Concealed Carry in the Workplace

[rev ronin]

14 hours ago, camoman1234 said:

The topic is concealed carry and not being in the special forces or master in brazilian jiu jitsu... The entire discussion is over carrying a gun in the office, nothing more or less. I understand your point, but you are off topic with most of your comments that are not feasible for most people (advance training in tactics, etc). I do agree that you should not carry if your mind set is not ready to pull that trigger. I am not arguing your point that everyone should be trained in self-defense and tactics (which would be nice), but that should not hold someone back from not carrying a gun. Again, that would be like someone passing an advanced training on vehicle tactics to drive around the city...Have a great day 

If you think that physical self defense skills and carrying a concealed firearm are different topics, then you are idealistic and wrong.  The first FATS or similar situation you face, let alone a tactical drill using airsoft, paintball, or simmunitions, and your eyes will suddenly open.  Real people trying to kill other people don't move like a FPS game.  Pistol shots are made at ranges of contact to five feet away: Well within disarm range, and knowing how to resist a disarm is a pretty basic defensive skill.

Good guys who don't know what they're doing too often end up like Dan McKown: Courageous but clueless, he succeeded in drawing fire and ruining his life:

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/29/170456129/armed-good-guys-and-the-realities-of-facing-a-gunman
 

Don't get me wrong--it was brave of him to confront a shooter, and he ended up making things better for other people... but at a horrible personal cost.

That's not something I wish for any of us, hence the advice to do it right or not at all.

[GetMeOuttaThisMess]

One might also wish to review online the distance in which an attacker coming toward you can still reach you even if struck by a bullet(s).  This kind of defeats the purpose in close encounters.  It could help save others though from the attacker as YOU take one for the team.

[boli]

Reading everyone's responses is definitely interesting. It seems fairly unanimous that to some degree we agree that ccw should be an option for health care workers. 

As to the training comments- where I live, a demonstration of proficiency is required before receiving your CCW. Obviously this isn't crazy but you have to prove you won't accidentally kill yourself or someone else while drawing etc. We can debate the merits of tactical response training all day but the question is- should remedial training be REQUIRED before issuing a ccw? Should legislators demand that applicants undergo training before getting a permit? 

We are very close to national reciprocity for ccw (think drivers license lets you drive in all 50states) but the crux is the variance state to state requirements 

[camoman1234]

8 hours ago, rev ronin said:

If you think that physical self defense skills and carrying a concealed firearm are different topics, then you are idealistic and wrong.  The first FATS or similar situation you face, let alone a tactical drill using airsoft, paintball, or simmunitions, and your eyes will suddenly open.  Real people trying to kill other people don't move like a FPS game.  Pistol shots are made at ranges of contact to five feet away: Well within disarm range, and knowing how to resist a disarm is a pretty basic defensive skill.

Good guys who don't know what they're doing too often end up like Dan McKown: Courageous but clueless, he succeeded in drawing fire and ruining his life:

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/29/170456129/armed-good-guys-and-the-realities-of-facing-a-gunman
 

Don't get me wrong--it was brave of him to confront a shooter, and he ended up making things better for other people... but at a horrible personal cost.

That's not something I wish for any of us, hence the advice to do it right or not at all.

No I agree with physical self defense skill and carrying would be a perfect world, but we do not live in a perfect world. I think more armed citizens is better than not as the bad guys will always have weapons. Again we all cannot be trained as an officer or elite special forces. There are more positive stories the NRA puts out that show a positive light with regular citizen successfully defending themselves/others, please subscribe to NRA to read those articles. Look at the world of a PA-C, do we need extra schooling for practice (FM/UC/IM/Peds)? Your telling everyone to "do it right or not at all." Isn't this what physicians tell us (PA's/NP's)? It is unrealistic to have everyone "do it right" (in your mind) or not at all. So Rev, your saying you would rather have no one armed unless they met an elite standard of tactical fighting and self defense? So what happens to the 80 year old lady or a double (lower leg) amputate that cannot meet your standard of physical defense? Your logic sounds great on paper, but not realistic nor fits for society as a whole...

[camoman1234]

4 minutes ago, boli said:

Reading everyone's responses is definitely interesting. It seems fairly unanimous that to some degree we agree that ccw should be an option for health care workers. 

As to the training comments- where I live, a demonstration of proficiency is required before receiving your CCW. Obviously this isn't crazy but you have to prove you won't accidentally kill yourself or someone else while drawing etc. We can debate the merits of tactical response training all day but the question is- should remedial training be REQUIRED before issuing a ccw? Should legislators demand that applicants undergo training before getting a permit? 

We are very close to national reciprocity for ccw (think drivers license lets you drive in all 50states) but the crux is the variance state to state requirements 

My state makes you demonstrate proficiency as well and I think the basic test (as it is for driving) should be met every couple of years so you can keep yourself and everyone else safe. I think a proficiency exam  (paper and shooting) should be repeated every 3-5 years. Great points!

[myironlung]

On 8/3/2017 at 10:31 PM, boli said:

With the increase in violence towards healthcare workers that we've witnessed recently, I'm wondering your views towards legislation that would allow concealed carrying for healthcare workers while at work?

A couple caveats- I understand that in most jurisdictions carrying a firearm concealed on hospital property is illegal. I don't want this to turn into a debate about conscientious objection to these laws. Also, I completely agree and understand that in some settings (think inpatient psych) carrying concealed could become a huge liability and safety issue. However, I think the argument could be made that the protection afforded by concealed carry (by those with valid permits) shouldn't be revoked when you walk through the clinic doors. 

Thoughts?

100% against any legislation for allowing concealed carry.

[rev ronin]

16 hours ago, camoman1234 said:

 So what happens to the 80 year old lady or a double (lower leg) amputate that cannot meet your standard of physical defense? Your logic sounds great on paper, but not realistic nor fits for society as a whole...

The issue is one of US, PAs, carrying concealed in our workplaces: healthcare providers, who need to make close physical contact with patients, working in places with things like oxygen tanks that don't respond well to bullets, with other patients around who have limited mobility...  It's a different question, and yes, one that requires a higher standard of care than carrying into Wal Mart as a customer.

This is not a general-purpose discussion of concealed carry, nor is it a forum for political debate: my responses have solely been geared towards the anticipated or actual use of deadly force by healthcare providers in defense of self or others.

[Will352ns]

Concealed carry at work? No. Bad idea.  At some point the line has to be drawn. I work in a very busy inner city ER that draws a lot of violent and mentally ill pts and I have yet to be in a situation where I thought to myself...a firearm would come in handy. In fact, in most kinetic situations, having a firearm would most likely exacerbate the situation (just my opinion). At some point we have to realize that you cannot prepare for every situation and situations where being armed would actually help are exceedingly rare.

Frankly, I have never felt the need to carry a firearm outside of a combat zone. 

I'm not an anti gun type of guy. I have no issues with folks who legally carry, but I don't think it has a place in healthcare. 

 

Just 2 cents. 

[Joelseff]

Reading everyone's responses is definitely interesting. It seems fairly unanimous that to some degree we agree that ccw should be an option for health care workers. 
As to the training comments- where I live, a demonstration of proficiency is required before receiving your CCW. Obviously this isn't crazy but you have to prove you won't accidentally kill yourself or someone else while drawing etc. We can debate the merits of tactical response training all day but the question is- should remedial training be REQUIRED before issuing a ccw? Should legislators demand that applicants undergo training before getting a permit? 
We are very close to national reciprocity for ccw (think drivers license lets you drive in all 50states) but the crux is the variance state to state requirements 

You have to take a class and pass a CCW test in most if not all states IIRC.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

[GetMeOuttaThisMess]

On 8/4/2017 at 2:08 AM, MCHAD said:

@cbrsmurf if you're concealing a weapon properly and not telling everyone about it because you want to be cool, your patient should never know you have it. 

As for carrying a knife, I grew up in the great state of Idaho and ever since I got my "Totin' Chip" card as a Boy Scout I've carried at least one, usually two.

@rev ronin no I don't think everyone can safely carry a weapon or Competently  handle using a weapon and mentally dealing with the consequences if, heaven forbid, It needs to be used.  But there are many people who are capable, and I believe many people who could become capable if given the chance. 

I personally believe that carrying/concealing a weapon is a right that people who aren't, mentally unstable, violent felons, or those convicted of violent misdemeanors (i.e. Domestic abuse convictions) should be able to exercise. i also feel that employers/businesses have the right to ask employees/customers not to carry a weapon if they choose.  Employers could also require proof of training and proficiency before allowing an employee to carry a weapon. I have a friend who just had to complete P.O.S.T. training to carry a firearm in her work as a probation officer. 

"Gun Free" Zones do nothing more than keep honest, law abiding citizens, from taking a gun in.  Criminals by definition break the law.  

Also, enough of us started carrying a weapon maybe we could convince Glock, Smith & Wesson, and many other companies that give first responders a discount to give us a discount too!

Join Glock GSSF for two years and you get two discounted pricing certificates, one a year, for your membership.  I got my model 27 last year with same and I have another certificate here on my desk at home and nothing to buy.  I've already have the model 23 and a S&W Shield .40.  IWB carry during the summer and OWB carry when I have on a jacket during the winter.

I'm REALLY surprised that no one has opened the can of worms discussion as to which caliber to carry.  If that happens I need to get a drink and pop some popcorn.

[sas5814]

This is one of those discussions where the vast majority of people already have an opinion and not many are going to budge, I am an advocate for CC. In the workplace...well it become the companies policy. Where I am at now they have "No weapons" signs on all the doors compliant with state laws and they have a policy against employees carrying at work though you can have a weapon in your car.

The problem with the signs and policy is it isn't going to stop a criminal or a crazy.... just us. I think there is a legit argument about disarming the honest folks making us all more vulnerable to the criminals. What better place to shoot up that one where everyone is unarmed? Flame on.....

[PAMEDIC]

Since we are all educated people who have devoted our lives to evidence based medicine, I wonder what the NNT for a concealed handgun in the exam room would be?

[Zach]

I'm not trying to be too facetious... but the average person can't even figure out a self-checkout kiosk at the grocery store under pressure. I trust very, very few people to actually carry a weapon and use it in a way that is cool and calm under real pressure. 

My mother's side of the family is big on guns and CC, but my father's side isn't and that side kind of won out in my own psyche. I realize a hunting license and a concealed carry permit are two different things, but I had a 6th grade special education student (I worked in special elementary ed. in another life) pass a written exam for his hunting license... when he couldn't read beyond a second grade level, literally was so unable to converse about anything beyond movies that he was taken down to kindergarten for 2 hours a day to be resocialized, would oftentimes forget his name in the middle of writing it, would have violent break downs that oftentimes resulted in physical harm to paraprofessionals and crisis response by a wing of teachers to put him in non-violent restraints, attacked a student for volunteering to be his partner in gym class, etc. He then subsequently passed whatever hunter education course is required to receive a hunting license. When his mom told us he was so excited that he passed, we just kind of sat there with our mouths wide open... Did he receive testing accommodations? Was it online and a parent took it for him? I don't know... but very little can be said for the efficacy of a test that a student like that can pass. 

That's not someone who should be allowed to carry a gun and point it anything. Please tell me that the concealed carry restrictions are more burdensome than that (and then therefore I may feel a bit better about the training of those who are allowed to CC)? This is a sincere question - I really don't know what it takes to receive a CC permit. I've seen mention of a course and a test, but a hunting license also requires a course and a test... and it clearly is no great barrier to entry. 

[sas5814]

I had to take an 8 hour class and then pass a basic shooting proficiency test. I'm sure requirements vary state to state. Oh but all you need to get a hunting license is an ID and some money.

[Cideous]

One of the places I work at is in the hood.  We have random drug addicts try to come into the clinic stoned out of their mind frequently.  So much so, we have had to close and lock the doors to keep them out and call the police.  I asked that VERY question, can I carry (I have a TX concealed weapon permit).....they said NOPE!  Your on your own, and to be very familiar with the emergency exits.  lol wow.  I am pretty liberal on some social issues, especially for living in Texas, but this isn't one of them.  When it comes to being able to protect myself, we should absolutely be able to do that.

[rev ronin]

3 hours ago, PAMEDIC said:

Since we are all educated people who have devoted our lives to evidence based medicine, I wonder what the NNT for a concealed handgun in the exam room would be?

It'd actually have to be number of defensive handgun use events per unit of time, and I'd love to see the actual study be done.  So many gun statistics are taken out of context and used badly, it'd be nice to have some fit-for-purpose for a change.

[Boatswain2PA]

The constitution says Americans have the right to bear arms.  There are people who have been understandably prohibited from that right, including those adjudicated mentally incompetent, felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens, dishonorably discharged, fugitives, those convicted of misdemeanor DV, and those who have renounced citizenship.  

The rest of us have the RIGHT to own and possess firearms.

The areas of the country with the strictest "gun-control" have the highest gun-violence rates.  I think anyone can see that means criminals don't care about gun control laws.  

Firearms are THE great equalizer.  Yes, you have to have some basic training to use the tool in your hand, but with it, a 80 pound little old lady can stop a 250 pound behemoth.  There's nothing else that can do that.

[MCHAD]

7 minutes ago, rev ronin said:

It'd actually have to be number of defensive handgun use events per unit of time, and I'd love to see the actual study be done.  So many gun statistics are taken out of context and used badly, it'd be nice to have some fit-for-purpose for a change.

https://crimeresearch.org/data/

[PAMEDIC]

On 8/6/2017 at 1:28 PM, MCHAD said:

https://crimeresearch.org/data/

I was hoping this would be a good reference, but when the website says that Ted Nugent is on its Board of Directors, it raises serious doubts to the integrity of the analysis and its impartiality.

 

[camoman1234]

1 hour ago, PAMEDIC said:

I was hoping this would be a good reference, but when the website says that Ted Nugent is on its Board of Directors, it raises serious doubts to the integrity of the analysis and its impartiality.

 

Data is data, doesn't matter if you like someone of not. These numbers come from federal, state and local governments. How can you skew numbers such as "How many people where killed in Chicago in 2016?" 

[PAMEDIC]

1 hour ago, camoman1234 said:

Data is data, doesn't matter if you like someone of not. These numbers come from federal, state and local governments. How can you skew numbers such as "How many people where killed in Chicago in 2016?" 

 

If you want data, just go with the FBI's crime stats instead of Ted Nugent's political advocacy project.

To answer your question, it is about framing.  Are you looking at raw numbers of incidents or rates per capita?  Chicago does have a high number, but in terms of per capita rates, it isn't even in the top 10.

Also, people like to cite Chicago but when you widen the frame and look at Illinois as a state, it shows that the state has a lower concentration of firearms and a relatively low homicide rate (ranked 39 out of 50).

Alaska, for example, has a relatively low number of homicides but has one of the highest rates of gun related deaths (and some of the least restrictive gun laws.)

 

 

[camoman1234]

19 hours ago, PAMEDIC said:

 

If you want data, just go with the FBI's crime stats instead of Ted Nugent's political advocacy project.

To answer your question, it is about framing.  Are you looking at raw numbers of incidents or rates per capita?  Chicago does have a high number, but in terms of per capita rates, it isn't even in the top 10.

Also, people like to cite Chicago but when you widen the frame and look at Illinois as a state, it shows that the state has a lower concentration of firearms and a relatively low homicide rate (ranked 39 out of 50).

Alaska, for example, has a relatively low number of homicides but has one of the highest rates of gun related deaths (and some of the least restrictive gun laws.)

 

 

I am speaking of raw numbers as that is what is important. Chicago is the 3rd most populous city in the USA so of course the numbers look different than a city that has a population of 100,000. Illinois does have a low homicide rate per the state, but it is the mid-west so a lot of the state is rural. We cite Chicago cause they are proud of their "strict" gun laws, which are proven to not work when you look at the numbers. 

[PAMEDIC]

1 hour ago, camoman1234 said:

...
We cite Chicago cause they are proud of their "strict" gun laws, which are proven to not work when you look at the numbers. 

Are you saying that "strict gun law"s have been "proven not to work" anywhere or just Chicago?

[camoman1234]

I am saying this is why people cite Chicago. This was your comment: "Also, people like to cite Chicago but when you widen the frame and look at Illinois as a state, it shows that the state has a lower concentration of firearms and a relatively low homicide rate (ranked 39 out of 50)." I will not get in a discussion about gun laws as it will not change my mind, I am a law abiding citizen that carries my gun to protect myself and others. You will never convince me that it is safer for me to not carry my gun as well as other law abiding citizens. Have a great day. 

[PAMEDIC]

22 minutes ago, camoman1234 said:

I will not get in a discussion about gun laws as it will not change my mind, I am a law abiding citizen that carries my gun to protect myself and others. You will never convince me that it is safer for me to not carry my gun as well as other law abiding citizens. Have a great day. 

And this is my point.  We are all highly educated professionals who in theory have dedicated ourselves to empiricism and evidence-based medicine. Yet with certain topics, we willingly fall victim to confirmation bias and state that no matter the evidence, "you will never convince me".

We laugh at the people who have made their minds up about vaccines and their refusal to look at the scientific evidence or state that no matter what we say, their response will be "you will not convince me". Yet here we are.

 

For the record, I am not anti-gun. I just want to see a more methodical and empirical approach to these things.