Texas open carry at psychiatric hospitals...

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
But you said the "good guy with a gun mentality" was disproven by data but the data you cited doesn't really offer any insight into that conclusion...

The data shows that a minority of active shooter situations are stopped by civilians, and of those an even tinier minority are done so by civilians with guns. Pushing concealed carry as a way to prevent active shooter situations aka the "good guy with a gun" mentality is bad policy.

I don't necessarily have a problem with concealed carry, but the whole "good guy with a gun" thing, as a means of curbing gun crime is not realistic.

Members don't see this ad.
 
The data shows that a minority of active shooter situations are stopped by civilians, and of those an even tinier minority are done so by civilians with guns. Pushing concealed carry as a way to prevent active shooter situations aka the "good guy with a gun" mentality is bad policy.

I don't necessarily have a problem with concealed carry, but the whole "good guy with a gun" thing, as a means of curbing gun crime is not realistic.

I could just as easily say that the number of active shooter situations stopped by armed non-LEOs would be increased by relaxing concealed carry laws and encouraging carrying by the general population, ergo public policy should be focused on liberalizing gun laws and encouraging concealed carry by as many citizens as possible. Neither conclusion is valid because the data doesn't support either. At the end of the day you're simply demonstrating confirmation bias by interpreting a pretty simple observation to mean much more than what it actually does. It certainly shouldn't form the basis of any public policy.

Which is pretty ironic given the fact that you not-so-cleverly implied that anyone who disagrees with your conclusion is ignoring the "data."
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I could just as easily say that the number of active shooter situations stopped by armed non-LEOs would be increased by relaxing concealed carry laws and encouraging carrying by the general population, ergo public policy should be focused on liberalizing gun laws and encouraging concealed carry by as many citizens as possible. Neither conclusion is valid because the data doesn't support either. At the end of the day you're simply demonstrating confirmation bias by interpreting a pretty simple observation to mean much more than what it actually does. It certainly shouldn't form the basis of any public policy.

Which is pretty ironic given the fact that you not-so-cleverly implied that anyone who disagrees with your conclusion is ignoring the "data."

I typed a reply and then deleted it. There's no point in getting into this with you as you're already showing you're just looking for an argument with all your "not-so-clever" flame bait.
 
The data shows that a minority of active shooter situations are stopped by civilians, and of those an even tinier minority are done so by civilians with guns. Pushing concealed carry as a way to prevent active shooter situations aka the "good guy with a gun" mentality is bad policy.

I don't necessarily have a problem with concealed carry, but the whole "good guy with a gun" thing, as a means of curbing gun crime is not realistic.
I know you're done with this thread, but I think you're right that there isn't data to actively support encouraging CC for the primary purpose of stopping active / mass shooter situations.

Especially when those situations tend to happen in "gun free" zones and are, in total population numbers, rather rare. (In a very very generous estimate, 100 / 300M people per year.) A sufficiently powered study to support use of concealed handguns to stop mass shootings would require a very sizable population to achieve sufficient power, and the "number needed to treat," were a study to be positive, would be enormous.
 
I typed a reply and then deleted it. There's no point in getting into this with you as you're already showing you're just looking for an argument with all your "not-so-clever" flame bait.

It's not flame bait. I'm just trying to understand your argument. You said that there's "data" to support X, then later said that not supporting X suggests that you ignore this "data," you then post this "data" which has nothing to do with supporting or refuting X, then QED out of the conversation. I'd actually be interested in this "data" that you have. I have to assume that what you posted isn't it since it has nothing to do with this:

Pushing concealed carry as a way to prevent active shooter situations aka the "good guy with a gun" mentality is bad policy.

I agree with you that pushing concealed carry strictly as a means of stopping extremely rare events is pointless. I personally don't support gun rights predicated on that rationale. But you were the one threw out that some "data" exists, and I just want to see what it is you're referring to.
 
Last edited:
The reason to support carry rights being legalized isn't as a mass shooter response. It mah help or may not but that's not the point. Carry rights should be legalized because people have a natural right to choose effective means to defend themselves.
 
Carry rights should be legalized because people have a natural right to choose effective means to defend themselves.
Like grenades? Public safety must also be taken into account.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Like grenades? Public safety must also be taken into account.
I know you're trying to be silly, but I'm no more risk to you with a grenade than a gun. Me with a grenade is not a publuc safety issue. A better argument against grenades would be they are no good for close quarters self defense.
 
I know you're trying to be silly, but I'm no more risk to you with a grenade than a gun. Me with a grenade is not a publuc safety issue. A better argument against grenades would be they are no good for close quarters self defense.
But that weakens the natural rights issue, as well as the reason that's always picked on by types who get to exploit the social value of being "pro government" when you point out that the other reason is for protection against government.

The most ironic part is that gun control laws started as a way to get guns out of the hands of the Black community. And now we've come full circle where we finally have video evidence that Black people are still more likely to be unjustly killed by cops. Yet those same people who will lambast you for wanting protection from government think that cops should be the only people with guns. We call it "if only the right person" fallacy of government. "Yes this person is horrible, but only if we could get the right people, everything would be amazing."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
But that weakens the natural rights issue, as well as the reason that's always picked on by types who get to exploit the social value of being "pro government" when you point out that the other reason is for protection against government.

The most ironic part is that gun control laws started as a way to get guns out of the hands of the Black community. And now we've come full circle where we finally have video evidence that Black people are still more likely to be unjustly killed by cops. Yet those same people who will lambast you for wanting protection from government think that cops should be the only people with guns. We call it "if only the right person" fallacy of government. "Yes this person is horrible, but only if we could get the right people, everything would be amazing."
I'm not arguing against grenades, I'm saying what would be a better argument should someone want to make it. I fully believe the 2nd ammendment is just as much about government as it is criminals so I'm all for dramatically expanded weapon rights for private citizens.
 
In the posts above, no one has mentioned whether there is any research, or whether anybody has any professional opinions/experience dealing with the psychological effect of in-hospital open carry on psychiatric patients. For example, whether reasonable or not, many people are 'freaked out' by guns or feel unsafe in the presence of guns. Might open carry be a problem for, say, some paranoid patients? Or, and I'm not sure how to express this, if the 'normalization' of gun possession represented by open carry suggests that 'guns are the answer,' might this increase the risk of post-discharge suicide for people who are depressed or otherwise at increased risk of suicide?

Those may be speculative issues, and I suppose one could argue there sometimes could be therapeutic benefits to having guns in psychiatric hospitals (i.e., some patients may feel more secure with guns around), but there is a deeper issue: who makes the decision about whether the mere presence of guns represents a health risk to a patient? Does the Texas open carry law allow physicians who believe their patients would be harmed by the presence of guns to shield their patients from exposure to guns?

I understand this is about open carry in psychiatric hospitals and not about gun rights/control in general, and I really do not want and won't participate in an argument about those general issues. My question concerns only the effect of open carry on patients.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
The most ironic part is that gun control laws started as a way to get guns out of the hands of the Black community.

As a minority, I feel like I'd be signing my own death certificate if I ever tried to open carry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
In California then-governor Reagan passed the Mulford Act making it illegal to open-carry. It was in direct response to Black Panthers carrying loaded guns to "protect" themselves from the police during a protest. The NRA even backed it.

If a law is passed it has to affect everyone regardless of race. It's called the 14th Amendment.

Open carry does work in some environments, but IMHO these are very few. IMHO it could also work in more environments if say everyone had to do military service but that is not the case.

On an inpatient unit? Heck no.

So let's just avoid going any further then. I don't say that in a mean spirited way; there is just no point. I like guns and you don't. So because of that I have guns and it probably means you don't(or just have a couple at most). And that's ok on both our parts.

Disagree with Vistaril but I'll give kudos for an agreeing to disagree comment.
Just for the record I'm not a left-wing anti-gun person. One of my good friends has over $500K worth of weapons in his basement and I think he's fine with them, but that's because his house is a fortress and he's a responsible guy.

Schizophrenic involuntarily commited on an inpatient unit? Heck no.
 
Last edited:
In the posts above, no one has mentioned whether there is any research, or whether anybody has any professional opinions/experience dealing with the psychological effect of in-hospital open carry on psychiatric patients.
That's likely because there has been more common sense on this issue until now.

Does anyone know of inpatient units in which firearms are allowed?

It seems a no-brainer to me. It just seems asinine having firearms on a unit in which individuals have active suicidal intent, active homicidal intent, or are suffering mental illness with symptoms of paranoia and persecution. There is also a huge liability issue in holding patients on a unit against their will for their "safety" then potentially increasing their risk of harm.

It's a no go for me. I haven't even worked on units where law enforcement officers were allowed to carry firearms, let alone John Q. Public.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Of course.

Aren't they also getting government out of the way by increasing the allowable BAC of carnival ride operators?

If the UK police don't need guns, no one in a psychiatric hospital needs one.
 
Of course.

Aren't they also getting government out of the way by increasing the allowable BAC of carnival ride operators?

If the UK police don't need guns, no one in a psychiatric hospital needs one.
I would argue the UK police do in fact needs guns but I don't find that relevant to a psyh wing of a hospital
 
This is where it gets interesting. I see no LEGAL reason why patients on an inpatient unit should not be afforded the right to defend themselves while hospitalized. (I see many practical and medical reasons).

If a patient maintains his/her other legal rights while on unit (which has been confirmed by the courts), and all other visitors also maintain their legal rights, then why aren't inpatients allowed to carry weapons?

We all know that visitors attempt to sneak contraband (drugs, cigarettes, alcohol) onto units. What if one of these visitors brings a gun (legally) and gives to a patient to defend themselves from the other patients on the unit (who, as we know, may be violent). Patients have been sexually and physically assaulted while hospitalized, and deserve a right to defend themselves.

Even if you filter out suicidal patients and come up with a legit reason for them to not be allowed weapons, not every patient on a unit is actively suicidal. These include decompensated schizophrenics, patients starting ECT treatment who may not be actively suicidal, patients with romantic delusions that have no history of violence.

Why aren't these patients allowed to have weapons to defend themselves from the very real threat of assault or rape by other patients?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I would argue the UK police do in fact needs guns but I don't find that relevant to a psyh wing of a hospital

In the UK we have policing by consent - the notion that the force owes its primary duty to the public, rather than to the state. The whole context in the UK is very different. The culture is different. We are fine as we are thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
This is where it gets interesting. I see no LEGAL reason why patients on an inpatient unit should not be afforded the right to defend themselves while hospitalized. (I see many practical and medical reasons).

If a patient maintains his/her other legal rights while on unit (which has been confirmed by the courts), and all other visitors also maintain their legal rights, then why aren't inpatients allowed to carry weapons?
When you are on a psychiatric hold, you involuntarily give up certain rights. One of these rights is access to firearms. Or knifes or even belts or shoelaces on some units.

Ask yourself the same questions you posted in your post, but substitute "on an inpatient unit" with "in a prison." Is there any LEGAL reason why prisons shoudln't be afforded the right to defend themselves while incarcerated? Prison is more dangerous than a psych hospital. And like patients on involuntary holds, they give up certain rights, but not all rights. Why not firearms?

It's a safety thing. In short, that's why.
 
I would argue the UK police do in fact needs guns but I don't find that relevant to a psyh wing of a hospital
Americans recommending changes to British gun laws is a little like the fat guy on the barstool giving constructive criticism to the Olympiad on the TV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I know you're trying to be silly, but I'm no more risk to you with a grenade than a gun. Me with a grenade is not a publuc safety issue. A better argument against grenades would be they are no good for close quarters self defense.
You said people should be free to choose their method for defending themselves. Some may see bombs and grenades as effective and want them. Maybe you're special and safe with a grenade, but I certainly wouldn't believe that grenades being legal wouldn't lead to more deaths. They're illegal because they're too dangerous to the public.

There's some line as to what poses too much risk, so phrasing this as just a right to defend yourself ignores that you too draw a line somewhere. We just disagree as to where that line is despite seeing the same stats on gun deaths.
 
This is where it gets interesting. I see no LEGAL reason why patients on an inpatient unit should not be afforded the right to defend themselves while hospitalized. (I see many practical and medical reasons).

If a patient maintains his/her other legal rights while on unit (which has been confirmed by the courts), and all other visitors also maintain their legal rights, then why aren't inpatients allowed to carry weapons?

As notdeadyet mentions patients do not get to keep all of their legal rights while in an inpatient unit. I can get up and leave any building I choose (unless I am charged with a crime and held), psychiatric inpatients cannot. I can crack open a beer and drink it, or chain smoke a pack of cigarettes. Psychiatric inpatients can't. If it comes to it a psychiatric inpatient can even be physically restrained and medicated against their will due to an imminent threat (pro gun people, please give that a try when they are packing heat!), which would be battery otherwise. It is disingenuous to suggest that patients do not lose any of their legal rights, and as notdeadyet mentions this is done for safety's sake.

A question for the pro-gun people: if your close family member needed an inpatient stay would you prefer that they go to a unit where anyone can carry guns or one that is gun-free?

I should point out that I do see the logic in people wanting to carry a weapon for protection in some contexts (even though I disagree with it in most instances). I have owned and been trained in the use of multiple guns myself, though I never deluded myself into thinking I had them for self-protection. However, there is a big difference in a delivery guy carrying a pistol in a bad part of town and in a fragile 67 year old attending carrying a pistol on a locked inpatient unit where a homicidally psychotic individual could easily wrest it from them and do whatever they would like with a captive audience of patients and staff.

It is also worth noting that a situation where having a gun lets you stop an active mass shooter would be exceedingly rare. Common sense suggests it is much more likely that increased access to guns will lead to increased impulsive use of them during arguments, periods of intoxication, misidentification of family members or friends as home intruders, road rages, domestic disputes, etc.
 
I agree with you 100% on the safety issue, guns on an inpatient unit are dangerous.
I'm talking about the legal issue.

Prisoners lose most legal rights while incarcerated due to judicial action. They are not sent to prison until they have been legally arrested and brought before the court. Not everyone in a hospital is confined there, not everyone is involuntarily committed, nor have they been before a judge. You can't compare hospital patients with prisoners (unless it is a forensic hospital, which is a different story).

A more apt comparison would be comparing a hospital with a shopping mall. If people can have guns in a mall, why not a hospital?

What about patients with psychiatric diagnosis that are sitting on medical units? Do they get to keep their guns because they're not on a locked floor?

The Right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected. The right to personal safety is not.

Again, I agree 100% with your premise that guns in hospitals are a dumb idea. I'm just not sure that the law agrees with that.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
The reason to support carry rights being legalized isn't as a mass shooter response. It mah help or may not but that's not the point. Carry rights should be legalized because people have a natural right to choose effective means to defend themselves.
Agreed, though it is difficult for (some) people not to conflate carry rights w. gun violence. Anti-gun people often just throw everything into the, "Gun R Bad" bucket and don't bother differentiating the multitude of issues surrounding gun use in our society. That said, some of the fringe pro-gun people get stuck on the idea that every single issue/comment/proposal related to guns is a secret plot to disarm citizens and weaken our personal liberties.

Carry rights are one issue. Gun violence is another (which also includes gang/drug related deaths, suicide by gun, accidental shootings, etc). Mental health treatment is another. These all get thrown together because most people don't bother to differentiate and the MSM just cares about ratings so whatever sells. The biggest lie being perpetuated (mostly by the MSM) is that people with diagnosed mental illness are one gun away from a mass shooting. The data are pretty convincing that the vast majority of people diagnosed with a mental illness who are involved with a fire arm incident are greatest at risk to themselves and not the local movie theater or school.

As for carrying in a psychiatric facility/hospital…I like the jail analogy and giving up certain rights in the setting. LEOs shouldn't care in those settings either.
 
Last edited:
Americans recommending changes to British gun laws is a little like the fat guy on the barstool giving constructive criticism to the Olympiad on the TV.

that's not remotely an accurate statement, the UK is not objectively superior in this context. I'm fine with saying, none of my business as an American what british police do......in which case a brit saying what should happen in American hospitals is also none of their business.
 
I agree with you 100% on the safety issue, guns on an inpatient unit are dangerous.
I'm talking about the legal issue.

Prisoners lose most legal rights while incarcerated due to judicial action. They are not sent to prison until they have been legally arrested and brought before the court. Not everyone in a hospital is confined there, not everyone is involuntarily committed, nor have they been before a judge. You can't compare hospital patients with prisoners (unless it is a forensic hospital, which is a different story).

A more apt comparison would be comparing a hospital with a shopping mall. If people can have guns in a mall, why not a hospital?

What about patients with psychiatric diagnosis that are sitting on medical units? Do they get to keep their guns because they're not on a locked floor?

The Right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected. The right to personal safety is not.

Again, I agree 100% with your premise that guns in hospitals are a dumb idea. I'm just not sure that the law agrees with that.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Damn that due process! How dare it get in the way!
 
As notdeadyet mentions patients do not get to keep all of their legal rights while in an inpatient unit. I can get up and leave any building I choose (unless I am charged with a crime and held), psychiatric inpatients cannot. I can crack open a beer and drink it, or chain smoke a pack of cigarettes. Psychiatric inpatients can't. If it comes to it a psychiatric inpatient can even be physically restrained and medicated against their will due to an imminent threat (pro gun people, please give that a try when they are packing heat!), which would be battery otherwise. It is disingenuous to suggest that patients do not lose any of their legal rights, and as notdeadyet mentions this is done for safety's sake.

A question for the pro-gun people: if your close family member needed an inpatient stay would you prefer that they go to a unit where anyone can carry guns or one that is gun-free?

I should point out that I do see the logic in people wanting to carry a weapon for protection in some contexts (even though I disagree with it in most instances). I have owned and been trained in the use of multiple guns myself, though I never deluded myself into thinking I had them for self-protection. However, there is a big difference in a delivery guy carrying a pistol in a bad part of town and in a fragile 67 year old attending carrying a pistol on a locked inpatient unit where a homicidally psychotic individual could easily wrest it from them and do whatever they would like with a captive audience of patients and staff.

It is also worth noting that a situation where having a gun lets you stop an active mass shooter would be exceedingly rare. Common sense suggests it is much more likely that increased access to guns will lead to increased impulsive use of them during arguments, periods of intoxication, misidentification of family members or friends as home intruders, road rages, domestic disputes, etc.

I think allowing hospitalized patients access to firearms (psychiatric or otherwise) is ridiculous. I have no problem not allowing people to carry their firearms into the hospital (patients and staff included). This is doubly true in a psychiatric setting.

A few months ago there was a patient in our psych ED who came in but refused to be searched prior to coming into the ED. The staff accepted that and the patient later stabbed another patient using a small knife they had brought into the unit with them. Events like that cause me to be quite hesitant about allowing folks that are acutely ill to bring in anything that could be used as a weapon, much less a firearm. The last thing we need is the psychotic/aggressive guy high on K2 carrying a firearm into the ED.
 
that's not remotely an accurate statement, the UK is not objectively superior in this context.
Look at the number of that British cops compared to the number of dead American cops.

Look at the number of people shot by British cops compared to the number of Americans killed by British cops.

That's about as objective as you're going to get.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
So the same patients who can't have belts or shoelaces can carry machine guns now?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Look at the number of that British cops compared to the number of dead American cops.

Look at the number of people shot by British cops compared to the number of Americans killed by British cops.

That's about as objective as you're going to get.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If they were both policing a disarmed populace that might mean something
 
If they were both policing a disarmed populace that might mean something
Correct.

Which is why we are the fat drunk to their Olympian in the metaphor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Or free men to their subservient sheep....but we can agree to disagree

If being a subservient sheep means kids don't get gunned down in schools I think I can live with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Forget guns. Rush out to buy your own flamethrower while there are still zero laws regulating the purchase, ownership, and carrying of said device. Let's see how far an active shooter gets after he's completely engulfed in blazing hellfire!
 
Or free men to their subservient sheep....but we can agree to disagree
I think America is about the only country I've been where people think there's something unique about their freedom. Many countries manage to be just as free with a basic sensibility with things that are frequently used to kill.

Even our own founding fathers talked about the right to own and bear arms being in support of "a well regulated Militia."

Our founding fathers would not recognize what passes for a militia nowadays (move over National Guard, we've got the Bundy's!). And they'd sure be surprised that folks keep tossing around the 2nd Amendment while leaving out the "well regulated" part.

The law up to and including the Supreme Court for most of our country's history supported well-regulated firearms. The swing to the crazy side came along with the rise in lobbying power with the NRA in recent years. This isn't a rich part of our country's history. It's a recent affectation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Prisoners lose most legal rights while incarcerated due to judicial action. They are not sent to prison until they have been legally arrested and brought before the court. Not everyone in a hospital is confined there, not everyone is involuntarily committed, nor have they been before a judge. You can't compare hospital patients with prisoners (unless it is a forensic hospital, which is a different story).

A more apt comparison would be comparing a hospital with a shopping mall. If people can have guns in a mall, why not a hospital?

What about patients with psychiatric diagnosis that are sitting on medical units? Do they get to keep their guns because they're not on a locked floor?

The Right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected.
People in custody also lose their rights, sometimes for months, if they can't make bail. That's before they've been "found" guilty.

Most hospitals are private institutions. Private institutions may set whatever rules they want. Your argument is interesting in the context of publicly owned institutions (VA, state hospitals, some university hospitals.) I'd imagine the same legal principles apply as they do in the court and other government buildings -- the government gets to decide when to follow its own rules. I'm sure there are lawyers who have made up fancy Latin phrases that amount to "because we say so," in these instances.

Edit: Regarding the second amendment, this dude would have had a good chance of knowing the founding fathers (from wikipedia.):
In 1792, Tench Coxe made the following point in a commentary on the Second Amendment:[121]

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think America is about the only country I've been where people think there's something unique about their freedom. Many countries manage to be just as free with a basic sensibility with things that are frequently used to kill.

Even our own founding fathers talked about the right to own and bear arms being in support of "a well regulated Militia."

Our founding fathers would not recognize what passes for a militia nowadays (move over National Guard, we've got the Bundy's!). And they'd sure be surprised that folks keep tossing around the 2nd Amendment while leaving out the "well regulated" part.

The law up to and including the Supreme Court for most of our country's history supported well-regulated firearms. The swing to the crazy side came along with the rise in lobbying power with the NRA in recent years. This isn't a rich part of our country's history. It's a recent affectation.
You'll need to hop over to sociopolitical issues and join us there if you want to have te discussion about the consititionality of personal ownership. I'm too busy to recreate it here
 
Then you may continue to be subservient

You have totally missed the point about policing by consent. The police in the UK owe thier first duty to the public not the state. This is a critical difference in the relationship between the public and the police.

The UK is a democratic country if people wanted to have hand guns and wanted the police to be routinely armed that would happen. As it is the public and the police agree they don't want routinely amed police.

Critical infrustructure is gaurded by heavily aremed military police and specialist firearms officers are on call 24/7 when they are called for. Police officers in Northern Island are routinely armed becasue of the history of that pIrovince.

A member of the public can own a shot gun or rifle if they can show a reason why they need one even if its just to take part in a hobby. The only thing you can't have is a hand gun. That is the will of the people.

In free countries thier will always be a balance between freedom from and freedom to. The balance between positive and negative freedoms is a matter for those countries.

The idea that thier is only one right way to organise society and that you have found it is a bit arrogant and frankly a bit silly.
 
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/guns-now-allowed-in-texas-state-run-psychiatric-ho/npztT/

I'm putting this info out for people that may be thinking about starting residency in Texas or are interested in jobs with the DSHS.

Do any of you think that this is a good idea?:

There are a lot of issues surrounding this that most non gun people dont understand. Open carry in a state mental hospital doesnt necessarily mean that you are going to strap on a leather belt with two revolvers in it and stroll into the hospital...but it will prevent concealed carry folks from being harassed or charged for imprinting or transient exposure.

...and certainly being armed and capable of self defense is a wise strategy if you are going to spend time around crazy people.
 
Just my own opinion but some of what I present are facts.

Twenty % of the country thinks the sun revolves around the earth. 50% of people have an IQ below 100. About 5% of the country has a mental illness that is serious (e.g. schizophrenia, bipolar I disorder, MDD-severe). If everyone had a gun, I mean everyone and some people think this is a good thing you will get a lot of people getting hurt and killed due to accidents and just idiots getting out of line and doing something out of anger.

I've always stated this starting about my mid 20s because that's when I first started looking into the issue for real. I think guns in the hands of responsible people is a good thing. Demographics that I believe would support that are higher IQs, higher education levels, people who've been trained (e.g. police, military, people who've taken safety classes), people who keep their guns locked and/or in a safe, home-ownership, and lack of a criminal record.

But in the hands of idiots, drunkards, drug-addicts, crime-ridden areas, it just makes things worse. So many of the adages pushed by the pro-gun agenda are not true at all or only true in specific situations but they try to make it out as if it's true in all. E.g. "An armed society is a police society," South Sudan, Syria, Afghanistan, armed gang-bangers, this is so in our face not true but people still say this line with a straight face. I do think in a neighborhood of law-biding people a gun in each home with responsible owners, yes that saying has some merit.

I'll also whine that a lot of the anti-gun establishment really do want to get rid of guns completely without examining their merits, want laws pass that only hurt law-biding gun owners, and should spend some time with responsible gun-owners before being so anti-gun. There's a reason why gun-ownership is protected by the Second Amendment.

A lot of the debate I see I don't agree with either side and rarely see people trying to move forward that have taken the time to really listen to the other side.

We live in a country where we have plenty of idiots. I don't want an idiot armed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Overall I think that was a great post, but I wonder if the otherwise law-abiding, respectable, etc. people in a crime-ridden area may have more reason than the rest of us to want a gun. After all, the criminals have them whether they're illegal or not (see: Chicago.)

Shh, they'll lock you up for making too much sense.
 
...and certainly being armed and capable of self defense is a wise strategy if you are going to spend time around crazy people.

A great example of a post espousing stigma and stereotypes that aren't born out by data.
 
...and certainly being armed and capable of self defense is a wise strategy if you are going to spend time around crazy people.
A wise strategy right up to the point where the patient takes the gun from my colleague and starts shooting people. That is just one example of why it is a bad idea. How could anyone think it is a good safety strategy to have guns on an inpatient unit? I have worked on several inpatient units in several states and have participated in crisis deescalation and even take-downs of out of control patients. I think that my skills and training as a psychologist and continual safety training and a coordinated team response is probably going to keep me safer than strapping a weapon to my side. In fact, if I was locked up and pissed off, that idiot brandishing the weapon to compensate for their own anxiety would be the first one we would target. Emphasis on the "we" 'cause I always want backup and I am good at getting people on my side. :cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top