The doctor was defying a policy “barring anyone except on-duty law enforcement officers from carrying weapons anywhere on its campus.” Thus proving for the thousandth time that “gun-free zones” are some of the most dangerous places on earth.
Now–for those of you who claim, over and over and over, against all evidence to the contrary, that no law-abiding citizen has ever used a gun to stop a would-be mass murderer, and/or claim that whatever good guns might do is outweighed by the harm–how do you react to this story? It’s easy for you to pretend that defensive uses of guns don’t exist, when only the NRA and a few local sources cover the stories–but THIS story made the national news.
I’m sure that some of you will try to explain it away–perhaps make up some reason for why this story doesn’t matter. Virtually all anti-gun people have the attitude, “My mind is made up–don’t bother me with facts.”
This fact may not do any good, but here it is anyway–many spree killers give up (often by committing suicide) at the first sign of any resistance, even if the resistance is ineffectual.
Because one person was shot dead, this hospital is one of the most dangerous places on earth? And you have 999 similar examples? Hyperbole much?
This story does nothing to refute the view that “whatever good guns might do is outweighed by the harm”. All it shows is that, on one occasion, one gun did some good. While this is an effective refutation of a claim that no gun can ever do any good, it’s no use for refuting the claim that, on balance, guns do more harm than good. Even if we look at this instance in isolation, the gun wielded by the perpetrator killed someone. You have to ignore that to conclude that, in this instance, guns did more good than harm.
Your own post suggests that this attitude is not entirely confined to anti-gun people.
Three shots center mass - good aim under pressure. Also - 3 hits center mass and the guy is still alive. Just one data point that it often takes multiple hits to stop someone.
Can you point to anybody who has ever said that nobody has ever used a gun to stop a crime? That’s as ridiculous as claiming that nobody has ever used a gun to commit a crime.
Guns can be used for good or for bad. The issue is whether one outweighs the other.
Indeed, the safest countries on earth have a relaxed gun culture: The USA, Honduras, Venezuela, South Africa, El Salvador, The Congo, Colombia etc…
Knowing every day as one leaves the house, that most people you meet aren’t carrying guns is to live in terror.
Does anyone wonder why pro-gun arguments are so often in the form of stupid anecdotes, and the arguments promoting public safety are always in the form of statistics?
“I love my gun so much I was sleeping with it in my bed, and when a bad black bear burst in through my bedroom window, I shot him dead. If I didn’t have a gun, I wouldn’t be alive, praise the Lord.”
So “law abiding citizens” are free to disregard any restrictions on guns? It is not impossible for a gun to prevent a crime, but it is infinitely more likely that a gun will be used to commit a crime.
As a tepid supporter of gun rights, I have to say that this OP is a complete failure even if this case is a good anecdote. Most dangerous place on earth? This has to be the most moronic statement I have read this year.
How many people would have died if neither the doctor nor the patient had a gun?
“Thanks to the NRA’s efforts to block any sensible gun control, a mentally ill patient was able to acquire a gun and use it to kill an innocent case worker and terrorize staff and patients until subdued by an armed doctor.” That would be an equally unconvincing OP, wouldn’t it?
