Skip to comments.Doctor shoots armed patient in Philly hospital: A gun rights case is born
Posted on 07/26/2014 6:42:46 AM PDT by Innovative
Psychiatrist Lee Silverman worked in a gun-free hospital, but pulled out a gun in his desk to subdue an armed patient, who had just shot his caseworker. The case renews the issue: Should doctors and teachers be armed?
A mental-health caseworker is dead and a doctor and his patient wounded after a bizarre gunfight at a gun-free-zoned hospital in Yeadon, Pa., near Philadelphia, Thursday. As police prepare murder charges against the wounded patient, focus is shifting to the gun-toting psychiatrist who stopped the mayhem, likely saving other lives.
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
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 Americas 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.
Well, they have a right to make rules.
However, to be fair, just give him a slap on the wrist at worst.
This is where “judgement” comes in, not “by the book”. Which probably doesn’t give details anyway.
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.
Not to mention, that criminals don’t pay attention to the law prohibiting them from carrying a gun...
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.
Teachers yes: "educators"?....HELL NO!
Not saying to ‘make rules’ is right nor wrong, but to deny someone their 2nd A. Rights, does such an entity then not make security their responsibility?
Course, using that same logic, I haven’t seen anyone sue the State/Fed gov’t for creating fish-in-a-barrel ala gov’t indoctrination...Oops, ‘schools’
***Doctors yes; teachers.... it depends.***
I remember some students, 55 years ago, who felt their purpose in life was to drive the teachers to the brink of sanity.
QED, Democrats should not be allowed to have guns.
I can point out where I have the right to keep and bear arms recognized by the Constitution. Where in the constitution is the right for property owners and employers to remove other constitutionally guaranteed rights? What other rights can they forbid?
Most teachers I know shouldn't be trusted with any potentially dangerous device.
The Constitution forbids government from restricting rights. A property owner can set virtually any rule he or she wants to grant access to their property. Go to work in your underwear and a pair of flip-flops and tell your boss you're just exercising your freedom of speech. Come back and tell me how that works out for you...
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.
Say a group of ne'er-do-wells sets up a satanic black mass in your front yard. When it's done, they break out in a spontaneous Obama rally with signs and t-shirts proclaiming the virtues of "the won." They can point out where they have a freedom of religion and right to political speech.