At one point, Kansas made it illegal for KU Med to prohibit guns at the hospital unless they provided "adequate security" (metal detectors and armed guards). Then, KU Med and the anti-gun zealots tossed a hissy fit claiming that allowing guns in buildings "in the hospital district" would cause people to get shot. The State of Kansas bowed to their wishes and made it illegal for people who can otherwise carry and conceal a handgun in public places to carry a firearm "in any building within the KU Med Hospital District". Last night a man lost his life and a woman was injured. This law may of contributed to the man's death. The story is in the KC Star.
Basically, a man and woman was assaulted and shot by another man. They went to the hospital and the "bad guy" pursued them there. He then shot the innocent guy again inside the hospital before turning the gun on himself.
I have a saying when something doesn't make sense. In this case, the law outlawing firearms in a hospital that is located in a relatively high crime area. Follow The Money.
Studies have shown that nearly all criminals being booked into county jails have no health insurance. I would venture to say that people who have concealed carry licenses and a firearm are significantly more likely to have health insurance. If a concealed carrier was attacked near the hospital and defended him/herself with their firearm, the criminal would almost assuredly be taken to the nearest hospital (KU Med). Since they don't have insurance, the hospital has to provide emergency services and most likely will not get paid. If the innocent party is not able to defend themselves, they will be the one's getting injured and being taken to the hospital (if they survive). Since they have insurance, the hospital gets paid. Should I mention that the hospital gets paid a huge sum of money (probably $50,000 up to a $1,000,000 or more depending upon the extent of injuries and time to recover).
It will never be known if this law cost this man his life. But, what is known is that if someone, anyone, had been at the door of the hospital and able to defend them, he may still be alive. It is a common occurrence when a bad guy with a gun is confronted by a good guy with a gun, the bad guy turns his own gun on himself. Merely the presence of a gun may of changed the outcome.
If KU Med is adamant about not allowing guns within ANY building within the hospital district, they should of followed the law as it was before the change. If they had an armed guard at the door where the innocent party ran for help, the outcome probably would of been different for the innocent man.
If KU Med is going to take away my ability to defend myself and my family when visiting their facilities, they should be responsible for providing for my protection and/or my medical treatment if they choose not to provide protection in their "DEFENSELESS VICTIM DISTRICT".