Should physicians be armed?

[FSU2013]

Why don't we ask the government if they could pull some cash off of their money tree to train people who may or may not be or eventually become criminals on marksmanship and use of deadly force.

I'm still very confused as to how a terrible tragedy where children were gunned down has transformed a bunch of premeds/med students/residents into a counter terrorist unit.

I hear ha, but I think it's the natural response. People see something like this and feel helpless and want to do something to protect themselves.

Personally, I've always been an advocate of concealed carry laws and I carry often (obviously never in the hospital).

There was something kind of interest a few years back as an undergrad university (I think auburn, but don't quote me on it). They took some students with concealed carry permits and that we're in good standing with the school and deputized them. I think they all had to take some police training. Thought this would be an interesting thing for schools.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[dbeast]

10/10 for creativity.

0/10 for appropriateness.

Overall score: 5/10, decent troll is decent.

 

[FSU2013]

10/10 for creativity.

0/10 for appropriateness.

Overall score: 5/10, decent troll is decent.

Cynic. Lol.

 

[KnuxNole]

How would you feel about just incorporating a basic training in riflemanship into the standard American school curriculum? The actual time spend teaching military recruits to shoot, and even why to shoot, is a surprisingly short part of their overall education. Could a month of marksmanship and use of deadly force training, say after the senior year of high school, be a solution to at least the accidental gun deaths in this nation, if not the homicides?

I feel like we're at a crappy middle ground right now where we have universal access to guns, but we're just liberal enough that no one want to 'turn our children into killers', or whatever, by actually making americans learn to use the weapons they have such free access to.

A lot of kids get "training" with CoD/Battlefield games

 

[487806]

10/10 for creativity.

0/10 for appropriateness.

Overall score: 5/10, decent troll is decent.

 

[Perrotfish]

Why don't we ask the government if they could pull some cash off of their money tree to train people who may or may not be or eventually become criminals on marksmanship and use of deadly force.

And this is why no one in America knows how to use the weapons they own. It isn't like this is an obscure hobby for a few southern gun nuts, 40% of americans have a gun in their home. There are more registered guns in this nation then there are people. We've estabilish a gun culture in this nation, and making sure that people know how to safely handle and fire those weapons is just a basic public health issue. The majoirty of gun related deaths in this nation are accidents, and I believe most of them are preventable with training.

 

[Geebeejay]

And this is why no one in America knows how to use the weapons they own. It isn't like this is an obscure hobby for a few southern gun nuts, 40% of americans have a gun in their home. There are more registered guns in this nation then there are people. We've estabilish a gun culture in this nation, and making sure that people know how to safely handle and fire those weapons is just a basic public health issue. The majoirty of gun related deaths in this nation are accidents, and I believe most of them are preventable with training.

Agreed, to an extent, but we aren't talking about accidental deaths. We're talking about training a doctor army to combat mass murderers.

Even if we were talking about accidental deaths, it should not rest on the shoulders of the taxpayer to make sure that other people are responsible in using the guns that they chose to procure.

 

[eagles22]

Docs with pepper spray I could maybe consider (only maybe)....but I think even tasers are a stretch.

Have you ever been around pepper spray when it's gone off? That in an enclosed area is a recipe for disaster. It doesn't just affect the guy who is targeted.

 

[Perrotfish]

Even if we were talking about accidental deaths, it should not rest on the shoulders of the taxpayer to make sure that other people are responsible in using the guns that they chose to procure.

Much like public health classes, drivers ed, and Medicaid paying for vaccinations I think it is reasonble for the public to pay for training that benifts the public beyond the individual. I think that making sure that gun owner know how to be gun users is part of that.

 

[Barcu]

How would you feel about just incorporating a basic training in riflemanship into the standard American school curriculum? The actual time spend teaching military recruits to shoot, and even why to shoot, is a surprisingly short part of their overall education. Could a month of marksmanship and use of deadly force training, say after the senior year of high school, be a solution to at least the accidental gun deaths in this nation, if not the homicides?

I feel like we're at a crappy middle ground right now where we have universal access to guns, but we're just liberal enough that no one want to 'turn our children into killers', or whatever, by actually making americans learn to use the weapons they have such free access to.

I would be okay with that, but I wouldn't require it. However, it is something you would have to do to get a gun.

I agree we are a terrible position. We have a society that glamorizes guns and violence and then provides easy access to them without ensuring that people can handle them. I don't believe in an outright ban of guns, but I don't think having more people carrying is going to solve the problem either. There are very few situations where a gun can legitimately be used in self-defense. And when that situation actually arises, I feel that the vast majority of people couldn't handle it. I don't mind that people want to have guns. I don't care if you enjoy shooting at the range or like to go hunting. Lock it up somewhere away from your home and family. However, I do care that everyone insists that they need the gun to protect themselves. You don't. It's much more likely to hurt you or someone you love than an attacker. Widespread training might make that better, but I still believe that there would still be more accidents and suicides than self defense by a large margin.

 

[H Y F R]

Yesterday's unfortunate tragedy has definitely brought up a lot of discussion regarding gun control/laws. A lot of people don't usually think about physicians arming themselves with weapons, but the school shooting in Connecticut made me think back to an episode of "Untold Stories of the ER" that I saw a while back.

In this episode, a group of armed gang members rushed one of their members who was seriously wounded to the ER. They held the staff hostage and told them that they would kill them if they could not save their friend. The ER physician calmly pleaded with them telling them that they did everything they could to save him, and made them understand that nothing could be done... The gang members never ended up hurting any of the hospital staff.

Since some physicians, especially ED doctors in urban areas, come into contact with people from all forms of life, do you think that they should arm themselves in case of a situation like above or some other deranged individual trying to harm others with a weapon?

Hey OP, I respectfully say to you that your question is absolutely disgusting. You are training to be a physician. If you want to be armed, then the police academy is the way to go. We help people, no matter if they are in an urban setting, or in Beverly Hills.

 

[H Y F R]

This whole discussion is shameful.

 

[FrontierPsych]

This is the most absurd thing. The fact that anyone is seriously considering this is hilarious to me.

http://imgur.com/INtnG

 

[FSU2013]

Hey OP, I respectfully say to you that your question is absolutely disgusting. You are training to be a physician. If you want to be armed, then the police academy is the way to go. We help people, no matter if they are in an urban setting, or in Beverly Hills.

But I said with all due respect?

 

[RomanTaylor]

How would you feel about just incorporating a basic training in riflemanship into the standard American school curriculum? The actual time spend teaching military recruits to shoot, and even why to shoot, is a surprisingly short part of their overall education. Could a month of marksmanship and use of deadly force training, say after the senior year of high school, be a solution to at least the accidental gun deaths in this nation, if not the homicides?

I feel like we're at a crappy middle ground right now where we have universal access to guns, but we're just liberal enough that no one want to 'turn our children into killers', or whatever, by actually making Americans learn to use the weapons they have such free access to.

Boot camp is basic, BASIC training. The first time I ever fired a pistol and shotgun was in boot camp. All they really teach you there is how to fire it without shooting the guy next to you. The real training was the weekly rifle ranges, close combat training, field weeks with weapons, and the endless training we receive while constantly getting our butts kicked by higher up. I wouldn't exactly equate what we received in civilian-to-professional-janitor school to what would be needed to respond correctly in a life and death scenario.

 

[487806]

 

[RomanTaylor]

Hey OP, I respectfully say to you that your question is absolutely disgusting. You are training to be a physician. If you want to be armed, then the police academy is the way to go. We help people, no matter if they are in an urban setting, or in Beverly Hills.

Said the guy that presumably never had a pistol pointed in his face (I am assuming).

Experience has a funny way of changing such hardened opinions.

But by the by, I am all for giving someone on the support staff (nurses, etc) tasers. Let's face it, doctors aren't interacting with the public enough to be an effective deterrent anyway, hahahaha.

 

[RomanTaylor]

Have you ever been around pepper spray when it's gone off? That in an enclosed area is a recipe for disaster. It doesn't just affect the guy who is targeted.

I got pepper sprayed four times a year. It's not that bad, lol.

 

[Druggernaut]

Hey OP, I respectfully say to you that your question is absolutely disgusting. You are training to be a physician. If you want to be armed, then the police academy is the way to go. We help people, no matter if they are in an urban setting, or in Beverly Hills.

Uh, how's it disgusting to be interested in staying safe? He didn't say anything about not helping people. And the police are supposed to be there to help people too...

But I said with all due respect?

It's in the Geneva convention, look it up!

 

[Geebeejay]

Much like public health classes, drivers ed, and Medicaid paying for vaccinations I think it is reasonble for the public to pay for training that benifts the public beyond the individual. I think that making sure that gun owner know how to be gun users is part of that.

And I would argue that training every civilian about marksmanship and use of "deadly force" 100% does not benefit the public at all. It's really not comparable to public health issues or drivers ed (training which cannot be used to harm another person/persons) at all.

Have you ever been around pepper spray when it's gone off? That in an enclosed area is a recipe for disaster. It doesn't just affect the guy who is targeted.

I think that's a fair argument.

 

[KnuxNole]

Much like public health classes, drivers ed, and Medicaid paying for vaccinations I think it is reasonble for the public to pay for training that benifts the public beyond the individual. I think that making sure that gun owner know how to be gun users is part of that.

But what if you'll never come close to using a gun in your life? Hopefully it won't be mandated to have to sit through something which you'll never utilize :|

 

[ShenanigansMD]

I'm definitely packing a squirt gun as a future doc; those come in handy for all sorts of situations ranging from watering my office plants to blinding a would-be assailant with lemon juice.

 

[Daneosaurus]

No. Have security instead.

Most people aren't trained to handle these situations. Even if you are the best shot on a gun range, you can't predict how you will react under fire. Which is why police officers and military undergo intense training.

Arming doctors (or more people in general) is not the answer.

What about those of us who are trained to handle such situations, and then try to become physicians? Not busting your chops, but curious to your opinions. I do agree that most physicians, and civilians in general, do not have the requisite training to handle these situations, and if they tried any sort of "hero" tactic, they would more often than not make matters much worse.

 

[45408]

Why don't we ask the government if they could pull some cash off of their money tree to train people who may or may not be or eventually become criminals on marksmanship and use of deadly force.

I'm still very confused as to how a terrible tragedy where children were gunned down has transformed a bunch of premeds/med students/residents into a counter terrorist unit.

Would you really have much difficulty pulling the trigger on a guy shooting little children? I sure wouldn't. No transformation necessary.

I've already had a hunter's safety course and have gone shooting at the range a number of times. I like Perrotfish's idea of teaching everyone how to shoot. It's ridiculous how many people don't realize that every gun is loaded until proven otherwise, and you should never point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot (including everything behind it).

 

[45408]

Even if we were talking about accidental deaths, it should not rest on the shoulders of the taxpayer to make sure that other people are responsible in using the guns that they chose to procure.

We pay for policemen to patrol the freeways to make sure that other people are responsible in using the cars that they chose to procure.

Hey OP, I respectfully say to you that your question is absolutely disgusting. You are training to be a physician. If you want to be armed, then the police academy is the way to go. We help people, no matter if they are in an urban setting, or in Beverly Hills.

I help people who want my help or would want my help if they were thinking clearly. People who are thinking clearly, don't want my help, and are threatening me do not get my help.

And I would argue that training every civilian about marksmanship and use of "deadly force" 100% does not benefit the public at all. It's really not comparable to public health issues or drivers ed (training which cannot be used to harm another person/persons) at all.

You can turn a car into a deadly weapon.

Perrotfish is arguing that people will be safer if we decrease gun mishaps. I don't think we necessarily need marksmanship classes, but if you don't know the difference between a magazine and a clip, an automatic or a semi-automatic, a safety or an action or a hammer, or a shotgun vs a rifle, then I think teaching people the basic rules of firearm safety is a good idea.

But what if you'll never come close to using a gun in your life? Hopefully it won't be mandated to have to sit through something which you'll never utilize :|

And if you stumble across one? Almost half of the households in the country have one.

 

[dichloromethane]

what... no..

 

[Perrotfish]

Boot camp is basic, BASIC training. The first time I ever fired a pistol and shotgun was in boot camp. All they really teach you there is how to fire it without shooting the guy next to you. The real training was the weekly rifle ranges, close combat training, field weeks with weapons, and the endless training we receive while constantly getting our butts kicked by higher up. I wouldn't exactly equate what we received in civilian-to-professional-janitor school to what would be needed to respond correctly in a life and death scenario.

1). Most military never get anything more than than basic training and still carry weapons. Infantry might get weekly practice, corpsmen (for example) definitely do not.

2). Even that basic training is less basic than what ciivilian armed guards get in most states. In some state the course to be an armed guard is literally 48 hours long. Its not the school of infantry, or even police academy.

 

[Daneosaurus]

Would you really have much difficulty pulling the trigger on a guy shooting little children? I sure wouldn't. No transformation necessary.

I've already had a hunter's safety course and have gone shooting at the range a number of times. I like Perrotfish's idea of teaching everyone how to shoot. It's ridiculous how many people don't realize that every gun is loaded until proven otherwise, and you should never point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot (including everything behind it).

I don't know about other organizations, but these are the 4 official Marine Corps weapons safety rules:

1. Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
2. Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
4. Keep your weapon on safe until you intend to fire.

And the fifth (unofficial) rule is:

5. Know your target and what lies beyond it.

 

[NickNaylor]

Why don't we ask the government if they could pull some cash off of their money tree to train people who may or may not be or eventually become criminals on marksmanship and use of deadly force.

I'm still very confused as to how a terrible tragedy where children were gunned down has transformed a bunch of premeds/med students/residents into a counter terrorist unit.

Lol, exactly.

(sent from my phone)

 

[Daneosaurus]

1). Most military never get anything more than than basic training and still carry weapons. Infantry might get weekly practice, corpsmen (for example) definitely do not.

2). Even that basic training is less basic than what ciivilian armed guards get in most states. In some state the course to be an armed guard is literally 48 hours long. Its not the school of infantry, or even police academy.

Are you a veteran of any American military service? If not, you are talking out your butt. I know that what you describe was not my experience. Maybe n=1 on this? No. The battalion of over 200 Marines I have trained and trained with have had similar experiences.

Basic Training (again, Marine Corps) is very rigorous. Weapons training begins day 1, WEEKS (roughly 1.5 months) before you even fire.

In the military, you are unauthorized to carry a weapon that you're not qualified to use. The only exception is boot camp. You practice drill movements with the same weapon you fire with during firing week.

Corpsmen attached to infantry units get just as much training as the infantry - they train with the infantry.

 

[Daneosaurus]

10/10 for creativity.

0/10 for appropriateness.

Overall score: 5/10, decent troll is decent.

So says Mozart.

 

[ShenanigansMD]

Are you a veteran of any American military service? If not, you are talking out your butt. I know that what you describe was not my experience. Maybe n=1 on this? No. The battalion of over 200 Marines I have trained and trained with have had similar experiences.

Basic Training (again, Marine Corps) is very rigorous. Weapons training begins day 1, WEEKS (roughly 1.5 months) before you even fire.

In the military, you are unauthorized to carry a weapon that you're not qualified to use. The only exception is boot camp. You practice drill movements with the same weapon you fire with during firing week.

Corpsmen attached to infantry units get just as much training as the infantry - they train with the infantry.

In my opinion, it's SEAL training or you're a poser with a weapon. It's time we sent MDs to train in Coronado to see what real fighting is all about.

(Just emphasizing how ridiculous this thread is)

 

[Perrotfish]

Are you a veteran of any American military service? If not, you are talking out your butt. I know that what you describe was not my experience. Maybe n=1 on this? No. The battalion of over 200 Marines I have trained and trained with have had similar experiences.

Basic Training (again, Marine Corps) is very rigorous. Weapons training begins day 1, WEEKS (roughly 1.5 months) before you even fire.

In the military, you are unauthorized to carry a weapon that you're not qualified to use. The only exception is boot camp. You practice drill movements with the same weapon you fire with during firing week.

Corpsmen attached to infantry units get just as much training as the infantry - they train with the infantry.

I think you misread what I wrote, what you bolded refered to the armed guards that protect our hospitals and not the Marines.

 

[Geebeejay]

Would you really have much difficulty pulling the trigger on a guy shooting little children? I sure wouldn't. No transformation necessary.

I've already had a hunter's safety course and have gone shooting at the range a number of times. I like Perrotfish's idea of teaching everyone how to shoot. It's ridiculous how many people don't realize that every gun is loaded until proven otherwise, and you should never point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot (including everything behind it).

I sure wouldn't either...hell I'd go hand to hand with such a monster...but that's different than arming up with the intent to thwart evil with your sidearm. Does anyone else remember Trayvon Martin? Say what you will about the case, but the bottom line is that if George Zimmerman didn't take it upon himself to arm up and become a self-appointed police officer, there would never have been a quarrel and even if there were one, there would have never been a gun involved in the first place. I see this whole call-to-arms thread as fundamentally the same thing. Not even mentioning the issue of how EASY it would be to disarm a physician.

We pay for policemen to patrol the freeways to make sure that other people are responsible in using the cars that they chose to procure.

You can turn a car into a deadly weapon.

Perrotfish is arguing that people will be safer if we decrease gun mishaps. I don't think we necessarily need marksmanship classes, but if you don't know the difference between a magazine and a clip, an automatic or a semi-automatic, a safety or an action or a hammer, or a shotgun vs a rifle, then I think teaching people the basic rules of firearm safety is a good idea.

That's fine and all, but we're not talking about accidental "gun mishaps". That's not what this thread was about. Teaching people how to use guns is not going to curb purposeful gun violence in any way. Furthermore, most firearm safety is common sense and I'm not going to pay taxes for some governmental program to unstupid the stupid. Driving, as the given comparison, is less common sense and requires practice.
The whole car comparison is just silly, by the way . You can turn a hammer into a deadly weapon, but I don't see people calling for hammer regulation.

 

[Sophocles]

I need a WTF??? meme to insert here because this is just ridiculous....

 

[RomanTaylor]

Pointing a weapon and firing on an armed assailant is a lot harder than you think.

Some are trained to ignore the "I can get shot doing this" fairy that whispers in your ears when you are trying to cowboy up.

And Daneosaur is right, Corpsmen receive every bit of training that the Marines they are attached to get. There were times where I had to remind First Sergeant that I just carry the med bag...I don't kick down doors, lol.

And as ridiculous as this thread is, you cannot deny the fun factor! lol.

 

[Perrotfish]

That's fine and all, but we're not talking about accidental "gun mishaps". That's not what this thread was about. Teaching people how to use guns is not going to curb purposeful gun violence in any way.

Well that's sort of the key point that's being debated. There have been arguments made that there is a significant relationship between more permissive concealed carry laws and less violent crime. The argument being made is that an armed, trained citizenry can at the very least act as a significant deterent to criminal violence.

 

[DocVapor]

One point here that I think everyone seems to be missing is this:

ER docs run the ER.

It's not their job to stop any assailants. Because if they try to turn hero and fail (because they don't do it often enough) then who else is going to be there to treat all those patients? Every hospital I've been to (and I've been to many, of all sizes, along the east coast as a transport medic) has guards stationed in the ER 24/7. Stopping crazies is their job. The physician needs to stay out of the way so that when it's all over, the other patients aren't out of luck. Or, if it turns into a prolonged situation, the physician may be able to negotiate to be able to continue treating the patients that are there.

Don't get me wrong, I am a gun supporter, but sometimes you have to stop and think about all the possible consequences. In cases such as this, it is the physicians job to try to deescalate the situation - with their mind. Since a good mind is what got us all to that point to begin with, right?

 

[Geebeejay]

Well that's sort of the key point that's being debated. There have been arguments made that there is a significant relationship between more permissive concealed carry laws and less violent crime. The argument being made is that an armed, trained citizenry can at the very least act as a significant deterent to criminal violence.

They would act as a significant deterent to criminal violence by, what, pulling guns on criminals? Again, I'll mention the Trayvon Martin case. Concealed carry laws are great so you can protect yourself if assailed, but training citizens on things like marksmanship is only going to encourage a generation of George Zimmermans, and I think that is a huge problem.

One point here that I think everyone seems to be missing is this:

ER docs run the ER.

It's not their job to stop any assailants. Because if they try to turn hero and fail (because they don't do it often enough) then who else is going to be there to treat all those patients? Every hospital I've been to (and I've been to many, of all sizes, along the east coast as a transport medic) has guards stationed in the ER 24/7. Stopping crazies is their job. The physician needs to stay out of the way so that when it's all over, the other patients aren't out of luck. Or, if it turns into a prolonged situation, the physician may be able to negotiate to be able to continue treating the patients that are there.

Don't get me wrong, I am a gun supporter, but sometimes you have to stop and think about all the possible consequences. In cases such as this, it is the physicians job to try to deescalate the situation - with their mind. Since a good mind is what got us all to that point to begin with, right?

Agree with you fully....add in there the issue that a physician drawing on a patient would be a huge problem, both legally and in the wake of the physician/patient relationship. And what are you going to do once you draw that weapon....is shooting a patient really in sync with the hippocratic oath? What you'll end up with is either a disarmed doctor pinned down by a pissed patient, or a dead patient. Neither of these would likely occur if there was no gun involved in the first place.

 

[deleted480308]

I think there is a large difference between simply not violating someone's second ammendment rights because they are a doctor (allowing them to carry if they want) and issuing them firearms corporately. They are not security guards and should not be expected to be, but they absolutely be afforded all rights to defend themselves by carrying if they choose to do so. Arguments about them routinely being disarmed are conjecture as a great deal of states allow (all should) concealed carry. The question is not how much rent-a-cop security is provided, it is a much more basic question of why being a doctor would somehow terminate your 2nd ammendment right...

 

[BurghStudent]

This happened while I was at Pitt. A disgruntled psych patient entered the mental health institute on our campus and opened fire, killing two (including himself) and injuring seven.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories...ven-injured-in-western-psych-shooting-221520/

The only reason this wasn't a bigger incident was the Pitt Police. I know from experience our school's police department is strong-armed and conditioned for such situations.

I cannot say the same about the police forces at other schools. So yes, I think some sort of armed squad on campus is necessary, but they need to know how to fire, when to fire etc and how to respond.

Armed doctors may not be as effective because you need the experience to deal with such situations, not just knowing how to hold a gun.

Food for thought.

 

[deleted480308]

Thoughts on the concept that less people end up dying in cases where a non-office is around to intervene prior to police arriving?

http://www.examiner.com/article/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics

 

[45408]

I sure wouldn't either...hell I'd go hand to hand with such a monster...but that's different than arming up with the intent to thwart evil with your sidearm. Does anyone else remember Trayvon Martin? Say what you will about the case, but the bottom line is that if George Zimmerman didn't take it upon himself to arm up and become a self-appointed police officer, there would never have been a quarrel and even if there were one, there would have never been a gun involved in the first place. I see this whole call-to-arms thread as fundamentally the same thing. Not even mentioning the issue of how EASY it would be to disarm a physician.

The whole Trayvon issue got way more attention than warranted IMO, but it's a different story entirely. The OP was suggesting physicians be armed in the hospital (their home turf, as if Zimmerman had been standing in his house, not on the street), and I personally don't think it's a good idea. There have been very, very few hospital shootings, and the last one I can think of was actually the trauma surgeon who shot his ex-girlfriend. So much for arming the doctors...

Personally, I feel that it should be a balance of states that allow CCW licenses and public/private hospitals making laws about it. My hospital bans all weapons on the premises, which is fine with me. I don't think any other legislation needs to supersede that and arm the physicians.

That's fine and all, but we're not talking about accidental "gun mishaps". That's not what this thread was about. Teaching people how to use guns is not going to curb purposeful gun violence in any way.

I think Perrotfish and the OP were addressing slightly different issues.

The whole car comparison is just silly, by the way . You can turn a hammer into a deadly weapon, but I don't see people calling for hammer regulation.

I've never seen anyone die from a deadly hammer incident.

 

[Sophocles]

Pointing a weapon and firing on an armed assailant is a lot harder than you think.

Some are trained to ignore the "I can get shot doing this" fairy that whispers in your ears when you are trying to cowboy up.

And Daneosaur is right, Corpsmen receive every bit of training that the Marines they are attached to get. There were times where I had to remind First Sergeant that I just carry the med bag...I don't kick down doors, lol.

And as ridiculous as this thread is, you cannot deny the fun factor! lol.

As a combat vet and grunt, corpsmen were always there with us every step of the way. Perhaps, the only difference is that they did not stand post, but even this depended and changed in different situations (i.e. IP stations, FOB's, etc.)

 

[45408]

They would act as a significant deterent to criminal violence by, what, pulling guns on criminals? Again, I'll mention the Trayvon Martin case. Concealed carry laws are great so you can protect yourself if assailed, but training citizens on things like marksmanship is only going to encourage a generation of George Zimmermans, and I think that is a huge problem.

You're getting hung up on the Trayvon case, when we still don't have a verdict, just media blather. Vigilante justice is pretty uncommon, and certainly a lot less common than break-ins, assaults or home invasions.

Agree with you fully....add in there the issue that a physician drawing on a patient would be a huge problem, both legally and in the wake of the physician/patient relationship. And what are you going to do once you draw that weapon....is shooting a patient really in sync with the hippocratic oath? What you'll end up with is either a disarmed doctor pinned down by a pissed patient, or a dead patient. Neither of these would likely occur if there was no gun involved in the first place.

Patients don't get a carte blanche just because they're a patient. A competent/cognizant patient threatening me is no longer a patient: they're a threat. Patients have been charged with crimes after assaulting/molesting the people taking care of them.

Just from this week, some guy assaulting the ED doc - http://kstp.com/article/stories/s2865935.shtml

 

[Geebeejay]

The whole Trayvon issue got way more attention than warranted IMO, but it's a different story entirely. The OP was suggesting physicians be armed in the hospital (their home turf, as if Zimmerman had been standing in his house, not on the street), and I personally don't think it's a good idea. There have been very, very few hospital shootings, and the last one I can think of was actually the trauma surgeon who shot his ex-girlfriend. So much for arming the doctors...

Personally, I feel that it should be a balance of states that allow CCW licenses and public/private hospitals making laws about it. My hospital bans all weapons on the premises, which is fine with me. I don't think any other legislation needs to supersede that and arm the physicians.

I agree with you mostly. I don't think the hospital is solely home turf to doctors- its more public domain than anything. Our office: well, that's another story. I don't think having a gun in your office in a locked drawer or something would nearly as much a problem than concealing on your body during your shift.

The zimmerman problem reflected a situation when non-cops mistake their guns for a badge and act completely out of line accordingly.

I did some research too, and there have been a few (VERY FEW) physician victims over the past few years, and it seems like most happen during the walk from the hospital/office to the garage/your car. Either way, if someone approaches you with the intent to assassinate you, concealing a gun isn't gonna do well to thwart this. I'd say the best strategy would be to try your best to not make people want to assassinate you. Or work on that BJJ training.

I've never seen anyone die from a deadly hammer incident.

These attacks are gruesome...maybe you haven't done your ED rotation yet . My point was that car "attacks" are certainly less frequent than gun attacks.

 

[Geebeejay]

Patients don't get a carte blanche just because they're a patient. A competent/cognizant patient threatening me is no longer a patient: they're a threat. Patients have been charged with crimes after assaulting/molesting the people taking care of them.

Just from this week, some guy assaulting the ED doc - http://kstp.com/article/stories/s2865935.shtml

I understand, and I frequently threatened in my job in the ED. Patients have told me how easy it would be to rip off the IV pole from the stretcher and beat me to death with it. A patient once told me to get out of his sight or he'd kill me. Hell, I've narrowly avoided being assaulted myself a handful of times, and most of the employees in the ED here have been assaulted at least once.

All of this doesn't give us the Okay to SHOOT a patient with our concealed firearm if we feel threatened. A dead patient is a dead patient is a dead patient. And you would be right in the hot seat by both the public and the board. Maybe you'd get away scotfree, but maybe not...it would be really out of your hands at that point, and....well....sometimes life just isn't fair.

 

[RomanTaylor]

If I hear gunshots or see lives in imminent danger, training kicks in. It wouldn't be my job to let the guy kill me, oath or no oath, sorry.

 

[deleted480308]

Actually being in reasonable fear for your loss of life or serious bodily harm with no avenue of retreat....does give you the right to shoot in Florida

 

[deleted480308]

If I hear gunshots or see lives in imminent danger, training kicks in. It wouldn't be my job to let the guy kill me, oath or no oath, sorry.

^ this..... Nothing means I let someone stop me from seeing my kids again...nothing