Then many would blame the guns, again, for the possible massacre.
Heard this discussed last night on the radio. A real lesson to remember. Bookmarked.
The mental patient might have shot up a lot of people, the doctor had a gun, the patient killed one person sadly, the doc was wounded but he was armed as well.
“Whether the hospital takes administrative action against Silverman for carrying a gun to work will be closely watched by those involved in America’s febrile gun debate.”
If this is even a question — that is a sad commentary — the doctor should get a medal for saving many lives.
Classic scenario Justice vs. Law.
Having said that, all rights are coupled with responsibilities, and if a property owner is going to disallow his employees, customers and guests the means of protecting themselves, they incur an obligation to protect each and every one of them. I think an easy solution is to allow the employer to make the rules permitting or not permitting lawful firearm ownership on their property, but should they choose to bar firearms, knives, pepper spray, etc. they assume both corporate and personal liability for persons injured or killed as a result of their decision to disarm.
There can be no reasonable argument made that guns in law abiding citizens hands should be infringed.
Disregarding the occasional accident, 99 times out of 100 good things happen. Criminals and documented Crazies, 99 times out of 100 bad things happen. The solution is obvious.
A very important note in the article is how the police strongly supported the psychiatrist in defending himself and others.
Just 10 or more year ago, police would uniformly parrot the statement that citizens “shouldn’t take the law into their own hands by defending themselves, that they should instead always call the police.” Which in retrospect, is obviously wrong.
Many police were initially dead set against an armed public, yet today, having seen what happens with an armed public, they are some of the strongest advocates of having an armed citizenry.
This is because, more and more, the police are seeing with their own eyes that the armed citizenry are very effective in reducing crime, most of the time not needing to fire their guns. In turn, this is a huge help to the police, making their jobs easier, and many times, providing them quick backup when their lives are at risk.
Likewise, the police notice that in gun liberty areas, it is becoming so hard to be a criminal that a lot of criminals are either quitting, or moving to crimes far less likely for them to get shot. Criminals no longer just have to keep watch for police, they have to be afraid of *everyone*.
What’s not to like?
As an aside, there is an irony here that I haven’t heard mentioned. When police are on duty in a gun liberty area, they know where they stand. But they also know that when they enter a gun-free zone, that potential armed civilian backup isn’t there. That gun-free zone might *look* safer, but it is more dangerous.
Doctors yes; teachers.... it depends.
In my experience this adjective is usually indicates a strong anti-second Amendment point of view.
The article says the doctor crouched behind his desk and “fetched” his gun. It doesn’t sound like it was on his person, but maybe in a desk drawer?
Since the man has a right to keep and bear arms, and since the situation proved for anyone why that is, I can’t see him violating anything more than a no-gun zone established by a hospital. I’m sure that’s backed up by law of some kind, but what if it’s a ‘no carry’ zone and not a ‘no gun’ zone?
My sense then is that he wasn’t armed, in the classic sense of the word. I’ve never heard the word “fetched” be used about one who took a gun out of a holster or a pocket.
I don’t know what the technicality would be, but this could be a technicality in favor of the doctor, if the gun really was in a desk drawer.
>Should doctors and teachers be armed?<
.
Why only doctors and teachers?
Are they more qualified to go armed than law-abiding citizens with concealed handgun permits?
Thea doctor should have had the common decency to just die rather than embarass his betters.
I don’t know about this being a, “Gun rights case being born,” but it does open up a few questions.
Should an employer, if he chooses to make his/her business a gun free zone, be responsible for the safety of all employees?
Not only while at the workplace, but en route to and from it as well. What if I’m on my way home from or to work, while stopped at a red light, and I get carjacked and shot? If my employer had allowed me to carry, it might have ended differently.
Lots of gun owners feel that it’s irresponsible to leave a firearm unattended in their vehicle for fear that it could get stolen. Plus, the business property could ALSO include the parking lot. What then?
With the economy being as horrid as it is, I doubt that anyone wants to become the first test case for this issue.
A few months ago, a young man knifed a bunch of people in a local hospital where his mother was being treated. He was insane and thought they were killing his mother.
I can’t recall how many died. I guess it didn’t make national news because it didn’t involve a “nasty, dangerous gun.”
Honestly, anyone who thinks someone who used a gun to save lives should be punished hasn’t got a shred of logic in them to make them worth debating.
In this crazy world I worry every day who is going to walk into the hospital I work in and start shooting. And I feel very vulnerable walking to my car in the docs parking lot, often late at night. Like all hospitals, mine refuses to even consider allowing staff to carry on campus....
How about...if the doc is reprimanded, then the family of the deceased has grounds to sue on behalf of everyone who did and would be shot as a direct result of enforced policy? Doctrine of competing harms...if he’s in trouble for saving lives, then the hospital assumes responsibility for the harm done and inevitable.