It's "never point your weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot." You were close, but it seems you are really reaching to be more dramatic.
Did you not see me write the words "some form of?" Different organizations use slightly different wording. "Never Point The Gun At Something You Are Not Prepared To Destroy" being one of them, which means basically the same thing. Yeah, it's really reaching to say that it's a bad fucking idea to point a gun at people.
You are still so focused on the gun so closely you are ignoring context.
The context is a drunk man who lost his temper pointing a gun at people and telling them he'll kill all of them. No, I'm not focused on the gun. If he was open carrying in a holster while arguing with hospital staff, I wouldn't give a shit. The difference is this was an intoxicated man pointing a weapon directly at people.
It was already a dangerous situation, a healthy young man was about to be killed simply because he didn't appear to be healthy at the time. So we are already at life-threatening levels of being unsafe and irresponsible before the gun is even part of the equation.
There was nothing irresponsible going on until a man pulled a gun on doctors and nurses. A freak incident of somebody recovering from his sons condition does not mean it's irresponsible to remove somebody from life support. It's pretty much guaranteed that you will not recover from his situation.
The gun is produced and oriented in the opposite direction of the force that wants to kill the young man.
Talk about reaching. None of the medical staff wanted to kill anybody. You really think the doctors were just itching to go kill somebody?
Equal and opposite force cancels eachother out, and we have a stalemate, thus the force that wanted to kill the young man can no longer move towards its goal. The sons life is saved. These are the facts.
Your problem is you are not distinguishing potential danger vs. actual danger. A small distinction admittedly but an important one for the topic at hand. The father was potentially dangerous, yes. But was anyone in actual danger? No. This is a fact.
There is no difference between actual danger and potential danger. A person climbing across a rope ladder 100 feet in the air has the potential danger of falling, which is also the actual danger he faces. You're just making shit up. There is an actual danger when an angry drunk man points a gun at you. There's also not a danger to just his intended targets, but to other people as well. Hospital walls aren't thick, they do nothing to stop rounds from going through and hitting somebody on the other side. Hell, I supervise inmates at the hospital sometimes and we're pretty much told not to use our firearm inside the hospital because of that. So yes, there's certainly danger when a drunk idiot has a gun pulled out and is pointing it at people.
The father only turned out to be right in the same way that somebody hitting the lottery picked the right numbers. It comes down to a minute chance of being lucky. "Call it father’s intuition." Yes, that's something that most parents would get when faced with their child never recovering, the vast majority wouldn't want to believe that their child is gone, and would have "intuition" that they'll recover. That doesn't mean he was right, he just happened to be lucky. The fact that the father wasn't consulted as a decision maker leads me to believe there's a reason why. Possibly because he's an irrational idiot who does things like gets drunk and pulls guns on people.