During a recent visit to the Yuma Regional Medical Center (YMRC) for my daily dose of high powered intravenous antibiotic (pneumonia), I struck up a conversation with a health care professional. The subject turned to active shooters and the hospital’s general vulnerability to armed aggressors.
The health care professional did a good job, and I complemented her. She said she had a lot of practice. I agreed that performance on nearly everything improves with practice, but some people are just naturals at some tasks.
I gave the example of a young man I took dove hunting. With very little practice, he was hitting as well as I was after 50 years of wing shooting. He’s a natural.
The health care professional told me she’d been to the range recently. She could make head shots with her .380 Smith and Wesson. Then she complained about the restrictive anti-self defense policy of YRMC. She wished that she could have her pistol with her at work, but she was forbidden to do so by corporate policy.
“If there was an active shooter here, we would be sitting ducks,” she said. “Maybe we could run and hide, but we have patients that cannot. If I had my pistol, they wouldn’t get by me.”
We talked a little more about her pistol, magazine capacity, weight, and triggers.
The conversation was unsolicited. I do not wish to get this dedicated professional into trouble. Retaliation is not unknown in such situations, even for such innocuous things as casual conversation about corporate policy. Maybe more so for a non-profit.
My observation: many health care professionals are competent with firearms. It follows from their enhanced desire to help people. They don’t want the patients in their care to be undefended.
Speaking of undefended citizens, I’m heading off to Australia. I’ll be writing about Australian gun culture while I am there.
©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included. Gun Watch