A Call to Action from the Nation's Nurses in the Wake of Newtown - pg.5 | allnurses

A Call to Action from the Nation's Nurses in the Wake of Newtown - page 5

Reposting from PSNA Communications email. Karen A Call to Action from the Nation's Nurses in the Wake of Newtown More Than 30 Nursing Organizations Call for Action in Wake of Newtown Tragedy ... Read More

  1. Visit  PMFB-RN profile page
    7
    Not if you ban assault weapons. Do you REALLY want to go up against one? I don't think so.
    ****For the record I have dozens of times. I also observed one skilled rifleman armed with a bolt action rifle hold off a whole platoon of highly motivated, but poorly trained, milita armed with assault rifles. Banning isn't realistic. Oh of course a law can be passed but noting will change just as it didnt' change last time. What are you going to do send the police to invade people's homes and take them? How do you think that will go? How would you know what homes to break into since there are no records of who has what?

    Are you REALLY going to use an assault weapon for hunting deer, rabbits, ect.? NO. It is NOT USEFUL.
    *** I suppose if I hunt rabbits with a stick I have "assaulted" the rabbit with a weapon. You are right that firearms like the Bushmaster are not usually used fo deer hunting, they are under powered for that and in many states illegal for reason of being underpowered and unlikely to make a quick and humane kill on deer sized game. However semiautomatic rifles in .223 caliber (like the Bushmaster) are widely used in varmit hunting.

    You can do it without a semi-automatic weapon. There is no use for these weapons except for NON-RECREATIONAL use AKA killing massive amounts of people.
    *** Well you are wrong but even if you were right so what? The 2nd Ammendment wasn't put in the Bill of Rights so that Americans could go hunting. It was put in for the same reason the 1st was put in.

    I don't understand why nurses WOULDN'T be for a ban of assault weapons. Afterall, nurses are the ones who has to care for the injured after all of this. They would want LESS people dieing and going to the hospital, wouldn't they?
    ***Thats just it. A ban WON'T change anything except make things more difficult for the most lawabiding among us. Yes I am a nurse and of course I would be opposed to banning firearms based only on their apperence as is being proposed.
    Last edit by PMFB-RN on Dec 22, '12
    SoldierNurse22, tewdles, tntrn, and 4 others like this.
  2. Visit  PMFB-RN profile page
    1
    [QUOTE=HM-8404;7083921]Do you actually know what happened when that ban went into effect? Here's an example, Chinese made SKS's sold for $99. That included a brand new "assault rifle" and 100 rounds of ammo. [QUOTE]

    *** $99! LOL I bought 3 of those Norninco SKS's for $69 each!
    HM-8404 likes this.
  3. Visit  Spidey's mom profile page
    4
    Quote from PMFB-RN
    *** Not really. The round fired by the Bushmaster is fairly weak, not usually considered adiquate for deer hunting. It is however widely used for hunting fox, coyote and prairie dogs. The weapon is fairly small and low powered compaired to nearly any other centerfire rifle.



    *** That is a fact. At no time during the 1994-2004 so called "ban" were the "banned" firearms unavailable for immediate purchase. Same with magazines holding more than 10 rounds that were also banned at that time.
    There isn't any way to get rid of them. There are literaly millions of similar firearms in cilivian hands. Almost nobody will give them up. We know this from recent history. I wouldn't reguardless of the law if I owned any. The only thing that can be done is what was done in 1994 ban the manufacture of certain types of firearms based strictly on cosmetic apperence or brand name. The effect of what available on the shelves of gun shops with be minimal.



    *** Here is the main difference. The M4 or M16 he used in the military is an assault rifle. That means it is capable to "select fire" meaning the shooter can select semi auto mode so that in order to fire the weapon the trigger must be pulled and for each trigger pull one round is fired. It is also capable of full auto firing. Meaning that when the trigger is pulled the rifle fires and continues to fire so long as the trigger is held down. The rate of fire is very high, usually around 600 rounds a min. Such firearms are illegal for cilivian possesion (with certain exceptions) and have since 1938.
    The rifle used in the recent tragadies looks similar to the military weapon but is NOT capable of select fire or full auto fire. The shooter must depress the trigger each time she wants to fire the rifle. In this reguard it is no different that a huge variety of traditional hunting rifles that have been used for the last 100 years or so.



    What would be your realistic suggestion of how to make these relitivly small and low powered weapons unavailable? Banning them will not get rid of them. Are you going to send police to break into people's homes and confiscate their property? Whet do you think will happen if that is attempted?
    You are right - there are no fully automatic firearms available to the general public since forever - the 1930's.

    I think people are misinformed and thinking that these firearms used are like the "Tommy Guns" in old black and white ganster movies or Bugs Bunny cartoons with Bugsy and Rocky and Mugsy and the bad guys hold down the trigger and spray hundreds of bullets at a time.
    tewdles, Altra, tntrn, and 1 other like this.
  4. Visit  PMFB-RN profile page
    4
    Paper, pens, printing presses, radio, TV, the internet, cell phones" are NOT used to kill people as or be massive weapons.
    *** Wow you need to brush up on your history. All have been, cell phones are being used to kill people every day TODAY.

    There is NO logic in this spiral argument. Guns (especially the semi-automatic kind) are PRIMARILY used to injure or kill another living thing.
    *** Yes exactly why we have them. and why possesion of them is protected by the Constitution. Your attempt to paint those who disagree with you as illogical won't get you very far and is offensive. I understand that reasonable people can come to different conclusions than I and it doesn't mean they are illogical. In any event your argument is based on emotion and not logic. Evidence of this is your persistant calling of what in realiety are fairly small and low powered firearms "massive weapons".
    SoldierNurse22, HM-8404, KeyMaster, and 1 other like this.
  5. Visit  mrmedical profile page
    2
    TBQH the only reason this event blew up and got big press because a lot of kids died. Thousands of kids die every day in ways more violent and prolonged. The only reason the populace cares is because it was catered to them on an emotional level and the victims were children. If an IED blew up a school in the ME or some other 3rd world hole no one would blink an eye. Search your heart - you know it to be true. But alas, we as society are so masochistic that we love to suffer along with each other.

    It was a freak occurrence, although planned and calculated by a mentally sick individual. However tragic it may be (most arguments are made from emotion because they were children) doesn't detract from the fact that these mass shootings are rare in the United States and are only brought to public light through the media.

    Firearms used against criminals by responsible firearm operators or in self defense almost never make it to the airplay, and these events happen daily. As a nurse I don't see any moral or ethical qualms in killing another individual if I am assaulted and my life is in danger: it's the biological response of fight or flight and self preservation.

    Those that argue the purpose of a gun - specifically semi-automatic rifle - aren't really within any credibility to establish what their primary use is. At the end of the day, it's a simple machine that slings lead and supersonic speeds at a target: and that target can be many things NOT exclusively people, as some are so disillusioned and keep persisting. And quite frankly, it is my belief that no other American is entitled to tell another citizen what they should or shouldn't have, especially that the MAJORITY of gun owners are rational and safe individuals who do not go on shooting rampages which constitute less than 1% of total firearm owners in the United States.

    Mass shootings are freak occurrences and have happened in the past and will continue to happen. Humans can be violent and unpredictable animals. No amount of banning those scary guns is going to stop this problem. It's a knee-jerk response that bleeding hearts cling to in order to fulfill the need to "do something" regardless of how ultimately useless it is.

    Seemingly, as a culture we are so polarized on blaming objects, institutions, society than the individual themselves. But we don't do that be cause that would require some actual investigation and critical thinking to solve a serious problem rather than a spontaneous outburst of hormone induced drivel and whimpering, "but... but, think of the CHILDREN!" and "something bad happened, BAN SOMETHING!!!".

    If push came to shove, I'd much rather have the rare occurrence of a shooting spree in some insignificant part of the country happen than be disarmed to the point where if that threat ever approached me, I would not be able to defend myself or my loved ones.
    Altra and janhetherington like this.
  6. Visit  kcmylorn profile page
    2
    I am not a fan, nor am I a member of the NRA. I do not own a gun, I have ever seen a "real gun" nor have I ever owned a gun. I am terrified of guns. This would not be something I would have in my own home.

    I am not psych nurse, nor have I ever been a psych nurse but I have taken care of enough patient's with mental health disease over 32 years on med/surg units, tele units, oncology units and in the outpatient family practice area to see, observe and understand enough to know, that mental illness is not adequately addressed in this country not are these patients given the attention and humane decency they should be receiving. Some one posted about non compliance with medication and if they don't want to "help themelves" well, My theory is, for what ever it is worth, is that due to the mental illness- they can't. it's called and I have seen this on many a patient charts in the doctors progress notes_ "insight is poor" "motivation is poor, non existant or minimal". These are 2 determinants that the doctors used to evaluated patients on daily rounds- please start reading your charts, people. Diabetics are non compliant, cardiacs are non compliant, so are many other patient's with physiological diagnosis. But i guess becase we can see a physical cause or symptom that makes them more socially acceptable and deserving of our sympathy. Well mental illness has symptoms we can see also: agitation, pacing, hostile, angry, poor eye contact, no eye contact, non verbal, aloof, distant, flat, mistrustful, confused, disoriented, "tearful"( and how many times have we charted that.) These are symtoms.They are not just adjetives bringing out the writer in us.

    I have seen staff be so negligent, disrespectful, condescending, down right cruel and abusive to them. One @@@, I reported to my department of health. This nurse has no business working an inner city FQHC- she doesn't understand the patient population.
    The fact remains that our mental health heathcare system is inadeqate- poor and lack of access, sever shortage of formally educated and prepared mental health professionals, poor pay for those who are already practicing, lack of widespead education and literacy on mental health. Lack of primary prevention and health promotion stradegies to address the issues. We simply are not prepared to take competent care of the mentally ill. Every person in this country is responsible. We need to look inside our selves first. How many times did we say something cruel or abusive to some one else. How do we know how that other person is going to take and react to the statement? We don't and we pass it off as- "well, that's their problem", and I love this---"They need to grow a thick skin!!!"" Well no , it's your problem- if you are the one who said the offending phrase or statement, you need to take responsibility for it.

    I don't know what went on with Adam Lanza- I can only guess with what I have learned over the years in nursing, seen in my patients and how I have seen other nursing staff treat mental health patient's, know what has been disgusting quips have been said to me over the years and what I have read in the news. That kid did not have it together to begin with as a small child through no fault of his own, his mother and father went through a divorce- that is a major stressor on any one even with out psychiatric illness. It may be a common event, and if your don't have a psych illness going into the divorce, you'll end up with one coming out of one. It blows apart a life style for everyone involved. A coworker of mine, the Director of Critical care, whom I have known for 30 years, was going through a divorce, needed to be hospitalized for 3 weeks for MH reasons, lost at least 40 lbs and was so klingy- I didn't recognize them. That divorce impacted that kid and then mom was noted to have been planning to move him and her out to washington state- again, a disruption in a routine- to someone who was not adaptable to change. I think the kid then picked up the guns and killed mom to stop this move, and went to the school because it represented a family support system and a life he lost; seeing parents dropping kids off, laughing, running into the school and loving life, hugging and kissing their kids goodbye. I think he snapped, I think mom tried to stop him and he shot her. I don't think it was premeditated and I don't think the kid was rational when he did it. I think the suicide was to put an end to his own internal torment and pain. JMHO
    TopazLover and PMFB-RN like this.
  7. Visit  InfirmiereJolie profile page
    0
    Having to quote 4 LONG posts made by only two people...

    First off, PMRB-RN, just merely because you aren't afraid of semi-automatic assault weapons (e.g., copy cats of those used in the military) DOES NOT mean they are not dangerous and harmful on the streets, being used to kill and injure people. There are OTHERS who ARE afraid; I find this argument self-centered and selfish. Also, what about the military men and women who come home and are FOR this ban of assault weapons? They've seen them used also and are AGAINST it. These people know they are used primarily to kill people.

    Secondly, you completely ignoring the fact that amendment was written in the 1700's when these weapons were not available is appalling. The constitution has since been amended and changed from 300 years ago as it was imperfect. E.g., the 14th amendment and universal suffrage. An argument basing it off the fact SIMPLY due to it being instituted (during a time when the any use of guns would have required minutes to load not split seconds, extreme difficulty not ease, and only shoot one bullet at a time not dozens in seconds...) into the constitution is circular as the constitution was imperfect and since changed. This is fundamentalism.. further the amendment states militias as well, meaning for the military. As we move forward with technology, we MUST accommodate in order to protect people or fail to adapt to change.

    Moreover, I sense some fear of the government here. Just because YOU are afraid does not mean OTHERS are. This is essentially selfish as well since you want to stop all laws to fit your views/your OWN fears (which OTHERS do NOT share) and yes this is illogical as there is NO reason to fear the government so much. Other countries have bans (e.g., all of Europe, Australia) and they are very happy. They have had bans for years. Further, this is a slippery slope argument that doom will happen when in fact, it is simply getting dangerous, killing weapons off the streets. Then nurses and first responders don't have to care for as many bleeding, injured people in the hospitals and outside the hospital.

    There is NO reason to use a semi-automatic assault weapon for "recreational hunting" use when there is another which fits the SAME method which CANNOT be used to kill massive amounts of people. How did people before these inventions hunt? They could hunt then successfully, cannot you? They also had guns, but not those with numerous rounds of ammunition and military capabilities.

    This is not about being self-centered for your own wishes; this is about helping others and preventing further deaths. This is about stopping the continuous road blocks to improvement.

    Quote from PMFB-RN
    *** Wow you need to brush up on your history. All have been, cell phones are being used to kill people every day TODAY.



    *** Yes exactly why we have them. and why possesion of them is protected by the Constitution. Your attempt to paint those who disagree with you as illogical won't get you very far and is offensive. I understand that reasonable people can come to different conclusions than I and it doesn't mean they are illogical. In any event your argument is based on emotion and not logic. Evidence of this is your persistant calling of what in realiety are fairly small and low powered firearms "massive weapons".

    Quote from HM-8404
    Do you actually know what happened when that ban went into effect? Here's an example, Chinese made SKS's sold for $99. That included a brand new "assault rifle" and 100 rounds of ammo. I purchased 3 plus 6 high capacity magazines. An AR-15 dropped in price to little over $400. When the ban started gaining strength in Congress the gun manufacturers ramped up production and flooded the market, making them affordable for everybody. In essence, there were more guns in the public's hands but yet crime dropped? That ban worked wonders, huh?
    Quote from PMFB-RN
    ****For the record I have dozens of times. I also observed one skilled rifleman armed with a bolt action rifle hold off a whole platoon of highly motivated, but poorly trained, milita armed with assault rifles. Banning isn't realistic. Oh of course a law can be passed but noting will change just as it didnt' change last time. What are you going to do send the police to invade people's homes and take them? How do you think that will go? How would you know what homes to break into since there are no records of who has what?

    *** I suppose if I hunt rabbits with a stick I have "assaulted" the rabbit with a weapon. You are right that firearms like the Bushmaster are not usually used fo deer hunting, they are under powered for that and in many states illegal for reason of being underpowered and unlikely to make a quick and humane kill on deer sized game. However semiautomatic rifles in .223 caliber (like the Bushmaster) are widely used in varmit hunting.

    *** Well you are wrong but even if you were right so what? The 2nd Ammendment wasn't put in the Bill of Rights so that Americans could go hunting. It was put in for the same reason the 1st was put in.

    ***Thats just it. A ban WON'T change anything except make things more difficult for the most lawabiding among us. Yes I am a nurse and of course I would be opposed to banning firearms based only on their apperence as is being proposed.
    Quote from HM-8404
    Showing your knowledge of weapons here. If given the choice I had much rather be shot with a .223 caliber Bushmaster AR-15 than a standard police issue .38 or 9mm handgun. It will do much less damage than they will. The only real advantage the .223 has over the others is accuracy at a distance out to 500 meters.

    For the record, I have gone up against assault weapons before. Much larger 7.62mm AK-47's.
  8. Visit  Laurie52 profile page
    1
    Ya sure. Since paper, pen and the printing press were the only form of media available when the 1st Ammendment came about we should ban radio, TV and the internet. After all the internet provides a medium for the rapid disimination of child porn and makes possible the spreading of terrorists ideologies. Certainly cell phones must be banned since there weren't around when the constitution was signed and they are often used to detonate IEDs and murder people.
    Sheesh, your logic sort of freaks me out.
    The difference is that no one and no organization has said that there is a constitutionally gaurenteed right to the internet, TV and cell phones
    mrmedical likes this.
  9. Visit  PMFB-RN profile page
    0
    Quote from Laurie52
    The difference is that no one and no organization has said that there is a constitutionally gaurenteed right to the internet, TV and cell phones
    *** Wow, really? Do me a favor and type "groups advocating for the first amendment" into Google. You will see there are many and varied groups advocating for freedom of the press and freedom of speech.
  10. Visit  HM-8404 profile page
    1
    Quote from InfirmiereJolie

    Secondly, you completely ignoring the fact that amendment was written in the 1700's when these weapons were not available is appalling. The constitution has since been amended and changed from 300 years ago as it was imperfect. E.g., the 14th amendment and universal suffrage. An argument basing it off the fact SIMPLY due to it being instituted (during a time when the any use of guns would have required minutes to load not split seconds, extreme difficulty not ease, and only shoot one bullet at a time not dozens in seconds...) into the constitution is circular as the constitution was imperfect and since changed. This is fundamentalism.. further the amendment states militias as well, meaning for the military. As we move forward with technology, we MUST accommodate in order to protect people or fail to adapt to change.

    Moreover, I sense some fear of the government here. Just because YOU are afraid does not mean OTHERS are. This is essentially selfish as well since you want to stop all laws to fit your views/your OWN fears (which OTHERS do NOT share) and yes this is illogical as there is NO reason to fear the government so much. Other countries have bans (e.g., all of Europe, Australia) and they are very happy. They have had bans for years. Further, this is a slippery slope argument that doom will happen when in fact, it is simply getting dangerous, killing weapons off the streets. Then nurses and first responders don't have to care for as many bleeding, injured people in the hospitals and outside the hospital.

    There is NO reason to use a semi-automatic assault weapon for "recreational hunting" use when there is another which fits the SAME method which CANNOT be used to kill massive amounts of people. How did people before these inventions hunt? They could hunt then successfully, cannot you? They also had guns, but not those with numerous rounds of ammunition and military capabilities.
    You are correct. The Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791. A few years years before the internet came about. Does this mean the First Amendment should not apply to the internet since it had not been put into the Bill of Rights? Hey, it's much more powerful than a newspaper.

    Actually the reason for the Second Amendment is so we will not have to fear our government.

    You keep confusing the so-called assault rifles with hunting rifles. Big difference.
    workingharder likes this.
  11. Visit  PMFB-RN profile page
    6
    First off, PMRB-RN, just merely because you aren't afraid of semi-automatic assault weapons (e.g., copy cats of those used in the military)

    *** Actually I am not afraid of any inanimate objects. Your assertion that they are copy cats of military weapons is only true in apperence. In function they are not very different than other very old and widely used firearms.


    DOES NOT mean they are not dangerous and harmful on the streets, being used to kill and injure people. There are OTHERS who ARE afraid; I find this argument self-centered and selfish.

    *** Me too.


    Also, what about the military men and women who come home and are FOR this ban of assault weapons? They've seen them used also and are AGAINST it. These people know they are used primarily to kill people.
    *** I respectfully disagree with my brothers and sisters in arms. If any of them wish to discuss the issue with me I am willing to have that discussion. However I don't view their opinions as being more valid than the opinions of all the vets who happen to disagree with them.

    Secondly, you completely ignoring the fact that amendment was written in the 1700's when these weapons were not available is appalling.

    *** I am doing no such thing. I understand that the authors of the constitution were wise men who, having witnessed world changing technology in their own lives, fully understood that things would continue to change. It's why in documents like the Fedralists Papers they expand on their thinking. As it relates to the current subject we are discussing the "arms" mentioned in the Second Amendment refer to those "of current type". The First Amendment was also written in the late 1700's before the invention of TV, radio and the internet. Should we ban waching TV news since the authors of the constitution could not possibly forsee the effects of mass media?

    The constitution has since been amended and changed from 300 years ago as it was imperfect. E.g., the 14th amendment and universal suffrage. An argument basing it off the fact SIMPLY due to it being instituted (during a time when the any use of guns would have required minutes to load not split seconds, extreme difficulty not ease, and only shoot one bullet at a time not dozens in seconds...) into the constitution is circular as the constitution was imperfect and since changed
    *** Well theres your answer. If you no longer believe in the protections afforded to Americans in the Bill of Rights you are welcome to advocate for amending the constitution. Doing so would be much more honest than simply ignoring our constitution and gutting the protections for Americans it provides.


    further the amendment states militias as well, meaning for the military
    .


    ***The milita is NOT the military. I am AM in the milita. As is your husband, brother, maybe son depending on his age. In any event the the justification clause doesn't negate the right clause. If you care to read further and educate yourself on this issue I suggest reading this, it's from UCLA Law School, hardly a bastion of conservative thought.
    The Commonplace Second Amendment:

    As we move forward with technology, we MUST accommodate in order to protect people or fail to adapt to change.
    *** Well as I said you can advocate for amending the constitution. That is perfectly within your rights as a citizen of a free society and country like the USA. I wish you luck.

    Moreover, I sense some fear of the government here. Just because YOU are afraid does not mean OTHERS are.
    *** Your sense is way off. I do not fear my government at all. I suggest you stop attempting to read into my comments things that are not there. Your not very good at it.

    This is essentially selfish as well since you want to stop all laws to fit your views/your OWN fears (which OTHERS do NOT share) and yes this is illogical as there is NO reason to fear the government so much.
    *** Wow, so I am not only illogical but selfish and fearful of the goverment too? I am actually none of those things and your name calling won't change that.

    Other countries have bans (e.g., all of Europe, Australia) and they are very happy.

    *** I think if you look into it those countries demonstrate the ineffectivness of bans like are being proposed here. You might remeber the 2011 shootings in Norway were 77 people were killed in a country that bans military style assault rifles. Australia has had it's share of tragic school shootings resulting in the deaths of children. Fewer than us but it's a MUCH MUCH smaller country. Also consider Switzerland. A country where most house holds are required by law to keep and maintain a real assault rifle (as opposed to cosmetic appearing like we have been discussing) in the home. Switzerland has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world and their government subsidizes the sale of assault rifle ammunition.

    They have had bans for years. Further, this is a slippery slope argument that doom will happen when in fact, it is simply getting dangerous, killing weapons off the streets.
    *** But it doesn't get anything off the streets. I know this. You only have to look to Connecticut where the shooting occured. They already have an "assault weapons" ban in place. We also have examples from other states like California and the federal ban from 1994 until 2004. They simply did not work and neither will a new law.


    when there is another which fits the SAME method which CANNOT be used to kill massive amounts of people. How did people before these inventions hunt? They could hunt then successfully, cannot you? They also had guns, but not those with numerous rounds of ammunition and military capabilities.
    *** Nearly all firearms in cilivian use are based off military models. In WWI our soldiers learned to use bolt action rifles since there were standard issue at the time. When they came home the bold action became very popular. The same thing happend in WWII when the semiautomatic was standard issue. The troops came home and the semi auto became very popular. This has alwasy been true in US history. Semi automatic firearms have been very popular and heavily used in sports for over a hundred years. There is no new technology here, though the look of the firearms has changed, not their function.
    In any event a particular firearms usefulness for sporting purposes is irrelevent as shooting sports are not related to the reason we have Second Amendment protections in our Bill of Rights.

    This is not about being self-centered for your own wishes;
    *** So not only illogical, selfish, fearful but I am also self centered? Why stick to valid arguments when you can insult and name call?

    this is about helping others and preventing further deaths. This is about stopping the continuous road blocks to improvement
    *** No, it's not. It's about passing feel good laws that will not make any children safer.
    Last edit by PMFB-RN on Dec 22, '12
  12. Visit  chiromed0 profile page
    9
    Horse-puckey!

    Stick to what you know. Yes to more mental health services, yes to student access to mental health professionals. No, no, no to meaningless, useless, gun bans.

    I am sick and tired of this tirade about so-called assault weapons by people and politicians who know nothing of the existing statutes or the proposed new ones. There are gun laws, if law enforcement had the ability to enforce all of them maybe some of this wouldn't have happened. Maybe some of this would have happened regardless of any new laws you want politicians to push through without looking at facts.

    Answer a simple question first before you jump all over this; what is an assault weapon? Specifically. Are you informed enough to know what constitutes an assault weapon vs. any other? If not, then I would suggest you read the former "weapons ban" and you quickly learn it was a farce. In fact, murder rates have steadily gone down for over a decade even after the ban was lifted. Murders with so-called assault weapons, statistically, are so rare that banning them has negligible effect on over all murder rates.

    Do people need dozens of guns? No, of course not but we don't need dozens of cars either and how many people die from drunk drivers every year? Do you want the gov't to start telling you how many cars you can own? What you can own? (oh, wait...they are trying to do that anyway). Quit thinking the answer to everything is some federal government intervention. It isn't.

    The answer may actually lie in the opposite of what anti-gun activists are ranting about. We have school nurses, why not campus police at every school; on-site, trained and armed? I actually think communities would gladly pay for the extra protection and peace of mind. At the very least arm teachers, administrators with non-lethal devices and have the ability to lock rooms/windows from off-site.

    Yes, what happened is a sick tragedy. Yes, everyone wants to "feel" like something was done about it. Yes, you would "think" that laws would prevent bad events from happening but the TRUTH is they don't. Do you want to just "feel" better that something was done or do you want a real solution? Politicians act on public sentiment and not facts just to gain favor. They are not as intelligent and omnipotent as we would assume so handing them our keys to our rights out of pure trust is not very wise.

    Wait. Get all the facts. Get some real proposals from the people who do the work and then try it before slapping a new federal law. Has anyone ever asked the local PD what they want?

    I'm not a true gun rights activist. I'm fine with some meaningful scrutiny with commensurate rights and privileges. Is it a little to easy to own a gun? Yes, but guns aren't the problem...people are. Find a better way to ban people and not guns. If criminals obeyed laws then new laws might work...but that doesn't happen. Frankly, I'm more scared of people having the right to vote without the intelligence to know the issues or candidates. Anyway, this is just 1 person's opinion.
  13. Visit  Spidey's mom profile page
    1
    Quote from chiromed0
    The answer may actually lie in the opposite of what anti-gun activists are ranting about. We have school nurses, why not campus police at every school; on-site, trained and armed? I actually think communities would gladly pay for the extra protection and peace of mind. At the very least arm teachers, administrators with non-lethal devices and have the ability to lock rooms/windows from off-site.

    .
    We have school nurses but not on every campus except for some states back east. I'm on the West Coast and school nurses have to cover the entire school district which might have 11-12 campuses and thousands of students. Very few work full time. There is just no money for it.

    There is some bubbling up of talk about volunteers taking on the idea of someone on campus with access to a firearm. Some of the stories are local vets who might volunteer time. Here's one I read today:

    http://www.redding.com/news/2012/dec...artner=popular
    tewdles likes this.

close
close