CC holder drops gun in a "no-gun zone" hospital; discharges and injures random patient - Sensationalist Headlines

Since when are the police unreliable? Especially when compared to CC?? That's a dumb argument

[QUOTE=Code3Response;52337074]Since when are the police unreliable? Especially when compared to CC?? That's a dumb argument[/QUOTE] The overwhelming majority of the time police arrive AFTER a crime has been committed. Not during. The FBI did a study which showed this. [url]https://leb.fbi.gov/2009-pdfs/leb-april-2009[/url] They used 2,123 officers as their sample size. These officers responded code 3 (lights and sirens) [b]14,007,000 times[/b], and it [b]only made a different in 1,747 incidents[/b]. That is less than one incident per officer.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;52337074]Since when are the police unreliable? Especially when compared to CC?? That's a dumb argument[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]As of 2013, the reported national average for police response time was 11 minutes. According to the latest Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) data (2008), police response times when violent crimes were called in ranged from under 5 minutes to longer than one day:[/QUOTE] ([url]http://ijr.com/2016/03/554002-heres-how-long-on-average-it-takes-for-police-to-respond-to-a-911-call/[/url]) I would call that unreliable. And why should a person have to wait on someone else to come and ensure their safety when they can protect themselves right on the spot?

[QUOTE=Zombinie;52336854]You seem to think that carrying a gun is soley for the purpose of killing someone in cold blood or murder[/QUOTE] I'm just going to stop you right there because your assumption is asinine and you're wrong because 1. I don't think this, not even slightly. I'm not THAT dumb 2. I literally agree'd with home defense law'd in that same post. Are you saying I agree that murder should be illegal or something? If you're going to assume this much about me I have to assume everything from here on out is based off the idea that I believe this [QUOTE=Zombinie;52336854]I see it as an opportunity to allow someone the means of self defense that they otherwise would not have. If being able to defend yourself is against an oath, it's not a very good oath, now is it? Also, a doctor carrying a gun is not going to perform any differently on a patient. It's not as if because they have a chunk of steel on their hip, they no longer care about giving effective treatment. Them being a "walking contradiction" has no effect on medical performance.[/QUOTE] I don't think you have any idea what the Hippocratic oath is dude "Do no harm" is a very good oath because doctors are exactly the people that could do the most messed up damage. Doing harm means they can lose their license. The entire mentality of a doctor is to heal people. This isn't even entirely about an oath itself, its about the point of why they're even there to begin with. [QUOTE=Zombinie;52336854]How about fucking no? Do you know about police response times? Do you really think that a citizen has no right to self defense just because an officer is better trained? Do you really think that the right to defend yourself ends when you walk into a place for medical treatment? "Just let the police handle it" is such a euro-centric meme I laugh every time someone says something to that effect. Self defense is a personal responsibility. You cannot and should not be forced to rely on the police for your own safety, especially when they are so unreliable. If someone has been determined responsible enough to qualify for a CC or OC permit and wield a gun in public, they are responsible enough to wield it in a hospital as well.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]What is the need? What is the demand? "what if" a hospital gets held up by an armed gunman? this isn't exactly a daily thing like your 'need' seems to suggest, so why bother? If they need help, [B]they have professional guards for this job to carry the guns.[/B] Having a gun on all staff is just needlessly hollywood-esque unrealistic crap. Let the fucking police do the gun work, [U]and the security[/U]. Don't let anyone else have a gun in a hospital because yes, that is dumb.[/QUOTE] What is a security guard? 2 times I've posted that in that post but apparently only police are the only people capable of securing a location. if we're really going to bring guns into hospitals, why are the DOCTORS carrying them? what scenario are you people imagining this is even needed? [editline]10th June 2017[/editline] Seriously, if a hospital needs security, they can hire security. Give them tasers and mace, give them rubber bullets. A hospital is 100% the absolute last place we need guns to be introduced.

[QUOTE=J!NX;52337223] if we're really going to bring guns into hospitals, why are the DOCTORS carrying them? what scenario are you people imagining this is even needed?[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/news/doctor-had-gun-wounded-hospital-shooter-pennsylvania-prosecutor-says/[/url] [url]http://www.tbo.com/pasco-county/doctor-shot-man-at-pasco-clinic-in-self-defense-deputies-say-20140218/[/url]

[QUOTE=J!NX;52337223] A hospital is 100% the absolute last place we need guns to be introduced.[/QUOTE] You know what? Fine. I guess if you don't want to defend yourself, no one else should be allowed to either. So go ahead and deprive individuals of their ability to defend themselves and put up a "gun free zone" sign. I am sure that such actions will prevent further loss of innocent life because bad people always follow the rules.

[QUOTE=J!NX;52337223]I'm just going to stop you right there because your assumption is asinine and you're wrong because 1. I don't think this, not even slightly. I'm not THAT dumb 2. I literally agree'd with home defense law'd in that same post. Are you saying I agree that murder should be illegal or something? If you're going to assume this much about me I have to assume everything from here on out is based off the idea that I believe this I don't think you have any idea what the Hippocratic oath is dude "Do no harm" is a very good oath because doctors are exactly the people that could do the most messed up damage. Doing harm means they can lose their license. The entire mentality of a doctor is to heal people. This isn't even entirely about an oath itself, its about the point of why they're even there to begin with. What is a security guard? 2 times I've posted that in that post but apparently only police are the only people capable of securing a location. if we're really going to bring guns into hospitals, why are the DOCTORS carrying them? what scenario are you people imagining this is even needed? [editline]10th June 2017[/editline] Seriously, if a hospital needs security, they can hire security. Give them tasers and mace, give them rubber bullets. A hospital is 100% the absolute last place we need guns to be introduced.[/QUOTE] Coming from someone who worked security as both a plain Jane rent a cop and executive protection, security guards don't do shit. Armed security is incredibly expensive, with the minimum usually running $60 an hour per officer. The whole motto of security is "observe and report", not protect and serve. Most institutions simply cannot afford to have armed reactionary security forces, so any guard you see is going to be doing the same thing as any average person in firearm situation: call the police. Not to mention most armed security barely get any training with a firearm. Most places run you through a basic course on how to handle and shoot, but that's about it. I was one of the few exceptions bring that I worked executive protection, and that kind of protection is well beyond being affordable 24/7 for all but the largest institutions.

[QUOTE=Zombinie;52337271]You know what? Fine. I guess if you don't want to defend yourself, no one else should be allowed to either. So go ahead and deprive individuals of their ability to defend themselves and put up a "gun free zone" sign. I am sure that such actions will prevent further loss of innocent life because bad people always follow the rules.[/QUOTE] Well your argument so far was "I don't trust the police and it is my god given right to carry a gun everywhere to shoot someone if needed". Unless you think the need for guns in a hospital is an exception rather than the norm you will always say that everyone in the hospital should be armed.

[QUOTE=Zombinie;52337271]You know what? Fine. I guess if you don't want to defend yourself, no one else should be allowed to either. So go ahead and deprive individuals of their ability to defend themselves and put up a "gun free zone" sign. I am sure that such actions will prevent further loss of innocent life because bad people always follow the rules.[/QUOTE] Yeah man, why even have laws against theft and murder while we're at it? Bad people are just going to do it anyway. We should definitely base our laws on what people will do regardless and not on how people should act.

[QUOTE=Kigen;52337208]The overwhelming majority of the time police arrive AFTER a crime has been committed. Not during. The FBI did a study which showed this. [url]https://leb.fbi.gov/2009-pdfs/leb-april-2009[/url] They used 2,123 officers as their sample size. These officers responded code 3 (lights and sirens) [b]14,007,000 times[/b], and it [b]only made a different in 1,747 incidents[/b]. That is less than one incident per officer.[/QUOTE] Where is the unreliablilty then? They're still going there and still get there. Things take time to get called in, entered, ranked, and dispatched. Only made a difference [B]to save a life[/B]. Believe it or not, cops cannot teleport and do move slower than a bullet. They are always behind the game. [QUOTE=Zombinie;52337212]([url]http://ijr.com/2016/03/554002-heres-how-long-on-average-it-takes-for-police-to-respond-to-a-911-call/[/url]) I would call that unreliable. And why should a person have to wait on someone else to come and ensure their safety when they can protect themselves right on the spot?[/QUOTE] Its misleading to compare police call times like that. Rural communities will have significantly longer response times than a city. It could take 20 minutes driving 100 to get to a call if you're working up in the middle of nowhere vs how 58% of the calls are: under 10 minutes. With 91% being under an hour. And this doesnt break it down between department size or service population. Its not unreliable. They're still responding. Whats unreliable is people calling if they [I]think[/I] something is going to happen vs how it normally goes of people calling as-or-after its happening.

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;52337318]Yeah man, why even have laws against theft and murder while we're at it? Bad people are just going to do it anyway. We should definitely base our laws on what people will do regardless and not on how people should act.[/QUOTE] Because a law against murder is a detriment to no one. Gun Free Zones have proven to only be detrimental.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52337369]Because a law against murder is a detriment to no one. Gun Free Zones have proven to only be detrimental.[/QUOTE] Gonna need some statistics to back that up.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;52337358] Its misleading to compare police call times like that. Rural communities will have significantly longer response times than a city. It could take 20 minutes driving 100 to get to a call if you're working up in the middle of nowhere vs how 58% of the calls are: under 10 minutes. With 91% being under an hour. And this doesnt break it down between department size or service population. Its not unreliable. They're still responding. Whats unreliable is people calling if they [I]think[/I] something is going to happen vs how it normally goes of people calling as-or-after its happening.[/QUOTE] I had a drunk guy assaulting customers at the convenience store I work it took the police 2 hours to arrive, and I'm in the twin cities.

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;52337470]Gonna need some statistics to back that up.[/QUOTE] it's inconclusive whether or not they're actually a detriment but they're at best ineffectual. the vast majority of mass shootings in public places (ie not some nutcase breaking into a home and killing a family of 5, a guy snapping and killing his wife and kids, or gang shootouts. all technically mass shootings from a legal standpoint, but don't fit the mo) happen in gun free zones.

[QUOTE=butre;52337554]it's inconclusive whether or not they're actually a detriment but they're at best ineffectual. the vast majority of mass shootings in public places (ie not some nutcase breaking into a home and killing a family of 5, a guy snapping and killing his wife and kids, or gang shootouts. all technically mass shootings from a legal standpoint, but don't fit the mo) happen in gun free zones.[/QUOTE] I'm again going to have to ask for some statistics to back that up.

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;52337628]I'm again going to have to ask for some statistics to back that up.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/01/09/over-98-of-mass-shootings-occurred-on-gun-free-zones-research-shows/[/url] [QUOTE]According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, from the 1950’s through July 10th of 2016, 98.4 percent of mass shootings have occurred on gun-free zones, with just 1.6 percent occurring where citizens are allowed to have firearms with them.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;52337470]Gonna need some statistics to back that up.[/QUOTE] Schools, malls, military bases. Some of the worst mass shootings in the US have occurred in gun free zones. Sandy Hook, Chattanooga military recruitment office shootings, Ft. Hood shooting (twice), DC Navy yard shooting, the Dark Knight premiere in the Aurora movie theater, and Virginia Tech shooting to name a few. All were gun free zones, theres more but thats all I can name off the top of my head. [editline]10th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=butre;52337554]it's inconclusive whether or not they're actually a detriment but they're at best ineffectual. the vast majority of mass shootings in public places (ie not some nutcase breaking into a home and killing a family of 5, a guy snapping and killing his wife and kids, or gang shootouts. all technically mass shootings from a legal standpoint, but don't fit the mo) happen in gun free zones.[/QUOTE] I'd call them detrimental since someome who was CC'ing was able to stop a shooting from turning into a mass shooting more than once. Its glaringly obvious that a sign isn't respected by someone who intends to commit a crime. All it does is remove a trained individuals ability to stop said crime.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52337634]Schools, malls, military bases. Some of the worst mass shootings in the US have occurred in gun free zones. Sandy Hook, Chattanooga military recruitment office shootings, Ft. Hood shooting (twice), DC Navy yard shooting, the Dark Knight premiere in the Aurora movie theater, and Virginia Tech shooting to name a few. All were gun free zones, theres more but thats all I can name off the top of my head. [editline]10th June 2017[/editline] I'd call them detrimental since someome who was CC'ing was able to stop a shooting from turning into a mass shooting more than once. Its glaringly obvious that a sign isn't respected by someone who intends to commit a crime. All it does is remove a trained individuals ability to stop said crime.[/QUOTE] I agree, but there's not been any hard conclusive unbiased study about it, so currently it's considered inconclusive.

[QUOTE=butre;52337715]I agree, but there's not been any hard conclusive unbiased study about it, so currently it's considered inconclusive.[/QUOTE] What about the study I linked above by the Crime Prevention Research Center? [url]http://crimeresearch.org/2014/09/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/[/url]

[QUOTE=butre;52337715]I agree, but there's not been any hard conclusive unbiased study about it, so currently it's considered inconclusive.[/QUOTE] Well theres not really going to be. Its based completely on what-ifs and theres no real way to test it. What we do know is that theres no actual reason to have a gun free zone, other than emotional reasons.

[QUOTE=Kigen;52337250][url]http://www.cbsnews.com/news/doctor-had-gun-wounded-hospital-shooter-pennsylvania-prosecutor-says/[/url] [url]http://www.tbo.com/pasco-county/doctor-shot-man-at-pasco-clinic-in-self-defense-deputies-say-20140218/[/url][/QUOTE] I do wonder how much preventative measures could have stopped this but then again I mean that's one way to stop an armed man if a hospital is in a shitty enough location at best it'd have to be a 'gun free zone' but with very heavy restrictions on who can be authorized to carry I'd like to point out my extreme bias since I'm in 1. A location with decent police response time as far as I've experienced 2. A location where shoot outs are extremely rare Naturally there's no way I'd agree to opening hospitals to guns in a location where it isn't that common. The idea that they shouldn't be 'gun free' and anyone can just willy nilly walk in with a CC is pretty insane. [QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52338192]Well theres not really going to be. Its based completely on what-ifs and theres no real way to test it. What we do know is that theres no actual reason to have a gun free zone, other than emotional reasons.[/QUOTE] The only point you actually have to make is "you can't make that argument though because that's just a what if/emotional argument", despite the fact that your argument is literally "Yeah, but why not?" look at UncleJimmema and Kigen's posts. They're actual valid arguments. They aren't just saying "yeah but there's no actual reason NOT to let guns into hospitals. Gun free zones are some of the most shot up places". They're using either actual experience or actual events to make a point. Not easy to counter that is it?

[QUOTE=J!NX;52338530]I do wonder how much preventative measures could have stopped this but then again I mean that's one way to stop an armed man if a hospital is in a shitty enough location at best it'd have to be a 'gun free zone' but with very heavy restrictions on who can be authorized to carry I'd like to point out my extreme bias since I'm in 1. A location with decent police response time as far as I've experienced 2. A location where shoot outs are extremely rare Naturally there's no way I'd agree to opening hospitals to guns in a location where it isn't that common. The idea that they shouldn't be 'gun free' and anyone can just willy nilly walk in with a CC is pretty insane. The only point you actually have to make is "you can't make that argument though because that's just a what if/emotional argument", despite the fact that your argument is literally "Yeah, but why not?" look at UncleJimmema and Kigen's posts. They're actual valid arguments. They aren't just saying "yeah but there's no actual reason NOT to let guns into hospitals. Gun free zones are some of the most shot up places". They're using either actual experience or actual events to make a point. Not easy to counter that is it?[/QUOTE] I'm not saying people cant make certain arguments, but an emotional argument is a terrible one (are we seriously at the point where its ok to argue your feelings??) and arguing that theres a miniscule chance that the entire hospital will explode like an action movie because of a stray bullet is just as bad. Theyre not sensible or based in reality. Fuck me I guess for asking people to have legitimate concerns. My argument is that theres no valid reason to not let guns be in hospitals because there are no detrimental effects to it. Gun Free Zones blatantly do not work and are completely detrimental to the people in them. Several mass shootings have been stopped or completely prevented by someone concealed carrying. Why is it any different in a hospital? And thus far nobody has been able to really prove me wrong.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52338615] My argument is that theres no valid reason to not let guns be in hospitals because there are no detrimental effects to it. .[/QUOTE] Other than the completely ignored introducing a weapon into a place full of undiagnosed/medicated mental disorders. Because those people are totally rationally thinking and predictable.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;52338723]Other than the completely ignored introducing a weapon into a place full of undiagnosed/medicated mental disorders. Because those people are totally rationally thinking and predictable.[/QUOTE] Do you carry your firearm in your waistband or your back pocket?? Do you think that all CWP holders carry like that? [editline]11th June 2017[/editline] I've never seen a cop carry a firearm unsecured, and I've never seen someone carrying a pistol and made it extremely obvious they were doing so.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;52337358]Where is the unreliablilty then? They're still going there and still get there. Things take time to get called in, entered, ranked, and dispatched. Only made a difference [B]to save a life[/B]. Believe it or not, cops cannot teleport and do move slower than a bullet. They are always behind the game. [/QUOTE] That is my point. Police do not have teleportation. So the victim or a nearby bystander is ultimately the very first responder to an incident. So why deprive those people of the means to defend themselves and others?