A Call to Action from the Nation's Nurses in the Wake of Newtown - page 7

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  InfirmiereJolie profile page
    0
    This post basically attacks me and does not attack the issue at hand.

    I did answer your questions, however, I did it within one post and my posts are also meant to be seen by others since this is a public forum so I am posting to show them my argument, too.

    What you mention is not inconvenient to my argument, as with everything, life is not perfect in reality. When arguing in an persuasive essay you face the others arguments head on, undermining them first. I find arguments based off fundamentalism, such as to have no gun bans at all even for dangerous weapons which can be used on massive crowds of people simply to do the military having stronger weapons (which will always be true), are idealistic as there is no room for accommodation. Although there are some unsuccessful, narrow events, which are probably due to their weak punishments on crime (e.g., only 22 years for the worst crimes), most countries have success and far fewer deaths than we do regarding these bans. I have seen many residents of these countries recommend we have the same laws, e.g., the Australians.

    Quote from PMFB-RN
    *** For those who are afraid of inanimate objects I would suggest seeking the help of a mental health professional as they may be suffering from automatonophobia.

    , *** You use quotes on a statement I never used. I think you may have confused me with a different person and their comments. The argument you quote above is nonsensical and illogical and not one I would make.

    *** The "progress" you refer to is only your opinion. I really have no idea who made the argument you are attributing to me.

    *** Well I understand compairing the First Amendment to the Second Amendment is very inconvenient to your position but it exactly refutes the silly argument that technology has advanced thus redering the Bill of Rights obsolete.

    *** The justification clause does not negate the rights clause. While you are quite incorrect that the US military is the milita it doesn't matter. The rights of citizend in the bill do not go away when the jutification does.

    *** Yes I understand that the fact that mass shooting occure in countries with far more restrictive gun laws is very inconvenient to your argument.
    I am curious as to why you have consistantly refused to address any questions you have been asked about what you are advocating for?

    *** No you indicate that since my position is different than yours I am selfish and self centered (among other things). I admit that i am not very sympathetic to UNREASONABLE fears of others. I am not willing to go along with a useless ban that would do nothing to make anyone safer simply to make those with unreasonable fear feel better.
  2. Visit  InfirmiereJolie profile page
    0
    I don't see how you can compare America, a democratic republic, to countries which were not democracies or republics. All of your first examples are not democratic republics as we are. One of the greatest accomplishments of America is its DEMOCRACY, YET also its BRANCHES OF POWERS and REPRESENTATION. Democracy gives the government an incentive to represent us as they desire to have our votes. They want to help us and get as many votes as they can. This differs from those you list. Although in 1933 Germany was a democracy, they did not have the same separation of powers as we do or the same governmental structure as our democratic republic. Source: Thomas E Patterson pg. 47 "We the People": Germany does not have a separation of legislative and executive branches and does not have two coequal legislative champers. Germany only has judicial review, whereas we have ALL three checks and balances. Therefore, we differ and we cannot be compared correctly or believe it is the same due to their differing structure (with fewer checks and balances).

    Also, as already stated, there are MANY countries today which have bans, but are secure and their residents feel safe, even suggesting to Americans we should have the same laws. Nearly all of Europe and Australia have bans, yet are CONTENT. Switzerland is the outlier. We cannot truly be compared to Switzerland entirely, either. Switzerland is nearly a direct democracy, as California, and can directly vote on their legislation (the voters are basically their own lawmakers). In the United States we cannot be our own lawmakers; the representatives choose for us... SWIZERLAND also, surprisingly, has LESS SOCIAL EQUALITY than we do, being numbered 25th in gender equality and us being listed as the 22nd out of 115 countries. Source: from their OWN website, swiss.org: Equality - Switzerland - Information

    Do we want more SOCIAL INEQUALITY, like Switzerland? We already lag behind most of Europe for the most part.

    Switzerland, the outlier you discuss, trains each male to be a part of their militia as they choose to not have a voluntary, state-wide, military. (Maybe this is one reason for the SOCIAL INEQUALITY WORSE THAN OUR OWN!).

    There is NO volunteering, each resident (excuse, me, only male in Switzerland) is REQUIRED to be a part of their military. There is NO choice here. "Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (German for "recruit school"), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers)." I repeat, there is NO CHOICE. Gun politics in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Do we REALLY want to FORCE everyone (only males, excuse me) to be part of the military almost like a DRAFT like Switzerland (which is the sole country extremists can point to for their supposed "success") ? Also have LESS SOCIAL EQUALITY (even LOWER than 22nd out of 115 countries)? NOT ME... and I doubt many Americans want more inequality, either.

    We cannot rely on fundamentalism, we must be able to adapt to change and advances in technology. One of this is to enact more bans on the semi-automatic assault weapons which can attack ENTIRE crowds of people within moments. These weapons are NOT good for hospitals and first responders who must take care of the bleeding, injured.


    Quote from IndianaHH
    A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
    In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million 'dissidents', unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
    In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
    China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
    Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
    You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
    Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
    Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
    The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
    With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.
    During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
    If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends.
    SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
    SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
    SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
    IT'S A NO BRAINER!
    DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.
    Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

    It's time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us.
    You're not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people.

    Okay.. yes that was long winded. However it IS factual. The horrific nightmare was caused by a loner determined to inflict pain and suffering, if not by a armed weapon.. then some other means. And remember...he chose a GUN FREE ZONE, FULLY AWARE he faced NO resistance. It was ONLY when law enforcement showed up did he do us a favor, and took his own life.

    Guns are inanimate objects, incapable of self action. It takes a PERSON to cause harm. Its time to start seeing the forest instead of the trees. Time to reach out to PEOPLE whom are hurting and let them know they are cared for and valued. The human touch is needed... not another gun control law.
  3. Visit  InfirmiereJolie profile page
    1
    Quote from HM-8404
    Yes your lack of knowledge of weapons is showing. Do you have any idea what the last law banned as assault weapons? Here are three things I can remember off the top of my head, 1) Cannot have a collapsable stock, 2) Cannot have a flash suppressor, 3) Cannot have an attachment point for a bayonet. The law didn't change the function of ANY weapons. It was a useless piece of crap so those that voted for it could pat themselves on the back afterward.
    This false dilemma that there can only be two outcomes: 100% success or 100% failure (black and white thinking) and if a single, not strong enough law is not AS successful as it could be, then the entire concept must be thrown out. This does not make sense... outcomes are never completely black and white. This is also the Nirvana fallacy: when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.

    Yes, this argument IS illogical (two falsehoods already only in this one post). There should be a stronger ban since this one was not strong enough. This does NOT support the argument for "there should no bans on any semi-automatic assault weapons (even with continuous advancement and lethality) since the military will always have stronger weapons"
    herring_RN likes this.
  4. Visit  InfirmiereJolie profile page
    0
    Ignoring the fact that the shootings are happening with dangerous, semi-automatic assault weapons which can kill massive amounts of people then diverting the topic to bombs is not only unrelated to the topic of banning these dangerous weapons, it is done to distract the person from the topic at hand.

    This is known as Faulty Comparison (also known as: bad comparison, false comparison, incomplete comparison, inconsistent comparison). Description: Comparing one thing to another that is really not related, in order to make the one thing look more or less desirable than it really is.

    This is also a slippery slope that banning one item will ban all others, and cause more negative events, leading to a chain of events:

    "Slippery slope (thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose) is asserting that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact/event that should not happen, thus the first step should not happen. While this fallacy is a popular one, the it is, in its essence, an appeal to probability fallacy. (e.g if person x does y then z would (probably) occur, leading to q, leading to w, leading to e.)"


    Quote from Sadala
    A lot of people advocating for weapons bans seem to have very little/to absolutely no knowledge about guns. There seems to be a paucity of knowledge about the US Constitution as well. And some of you are missing the point. The Constitution doesn't JUST allow us to have weapons to hunt and to protect ourselves, it allows us to have weapons so that our own government doesn't get too far out of hand.

    The framers understood that sometimes a government can forget who "we the people" are. They were fine gentlemen who had seen it all before. They wrote a document that stands, for generations, without losing its relevance. That is because its intentions are clear.

    And if you don't like that, then take some action to amend the 2nd amendment (and good luck with that).

    That said, the LARGEST loss of life at an American school was in 1927 in Bath, MI. It was committed with a bomb. Three bombs, to be exact, but only one at the school (the others were in his house and in his truck). He managed to detonate all three. There were 44 killed and 58 wounded, including 38 children killed at the school. The perpetrator had been the school treasurer and he was angry about losing the election for town clerk. He killed his wife before he left setting off the bombs. Sound familiar? Evil, mental illness, and dysfunction have not changed over the years. Human motivation is the same. Bath School disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Not all mass shooters are Rhodes scholars. But I would say that both the Newtown and the Aurora shooters, mentally ill as they were, were also very capable of building an effective bomb had firearms been unavailable. The loss of life could have been much greater. In fact, there have been many mass attacks in China (against children lately) where only a knife was used. Crazy and/or evil people will use whatever is available.

    In fact, I think you can credit the Newtown police for stopping the young man in Newtown. Unlike the police at Columbine, they came straight into the school. He killed himself at first SIGHT of someone who was armed. I’m one of those who thinks that perhaps if some school staff had been trained and armed, he might have been stopped even sooner.
  5. Visit  NRSKarenRN profile page
    0
    Added a poll to this topic to gauge AN members sentiments.
  6. Visit  PMFB-RN profile page
    0
    I did answer your questions, however, I did it within one post and my posts are also meant to be seen by others since this is a public forum so I am posting to show them my argument, too.
    *** I would like you to talk about what kind of ban you would like to see. A ban similar to what we had from 1994 until 2004? A retroactive ban? If so how wuld you locate and confiscate these firearms? Can you explain what the "assault weapon" you often refer to is?

    What you mention is not inconvenient to my argument, as with everything, life is not perfect in reality. When arguing in an persuasive essay you face the others arguments head on, undermining them first. I find arguments based off fundamentalism, such as to have no gun bans at all even for dangerous weapons which can be used on massive crowds of people simply to do the military having stronger weapons (which will always be true),
    *** Ya see the thing is that NOBODY in this discussion has made the argument that there should be no ban based on the military having better weapons. It is confusing when you make up things like this.
    I am not a fundamentalists but we can add it to the names you have called me. Selfish, self centered, illogical and now fundamentalist.

    are idealistic as there is no room for accommodation
    .


    *** WHy do you say there is no room for acommodation? The only position I have argued is that I am aginst banning particular firearms bases on cosmetic fetures like we had in 1994 and to point out the impossibiliety of a retroactive ban.

    Although there are some unsuccessful, narrow events, which are probably due to their weak punishments on crime (e.g., only 22 years for the worst crimes), most countries have success and far fewer deaths than we do regarding these bans. I have seen many residents of these countries recommend we have the same laws, e.g., the Australians.
    *** And we have the European country of Switzerland with the highest rate of gun ownership in the world and assault rifles in most homes as required by law and yet with very low rates of gun violence. I have lived in Autrailia and can tell you that firearms are readily available to average people. In fact I own a semi automatic Ruger 10/22 with a factory installed silencer I was able to buy over the counter without less trouble that buy a rifle here. I keep it stored in my mother in laws house and shoot it when I visit.
  7. Visit  PMFB-RN profile page
    1
    Quote from NRSKarenRN
    Added a poll to this topic to gauge AN members sentiments.
    Who wrote that poll? The authors position is clear and we are faced with only "have you stopped beathing your wife yet?" types of questions.
    This is the worst:
    "I do not support an assault weapons ban and enacting other meaningful gun control reforms to protect society."
    Altra likes this.
  8. Visit  IndiCRNA profile page
    0
    Quote from PMFB-RN
    Who wrote that poll? The authors position is clear and we are faced with only "have you stopped beathing your wife yet?" types of questions.
    This is the worst:
    "I do not support an assault weapons ban and enacting other meaningful gun control reforms to protect society."
    No kidding! Hard to imagine a more biased poll. I am not taking part unless / untill there are less biased questions.
  9. Visit  NRSKarenRN profile page
    1
    As the original poster, I created the poll from Nursing Associations Call to Action and National Rifle Association statement
    NRA calls for armed police officer in every school

    Each has query has I support, I do not support or Unsure selection.
    Esme12 likes this.
  10. Visit  Sadala profile page
    1
    Quote from InfirmiereJolie
    Ignoring the fact that the shootings are happening with dangerous, semi-automatic assault weapons which can kill massive amounts of people then diverting the topic to bombs is not only unrelated to the topic of banning these dangerous weapons, it is done to distract the person from the topic at hand.
    A murderer is a murderer, whether he or she uses a gun, a bomb, a knife, a hammer, or a car. That is the point. An inanimate object is not dangerous. A person's dangerous behavior is dangerous.

    Also, you keep using the term, "dangerous, semi-automatic assault weapon." What are you using as your definition of assault weapon? I don't fully understand what it is that you wish to ban.

    Quote from InfirmiereJolie
    This is known as Faulty Comparison (also known as: bad comparison, false comparison, incomplete comparison, inconsistent comparison). Description: Comparing one thing to another that is really not related, in order to make the one thing look more or less desirable than it really is.
    I think it's a very apt comparison. And I think that it illustrated my point rather well.

    Quote from InfirmiereJolie
    This is also a slippery slope that banning one item will ban all others, and cause more negative events, leading to a chain of events:
    I don't believe I made a "slippery slope" argument in my post. I wouldn't support any legislation if I believed it to be an infringement of my constitutional rights.
    PMFB-RN likes this.
  11. Visit  IndiCRNA profile page
    4
    Quote from NRSKarenRN
    As the original poster, I created the poll from Nursing Associations Call to Action and National Rifle Association statement
    NRA calls for armed police officer in every school

    Each has query has I support, I do not support or Unsure selection.
    The wording of the questions demonstrates severe bias.
    Altra, workingharder, Spidey's mom, and 1 other like this.
  12. Visit  janhetherington profile page
    1
    I agree there is a lot of bias in the poll questions, but I am used to it. I am a member of 3 of the organizations calling for all this stuff. I object to what they do and have told them this numerous times. Have stayed in them despite the cost trying to enact a little change from within, but it's about impossible. Sure we can vote for officers but you can't find out their political opinions from the voting info you're sent. Just knee-jerk liberal stuff from them every chance they get and then they wonder why the average nurse doesn't want to pay big bucks to join their groups.
    Altra likes this.
  13. Visit  Spidey's mom profile page
    0
    FYI - Question 2 & 3 are the same and 4 & 5 are the same. I think this poll is biased as well.

    I support need for improved mental health services for individuals and families
    I do not support need for improved mental health services for individuals and families.
    I do not support need for improved mental health services for individuals and families.
    I support increased student access elementary thru college to nurses and mental health professionals.
    I support increased student access elementary thru college to nurses and mental health professionals.

Need Help Searching For Someone's Comment? Enter your keywords in the box below and we will display any comment that matches your keywords.



Nursing Jobs in every specialty and state. Visit today and find your dream job.

A Big Thank You To Our Sponsors
Top
close
close