A Call to Action from the Nation's Nurses in the Wake of Newtown

InfirmiereJolie · Dec 27, 2012

First of all, these websites I sourced are for those who like guns, so this cannot be which is called "propaganda" by them (which could have be possible if they were from the opposing side).... It came up immediately in the search on the type of gun that was in that picture previously posted on that person's facebook then deleted.

The word came up immediately and also videos on youtube demonstrating use which I did not look at (didn't want to). It took about 5-15 minutes, not exactly like it isn't public knowledge (or could be if someone just typed it in and followed a couple links).

Also, the the one used by the Israeli army in the example looks EXACTLY like that one which the picture was claiming was supposedly "harmless" (political propoganda) because it didn't "LOOK" harmful. There are pictures there showing variations with or without that "telescope" you speak of (as if it matters, the basic unit/model basis is the exact same). It does not matter how long it has been in production or whether their purpose was to be lethal or not-lethal, they are still using it to injure and shoot other people (which would be burdensome for hospitals and first responders), and contrary to what you are saying they are dangerous, VERY dangerous and enough for them to take the model for their OWN use (why else would they be using them if they weren't? Why should we let there be copy cats on the streets simply because one claims they are "not" used and could be "slightly" less strong, when it is essentially the same?).

STATISTICS ON THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT LIBRARY'S WEBSITE ON THEIR GUN LAWS:

"According to Jennifer Norberry

Law and Public Administration Group

Derek Woolner

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Group

Kirsty Magarey

Law and Public Administration Group

Jennifer Norberry wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Bob Bennett, Director, Law and Public Administration Group.

Kirsty Magarey wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Wiltrud Harms, Reference Specialist for United Nations and Human Rights Law at the University of California, Berkeley's Law School Library (Boalt)....

Statistics on firearms deaths in Australia for 1994 have been published by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.(2)... 40 per cent of homicides involving a firearm the weapon was a .22 calibre rifle." THIS MODEL WAS THE MOST USED OF ANY OF THE OTHERS LISTED. http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/CIB/cib9596/96cib16

So yes, it IS dangerous. The Australians then instituted a buy back program which took hundreds of thousands, mostly these, off the streets (equilvalent to 40 million if it was instituted here). They have a FOUR TIMES lower overall murder rate then we do, 15 times lower chance of a person getting shot, lower suicides (don't know the exact number), ZERO mass shootings in almost two decades, and a 5% gun ownership rate. Their example is the pinnacle of success.

It is time to act now.

*** LOL! OK come on and be serious now. You can only cary this so far before you start to lose credabiliety. Calling the most popular small game game hunting and target shooting .22 rifle, not even equiped with a telescopic sight a "sniper" rifle is getting pretty out there. Either you have to come clean and admit you are pulling our leg, or ditch whatever abserd firearms information sourse you have and check into realiety.

" So the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) searched for a 0.22 caliber accurate rifle that will be used to take out the key protest leaders by shooting them in the legs. The Ruger 10/22, fitted with a X4 day optic, a full length suppressor and a Harris bipod was selected for this role and was due to be issued to all infantry oriented units, including both special and conventional forces." Israeli Ruger 10/22 Suppressed Sniper Rifle
Ok, you got the "cart before the horse" on this one. The point in the paragraph was that the Israeli military adapted a civilian rifle to military use. The Ruger 10/22 has been in production a long time, almost 50 years with 50 million having been produced. Also, you will note that these guns are intended to be used on extremities, i.e. legs. While the 10/22 can kill, their adoption by Israel was for the intended purpose of disabling personnel.
(((We need to use critical thinking here, do we really want DANGEROUS MILITARY weapons on the streets and listen to this propaganda pretending it isn't so? I don't think so... we need gun reform andmore restrictions immediately.)))

"...DANGEROUS MILITARY weapons..." Is there another kind?
"...listen to this propaganda pretending it isn't so?"
Propaganda: ": the spreading of ideas, information, or "]rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person". merriam-webster.com
Whose propaganda do you speak of?

InfirmiereJolie · Dec 27, 2012

removed

Home Health Columnist / Guide · Dec 27, 2012

Advance web Perspective:

December 17, 2012 5:36 PM by Rich Krisher

Missed Lesson of Sandy Hook Elementary School Murders

But we could pass strict gun ownership laws and continue to be faced with these heartbreaking events if we fail to address the role played by our mental healthcare system....
Of course, not everyone who requires mental health services is a danger to society. But this an ideal time for mental health advocates to speak up for their cause. Nurses in all areas of practice can also take the lead by offering education and bringing mental health concerns into conversations about care. Nurses can help establish trust in treatment, which will go a long way toward eliminating stigma.

Home Health Columnist / Guide · Dec 27, 2012

Call for Public Comment Draft Psychiatric-Mental Health Scope and Standards

The public comment period is now open. Nursing specialty organizations, state boards of nursing, schools of nursing, faculty groups, and state nurses associations have been asked to submit feedback. All of these groups are encouraged to disseminate notice of the postings to all of their members and other stakeholders. The feedback will be carefully reviewed and integrated as appropriate. The period to submit feedback will end January 26, 2013. - See more at: Draft Scope & Standards - American Psychiatric Nurses Association

In accordance with ANA recommendations, this document reflects the template
12 language of the most recent publication of ANA nursing standards, Nursing: Scope and
13 Standards of Practice (ANA, 2010). In addition, the introduction has been revised to
14 highlight the leadership role of psychiatric–mental health nurses in the transformation of
15 the mental health system as outlined in Achieving the Promise, the President’s New
16 Freedom Commission Report on Mental Health (United States Department of Health
17 and Human Services, 2003) and the Institute of Medicine’s Report (IOM) on the Future
18 of Nursing (2010). The prevalence of mental health issues and psychiatric disorders
19 across the age span and the disparities in access to care and treatment among diverse
20 groups attest to the critical role that the specialty of psychiatric–mental health nursing
21 must continue to play in meeting the goals for a healthy society. Safety issues for
22 persons with psychiatric disorders and the nurses involved in assisting persons with
23 mental illness in their own recovery process are major priorities for this nursing specialty
24 in an environment of fiscal constraints and disparities in reimbursement for mental
25 health services.

InfirmiereJolie · Dec 27, 2012

People can always try to control people's feelings and thoughts (and it has been more regulated in the past), but people will always think differently, they can never all be the same, nor is it objective.... I find it odd that people can simply "vote" on what is deemed an "illness" or not an "illness" based on what is deemed socially ideal at the time whereas medical, bodily diseases are proven through viruses, cells, immunology and microbiology.

I also find it odd that a supposed "illness" can be faked.... I could walk into any psychiatric office and demonstrate so-called "symptoms" purposely. It does not seem concrete or logical if one can be "diagnosed" based off of opinion. I've seen questionnaires where if I answered a certain way, it would lead to supposed "diagnosis," yet if I answered the "correct" way, the supposed "diagnosis" would be different. Any person with any intelligence could do this.

It is in noway mathematical. Medical physicians are required to learn advanced calculus, trigonometry, geometry, and college algebra. In math, there is no argument. The answer is either there, or it is not. It is a binomial distribution: a yes or no answer. A person either has a virus or they do not have a virus. It is concrete. In microbiology, bacteria can be tested with the use of agar, broth, staining, and microscopes then identified. You can take this virus causing bacteria and place it into an animal and see its effects are the same. Then you, without a doubt, know it is the same virus. You could watch it taking effect on human cells, entering them. You could watch leukocytes attack the pathogen and release more chemicals to draw more leukocytes. You can see B cells, T cells, and natural killer cells responding to the disease. In a cut, you could watch the fibrinogen response and histamine causing inflammation. You can see the hormones released in renal regulation and cardiovascular regulation, when there is blood loss.

You do not get this bodily response from these so-called "illnesses." I do not see leukocytes and macrophages responding, attacking, and destroying a disease. The body does not attack itself. There is no immunology. There is no attempt of the body to establish hemeostasis. There is absolutely no recognition by the body that it has a problem that it has to "overcome."

Absolutely none at all.

If the body, one of the greatest defenders against disease, does not recognize and attack it, why do we classify it as a supposed "illness." It seems to me it is more social, than mathematical.

Further, if the body was not attack it immunologically as if it is a pathogen, then how can one "cure" or pretend to "treat" it if it is not recognized in the first place. There are no antigens for cells to respond to. Does this not seem imaginary? Is this not the placebo effect? Is this not mind over matter? How do you classify it as cured if there was no homeostatic recognition of a problem in the beginning? When a virus is destroyed, there is a physical response of the body regaining former hemostasis, a response by the human cells, and with a microbiological test, this can be confirmed. To the body, a person with a supposed "illness" seems relatively healthy (may have nutrition or exercise needs)... and without a pathogen or foreign particle causing a needed response.

It seems to be this based more on social opinion, than actual facts and hemeostasis. Since it cannot be based on facts, there is no possible complete "cure" - causing physiological renewal - as it is not even recognized by macrophages or regulatory systems. Since this cannot happen, this is not based on mathematics.

Ultimately it can go nowhere as there is no actual "illlness." People can pretend it is, but it can never be "solved" as it is not an actual bodily aliment. Hence, the increased supposed "treatment," yet further so-called "increase." Realistically speaking, this should be inversely related if legitimate. People were separated from society and supposedly "treated," yet there continued to be a so-called "increase." If someone with an actual bodily transmittable disease were separated, the disease would not spread or increase, and the treatment would evidently improve their conditions and others, ending the outbreak, decreasing it as its result. However, this observable condition does not occur with this so-called "illness" nor is there a hemeostatic recognition by the body of a problem.

In conclusion, this will always be a so-called "problem" as there is no formulaic "solution" to something which is based purely or, significantly on the basis of, social ideology and flexible opinion. There is no solution to this mathematical equation as it is never was a mathematical question in the first place, as are pathogens requiring immunological response, to the contrary, are. The last 400 years speaks for itself - there is an inverse effect as seen in the treatment of actual illnesses, more "treatment" and more "increase." There is a continuous flexibility of what constitutes an "illness" based on social norms.

But we could pass strict gun ownership laws and continue to be faced with these heartbreaking events if we fail to address the role played by our mental healthcare system....
Of course, not everyone who requires mental health services is a danger to society. But this an ideal time for mental health advocates to speak up for their cause. Nurses in all areas of practice can also take the lead by offering education and bringing mental health concerns into conversations about care. Nurses can help establish trust in treatment, which will go a long way toward eliminating stigma.

... NNU nurses have been speaking out the mental health crisis for a long time.
“My first reaction when I heard the news was that he sounded like someone with an untreated mental illness,” said Adelena Marshall, RN who has worked in the mental health unit of the Chicago Veteran Affairs Hospital for the last 20 years and has become the voice of veterans and the expert on mental health matters at the VA.
Last May, Chicago VA RNs with the support NNU had to threaten to hold an informational picket with the Iraq Veterans against the War (IVAW) to decry the appalling staffing conditions on the mental health unit. A couple of weeks later, 20 positions were posted.
“Nurses are on the front line of this issue and need to be part of the policy conversation,” said Michigan RN Jeanette Hokett who works in a 14-bed child and adolescent psychiatric inpatient unit. “They spend the most time at the bedside with the patients and families, and offer a perspective others, such as doctors, don’t have.”
Earlier this year, nurses concerns about access to mental health prompted NNU to convene a roundtable on mental health. “Often, the emergency room is where desperate people end up,” said one participant, Diane Fagan, a Kaiser Permanente ER RN in Oakland, Ca. “In the eight years I have worked there, I have seen more and more untreated mental health patients coming into the emergency department and spending long hours waiting to see a psychiatrist because so many of our outpatient services have closed.”
Michigan RN Jeanette Hokett works in a 14-bed child and adolescent psychiatric inpatient unit at the University of Michigan Health System. She hears frustration from patients and families on a daily basis.
“There’s not enough for these families to get the support they need,” said Hokett. “I have seen patients come in sicker and stay shorter times. There are no beds. We have waiting lists for people who are trying to get a patient into our facility. While they wait, health care staff works with families to come up with a safe plan for them at home. It may mean a parent has to remove sharp knives from the house and sit with the child 24 hours until a bed becomes available.
“The reality is there are not enough treatment options and they are not always available for families because of financial constraints. If there was better access to mental health care, we would be able to improve the outcome for these patients and improve their lives,” she said.
Ultimately effectively challenging the mental health crisis is an integral part of solving our overall, ongoing healthcare emergency in the U.S. ...
Time to Act Now To Restore Our Ravaged Mental Healthcare System | National Nurses United

TopazLover, BSN, RN · Dec 27, 2012

Schizophrenia - Causes

Borderline personality disorder: Risk factors - MayoClinic.com

NIMH - What causes depression?

I have given examples of three psychiatric diseases from 3 different sources. All indicate changes in brain that can be seen on scans. All indicate that there is a genetic component. All discuss the role of changes in brain chemistry.

I think it is common for us to look at mental illness with old eyes. We, in the past, did not know about genes. We had no way of looking at brains without the person being dead. If you only look at a specific disease such as Alzheimer's you will see that we still are not able to diagnose with many of the same kinds of testing that we have for physical diseases. Much of the advancement of knowledge about Alzheimer's comes from the research of brains after death.

Yes, there are discussions about how to classify mental illnesses. We remain in our infancy about knowledge about mental illness. For example, we know that SSRI's work to alleviate symptoms of depression. We are not able to give medications with pure serotonin. We have drugs that inhibit uptake of it. We are in our beginning steps to see why some people do better on one drug than another.

NIMH - Bipolar Disorder

Here is an example of mental illness that has symptoms and causes that seem to "bleed" into other psychiatric diagnoses. For many there is a need for drugs that are also used for schizophrenia. We think of it as a disease of depression and manic episodes but it is very complex. Yes, some of the diagnosis is done by meeting of criteria rather than lab work. To me that suggests we do not know enough to ask the right questions, not that the diagnosis is a myth or related to anything PC.

I cannot be too harsh on those who are rewriting the DSM. It shows that we are learning. It is not perfect. If we look at treatments for physical diseases going back a few generations we find leeches were used to treat things like ulcers, diverticulitis, heart disease. Certainly the leeches helped in those few individuals who suffered from hemochromatosis. We had to learn a great deal about the body in the hundred or so years since it was standard treatment for many illnesses to know why it worked for some illnesses and not others.

I look forward to the time when we spend enough money and enough energy to know the causes of mental illness well enough to give effective treatment without the current practice of trial and error. It is not the fault of the person who has the disease or the disease itself. Rather it is the fault of our lack of knowledge and lack of learning about the brain and what effects it to cause these diseases.

jadelpn, LPN, EMT-B · Dec 27, 2012

The news reports I saw stated that the kid who massacred these children was autisitic. This is not mentally ill.

We as a society and as a community need to educate parents. Early intervention on a number of levels. Parents should not have to bend over backward to get their child on an IEP at schools. Schools need to support with MD's, nurses and other professionals so that a child has the best chance of appropriatness and success. We need to do a better job of saying it is "ok" if one's child has dysfunctions. And give a list of what we are going to do to support these parents in assisting to help kids to function better. There are numerous professionals from hundreds of disciplines who could make something work for a kid who has a brain processing issue. And far too often, it is left to parents to advocate until they are purple in the face to no avail. Or pay thousands of dollars for someone else to attempt to advocate for them. Most parents don't have the money or the means. Gives a whole new meaning to "no child left behind" doesn't it?

There are mentally ill children. This is different than autistic children. Again, advocate, plan in place, support. All is sorely lacking.

Then there is the gun issue. I agree that assault high power weapons have no place in someone's home. I would go so far as to say no gun has the place in a home that has children in it. But I do know it is one's constitutional right. Multi locks, safes, I don't know how to make a gun safe in a home with kids. And yes, I have heard the "but they make bombs out of fertilizer" argument. However parents in conjunction with schools, law enforcement, medical community, psych communities need to come together with the purpose of raising functional children. And parents need to know it is "ok" to have the power. Because even the most sane and functional child who believes themselves grown (large and in charge) can become that out of control child in a blink of an eye.

I would advocate for the earliest interventions possible. And easy access to these services. This country puts millions into much less.

jadelpn, LPN, EMT-B · Dec 27, 2012

This is what my husband and I have been discussing. I'm interested in figuring out what is different now.
He grew up in a rural area where kids learned to shoot and hunt from a young age. Teens who could drive often left home early to get in some hunting before heading to school and pickups were parked in school parking lots with shotguns in the gun rack in the back window. Guns were easily available in the 1950's and 1960's and yet, school shootings were not common.
I grew up 4 years behind him and in So. Cal but firearms were part of my childhood as well.
What has changed in society that makes people go off the deep end and do things like Adam Lanzo did last week?
I don't think access to guns is the reason . . . because access to guns has gotten harder than when my husband and I grew up.
What has changed?

Back then, parents had control of their kids. Don't know about you, but when my parents spoke, I listened. If they told me to do something I did it. If I didn't then I would have consequences.

HM-8404, BSN, RN · Dec 27, 2012

Also, the the one used by the Israeli army in the example looks EXACTLY like that one which the picture was claiming was supposedly "harmless" (political propoganda) because it didn't "LOOK" harmful. There are pictures there showing variations with or without that "telescope" you speak of (as if it matters, the basic unit/model basis is the exact same). It does not matter how long it has been in production or whether their purpose was to be lethal or not-lethal, they are still using it to injure and shoot other people (which would be burdensome for hospitals and first responders), and contrary to what you are saying they are dangerous, VERY dangerous and enough for them to take the model for their OWN use (why else would they be using them if they weren't? Why should we let there be copy cats on the streets simply because one claims they are "not" used and could be "slightly" less strong, when it is essentially the same?).

STATISTICS ON THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT LIBRARY'S WEBSITE ON THEIR GUN LAWS:
"According to Jennifer Norberry
Law and Public Administration Group
Derek Woolner
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Group
Kirsty Magarey
Law and Public Administration Group
Jennifer Norberry wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Bob Bennett, Director, Law and Public Administration Group.
Kirsty Magarey wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Wiltrud Harms, Reference Specialist for United Nations and Human Rights Law at the University of California, Berkeley's Law School Library (Boalt)....
Statistics on firearms deaths in Australia for 1994 have been published by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.(2)... 40 per cent of homicides involving a firearm the weapon was a .22 calibre rifle." THIS MODEL WAS THE MOST USED OF ANY OF THE OTHERS LISTED. http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/CIB/cib9596/96cib16
So yes, it IS dangerous. The Australians then instituted a buy back program which took hundreds of thousands, mostly these, off the streets (equilvalent to 40 million if it was instituted here). They have a FOUR TIMES lower overall murder rate then we do, 15 times lower chance of a person getting shot, lower suicides (don't know the exact number), ZERO mass shootings in almost two decades, and a 5% gun ownership rate. Their example is the pinnacle of success.
It is time to act now.

What you just posted pretty much says banning certain types of guns don't work. If someone is inclined to kill another they will use whatever gun is available.

Guns have always been available in the US. It is actually harder to get them now than when I was a teen. Someone needs to take a hard no BS look at why shootings are more common now than in the past. What has changed? Have guns changed? Not really. Ammo? No. This only leaves society. Is there a massive increase in mental health issues? Perhaps. What could be the cause of that, single parent households, extreme violence in movies and video games desensitizing kids, not holding kids responsible for their actions, among other things?

I bolded that portion for a reason. I feel this is the main contributor. People can be desensitized to anything. Just using my own experiences, when I first arrived in Iraq I was so nervous I could hardly sleep. As time went on everything started to become "normal" even the major firefights I was involved in. When someone is constantly bombarded with graphic images, be it violence or sexual, people get used to it and it becomes a part of everyday life. Just look at what nurses and first responders get desensitized to over time.

PMFB-RN, RN · Dec 27, 2012

What you just posted pretty much says banning certain types of guns don't work. If someone is inclined to kill another they will use whatever gun is available.

The Ruger 10/22 is a sniper rifle and some unknown and undefined (I suspect intentionaly) "assault weapon" needs to be banned? As far as I am concerned responding to such abserd and unreasonable positions and frequient name calling is feeding the troll and I have decided not to do it anymore. I encourage you do to the same.

InfirmiereJolie · Dec 27, 2012

People's bodies may respond to emotions, but the body still does not try to kill itself and get rid of a supposed "illness" with macrophage response as if it is a pathogen. There is no recognition by the body of this. When are we going to accept that people are not always going to do what we want and act like we want to all of the time? Is this not a cultural concept? In other cultures it may be completely fine to act that way and we are not being accepting or tolerant. We label it a "disease" when for them it is the way they live. This does not sound very multicultural.

Now we don't just call having emotions or acting differently socially or culturally a "disease" we now say it is supposedly a "genetic disorder" too. So now, this person is classified an "outsider" and can never escape this so-called "disease" we devised because we deemed it supposedly "socially unacceptable" when it is simply a human variation. They have even less control than they did previously. Maybe the reason why people still act like they have no control over their lives after being supposedly "diagnosed" is because they DON'T feel they have any control over their lives especially due to the label.

All humans are 99.9% the same. Source: National Geographic Humans, Chimps Not as Closely Related as Thought? . Can we just leave it at this that there are cultural differences and be tolerant? Shouldn't we focus our time on diseases which actually affect the body requiring a leukocyte and human cell response? Real diseases which can be tested with microbiological methods (agar, broth, ect.)? Something which won't take mental control from people, alienate them, and label them a supposed "outsider" for life when they are simply original? Variation and multiculturalism can be healthy. Maybe we should be focusing on improving their nutrition, exercise, and living environments first before we start applying labels to normal human emotions to stress. There is probably a good reason for why people respond to it, maybe because there is something causing it and we should focus on targeting the cause and not the person, giving them control yet removing the stressor (which could be very legitimate, e.g., oppression, bullying, dangerous items or events). We want a healthy society, not a society which thinks everyone is sick when we already have true medical diseases requiring macrophage response and microbiological tests already.

Schizophrenia - Causes
Borderline personality disorder: Risk factors - MayoClinic.com
NIMH - What causes depression?
I have given examples of three psychiatric diseases from 3 different sources. All indicate changes in brain that can be seen on scans. All indicate that there is a genetic component. All discuss the role of changes in brain chemistry.
I think it is common for us to look at mental illness with old eyes. We, in the past, did not know about genes. We had no way of looking at brains without the person being dead. If you only look at a specific disease such as Alzheimer's you will see that we still are not able to diagnose with many of the same kinds of testing that we have for physical diseases. Much of the advancement of knowledge about Alzheimer's comes from the research of brains after death.
Yes, there are discussions about how to classify mental illnesses. We remain in our infancy about knowledge about mental illness. For example, we know that SSRI's work to alleviate symptoms of depression. We are not able to give medications with pure serotonin. We have drugs that inhibit uptake of it. We are in our beginning steps to see why some people do better on one drug than another.
NIMH - Bipolar Disorder
Here is an example of mental illness that has symptoms and causes that seem to "bleed" into other psychiatric diagnoses. For many there is a need for drugs that are also used for schizophrenia. We think of it as a disease of depression and manic episodes but it is very complex. Yes, some of the diagnosis is done by meeting of criteria rather than lab work. To me that suggests we do not know enough to ask the right questions, not that the diagnosis is a myth or related to anything PC.
I cannot be too harsh on those who are rewriting the DSM. It shows that we are learning. It is not perfect. If we look at treatments for physical diseases going back a few generations we find leeches were used to treat things like ulcers, diverticulitis, heart disease. Certainly the leeches helped in those few individuals who suffered from hemochromatosis. We had to learn a great deal about the body in the hundred or so years since it was standard treatment for many illnesses to know why it worked for some illnesses and not others.
I look forward to the time when we spend enough money and enough energy to know the causes of mental illness well enough to give effective treatment without the current practice of trial and error. It is not the fault of the person who has the disease or the disease itself. Rather it is the fault of our lack of knowledge and lack of learning about the brain and what effects it to cause these diseases.

InfirmiereJolie · Dec 27, 2012

There was more censorship of movies in the past and video games did not exist, there was more regulation of what one be thinking, yet they still happened anyway. There have been statistics on deaths since 1933. Think about this. There were asylums (open until the 1970's) and many mental institutions then (there are actually some still around, signs of the grim past, 2008 Source: NPR Inside The Nation's Largest Mental Institution : NPR), massive censorship of media and technology, there was even segregation of so-called "races."

In 1933: there were 7,863 gun related homicides.

In 2000: there were 10,801 gun related homicides.

There is practically no difference in these statistics (only 2938... with population increases this number is basically completely stagnant), yet there was radically more control of thoughts before by calling people supposedly "ill" because they did not fit social norms, more censorship of media and less violence on TV, movies, and books.

What is really the problem here? There was more regulation of thoughts, feelings, media, violence on TV and book, no video games, yet the number was thesame. Sources for statistic compilations (though this is available on federal websites) Brady Campaign and The Journal of Risk and Insurance, vol. 72 http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/289

http://www.fox.temple.edu/cms/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/JeanLemaire.pdf

What you just posted pretty much says banning certain types of guns don't work. If someone is inclined to kill another they will use whatever gun is available.
Guns have always been available in the US. It is actually harder to get them now than when I was a teen. Someone needs to take a hard no BS look at why shootings are more common now than in the past. What has changed? Have guns changed? Not really. Ammo? No. This only leaves society. Is there a massive increase in mental health issues? Perhaps. What could be the cause of that, single parent households, extreme violence in movies and video games desensitizing kids, not holding kids responsible for their actions, among other things?
I bolded that portion for a reason. I feel this is the main contributor. People can be desensitized to anything. Just using my own experiences, when I first arrived in Iraq I was so nervous I could hardly sleep. As time went on everything started to become "normal" even the major firefights I was involved in. When someone is constantly bombarded with graphic images, be it violence or sexual, people get used to it and it becomes a part of everyday life. Just look at what nurses and first responders get desensitized to over time.

A Call to Action from the Nation's Nurses in the Wake of Newtown

Nurses: Do You Support a Call to Action in the Wake of Newtown + other shootings