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

InfirmiereJolie · Jan 9, 2013

You completely took my statement out of context and I was referring to Clementia's WI statement in saying that gun ownership is a big part of our culture. I wasn't saying that because you like the Packers means you want assault weapons in schools. Please don't put words in my mouth. Also, just people voted for Obama in this state, it doesn't mean they want their guns taken away. Trust me, I work with a lot of people who like him, but they also hunt.

Did you know that your state (WI) has gun regulation laws? Indeed, it receives a grade of C-.

The D and F states I was referring are the prime examples of not enough laws for protecting their residents, they mostly have the highest gun-death rates (homicide and/or suicide), proving my point.

Gettting in a car drunk = no accident. Cars a lethal weapons when used improperly and can cause death just like anything else.
For example in my state alone alcohol-related crashes killed 238 people in Wisconsin and injured nearly 4,000 in 2009.

But the person did not get in the car wanting to harm someone or using it for this purpose, this is the difference with guns (which is what they are built for). They are using the car to get home, which they hope, will happen safely. Although there are punishments, it is still an accident. They are not doing it purposefully to harm others or themselves, but for transportation.

I see no correlation to getting intoxicated and choosing to drive under the influence and throwing a drink at someone.
As for guns, hunting in WI is viewed as a sport.

The person who shot 77 people in Norway also put "deer hunting" on his license. Unless there are rules, anyone can obtain any kind of gun they please by claiming it is for hunting, when in fact, it certainly is not built for that purpose or was used for that purpose (as was that gun, which would have been banned in other EU countries, so it would have never have been allowed to obtain that kind there). There has to be set limits.

You really don't think mental illness, alcohol, drugs, texting while driving, etc., causes problems/deaths? I know more people who have been killed by drink drivers than by guns. Also you say that gun ownership is HIGHLY correlated with higher suicide rates. Don't you think if we treated mental illness than people would stop shooting themselves?

Did I say they did not cause problems or deaths? No. What I said it does not directly correlate with gun-homicide or gun-suicide as there are numerous countries which drink far more than we do, but have far lower rates in gun-deaths. This is post hoc (thinking one directly causes the other in all situations). Their main claim to fame? Regulations, set limits for guns, and lower rates of ownership. Proven again and again.

Further, I saw what you wrote earlier about mental "illness"

Msn10: "we need to go back to the days where mentally ill people did not have to always agree to hospitalization"

Did I really just read what I just saw? You want to back to forced imprisonment, asylum-type institutions (a crime against humanity) for simply thinking, having emotions, or acting differently? You do know that some of the most disturbing acts of history have had ruthless dictators enacting "psychiatry" programs and locking people up for these same aspects? The truth is, most of it is politically or socially motivated. They'll supposedly "prove" your case AFTER you are locked up. (Though not claiming mental "illness," recently in Russia a man was locked up and died there simply because we was a whisleblower, the USA enacted harsh trade sanctions, the EU protested it also, and they responded by preventing us from adopting Russian children - 2012). Though Russia has come far, this is wonderful, they have a ways to go still. They are still very interesting and worth visiting (Moscow is probably brilliant).

The supposed "mental illness" labels further disturbs me as it is like rubbing salt on an open wound, or twisting the .

Apparently, people have no understanding of how people in pain feel. I saw a woman with an amputated arm who was very sad and insecure because she just wanted people to treat her as "normal" like any other human being. She said, "I wish no one looked at me and think of me as disabled. I'm not disabled... I live a normal and active life......" It wasn't until people treated her normal, never mentioned the arm, and like another human being did she become happy. It made her feel worth something. If she had been treated any differently from others, and/or labeled, it would have crushed her, sending her further into her sadness and insecurities.

This was a happy story, but just how happy are those people you are alienating, crushing, and salting the wounds by calling them supposedly "mentally ill"? Why is it there has always been labels, drugs, ECTs, people locked up, lobotomies, ect., but no real improvement (many spiraling into even worse situations)? Because people want to be normal and for people to understand them. They want to be treated decently, like other human beings. The best way to help someone is to prop them up, give them a chance, and give them opportunities. Once the label is there... it is difficult to remove it. It sends them into further sadness (and/or other emotions) and insecurities. Something which could have been solved by support and encouragement then becomes a life-long problem.

It is very saddening to see this happening today. I hope I can make a difference somehow to improve the lives of those who not only have physical injuries, but also do something to make people understand that they should be encouraging, supporting, and providing opportunities for those who have emotional injuries, without the labeling and alienation, as this only increases their pain. What they think and feel is legitimate, important, and a common human condition. They are normal and need to be treated equally, and given something to stand on.

This site says otherwise:
Gun crime statistics by US state: download the data. Visualised | World news | guardian.co.uk
IMO I agree with Clementia, your posts are very difficult to read.
I believed you missed my point and that was in order to reduce mental illness we need to address it like other things in our society - through education and understanding.

Perfect. This link proves exactly what I've been saying all along.

Demonstrated from this chart from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, almost all of the states (95% up) with high gun-homicide rates are from D or F grade states regarding gun laws. E.g., South Carolina (2nd highest, 5 and up per 100,000), Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana (highest, 10 and up per 100,000), Mississippi, Nevada, Tennessee. The link you gave me does NOT demonstrate ALL gun-related deaths (including suicide) which is further demonstrated by this chart. The states with the highest have grades of D or F.

Your second sentence has been addressed above. The entire system, basically, has be reworked, overturned, and reformed. The current system of labeling, demeaning, and alienating a person for their emotions and thoughts has to end, and FORCIBLY locking them up certainly is NOT "educational "OR "understanding." The archaic, inhumane, brutal 17th century structure has to end... NOW for the sake of humanity.

Overland1, RN · Jan 9, 2013

How could there have been a shooting in a place clealy labeled a gun free zone? More knee jerk liberal reactions that won't solve anything.

How many here will place (or have already placed) a "Gun-Free Zone" sign in front of their home or on their apartment door? If so, why? If not, why not (aside from zoning laws that prohibit the display of signs)?

msn10 · Jan 9, 2013

I seriously do not have the time to answer everything on your list but

But the person did not get in the car wanting to harm someone or using it for this purpose, this is the difference with guns (which is what they are built for).

There are plenty of guns accidents - Very few people want to kill others. I have a gun and I don't want to ever kill anyone, but I also don't want to die at the hands of others either.

Did I really just read what I just saw? You want to back to forced imprisonment, asylum-type institutions (a crime against humanity) for simply thinking, having emotions, or acting differently?

Again, stop putting words in my mouth. I never said I want someone to be forced into an asylum. I said someone should not have to commit a violent crime before they are admitted to a hospital. In some cases of mental illness the mentally ill person does not have the ability to recognize when they are about to hurt someone or themselves and it is very difficult to prove otherwise. I know 2 women with schizophrenic children and they are tormented every day by the thought of their sons hurting themselves and others and they can do very little if anything about it. They may need some intervention before it is too late. It is the equivalent of a cardiac patient having chest pain but making them drive themselves to the hospital. It can be that difficult to get to the hospital yourself when you have a serious illness.

Again, no one here is saying that buying a gun should be easy, but I do not see gun ownership for mentally stable people as a horrible thing. I also believe I speak for many when I say that we do not appreciate the lectures on mental illness or the derogatory tone of your emails toward us. I know that you are newer to allnurses, but we are all nurses and we see people in pain and also those who have mental illness everyday. We are the ones who treat them in our hospitals and in their homes. Please let us try to have a civilized conversation about this topic.

PMFB-RN, RN · Jan 9, 2013

Stanley McChrystal: Gun Control Requires 'Serious Action'
Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal came out in favor of gun control restrictions in a Tuesday morning appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
Said McChrystal, "I personally don't think there's any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we've got to take a serious look -- I understand everybody's desire to have whatever they want -- but we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that."

*** I am not impressed with the opinions (and that is all it is, one man's opinion) of a bad to at best mediocre general.

PMFB-RN, RN · Jan 9, 2013

[COLOR=#003366]InfirmiereJolie wrote:

Perfect. This link proves exactly what I've been saying all along.
Demonstrated from this chart from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, almost all of the states (95% up) with high gun-homicide rates are from D or F grade states

*** It doesn't prove anything. Your sourse is at least as biased as the NRA is. Their whole grading system is only a matter of some people's opinion. Other groups grade states differently depending on their bias.

HOWEVER, the GUNS SHOULD BE REDUCED

*** How would you propose achieving a reduction in firearms? (Not really expecting an answer)

It is a privilege, not a right. THIS IS THE 21st CENTURY, NOT THE 1700's. Modernization, technology, the FUTURE should be NOW. We want PROGRESS, to enrich our society and better our living standards and increase our life-spans.

*** One man's trash in another's treasure. What you view as progress others will see as backwardness. Your assertion that possesion of firearms is a privlage and not a right is only your opinion, though it is stated as fact.

There has to be something done. At 30,000 gun-related deaths a year this adds up to 2,370,000 deaths (times 79, 2012-1933) since 1933 (first year it was recorded). This is as large as to be called genocide

*** The problem with that number is that you seem (again not really clear what you are trying to say from reading your messages) to assume that without firearms they would not have happend. That is not a reasonable assumption to make. It is imposssible to know what the number would be but it is reasonable to assume that in the absence of firearms some to many to most of those deaths would have still occured but by some other means.

There is a difference between alcohol and car ACCIDENTS, all red herrings. Notice this: ACCIDENT = NOT on purpose.

*** In that case is it safe to assume that in your often published number 30,000 "gun deaths" (as if such a thing can exsist) does not include accidental shooting deaths?

Also, re: registration... In Canada all long guns are required to be registered

*** Actually not the case.

You just used Ad Hominem, Red Herring, and Poisoning the Well...

*** Those are your tactics.

Out of ALL countries listed previously (where there are SIXTY FIVE (65!) countries which have lower gun-related deaths...

*** It may well be that Americans are more violent than people in those other countries and would kill each other at higher rates reguardless of the availabliety of firearms. Correlation is not causation. Showing that a country with a higher number of firearms has higher death rates does not prove that firearms are the cause. Sort of like how the best physicians tend to have the highest rates of patient deaths. More of their patients die cause they are the best physicians and take the toughest cases others don't want. I am NOT saying that easier access to firearms does NOT cause higher death rates, just pointing out that correlation is not causation. There may well be other explanations. After my experiences of living in other cultures and being a dual citizen and being married to a person from a different culture I am of the opinion that Americans are a more violent than some and less violent than some others.

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)

*** How can the numbers be the same when in 1933 anyone could legaly own a fully automatic machine gun, sawed off shotgun, silencer, or any other type of firearm they wished and in 2000 so-called "assault weapons" were banned? Doesn't seem logical to me.

and no AR-15 or other military style killing machines,

*** The AR-15 and it's many clones (mostly) fire the 5.56 NATO round, the same round fired by the military's M-16 (but called the .223 Remington in cilivian clothes and a very popular small game and varmit hunting round). It actually wasn't designed to kill. It is designed to wound. The military logic being that is you kill an enemy solider you remove him from the battle field. However if you only wound him it will take 2 of his buddies to carry him back for treatment and you have removed 3 enemy soldiers form the battle field. So it is technicaly wrong to call them "killing machines". Also the AR-15 is only cosmeticaly similar to the military's M-16. In function they do not differ from many, many other firearms not designed for the military.

While it is true that most firearms were designed to kill either people or animals it is not true that all were designed to kill. Some were created for other purposes.

PMFB-RN, RN · Jan 9, 2013

Please don't put words in my mouth.

*** I have asked her to refrain from doing so several times to no avail.

A

lso, just people voted for Obama in this state, it doesn't mean they want their guns taken away.

*** There was no choice for firearms owners in the last election. Obama was running aginst a well know gun banner with a solid anti-gun history. Therefore the election was decided on other issues.

Overland1, RN · Jan 9, 2013

This was regarding the years 2000, 2001, and 2002. How is this caused by Obamacare?

Exactly. I blame Bush (both of 'em... "Senior" and "Junior" ), Cheney, Halliburton, cell phones, and EssYewVees.

Seriously, how many here even know the real Second Amendment of the US Constitution (not the USS Constitution, for those in Rio Linda ), its basis, purpose, and meaning? Obviously, precious few.

There has been, somewhere in the >19 pages of comments and essays here, mention of "need" as related to certain types of guns (i.e., why would somebody "need" and "assault weapon"?). Let us apply that to other things as well. Why would somebody need a pickup truck or one of the eeeeeeeeeeeeevil EssYewVees with which to drive to and from work? Why would a person "need" a v-8 engine, rather than four cylinders? Why would a person "need" a gasoline powered chain saw rather than use a hand saw? Do people really need hammers, scissors, and knives?

What the Obama administration must do immediately is establish a Department of Need, and a Secretary of this department added to His cabinet. Such a department (and the regulations it would enact) would help save literally countless lives. We, as empowered nurses, need to do this for the children.

InfirmiereJolie · Jan 9, 2013

Everyone, all these chop ups of my post is called Shotgun argumentation - the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent can't possibly respond to all of them.^[35] (See "Argument by verbosity" and "Gish Gallop", above.)

I shouldn't have encouraged the chop ups, because it makes it hard to make anything like a real conversation or answer when people can "chop up" your quotes. This is not like real life, when a person cannot interrupt every single sentence when speaking (e.g., in a speech). This is a way of Red Herring:

[h=3]"Red herring fallacies[/h] A red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.

Red herring – argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from the subject of argument. See also irrelevant conclusion."

^{Further, all your attacks against me are}^{Ad Hominem.}Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.

It is also appeal to spite (also called argumentum ad odium)^[1] is a fallacy in which someone attempts to win favor for an argument by exploiting existing feelings of bitterness, spite, or schadenfreude in the opposing party.^[2] It is an attempt to sway the audience emotionally by associating a hate-figure with opposition to the speaker's argument. (By claiming I am "attacking them" or being "condescending" toward them, when I am not attacking them, I am simply attacking theargument, nor is it meant to offend them, as most of my statements are using valid data and statistics, but their appeal is to spite... This is also poisoning the well)

Further, claiming I am supposedly "new" therefore,all my posts or opinions are "irrelevant" is a fallacy of Appeal to accomplishment – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer. (This is also listed under Red Herring). By calling me "new" and therefore "irrelevant" this is also Abusive fallacy.

Abusive fallacy – a subtype of "ad hominem" when it turns into name-calling rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument. (Another Red Herring)

PMFB-RN's claim of asking a rhetorical question then saying "he does not expect an answer to the question" is another fallacy called Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence (Another Red Herring).

Do not be fooled by all these Red Herrings, it is to take the subject off of gun reform and reducing the 10,000 per year gun-homicides and 30,000 gun-deaths. Which only in the 100's are "accidents."

Saying also "I speak for many" is another fallacy called appeal to the masses and appeal to belief the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so.".

Comparing medical situations to gun-deaths is False Analogy

False analogy – an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited.^[40]^{This is also}
Association fallacy (guilt by association) – arguing that because two things share a property they are the same (That "all" deaths, accident (cars or medical) or homicide/suicide (guns) are "the same" and related, which is FALSE.)

Saying my messages are "not clear" is not only an Ad Hominem against my character, it is an attempt at Red Herring to take the focus off the subject.

I seriously do not have the time to answer everything on your list but
There are plenty of guns accidents - Very few people want to kill others. I have a gun and I don't want to ever kill anyone, but I also don't want to die at the hands of others either.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth. I never said I want someone to be forced into an asylum. I said someone should not have to commit a violent crime before they are admitted to a hospital. In some cases of mental illness the mentally ill person does not have the ability to recognize when they are about to hurt someone or themselves and it is very difficult to prove otherwise. I know 2 women with schizophrenic children and they are tormented every day by the thought of their sons hurting themselves and others and they can do very little if anything about it. They may need some intervention before it is too late. It is the equivalent of a cardiac patient having chest pain but making them drive themselves to the hospital. It can be that difficult to get to the hospital yourself when you have a serious illness.
Again, no one here is saying that buying a gun should be easy, but I do not see gun ownership for mentally stable people as a horrible thing. I also believe I speak for many when I say that we do not appreciate the lectures on mental illness or the derogatory tone of your emails toward us. I know that you are newer to allnurses, but we are all nurses and we see people in pain and also those who have mental illness everyday. We are the ones who treat them in our hospitals and in their homes. Please let us try to have a civilized conversation about this topic.

[COLOR=#003366]InfirmiereJolie wrote:
*** It doesn't prove anything. Your sourse is at least as biased as the NRA is. Their whole grading system is only a matter of some people's opinion. Other groups grade states differently depending on their bias.
*** How would you propose achieving a reduction in firearms? (Not really expecting an answer)
*** One man's trash in another's treasure. What you view as progress others will see as backwardness. Your assertion that possesion of firearms is a privlage and not a right is only your opinion, though it is stated as fact.
*** The problem with that number is that you seem (again not really clear what you are trying to say from reading your messages) to assume that without firearms they would not have happend. That is not a reasonable assumption to make. It is imposssible to know what the number would be but it is reasonable to assume that in the absence of firearms some to many to most of those deaths would have still occured but by some other means.
*** In that case is it safe to assume that in your often published number 30,000 "gun deaths" (as if such a thing can exsist) does not include accidental shooting deaths?
*** Actually not the case.
*** Those are your tactics.
*** It may well be that Americans are more violent than people in those other countries and would kill each other at higher rates reguardless of the availabliety of firearms. Correlation is not causation. Showing that a country with a higher number of firearms has higher death rates does not prove that firearms are the cause. Sort of like how the best physicians tend to have the highest rates of patient deaths. More of their patients die cause they are the best physicians and take the toughest cases others don't want. I am NOT saying that easier access to firearms does NOT cause higher death rates, just pointing out that correlation is not causation. There may well be other explanations. After my experiences of living in other cultures and being a dual citizen and being married to a person from a different culture I am of the opinion that Americans are a more violent than some and less violent than some others.
*** How can the numbers be the same when in 1933 anyone could legaly own a fully automatic machine gun, sawed off shotgun, silencer, or any other type of firearm they wished and in 2000 so-called "assault weapons" were banned? Doesn't seem logical to me.
*** The AR-15 and it's many clones (mostly) fire the 5.56 NATO round, the same round fired by the military's M-16 (but called the .223 Remington in cilivian clothes and a very popular small game and varmit hunting round). It actually wasn't designed to kill. It is designed to wound. The military logic being that is you kill an enemy solider you remove him from the battle field. However if you only wound him it will take 2 of his buddies to carry him back for treatment and you have removed 3 enemy soldiers form the battle field. So it is technicaly wrong to call them "killing machines". Also the AR-15 is only cosmeticaly similar to the military's M-16. In function they do not differ from many, many other firearms not designed for the military.
While it is true that most firearms were designed to kill either people or animals it is not true that all were designed to kill. Some were created for other purposes.

PMFB-RN, RN · Jan 10, 2013

Red herring - argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from the subject of argument. See also irrelevant conclusion."
^{Further, all your attacks against me are}^{Ad Hominem.}Ad hominem - attacking the arguer instead of the argument.

*** Ah more condescension:

1 : voluntary descent from one's rank or dignity in relations with an inferior

2 : patronizing attitude or behavior

See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condescension

PMFB-RN's claim of asking a rhetorical question

*** I asked no rhetorical questions at all in my post.

22gawhitacre · Jan 10, 2013

Instead of complaining why don't you reinforce your argument?

Everyone, all these chop ups of my post is called Shotgun argumentation - the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent can't possibly respond to all of them.^[35] (See "Argument by verbosity" and "Gish Gallop", above.)
I shouldn't have encouraged the chop ups, because it makes it hard to make anything like a real conversation or answer when people can "chop up" your quotes. This is not like real life, when a person cannot interrupt every single sentence when speaking (e.g., in a speech). This is a way of Red Herring:
[h=3]"Red herring fallacies[/h] A red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.
Red herring – argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from the subject of argument. See also irrelevant conclusion."
^{Further, all your attacks against me are}^{Ad Hominem.}Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
It is also appeal to spite (also called argumentum ad odium)^[1] is a fallacy in which someone attempts to win favor for an argument by exploiting existing feelings of bitterness, spite, or schadenfreude in the opposing party.^[2] It is an attempt to sway the audience emotionally by associating a hate-figure with opposition to the speaker's argument. (By claiming I am "attacking them" or being "condescending" toward them, when I am not attacking them, I am simply attacking theargument, nor is it meant to offend them, as most of my statements are using valid data and statistics, but their appeal is to spite... This is also poisoning the well)
Further, claiming I am supposedly "new" therefore,all my posts or opinions are "irrelevant" is a fallacy of Appeal to accomplishment – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer. (This is also listed under Red Herring). By calling me "new" and therefore "irrelevant" this is also Abusive fallacy.
Abusive fallacy – a subtype of "ad hominem" when it turns into name-calling rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument. (Another Red Herring)
PMFB-RN's claim of asking a rhetorical question then saying "he does not expect an answer to the question" is another fallacy called Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence (Another Red Herring).
Do not be fooled by all these Red Herrings, it is to take the subject off of gun reform and reducing the 10,000 per year gun-homicides and 30,000 gun-deaths. Which only in the 100's are "accidents."
Saying also "I speak for many" is another fallacy called appeal to the masses and appeal to belief the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so.".
Comparing medical situations to gun-deaths is False Analogy
False analogy – an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited.^[40]^{This is also}
Association fallacy (guilt by association) – arguing that because two things share a property they are the same (That "all" deaths, accident (cars or medical) or homicide/suicide (guns) are "the same" and related, which is FALSE.)
Saying my messages are "not clear" is not only an Ad Hominem against my character, it is an attempt at Red Herring to take the focus off the subject.

InfirmiereJolie · Jan 10, 2013

If people think anyone who disagrees with the use of definitions, data, statistics, and scientific evidence is being "condescending" then I don't know how anyone could possibly have a logically-based debate. How do those scientists, physicians, researchers, mathematicians, statisticians, and academia possibly converse with each other to make vital decisions if without the use of evidence to back those positions?

If you won't listen to me, then listen to Harvard.

"Mass shootings are not a trend unique to the summer of 2012. According to Craig R. Whitney, writing in the New York Times, 30,000 Americans die each year from gun violence, and an additional 200,000 are injured by weapons.

...The ready availability of an AR-15—the civilian equivalent of the standard military assault rifle and the weapon used in the Aurora shootings—goes beyond our Founders’ intent. Claiming weapons like these are needed for hunting is intellectually dishonest, and claiming that they are needed for protection is even less believable.

What we need is not a complete ban on weaponry but a discussion on the merits of gun control in a country where nobody will talk about it.

Pro-gun rights activists argue that increased carrying of weapons would have stopped killings like Aurora. They suppose that people in the theater could have shot the attacker before so many were killed. However, in a dark space with minimal visibility, who is to say a second attacker would not have caused more carnage? How many more would have been caught in the crossfire? How would people distinguish between a man trying to save them and an accomplice of the killer? The idea that Americans should carry their weapons everywhere for protection—even to watch a midnight premiere of a movie—instead of discussing the merits of gun control is irrational. The Associated Press reported that the weapons used in the Aurora shootings, the aforementioned assault rifle, a shotgun, a bulletproof vest, and 6,000 rounds of ammunition, required no licenses on the part of the buyer. Only the weapons required a background check, one that does not even require a waiting period for the purchase.

But the argument that pistols don’t offer enough stopping power for protection, and that those without licenses should be able to purchase assault rifles, goes beyond discussing self-protection and creates issues of civilian safety. That gun manufacturers don’t always check for... criminal records is a public safety risk. Sensationalist media reporting on some killings is not enough. The same day as the Empire State Building Massacre, 19 citizens were killed in Chicago, many of them youths. The time is now to discuss gun violence in this country.

It is a discussion with tremendous social implications; it is a discussion we cannot push off. To stay quiet here is, quite appropriately, silent but deadly."

By David Freed, The Harvard Crimson, "A Silent Killing," September 18, 2012

A Silent Killing | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson

If you won't listen to me, listen to Harvard School of Public Health.

"Firearm Access is a Risk Factor for Suicide

Every study that has examined the issue to date has found that within the U.S., access to firearms is associated with increased suicide risk.

Twelve or more U.S. case control studies have compared individuals who died by suicide with those who did not and found those dying by suicide were more likely to live in homes with guns.

For example, Brent and colleagues studied three groups of adolescents... Those who died by suicide were twice as likely to have a gun at home than either of the other two groups:

[h=6]Adolescent Suicides [lethal] Attempters Non-attempters[/h][h=6]Firearm in home: 72% 37% 38%[/h]...(Brent 1999) compared 140 adolescent suicide decedents with 131 demographically similar community controls. Informants (usually a parent) for both groups were interviewed to learn about the adolescents’ life circumstances, mental health, and treatment status. Firearm access was a risk factor for suicide for both older (>15 years) and younger adolescents and for both males and females.

More studies (See “Firearm Availability and Suicide Prevalance: Case Control Studies” for studies covering male and female adults, blacks and whites, youths, elders, and other groups.)

How States Compare Ecologic studies that compare states with high gun ownership levels to those with low gun ownership levels find that in the U.S., where there are more guns, there are more suicides. The higher suicide rates result from higher firearm suicides; the non-firearm suicide rate is about equal across states.

For example, one study (Miller 2007) used survey-based measures of state household firearm ownership (from the CDC’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System) while controlling for.... other factors associated with suicide.

The study found that males and females and people of all age groups were at higher risk for suicide if they lived in a state with high firearm prevalence. This is perhaps most concrete when looking not at rates or regression results but at raw numbers. The authors compared the 40 million people who live in the states with the lowest firearm prevalence (HI, MA, RI, NH, CT, NY) to about the same number living in the states with the highest firearm prevalence (WY, SD, AK, WV, MT, AR, MS, IO, ND, AL, KY, WI, LA, TN, UT). Overall suicides were almost twice as high in the high-gun states, even though non-firearm suicides were about equal.

Suicides in the 15 U.S. States with the Highest vs. the 6 U.S. States with the Lowest Average Household Gun Ownership (2000-2002)

High-Gun States Low-Gun States

Population 39 million 40 million

Household Gun Ownership 47% 15%

Firearm Suicide 9,749 2,606

Non-Firearm Suicide 5,060 5,446

Total Suicide 14,809 8,052

More ecologic studies (See “Firearm Availability and Suicide: Ecologic Studies”)
State Data on suicide and firearm ownership rates

What is it about Guns?

Guns are more lethal than other suicide means. They’re quick. And they’re irreversible.

About 85% of attempts with a firearm are fatal: that’s a much higher case fatality rate than for nearly every other method. Many of the most widely used suicide attempt methods have case fatality rates below 5%. (See Case Fatality Ratio by Method of Self-Harm.)

Attempters who take pills or inhale car exhaust or use razors have some time to reconsider mid-attempt and summon help or be rescued. The method itself often fails, even in the absence of a rescue. Even many of those who use hanging can stop mid-attempt as about half of hanging suicides are partial-suspension (meaning the person can release the pressure if they change their mind) (Bennewith 2005).With a firearm, once the trigger is pulled, there’s no turning back.

From Harvard School of Public Health "Powerful Ideas for a Better World"

Harvard School of Public Health Â» Means Matter Â» Firearm Access is a Risk Factor for Suicide

If you won't listen to me (about AR-15's), then listen to E.M.U School of Public Staff and Command, Sergeant Craig Bauldry, Canton Police Department, Canton, MI

"..the AR-15 is most accepted. Suarez (1999) believed, “The simplest answer, financially, logistically, educationally, socially and even ballistically, is a version of the U. S. military service rifle” (P. 9)

The current military service rifle is the AR-15/M-16, which was designed by Eugene Stoner for Armalite in the late 1950’s. Armalite sold the manufacturing rights to Colt and in 1962 the U.S. Army Rangers were the first to deploy the AR-15-M16 in Vietnam.

The AR-15/M-16 was designed to be the new, modern military rifle. It was to replace the heavy and big 308 and 30-06 caliber rifles. It is made of light aircraft alloy reducing weight substantially. The magazine well and magazines are designed to be ergonomically correct for rapid reloading. Additionally, it was designed in .223 caliber to allow soldiers to carry more ammo with larger capacity magazines. The AR-15/M-16 proved to be a tremendous military advancement.

The AR-15 is a production sporting model of the original M-16 rifle designed by Eugene Stoner. The current military model is basically the same, only it has a selector position for fully automatic or burst fire.

The .223 caliber round will also defeat most body armor and will reduce the probability of an assailant to continue a hostile threat after being hit... Furthermore, officers may not find it necessary to deploy within 25 yards of a hostile situation, as they would have normally with a handgun or shotgun. Suarez (P. 3)

The patrol rifle/carbine has increased accuracy over the handgun and shotgun at close and long range. The patrol rifle/carbine will be the most precise weapon available for first responders. With proper training patrol rifle/carbine officers should be able to engage targets from 100 yards in the prone position, 75 yards in the sitting position, 50 yards kneeling and from 25 yards and closer in the standing position.

The patrol rifle/carbine will penetrate most soft body armor where the shotgun and handgun will not. Shotgun and handgun rounds are larger bullets and the momentums of these bullets are slower than a rifle round. Layered kevlar dissipates the larger rounds energy (size, mass, momentum). Felts (P. 2-4)...

Handgun and shotguns using 00 buck are virtually ineffective beyond 25 yards.

Furthermore, the semi-automatic patrol rifle/carbine will allow an immediate follow-up shot from any shooting position. Unfortunately an immediate follow-up with the shotgun is delayed due to the pump action being necessary. Moreover, the weapon retention “danger close” corner clearing method is much easier with the patrol rifle/carbine due its smaller size, weight and semi-automatic capabilities. (P. 6)"

http://www.emich.edu/cerns/downloads/papers/PoliceStaff/Weapons%20,%20Technology,%20and%20Equipment/Patrol%20Rifle--Carbine.pdf (pg 33-34)

Clearly, according to this Police Sergeant, the AR-15 is military-style and can shoot farther than handguns or shotguns (more than 25 yards), is more precise, can shoot more bullets in a shorter time (semi-automatic), faster bullets, and can penetrate body armor, wheras the others cannot.

This is why it is the prime use in these mass shootings, which has to be stopped. Both Auroa and Newton used this type of gun. Australia banned these types as well as others for regular use (forbiddent to those who are not officers), and they haven't had a mass shooting since 1996.

What you PMFB-RN, were arguing earlier is that there is not as large of a penetration of AR-15 bullets as pistols and shotguns, however, the main reason for this is the manufacturing of the bullets for these weapons. The bullets are fragile, hence, it cannot penetrate through brick and breaks off. It goes in 5 inches, not 12 inches like the others. A solution? Pass legislation requiring weaker bullets to be used, and the stronger bullets to be forbidden.

The risks of ownership should be educated to the public, and a buy-back program put in place like Australia. If most of their laws were placed here, maybe we would see some improvement. (You did ask what you thought I could do to reduce them).

PMFB-RN, RN · Jan 10, 2013

If you won't listen to me, then listen to Harvard.

*** Maybe you should choose sourses who do not have a long history of extreme bias on the subject.

Clearly, according to this Police Sergeant, the AR-15 is military-style and can shoot farther than handguns or shotguns (more than 25 yards), is more precise,

*** Naturaly since it is a RIFLE. ALL rifles will shoot father than handguns or shotguns, As I have pointed out several time the AR-15 does in deed look similar to the M-16. So what?

can shoot more bullets in a shorter time (semi-automatic), faster bullets, and can penetrate body armor, wheras the others cannot.

*** Nearly all rifle rounds will penitrate body armour. Every tradition deer rifle round on sale at the local shop will make swiss cheese out of body armour. This has alwasy been true.

What you PMFB-RN, were arguing earlier is that there is not as large of a penetration of AR-15 bullets as pistols and shotguns,

At no time did I even discuss penitration of AR-15 bullets as compaired to pistol and shotguns. Such a discussion would be impossible unless one know exactly what bullet (of the hundreds available) is under discussion as compaired to exactly what pistol and shotgun rounds (of the thousands available) is being discussed. Anyone reading my comments will know that I never made any such comparison by simply reading my comments.

however, the main reason for this is the manufacturing of the bullets for these weapons. The bullets are fragile, hence, it cannot penetrate through brick and breaks off. It goes in 5 inches, not 12 inches like the others.

*** Obviously you understand NOTHING about bullets There are as many kinds and types of bullets for this one particular round as there are antibiotics. Some made to penetrate deeply, some made to almost disintegrate on impact in order to provide quick, humane kills on certain game animals, to amour piercing. Also remember tens of thousands of use can swage bullets right in our homes.

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