Hospital carry?

[Bill of Rights]

Well as an FFL and a gunsmith for a decade and a half, I've never heard anyone in "real life" question my stance on firearms.

Just because its the (or a) source if income for you does not mean you support the right. I'm not saying you don't, only saying that that alone does not establish your bona fides.

I don't agree with irresponsibility or stupidity. For example, the 3 year old who was killed pulling a 1911 off the counter? Some of the folks here put it under "sh*t happens". I call it negligence and although IANAL, probably criminal negligence.

The thread today with a step father shooting a resident of his house at a 6 a.m curfew violation? A commissioned officer? Yah, I think that's stupidity and probably criminal. But the GUNS AT ALL TIMES folks think it's OK.

I have not read those threads, and as I'm posting from the front seat of an ambulance, I can't right now, but I will. Based solely on your description, though, I would guess that you're using the irresponsibility of some to justify unConstitutional restrictions on all. Or at least on everyone you don't deem responsible.

I don't trust everyone who owns a gun. Sorry, but I've seen too many Bubbas in my business and out while I was hunting. Guns and no training is stupidity even though I agree that the 2nd Amendment gives them a right to own.

That's the closest I've yet seen from you to support that you do, in fact, support the right. TBH, there are some people who scare me with their choices of how to exercise their (not only 2A) rights.

I suggest maturity and training rather than defending the rights of idiots. It's the idiots who put our gun rights in jeopardy. Not me for "sounding like Brady".

Whether we agree with their exercise of them or not, even the idiots have rights. I can't and won't try to justify not protecting the rights of all.

Get a grip, Bill. It's your friends who normally drag you down. Not your enemies.

My grip is fine, thanks. I appreciate your perspective, even if we don't agree.
Blessings,
Bill

 

[Manatee]

If you cannot debate the argument, question the bona fides.

The second amendment includes an adjective "well-regulated", which means in today's language "trained". I don't think the designers of the 2nd Amendment ever assumed that we would be giving carte blanche to a bunch of folks who didn't know how to use their firearms properly. Hence, well-regulated.

With rights come responsibilities. This site has a number of people here who believe that their right is inviolate, yet they aren't willing to acknowledge their responsibility to handle said weapons safely and be trained in the use they intend to put them to…which is primarily defensive in nature.

A lot of people have been taught by their parents or other family members just how important that responsibility is. But that's not true of gun owners in general or even some significant contributors to this site. Heck, our legislature doesn't require a lick of training to get an LTCH.

I'm saying that for every accidental injury, my right and your right becomes more impaired, because the people who want to take away your guns are waiting for that accident. Every homicide affects you and me and it doesn't really matter if it's a psychotic individual or a banger.

So, personally, I try to emphasize safety on this site. And to cause people to think about what it means besides just a right to carry.

As to the childrens hospital issue, I see no upside. If there is limited likelihood someone will actually need to utilize a weapon in the hospital, why is it necessary? AND If it is used, what is the likelihood that the person utilizing it will do so in the proper circumstance where no one else is in jeopardy and no alternative means exists to resolve the situation without a bullet?

I know I hold a minority view here, but it is a rational view from a person who has utilized firearms for 5 decades and weapons during wartime.

And don't question my bona fides. You don't have the gravitas.

 

[MCgrease08]

i presume the plan for a "OC event" at RHFC is now in the works, you know, so the public can be informed about their rights! Why stop at starbucks? it's your right!!!!

I don't see anyone advocating for open carry at the hospital, only speaking against disarming at a location where they are not legally required to do so.

 

[MCgrease08]

As to the childrens hospital issue, I see no upside. If there is limited likelihood someone will actually need to utilize a weapon in the hospital, why is it necessary? AND If it is used, what is the likelihood that the person utilizing it will do so in the proper circumstance where no one else is in jeopardy and no alternative means exists to resolve the situation without a bullet?

It's not simply a matter of potentially needing a firearm inside the hospital but also about the trips to and from, walking through parking garages or darkened lots late at night. Anyone who's had a loved one in a hospital for any length of time knows that trips are made back and forth often at odd hours. Sometimes you run to the corner store or pharmacy to pick up medicine, a toy, food, or a book for them to read. From what I can tell, you take issue with people carrying without having what you feel is proper training. That's fine, but let's not pretend like this is simply an issue with carrying at a hospital. Your stance would have to apply to all public spaces.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The problem is the info you are passing along is wrong. They can be arrested, sure. And then get slapped with a lawsuit.

A lawsuit they'd probably lose if the sign is worded correctly. So far in Indiana, signage involving prohibiting firearms has not been addressed. You can arrest someone for trespassing too, based simply on a "No Trespassing" sign, but I've never actually seen it do, in absense of a protection order, or some other court ordered prohibition.

 

[MikeDVB]

Riley….a children's hospital. Likely have a school room on site.

They do not have school/daycare status that I'm aware of - no issues there.

I'd leave the firearm in the car. Bring a baseball bat if you're that paranoid.

Yes - bringing in a baseball bat is a much better decision.

How many attacks at children's hospitals in America in the last say…..100 years?

Apparently more than 0.

I look at the need to carry 100% of the time not so much different than the laws that are created that affects the future, for all time, because some idiot did something once. There are many such laws.

I agree that it's unfortunate that the masses are penalized for the stupidity of the minority but that is the system we have.

I consider it a lack of judgement. Put a rule in place so that no one has to make a conscious decision.

Sometimes I wonder if those championing and pushing silly laws genuinely feel they're for the best in that they think it will actually solve the problem or if they do it for other reasons.

As to a childrens hospital, I consider the risk of an altercation that can be stopped SOLELY with a firearm wielded by ME. In my view, those instances are so rare as to be without meaning. Hence, I'm willing to leave the handgun in the vehicle.

First and foremost it's much more likely that you'll be the victim of a violent criminal act than you seem to be willing to admit. You don't have to be the target - being in the room is good enough.

That said - go ahead and leave it in your car for some criminal to steal.

Well, more kids die of drowning than handgun accidents.

I eat more kernels of corn per year than the number of children that die in handgun accidents. How many children die by drowning isn't relevant to the discussion at hand.

I guess you could wrap them in life jackets full time in the event they encountered a drowning situation.

Or you could just put them out of their misery - why live when you're eventually going to die of something right?

Why carry the firearm at all if you're going to do so selectively? Only wear it when going to a 'bad part of town' as an example that many make - I hope those people realize crimes do happen in good parts of town also. Sure you're statistically more likely to be the victim of a violent crime in certain areas but that doesn't mean one should not also carry in 'low crime' areas. Low crime is not no-crime.

Or you could use judgement.

Many do use judgement but it seems to me, from your posts, that anybody whose judgement differs from your own is using poor/no judgement. I suppose that's because you're right and everybody that disagrees with you is wrong...

The difference Tobi: You own your house. You control all of the variables. You don't need permission to be there.

I need permission to be anywhere that's private property that I do not own - doesn't change my decision to always carry whenever legally permitted to do so. My better judgement says that it's better to have something and not need it than to need it and not have it.

You might not even realize who the bad guys are…or at least not all of them. If you act, you better be certain why there was no other way to resolve the situation.

Probably good generalized advice regardless. One needs to take reasonable and justifiable actions and needs to be responsible for said actions regardless. It doesn't matter if you're at a children's hospital, your house, or the mall.

Me? I'll take the risk that walking in to visit a little kid ain't the same thing as walkin down the street in the hood with $100 bills hangin out of my pocket.

Sure - you're statistically less likely to be the victim of a violent crime in a low-crime area but, again, it's low-crime and not no-crime. People can and do get attacked outside of 'the hood' without '$100 bills hangin out'.

By your metric - I've been in, around, and through 'the hood' hundreds if not thousands of times without ever being the victim of a violent crime... Surely I should stop carrying there since it's never been an issues?

I'm sayin' just because you have an LTCH, it doesn't make you John Wayne

Nothing makes anybody John Wayne except for the one man that is John Wayne. I'm sure there are other 'John Wayne's but they'renot the John Wayne you're referring to from popular culture.

or a trained LEO.

So I'm not a LEO but I am trained - what of it? Does one have to be a LEO for the training to be any good? What if you're a poorly trained LEO? What if you're an amazingly well-trained non-leo?

At the end of the day whether I am a LEO or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not I will or will not carry a firearm.

There is so much testosterone on this site that sometimes it's a bit disturbing.

Disagreeing with your narrow view on this subject does not equal testosterone.

Two of you guys in a hospital at the opposite end of the hall are more likely to hit each other or a civilian than a perp.

There is always risk when you shoot a firearm - even at the range - there is a reason they have waivers.

When carrying the carrier should use good judgement as to whether to use said firearm and whether or not a 'clean' shot can be made. No matter the place - there is always risk involved, judgement needs to be used, and responsibility must be taken.

If you want a job as a cop, Indianapolis has openings.

Choosing to carry a firearm whenever and wherever legal has absolutely nothing to do with LEO aspirations. You're making connections that may exist in certain limited circumstances but the two are not correlated.

IWhen I'm at the VA

Not sure about the VA - it may be legally prohibited [I have no idea]. The military seems to have their own set of rules that I'm not familiar with. I would likely err on the side of not carrying in this situation simply due to not knowing what is or is not legal and not wanting to put myself in legal jeopardy for no reason.

II haven't had to draw my firearm outside my home.

I haven't had to draw my firearm inside my home and, according to your logic, I shouldn't carry said firearm inside of my house until after which I've had to draw said firearm... I wish you could see the fallacy of your logic but I suspect no matter what is said or what evidence you're presented with your view will not change so I will not try. You do what you want - carry where you want or don't - just don't tell me what to do and I won't tell you what to do.

IAnd while drowning deaths are up, I don't wear a life preserver.

Drowning deaths have no bearing on this topic or discussion.

Well as an FFL and a gunsmith for a decade and a half, I've never heard anyone in "real life" question my stance on firearms.

I'd have the same discussion with you in person that I'm having here on INGO if we were face to face. I've no issues politely sharing my differing view and opinions with you so long as you can stay calm while I do so. A good discussion on differing viewpoints is always a good time IMHO.

I don't agree with irresponsibility or stupidity.

I do not believe that many do but, that said, your definition of 'irresponsibility and stupidity' seems to differ from my own. I do not consider carrying a firearm anywhere I'm not legally prohibited from doing so as 'stupidity' or 'irrationality' nor do I feel it's 'bad judgement'.

For example, the 3 year old who was killed pulling a 1911 off the counter? Some of the folks here put it under "sh*t happens". I call it negligence and although IANAL, probably criminal negligence.

It's absolutely negligence at the least - just as it would be negligent to leave a knife unattended where an unattended 3 year old could get it - the fact that it's a gun matters little - the fact that it was a dangerous object that the child should not have had ready access to is what's really important.

Don't misunderstand this as me defending the negligence of whoever allowed that to happen as I certainly do not condone negligence.

The thread today with a step father shooting a resident of his house at a 6 a.m curfew violation? A commissioned officer? Yah, I think that's stupidity and probably criminal.

Unless you've got another source I've not seen - you don't have nearly enough information to come to that conclusion. I'm not saying you're wrong but unless you have information I've not been able to find there's no way you can be 100% certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are accurate and correct.

But the GUNS AT ALL TIMES folks think it's OK.

I do not see where anybody said, 'I carry my gun all the time and I think what this guy did was OK.' It seems to me you're correlating two entirely unrelated things as though they're related. You can make this straw argument all day long - it doesn't change the fact that you're making connections where none exist.

I don't trust everyone who owns a gun.

I don't trust everybody that owns and operates a car. Boo hoo. I do not need you to trust me for me to carry a gun, operate a car, or do any number of other potentially fatal activities. You don't trust me? Get over it.

Sorry, but I've seen too many Bubbas in my business and out while I was hunting.

There are stupid people everywhere both with and without guns. Until we let 'survival of the fittest' take over stupidity is only going to multiply but that has nothing to do with guns. At the end of the day your issue is with the person - not the gun.

I would have to ask what makes you so special that you can carry a gun and that I cannot? I don't trust you - you shouldn't do it.

I suggest maturity and training rather than defending the rights of idiots. It's the idiots who put our gun rights in jeopardy. Not me for "sounding like Brady".

You are right in one of your previous posts you are anti-stupid but, that said, I doubt any legislation will get passed that makes being stupid illegal so you're targeting the next best thing - gun ownership by 'stupid' people. Who gets to decide who is stupid and shouldn't have a gun and who is smart and should? You?

What if I were to think you were stupid? We better take your gun away. Not only do I believe you're stupid but I also don't trust you - that's two good reasons, according to you, for you to be disarmed.

I'm not pro-carry unless you can demonstrate you know what you're doing. In that you are correct.

To whom must I demonstrate I know what I'm doing? To you? If you see me carrying a firearm are you going to come up to me and make sure I'm trained to your standards? If the government required me to be 'well trained' would you ask to see verification of said training?

Sounds like busy-bodyness to me. You carry if you want or don't if you don't - I won't tell you what to do and you stay out of my business and don't tell me what to do. If I'm on your property then, by all means, exercise your best judgement as to whether I should carry on your property but other than that it's NOYB.

Yah. And they are gonna have more examples outside of the hood each time a "responsible" gun owner caps his own kid comin home or "accidentally" injures a child. WE are our own worse enemy. You guys haven't figured that out? The next Sandy Hook or Aurora will keep the Brady people pushing legislation.

The media is our worst enemy. Those that spread lies and misinformation are our worst enemy.

Many more people [adults and children both] are killed accidentally or negligently every year by all kinds of other things other than guns - but you don't see that making national headlines and you don't see people pushing new legislation to stop it.

I'd venture to say if the media gave as much press and attention to something like abortion, drownings, or drunk driving fatalities as they do an accidental/negligent shooting abortion would be illegal or getting pregnant would be illegal, swimming or owning a pool as well as boating would be illegal, and driving or drinking would be illegal.

I could argue/debate why the media and most liberals are anti-gun but meh - that's an ongoing debate all over this forum and you can go take part in it if you want.

But it's the dumb sh*t that WE do to ourselves that puts restrictions on us.

That's the way it works, unfortunately. There are plenty of stupid laws that limit law-abiding citizens from doing things they should be able to do because a few couldn't/didn't handle whatever it was responsibly. This isn't specific to guns and you shouldn't act like it is.

It isn't the bangers or the psychos that we can do anything about.

You can't fix stupid/crazy. Limiting law abiding citizens due to the activities of the stupid/crazy is a bit silly but that's the system we have. It is possible to do something about 'bangers' and 'psychos' but as the system stands it does little even if they're caught.

It's training and safe usage on OUR parts that keeps the noise limited to the psychos and bangers that keep our arguments strong.

Negligent activity with a firearm is dwarfed by a large margin by so many other nefarious things. The media focuses on gun accidents and, as such, the belief that it's more pervasive than it is exists.

Even if you are trained and you do use your firearm safely - you're human and capable of making a mistake.

So, I know you all have military training or LEO or NRA training right? And you all have completed a training course and read everything you need to about the present law. Good. That's what…20,000 INGO members?

Thankfully we do not need your 'stamp of approval' to carry. Ultimately each and every carrier is responsible for their actions regardless of whether they're trained properly or not.

What about the rest of the Indiana guys carrying?

What about them?

 

[actaeon277]

To the "you don't need it there", or "you'll likely hit a bystander", have you not noticed some of the people there.
Maybe its just me, I've had to have some removed around 7 times, and arrested once while at a pediatric intensive care.

Should i leave my gun in the car, to be stolen, or to be attacked in the garage?

And I must have been so in the wrong, when everyone in the waiting room clapped, and the little old lady said "go gettem".

Still waiting.
By the way, the above mentioned person arrested, made sure to recite my address. He was arrested for threatening to kill me, and a nurse.
He was released the next day, "extenuating circumstances". The circumstances being his kid was in intensive care.
This would be the same kid that in three days, he hadn't seen once, because he was busy trying to force the family/friends of the child's mother to leave.
I guess none of us needed protection.

Although when I apologized to the security guard and police, they said it happened all the time.
People are under stress in the hospital.

 

[Dirtebiker]

If you cannot debate the argument, question the bona fides.



And don't question my bona fides. You don't have the gravitas.

Are you sure you know what "gravitas" is? Who is it that you don't think is serious in their questioning?

 

[Dirtebiker]

If you don't know how to use it and can't exercise good judgement, then you shouldn't be carrying. You are a danger to yourself and the community. If you don't think you need training in safety rules, if you can't handle disputes, if you can't hit sh*t under stress, then YOU are the problem, mi amigo.

And me, and my brethren that are responsible will suffer because of your thinking.

I'll leave it there. It is impossible to debate a topic with someone who has a closed mind.

So, you're saying that those among us with no formal training "don't know how to use (their gun) and can't exercise good judgement"? AND they "are a danger to (themselves) and the community"?
You certainly are full of yourself, aren't you!?

 

[Amishman44]

I don't know of a hospital that allows firearms in IN anymore...for several reasons ranging from 'safety' to control. However, that has never stopped me from being 'safe first' whenever I've visited someone who in for care!

 

[Denny347]

 

[churchmouse]

Love it.

Rep mag empty but +1

 

[SteveM4A1]

A lawsuit they'd probably lose if the sign is worded correctly. So far in Indiana, signage involving prohibiting firearms has not been addressed.

Are you aware of some knowledge that the rest of us don't know pertaining to the mindset of the possible future judge? Please share. Are you arguing that no gun signs do have the force of law?

You can arrest someone for trespassing too, based simply on a "No Trespassing" sign, but I've never actually seen it do, in absense of a protection order, or some other court ordered prohibition.

Yes this is true.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Are you aware of some knowledge that the rest of us don't know pertaining to the mindset of the possible future judge? Please share. Are you arguing that no gun signs do have the force of law?


Yes this is true.

Like he said, no trespassing signs DO carry the weight of law and while it has been discussed before and I don't like repeating it too often a "properly" worded sign combining carry of a firearm to trespass would technically hold the weight of law as things are written in Indiana currently.

Also as he stated he has never seen or heard of such a case and neither has my research or Guy Relford's for that matter.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I would like to see a properly worded sign so I know where to avoid. When you are paying for a service, you have entered into a contract with that business and therefore cannot be trespassing correct?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

When you are paying for a service, you have entered into a contract with that business and therefore cannot be trespassing correct?

Not even close to correct. Having a contract with someone and having a contractual interest in their property are completely different things. If I pay you to mow my grass, that doesn't mean I can camp in your living room.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So, you're saying that those among us with no formal training "don't know how to use (their gun) and can't exercise good judgement"? AND they "are a danger to (themselves) and the community"?

He clearly didn't say that. Even for INGO, this thread is ridiculous in mischaracterization of other people's arguments.

 

[actaeon277]

It is impossible to debate a topic with someone who has a closed mind.

There. Common ground. We do agree on something.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Not even close to correct. Having a contract with someone and having a contractual interest in their property are completely different things. If I pay you to mow my grass, that doesn't mean I can camp in your living room.

I'm not saying it does. But if you pay for a service, you can't be trespassing until you are asked to leave. Is this incorrect?

 

[SteveM4A1]

A lawsuit they'd probably lose if the sign is worded correctly. So far in Indiana, signage involving prohibiting firearms has not been addressed. You can arrest someone for trespassing too, based simply on a "No Trespassing" sign, but I've never actually seen it do, in absense of a protection order, or some other court ordered prohibition.

Thank both you and TF for bringing this to my attention, because it is something I had not thought of in the state of Indiana before. It still doesn't change the statement though IMO. No gun signs have no basis in law in Indiana as of this moment. A sign that mentions carrying a gun equals trespassing is not a no guns sign as I see it, but a trespassing sign.