Gun-carrying doctor stops killer

[Whack-a-Mole]

@running_coach

But a holder of a CCW is far less likely than even the general population to commit a crime.

Which to me argues that ANYONE wanting to own a gun needs to go through a CCW licensing procedure.

[Una_Persson]

You won’t find a more fervent advocate of concealed carry than I, but this is just a sample size of one.

[running_coach]

@Whack-a-Mole

I may be wrong but I thought a private business can ban guns on its property. Was this a privately run hospital?

@Whack-a-Mole

Which to me argues that ANYONE wanting to own a gun needs to go through a CCW licensing procedure.

I don’t know if the hospital is privately owned but Skammer called it a crime. It’s not, it’s a violation of a company policy.

It’s not even mentioned if the doctor had a permit.

I actually agree about the training. Maybe not CCW level just to purchase but maybe similar to a driver’s license with higher levels for CCW.

Or leave in place the current hodgepodge at the state level and have a federal license (with a higher level of training) that must be honored by all states and no restrictions on carry.

[mqqn]

@BobLibDem

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.

@running_coach

But a holder of a CCW is far less likely than even the general population to commit a crime.

Yes - indeed, so the answer is obviously more laws and regulations, since it is impossible that anyone can break those laws.

Typical smarm-fest from people who enjoy their freedoms in a world where the only reason they CAN is because armed men and women made it possible.

You will never eliminate guns completely, and laws against owning and using them will NOT prevent criminals from using them in crimes.

Maybe we should legislate against mental illness to prevent mental illness from happening.

The simple fact is that almost all of the documented mass-killings with firearms happened in “gun free zones” and many of them were perpetrated by a mentally ill person or persons who already were not legally able to own a firearm.

Focus on gun safety, education, mental illness reporting and training of that 5% of the people who want to own and carry a firearm.

Forks did not make you fat.

Back to your smarm-fest.

best

mqqn

[Czarcasm]

@mqqn

Yes - indeed, so the answer is obviously more laws and regulations, since it is impossible that anyone can break those laws.

Typical smarm-fest from people who enjoy their freedoms in a world where the only reason they CAN is because armed men and women made it possible.

You will never eliminate guns completely, and laws against owning and using them will NOT prevent criminals from using them in crimes.

Maybe we should legislate against mental illness to prevent mental illness from happening.

The simple fact is that almost all of the documented mass-killings with firearms happened in “gun free zones” and many of them were perpetrated by a mentally ill person or persons who already were not legally able to own a firearm.

Focus on gun safety, education, mental illness reporting and training of that 5% of the people who want to own and carry a firearm.

Forks did not make you fat.

Back to your smarm-fest.

best

mqqn

Thank you for all those Facebook pass-alongs.

[mqqn]

@Czarcasm

Thank you for all those Facebook pass-alongs.

You are welcome, smarmcazm.

best

mqqn

[Whack-a-Mole]

@mqqn

The simple fact is that almost all of the documented mass-killings with firearms happened in “gun free zones” and many of them were perpetrated by a mentally ill person or persons who already were not legally able to own a firearm.

Fact? I suppose you have the statistics to back that up?

From what I have read that assertion is very misleading:

The argument claims to explain both the motive behind mass shootings and how they play out. The killers deliberately choose sites where firearms are forbidden, gun-rights advocates say, and because there are no weapons, no “good guy with a gun” will be on hand to stop the crime.

With its overtones of fear and heroism, the argument makes for slick sound bites. But here’s the problem: Both its underlying assumptions are contradicted by data. Not only is there zero evidence to support them, our in-depth investigation of America’s mass shootings indicates they are just plain wrong.

Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns. To the contrary, in many of the cases there was clearly another motive for the choice of location. For example, 20 were workplace shootings, most of which involved perpetrators who felt wronged by employers and colleagues. Last September, when a troubled man working at a sign manufacturer in Minneapolis was told he would be let go, he pulled out a 9mm Glock and killed six people and injured another before putting a bullet in his own head. Similar tragedies unfolded at a beer distributor in Connecticut in 2010 and at a plastics factory in Kentucky in 2008.

Or consider the 12 school shootings we documented, in which all but one of the killers had personal ties to the school they struck. FBI investigators learned from one witness, for example, that the mass shooter in Newtown had long been fixated on Sandy Hook Elementary School, which he’d once attended.

SOURCE: The NRA Myth of Gun-Free Zones – Mother Jones

[VinylTurnip]

@mqqn

Typical smarm-fest from people who enjoy their freedoms in a world where the only reason they CAN is because armed men and women made it possible.

Odd. People who live in places with very little freedom enjoy their subjugation thanks to armed men and women, too. Well, mostly men.

[x-ray_vision]

@Flyer

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?

There is no evidence in the article you linked to that the person stopped is a would-be mass murderer.

[Willy_Pete]

@Happy_Fun_Ball

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.

Right, because that would be somewhere like, uh, Chicago. Home of the most restrictive gun laws in the United States. Oh, so effective.

[running_coach]

@x-ray_vision

There is no evidence in the article you linked to that the person stopped is a would-be mass murderer.

One innocent person was killed. An attempt was made to kill a second.

Maybe the killer would have tuned the gun on himself or he would have shot anyone who tried to interfere. Maybe he would have just wandered around shooting at random until he ran out of ammo.

Do you really want to find out?
Do you really prefer a higher death toll?

[x-ray_vision]

@UDS

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.

The article isn’t even clear if that’s a fact. We don’t know that the shooter would have shot at anyone else other than the case worker if the psychiatrist didn’t engage in a shootout.

[x-ray_vision]

@running_coach

One innocent person was killed. An attempt was made to kill a second.

Maybe the killer would have tuned the gun on himself or he would have shot anyone who tried to interfere. Maybe he would have just wandered around shooting at random until he ran out of ammo.

Do you really want to find out?
Do you really prefer a higher death toll?

Why are you asking me what I want? I stated that there is no evidence in the article linked to that the person stopped is a would-be mass murderer. That’s a fact.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Willy_Pete

Right, because that would be somewhere like, uh, Chicago. Home of the most restrictive gun laws in the United States. Oh, so effective.

Unfortunately in the US gun law restrictions are absurdly easy to bypass. Just drive a city or two over and chances are you can get all the guns you want.

Fortunately we do have an example of what happens after guns are severely restricted on a national scale. Did the criminals run rampant killing all the sheeple?

Nope.

But one of Howard’s other lasting legacies is Australia’s gun control regime, first passed in 1996 in response to a massacre in Tasmania that left 35 dead. The law banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns. It also instituted a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons.

On Wednesday, Howard took to the Melbourne daily the Age to call on the United States, in light of the Aurora, Colo., massacre, to follow in Australia’s footsteps. “There are many American traits which we Australians could well emulate to our great benefit,” he concluded. “But when it comes to guns, we have been right to take a radically different path.”

So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law’s effectiveness.

<snip>

What is significant is the decline the laws caused in the firearm suicide rate, which Leigh and Neill estimate at a 74 percent reduction for a buyback of that size. This is even higher than the overall decline in the suicide rate, because the gun buybacks’ speed varied from state to state. In states with quick buybacks, the fall in the suicide rate far exceeded the fall in states with slower buybacks:

SOURCE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/

Poor Aussies. If only they had more guns…

[mqqn]

@Whack-a-Mole

Fact? I suppose you have the statistics to back that up?

From what I have read that assertion is very misleading:

I am sure that this could degrade into a “here is my statistics” and you will show me the “Mayors Against Guns” Bloomberg funded study showing different numbers, but I will submit the Lott/Landes paper for your reading enjoyment -

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=272929

If this is a citation oriented board - I did not see that so far, but again I don’t see anyone with factual rebuttal to my “facebook points” either.

Would anyone dispute that much gun related violent crime in the USA is criminal on criminal - i.e. gang violence in large cities, and drug related violence. Anyone?

Would anyone dispute that someone who is willing to take multiple lives, many time of complete strangers, is not mentally ill? Anyone?

Would anyone dispute that people who are intent to do so can and will gain access to a firearm no matter how much regulation is in place? Anyone?

Would anyone dispute that a trained, armed person is better able to protect themselves and other innocent people from harm by an armed person who is intent to do harm that would be an unarmed person? Anyone?

If we could have a good, factual discussion it would be good - although the sides of this issue are truly polarized and no amount of data will sway the entrenched.

For the record, I am a firearms safety instructor and CCW instructor, so I have my biases baked in as well as anyone.

@VinylTurnip

Odd. People who live in places with very little freedom enjoy their subjugation thanks to armed men and women, too. Well, mostly men.

And your point is that some people were not able to properly protect themselves from the armed men and women that took their freedom? Making my point for me perhaps? Smarms not Arms, eh?

best

mqqn

[running_coach]

@x-ray_vision

The article isn’t even clear if that’s a fact. We don’t know that the shooter would have shot at anyone else other than the case worker if the psychiatrist didn’t engage in a shootout.

From the OP’s link.

Staff members had heard loud arguing inside Silverman’s office during the appointment. They opened the door and noticed the patient had a gun pointed at the doctor, so they quietly closed the door and dialed 911, Whelan said. Gunshots were heard a short time later, just before 2:30 p.m.

The patient was threatening the doctor first. The doctor was responding to a threat.
Remember, the caseworker was shot and killed first and the doctor was grazed in the temple before returning fire.
There was no doubt the patient was trying to kill the doctor.

[Czarcasm]

@Willy_Pete

Right, because that would be somewhere like, uh, Chicago. Home of the most restrictive gun laws in the United States. Oh, so effective.

Different case with different parameters. Bringing up the problems with Chicago deserves its own thread, in my opinion, because it goes far beyond “they’ve got restrictive gun laws and high crime and that proves gun laws don’t work”.

[Kearsen1]

@Little_Nemo

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.

As has been stated before, no that’s really not the issue.

The issue is does your taking of legally owned guns make anyone more or less safe. The clear answer to that question is No.

[Czarcasm]

@Kearsen1

As has been stated before, no that’s really not the issue.

The issue is does your taking of legally owned guns make anyone more or less safe. The clear answer to that question is No.

No, that’s the bumper sticker “Gun Grabber!!11!!” issue you want to turn this into. It doesn’t always boil down to “They want my guns!”. Really.

[Miller]

@Kearsen1

As has been stated before, no that’s really not the issue.

The issue is does your taking of legally owned guns make anyone more or less safe. The clear answer to that question is No.

Considering that we haven’t taken away anyone’s legally owned guns yet, I’m not sure how you can come to that conclusion.