TexasCHLforum.com

Pennsylvania hospital: Wounded doctor fired back at gunman, officials say

"Without that firearm, this guy (the patient) could have went out in the hallway and just walked down the offices until he ran out of ammunition,"

Chalk up another one for the good guys with guns.

For being a hero, sure is a lot of concern by the reporter on whether it was OK for the doctor to shoot the murderer, or whether he was allowed to have a gun, or whether he had a permit.

I noticed the story dropped off of Twitter and other sites rather quickly once it was discovered that a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun.

The perfect response to the shrill whiners exclaiming "WHO NEEDS A GUN IN A HOSPITAL?!"

And I'm sure Shannon Watts is conveniently ignoring the fact that a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun.

philip964 wrote:For being a hero, sure is a lot of concern by the reporter on whether it was OK for the doctor to shoot the murderer, or whether he was allowed to have a gun, or whether he had a permit.

For the media, the devil is in the details.

But overall, this story just shows how Gun Free Zones (a.k.a. Free Fire Zones) are stupid. A lot of hospitals are GFZ's here in Texas, as long as they have 30.06 posted or are a part of an educational institution. That means law-abiding citizens are disarmed. I don't know if the hospital in PA is a GFZ, but I kinda hope that it is and that detail is highly publicized. Not because I want the doctor to be in any sort of trouble (because I don't), but because the discussion needs to happen. Just because an area is a Gun Free Zone doesn't mean there's a force field preventing any sort of firearms from entering the area. It's common sense that a lot of people just don't understand.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... pital.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Doctor was violating hospital rules by having a gun.

This obviously could cause him to loose his job.

It will be interesting how this ends.

Still a hero to me. I hope he retains his job and is not prosecuted.

philip964 wrote:It will be interesting how this ends.

http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article ... 646544.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The hospital said Friday it was thankful for the "brave and difficult action" taken by Silverman and his colleagues. It said he remains a full member of the medical staff and "we look forward to Dr. Silverman's return to serving patients at our hospital."

philip964 wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... pital.html

Doctor was violating hospital rules by having a gun.

This obviously could cause him to loose his job.

It will be interesting how this ends.

I'd love to see them fire a guy who was SHOT in their hospital. When it's over he just might own the place. Any attorney worth his salt would make the argument that the gun free zone jeopardized his life and that without his weapon he would be dead.

So, they don't want good guys with guns in their hospital until they need a good guy with a gun in their hospital? Hopefully, this will wake more people up to the obvious.

Turns out the doc won't lose his job after all.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/0 ... keeps-job/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

sbrawley wrote:

mojo84 wrote:So, they don't want good guys with guns in their hospital until they need a good guy with a gun in their hospital? Hopefully, this will wake more people up to the obvious.

I'm not going to hold my breath

As part of my security consulting practice I provide advisory services to major companies on active shooter deterrence and response, including policy / procedure and training development and delivery.

I've been using the Pennsylvania doc incident to get the folks who have policies similar to the hospital's thinking. I recount the incident and then ask which choice the hospital's administration should make:

1. Fire the doc for being prepared to save his own life and the lives of many others. Keep policy the same. Likely outcome: two weeks of censure and ridicule in every newspaper and news website in the country. Overwhelmingly negative feedback through email and web site communication channels. Perception by potential patients that the hospital is not a safe place to be, and a strong perception by employees that their lives are a very low priority for the hospital. Some downside in profitability and stock price probable at least in the short term, and negative impact on recruitment and retention of personnel.

2. Don't fire the doc and keep the policy the same. Likely outcome: more licensed personnel will carry on premises because they know they're on their own during the time frame that counts, and a non firing precedent has been established in the event they need to take similar action. Perception among employees that management just wants to look the other way rather than make a thoughtful transition in policy. Potential for increased liability if permission to carry continues to be denied and is followed by injury or death in a future incident.

3. Change the policy in some way (e.g. OK to carry with individual permission if elevated training standards similar to those being implemented by some school districts are met). Likely outcome: Significant deterrence to future active shooters, and increased perception of safety by patients and staff, and increased loyalty to the company from employees due to perception of active care for their safety.

Very few make a decision on the spot, but it sure gets the discussion going - and gets an awful lot of usually decisive senior executives, including the legal eagles, squirming in their seats.