing to do with special military rules. And I don't have to attest to anything. And yes, keep and bear does extend beyond the militia. "right of the people", not "right of the militia". There's no way to torture the grammar of the Amendment to make "militia" a limiting factor.

4. Many peoples' health, and very existance, have been ensured by use of a firearm. "Self-defense" is the term you are ignoring. Also, hunting for food. Competition shooting (good physical and mental exercise).

5. Unlicenced dealers are already illegal. Doing so in volume "out of the trunks of their cars" is pretty rare, I've never seen it at any of the shows I go to. Here in Arizona, they really try to stomp on such things, despite any fear-mongering to the contrary. If what you are really concerned about is occasional private sales, not done as a for-profit-business, that's another topic entirely. And it happens quite frequently outside of gun shows. Laws vary by state.

6. Can you cite to some stats for this? Please note that in this country, with our liberalizing of gun restrictions, our crime and murder rates have also been falling. There also seems to be little if any correlation between crime rates and stricness of gun laws. Even the CDC said they couldn't show a link to gun control effectiveness.

I had a pretty good day, thanks. Hope your was good too.

[primavera]

291. Agree to disagree

I almost started responding to each of your points in turn, but who am I kidding? I'm not going to persuade you any more than you're going to persuade me. We've both heard the arguments and we both choose to believe those which our varied experience has taught us to find most credible. So yes, I have responses to all of your points, but I'm sure you've already heard them all before and, as you were apparently not impressed by those points the first 100 times you heard them, I don't imagine that you will be any more impressed by them on the 101st re-telling, any more than I am impressed hearing the same pro-gun arguments, no matter how many times I hear them repeated. So I will spare you and I both the time and effort and simply wish you good night.

[dmallind]

292. That straw man has a strange ability to shoot at people it seems

http://socyberty.com/politics/german-prosecutor-shot-in-courtroom/

http://redrockonair.com/news/2011/12/16/prosecuting-attorney-shot-in-grand-marais-courtroom/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/08/national/main2773639.shtml

And of course, courtrooms almost always are liberally supplied with armed police officers to boot.

It is absolutely IMpossible to prevent guns from being allowed into particular spaces where people are allowed, be it aircraft, military bases, banks, hospitals or courtrooms.

Other countries may have lower gun violence (and in fact compared to the US in recent decades, so do we - gunviolence is declining rapidly even as we have more guns. Strange that....) but absolutely none of them started with the same number of guns, gunsmiths and gunmaking knowledge we have, and none of them has eliminated the need for self-defense against more violent, more numerous or stronger opponents either. The UK for example has very low gun crime - not none, but low. It has a far higher rate of violent crime overall however.

I have no idea how many "slingers" you know but insufficient to speak for them I assure you, as you raise pathetic caricatures. I am one of many eho has no problem at all with licensing (on a shall issue basis barring disqualifying factors). I woulde dearly love to close te asininely named "gunshow loophole" but like all non-dealers I am expressly in law forbidden access to the NICS database if I choose to sell a gun.

You unfortunately have not demonstrated a single way to keep guns from wackos, or from any particular space I may need to share with wackos. Keeping guns out of my hands will save nothing but a few hundred sheets of paper -but it seems like you care about their safety more than mine. I, and the law, disagree.

[primavera]

294. It is impossible to keep guns entirely out of the hands of wackos

If someone wants to badly enough, of course, there is always a way to accomplish anything. If the measure by which any law was evaluated was it's ability to totally, with absolutely 100% efficacy, eliminate any and all chances of an undesirable behavior from occurring, then every law would be worthless and we might as well do away with all of them. Hell, what's the point in making murder illegal? It's not like the law has totally eradicated murder, therefore, by you reasoning, it must be useless, right?

Thankfully, we do not live in the anarchist country that you seem to desire for us and laws which reduce the incidents of undesirable conduct are an accepted part of our lives, even if they don't eliminate them altogether.

I do not pretend to be an authority on gun control policy. If you do not like the suggestions which occur to my admittedly non-expert mind, terrific, I await your alternative suggestions on how to address the problem of 30,000 bullet-riddled American corpses every year and nearly three times as many gun-related injuries. What disappoints me is that the gun community offers no solutions, no suggestions on how to improve gun safety or how to reduce the number of gun deaths and injuries which, by every study I have ever seen, are vastly higher per capita than in any other developed country.

You presume that I care more about the safety of paper than yours. I will grant you, I care much more about 30,000 dead Americans than I do about the pleasure you derive from filling pieces of paper with holes. And yes, that you seem to care more about blowing holes in paper than you do about the lives of tens of thousands of your fellow citizens does seem pretty callous to me. I know, it's a cheap shot, but since you feel comfortable concluding that I care more about paper than people, I figure one absurdity deserves another.

I think our fundamental difference, and the reason these discussions never go anywhere, is that we differ in our opinions about whether guns in fact make one safer. You believe that your safety in the presence of wackos is improved by having a gun. I do not. I believe that you having a gun in the presence of someone whom you rightly or wrongly perceive to be a wacko makes you a danger to yourself and to others. I know, I'm sure you have anecdotes about how guns allegedly saved people's lives. And I can quote you studies and statistics about how people in extreme stress mostly manage to freeze up, shoot themselves, innocent bystanders, pretty much anyone but their real or imagined assailant, and the tiny percentages of shootings ultimately found to be lawful. And we can go back and forth like this for days without either of us convincing the other because you believe guns save lives and I believe guns take lives and we both believe that common sense and the weight of evidence is on our side. I see no way to get past that fundamental disagreement, so I'm going to suggest we stop wasting our time. As you say, five rightwing extremist judges share your views, so you can rest easy, no one's going to be able to take away your beloved guns until a less fascist court comes along and overturns their flawed decision. We will continue to sit by and watch the corpses of our citizens pile up because you and your fellows in the gun community will not do anything and those of us who advocate for responsibility cannot compel it. Oh well, surely the victims are all evildoers who deserve it anyway, right?

[PavePusher]

295. Another Strawman:

"What disappoints me is that the gun community offers no solutions, no suggestions on how to improve gun safety or how to reduce the number of gun deaths and injuries..."

Utter bullshit, of course. The lawful gun owner is no more responsible for "solutions" to gun crime than car-owners are responsible for solving car crimes.

Additionally, we have made many proposals. More and better training in schools (we teach far more dangerous things there), access to the NICS system for private sales, stiffer sentences for criminals (all violent crimes, I don't see why a crime commited with one weapon is more punishable than one commited with another weapon).

You're right that there is a fundamental disagreement: You continue to blame the innocent for crimes and wish to "compel" us to do things that will have no effect on those crimes.... because they do not target those commiting the crimes. Until you stop blaming us for things we didn't do, we'll continue to tell you to pound sand.

[primavera]

296. Ah yes, name calling

That's about what I've come to expect from your side of the debate. You have a nice day, too.

[PavePusher]

297. Name calling? Where? I identified your accusation for what it is: A Strawman. No name calling.

[primavera]

298. I see

So if I tell you that you're full of shit, that isn't name calling. Fine, whatever, it's still close enough to the tone of a kindergarten recess as to make no practical difference as far as I'm concerned. Sorry to disappoint you, as it's clear that you're really spoiling for a fight, but your NRA propaganda bait just isn't worth rising for.

[PavePusher]

299. Now you've termed disagreement and debate as "spoiling for a fight"?

And I never stated you were "full of shit", although I did strongly claim that you were wrong. Not at all the same thing.

Are you sure you're responding to the correct person? I'm really not sure what I've done to merit this level of hostility.

[Kolesar]

280. They have anesthesia now

You don't have to bite down on a bullet

[Monty22001]

5. Only if it applies to cops and they have metal detectors..

[Lasher]

29. I agree.

A CCW permit holder should be able to carry a gun anywhere a cop can.

[AlbertCat]

71. A CCW permit holder should be able to carry a gun anywhere a cop can.

Why is that? Do they go thru the same training... and I don't mean just "gun training"... as cops? Or do you think cops are just handed a uniform after the gun training and let on the street?


More gun worshiping fantasies....

[Lasher]

76. Are CCW permit holders less trustworthy than cops?

I don't think so.

I don't worship guns and my views are not fantasies, thank you very much. Stick to the debate instead of resorting to insults.

[boppers]

210. Actually CCW permit holders are slightly more likely than police to commit crimes.

1-2% more If I recall correctly. The myth of the "model citizen" CCW is just that: a myth. Stats on Florida CCW crimes:
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

[Lasher]

213. I went to the website you linked but I was unable to find anything that supports your assertion.

There is evidence that some CCW permit holders committed crimes. However, I couldn't find any statistic on the number of police who broke the law, which is a necessary component for the comparison in question.

Further, I believe a policeman is more likely to get away with their crimes than the rest of us are. If I am right, then this sort of comparison is questionable, since numbers like these represent convictions.

The Texas Department of Public Safety compares the number of Concealed Handgun License (CHL) holders with convictions vs. the entire state's population with convictions.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

There you can see clear evidence that conviction rates for Concealed Handgun License holders are far lower than they are for people who do not possess such a license. Facts like these are no doubt responsible for perpetuation of the "model citizen" myth.

[boppers]

219. Yeah, I was just amused by the data. It was slim (CCW vs. LEO), but couldn't find it again.

Following your link, I found some interesting things:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2009.pdf
....Shows that for one crime, CHL are responsible for 32.25% of all of the 2009 incidences of that crime...

....and 45.45% of that very same crime in 2008:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2008.pdf

Going another year back, to 2007:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2007.pdf
CHL holders were responsible for 60% of that crime, as well as 50% of all Capital murders committed while escaping, and 11.11% of all the Capital murders of multiple people.

It's all there, in the data. (No, seriously, click through, read the data, otherwise, you're totally going to miss the points I'm making).

In case you don't want to click, and giggle, it's this: CHL/CCW (whatever) commit crimes. They are not all law-abiding citizens. Crimes committed by them are statistically small, but they are a group with criminals, just like everybody else.

[X_Digger]

224. Here's a graphical representation..

[Lasher]

227. I can't argue with that, Boppers, some CCW permit holders do commit crimes.

We are not a perfect segment of society.

[Wistful Vista]

80. Perhaps you should ask some cops how much training they actually get.

I taught marksmanship at a police academy and the syllabus (not developed by me) consisted of 2 hours total out at the range. Qualification was the ability to hit somewhere on a 2 foot target from 10 yards away. I could teach a typical chimpanzee to do that.

[Missy Vixen]

214. Oh, yes. NRA talking point #23490: The average CCW holder has MUCH more proficiency with a firearm!

It's funny how none of the "CCW holders" are ever on hand during the spree shootings we see almost once a week now in the USA. It's a good thing they're brave enough to put on a uniform and serve the public. Oh, they don't? My bad.

Example: Loughner was stopped in Arizona by a pair of senior citizens that were NOT armed. I'm sure they were tools of the "liberal gun-grabbers".

[Lasher]

222. Actually, a CCW permit holder helped restrain Loughner.

Loughner had already been disarmed by the time CCW permit holder Joe Zamudio arrived. Zamudio exercised restraint and never drew his firearm, but did help detain Loughner until police arrived.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/14/nation/la-na-zamudio-shooting-20110115

Sometimes CCW permit holders are on hand to stop spree shootings, however:

Victims Released; No Charges Filed Against Reno Man In Winnemucca (Nevada) Shootings

May 25, 2008

Two people injured during a shootout at a Winnemucca bar that left three others dead have been released from the hospital.

Police say a 22-year-old woman and a 34-year-old man were released from the hospital Monday.

Authorities continue to investigate the shootings that they believe may have been sparked by a simmering feud between several local families.

Winnemucca Police Chief Bob Davidson says the violence erupted around 2:30 A.M. Sunday when a man entered the crowded Players Bar and Grill. He fatally shot two brothers, 20-year-old Jose Torres and his 19-year-old brother, Margarito. The shooter was later identified as 30 year old Ernesto Villagomez. All three were from Winnemucca.

According to witnesses, Villagomez at some point stopped to reload his high-capacity handgun and began shooting again when he was shot and killed by another patron - a 48-year-old Reno man who had a valid concealed weapons permit.

http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/19251374.html

[boppers]

223. So, Zamudo's gun was pointless.

Yay for being... what?

A witness to what happens when we allow people to bulk carry, and fire?

[Lasher]

228. OK, for the sake of argument I'll agree for a moment that his gun was pointless.

This being the case, how can you or anyone else object when anybody carries a pointless concealed weapon? Unless someone fires such a weapon, then by your own logic, any objection is pointless.

You are not being fair to characterize Zamudo as a mere witness. Like some others that day, his reaction was heroic.

[boppers]

244. His reaction was false heroism.

You know who took down the gunman?

Unarmed people.

Being armed with a weapon doesn't make a person a hero.

I'd go so far as to say it makes a person a coward.

[Lasher]

245. All of our military service men and women are armed with weapons.

So are our police men and women. I don't think they are all cowards.

[boppers]

246. Check their firing rate.

A gun does not make a person brave.

[Lasher]

247. And neither does it make a person a coward, as you clearly claimed.

Firing rate my ass.

[boppers]

251. Well, that wasn't my claim.

I guess you have to own it.

[Lasher]

253. Yes, it certainly was your claim.

Here's what you said, just upthread:

"Being armed with a weapon doesn't make a person a hero.

I'd go so far as to say it makes a person a coward."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101427374#post244

[boppers]

258. ...and:

So are our police men and women. I don't think they are all cowards.

Since not all police and soldiers carry guns, you are the one who is making the claim that they are all cowards.

[Lasher]

259. That is some interesting kinda 'logic' right there.

I do believe you have employed the 'night is day' gambit. Well played, sir. Well played!

[CTyankee]

302. they are also "licensed" or other wise permitted by the government to carry weapons.

[Lasher]

304. Yes, they have permission to carry firearms, just like Joe Zamudio does.

That's pretty much my point.

[PavePusher]

93. Do police have some mythical skill with guns that the common Citizen does not?

Who has the higher rate of hitting the intended target, who has the higher rate of hitting innocent bystanders?

These are facts easily researched, if you don't mind shattering your insinuated myth.

Fantasies, indeed.

[atreides1]

128. "Or do you think cops are just handed a uniform after the gun training and let on the street? "

After seeing some of the things that cops are filmed doing...that may exactly be what happens!!!

[RobinA]

105. I Work

in a hopsital in PA. No one is allowed to carry guns, including cops.

[Lasher]

115. Are there metal detectors?

I can't carry a gun into hospitals here but I believe the cops can.

[Wistful Vista]

127. Well, that is wonderful. Because no bad guy would ever ignore that rule.

I really don't understand the mindset that makes people think a sign will stop someone bent on mayhem or murder...can you explain that?

[irisblue]

282. me too

i'm in an emergency department as an xray tech in a level one trauma center. the hospital is posted for no guns. there are metal detectors, at the street door and ambulance bays with security cameras, there are limited access and enterance to the dept with passcode badges, we park in a covered garage and have armed security officers. the hospital security staff takes very good care of me and my coworkers and the patients. i know they are trained in firearms, i asked and they do keep up their training. when the president, VP and pres. canidates are in town, i know the secret service has been there, i know those agents are armed and i don't care that they are. there are very very high emotions when someone comes in, sometimes the officers have a lot to do to keep the peace. there are alot of jerks in the world, and hospitals areon their speeddial. no one else needs weapons in the hospital.

[rbixby]

116. Are you a CCW permit holder? Do you carry your gun to hospitals, churches, preschools, etc?

[Lasher]

118. Yes, I am a CCW permit holder.

I rarely carry a gun, however. I never carry one in places that are legally off limits. I don't think I've ever taken a gun to any of the kinds of places you mentioned. But I would not be reluctant to do so unless signs were posted there to say no firearms are allowed.

[rbixby]

123. And it would be necessary and safe to bring one to say, a preschool?

I'm just wondering, it seems like there are some places where guns just aren't appropriate, you know?

Perhaps though we should just give guns to everyone at birth to ensure a well armed populace, then everyone would be protected by everyone else all the time! I can't see anything possibly going wrong there, can you?

[Lasher]

132. A preschool would be safer with me there with my gun than it would be otherwise.

Please set aside your bias for a moment and try to grasp the concept.

[Wistful Vista]

144. Let me help you here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[Lasher]

149. Wikipedia's value cannot be overstated.

Last edited Fri Jan 20, 2012, 06:57 PM - Edit history (1)

They have done much to broaden our wisdom.

Edit: Oops, I meant to say overstated

[Wistful Vista]

154. Okay, fine...here's what Oxford says

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/straw+man?region=us

[LanternWaste]

231. I imagine we often trivialize or minimize those sources...

I imagine we often trivialize or minimize those sources which do not strengthen our own beliefs.

[PavePusher]

178. If not carried with criminal intent, nothing particularly unsafe about it.

And what would make it inappropriate?

Try to answer without the hyperbole... if you can.

[rbixby]

202. I just don't see the need

to carry deadly weapons around with you everywhere. I guess I live in a world where I don't feel the need to potentially deal out death to someone at a moment's notice. That's the thing I wonder about, and I guess that's what would be stuck in my head if I had a gun on me all the time, thinking about who I'd be ready to kill with it.

[PavePusher]

203. Simply put, you are projecting your assumed impulse control issues on others...

without supporting evidence.

In fact, the rate of legal carriers commiting crimes is exceptionally low. You have nothing to fear from us.

And your perception of "need" does not over-rule a Constitutionally protected Civil Right. There are approx. 1.5 million violent crimes per year (although crime rates are trending downwards). Therefore, there is a clear need for people to have access to self-defense measures. Whether they take advantage of them or not should be up to the individual.

[rbixby]

204. I agree that you're well within your rights

I'm just not quite understanding why you feel the need to be able to kill at least 3 or 4 people at any time. Its just something I've never understood.

I've never carried a gun, I live in the inner city, and I've never had any violent crime happen to me. So I guess I've never seen the need to arm myself, nor do I like the idea that I could be holding the power to take someone's life away from them from a great distance, and leave someone's son, daughter, mother, father, brother, or sister, dead because I deemed myself judge, jury, and executioner.

Go ahead, go for it. You are within your rights, and its not about me saying that 'you should be prevented by law from doing what you have the right to do', just my take on it is that it seems weird.

[PavePusher]

205. I have no need to kill anyone. I have the need to defend myself.

Unless your crystal ball is better than mine, I will not know if, when, where or how many. When engaged in defending myself, I am under no legal or moral obligation to endure any risk greater than neccesary. Thus I will use the most efficient tools available to me to mitigate risk of injury to myself. This almost by definition includes the means to project force at a distance greater than my personal reach, or that of my attacker. This does not indicate a desire to kill, as you have clearly insinuated.

Please note that succesful defense does not equal killing someone. That is, in fact, a tiny fraction of all self-defense incidents. Note also that self-defense by no means equates to "judge, jury, and executioner". That would be vigilantism, which has nothing to do with defense.

You have deadly weapons at your disposal at all times. Hands and feet kill more people than rifles and shotguns every year. And yet you project that I am prepared/equiped solely for killing multiple people.

I am very glad that you've never been a victim of violence. I would never wish harm on innocent people. But your circumstances are not equivalent to those of many others. If a criminal wishes to be safe, they merely have to make a simple decision to not attack me. If they do so anyway, I am not morally or legally obligated to ensure their health and safety. That's simply not how it works.

[Missy Vixen]

215. My favorite example

I was a contractor almost twenty years ago at Microsoft for a year. I worked in tech support.

The guy in the cubicle across from me had a Glock in his waistband. Every day. He showed it off at all opportunities. For those who've never been there, Microsoft is like Fort Knox re: security. I'm sure he enjoyed being taken into custody at gunpoint.

>That's the thing I wonder about, and I guess that's what would be stuck in my head if I had a gun on me all the time, thinking about who I'd be ready to kill with it.<

There is something sick and sad about those who insist on carrying despite what we're told in every goddamn one of these threads - violent crime is allegedly dropping.

It's not dropping because of their guns, that's for sure. You're still 22 times more likely to shoot a loved one or be shot yourself with your own gun.

[LanternWaste]

232. Not having any real substantial position on the overall issue, I will add that...

Not having any real substantial position on the overall issue, I will add that...

"You're still 22 times more likely to shoot a loved one or be shot yourself with your own gun..."

I've been shot twice in my life-- both times on camping trips with friends who have the Buckaroo Complex which compelled them to bring the firearms along for no good reason ("It's cool!!!" being the rationalization of in the fist instance, and "in case of snakes... I hate snakes" being the justification during the second incident).

Shot only twice... by friends... this despite having been robbed nine times in the space of two years when working graveyard shift at a convenience store in the bad part of town to put myself through college).

And although I have no real legal positions on the issue, I do attempt to avoid anyone (other than LEO) I'm aware of who carries a firearm, as my concern lies with getting shot by friends rather than by bad-guys.

[PavePusher]

275. If you're refering to the Hemenway "study", it's been pretty thoroughly demolished via peer review.

There's nothing "sick and sad" about being prepared to defend oneself from criminals.

Edit: There are definitely several things wrong with the way your co-worker went about it.

[Politicalboi]

6. It's tragedy too late when it happens

But what if one could sue each person on that panel if someone were to get killed by their support of this crazy law. I bet they might think twice if they are held accountable. I know it doesn't help the victim or family, but it may bring this shit to a halt.

[PavePusher]

206. Will the converse be true as well?

If I am injured by a criminal while disarmed by law, can the people who advocated my disarmament be held at least partly responsible for my injury/death?

[yellerpup]

7. Is this a trick question?

That's what I thought from the headline. If the NRA owns enough legislators, of course it will pass.

[onehandle]

8. That's just crazy talk.

My toddler is prevented from open carrying in his pre-school?

WTF?

[Monty22001]

9. You consider everyone in the hospital

as a 'toddler'? As a 'pre-school' for invalids or criminals or lunatics only?

If you're going to disarm people at least have metal detectors so it's secure.

[truthisfreedom]

10. Combining "common sense" and "logic" with "guns" and "Florida" will always get you

into trouble.

[zanana1]

40. LOL! You got that right! nt

[AlbertCat]

66. Combining "common sense" and "logic" with "guns" and "Florida" will always get you

into trouble.

***********

That's the truth.

Maybe they should HAND OUT guns as you enter the hospital to make sure everyone is safe!

[PavePusher]

94. Regional bigotry sure is popular on D.U.

I wonder why it's tolerated....

[Doc Holliday]

278. Uh....

....because we're very tolerant people who will defend to the death the right of others to express their opinion, no matter how ludicrous we may find it?

Just a guess....

[KansDem]

100. "Maybe they should HAND OUT guns as you enter the hospital to make sure everyone is safe!"

That's been suggested before, only in a different setting...

[Sera_Bellum]

125. Thanks for digging this up!

Makes me chuckle every time.

[tpsbmam]

129. Heartbreaking when you remember Hugh O'Connor died by self-inflicted gun shot

He tested positive for cocaine in the autopsy. He called Carroll and told him he couldn't go on -- he couldn't get off the drugs he was addicted to and couldn't deal with another stint in rehab. Carroll called the cops, telling them Hugh possessed lots of guns.....the cops got there too late. Now, Hugh would have likely done it one way or another, but MAYBE without the availability of guns, he'd have had to select a method that was slower or less sure to kill him, giving the cops/paramedics/ER docs a chance to save him. Maybe.

(Though guns aren't 100% either -- I did have one patient shoot himself in the head and live through it. Horrendous.)

[Lasher]

136. You open another can of worms.

Scandinavian countries see suicide as the 'last privelege'. I generally agree.

[tpsbmam]

146. I've stopped MANY people from committing suicide who later were very happy I did.....

there's a HUGE difference between (e.g.) someone killing themselves because they have a terminal illness and they don't want to suffer through it versus someone who is clinically depressed killing him/herself when efficacious treatment to get them past the point in their lives when they're despondent enough to be suicidal. As a matter of fact, in my youth, I WAS one of those people.....I got MYSELF past that point because I didn't have effective treatment (though I did seek treatment.....it sucked....the only thing that was effective was the antidepressants I finally agreed to go on).

I agree, there are times when I'd support an individual's right to commit suicide. But not in the majority of cases. (I also knew Carroll O'Connor & Hugh, the latter just a tiny bit and Carroll better.....he was a friend of my parents. I tend to agree with Carroll -- it didn't need to happen.)

[harun]

73. +1

[madrchsod]

81. reccomend

[hack89]

113. Or lower rates of gun violence in the case of Florida.

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/109779c3-ed06-4d74-b7ae-47772b102d39/CIF_Annual10.aspx

[petronius]

11. I think a privately-owned institution of any sort ought to be able to ban

(or not, as it chooses) a great number of things from its premises. But I don't see that the state should make that decision for most (if not all) private entities...

[zanana1]

41. Most conservatives resent the federal gov't. telling them what to do.

You're taking it to a new level. Even the state can't tell you what to do. Who are you....Godzilla?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

53. What about publicly owned hospitals

Not sure there are any in Florida, but as a general case.

[petronius]

101. In general, I oppose the relevant government banning an otherwise legal activity

on public property of any sort, unless it can show a strong and specific justification for the ban...

(It seemed to me that the OP was about a general law, aimed at private entities, which is why I focused on that - private hospitals are no different to me than churches, schools, restaurants, etc.)

[cstanleytech]

12. No, guns shouldnt be banned

after all even comatose patients have the right to bear arms as well as someone who forgot to take their psychiatric meds because ya never know when the doctors might try to kill ya!!

[Lost-in-FL]

13. Don't forget patients having MRI's

They might need extra protection... you never know.

[Monty22001]

15. They can have the Glock 7

No metal.

[Kennah]

20. Only if they plan to take over the airport and use the hospital to override the tower

[cstanleytech]

21. Yes but do they have the ability to land ponys from the hospital?

After all arent they strict rules that jet fuel and ponies dont mix?

[Monty22001]

38. Glad someone got the joke..

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Of course there's no metal in it.

It would have to exist first.

[spin]

86. In case some person unfamiliar with fireams reads your post...

Glock

***snip***


In Die Hard 2, the character John McClane portrayed by Bruce Willis specifically referred to a non-existent Glock 7 with many fictitious characteristics:

That punk pulled a Glock 7 on me! You know what that is? It's a porcelain gun made in Germany. It doesn't show up on your airport X-ray machines, and it costs more than you make here in a month!

Furthermore, if a pistol completely undetectable by either X-ray machines or metal detectors were to be developed, the ammunition inside would still be detectable.

Mike Papac, an armorer at Cinema Weaponry, which supplied the Glock pistols used in Die Hard 2, has stated,

"I remember when we did that scene, I tried to talk them out of it. There's no such thing as a gun invisible to metal detectors, and there shouldn't be, but they wouldn't budge. They had it written into the script and that was that.".[7]
http://guns.wikia.com/wiki/Glock

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

179. You wouldn't be...

...trying to confuse people by stating facts, would you?

[spin]

187. I like facts better than fantasy...

which is probably why I don't find many action movies enjoyable.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

194. Well then...

"I like facts better than fantasy..."

That explains why you're pro-rights.

[spin]

14. In Florida in order to legally carry a firearm in a hospital you would have to have...

a concealed weapons permit. To get a concealed weapons permit you have to provide proof of training, be fingerprinted and have a background check.

Florida has had "shall issue" concealed carry since 1987. In that period of time the state has issued 2,109,184 permits. Currently there are 887,405 valid concealed carry permits.

In that 24 year period of time only 168 permits have been revoked because of the commission on a crime that involved the use of a firearm.

(source of data: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.pdf)

I may be wrong but I can't remember one criminal shooting in a hospital that was the fault of an individual with a carry permit.

On the other hand I remember that a nurse asked me to introduce her to shooting handguns. She was concerned about the amount of violence that had occurred in the parking lot of a hospital she worked at and was interested in obtaining a concealed weapons permit in order to carry a firearm for self defense.

A person who wishes to shoot up a hospital or to attack workers in the parking lot will have little concern about a law that makes hospitals a gun free zone. The result of such a law might well result in far more damage then it would prevent.

Patient attacks on doctors and nurses are more frequent

It’s somewhat of a hidden phenomenon, but attacks on doctors and nurses are on the rise.

Rahul Parikh writes about this in a recent Slate piece. He cites data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which found “health care workers are twice as likely as those in other fields to experience an injury from a violent act at work, with nurses being the most common victims.”

***snip***

Much of teaching on how to avoid potentially violent situations are ineffective in the long term. That leads to more extreme solutions — like carrying a gun.

Indeed, according to a survey conducted in 2005, 40 percent of emergency physicians admitted to carrying a gun. That seems like an incredibly high number to me....emphasis added
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2010/04/patient-attacks-doctors-nurses-frequent.html

[zanana1]

42. Those are the "official" laws.

You know very well that anyone can privately buy a gun from someone else without a permit of any kind, and it happens all the time. Gun shows are another place where they're not too choosy about who to sell a gun to. I'm sure that you got your information from one of those gun-nut websites. They're all over the place, misleading people and providing gun nuts with false information to use when confronted with a sane person.

[baldguy]

45. There you go, injecting troublesome FACTS into a discussion about guns.

You should know better.

[joeglow3]

117. That "fact" was already conceded by the previous poster

i.e. criminals will not follow laws anyway. That does NOTHING to address what was posted.

[Lurks Often]

49. Do you have some statistics from the FBI or DOJ

to back it up or are you just trotting out the usual talking points from the anti-gun handbook? And if you have first hand experience of this, why haven't you reported it to the police?

Sales by a firearms dealer are governed by Federal law. Sales between individuals are governed by the state law where the private sale occurs.

[Atypical Liberal]

54. Is there any other kind of law?

Yes, no doubt, criminals don't obey the law. They aren't going to obey the law whether it is legal to carry firearms in hospitals or not.

This law is not about stopping criminals. It is about whether or not law-abiding people with concealed carry permits can carry firearms in hospitals. People with concealed carry permits are hyper-law-abiding people. Compared to the rest of society, they are far less likely to be involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime.

That is the kind of person this law will prevent from bringing a firearm into a hospital.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

55. And they matter and are enforced.

I'm sure that you got your information from one of those nutty anti gun rights websites. They're all over the place, misleading people and providing anti gunners with false information to use when confronted with a sane person.

[PavePusher]

60. Cite, please. n/t

[spin]

82. Very true. Criminals do break the law all the time...

The state law says that in Florida you have to have a concealed carry permit to carry in public. Honest people follow that law, those who break the law (criminals) do not.

Therefore if you make a hospital a gun free zone the honest people who follow the law (such as doctors, nurses and other employees) will not bring firearms into the hospital or hospital parking lot. However criminals or criminally insane people will continue to do so.

The nurse I mentioned in my post will now have to worry about going to and from the parking lot as she has reason to fear an attack as has happened to several of her fellow co-workers.

You mentioned gun shows as a place to buy firearms without a background check. Actually in Florida NO private sale requires an NICS check. I personally would like to see this changed unlike many NRA members.

You also asked where I got my information and suggest that I obtained it from "one of those gun-nut websites".

First, I am a Floridian with a concealed weapons permit and I have had one for over fifteen years. If you are curious about the laws in Florida I suggest you check out the state web site on the subject at:

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/index.html

On that page you will also find a link labeled Statistical Reports. If you click on it you will find a number of links one of which is Monthly Summary Report [PDF] http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.pdf which is where I obtained my statistics. This link was provided in my original reply.

You can find further info on violence and crime occurring in hospitals at these links:

"Emergency Department Violence" http://www.acep.org/content.aspx?id=21830

Workplace Violence: A Survey of Emergency
Physicians in the State of Michigan
http://www.med.umich.edu/em/education/medstudents/workplace%20violence.pdf

[X_Digger]

85. What makes you think that someone who would flout the law and carry without a permit..

.. would suddenly obey a sign saying to not carry in a hospital?

That's not logical.

Has carrying in a hospital in Florida proven to be a problem in the last 25 years when it was legal?

I find it telling that the article or the proponents of this change didn't relate any anecdotes to support their position.

[PavePusher]

95. You seem to allude to "unofficial" laws.

Perhaps you could list them for us?

[hack89]

114. Since you are talking about criminals, why do you think more laws will stop criminals? nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

182. re: <Those are the "official" laws.>

ALL laws are "official".

I think you are trying to say a few things:
1. You don't need a CCW to buy a pistol.
2. If you have a pistol, you can carry it into a hospital.

...Which brings us to the real point. Anyone is free to become a criminal at any time. Your neighbor can. Your local policeman can. Your elected officials can. Soldiers can. Everyone is 100% able to acquire a pistol illegally. They can go on to conceal it on their person and walk in public, illegally. They can break a few more laws and enter prohibited areas, threaten, assault and murder people.

LAWS DO NOT STOP CRIMINALS.

Those folks that take the time to get trained, investigated, licensed and LEGALLY buy a firearm are statistically the least likely citizens to become criminals.

Have a nice day.

[grantcart]

16. What could possibly go wrong?

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/22/us/an-airman-s-revenge-5-minutes-of-terror.html

The gunman who killed 4 people and wounded 23 at an Air Force hospital near here on Monday was apparently motivated by a desire for revenge against the first two people he shot, both fatally: a psychiatrist and a psychologist whose observation of him ultimately led to his discharge from the service last month.

The gunman, who was shot to death by a military policeman while pursuing yet another would-be victim in the parking lot outside the hospital, was identified today as Dean A. Mellberg, a 20-year-old former airman from Lansing, Mich.

Mr. Mellberg, dressed in black, was armed with a Chinese-made MAK-90 assault rifle when he arrived by taxicab Monday afternoon at the hospital, which lies just outside the wire-and-steel-protected perimeter of Fairchild Air Force Base, 10 miles west of Spokane. 'Knew Where He Was Going'

According to a reconstruction of events offered by the authorities today, Mr. Mellberg went first to a restroom inside the hospital's annex building, where he removed the rifle from a duffel bag that he had carried with him from his motel room in Spokane. He then walked to an office shared by the psychiatrist, Maj. Thomas Brigham, 31, and the psychologist, Capt. Alan London, 40, and killed both of them with two bursts of gunfire.



My cousin, who is a doctor at the hospital, had the day off.

[Monty22001]

17. Were guns allowed there?

And would a ban have even remotely stopped this if they were? If it was already illegal do you have any ideas on how to make this less likely to happen?

[mbperrin]

19. Compliance on any desired behavior increases when codified into law.

Soc 101. In-group/out-group behavior. Norms.

The mere existence of the law makes it more likely that the desired behavior is being done.

[Monty22001]

23. So..

I guess cop stations are the #1 employee murder spots? Besides jihadist attacks haven't seen that many gun range/store/military ones either.

And it appears that as gun laws are relaxed murder/crime rates go down. Your Soc 101 is a big problem with modern education. It's wrong.

[mbperrin]

140. Let's just burn the colleges down, then.

Education is of no account, apparently.

I can't understand why you would think cop stations would be #1 murder by my theory. My theory is that the more rules, the safer. NO ONE has more rules on handling, using, and storing firearms than a cop shop.

[Monty22001]

151. So we need more rules

So the amount or access of guns doesn't matter, it's just the rules that matter? That's a different take than I've heard.

You can easily prove this assertion by proving that high gun law areas have (Baltimore for instance) less crime than some place with fewer rules (Vermont for example) for gun carrying/ownership.

Best of all you can try a general plot of the amount of rules vs the amount of gun crimes. You'll find to your amazement a very inverse relationship among cities and states. Also the general murder rate has lowered in the US over the past few decades quite sharply as the guns ownership/carry rates have risen.

Again, the data is out there and you can easily prove it in a general way and not simply a thought experiment.

[mbperrin]

159. You're talking correlation, not causation.

I can just as easily correlate the aging of the baby boomers and the lower birth rate as reasons for crime decreasing. More crimes are committed by younger people. Fewer younger people, fewer crimes.

In our medium size city of around 100,000 in Texas, which has generous allowance for ownership, we had 32 cases of shots fired in the city, 6 people sent to the hospital and 5 arrests made so far.

Those shot up or at included a barber shop, a 70+ year old couples' home, a police officer's home (while she was home), and an assortment of homes scattered all around the city, with the exception of the south side, the "bad side" of town, which had no reports at all.

We're a boom town, and the average age here is close to 22, MUCH lower than the national average. All those guns don't seem to be deterring these folks. Those arrested so far range from 16-33 years in age and include women and men.

It's not a thought experiment. I live right in the middle of it.

[PavePusher]

61. And what remedy do you propose for those law-abiding people....

who are injured or killed when they are rendered defenseless by "feel good" ink on paper?

Why do you want to set up innocent victims?

[mbperrin]

141. Thought you didn't like hyperbole?

Make up your mind, and get back to me, please.

[PavePusher]

155. Hyperbole on my part? No, fact.

Crime happens. If you deliberately set up zones in which people are disarmed by law, you are creating a place where criminals have less to fear. Virginia Tech was such a place. Think about it, and get back to me. Please.

[mbperrin]

160. Virginia Tech was not disarmed. Police had lots of guns.

Being the South, I'd bet a search of campus housing would turn up any number of various kinds of weapons, including rifles. shotguns and pistols. My cousin was expelled from Texas Tech in 1964 for shooting at the janitors carrying trash out of the dorms. He thought it was SO funny to shoot those cans while those black men were holding them!

I shouldn't speak ill of him. He decapitated himself in a motorcycle accident running under an 18 wheeler on the Andrews Highway here in front of his favorite bar, Crystal's.

[hack89]

163. Those trapped students waiting to die were disarmed. nt

[PavePusher]

168. Nice defelction-fail. Try... again. n/t

[mbperrin]

188. Nice non-response. No need to try anything at all.

You've no interest in an actual discussion.

Have a nice life doing whatever it is you do.

[PavePusher]

197. I'm not the one who turned to irrelevencies.... speaking of "no interest in an actual discussion"...

[Wistful Vista]

79. Well that certainly explains why nobody smokes pot in this law-abiding nation.

[mbperrin]

143. Usage would increase with legalization. Yes?

No behavior is ever wiped out - one of the first crimes according to the bybull is murder. Still got it, so just legalize it?

Or continue to do what we can to hold it down?

One of the things I hate worst in this country is the up/down, right/left, black/white, on/off nature of reasoning here. It's a stupid thing to think that anything is ever all one way.

[Wistful Vista]

145. I don't know, my Magic Eight Ball got broken years ago.

I do know that all the hysterical predictions of "blood running in the streets" promulgated by anti-gun groups about the upshot of allowing law-abiding citizens to carry guns proved to be nothing more than idiotic nonsense.

There is an awful lot of binary thinking in this place, that's one thing we certainly agree on.

[boppers]

211. Well, murder didn't stop, and not everybody got murdered.

Binary thinking is an enemy of reason.

[grantcart]

26. No and he wasn't allowed to be there but he he easily got access to a gun and took it where

he wasn't supposed to.

Now I understand you want to have a gun in your house and on your property but how does the fact that he shouldn't have had a gun advance the argument that the rest of us have to be subjected to your interest in having guns so that we now need to allow them in schools and hospitals?

[petronius]

30. It doesn't, and nobody suggested that it does. You introduced this murderer

into the thread, I assume because you thought the example advanced your own argument. Now that you've realized it doesn't, you're trying to pawn it off on someone else?

[grantcart]

104. I simply put it in because somebody up thread had indicated that there were no real instances of

gunmen going into hospitals, and this one came close to home.

You are right they are both extemporaneous to the argument.

I understand most gun owners arguments but trying to allow guns into hospitals and universities just baffles me.

[Wistful Vista]

147. Trying to prevent it is what baffles me. If you know how to keep thugs with mayhem in mind from

ignoring a sign, I'd love to know the secret. (And I think you meant "extraneous" rather than "extemporaneous".)

[Monty22001]

48. Well think about it..

It's kind of like having rules for no-smoking vs not having cigarettes on you. It's easy to declare the first one but would require full searching of everyone to make sure none got into the place at all.

Same with guns, obviously something like brandishing or worse isn't allowed (but still happens). When someone smokes in a building with a sign they can be easily thrown out. If someone starts shooting, you're left defenseless and have to fight with your hands against bullets and you'll very likely lose.

There's just no way to be 'safe' unless there's metal detecting and searching to be sure everyone is disarmed. If you think 'no guns allowed' signs means there really aren't any you're delusional. Again, if it's something that won't hurt you it's fine. If it's something potentially deadly I prefer either to know for sure everyone's been scanned or to be able to defend myself.

[PavePusher]

62. What defensive measures do you propose to insure the safety of those you would disarm?

What compensation do you propose when your measures fail?

What is your personal responsibility when measures you support go wrong?

[grantcart]

106. None

But why are we now allowing guns in hospitals and universities?


What endemnity are you providing when a child accidently gains access to a gun and discharges it?

Why are guns necessary in hospitals and universities?

[PavePusher]

111. No-one has claimed they are "necessary".

What is necesary is to keep the option of individual choice. You are free to make choices for yourself, and vice-versa. If someone is injured through negligence or criminal action, the responsibility lies on the person who was negligent or criminal. If someone is injured through your restriction, you are liable for your negligence in not providing security.

It's really a simple concept.

[PavePusher]

199. Fascinating that you want to increase the pool of targets for criminals.

Vile, but fascinating.

[boppers]

212. If only hospitals had knives of some kind, or maybe some sedatives, or restraints....

Hospitals deal with violent people all the time without shooting them.

[PavePusher]

225. If someone is trying to stab or shoot me, in a hospital....

how long must I wait before taking defensive measures, and what measures would you limit me too, while waiting for those people with the sedatives to show up? Do you know how to trank a criminal shooter? Ever see anyone do it?

Seriously, you don't seem to know what you are talking about.

[boppers]

243. How many gunshot wounds do you have?

For that matter, how many tiger attacks have you suffered?

[PavePusher]

249. Relevence? n/t

[boppers]

250. The relevance is how much you have spent on Tiger repellent.

But hey, tigers haven't attacked you, right?

[PavePusher]

169. Defaulting to freedom of choice is not "subjecting" anyone to anything. n/t

[zanana1]

43. Don't worry, Monty.

Nobody will take your gun away.

[Atypical Liberal]

56. It's likely it was already illegal for this person to do what he did.

Being discharged from the military for psychological reasons may have already made it illegal for him to possess firearms, let alone bring them into a hospital.

[hack89]

108. And a law would have stopped this crime? Really? nt

[mbperrin]

18. FFS, yes. My second choice is to make it mandatory for every man, woman, child, patient, cleric, doc

nurse, cafeteria workers, janitors, EVERYONE in the place to carry at least one fully loaded weapon at all times.

Ticket them for contributing to an unsafe environment if caught without one.

That's just how reasonable I am. Guns for everyone!!!! Whoooooooooooooooo!!!!

Item: remind self to never enter a hospital again...

[E6-B]

28. Kennesaw, Georgia illegal to not own a gun.

Kennesaw Georgia did just that. They made it illegal to NOT own a gun. They have no problems.

[AlbertCat]

67. They have no problems.

I'd say, any place that would even consider such a law has BIG problems. Gun worship city!

[PavePusher]

170. So, cite the "problems". We'll wait.... n/t

[PavePusher]

226. So, nothing, eh? Figures... n/t

[mbperrin]

139. Not really accurate. According to this, they're safer than 35% of cities. That means

less safe than 65%.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ga/kennesaw/crime/

Thanks.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

185. Good evening, friend.

Please scroll down an inch and read that the national average for violent crime is 4.5 per 1,000 residents and the Kennesaw rate is 1.05 per 1,000 residents. Kennesaw's violent crime rate is more than 76% lower than the national average.

Have a nice day.

[mbperrin]

189. That's not what it means, and that's not what it says.

So when you get to redo the statistics to suit yourself, I need to say bye.

You obviously have no interest in an honest discussion.

BTW, even your twisted version acknowledges crime exists there, when it shouldn't, according to the gun-lovers with their single solution to all problems.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

193. In reply

"That's not what it means, and that's not what it says."

That is precisely what it means. I majored in physics and am an engineer by trade. I am quite familiar with mathematics and statistics. Since you are not able to interpret this data correctly, please feel free to leave the discussion.

You obviously are also unable to define "honest".

"BTW, even your twisted version acknowledges crime exists there, when it shouldn't, according to the gun-lovers with their single solution to all problems."

I see no mention of a claim that there is or should be no crime in Kennesaw. Thanks for broad brushing me into some mythical group you call "gun-lovers". Can I lump you in with the "rights-haters"?

[mbperrin]

195. See post 28 at the top of this thread. The stance you're defending is that Kennesaw has NO problems.

I have a degree in economics from Texas A&M, and I can assure you that I am familiar with statistics. You may wish to leave with a simple engineer's understanding of rudimentary statistics used to calculate bridge loads.

You brought yourself into this thread, so you are defending the viewpoint that Kennesaw has NO crime because gun ownership is mandatory.

So read more carefully before jumping in. Post 28 is crystal clear. And I'm far from a rights-hater. I own guns, and I don't think I should be able to carry one into a hospital, any more than I should be allowed to bring a grenade to a Sunday school picnic. There are no "rights" involved, just common sense.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

200. Regardless...

...of your inaccurate inferences, *I* did not claim "that Kennesaw has NO problems." Clearly, every town in the world has problems.

I loved economics and can appreciate your background. This simple engineer does know enough to read the data on the page to which you linked. That page stated that violent crime incidence per 1000 residents in Kennesaw was 1.04. Further on that same page the national median for violent crime per 1000 residents is quoted as 4.5. This means that the national violent crime rate is 4.33 times the violent crime rate in Kennesaw.

My point in highlighting this was to show that Kennesaw was safer than the average town in the US.

Also, as an aside, I would like to point out that the law binds those who own homes and not every individual. Conscientious objectors are excused as is anyone with an infirmity. I'm not expecting you would want to move there. After all, the running joke in that area (Cobb County) is that the interstate has only a 'far right' lane.

Now please drop this talk of bridge loads.

[PavePusher]

63. Oooooo, hyperbole. That's effective.... when you're nine years old. n/t

[SteveW]

264. Just curious: Why is the OP not in Guns Group? nt

[E6-B]

22. Hospitals are dangerous places, just google 'rape hospital'.

[baldguy]

46. Yeah, hospitals are dangerous!

Just look at all the people who die there! Look at all the sick people there!

[virginia mountainman]

24. My wife is a ICU/ER and sometimes charge Nurse,

She is also has her CCW Permit, and she DOES keep a .45 at work, stashed in her med cart, or in her customized "day planner" when she is doing charge....

She also is not the only staff member that has one, and the Hospital has an UNARMED security guard. for their "protection" During a staff meeting several months ago the hospital attempted to push the "no guns" issue and several staff members (Nurses, Doctors, and housekeeping staff) threatened to quit over it this is when they learned that each other packed heat! Concealed means just that CONCEALED) And the management was laughed at when they brought up their "security guard". And it was made abundantly clear, until the Hospital was going to provide ARMED security guards, THAT IS WILLING ESCORT STAFF to their cars in a deserted parking lot late at night. That making the hospital a gun free zone was absolutely out of the question. The staff meeting became very heated, and the point was quickly made and Management, quickly dropped it....

The signs say "No Illegal guns" now....

The area the hospital is in, has a HUGE meth problem. Their has been violent attacks in the past. And some staff members have been assaulted in the parking lot a few years ago a addict broke in and attacked a Nurse in the ICU.

Now they look out for each other and go to their cars in groups. And in each group their is someone with much more than keys and pepper spray on them.

[ellisonz]

35. Doesn't mean guns would have stopped those incidents...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

57. But it does provide options to the victims

or potential future victims

[Atypical Liberal]

58. Of course not.

A gun is not a magic talisman. It does not provide any guarantee. All it does is give you another option when presented with a violent attacker besides running, submitting, or hand-to-hand combat.

[quakerboy]

25. If

Guns are banned in hospitals, only criminals will have guns in hospitals.

or something.

[AllyCat]

27. Too bad this isn't Wisconsin. I think every health care facility

has a "no weapons" sign up. My hospital put one up before our concealed carry law went into effect.

[ellisonz]

31. Yes. n/t

[LAGC]

33. No.

Not unless there are controlled gates at all entrances with metal detectors and armed guards.

Just declaring a "Gun-Free Zone" and posting a few signs won't stop people with hostile intentions from bringing them in any way.

[ellisonz]

34. I don't see how allowing...

...guns in the emergency room or any part of the hospital doesn't create the potential for some very hostile situations. When was the last time you were in a hospital? They're not exactly the mean streets.

[LAGC]

36. Sorry, I didn't mean to reply to your post.

But all I'm saying is that simply outlawing guns in hospitals won't stop bad guys from bringing them in anyway, it will only stop the good guys.

Unless you have some way of enforcement, like with secured gates and armed guards, its a counter-productive effort, and actually makes hospitals more dangerous.

[ellisonz]

37. "with secured gates and armed guards"

I think most hospitals already have secured entries and guards, although not always armed. I'd favor non-lethal weapons for liability purposes.

I think you could find just as many hospital employees who feel allowing people to carry in the hospital creates a potentially explosive situation.

[Wistful Vista]

78. Where are these secured-entry hospitals with guards? I have never seen one.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

87. Nor have I and I have worked at 2 different hospitals.

Right now we are on alert because of a patient who is a shooting victim and there is concern that someone may want to come and finish off the job. There are no metal detectors...

[ellisonz]

121. So the solution is to improve security...

...not turn hospitals into a shooting gallery.

[Wistful Vista]

148. Still waiting to learn where those well-guarded hospitals are.

Did you just make that up?
\

[ellisonz]

150. They're not forts...

...besides I'm not the one encouraging GUNS GUNS GUNS for everyone. The Kaiser facilities I go to always have one main entrance and there is a guard...

[Wistful Vista]

152. So the main entrance is the only entrance? You still have failed to identify even one of those

places you made such a point of claiming exist.

[Heddi]

165. I am an ER Nurse at a level 1 trauma center

our front doors have metal detectors. Our security guards are not armed (they have tasers, tho), but we have a couple of State Patrol officers that round with the security guards, and they have guns, tasers, etc.

So my hospital is well-guarded, with metal detectors and 2 levels of security.

[PavePusher]

172. Not the case with all hospitals.

And are there any other entrances besides the "front doors"? I'd bet there are...

[Wistful Vista]

191. Where is it? Not that I disbelieve you, I just like to have correct information.

I'm not even close to convinced a front door with metal detectors and a couple of part-time "State Patrol Officers" (what does that mean, anyway?) rises to the standard of "well guarded".

[Heddi]

196. State Patrol.. doesn't your state have State Patrol officeres?

Because of kooks on the internet, I'm not going to tell you where I work, because I'm the only level-1 trauma center in my state (actually for several states). And many posters on this site know me, and know I'm an RN, and know that I work in a level-1 trauma center.

Other states call them "highway patrol". My state calls the troopers "State Patrol". Same thing. My hospital is a state hospital, therefore city police officers do not work here, state patrol officers do.

And as an employee for over 5 years at this hospital, I can tell you that this is the safest place I've ever worked, my co-workers feel the same (even though there could be improvements). Sure as fuck beats the hospital I worked at in florida where RN's got beaten up in the parking lot on a monthly basis, one beaten into a coma by a patient that was denied pain medicine 12 hours earlier.

We have some of the nation's lowest rates of RN and other-staff violence by patients because of the presence of STate Patrol Troopers (or Highway Patrol or whatever your state calls them)

[ellisonz]

209. Thank you for commenting.

My Godmother was an ER nurse for 20+ years. You have a very difficult job and I am glad that your hospital takes care to secure the premises. Thank you for doing what you do.

[X_Digger]

88. No shit, me either.

I've been in about half of all the hospitals in Dallas, and I've never been stopped for longer than it takes an automatic door to open.

[ellisonz]

153. So you want "security theater" in hospitals? n/t

[X_Digger]

156. Please point out where I said something that a rational person could interpret that way, eh?

Otherwise, please keep your words out of my mouth- I don't know where your fingers have been.

[ellisonz]

157. Easy with a search engine:

Fact is, we always will be.. it's all security theater

The guy who loads up the beverage / meal carts outside the airport could stick a gun in one (they're specific to a particular plane on flights with meals.)

The guy who fuels up the plane could stuff a pocketful of ball bearings into the fuel system.

The ground crew who check the hydraulic system could plant a bomb in the landing gear..

...

There is no 100% safe way to secure an airport, either from a rogue traveler or employee. The sooner we accept that, the sooner we can get back to flying with more than an ounce of shampoo and the slap & tickle from the TSA.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/http:/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x352300#352423

You didn't specify non-public, before now..

Looking at your proposal, I think it's a bit of security theater.

If you control the venue, then you end up just moving the dedicated shooter to catch the congressperson in a position like Sirhan Sirhan did to RFK.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x356701#356863

Rail cops go great guns

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/rail_cops_umdUeMj91L...

Stand clear of the submachine guns.

In an unusual move, a heavily armed NYPD security battalion with enough firepower to wipe out Downtown Brooklyn descended onto the city's subway trains yesterday in response to suicide bombings in Russia that killed dozens of passengers in Moscow's subway.

Bleary-eyed New Yorkers began their work weeks with a morning rush hour that featured city cops in full military gear, including helmets, goggles, body armor, sidearms and M16 assault rifles.

The underground arsenal startled sleepy straphangers, many of whom wondered whether the extra security was overkill.

Seems like excessive security theater to me. If someone were to target the subway with some kind of IED, I doubt an AR-15 offers much more protection than a standard side-arm.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x306565

Clearly you and your pro-toting friends like to engage in such rhetoric, so again I ask, do you think there should be armed guards and metal detectors in hospitals?

[X_Digger]

166. I notice you didn't quote anything about hospitals.

Feel free to continue your search.

I think security theater is about as pig ignorant as can be.

You feel free to side with the granny-gropers, I know you have a special place in your heart for the patriot act / TSA.

And since I know you like cartoons, I'll repost..

[ellisonz]

171. Wow.

You just don't get it...when you introduce guns in an uncontrolled manner into an environment with high tensions the likely outcome is going to be shootings. To believe otherwise is just utter nonsense and misunderstanding of how and why conflicts occur. You still haven't answered my question, do you believe hospitals need good security measures or are carriers enough to deter violence?

I think you do a real injustice to your own cause when you deny the history of terrorism and violence in situations and use pejoratives to flail at those who disagrees with you; in fact, it makes it look like you don't give much thought to anyone but yourself. I don't have to agree with some of the stupid things TSA or hospitals do to think it's become necessary.

Eubanks said Benson had no criminal history and was licensed to carry a firearm. He said the suspect was seen arguing with his wife at the hospital earlier in the week and employees asked him to leave. At that point, they didn't find him threatening enough to call police.

"There was an exchange between him and his wife about her coming back home," Eubanks said. "Apparently he got a little loud and the hospital staff asked him to leave."

Benson returned to the hospital Friday and witnesses told police he again confronted his wife and mother-in-law.

"He told them they'd be sorry, walked to the car and came back with a gun in his pocket," Eubanks said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57354411/man-charged-with-murder-in-ga-hospital-shooting/

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/nyregion/gunman-wounds-nurse-and-guard-at-bronx-hospital.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/john-hopkins-hospital-sho_n_719435.html
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/r/2097548/detail.html

Hospitals and guns don't mix. Hospitals should have effective security measures. Period.

[PavePusher]

174. "...the likely outcome is going to be shootings."

Which you have completely failed to demonstrate. Citing a single incident is not indicative of a trend, or even multiple incidents. Note also that you failed to provide evidence on if the hospital was a putative "gun free zone" or the carrier was a legal bearer.

[ellisonz]

176. Do you think they do studies on this exact question?

If you do, you'd be wrong. To read the mandated government report on the Gun Free Schools Act go here and download the pdf: http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/gfsa/index.html

Arguably, having a state policy, and the means to enforce it reduces the number of incidents. To believe otherwise is libertarian fantasy...

I guess I'll hear next how no one has a right to deny you your right to self-defense even the presence of the President of the United States.

[PavePusher]

177. Crime stats are freely available. Go to the light. n/t

[ellisonz]

180. On comparitive policies on gun possession and relation to shooting incidents in hospitals?

I think I've got things to do besides combing the internet for a study that probably doesn't exist.

Like I said before, the whole argument against the banning of guns in hospitals is libertarian fantasy...

[X_Digger]

183. Neither.

Why you made that false dichotomy (one of the options being a straw man that I didn't propose) is beyond me.

Guns in hospitals have been left up to the individual institution on Texas for a long time now. Doesn't seem to have made a difference one way or another.

[Atypical Liberal]

59. They don't allow them in the ER here at Huntsville Hospital, because of GANGS.

When I had to take my 3-year-old to the ER for croup, we wasted precious time at the entrance to the ER while I fished out everything from my pockets, including my pocket knife, so that I could get through the metal detector and get into the actual ER, all the while holding my son who could not breathe. The security guy was going on and on about the Swiss Army pocket knife and I said, "Look! Just keep the damn thing!"

The reason why they do this is drugs and gangs.

It seems that when there is a gang shooting, the shooters used to then drop by the ER to see if the people they shot were wounded and cooling their heals in the ER, where they could then be "finished off" with ease.

[ellisonz]

120. Exactly.

I understand maybe letting staff carry but letting the general public do so is insanity.

[Atypical Liberal]

142. Note that this is only for the ER. n/t

[Tunkamerica]

39. guns should only be allowed in hospitals.

[Rhiannon12866]

44. Yes, and also in nursery schools and on rollercoasters...

[Flatulo]

47. Is there any evidence that legally owned firearms are a problem in hospitals?

I'm generally not in favor of new laws that don't address a particular problem.

[SteveW]

265. How dare you bring that kind of question up!!

Do you think you have the right to question those who have a solution, looking for a problem?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

50. Yes

YES a thousand times YES.

There are patients who get bad news sometimes and sometimes retaliate against the doctors. I recall an incident where a doctor was shot to death by a patient (trying to find the news article) just because he gave him bad news. I wouldn't want a distraught patient carrying a gun around the hospital.

The RKBA-ers clearly do not understand the gravity of the situation. The Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN, have "we ban guns in the premises" throughout the campus and most doctors there are anti-gun.

[Monty22001]

51. To make a proper point..

You'd have to prove that your story about the doctor being shot was done by someone that was legally carrying. I highly doubt they were. It's possible, maybe I guess but doubtful. If you're going to ban them, why not *ban* them and metal detector everyone going in? Having a sign/policy against it just doesn't seem effective at all to me.

Most serious psychiatric places will check everyone going in for good reason.

It's not the easiest call but to me it's like having them legal in a church. There was a lot of resistance to it in Texas and then they just did away with the law against it after 5 or 6 years and it's been that long since with no incidences that I'm aware of by legal carriers.

[AlbertCat]

68. the doctor being shot was done by someone that was legally carrying.

Oh well... if that was the case... screw the dead doctor. I mean, as long as it was legal to carry the gun, it's of course legal to use it.


This gun worshiping is, as usual, all powerful. Praise the gun! A solution... an option... a toy!

[Monty22001]

74. Wow you missed the point

Never said murder was legal if carrying.. The idea was that having it there was already illegal almost certainly and it happened anyway. And we don't even know for sure which story this is. From a quick google search this has only happened a very few times ever. I only see twice total and once at least once it looks like they went after the doctor in the parking lot so no laws or anything could've helped. The only thing that *might* have helped is if the doctor had a chance, but who knows. I'm not saying everyone should have guns in hospitals or anywhere, but I do believe in deterrence and I don't believe the concept of 'gun free zones' stop anyone. I also think the stats just don't prove that legal CCW carriers have proven to be a problem 'going berzerk' and 'wild west' as was foretold only 20 years ago or so.

[joeglow3]

119. Holy shit. That flew a mile over your head.

[jpak]

52. Yes

yup

[denem]

64. Yes of course. Who needs a needle when you've got a gun. Death with Dignity.

Grandma's in terrible pain with terminal cancer. There's a gun for that.

[TreasonousBastard]

65. "panders to the anti-gun political agenda"... No, it's much better we...

pander to the paranoid idiots who can't be separated from their guns even for a moment.

Anyone can come up with an incident or two where a gun might have been useful, but just what overwhelming problems do Florida hospitals have that require staff and/or patients to be armed?

Do we then have them in ER's? Does the surgeon carry, or just the residents? Maybe it's another job for the scrub nurses?

Do doctors carry on rounds? How does shooting a violent patient fit in with the Hippocratic Oath? Or, maybe the good doctor calls out for a nearby visitor to pull his piece when needed? The hysteria abounding at the first time a doctor sees fit to shoot a patient will be something to watch.

Perhaps this is a precursor to a more efficient form of assisted suicide when someone gets really, really bad news.

(Is there a shotgun at the ready at the nurse's station?)

[SteveW]

266. TB, how did this post last so long in this forum, yet didn't get in "Guns?" nt

[abelenkpe]

69. If one thinks they need a gun with them at all times even in a hospital

Then they are mentally unstable and have no business owning a gun.

[PavePusher]

97. Surely you can provide some guarantee of security in exchange for disarming the public.... amIrite?

[d_legendary1]

70. Once again I am deeply embarrased by what my home state is doing.

Next thing you'll know we'll allow open carry in night clubs, in state offices, and police stations.

[PavePusher]

98. And the problem with that would be.... ? n/t

[Turbineguy]

72. What better place

to put somebody out of his misery? There's a morgue in the basement. Besides, it's a great way to deal with those who don't have insurance. Just shoot them. Sure, a few innocent bystanders will die, but hey, it's the 2nd Amendment, so it's OK. And after all, it's Florida.

[cleanhippie]

75. Why? What problem would it solve? What would it prevent?

[Wistful Vista]

77. Of course...no bad guy would ever think of violating a ban. Gun-free zones are 100% safe.

cough, Virginia Tech, cough

[X_Digger]

83. Like a sign ever stopped anyone who might do harm?

[marions ghost]

161. the hospitals I know use weapons detection and security checks

--signs warn the gun toter to expect these conditions.

No way--no guns in schools or hospitals. Has to be done or we will not feel safe from gun violence anywhere.

[X_Digger]

167. None in any hospital in Dallas/Houston (that I've been to)..

I've been to about half the hospitals in Dallas in the last three or four years, and a couple in Houston/Pearland. Haven't stepped through a magnetometer yet.

[marions ghost]

84. of course (as in Duh)

Nobody working int he stressful situation of a hospital should have to worry about gun violence. I've been in a hospital that was locked down because of an episode of gun violence (not unusual) and I can tell you that it severely compromises the care of critical patients.

[Wistful Vista]

89. So if a bad guy decides to ignore the gun ban and comes in armed, your preference is that NOBODY

has any means of self-protection? Where is this hospital, I want to steer FAR clear from it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. Actually, under the same pesly convention I alluded

Hospital Security STAFF, can be ARMED with a DEFENSIVE weapon, yes that 9 mm qualifies, though I'd prefer a 40 cal due to pesky pen values and close quarters and things that can go boom. So the argument that nobody is well bogus. Hell, we had an incident at a WELL MARKED RED CROSS hospital in Mexico, where a man came in with a 22. Suffice it to say that yes the cops were called and were given free rein to deal with our "friend." Once he was arrested we found out that probably he was the wrong person to have a gun... no, not due to the crime. He had a history of mental illness. He got it from a cousin of a cousin.

Yup he was off his meds, no, since nobody was hurt, no he was not charged... there was no way the DA could get a conviction and yes, he was shipped to the Psychiatric Hospital. Oh gun... that was taken off the streets.

But guns generally speaking do not belong in hospitals. If we ever decent into a nasty civil war you might even understand why.

[Wistful Vista]

110. ROTFLMAO...if we "decent" into a civil war, guns in hospitals will be the least of our worries.

Can I order a little of whatever you're smoking?

[marions ghost]

162. My preference is that he doen't get in in the first place

so people don't need to arm themselves with dangerous weapons merely to carry out their job of saving lives.

[Wistful Vista]

190. Well, just have them put up a sign. That always works.

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. this is a no brainer

no. not stupid logic. We signed the Geneva Convention, which the US Senate ratified. As signatory members guns do not belong in hospitals, The Association's lawyers need to be reminded of the SUPREMACY clause.

[PavePusher]

99. Err, please detail how the Geneva Convention applies to legally armed civilians....

who are not involved in a military conflict.

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. The Geneva Convention does not allow people

into a hospital who are armed, except those carrying defensive weapons working for the hospital as a security detail.


And the neutrality of a hospital should be respected even in peacetime.

If I need to explain this, then we are having major issues, and if the country does spiral down into a civil war... hospitals will be primary targets.

[hack89]

107. Wrong!

Common Article 2 which governs all four Geneva accords, specifically states that the Geneva Conventions only apply to all cases of international conflict.

It was no bearing on domestic law or times of peace.

[PavePusher]

112. Cite, please. n/t

[PavePusher]

181. Take your time, we'll wait. n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

186. re: "...Geneva Convention..."

The articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) extensively defined the basic rights of prisoners (civil and military) during war; established protections for the wounded; and established protections for the civilians in and around a war zone.

Clearly non sequitur.

[PavePusher]

198. Still... waiting.... <YAWN>....... n/t

[PavePusher]

207. After 46 hours with no evidentiary support, I'm assuming you don't have any.

Just a hint: It's O.K. to aknowledge when you are wrong. I've done it a number of times. It helps your credibility and definitely improves your integrity.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

229. Well...

...that credibility survey is looking rather grim.

So does that make nadinbrzezinski incredible, uncredible, non-credible or, perhaps, some combination?

[PavePusher]

233. I'm leaning towards "counter-credible" myself... ;>) n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

234. You'd better check...

..."counter-credible" may be against the Geneva Convention or the Blackwood Convention or maybe even the democratic convention (in Charlotte this year.)

[hack89]

239. She may not have seen your post - she has me on ignore

and I think that blocks the entire sub-thread for her.

[PavePusher]

242. Her loss. n/t

[SteveW]

267. HA! BTW, why is this OP not in Guns Group? It's been here 4 days. nt

[PavePusher]

272. I'm assuming it has something to do with who posted it.

Some pigs being more equal and all. Maybe.

[SteveW]

274. Watch out! You'll get alerted! And hidden!!...

I posted in 'meta' just now that I won't be alerting anymore on gun-controller/prohibitionist smears since they evidently have a ticket to ride. I am also contemplating no longer doing jury service (I have never voted to hide anything, what good am I?).

[gratuitous]

96. No freakin' way!

Last time I was in a hospital, some guy in a mask came at me with a knife while his buddy tried to drug me! If I hadn't had my trusty shootin' arn, there's no telling what would have happened!

[Taverner]

102. How would that do any good?

Seriously- are we experiencing an uptick of hospital gun violence?

[hack89]

109. A meaningless, feel good law without guards and metal detectors to enforce it. nt

[JackRiddler]

135. From your comments, I feel as if you'd be for it once the funds are allocated.

If it expands police powers generally over everyone, then it's a good way to spend the revenues, right?

[hack89]

138. No - I don't support such laws. nt

[yurbud]

122. It should be illegal in hospitals, but legal in insurance companies

[Sancho]

124. YES!!!!

the gun nuts in Florida are unbelievable!

[Dragonbreathp9d]

126. I would have to disagree- people need to be armed in hospitals

When the zombie apocalypse happens they're gonna have to shoot their way out! Seriously! Hospitals will have more of the infected right off the bat then anywhere else (besides the republican debates).

[JackRiddler]

134. I missed your post and apologize for No. 133.

[tpsbmam]

130. Having worked in a few hospitals, incl. inner-city Chicago, I vote an unequivocal YES! nt

[JackRiddler]

131. No way. Hospitals are the best place for a shooting.

The doctors are right there to treat the wounded and everything.

[CTyankee]

301. Yep, the real "fixer uppers!" What could be better?

[JackRiddler]

133. Do the zombie outbreaks ever start anywhere else?

Hospitals are the likeliest place you'll need to defend yourself against zombies.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

137. Ha! Great minds think alike

[Angry Dragon]

164. kick

[burrowowl]

173. HELL YES!

The damn things have also created havoc!

When I was living in Paris a friend of mind was an emergency nurse at the hospital where Diana was taken. We usually walked our dogs at the same time in the evening. She arrived late and told me: "Would you believe it? We had 2 people with gunshot wounds, we had to call the Military doctors to treat them!". I said come to New Mexico for an Internship at UNM Hospital and every night you will have to treat gunshot wounds". There is a sign at the Emergency Room at the UNM Hospital: NO GUNS ALLOWED>

[BigDemVoter]

175. Ban them in hospitals? Hell Yes.

I work in a hospital & see how irate & upset people get. Certainly no place for loaded weapons.

[Renew Deal]

184. Hospitals seem like a perfectly reasonable place to carry guns

Because anyone that it's used against will need a hospital. Brilliant!

[minavasht]

201. Of course

a sign on the door will magically stop all bad people from committing any cries inside.

Never mind all those victims of abuse that just happen to frequent those hospitals, their husbands will see the sign and will just turn away, right?

This "safety zones" have been working so great in the schools, after their enactment the school shootings have all but disappeared.

I don't know on kind of prescription medicine she is, but she shod lay off it a little.

[JDPriestly]

220. If guns are not permitted, hospital authorities can take them away from people at the doors.

This is a common practice in courts.

[ellisonz]

208. Because this thread is still going...

By Jim Morin, Miami Herald, January 19, 2012

[Lasher]

230. OK, I'll play.

[ellisonz]

235. This is the funny thing about anti-gun control propaganda...

...it doesn't make any fucking sense. All those figures distributed arms on a massive fucking scale.

I think I'll stick to the editorial cartoonist of the Miami Herald on this topic thank you very much.

[Lasher]

236. I think the gun control propaganda makes less sense.

I thought we were going to have fun with toons. Are you out of ammunition? (pun intended)



Edit: Sorry I did not initially address your complaint, but those figures (Stalin, Hitler, et. al) distributed arms on a massive scale to their own military and police, while confiscating firearms owned by individuals. It is the gun rights of individuals that is the topic of this debate, not the arming of our military.

[ellisonz]

237. Not really the forum to do it...

...I posted a timely cartoon from a major Florida newspaper. You're posting crap.

[Lasher]

238. No, you posted crap from a major Florida newspaper.

It is fallacious to characterize the NRA as an enemy of law enforcement.

[ellisonz]

240. Take it up with the Miami Herald...

[Lasher]

241. Cop out.

[fascisthunter]

255. YUP! NAILED!

[TheCruces]

216. No--if somebody is legally able to carry a gun why shouldn't that extend to hospitals

I fail to see how being in a hospital is somehow going to make somebody carrying a gun more likely to use it in an illegal manner.

[JDPriestly]

218. Temporary insanity caused by depression at the loss or illness of a loved one

can result in desperate words and acts.

Some years ago, several hospital workers were shot in their workplace here in Southern California. It was a particularly tragic loss because the people who were killed were working to help others. It was an uncalled for slaughter in the middle of a hospital.

It does happen. Here are a few fairly recent examples:

http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/150498/two-workers-injured-in-shooting-at-bronx-hospital

http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Danbury-Hospital-shooting-suspect-wounded-in-387763.php

http://news.yahoo.com/police-man-kills-2-ga-hospital-shooting-013628455.html

[TheCruces]

252. Temporary insanity can happen anywhere

Also, I see nothing to indicate these people were legally allowed to carry a gun in any of those articles in the first place. In the second article, the Danbury man definitely did not have a permit to carry a gun.

I think if somebody is otherwise allowed to carry, then they should be allowed to carry in a hospital. Where I live anybody can carry openly (except in government buildings, schools and places that sell liquor), but I very rarely see anybody do it.

[JDPriestly]

271. At the very least, hospitals and courts should be gun-free.

Those are places of great emotional turmoil.

[TheCruces]

273. Courts are gun-free here

I would think for the hospitals here, it's up to the hospital. Personally, I don't care much one way or the other. Guns are also banned on city buses.

Personally, I think it's really obnoxious when people open carry, which I rarely see. I enjoy shooting, but don't own any guns of my own. The only time I ever carry is when we're hiking on the border or going target shooting. Or if I'm driving my roommate's truck, he'll usually have his 9mm next to the driver's seat. Guns just aren't a big deal here. They just are.

[JDPriestly]

217. Yes.

[Herlong]

221. I know right.

n/t

[bowens43]

254. yes as well as just about everywhere else....

[fascisthunter]

256. Um... YES!

[Politicub]

257. Yes, absolutely and without question

There's no good reason to have a gun in a hospital.

[PavePusher]

260. Because they all have perfect security and no-one will ever need to defend themselves in one? n/t

[Politicub]

261. Nothing is perfect in an imperfect world

I don't share your seemingly Mad Max view of things, so I don't see the need for a gun as an added layer of personal security in a hospital.

[PavePusher]

263. "<My> Mad Max view of things"? Where do you get that bit of hyperbole from?

And your personal view of "need" has little to do with others' realities.

[Humanist_Activist]

262. I don't understand, the hospitals aren't allowed to forbid firearms?

In Missouri, when the legislature passed a CCW law(after it failed in referendum) signs were posted all over the place saying "No firearms permitted", this included not just government buildings, but gas stations, hospitals, banks, grocery stores, department stores, etc.

Pertinent section of Missouri Law:

571.107. 1. A concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 or a concealed carry endorsement or permit issued by another state or political subdivision of another state shall authorize the person in whose name the permit or endorsement is issued to carry concealed firearms on or about his or her person or vehicle throughout the state. No driver's license or nondriver's license containing a concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 or a concealed carry endorsement or permit issued by another state or political subdivision of another state shall authorize any person to carry concealed firearms into:

(1) Any police, sheriff, or highway patrol office or station without the consent of the chief law enforcement officer in charge of that office or station. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of the office or station shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;

(2) Within twenty-five feet of any polling place on any election day. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of the polling place shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;

(3) The facility of any adult or juvenile detention or correctional institution, prison or jail. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of any adult, juvenile detention, or correctional institution, prison or jail shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;

(4) Any courthouse solely occupied by the circuit, appellate or supreme court, or any courtrooms, administrative offices, libraries or other rooms of any such court whether or not such court solely occupies the building in question. This subdivision shall also include, but not be limited to, any juvenile, family, drug, or other court offices, any room or office wherein any of the courts or offices listed in this subdivision are temporarily conducting any business within the jurisdiction of such courts or offices, and such other locations in such manner as may be specified by supreme court rule pursuant to subdivision (6) of this subsection. Nothing in this subdivision shall preclude those persons listed in subdivision (1) of subsection 2 of section 571.030 while within their jurisdiction and on duty, those persons listed in subdivisions (2), (4), and (10) of subsection 2 of section 571.030, or such other persons who serve in a law enforcement capacity for a court as may be specified by supreme court rule pursuant to subdivision (6) of this subsection from carrying a concealed firearm within any of the areas described in this subdivision. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of any of the areas listed in this subdivision shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;

(5) Any meeting of the governing body of a unit of local government; or any meeting of the general assembly or a committee of the general assembly, except that nothing in this subdivision shall preclude a member of the body holding a valid concealed carry endorsement from carrying a concealed firearm at a meeting of the body which he or she is a member. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises. Nothing in this subdivision shall preclude a member of the general assembly, a full-time employee of the general assembly employed under section 17, article III, Constitution of Missouri, legislative employees of the general assembly as determined under section 21.155, or statewide elected officials and their employees, holding a valid concealed carry endorsement, from carrying a concealed firearm in the state capitol building or at a meeting whether of the full body of a house of the general assembly or a committee thereof, that is held in the state capitol building;

(6) The general assembly, supreme court, county or municipality may by rule, administrative regulation, or ordinance prohibit or limit the carrying of concealed firearms by endorsement holders in that portion of a building owned, leased or controlled by that unit of government. Any portion of a building in which the carrying of concealed firearms is prohibited or limited shall be clearly identified by signs posted at the entrance to the restricted area. The statute, rule or ordinance shall exempt any building used for public housing by private persons, highways or rest areas, firing ranges, and private dwellings owned, leased, or controlled by that unit of government from any restriction on the carrying or possession of a firearm. The statute, rule or ordinance shall not specify any criminal penalty for its violation but may specify that persons violating the statute, rule or ordinance may be denied entrance to the building, ordered to leave the building and if employees of the unit of government, be subjected to disciplinary measures for violation of the provisions of the statute, rule or ordinance. The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to any other unit of government;

(7) Any establishment licensed to dispense intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises, which portion is primarily devoted to that purpose, without the consent of the owner or manager. The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to the licensee of said establishment. The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to any bona fide restaurant open to the general public having dining facilities for not less than fifty persons and that receives at least fifty-one percent of its gross annual income from the dining facilities by the sale of food. This subdivision does not prohibit the possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of the establishment and shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises. Nothing in this subdivision authorizes any individual who has been issued a concealed carry endorsement to possess any firearm while intoxicated;

(8) Any area of an airport to which access is controlled by the inspection of persons and property. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of the airport shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;

(9) Any place where the carrying of a firearm is prohibited by federal law;

(10) Any higher education institution or elementary or secondary school facility without the consent of the governing body of the higher education institution or a school official or the district school board. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of any higher education institution or elementary or secondary school facility shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;

(11) Any portion of a building used as a child care facility without the consent of the manager. Nothing in this subdivision shall prevent the operator of a child care facility in a family home from owning or possessing a firearm or a driver's license or nondriver's license containing a concealed carry endorsement;

(12) Any riverboat gambling operation accessible by the public without the consent of the owner or manager pursuant to rules promulgated by the gaming commission. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of a riverboat gambling operation shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;

(13) Any gated area of an amusement park. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of the amusement park shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;

(14) Any church or other place of religious worship without the consent of the minister or person or persons representing the religious organization that exercises control over the place of religious worship. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;

(15) Any private property whose owner has posted the premises as being off-limits to concealed firearms by means of one or more signs displayed in a conspicuous place of a minimum size of eleven inches by fourteen inches with the writing thereon in letters of not less than one inch. The owner, business or commercial lessee, manager of a private business enterprise, or any other organization, entity, or person may prohibit persons holding a concealed carry endorsement from carrying concealed firearms on the premises and may prohibit employees, not authorized by the employer, holding a concealed carry endorsement from carrying concealed firearms on the property of the employer. If the building or the premises are open to the public, the employer of the business enterprise shall post signs on or about the premises if carrying a concealed firearm is prohibited. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises. An employer may prohibit employees or other persons holding a concealed carry endorsement from carrying a concealed firearm in vehicles owned by the employer;

(16) Any sports arena or stadium with a seating capacity of five thousand or more. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;

(17) Any hospital accessible by the public. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of a hospital shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises.

2. Carrying of a concealed firearm in a location specified in subdivisions (1) to (17) of subsection 1 of this section by any individual who holds a concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 shall not be a criminal act but may subject the person to denial to the premises or removal from the premises. If such person refuses to leave the premises and a peace officer is summoned, such person may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars for the first offense. If a second citation for a similar violation occurs within a six-month period, such person shall be fined an amount not to exceed two hundred dollars and his or her endorsement to carry concealed firearms shall be suspended for a period of one year. If a third citation for a similar violation is issued within one year of the first citation, such person shall be fined an amount not to exceed five hundred dollars and shall have his or her concealed carry endorsement revoked and such person shall not be eligible for a concealed carry endorsement for a period of three years. Upon conviction of charges arising from a citation issued pursuant to this subsection, the court shall notify the sheriff of the county which issued the certificate of qualification for a concealed carry endorsement and the department of revenue. The sheriff shall suspend or revoke the certificate of qualification for a concealed carry endorsement and the department of revenue shall issue a notice of such suspension or revocation of the concealed carry endorsement and take action to remove the concealed carry endorsement from the individual's driving record. The director of revenue shall notify the licensee that he or she must apply for a new license pursuant to chapter 302 which does not contain such endorsement. A concealed carry endorsement suspension pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 shall be reinstated at the time of the renewal of his or her driver's license. The notice issued by the department of revenue shall be mailed to the last known address shown on the individual's driving record. The notice is deemed received three days after mailing.

[X_Digger]

270. Right now, hospitals can, if they choose (some do, some don't.)

Bliss-ninnies want to take the choice away from hospital administrators.

[underpants]

268. Yes

next question

[Mosaic]

269. A simple answer to a dumb question

[supernova]

276. Yes.

Shouldn't even be a question. But this is Florida we are talking about.

And yes, I live in gun country. Guns are tools,nothing more nothing less. And a good tool is one that is right for the situation. A hospital is not the right situation.

[full auto guns]

277. guns in hospital

I agree that guns should be kept out of hospitals due to the fact that too many people could take advantage of robbing the ER of medication and or hurting a person in the process of care.


<a href="http://lrarmory.com"> buy a silencer </a>

[w4rma]

284. This "ban" would only work against folks who follow the law

If someone wants to sneak a gun into a hospital, it would be very easy despite any ban.

[CTyankee]

300. Of course! And what better place to have a gun incident but in a place that handles such things

all the time! State of the art emergency health care, especially in inner city hospitals where they know about such nasty things!

Silly liberals. Pshaw!

[Zoeisright]

290. Of course.

Shouldn't even be a question.

[Found in Yonkers]

293. DR

When I moved here, I was mortified to learn this.