Quote of the Day: Maybe Because His Patients Don’t Give a Damn About Signs Edition

Screen Shot 2014-07-26 at 12.46.46 PM

“(T)he 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.” – Patrick Jonsson in ‘Doctor shoots armed patient in Philly hospital: a gun rights case is born’ [at csmonitor.com]

comments

  1. avatar DavyJones says:

    Im just going out on a limb here, and this might sound crazy, but maybe el doctor had a fire weapon because he doesnt want to be a victim of some violent/ mentally unstable patient.

    1. avatar Ah Clem says:

      No, no; that can’t be the reason he had a gun. Must be he was compensating for a small thermometer, or something…..

    2. avatar Rebecca says:

      AND perhaps the good Dr. already knew that this man was a threat to himself and others and was not allowed to say anything because of Dr/patient confidentially rules.

      “Better to have one and not need it than to need one and not have it.”

      1. avatar VWL says:

        That’s not really how confidentiality works. If a doctor believes a patient poses a credible threat, he or she is required by law to report it.

    3. avatar JasonM says:

      Obviously he was planning his own shooting spree. We all know that anyone who picks up a gun turns into a mass murderer, it’s only a question of how long.

      1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

        JasonM,

        Ooooh, then I’m really behind schedule. 8>)

      2. avatar Buzzy243 says:

        You sir, have a dark sense of humor. I like it.

  2. avatar Dogman says:

    The fact that someone is “trying to figure out” why a person in this doctor’s position would carry a gun…well, that shows the level of thought and mind set of that someone.

    1. avatar Bob says:

      “For one thing, police are still trying to figure out why [name your mass murderer] was armed in the first place since bringing a gun to _________ is against the rules at the ________.”

    2. avatar cowgirlup says:

      This all goes back to the idea that only criminals and the police have guns. Which is an idea that has been indoctrinated into us for decades now. I remember when I first wanted to get into shooting. I came to it by way of wanting to hunt. And I had to actively fight past the idea that only nefarious people or paranoid people had or wanted guns. (unless they were hunters.)

    3. avatar dh34 says:

      Well…I’m not a Philly cop….but I have done a few investigations. It’s been my experience that if you want to know why someone did something and what their thought process was….provided they are still living, you go ask them.

  3. avatar Michael Nieto says:

    What does it matter since when do we need a reason to exercise a right. This is the anecdote we have been waiting for: someone is carrying in a place that is supposed to be a “gun free zone” an evil person tries to hurt people and is stopped by said armed person.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      It began to matter to some when so many blindly accepted a privilege in place of a right. Until the majority of gun owners realize that the right to keep and bear arms needs no qualifier, i.e. shall not be infringed, pointless questions like this will continue to distract the herd. Instead of Why was he armed? we ought to be reading Thank goodness he was armed! That won’t happen until the POTG get out of this rut of fear in which they worship a license to save them from “unqualified” firearm owners; embracing the actual right and accepting the risk that someone, somewhere will commit a crime using a firearm. Such crimes are going to happen, permits or not.

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        +1000.

        Every single sentence in your post is spot on.

        We MUST stop providing answer to “why do you need…” We should simply reject the premise that we should have to justify owning/carrying in any way at all.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Spot on. It’s a ridiculous question that doesn’t deserve an answer. When people ask me why I’m armed, I simply ask them why they aren’t. Both questions are really pointless as it is up to the individual to bear arms or not. While I encourage all to be armed, I don’t require a “need” or “reason” for them to go unarmed. IMHO, they do so at their own peril but it’s their life, their choice. Over the years, I’ve had several reply to the question about them being unarmed, “Because you are, I don’t need to be.”

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “We MUST stop providing answer to “why do you need…””

          Or answer it with “Why do you need to violate the Constitution?” or “Why are you working for the Communists?”

      2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        It began to matter to some when so many blindly accepted a privilege in place of a right. The very foundation of ” May Issue”.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Yep. But I contend that the very idea of requiring any sort of license or government permission to carry is converting the right to bear arms into a privilege. Our individual right to keep and bear arms will never be truly secure until the People reject the notion of licensing and carry every blessed day. Americans, when you get up in the morning and put on your clothes, put on your sidearm too and resist infringement wherever it appears. Make shall not be infringed your watchwords. That is how the right to keep and bear arms will remain secure. Pushing for “shall issue” where bearing of arms is practically banned is a good stop-gap but we can’t rest there for even a moment. True constitutional carry ought to be the goal and we ought to seek it out as soon as possible everywhere.

    2. avatar Full Cleveland says:

      There should be no constraints on the second amendment. Some people will use a gun to commit murder and other violent crimes. Weigh this risk against the risk of a government that subverts rights into privileges reserved solely for the privileged thereby dividing our nation. A people responsible for their self-defense form a like-minded militia that yields liberty and safety greater than that provided by any government.

      1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        A people responsible for their self-defense form a like-minded militia that yields liberty and safety greater than that provided by any government. I would not bet that the ruling government really has your liberty and safety in mind.

        1. avatar Full Cleveland says:

          I’m an old guy and they want me to die ASAP. They abhor my beliefs. All the more reason to fight for what I was given.

  4. avatar Michael K. Smith says:

    Seems like to me it was a good thing he had a gun and the Hospital may wish to change its employee no gun policy.

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      Not a chance.
      The “no guns” policy keeps the hospital safe…from litigation.
      Imagine if the hospital hadn’t had that policy, and the hero doc had been on vacation. Mr. murderer would have killed several people before shooting himself. People would have sued, claiming the hospital encouraged guns, by not banning them. The hospital would have lost money. With the policy in place, they’re better covered in case of lawsuits.

      1. You are stating a false premise. The signs do not keep the Hospital safe from litigation. They open up as many or more claims of negligence at they negate. Doctors who are forbidden to carry, who get hurt, could sue, because the hospital prohibited them from protecting themselves, then did an inadequate job of protecting them.

        I see this claim put out quite a bit. I think it is just a bit of anti-armed population propaganda that the anti-constitutionalists have pushed out there.

        In Wisconsin, the exact opposite is true. The law there says that if you allow people to carry in your business, then you are immune from lawsuit if someone uses a gun there.

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          It’s not necessarily his premise. If people believe that not posting a no guns sign is a liability risk, because they have been told so by their insurance company or their own hoplophobe lawyers, they’ll more than likely do it, and that’s independent of whether it’s actually true. Any businessman in his right mind is deathly afraid of being sued, even frivolously.

          In other words it could be true that hospitals have that motivation (which is what he was saying) even if it’s also true that it’s based on a false premise.

          I would be interested to know how many such postings are, in fact, for fear of liability issues.

          I wonder how many states have Wisconsin-style language in their laws. There have been periodic attempts to add the complementary language into Colorado law, i.e., making a business liable for damages if people are shot where they could not defend themselves, but they routinely get shot down (so to speak).

      2. avatar VWL says:

        A lot of places with those kinds of signs posted do it as a condition of insurance eligibility. If the hospital’s insurance says “we don’t cover you if you let guns in”, the hospital has an incentive to not allow guns. They have less of an incentive to try to find another insurance company because, let’s face it, they don’t care if the costs are lower. Hospitals are businesses looking to maximize profit by reducing overhead.

  5. avatar Don Davis says:

    I wonder if the good doc had been carrying concealed for years, without any one the wiser? Imagine that! That evil weapon never went off, until suddenly the doc REALLY needed the weapon, and there it was. That should give a good many people food for thought.

    1. avatar J- says:

      My mom was a nurse in Miami. Do you have any idea how many doctors, nurses, and medical staff carry guns in and out of hospitals down there.

      It is very common in gang or drug crime, that if a doc/nurse/EMT saves the life of a gang member, rival gang members will try to kill the doc/nurse/EMT. There are also a lot of attacks on docs and nurses who report drug addicts for drug seeking behavior – e.g. the guy demanding 2 weeks worth of morphine because he hurt his back. These people rarely get arrested, just thrown out of the hospital, and they wait to attack the doc as he is walking to his car.

      The hospital usually turned a blind eye because during their shift the guns are in lockers or desk drawers, they were only carried when going in and out of the building and in parking lots. Had this happened 100 feet from the building, I don’t think it would have been as much of an issue, and that the doc had a gun in the hospital wouldn’t have ever come up.

  6. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    We can’t figure out why the doctor pulled a gun after being grazed in the temple by a bullet… The blind are leading the blind.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      And watching a murder in his office!

    2. avatar Fred says:

      No, they can’t understand why a doctor (a doctor!!!) broke the rules when it comes to guns (guns!!!). In their eyes doctors are good people that follow the rules and do good work in a safe and clean environment. Guns are evil and turn anyone that is near them evil criminals that only act to harm society attached to images of dirty back alleys. It’s similar to that “controversy” with a baby holding a gun in a photo. In the black-and-white fantasy world you can’t mix a doctor (good) with a gun (evil), especially if there are rules being broken.

      Additionally, we know criminals break the law but this shatters preconceptions by showing good people also break the law. We know they are stupid laws that don’t save any lives, but to someone that places their life in the word of laws this is mind-bending. It’s a story that doesn’t phase us but to the public at large it’s an exotic idea that not all laws are good.

      1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        Probably stems from their mistaken, but probably sincerely held belief that no one would possess a firearm without the intent to use it. If you have a .30-06 bolt action rifle they can accept that you intend to shoot a deer, but if you possess a handgun you must intend to murder someone. Of course, their shallow logic breaks down if they bother to ask themselves why would anyone possess a fire extinguisher unless they intended to set their kitchen on fire, but they don’t think that deeply. Otherwise they’d be conservatives. So in their ignorance they believe that the doctor intended to shoot someone at work, and that’s the big puzzle.

  7. avatar Shire-man says:

    I love this reality so many seem to live in where rules, laws and signage dictate what is and is not possible.

    Its as if they live in the Matrix and a line of code changes the parameters of existance.

    Newsflash: life is anarchy regardless of how many rules, laws and signs you create. There is nothing real stopping anyone from doing anything.

    1. avatar David Duarte says:

      ^this

    2. avatar David Duarte says:

      The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

    3. avatar cowgirlup says:

      This is so true. Everything we have, all our supposed “order” is really a house of cards. People just all get together and agree to play pretend. Most people have an internal moral compass. With or without any laws, they wouldn’t harm others unless through some great need. Sociopaths like criminals and most rulers just take whatever they want and simply don’t care. Signs aren’t magic. Laws aren’t magic. And obviously if criminals feared the punishments for their crimes, they wouldn’t commit them.

      Signs and papers and laws mean nothing to sociopaths. Killers ignore all of that, and Congress ignores the “will of the people” despite the constitution. Rights only exist in the sense of “nice ideas”. We have natural rights but both criminals and lawmakers will always seek to take them because they are sociopaths who don’t care about hurting others as long as it doesn’t affect them. (I should say: not all lawmakers, but there is so much financial interest corruption that it’s a pretty heavy margin. We can just be thankful that the NRA is one of those powerful interests.)

      1. avatar cowgirlup says:

        “some great need” in this context means… survival. i.e. self defense or you will literally die of starvation if you don’t steal something, etc.

      2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        Nice post. I remember the movie ” When Worlds Collide” and the notion that people would remain civil and orderly even as Earth began disintegrating. Well, the people began behaving worse than animals to get on the rocket ship towards the end.

  8. avatar Amok! says:

    Victim mentality/lack of personal responsibility as first responder for ones own safety is the mindset template that filters and analyzes.

    Garbage heuristic filtration/Garbage analysis

  9. avatar Jay In Florida says:

    We all know that a “Gun Free” zone is a pass for a nut case or criminal to do his/her worst.
    For me gun free zone means a good guy who says screw it and stands for his right to be armed any place he may be.

  10. avatar Robb says:

    Does Pa have specific rules on carrying concealed a la Texas?
    (Too lazy to look it up myself.) They have to post very specific signs here for it to be valid.
    Maybe the MD was/is a CHL/CCW holder and ignored hospital policy because the signs weren’t legal.

    My other thought is perhaps the MD is considered a contractor and not an employee of the hospital and ignored the rules based on that.

    Regardless, it’s a good thing he did carry that day!

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      TX is an odd one. None of the states I’ve carried in (which have been gun friendly states in or west of the Rockies–except CA–and a few in the midwest), have a law against carrying in a place with the 30.06 sign (or equivalent). In these states, if an establishment (not a prison, post office, etc.) has a “no guns” sign, it’s a request, like “wear a shirt”. The management can ask you to leave if you violate the policy, and if you refuse, it’s trespassing.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Correct. I ignore the signs and skillfully conceal my gun, as usual anywhere else, wondering who is so stupid as to either put up the sign or to obey it.

      2. avatar Dennis says:

        In SC the “No Concealable Weapons Allowed” signs also have the force of law. I decided several years ago that if they don’t have adequate security to back up that sign I was just going to ignore it.

    2. avatar Jason in PA says:

      In PA the reasons for not being able to legally carry concealed:
      1. in a court facility. At or within the building containing a court facility, lockers or similar facilities shall be available by July 1, 2002, at no charge, for the temporary checking of firearms by persons lawfully carrying same. A receipt must be issued to the individual checking a firearm.

      2. on school property but it shall be a defense that the weapon is possessed and used in conjunction with a lawful supervised school activity or course or is possessed for other lawful purpose.

      3. carry is prohibited during a proclaimed emergency without a LTCF.

      4. open carry in Philadelphia requires a LTCF

      5. a hand gun (loaded or unloaded) in a car is always considered concealed, unless it is unloaded and you are going from a gun range/ gun store/ gunsmith to your home of vice versa. (don’t stop for gas in between or you will be illegal)

      6. a person older than 18 under 21 may not purchase a handgun but may be gifted one by an a close relative and may open carry a hand gun at 18. No LTCF until 21.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Wow, that implies that (say) I could carry concealed or openly in the Philadelphia convention center, since my Colorado CHP is recognized by PA.

        Though I expect I’d end up having many amusing conversations with the local constabulary, should I choose the latter option.

        1. avatar Jason in PA says:

          Any place that is private property can still ask you to leave. if you don’t leave they can charge you with trespassing. Concealed carry is still the way to go as open carry will probably have you being asked to leave.

  11. avatar Phil COV says:

    What was the reason he was carrying? Idiot! Read the news!

  12. avatar usriflecaliber.30m1 says:

    I wonder how long the Dr. was carrying? Days, years, decade?
    How long had he not listened to the signs? I wonder if Sharron will learn anything from this.

  13. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    I already know the antis will say, “If we only had stricter laws the crazy guy wouldn’t have had a gun in the first place and then the doctor wouldn’t have needed to carry! Nobody will need to carry then because criminals won’t be able to get guns!”. Until they find a new way to get guns. They always do. Gun free zones are criminally negligent on the part of the property owner.

  14. avatar Chubby says:

    @sixpack70 you hit the nail on the head, sums up all the up coming burps from the haters.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Agree.

  15. avatar ST says:

    The sea change here is the incident left no doubt that the only proper reaction was reaching for his own gun. When facing typical thugs the refrain by the rabbit people is “comply with the thug, for he may spare you.” The reality is he’s come into your presence with a weapon, so he likely intends to use it.

    This incident leaves no room for alternative perspectives. The only proper thing for the doctor to do was exactly what he did, and this fact is leaving sections of our country in mental conflict. Perhaps that’s a good thing.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “This incident leaves no room for alternative perspectives.”

      And therein lies the major problem for the grabbers. No gray area; no ambiguity. No room for unicorns riding rainbows and wishful thinking.

      The man saved his own life and the lives of others. Period. Can’t deny it.

      It will upset their ENTIRE world view, and now the truly nutty stuff will come out. They are at their MOST dangerous when they are shown wrong and dogmatically cling to their own cherished beliefs.

      It’s been only two days, and we are already seeing various attempts to blame the DOCTOR for this ‘tragic incident.’ This should be seen as repulsive by any thinking human being, yet it will gain some semblance of traction….the will repeat it often in hopes it sticks.

      Somehow, their narrative will be “if the doctor did not have a gun, this tragedy would not have happened.” Or something. Somehow, the good guy with a gun is being made, will be made, into the bad guy.

      And it will all be made-up tripe because NOTHING in the facts of this case support that abhorrent assertion. And they know it.

      But, they can’t admit it. To do so might just mean they are wrong about all their other Statist and Authoritarian ideology.

      1. There have been numerous similar cases. I used to think: One of these days, an armed citizen will stop a mass killing, and it will be a game changer. Then an armed citizen stopped a mass killing, and the story was spiked. Then it happened again. And again.

        Now I think: The old media cannot keep the lid on anymore. We are winning.

        http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html

        1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          It must be painful for the mainstream liberal media. I think Andrew Breitbart had a saying of by only breaching the walls of the mainstream media, can democracy be restored.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        No problem for grabbers, here. They will simply ignore it.

  16. avatar Chuck says:

    Could all this mental illness be caused by the amount of chemicals and hormones being used in our food today and all the medications where making to alter people’s current state if being? We didn’t have this percentage of people Ill back in 60’s using the population statistics back then.

    1. There is probably less serious mental illness today than there was 50 years ago. We have made considerable progress with treatment.

      The difference is mostly in the old media and perceptions of what is happening. Violent crime is about the same as it was 50 years ago. We have a lot more people being raised without any moral compass or worthwhile father figure in the home. We have compensated for that with a much higher prison population and 11 million CCW permits.

      1. avatar John Galt says:

        And what’s different today is the wall-to-wall number of TV stations and 24/7 coverage.

        They need to fill that airtime with something. If it bleeds it leads.

        Hence, what previously would have been a local story becomes a national “crisis” for network talking heads.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      I agree with those who replied already but would like to add a thought. Given the state of individual Liberty today, I’m surprised more freedom loving men and women aren’t driven to depression or raving madness. The socialist, Big Brother government accepted by the general population these days is an exercise in cognitive dissonance.

      1. avatar ThomasR says:

        I believe much of the psychology for the general population is the “Stockholm Syndrome”; most people know, even at a subconscious level; what our government has become. So when an authority figure has the power of life and death over a person, that person ends up identifying with; even worshiping the figure. You can really see this in the Liberal/progressives and many Republicans.

        More people are starting to wake up. I do have hope.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I find myself unable to disagree, except to ask why some of us are not affected? I can still think about a subject and make a decision, despite being subjected to this tripe for near 7 decades.

  17. avatar Jimmyjames says:

    If 20% of the population has a “mental health problem”, I need to buy another gun.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Your saying that is just proof you are mentally ill, and shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun.

      /sarc. (I’m not one to talk, I bought one myself on Wednesday.)

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Shame on you. I haven’t bought one in weeks.

  18. avatar ragnar_d says:

    As far as the signs go, I think Heinlein said it best in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress:
    “I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”

    Looks like the good doctor felt morally responsible for the protection of himself, his colleagues and his patients.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Always loved Heinlein.

    2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      The Professor’s “Rational Anarchy” for the win.

    3. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Would it be ridiculously ironic to wish that that book were required reading?

      1. avatar ThomasR says:

        Along with “Starship Troopers”, (the movie was a complete travesty,)

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          ” (the movie was a complete travesty,)”

          No statement that is bigger “No $#!+ Sherlock!” bait than this has ever been uttered.

  19. avatar Jolly Roger That says:

    This being the same website that has that God-awful “How Much Do You Know About The Second Amendment?” quiz, I’m not surprised that they’re questioning his decision to carry.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      You know, I got 73% on that according to them, 100% according to me (THEY were wrong, not me), and I noted the average was 71%. I suspect most who take the test get the same answers to all questions that I do, but the site is intended to help our brainwashing, telling us we are wrong without basis.

  20. avatar Stinkeye says:

    Love the headline from that article. “Doctor shoots armed patient in Philly hospital”. It’s not technically untrue, but it makes it sound like the doctor instigated the whole thing. Plotts wasn’t just an “armed patient” at the point when Dr. Silverman started shooting back. By that time, he was an armed and dangerous murderer, having shot someone in the face just seconds prior.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      but it makes it sound like the doctor instigated the whole thing.

      Makes it look like he did so because the patient was armed, he was enforcing a stupid policy. Can these people not get a real job? The number of reporting idiots is astonishing.

      I mean, “Armed doctor saves live by stopping killer” is so tough?

  21. avatar Mike says:

    “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.”

    Because the good doctor realized the chances of getting caught were minimal and the repercussions for not being able to defend himself were dire.

    If he had been caught before this happened the other side would have labelled him a paranoid nut job with a phalic complex and he would have been fired from his job. If he lived in my state of IL, some prosecutor would have made it his life’s mission to ruin the doctor’s life. But the reality that criminals and the insane don’t follow the “rules” happened and it’s going to be hard for the other side to pretend that this outcome is worse than what would have happened had the doc been another victim rendered helpless by politicians, insurance companies, and administrators/property managers with no real common sense and no way to truly have a safe facility when you disarm its occupants.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      “Caught”? Caught doing what? I don’t think doctors are regularly submitting to frisking, electronic or otherwise. His weapon was concealed, getting “caught” is what just happened. He could choose to get caught or he could die. Pretty easy. Everybody should do it.

  22. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    For one thing, police are still trying to figure out why Plotts was armed in the first place since bringing a gun to work is against the rules at the hospital.

    There; FTFY.

  23. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    The CSM was an interesting read.
    Note how everything is stated as fact,

    “Prosecutors say Dr. Lee Silverman opened fire on Richard Plotts, after Mr. Plotts shot his caseworker and barged his way toward Dr. Silverman’s office desk after gaining access to Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital. Silverman crouched down behind his desk and fetched his gun, which he then fired at Mr. Plotts, wounding him several times before he was subdued.

    In the gunfight, Silverman was grazed in the temple by a bullet. The caseworker allegedly shot by Plotts, Theresa Hunt, died from her wounds, police said.”

    The good doctor being armed, shooting Plotts. The doc being grazed by “a bullet”.
    But when it comes to Theresa Hunt? She was allegedly shot.
    Wow.

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      I also like how he “gained access” to the hospital. Makes it sound like he conducted a “Mission: Impossible”-like caper to circumvent five levels of high-security lockdown. Instead of just opening the door and walking in, which is what he did.

    2. avatar ropingdown says:

      The writing displayed in the article is atrocious from various angles including both neutrality and clarity of exposition.

  24. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    There’s another argument of the hoplophobes that goes down in flames here, too: the argument that the average person can’t effectively use a personal firearm for self-defense.

    Look, the good doctor wasn’t tactically perfect – just like the average person. He ducked behind his desk (a logical response to someone shooting at your head) and started firing blindly. He emptied his magazine (which for a 32ACP carry gun is what? Probably 8 rounds?) yet hit his attacker only three times (which, to be fair, is a hit rate at least as good as the average LAPD or NYPD officer). If the other two men hadn’t jumped the injured attacker and subdued him, he might have reloaded and then proceed to kill the good doctor.

    But you know what? Even with not doing everything perfectly – just like the average person – the end result was the good guy was alive, the bad guy was stopped, and other potential victims remained unharmed.

    So, the whole “you’re as much a danger to yourself with your firearm, because you’re not professionally trained to use it in self-defense” argument is undercut.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      One report said he fired 6 shots, with 3 hits.

  25. avatar D.G. Cornelius says:

    A small detail that jumped into my face:

    “[…] in a heavily armed nation where 60 million people suffer from some kind of mental-health problem.”

    So, 60 million people with mental health problems. Well, do you have there 60 million people going berserk and killing around? If not, that proves that even the vast majority of mental health issues are not to much of an issue when it comes to firearms.
    After seeing such numbers, even a mental health certificate for gun ownership seems like an abuse without any solid reason for it.

    I would hold on to those shown above. It could provide some good ammo against some overheated anti’s and grabbers.

  26. avatar DaveL says:

    A patient tried to remodel his skull with high-speed lead and they still wonder why he had a gun in violation of hospital policy? That’s some weapons-grade stupid right there.

    1. avatar ropingdown says:

      Just to add a bit of local color: I live approximately five miles north of the hospital. I used to drive by it regularly for various reasons (my son’s sports teams sometimes played a team in that area, and the best lumber and mill-work yard is nearby). I don’t drive there anymore, for any reason. It is remarkable (and very well known) how steadily crime of the most brutal sort has risen along Baltimore Pike and Chester Pike over the last twenty years, expanding directly outward from Southwest Philadelphia. The difference between the western suburbs to the north and the Darby area is simply the difference between heaven and hell. It is not strictly a difference in incomes, as some intervening suburbs are not rich, but have a crime rate even lower than the affluent “Mainline.” It is a cultural decay of astounding proportion, single moms, minority drug dealers, biker gang turf, social rot, without any institutional counter-weight to effectively condemn bad behavior or reliably punish the malefactors. I question the common sense of any physician commuting into that area (none live there) without an LCF and a concealed handgun.

  27. avatar Ralph says:

    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

    This is a reasonable line of inquiry. Was the doctor afraid of Plotts? Had Plotts threatened him? Was the doc carrying as a general precaution or did he have a specific fear of the guy who eventually shot him?

    In the event of a trial, all of these questions will be raised by someone. It’s much better to gather that information now than to be blindsided in front of a jury.

    While the so-called “journalists” are choosing to twist the purpose of the police and prosecutor’s investigation of this question, we shouldn’t. The cops and the DA have already praised Silverman and stated in no uncertain terms that he saved lives. The police and prosecutor are now trying to make sure that Plotts gets what’s coming to him.

    1. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

      Let’s just hope he doesn’t get an insanity defense.

  28. avatar Excedrine says:

    He bought a gun to work because a situation like this could very well happen. And it did. Dr. Lee has been vindicated by real-world experience and Patrick should STFU because neither he nor the gun-grabbers can deconstruct this as anything else but a successful DGU that undoubtedly saved dozens of lives. Period.

  29. avatar Randy says:

    “police are still trying to figure out why (Dr. Lee) Silverman was armed in the first place …”
    Why , because when seconds count the police are minutes away.
    The Phila. PD shouldn’t have to ask why , they know better.

  30. avatar FoRealz? says:

    Yeah but, yeah but, yeah but, it was against the rules for the doctor to carry there. See why it’s so confusing to them now?

    These are the same peeps that think if you pass a new law a criminal will obey it. So it is inconceivable to them that someone would not follow a rule or the employee policy manual or obey a sign on a wall. That is why they get so befuddled.

  31. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

    Who says the cops are still trying to figure out why the Doctor was armed! Who cares?
    That’s like after someone was caught stroking one off in the bathroom and someone says, well why were they —-ing off in the first place? Because he was, who gives hoot why! It makes no difference.
    I bet if someone was to get an actual comment from the cops, they couldn’t care less why the good doctor was armed.

  32. avatar Dan says:

    EVERY hospital in America has made it a direct violation of employment policy and a facility wide prohibition for anyone save the “blessed” badgemonkeys to carry a weapon on their property. I may be wrong…..there MIGHT be one or two that have no such policy…but I doubt it. Yet MANY people will still choose to carry covertly, especially in high crime areas. The rationale being that another job for a person with a degree and a profession is easy to come by….another life is not. And YES….this doctor WILL be removed from the medical staff of this facility one way or another. It may take a few months to a year but they WILL come up with a reason to get rid of him…..they just may want to wait till the public is distracted for a while so they don’t have PR issues.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email