A Call to Action from the Nationís Nurses in the Wake of Newtown - page 20

by NRSKarenRN Admin

Reposting from PSNA Communications email. Karen A Call to Action from the Nationís Nurses in the Wake of Newtown More Than 30 Nursing Organizations Call for Action in Wake of Newtown Tragedy (12/20/12) Like the rest... Read More


  1. 0
    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:
    Adolescent Suicides [lethal] Attempters Non-attempters

    Firearm in home: 72% 37% 38%

    ...(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


    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 ¬Ľ Means Matter ¬Ľ 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...e--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).
    Last edit by NRSKarenRN on Jan 10, '13 : Reason: TOS font size
  2. 1
    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.
    Last edit by Esme12 on Jan 10, '13
    SoldierNurse22 likes this.
  3. 0
    All I can say is that the American Nursing Association supports it and a long list of authorities and studies
    Last edit by Esme12 on Jan 11, '13
  4. 7
    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:
    This website is not set up to be read like a real conversation as that is impossible. It is set up to share stories, provide information, and even to have lively but civilized debates. We 'chop up' posts as to answer specific questions or respond to different ideas, otherwise there would be too much rambling. That is why it is very important to say what you want in a succinct, clear, and non-intimidating manner. Unfortunately I have to admit that there were times in the last few years that I have been snarky at times, but my fellow bloggers called me on it and I realized my how I must have sounded and so I approach this site with a new perspective as I never want to appear derogatory or snarky as I see that as unprofessional.

    There have been times when all of us have posted something and we meant to provide a certain point of view and the reader(s) read it differently than we intended. In that case we ask for, or provide, clarifications of statements. I was not trying to be insulting when I said your posts were difficult for me to read, but for me they are. They are very long and I feel as if you are shouting at us and that is a good way for someone to completely turn you off or get defensive. We are all going to have different opinions; BlueDevilDNP and I do regarding guns, but I completely respect his/her point of view as he/she demonstrated his/her respect for the rest of us with such an eloquent post. Although BlueDevil does not believe in owning a gun, at no time was that post derogatory to the rest of us who have a different point of view. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

    I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish with your posts, but we are much less likely to even consider what you have to say when every other statement you make about our POV is about red herrings, fallacies, etc. We have our perceptions and so do you, if you believe in your convictions that strongly, it may be helpful to try and understand other's POV's as nothing will change unless we all want change. Again, I am speaking for others on this thread, but I have interacted with many of the before and I believe that many would agree with me.
    nursel56, Esme12, VivaLasViejas, and 4 others like this.
  5. 1
    I am sorry but I am having a hard time controlling font size.
    herring_RN likes this.
  6. 2
    Quote from InfirmiereJolie

    All I can say is that the American Nursing Association supports it and a long list of authorities and studies which I tried to post but failed (list was deleted, I don't know why it was just a list)
    *** Given the ANA's long history of supporting anti-nurse initives, even if I know nothing about a particular subject I would tend to be opposed to anything the ANA is in favor of.
    Whatever the ANA supports I take for granted is not good for me as a nurse.
    Last edit by Esme12 on Jan 11, '13
    SoldierNurse22 and VivaLasViejas like this.
  7. 4
    Quote from msn10


    This website is not set up to be read like a real conversation as that is impossible. It is set up to share stories, provide information, and even to have lively but civilized debates. We 'chop up' posts as to answer specific questions or respond to different ideas, otherwise there would be too much rambling. That is why it is very important to say what you want in a succinct, clear, and non-intimidating manner. Unfortunately I have to admit that there were times in the last few years that I have been snarky at times, but my fellow bloggers called me on it and I realized my how I must have sounded and so I approach this site with a new perspective as I never want to appear derogatory or snarky as I see that as unprofessional.

    There have been times when all of us have posted something and we meant to provide a certain point of view and the reader(s) read it differently than we intended. In that case we ask for, or provide, clarifications of statements. I was not trying to be insulting when I said your posts were difficult for me to read, but for me they are. They are very long and I feel as if you are shouting at us and that is a good way for someone to completely turn you off or get defensive. We are all going to have different opinions; BlueDevilDNP and I do regarding guns, but I completely respect his/her point of view as he/she demonstrated his/her respect for the rest of us with such an eloquent post. Although BlueDevil does not believe in owning a gun, at no time was that post derogatory to the rest of us who have a different point of view. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

    I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish with your posts, but we are much less likely to even consider what you have to say when every other statement you make about our POV is about red herrings, fallacies, etc. We have our perceptions and so do you, if you believe in your convictions that strongly, it may be helpful to try and understand other's POV's as nothing will change unless we all want change. Again, I am speaking for others on this thread, but I have interacted with many of the before and I believe that many would agree with me.
    Thank you!
    SoldierNurse22, nursel56, Esme12, and 1 other like this.
  8. 2
    Quote from PMFB-RN
    *** Given the ANA's long history of supporting anti-nurse initives, even if I know nothing about a particular subject I would tend to be opposed to anything the ANA is in favor of.
    Whatever the ANA supports I take for granted is not good for me as a nurse.
    I read ANA positions and the Journal. Often I disagree and other times I agree.
    My state nurses association left the ANA. Much of the reason was thjat we wanted to work for safe staffing ratios. Last year the ANA voted to support minimum nurse ratios in hospitals.

    I am definitely in favor of improving healthcare for everyone. Mental health care access is especially needed.
    nursel56 and aknottedyarn like this.
  9. 3
    Quote from msn10


    This website is not set up to be read like a real conversation as that is impossible. It is set up to share stories, provide information, and even to have lively but civilized debates. We 'chop up' posts as to answer specific questions or respond to different ideas, otherwise there would be too much rambling. That is why it is very important to say what you want in a succinct, clear, and non-intimidating manner. Unfortunately I have to admit that there were times in the last few years that I have been snarky at times, but my fellow bloggers called me on it and I realized my how I must have sounded and so I approach this site with a new perspective as I never want to appear derogatory or snarky as I see that as unprofessional.

    There have been times when all of us have posted something and we meant to provide a certain point of view and the reader(s) read it differently than we intended. In that case we ask for, or provide, clarifications of statements. I was not trying to be insulting when I said your posts were difficult for me to read, but for me they are. They are very long and I feel as if you are shouting at us and that is a good way for someone to completely turn you off or get defensive. We are all going to have different opinions; BlueDevilDNP and I do regarding guns, but I completely respect his/her point of view as he/she demonstrated his/her respect for the rest of us with such an eloquent post. Although BlueDevil does not believe in owning a gun, at no time was that post derogatory to the rest of us who have a different point of view. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

    I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish with your posts, but we are much less likely to even consider what you have to say when every other statement you make about our POV is about red herrings, fallacies, etc. We have our perceptions and so do you, if you believe in your convictions that strongly, it may be helpful to try and understand other's POV's as nothing will change unless we all want change. Again, I am speaking for others on this thread, but I have interacted with many of the before and I believe that many would agree with me.
    Beautifully stated. Thank you.
    nursel56, aknottedyarn, and Esme12 like this.
  10. 3
    Quote from InfirmiereJolie

    All I can say is that the American Nursing Association supports it and a long list of authorities and studies which I tried to post but failed (list was deleted, I don't know why it was just a list)
    I used to post long quotes. Most were unread. Now I most often post a title, general explanation, and a link so those who want to can read it.

    Sometimes I refer a person whose post clearly lets me know they haven't read the article or study that the answer is there.

    We come to allnurses.com for different reasons. These change over time.
    the person wanting to know about specific nursing schools is later concerned about taking boards.

    Some of us are academically inclines. Others are not.

    Over time I've enjoyed debating controversial topics. I've changed my view because a fellow member educated me and answered my questions.

    We have a lot in common as nurses, caregivers, students, and people interested in the profession.

    I think I have opinions in common with you, but find them difficult to read. They remind me of my postings years ago.
    Last edit by Esme12 on Jan 11, '13


Top