A Call to Action from the Nationís Nurses in the Wake of Newtown - page 9

by NRSKarenRN 15,974 Views | 219 Comments 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. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 0
    Added a poll to this topic to gauge AN members sentiments.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.


Top