Should Doctors Have Guns?

[Anxious Patient]

The author, a doctor, makes the case that in our climate of daily random violence and desperate drug addicts, a doctor would be wise to have a gun in his office. He brings up the example of emergency rooms having metal detectors and bullet proof glass because shootings have actually occurred there. So he asks:

Would you not see a doctor if you knew he had a gun in his office?

To those who would fear ....... I ask you this, why would a doctor having a gun bother you? Do you live in fear that your physician is trying to kill you? I mean if he really wanted you dead, he could stab you with a scalpel or inject you with something lethal. He could do so with the tools of his profession in a much more efficient manner than with a gun.

http://brainblogger.com/2008/05/09/should-doctors-have-guns/

[kalevra, BSN, RN]

Should we start arming all bedside care providers guns as well? They have more patient contact and if they are in the hood isn't it more likely that they would be shot first? How about having bouncers at the door, they will pat you down making sure you don't have a weapon. Then after your cleared they pull aside the red velvet rope. There is also the idea of having roving bouncers keeping an eye out for dangerous suspicious activity, just ready to pounce on a trouble maker.

Let us pretend that the hospital you work for allows MDs to carry firearms. Well one day the MD actually uses the weapon and fires a few rounds into the wall as they are trying to hit their target. Hospitals walls can be easily penetrated by 9mm rounds, the rounds then travel into the adjacent room hitting something vital. This something vital in the next room could be a monitor or maybe even a patient. The penetration of the firearm is should not be forgotten as people can be killed by firing through walls, imagine if the MD used a .45 1911 or a .50 Desert Eagle. Why you would want to carry these weapons you say, well because of stopping power duhh. That last part is sarcastic it is also the most common answer I get when I ask someone why they would ever think about carrying a DE.

[PreMed13]

Should we start arming all bedside care providers guns as well? They have more patient contact and if they are in the hood isn't it more likely that they would be shot first? How about having bouncers at the door, they will pat you down making sure you don't have a weapon. Then after your cleared they pull aside the red velvet rope. There is also the idea of having roving bouncers keeping an eye out for dangerous suspicious activity, just ready to pounce on a trouble maker.

Let us pretend that the hospital you work for allows MDs to carry firearms. Well one day the MD actually uses the weapon and fires a few rounds into the wall as they are trying to hit their target. Hospitals walls can be easily penetrated by 9mm rounds, the rounds then travel into the adjacent room hitting something vital. This something vital in the next room could be a monitor or maybe even a patient. The penetration of the firearm is should not be forgotten as people can be killed by firing through walls, imagine if the MD used a .45 1911 or a .50 Desert Eagle. Why you would want to carry these weapons you say, well because of stopping power duhh. That last part is sarcastic it is also the most common answer I get when I ask someone why they would ever think about carrying a DE.

I think that your example might be a tad extreme in just the dealing with caliber and type. I hardly think that a Desert Eagle is appropriate for the scenario that seems to have been posed. In my reading the post, it seemed to me that the idea was that they would carry a small, easily concealed gun that, though weaker perhaps in stopping power, would give them some line of last defense. I don't think it should be perhaps the first step in the medical community defending itself. Why not start with mace and see if carrying it and using it lowers the rate of injury or the chances that gunshots might break out from a security team's response? At the same time, we live in a rather dangerous world. I admit that the person in question carrying the firearm in question is just as likely to be the one that ends your life as they are to be the one that ultimately saves it. At the same time, I can't say I'm not to some degree, and a part of that I know is irrational, comforted by the idea that someone on the floor might be able to respond just a little faster than security if something, God forbid, did happen.

[FLmomof5]

One of my fav bumper stickers stated,"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns!"

The reality is that the law banning convicted felons from possessing weapons has never stopped them from getting weapons. We have an orificenal in our home. (DH is a Master Gunner.... ) I have thought about getting a concealed weapons permit, but have yet to do so.

The fact is that there are dangerous drug seekers out there. Aw heck, there are many dangerous folks out there. I would rather be packing (or have Doc packing) and take out the hooligan than watch helplessly as the hooligan takes out innocent folks.

You really don't know if Doc will actually use the piece. He might. Fact is, that once the hooligan pulls his weapon (gun, knife, bat...whatever) it is too late to make a decision to have a weapon or not.

There was much hoopla in a state I lived in previously when the law was passed that it was OK to open-carry a weapon. The media jumped on how it was going to turn this state into the old west with everyone wearing gun belts and such. It never happened.

IMHO, it is a good thing for criminals to think that anyone they encounter could be packing too. When they know YOU cannot legally carry, it gives them all the power and motivation to commit the crime they are intending on committing.

[Rob72, ASN, RN]

Then why is the violent crime less in, say, the UK? The Western nations with stricter gun laws also have less violent crime. I'm not saying I'd want restrictive gun laws like there, but I do think those are more peaceful societies.

The United States has a higher crime rate, more people in prison, more violent crime, more gun deaths. THAT is a fact.

Better check those Ministry of Health inclusion/exclusion stat reporting requirements, my friend. GB is no "safer", just different, as Fred Perrin and Dennis Martin can certainly attest, given their thriving Euro-based businesses.

Firearms are tools. No more, no less. If you do not know how to safely use the tool, you may hurt or kill someone, as indicated by our DOT traffic death stats...hmmmmm.

I've carried a firearm on and off for 20 years. Strangely, I haven't wantonly killed anyone, nor had my pistol rabidly attack passers-by.

[MN-Nurse, ASN, RN]

The author, a doctor, makes the case that in our climate of daily random violence and desperate drug addicts, a doctor would be wise to have a gun in his office. He brings up the example of emergency rooms having metal detectors and bullet proof glass because shootings have actually occurred there. So he asks:

http://brainblogger.com/2008/05/09/should-doctors-have-guns/

The question is: "Will the doctor having a gun in his office make his workplace safer?"

I doubt it. I would much rather have armed uniformed police officers on hand in locations where they are warranted. The author mentions small business and retailers. I see those locations regulary hiring off duty police officers. It is expensive, but effective.

From some of the outbursts I have seen out of MDs and the level of control they display over their own emotions, I just don't think arming them really helps the situation.

[kalevra, BSN, RN]

I think that your example might be a tad extreme in just the dealing with caliber and type. I hardly think that a Desert Eagle is appropriate for the scenario that seems to have been posed. In my reading the post, it seemed to me that the idea was that they would carry a small, easily concealed gun that, though weaker perhaps in stopping power, would give them some line of last defense. I don't think it should be perhaps the first step in the medical community defending itself. Why not start with mace and see if carrying it and using it lowers the rate of injury or the chances that gunshots might break out from a security team's response? At the same time, we live in a rather dangerous world. I admit that the person in question carrying the firearm in question is just as likely to be the one that ends your life as they are to be the one that ultimately saves it. At the same time, I can't say I'm not to some degree, and a part of that I know is irrational, comforted by the idea that someone on the floor might be able to respond just a little faster than security if something, God forbid, did happen.

Point taken, but mace can disperse in an erratic manner. The aerosol may disperse into a larger area of effect the farther the target is. The fumes have also been known to cause difficulty breathing in people who were not even in the blast area. Using the Taser X3 model would allow for precise delivery of non-lethal projectiles that would cause the target from moving. It would also by pass chemical dispersal and would not penetrate through walls.

[Nccity2002, MSN, RN]

I used to know a doctor who carried a gun in an ankle holster when he visited patients on the unit (locked psych). I know because he showed it to us. He had been attacked by a patient in a parking lot before then. Years later, after showing us the gun, he tazered a patient in his office, who attacked him. He was fired for not following protocol and calling for security (he was an employee of the facility rather than in private practice)...

That is insane...who has the time to think about policies and procedures while you are being attacked??

I'd say taze away!!!