personal safety

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

rhiannon777

Full Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
75
Reaction score
0
I am an MS3 seriously considering going into psychiatry. There's one real hesitancy I have, and I'd like to get some opinions/reassurance on the subject from people who have been in this field for a while. Now, I have a background in psychology and I am well aware of the power and prevalence of stigma when it comes to mental illness. I know I'm being a little silly (which is why I'm asking about this on an anonymous message board as opposed to seeking out my attendings). All that said, there's still something in the back of my mind that says psychiatry is a more dangerous field to go into than other medical fields. So, please help me...am I putting myself and my family's safety at risk by going into this field?

Members don't see this ad.
 
I'd say ER doctors are in more danger. I don't have any specific figures to back this up, this is only from personal experience.

Is there a danger? Yes, but there's also a danger of being held up as a bank teller. The danger is not as much as you're likely worrying about. By the time patients are in the inpatient unit, if the institution has any common sense, they won't have any weapons, have been monitored for at least several hours, and there likely is a history on the patient indicating if the person was significantly violent in the past.

You still have to watch yourself, but it's not something worth losing sleep over. It's like putting a seat belt and driving. You could get into an accident, the odds are low.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
You may be asking the wrong bunch.
We're pretty biased in favor of psychiatry.
But in large generalities, psychiatrists are very rarely injured. Most work in outpatient settings and, when someone gets very angry, can leave and/or have pt ejected from the building. Those who work on inpatient settings rarely see pt's in an office without someone else at hand. When a scuffle does break out in an emergency or inpt setting, the psychiatrist is usually directing staff and ordering meds - not touching the patient.

I would bet the risk of getting seriously injured on the drive to/from work is MUCH greater than the risk at work. I would bet the risk is higher for those in other fields (back problems and needle sticks and scalpel cuts and assaults in the ER). Most psychiatrists, inpt and outpt, spend most of their work day in a chair. Time out of a chair is spent getting back to the chair or getting to the next chair.

But, as was mentioned, this topic has been well-covered in other threads.
Does anyone know how we get crime stats on this? Is there an FBI database with public access for such things?
 
I remember reading on here some time back about a psychiatrist who got cut up by an axe from a former patient and one other story of one getting shot I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong. Both were outliers and freak cases, unlikely to be statistically significant.

I like guns though. :) So, I plan on getting a .32 ACP or .380 ACP Seecamp to be my concealed carry gun for out and about (graduation gift to myself). 12 gauge shotgun for the home front.
SEECAMP1.JPG
 
I like guns though. :) So, I plan on getting a .32 ACP or .380 ACP Seecamp to be my concealed carry gun for out and about (graduation gift to myself). 12 gauge shotgun for the home front.

The .380 is a good pocket pistol, but if you can conceal something slightly bigger, I would recommend a 9mm subcompact like the Springfield XD or Glock 26. You would be much more accurate.
 
I do think that psychiatrists are at a higher risk of being assaulted than the average doc. Heck, I've known psychiatrists who have been assaulted by patients.
I think it's important to accept that it is a risk so you don't become complacent. You should do your best to use common sense and stay alert to possible dangerous situations so you don't do things like let a patient get between you and the exit, don't wear clothing that could be turned into a weapon against you on the psych unit, etc.

But yes there are risks with every field. Surgeons and EM docs seem to get the most needlestick injuries. EM docs and Infectious Disease docs are probably at higher risk of getting infected by some new up and coming plague. Cards and IR docs are exposed to higher than average radiation exposure risks. It all comes down to what risks you feel comfortable with.
 
You won't be allowed to carry it in our hospital, but maybe in Texas...

Without the hospital's written permission, you can't take a gun in a hospital here either. So I don't plan on it. However the hospital is not the only place people go.

Movie theatres, grocery stores, restaurants, convenient stores, etc. are fair game. After checking out the website peopleofwalmart.com, you can be sure I'll be carrying there. :) A .380 will certainly do the trick, but aiming a pocket pistol isn't easy. I wouldn't even bother firing it unless the person is almost close enough to punch me - you'd be better off just running away otherwise. On the other hand, I'd feel comfortable firing a subcompact 9mm from 15 yards away - maybe more depending on the setting.
 
Without the hospital's written permission, you can't take a gun in a hospital here either. So I don't plan on it. However the hospital is not the only place people go.

Movie theatres, grocery stores, restaurants, convenient stores, etc. are fair game. After checking out the website peopleofwalmart.com, you can be sure I'll be carrying there. :) A .380 will certainly do the trick, but aiming a pocket pistol isn't easy. I wouldn't even bother firing it unless the person is almost close enough to punch me - you'd be better off just running away otherwise. On the other hand, I'd feel comfortable firing a subcompact 9mm from 15 yards away - maybe more depending on the setting.

I prefer to stare at people really hard until the rainbow emblem on my belly shoots colorful beams and melts the evil in their hearts...
 
I prefer to stare at people really hard until the rainbow emblem on my belly shoots colorful beams and melts the evil in their hearts...
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Yes, the caricature is complete. No denials here.

Tex, Yeah, you are right a 9mm would be caliber with more stopping power. But as you mentioned a 'pocket pistol' is meant for when you are up close and personal, and that is really when I anticipate I would use one. And at that range a .32 or .380 will do just fine. One of the problems I have is the weight and size of 9mm and .45's. I want something that I will carry daily. Small and lightweight is what will keep me carrying. The seecamps are capable of grouping well at 10 yards, too.

But to say being better off without and just running away? That I think is silly. I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of a .32, would you? Case proven. Plus historically it used to be the defacto military/police caliber.

Yes, hospitals are off limits, but as Tex mentioned, that still leaves everywhere else.
 
As an aside, if a psychiatrist were to use a weapon on a patient in self defense (for example, shooting a patient that followed you home and attacked you), my guess is the media would pick up on that. Wouldn't that have a high likelihood of ruining your career?

Serious question.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I could careless about my career if any one, mental illness or not, is attacking me at home. I choose life over employment every time.
 
The .380 is a good pocket pistol, but if you can conceal something slightly bigger, I would recommend a 9mm subcompact like the Springfield XD or Glock 26. You would be much more accurate.

Check out the Kahr PM9, doc. They're pretty cool, and I'm waiting to order one. It'd be good for both back up and off-duty for me. For the regular sheep dog citizen it'd be great pocket carry as well.
 
I could careless about my career if any one, mental illness or not, is attacking me at home. I choose life over employment every time.

Question still stands.
 
I could careless about my career if any one, mental illness or not, is attacking me at home. I choose life over employment every time.

Same here, man.


Back when I took my pre-employment (cop) psychological exam the clinical psychologist told me he carried both a 9mm and a .32 daily. He made reference to the "crazy bastards," as he worded it, and stated that with his career experiences and growing up in Memphis he'd be "crazy" not to carry a handgun for personal protection. The 9mm was in his briefcase, and the .32 was in his pocket. He showed me both. I laughed. I recall thinking maybe he was trying to get some kind of reaction about guns or violence out of me.
 
The only way I could foresee a career being affected is if it were determined in court of law that self defense shooting were not that, but actually malacious in some context. Then, if you were convicted of some crime, that would then be reportable to the BOM. At that point it would be up to the BOM if they would put any restrictions or revocations of your license. In that situation, yes, your career could be affected because the BOM took action, but honestly at that point a normal person would be less concerned with the BOM and more concerned with their legal issue.

As for the media in justifiable self defense scenario, who cares? Same comment stands. I choose my life over any percieved career reprocussions. What will the media do? If you are Sanjay Gupta in the public light, yeah, you might loose your job. As for your normal every day physician unlikely. If anyone tried to fire you, you sue them for wrongful termination. You commited no crime, and caused no insult to the requiremnts of being a morally upstanding physician. Private practice might suffer depending on the nature of your practice and patients you serve, but I'd doubt it.

It is really a black and white issue, you were either justified or not in using lethal force. If not your career is the least of your worries. If justified, why worry?

I will give my mind and spirit to my patients, but not my life. Is that a hard concept to understand?
 
Last edited:
The only way I could foresee a career being affected is if it were determined in court of law that self defense shooting were not that, but actually malacious in some context. Then, if you were convicted of some crime, that would then be reportable to the BOM. At that point it would be up to the BOM if they would put any restrictions or revocations of your license. In that situation, yes, your career could be affected because the BOM took action, but honestly at that point a normal person would be less concerned with the BOM and more concerned with their legal issue.

As for the media in justifiable self defense scenario, who cares? Same comment stands. I choose my life over any percieved career reprocussions. What will the media do? If you are Sanjay Gupta in the public light, yeah, you might loose your job. As for your normal every day physician unlikely. If anyone tried to fire you, you sue them for wrongful termination. You commited no crime, and caused no insult to the requiremnts of being a morally upstanding physician. Private practice might suffer depending on the nature of your practice and patients you serve, but I'd doubt it.

It is really a black and white issue, you were either justified or not in using lethal force. If not your career is the least of your worries. If justified, why worry?

I'm not referring to any BOM repercussions, I'm referring to a potential big story in the media (because a psychiatrist killed their patient, even though it was justified). A story like that would seem to be pretty problematic.

My guess is people would foolishly think that a psychiatrist should never have to resort to such actions - that by virtue of their training they should have never gotten into the situation, or known how to diffuse it without killing the person. So now the person will be branded a crap psychiatrist with poor judgment and poor professional skills.

I'm not saying I agree with this, it just strikes me as a likely consequence.
 
I'm not referring to any BOM repercussions, I'm referring to a potential big story in the media (because a psychiatrist killed their patient, even though it was justified). A story like that would seem to be pretty problematic.

My guess is people would foolishly think that a psychiatrist should never have to resort to such actions - that by virtue of their training they should have never gotten into the situation, or known how to diffuse it without killing the person. So now the person will be branded a crap psychiatrist with poor judgment and poor professional skills.

I'm not saying I agree with this, it just strikes me as a likely consequence.

I doubt that would come to pass - there was an MGH psyciatrist a few months back that was attacked in her office with the patient shot and killed by an off-duty special police officer. No-one has called her judgment into question so far as I know.
 
I doubt that would come to pass - there was an MGH psyciatrist a few months back that was attacked in her office with the patient shot and killed by an off-duty special police officer. No-one has called her judgment into question so far as I know.

Well that's good to hear, but I think the fact that the patient was killed by a cop totally changes things.
 
I'm not referring to any BOM repercussions, I'm referring to a potential big story in the media (because a psychiatrist killed their patient, even though it was justified). A story like that would seem to be pretty problematic.

My guess is people would foolishly think that a psychiatrist should never have to resort to such actions - that by virtue of their training they should have never gotten into the situation, or known how to diffuse it without killing the person. So now the person will be branded a crap psychiatrist with poor judgment and poor professional skills.

I'm not saying I agree with this, it just strikes me as a likely consequence.
There are many people and there is always bound to be someone thinking foolishly. Stupidity isn't a crime the last I checked.

Not all situations can be avoided.

Knowing how to diffuse it - yes we might have more experience with mental illness and better communication skills then the normal populace, but someone who is floridly psychotic and bludgeoning you means you don't have the time to drive back to the hospital to get some haldol, ativan, and soft restraints.

Individuals can brand me all they want. You can't make everyone happy. If the media were to do so, I would sue for libel.

If I had a long term patient in the outpatient setting that I knew well and how they would often decompensate, then yeah, I would use that insight to talk with them while awaiting the police arrival. But there is a point when the line is crossed and lethal force is necessary, and that is the context of your hypothetical situation. You describe a patient who is attacking a psychiatrist. Hospital settings you use the least force possible, and opt for defensive posturing and fleeing until more people can arrive. Granted, even in an inpatient setting, there is a limit where you defend yourself.
 
There are many people and there is always bound to be someone thinking foolishly. Stupidity isn't a crime the last a checked.

Not all situations can be avoided.

Knowing how to diffuse it - yes we might have more experience and better communication skills then the normal populace, but someone who is floridly psychotic and bludgeoning you means you don't have the time to drive back to the hospital to get some haldol, ativan, and soft restraints.

Individuals can brand me all they want. You can't make everyone happy. If the media were to do so, I would sue for libel.

If I had a long term patient in the outpatient setting that I knew well and how they would often decompensate, then yeah, I would use that insight to talk with them while awaiting the police arrival. But there is a point when the line is crossed and lethal force is necessary, and that is the context of your hypothetical situation. You describe a patient who is attacking a psychiatrist. Hospital settings you use the least force possible, and opt for defensive posturing and fleeing until more people can arrive. Granted, even in an inpatient setting, there is a limit where you defend yourself.

You're misinterpreting the intent of my question. I'm not arguing whether these perceptions are justified or not. In fact, I think they're ******ed. But it doesn't matter what you nor I think, it matters how it's perceived by John Q Public. Thus my question: is it a career ender?
 
Check out the Kahr PM9, doc. They're pretty cool, and I'm waiting to order one. It'd be good for both back up and off-duty for me. For the regular sheep dog citizen it'd be great pocket carry as well.

That is a good find! For the caliber it really is a small gun. With your background you are probably already used to carrying the weight around on a daily basis and that one would be a nice change. Kudos, hope you like it!

For me personally and what I'm looking for I'm placing weight and size above caliber. The seecamp still has it beat by almost 2oz, and still a shorter barrel length. I hate carrying around a cell phone or even keys, so weight is of the uptmost concern. In the future I'll reevaluate to see if I could handle the increased size.

The other issue is resell value. The nature of the seecamps and how the production of the company is, they sell fast and the .380 definitely has appreciation, some times as high as 150%.
 
Just trying to get an estimate of the risk of being killed by a patient over the course of a career in psychiatry.

At last count I can find (Academic Psychiatry, 27:4, Winter 2003 ) there were about 45,000 psychiatrists in the US in 2000.
Full-time work is about 2000 hrs per year.
That's 90,000,000 psychiatrist hrs per year. (no wonder I feel tired)
In ten years, that's 900 million psychiatrist hrs.

If 5 have been killed during patient interactions (at the "office" or not) from 2000-2010, that's 4 more than I know about.
That means that 1 is killed every 180 million work hours.
If you work 40 years at 2000 hrs/year, that's 80,000 hrs.
80,000 hrs/career divided by 180,000,000 is 0.000444 or 0.04% risk of being killed by a patient over your career.

Another way to look at it:
45k psych's in US
If 5 are killed in 10 years, then 20 are killed over an avg 40-yr career.
20/45,000 = (guess what??) 0.000444! or 0.04% risk!

Moleeds!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyy-rijXDHw
 
"It's a pity Bilbo didn't kill him when he had the chance."

"Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play yet, for good or ill before this is over. The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many."
 
Ever notice how no one shed a tear for the slain Orcs who were willing to run them through with a rusty blade?
 
Ever notice how no one shed a tear for the slain Orcs who were willing to run them through with a rusty blade?

All well and good but it is in reference to Gollum. :D

On an OB/GYN rotation a few months back a patient comes in about 32 weeks along with her husband(a police officer) for routine checkup. OB/GYN asks if he can check out the gun the husband was carrying so here we all are with gun brandished over this very pregnant woman.

Growing up in the south I'm aware that frequently I'm in the minority when it comes to my view on guns. Still doesn't make it any less surreal.
 
I think this is being over-thought.

Is it possible for a patient to come after you? If you had a gun, would you have to use it in self defense? Yes.

It's also possible I can sleepwalk, during that process, steal a tractor trailer, then run that truck into a class full of disabled children.

If you want to take the argument seriously, and ironically I know several forensic psychiatrists and psychologists who own a gun and have thought about this scenario...

The reality of the situation is this is unchartered territory. What can happen to you is going to be a mixture of pure luck, what the state laws are concerning self-defense, the understanding of the police, and if the person killed has friends or family willing to sue you over it.

In the state facility where I worked last year, the state provided my malpractice and covered any insurance claims related to my work. In that type of case, my legal fees were not something to worry about.

I can tell you this. There's several doctors I've known who I've heard have done atrocious things such as complementary rectal exams to all patients. When the patients found out he was not doing something appropriate, some of them took legal action. He's been in court several times, and each time he gets off because the patient could only say it happened. It's not like the patient videotaped the rectal exam.

And that darned doctor continues to practice as if nothing happened to him. It's not like people do an internet search on this guy before decide to see him. Maybe they ought to because when I put that guy's name in a google search, there's about a dozen newspaper articles where someone accused him of being sexually inappropriate.

I've only known one case where a doctor's life was put in danger because of the patient (or in this case the patient's husband). The doctor was an Ob-Gyn who delivered a dead baby. The husband blamed the doctor for the death, and went after him with an Uzi converted to fully automatic while they were on the highway.
 
Tex, Yeah, you are right a 9mm would be caliber with more stopping power. But as you mentioned a 'pocket pistol' is meant for when you are up close and personal, and that is really when I anticipate I would use one. And at that range a .32 or .380 will do just fine. One of the problems I have is the weight and size of 9mm and .45's. I want something that I will carry daily. Small and lightweight is what will keep me carrying. The seecamps are capable of grouping well at 10 yards, too.

But to say being better off without and just running away? That I think is silly. I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of a .32, would you? Case proven. Plus historically it used to be the defacto military/police caliber.
.

Sorry - I didn't explain myself well. I agree with you that a .32 or .380 has adequate stopping power. I wouldn't want to be hit by one!

The reason I would prefer to turn & run in most urban situations with a pocket .380 is because it is incredibly hard to aim quickly and be accurate. This is because of the reasons you like this weopon - small barrel and small sights.

Anything can group at 10 yards with enough skill and time to aim. Have you ever done competitive shooting or draw-from-your-pocket shooting with a pocket .380? When I do competitive shooting, I instinctively draw my 9mm subcompact (or larger) sights into view.

The time needed to draw and be accurate with a small .380 is too long to be useful for me and most people. Maybe you are just more accustomed to a .380 than I am. I don't trust myself drawing a pocket .380 and immediately firing accurately at 10 yards assuming there may be innocent bystanders near by.

I don't know how talented you are with a .380, but if you've done tactical competitive shooting with a .380 and are happy with your results, then it will be a great carry weopon for you. I just prefer my 9mm unless I physically can not conceal it, then I'll carry my .380.
 
I'm not referring to any BOM repercussions, I'm referring to a potential big story in the media (because a psychiatrist killed their patient, even though it was justified). A story like that would seem to be pretty problematic.

My guess is people would foolishly think that a psychiatrist should never have to resort to such actions - that by virtue of their training they should have never gotten into the situation, or known how to diffuse it without killing the person. So now the person will be branded a crap psychiatrist with poor judgment and poor professional skills.

I'm not saying I agree with this, it just strikes me as a likely consequence.

In Texas, I think a psychiatrist who adequately defended himself in self-defense would profit from a media story. That's just Texas though.
 
What if a 250 pound person punches you in the arm? What if a 150 pound person swings at your head? Are you going to pull your gun if a 90 pound woman starts waving a used needle at you?

Aside from the ethics, which is a sticky area...

Depends on the local laws. Some states give the owner of a residence a lot of leeway when it comes to defending his or her home. In some states, you shoot someone, even clearly in self defense, and you'll still be arrested and charged. In other states, someone merely knocks on your door to ask for directions, and if you shoot that person dead--legally nothing happens to you. (BTW, that actually did happen)
 
However, carrying a concealed gun is useless unless you have plenty of training and practice in drawing it quickly in a high stress situation.

Fists and knives are the most common weapons of attackers. But when do you draw your gun when someone throws a punch? What if a 250 pound person punches you in the arm? What if a 150 pound person swings at your head? Are you going to pull your gun if a 90 pound woman starts waving a used needle at you?

There is a simulation on Youtube where experienced police officers approached a suspect from 20 feet away. All of them were stabbed multiple times before they were able to draw their gun. Many did not even see the knife.

I agree that everyone carrying should participate in tactical/competitive shooting where you have to draw your weopon and fire immediately.

If a 250lb person with certain stereotypes starts moving towards me in the parking lot of a movie theatre, my hand will already be on my carry weopon. I won't be "approaching" anyone for the record. If I see a weopon on someone moving toward me, I'll ask questions as I am drawing. In the rare situation where I am on the ground already (post-punch/stabbing), my first move won't be towards my gun unless the attacker is stupid enough to still be on his feet. If I'm in full guard, reaching my gun is impossible - defending myself any way possible comes into play.

Disclaimer: My choices are based on TX law.
 
Aside from the ethics, which is a sticky area...

Depends on the local laws. Some states give the owner of a residence a lot of leeway when it comes to defending his or her home. In some states, you shoot someone, even clearly in self defense, and you'll still be arrested and charged. In other states, someone merely knocks on your door to ask for directions, and if you shoot that person dead--legally nothing happens to you. (BTW, that actually did happen)

In TX, you can even defend your neighbor's property as your own.....which includes shooting robbers in the back.

Very dependent on state laws!
 
Note to self--TX and AZ are both off the vacation list for now...

:laugh: I like to think it makes things safer here.

I was recently purchasing a shirt in a mall. When I went to hand my credit card to the cashier, my concealed carry license fell out. The cashier picks up on this and tells me that he carries a .45.

The guy behind me in line piped up that he currently had his 9mm with him.

The guy behind him agreed that he loved his 9mm carry gun.

Only in TX would all 4 random people near the cash register be carrying. :thumbup:
 
What if a 250 pound person punches you in the arm? What if a 150 pound person swings at your head? Are you going to pull your gun if a 90 pound woman starts waving a used needle at you?

Punches in arm? Likely not.

Swings at my head? Maybe.

Waving a used needle at me? Probably.

I think each one of those examples is also progressively more complicated.


It all depends on the totality of the circumstances. Use that term. It's used in law enforcement a lot, and it it's more than applicable to "civilian" life.

As an officer, if I perceive an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to myself or another it is reasonable for me to utilize deadly force. For the average person they are often taught "if you are in fear for your life then you shooting someone in self-defense is justifiable."

Let's look at the facts.

If someone is punching me in the arm, with that fact in and of itself, then it would not be reasonable to utilize deadly force. You could fend off the blows. You could retreat. Your arm could hurt. If you have bone cancer and brittle bones then yep fire, but that's not a given here.

If someone was taking a swing at my head...that's a little more ambiguous. What is the person swinging with? Have I sustained any other injuries prior to this? Am I completely coherent at the moment such that any further blows to the head would be less likely to dull my senses? Will I be able to fend off the blows? Will I be able to retreat to a position of safety? Let's add to the scenario. If I had already been hit and was feeling a bit disoriented, I've been knocked down, and and in my attempts to get up I am unable to fend off the attacker, you bet I'm going to pull my weapon and continue to fire until the threat stops.

If someone is waving a used needle at me then I'm going to probably unholster and begin a retreat to a position of cover. I have no idea what diseases that person has, and, as an officer, being forcibly subjected to the body fluids of another person is a second degree (felony) battery. Regardless of that, it is reasonable to believe that the person in question may in fact have some type of transmissible disease that could have permanent and/or eventually fatal effects on my person. You bet I'd pull and fire my weapon until the threat stopped. Ok, what if it's known that the person does not have any diseases? That's a bit more complicated, and you'd more readily know that as her attending physician. However, there is a chance that the needle in question could cause serious physical injury. What if the attacker stuck the needle in your eye? That could cause irrepairable damage. Typically we define "serious physical injury" as anything requiring surgical intervention which is rather broad, and I feel gives one a lot of latitude. However, I believe an alternative use of force, as an officer, should be first employed in this circumstance. Most officers will have the tools and training to fend off a 90 pound attacker given everyday circumstances. However, in this case it's unlikely any common person or officer would know if the person had diseases, and the threat of that is much more apparent than being stuck in the eye so I believe firing upon the threat until it's stopped would be reasonable and prudent. If the subject waved a used needle at you I'd arrest her for aggravated assault. We also have a statute here pertaining to knowingly infecting another with HIV, etc., and I'd stack that charge later if I found it to be true and you were in fact stuck with it.

However, if I was her attending and she "waved" a needle I'd back out quickly and call for security. If she lunged at me I'd try to employ some type of defensive action such as a couch cushion, clipboard, or whatever you had available. A concealed weapon isn't usually drawn as quickly as one that isn't, and another person has already addressed the 21 foot reactionary distance (more or less). However, if given the opportunity, I'd draw whatever I happened to have secreted that day and shoot her.
 
:laugh: I like to think it makes things safer here.

I was recently purchasing a shirt in a mall. When I went to hand my credit card to the cashier, my concealed carry license fell out. The cashier picks up on this and tells me that he carries a .45.

The guy behind me in line piped up that he currently had his 9mm with him.

The guy behind him agreed that he loved his 9mm carry gun.

Only in TX would all 4 random people near the cash register be carrying. :thumbup:


LOL I love it!
 
For those interested in evidence based practice, researchers have quantified the benefit of gun ownership in terms of protecting yourself from strangers, protecting your family, and protecting yourself from yourself. :)

I may have to red-card you for attempting to interject data and facts into this discussion. But to summarize the links above:

--After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05). Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault.

--we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4). Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance. Conclusions. ...Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

--the presence of one or more guns in the home was found to be associated with an increased risk of suicide (adjusted odds ratio, 4.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.7 to 8.5). CONCLUSIONS. Ready availability of firearms is associated with an increased risk of suicide in the home.

[Of course one needs to take into account that the sources of the studies above are those notoriously liberal rags, the American Journal of Public Health, and the New England Journal of Medicine]
 
I like to think it makes things safer here.

Maybe. I don't live in TX, and things are very different in each locality. I lived in NJ---a state where even if you shot in self-defense, consider yourself screwed. I never agreed with that. IMHO if someone breaks into your home, you have to right to take them down by lethal force if needed.

I do, however, find it very terrible that in some states you can shoot someone who merely knocks on your door to ask for directions.

Oh well, this is a hot issue where I certainly held a lot of respect for those that disagreed with me so I'll leave the ethics issue alone.
 
Only in TX would all 4 random people near the cash register be carrying.

I saw an episode of America's Most Wanted years ago. I wish there was a youtube of the video. A not so bright fugitive was wanted in several states for some serious felonies. He made the brilliant idea of going to a new state--Texas where he thought he would be under the radar.

He tried to mug an elderly lady. The lady pulled out a revolver out of her bag and the fugitive ran away. The lady screamed, causing everyone within the block to pull out their guns, and they all chased after the guy.

The video had about 20 people, all armed, all chasing this idiot. He unfortunately got away.
 
I may have to red-card you for attempting to interject data and facts into this discussion. But to summarize the links above:

--After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05). Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault.

--we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4). Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance. Conclusions. ...Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

--the presence of one or more guns in the home was found to be associated with an increased risk of suicide (adjusted odds ratio, 4.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.7 to 8.5). CONCLUSIONS. Ready availability of firearms is associated with an increased risk of suicide in the home.

[Of course one needs to take into account that the sources of the studies above are those notoriously liberal rags, the American Journal of Public Health, and the New England Journal of Medicine]

All I got out of that is that liberals are jeolous that they can't shoot as well as the women in Texas.

After all, if those stats were true, Texas would be leading the nation in homicides per capita. Its not even close to #1.
 
I saw an episode of America's Most Wanted years ago. I wish there was a youtube of the video. A not so bright fugitive was wanted in several states for some serious felonies. He made the brilliant idea of going to a new state--Texas where he thought he would be under the radar.

He tried to mug an elderly lady. The lady pulled out a revolver out of her bag and the fugitive ran away. The lady screamed, causing everyone within the block to pull out their guns, and they all chased after the guy.

The video had about 20 people, all armed, all chasing this idiot. He unfortunately got away.

My favorite news report was about some idiot that decided to rob a gun store. He pulled out a .22, shot into the ceiling, and told everyone to give him their wallets. He was subsequetly shot by 5 different guns before he hit the ground.

When the off-duty police officer at the gun store was asked about the events surrounding shooting the robber, he said he did not see what happened because he dove behind a counter. He said he was well aware that over 6 people in the store had concealed carry weopons and he did not want to be hit in the cross fire. :thumbup:
 
Top