So, here’s the situation: guy with mental issues gets a gun and starts a rampage at a Philadelphia hospital. He shoots his caseworker (who later died of her wounds), then goes after a psychatrist named Dr. Lee Silverman… who promptly pulls out a gun from his desk and puts several bullets in the man, being wounded himself in the process. Mind you, the entire site is, of course, a gun-free zone.
The Christian Science Monitor is trying, here. It’s really, legitimately trying to concede the point that Dr. Silverman stopped a shooter before he could kill more people, and that everybody officially involved admits that. But I still have to point out this admittedly-small blind spot.
…the Pennsylvania hospital gunfight is already being recounted at least by some gun owners as a telling anecdote about life in a heavily armed nation where 60 million people suffer from some kind of mental-health problem.
For one thing, police are still trying to figure out why [Dr. Lee] Silverman was armed in the first place since bringing a gun to work is against the rules at the hospital.
:pause:
Um, because Dr. Lee Silverman had no intention of dying? And, hey, it turns out that if you let responsible people have access to their guns, they can use them appropriately when a maniac* shows up. Some of my more, ah, rigorous fellow-travelers on the Second Amendment have a saying: Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. I am not entirely convinced that this is always a sound policy – more accurately, I think that this saying is sometimes used as an excuse to engage in at least mildly sub-optimal behaviors – but I have to admit that said policy seems to have worked out in this particular case.
Via Instapundit. More details here and here. It certainly sounds like the shooter planned to start with Dr. Silverman: whether he would have stopped there is thankfully not a question that we can answer. I am disinclined to give the benefit of the doubt to a armed murderer in a hospital, though: and, frankly? So should everybody else.
Moe Lane (crosspost)
*Not politically correct of me to refer to a mental patient in that fashion, I know. But the man** did attempt a rampage.
**I know his name, but I will not say it. The ancient Greeks had the right idea on that one.
All over the country, lawfully armed citizens carry loaded firearms every day and they are the MOST law abiding cohort in the population. You never hear about with them until a criminal pulls out a gun first. Why do we still have people who ignore this vast body of evidence and worry about “sub-optimal behaviors” without acknowledging the vast number of armed good citizens like this Dr. Silverman. As an aside, the U.S. District Court in D.C. today issued a permanent injunction against the District governments enforcement of its draconian anti gun gun laws. You can carry in the District today as a District resident or as a non-resident. Why, it is almost like the U.S. Consitution applies there!
I’ll take my chances with a jury any day of the week. George Zimmerman is living testament that despite slander from the press or government, a jury will acquit a man defending himself or others.
Sorry, The D.C. court case is Palmer v. U.S. and was decided today. gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/07/alan-gura-victory-in-palmer-v-dc.html
Just when would be better off dead then tried by a jury. Please explain???
As I said, sometimes it can be used to justify doing something that isn’t actually called for, or even all that smart.