Gun Control

Manic Moran · 02-08-2014 8:11pm

Interesting case, with a bizarre twist.

Guy walks into a hospital with a revolver and about 45 rounds of ammo, past the 'no guns allowed' sign. Shoots a random caseworker, then tries to shoot a doctor.

Said doctor, despite the minor details of the Hippocratic oath ("Do no harm to others"), happened to have a firearm of his own and shot back.

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/07/25/delco-da-credits-armed-doc-with-averting-wider-hospital-bloodbath/

Delaware County district attorney Jack Whelan says it was a good thing Silverman was armed, apparently against hospital policy, because Plotts had 39 spare bullets on him.

“We believe he was there and going to reload that revolver and continue to fire and continue to kill,” Whelan said this afternoon.

[...]

Regarding a possible motive, officials speculate that Plotts was not happy with the wellness center’s “no weapons policy,” which was clearly posted in the office

I am curious to know what will happen to the doctor. In past cases where employees (such as store clerks) have justifiably engaged while armed, despite company policy against weapons, the employees have been fired, and the firing upheld by courts.

Which is a pretty daft situation.

Sand · 02-08-2014 9:05pm

Out of curiosity is there many examples of similar cases to the Delaware hospital incident where an armed member of the public intervenes and shoots someone about to go on a shooting rampage?

I'm aware that whenever there is a shooting rampage in the US, and the gun laws debate rears its head again, that its often stated that if one of the public was armed they could have prevented the killings. But this is the only incident I'm aware of. Just curious if the argument I mentioned is based on theory or if there is a series of cases where armed bystanders have saved lives?

FISMA · 03-08-2014 4:53am

Sand wrote: »

Out of curiosity is there many examples of similar cases to the Delaware hospital incident where an armed member of the public intervenes and shoots someone about to go on a shooting rampage?

Instances of people protecting themselves and others with firearms happen all the time. I receive magazines and newsletters from the NRA. They always have stories about people who protected themselves by having a gun. However, that does not fit the liberal media's agenda and is rarely reported on.

I am sure that you have heard of Columbine High. But, have you heard of Pearl River? Probably not. In this case, a teenager on a murderous rampage was stopped when the Vice Principal retrieved a 45 caliber from his car.

Manic Moran · 03-08-2014 5:32am

However, that does not fit the liberal media's agenda and is rarely reported on.

You don't need to go to 'agenda', beyond the fact that "Things work as they're supposed to" is not particularly newsworthy. Generally speaking, the only shootings you hear about are the ones which are particularly significant (i.e. mass shootings). If someone stops the shooting before it gets to the level of 'mass shooting', then it doesn't make the news to begin with: There was no huge death toll. Indeed, it's pretty hard to think of a 'what-if', it takes some pretty blatant circumstances to say 'he stopped a mass shooting.' Look at the New Life Church shooting (Congregation member had her sidearm in church), or the Appalachian School of Law shooting (Two students retrieve firearms from car). About the only time I've heard any particular national visibility to such things is if there is a direct relationship to something which does make the news. For example, the Trolley Square Mall shooting, which hit 'shooting spree' figures before a shopper (who was an off-duty cop) engaged the shooter, the cinema shooting in Texas the week after the Aurora shooting (Off-duty cop, again) or, way back when, the University of Texas clock tower shootings, where other students who had rifles in their cars pinned down the shooter and stopped the casualties until police arrived.

K-9 · 04-08-2014 5:28pm

FISMA wrote: »

Instances of people protecting themselves and others with firearms happen all the time. I receive magazines and newsletters from the NRA. They always have stories about people who protected themselves by having a gun. However, that does not fit the liberal media's agenda and is rarely reported on.

I am sure that you have heard of Columbine High. But, have you heard of Pearl River? Probably not. In this case, a teenager on a murderous rampage was stopped when the Vice Principal retrieved a 45 caliber from his car.

I wouldn't be surprised that guns have helped to protect people, it's more preventing mass shooting that I'd wonder about like Sand asked. There probably is a "what if" type scenario that is hard, if not impossible to quantify.

Overheal · 05-08-2014 4:46pm

most shooting incidents dont make it past local media usually for one reason or another, most of the time because its not of national interest, like a citizen with CWP stopping a gunpoint robbery at a 711 - hardly going to stop CNN's rampant quest for missing planes and 3D graphics.

Brian? · 05-08-2014 6:39pm

Overheal wrote: »

most shooting incidents dont make it past local media usually for one reason or another, most of the time because its not of national interest, like a citizen with CWP stopping a gunpoint robbery at a 711 - hardly going to stop CNN's rampant quest for missing planes and 3D graphics.

That's because shootings are so common they only become note worthy when there's something odd about them; shooting a black child because you're standing your ground, shooting kids at school, shooting people watching batman etc.

Brian? · 05-08-2014 6:42pm

FISMA wrote: »

Instances of people protecting themselves and others with firearms happen all the time. I receive magazines and newsletters from the NRA. They always have stories about people who protected themselves by having a gun. However, that does not fit the liberal media's agenda and is rarely reported on.

You know what I find disturbing about this? A person is dead and the NRA are happy.

I am sure that you have heard of Columbine High. But, have you heard of Pearl River? Probably not. In this case, a teenager on a murderous rampage was stopped when the Vice Principal retrieved a 45 caliber from his car.

That should be better reported, you're right. But not to highlight how great it is that the vice principal killed someone.

Overheal · 06-08-2014 7:54pm

Brian? wrote: »

That's because shootings are so common they only become note worthy when there's something odd about them; shooting a black child because you're standing your ground, shooting kids at school, shooting people watching batman etc.

Thats the same everywhere. RTE doesn't shut down the broadcast station to bring you reports of a shooting in Limerick.

Manic Moran · 06-08-2014 8:04pm

Brian? wrote: »

That should be better reported, you're right. But not to highlight how great it is that the vice principal killed someone.

Actually, he didn't. In that case, the kid surrendered.

A person is dead and the NRA are happy.

If killing is necessary, there's nothing wrong with it, it's just unfortunate. It's not so much that the NRA are happy that someone is dead, as much as noting the validation of their position.

Brian? · 06-08-2014 11:07pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Actually, he didn't. In that case, the kid surrendered.

Apologies, my mistake.

If killing is necessary, there's nothing wrong with it, it's just unfortunate. It's not so much that the NRA are happy that someone is dead, as much as noting the validation of their position.

I can't agree, there is always something wrong with a violent death.

FISMA · 08-08-2014 5:16am

Brian? wrote: »

A person is dead and the NRA are happy.

Who said anything about killing?

You don't have to kill to deter, prevent, or protect.

Manic Moran · 10-08-2014 5:27pm

Brian? wrote: »

I can't agree, there is always something wrong with a violent death.

Sort of an idealistic position, isn't it? Sometimes it's the only practical or effective solution.

Brian? · 10-08-2014 7:00pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Sort of an idealistic position, isn't it? Sometimes it's the only practical or effective solution.

I'm not allowed have ideals?

My moral code begins with: killing people is wrong, always.

It's the only moral absolute for me, everything else is shades of grey.

sin_city · 12-08-2014 4:00am

Brian? wrote: »

I'm not allowed have ideals?

My moral code begins with: killing people is wrong, always.

It's the only moral absolute for me, everything else is shades of grey.

So if you had a shot from distance of killing an armed suicide bomber you would not take it?

You'd let him go about his business...trully shocking..Your dark side...only a sith deals in absolutes :cool:

Overheal · 12-08-2014 6:22am

Seriously. Even Ceasar broke his Ape No Kill Ape rule

Brian? · 12-08-2014 8:36pm

sin_city wrote: »

So if you had a shot from distance of killing an armed suicide bomber you would not take it?

You'd let him go about his business...trully shocking..Your dark side...only a sith deals in absolutes :cool:

Yes, I often have a suicide bomber in my sights.

Am I supposed to make an impassioned defence of pacifism now? I won't because I know it's a waste of time.

For the record i have one moral absolute, so technically I don't deal in absolutes.

sin_city · 13-08-2014 12:26am

Brian? wrote: »

For the record i have one moral absolute, so technically I don't deal in absolutes.

If the situation arose twice then you would be dealing in absolutes....Bloody sith :pac:

Manic Moran · 13-08-2014 4:38am

Brian? wrote: »

I'm not allowed have ideals?

My moral code begins with: killing people is wrong, always.

It's the only moral absolute for me, everything else is shades of grey.

I can accept that it's your moral code, that's not a problem for me. When my unit was notified to go to Afghanistan, I was approached by one of my medics and the chaplain. He wanted a sort of modified conscientious objector status. He had no problem with going to war, but said he would not go with a firearm, as he did not believe he had the moral right to end someone else's life. My problem was that part of the role of a medic is the protection of the wounded and of himself, and that I (and the men of my unit) would rely upon him to perform that role. I appreciated his position, but told him I would not put my unit in the field with unarmed personnel. (It's not as if the Taliban were known for their treatment of prisoners, even unarmed ones). In the end, I exchanged him for another medic, and he spent his war in the base aid station providing good service there.

Of course, there are extremes. Three US soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor were conscientious objectors who refused to carry a weapon, serving in the field as field medics. (Then again, in the time of draft, the US Army may not have been that picky). On the other extreme, about two weeks ago a doctor ("do no harm", as the Hippocratic oath goes) in a US hospital responded to a shooting incident by drawing his own firearm and shooting the gunman, saving not only his own life, but the other staff and possibly patients in the hospital who were the targets of said gunman.

I think the practicalities of life should side with the doctor. That's why I say 'idealistic.' Perhaps not immoral, (and it's arguable that it is), but certainly impracticable if you value your own life.

NTM

Brian? · 13-08-2014 9:02am

Manic Moran wrote: »

I can accept that it's your moral code, that's not a problem for me. When my unit was notified to go to Afghanistan, I was approached by one of my medics and the chaplain. He wanted a sort of modified conscientious objector status. He had no problem with going to war, but said he would not go with a firearm, as he did not believe he had the moral right to end someone else's life. My problem was that part of the role of a medic is the protection of the wounded and of himself, and that I (and the men of my unit) would rely upon him to perform that role. I appreciated his position, but told him I would not put my unit in the field with unarmed personnel. (It's not as if the Taliban were known for their treatment of prisoners, even unarmed ones). In the end, I exchanged him for another medic, and he spent his war in the base aid station providing good service there.

Anyone who volunteers for military duty and expects to remain a pacifist is deluded. I'm not sure why you're using the example above. If someone believes that all killing is wrong, joining the military is a poor decision. I realise in the past people have been conscripted and they have my sympathy.

Of course, there are extremes. Three US soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor were conscientious objectors who refused to carry a weapon, serving in the field as field medics. (Then again, in the time of draft, the US Army may not have been that picky). On the other extreme, about two weeks ago a doctor ("do no harm", as the Hippocratic oath goes) in a US hospital responded to a shooting incident by drawing his own firearm and shooting the gunman, saving not only his own life, but the other staff and possibly patients in the hospital who were the targets of said gunman.

I think the practicalities of life should side with the doctor. That's why I say 'idealistic.' Perhaps not immoral, (and it's arguable that it is), but certainly impracticable if you value your own life.

NTM

I value every life as much as my own, whereas the majority of people are quite content to justify killing. Calling pacifism "impractical" is a cop out, "it's too hard to be a pacifist so let's kill or be killed".

It wasn't me! · 13-08-2014 12:01pm

That's pretty much the essence of it though. There are cases of conflict where the point they might have been avoided by has long since elapsed and people find themselves thrust in situations, whether their own responsibility or now, where their choices do in fact amount to kill or be killed. In those situations, the impetus to not die is thrust into direct conflict with the desire to not kill, and as such, there needs to be a decision on whether you really value all lives equal to your own. In fact, it's probably not even possible. If you choose to die by the enemy so that you don't have to kill him, you've elevated the value of the enemy's life above your own. Similarly, if you kill him, you're merely responding to your own innate drive to not die. It's more complex than your absolute moral position allows for a sophisticated understanding of.

Paleface · 27-08-2014 1:08pm

Another example of why America is just completely lax on gun control. The ironic thing is that it happened in a situation that the NRA would normally champion as a model for how guns are strictly controlled i.e. a firing range. Kids of that age should be nowhere near guns!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28948946

Amerika · 27-08-2014 3:36pm

Paleface wrote: »

Another example of why America is just completely lax on gun control. The ironic thing is that it happened in a situation that the NRA would normally champion as a model for how guns are strictly controlled i.e. a firing range. Kids of that age should be nowhere near guns!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28948946

A tragic accident yes, but how is it “another example of why America is just completely lax on gun control?” Accidents can happen in the best of circumstances. Did she own, or buy the Uzi herself? And wasn’t she under the supervision of a trained shooting instructor? One can question the decision of why a 9 year old is shooting a high powered fully automatic machine gun in the first place, but it has nothing to do with lax gun control.

Paleface · 27-08-2014 4:48pm

Amerika wrote: »

A tragic accident yes, but how is it “another example of why America is just completely lax on gun control?” Accidents can happen in the best of circumstances. Did she own, or buy the Uzi herself? And wasn’t she under the supervision of a trained shooting instructor? One can question the decision of why a 9 year old is shooting a high powered fully automatic machine gun in the first place, but it has nothing to do with lax gun control.

The fact that a licensed gun range is allowed to put an uzi in the hands of a 9 year old highlights my point perfectly. Obviously you can't legislate for what happens in people's homes but as I said this was a licensed premises. You can't give alcohol to a 9 year old in a bar.

Amerika · 27-08-2014 5:48pm

Paleface wrote: »

The fact that a licensed gun range is allowed to put an uzi in the hands of a 9 year old highlights my point perfectly. Obviously you can't legislate for what happens in people's homes but as I said this was a licensed premises. You can't give alcohol to a 9 year old in a bar.

But you can put a 9 year old behind the controls of an airplane. There are even seven year old pilot trainees (and possible younger) who operate aircraft. An out-of-control airplane can cause a lot more damage than an Uzi. Are flying controls too lax?

Brian? · 27-08-2014 6:05pm

Amerika wrote: »

But you can put a 9 year old behind the controls of an airplane. There are even seven year old pilot trainees (and possible younger) who operate aircraft. An out-of-control airplane can cause a lot more damage than an Uzi. Are flying controls too lax?

If you can put a 7 year old in control of a plane, then yes. That's crazy.

Paleface · 27-08-2014 6:14pm

Amerika wrote: »

But you can put a 9 year old behind the controls of an airplane. There are even seven year old pilot trainees (and possible younger) who operate aircraft. An out-of-control airplane can cause a lot more damage than an Uzi. Are flying controls too lax?

Planes are not designed with the sole purpose of killing. Guns are. I think thats the main misconception Americans have with guns. You treat them like recreational items that any person should be able to use at will. Why not just give everyone some high explosives and speed up the process of accidental killings.

As for the plane comment there are many things that can go wrong with a plane and an experienced pilot will have the opportunity to correct them or at the very least land the plane safely. A gun does not afford you that luxury as this case shows.

Amerika · 27-08-2014 6:38pm

Paleface wrote: »

Planes are not designed with the sole purpose of killing. Guns are. I think thats the main misconception Americans have with guns. You treat them like recreational items that any person should be able to use at will. Why not just give everyone some high explosives and speed up the process of accidental killings.

As for the plane comment there are many things that can go wrong with a plane and an experienced pilot will have the opportunity to correct them or at the very least land the plane safely. A gun does not afford you that luxury as this case shows.

I’ve been shooting and have had guns from about 8 years old. I was on a rifle team sponsored by the local police department at 9. I fired a Thompson machine gun at 10. No one has ever been harmed by my account except for some furry and feathered creatures. Most Americans have great respect for what guns can do and are extremely safety conscious, thank you very much.

Amerika · 27-08-2014 6:46pm

Brian? wrote: »

If you can put a 7 year old in control of a plane, then yes. That's crazy.

The media loved it at the time.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/12/us/girl-7-seeking-us-flight-record-dies-in-crash.html

It's just guns that are evil?

Paleface · 27-08-2014 9:02pm

Amerika wrote: »

I’ve been shooting and have had guns from about 8 years old. I was on a rifle team sponsored by the local police department at 9. I fired a Thompson machine gun at 10. No one has ever been harmed by my account except for some furry and feathered creatures. Most Americans have great respect for what guns can do and are extremely safety conscious, thank you very much.

Maybe this girls father has the same story. Not much good to any of them now though.

Gun Control

Comments