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

TopazLover, BSN, RN · Jan 7, 2013

America's Craziest Sheriff Sends Vigilantes To Arizona Schools | ThinkProgress

This is why many are concerned about the vision of Mr. LaPierre. I refuse to bbelieve it is the position of those who actually pay dues to belong.

Vigilantes - Just what we do not want.

InfirmiereJolie · Jan 8, 2013

America's Craziest Sheriff Sends Vigilantes To Arizona Schools | ThinkProgress
This is why many are concerned about the vision of Mr. LaPierre. I refuse to bbelieve it is the position of those who actually pay dues to belong.
Vigilantes - Just what we do not want.

I used to live in Arizona and it has an unbelievable gun-death problem. They also have some (if not the) most relaxed state gun laws in the country, receiving an F grade.

There would be people shooting guns very close to where I lived in the middle of the night (like 1 am) and it was disturbing. When there are so many people using guns, how are you supposed to know when it is real and when it isn't? Who are these people? They can't all be shooting "coyotes" in middle of the night (seriously!), this doesn't even make sense. Plus, they don't even follow the 70 foot rule or whatever it is to not shoot close to houses. It is difficult to enforce those rules. Almost everyone there is loaded, no matter who they are. Less guns are better because how are you supposed to know what is real and what isn't if people are shooting guns all the time? When do you call 911? You just don't know, it is really sketchy. Much of the state is rural, too, not even close to police stations so who knows what can happen especially since everyone has guns and using them at 1 am in the morning.

Clementia · Jan 8, 2013

InfirmiereJolie, you are a remarkable researcher, but it would sure be easier to follow your thoughts if you wrote clear, concise posts and made your points logically.

Regarding guns -- I live in WI, a state where many, many people own guns and bows for deer hunting. It is a big part of the culture here in the northwoods. I do not own a gun myself, but I don't see that the state or federal government has the right to take away weapons from all citizens just because some citizens cannot be trusted to handle firearms. I think banning guns is a knee-jerk response to a very complicated problem.

InfirmiereJolie · Jan 8, 2013

InfirmiereJolie, you are a remarkable researcher, but it would sure be easier to follow your thoughts if you wrote clear, concise posts and made your points logically.
Regarding guns -- I live in WI, a state where many, many people own guns and bows for deer hunting. It is a big part of the culture here in the northwoods. I do not own a gun myself, but I don't see that the state or federal government has the right to take away weapons from all citizens just because some citizens cannot be trusted to handle firearms. I think banning guns is a knee-jerk response to a very complicated problem.

I write posts with bolded emphasis and in quotes because if I wrote it any other way no one would read it.

Who wants to read some large essay? No one pays attention to essays, they want to read bold headlines with drama and flare.

I honestly don't think there is a single country which I have referenced which outright bans "ALL" guns. ALL the countries I have been referencing allow SOME SORT OF GUN. Even in the UK people can own guns!! YES, it is true. In Ireland and most of Europe you can own guns YES. EXCEPT there are heavy restrictions and it is severely limited! IT depends on what time of gun it is. Weak, slow, which for each person differs (some would say self-loading ones with low caliber and antiques... some say air soft guns, some say this or that ect). Each place differs, but in MOST places, you cannot have semi-automatics, auto-matics, ect. and no AR-15 or other military style killing machines, INC. The same goes for Australia, there is a 5% gun ownership rate there and they have had ZERO mass shootings since 1995 (almost 20 years), extremely low violent crime rates, FEWER suicides, and FEWER homicides, so YES THERE ARE GUNS BUT VERY FEW. You also have to go through training, background checks, licensing, registrations, many limitations, some places you have to store them away from your home and lock them up in a safe (E.g., in Ireland).

HOWEVER, the GUNS SHOULD BE REDUCED AND HEAVY RESTRICTIONS PUT INTO PLACE. There should be bans for killing machines immediately which can kill and injure entire crowds within minutes. Not a "free for all" or "take the law into your own hands/wild west" nonsense. 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.

There need to be FEWER killing machines on the streets, the fewer their are, the lower the homicide rate, as shown internationally and in our own states. OUR GUN DEATHS RATES (10,000 homicides, 30,000 total which includes over half suicides) ARE HIGHER THAN 65 (sixty five!) countries around the globe (most also have LOWER homicides rates as well), considering there are only 200 countries, this is PATHETIC, SADDENING, and HEINOUS. Since the first day gun-related deaths were reported, the 30,000 per year has remained nearly the same, this adds up (X 79) to more than 2 million deaths.

There needs to be action NOW.

TopazLover, BSN, RN · Jan 8, 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."

allnurses Guide · Jan 8, 2013

Here is a fact many anti-gun folks like to ignore
In Hospital Deaths from Medical Errors at 195,000 per Year USA
It appears guns are less deadly than Obamacare.

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

allnurses Guide · Jan 8, 2013

Dearth of mental health treatment options leads to emergencies

Emergency rooms, jails see patients that advocates say would have been better off if they got help sooner

January 07, 2013

Mental health and law enforcement professionals say patients commonly wind up in emergency rooms and jails that are poorly equipped to handle their disorders, when earlier treatment might have prevented such crises. Even in Maryland, which advocates say is ahead of other states, tight budgets have led to fewer beds in mental health institutions and not enough community programs.

Last month's massacre at a Connecticut elementary school has elevated a long-simmering debate over how to provide care for the mentally ill, as treatment continues to shift from a system of government-run institutions to one that aims to keep people in their communities. Though some who knew the alleged shooter, Adam Lanza, have speculated that he was mentally ill, authorities have not confirmed any diagnosis.

The General Assembly, which opens its 2012 session this week, is also set to consider such issues.

"If you want to have a real talk about multiple killings, we have to address how we make sure these people get the services they need," said Del. Michael Smigiel, an Eastern Shore Republican.

Advocates warn not to generalize about mentally ill people, pointing out that it's uncommon for them to be involved in violent incidents. But there is evidence that those with severe mental disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder may be slightly more prone to violent acts than the rest of the population.

Violence is one of many problems that become less likely with better treatment, experts say. A recent state report on guns and mental illness said that 5 percent to 7 percent of people with severe problems will harm others in a given year, compared with 2 percent to 3 percent of the general population. Violence becomes more likely when combined with substance abuse, the report said. ...

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-01-07/health/bs-md-mental-health-services-20130107_1_mental-health-severe-mental-disorders-mentally-ill-people

msn10 · Jan 9, 2013

I don't believe we need 'assault' (for lack of a better word) weapons on the streets either, but I think anyone who is not mentally ill or not a felon deserves the right to carry a gun or have one at home for protection. Also, as a fellow cheesehead to many on this thread, I also believe in hunting guns. As someone who had a home invasion incident in which it took the police 45 minutes to get to my home, may I say I believe in the right to protect myself.

However, there are just as many drunk driving deaths a year as gun deaths. No body seems to care about that. In my state we had an entire family killed when a mom decided to drink to oblivion in the middle of the afternoon and fly across their lawn while they were standing in front of their own house.

The point I am trying to make is that no one is going to take away alcohol and no one is going to take away cars. But there has been a great deal of effort by MADD and others to reduce drunk driving through interventions. I am not always a fan of nursing organizations making political statements because they do not often speak for me, but I do think we can agree as nurses that mental illness should be treated with as much respect and research as cardiac care or cancer and we need to go back to the days where mentally ill people did not have to always agree to hospitalization (or commit a heinous act) before getting help. There has to be a better way.

InfirmiereJolie · Jan 9, 2013

Msn10, how does being a cheesehead and liking the Packers have anything to do with gun control? This is a hasty generalization and a logical fallacy. It's called trying to falsely bandwagon, another fallacy. As far as I know, you have more people who voted for the president in your state than anything else. He won ALL of the 8 battlegrounds, including yours!

There is a difference between alcohol and car ACCIDENTS, all red herrings. Notice this: ACCIDENT = NOT on purpose. Further, I'd like to see someone throw a drink at someone to "kill" them (splashing them). HA! I'd like to tell you also that there are many countries which have higher alcohol intakes than the USA but have lower total homicide and gun-death rates (e.g., the EU and Australia). They are lower in those multiple times over. We are actually low on the list with intake. There is absolutely no connection to homicide rates and gun-related deaths (both homicide and suicide) as it is mostly used/made for "fun," not to attack, kill, or injure another person with, which is contrary to GUNS. Guns are HIGHLY correlated with higher homicide and suicide rates, as shown in our states and internationally (we are after all 99.9% the same DNA... e.g., California, New York, ect. have the strictest laws, and lowest gun-deaths per 100,000 people while Nevada, Arizona, Tennessee, ect have the WORST laws and LEAST gun laws, and have the highest gun-death-rates per 100,000 as the highest in the nation)

as well as gun-related deaths, as they (guns) are meant and built to kill (unlike the red herrings).

There is no getting around this, the DIRECT CAUSE OF HOMICIDES AND SUICIDES = HIGH GUN OWNERSHIP AND TERRIBLE LAWS.

People can sit there and claim "oh it's this" or "oh it's that" until the 33rd century, but the truth is in the mathematics and scientific correlation. The statistics are clear over and over again: IT IS THE GUNS. Not mental "illness," not alcohol, not cars, not the internet, not cell phones, not parents, not TV, not video games, not ANYTHING ELSE DIRECTLY.

We could sit here and theoretically pretend to remove all those "things" (whether you agree with their legitimacy or not) and... guess what?

THE HOMICIDE and GUN-DEATH RATE WOULD REMAIN THE SAME.

There would still be massive shootings.

There would still be unbelievably high total murder rates.

There would still be high gun-related suicides and homicides.

We would still be #10 in the world for the highest gun-related deaths.

There is no correlation to the others... as it is POST HOC! I could bring up the statistics over and over again, but until people stop and look at the truth, accepting it as nothing but the truth, and not in utter denial by relying on nothing but a "belief" system and not on facts, having a blind relationship with a weapon built to kill and destroy, then something good will happen.

Until then, and if nothing happens, another 2 million people are going to die in the next 79 years as the past 79 years since 1933 due to gun deaths (30,000 a year X 79).

The truth is in the FACTS. Until people see mathematics and science a legitimate reliable source, then their will continue to be atrocitous against humanity. Next time though, it could be someone you know, so count your luck because you never know what is going to happen tomorrow.

To the future, not the bloody past.

Dearth of mental health treatment options leads to emergencies
Emergency rooms, jails see patients that advocates say would have been better off if they got help sooner
January 07, 2013
Mental health and law enforcement professionals say patients commonly wind up in emergency rooms and jails that are poorly equipped to handle their disorders, when earlier treatment might have prevented such crises. Even in Maryland, which advocates say is ahead of other states, tight budgets have led to fewer beds in mental health institutions and not enough community programs.
Last month's massacre at a Connecticut elementary school has elevated a long-simmering debate over how to provide care for the mentally ill, as treatment continues to shift from a system of government-run institutions to one that aims to keep people in their communities. Though some who knew the alleged shooter, Adam Lanza, have speculated that he was mentally ill, authorities have not confirmed any diagnosis.
The General Assembly, which opens its 2012 session this week, is also set to consider such issues.
"If you want to have a real talk about multiple killings, we have to address how we make sure these people get the services they need," said Del. Michael Smigiel, an Eastern Shore Republican.
Advocates warn not to generalize about mentally ill people, pointing out that it's uncommon for them to be involved in violent incidents. But there is evidence that those with severe mental disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder may be slightly more prone to violent acts than the rest of the population.
Violence is one of many problems that become less likely with better treatment, experts say. A recent state report on guns and mental illness said that 5 percent to 7 percent of people with severe problems will harm others in a given year, compared with 2 percent to 3 percent of the general population. Violence becomes more likely when combined with substance abuse, the report said. ...
Dearth of Maryland mental health treatment options means more emergency rooms, jails - Baltimore Sun

I don't believe we need 'assault' (for lack of a better word) weapons on the streets either, but I think anyone who is not mentally ill or not a felon deserves the right to carry a gun or have one at home for protection. Also, as a fellow cheesehead to many on this thread, I also believe in hunting guns. As someone who had a home invasion incident in which it took the police 45 minutes to get to my home, may I say I believe in the right to protect myself.
However, there are just as many drunk driving deaths a year as gun deaths. No body seems to care about that. In my state we had an entire family killed when a mom decided to drink to oblivion in the middle of the afternoon and fly across their lawn while they were standing in front of their own house.
The point I am trying to make is that no one is going to take away alcohol and no one is going to take away cars. But there has been a great deal of effort by MADD and others to reduce drunk driving through interventions. I am not always a fan of nursing organizations making political statements because they do not often speak for me, but I do think we can agree as nurses that mental illness should be treated with as much respect and research as cardiac care or cancer and we need to go back to the days where mentally ill people did not have to always agree to hospitalization (or commit a heinous act) before getting help. There has to be a better way.

msn10 · Jan 9, 2013

Msn10, how does being a cheesehead and liking the Packers have anything to do with gun control? This is a hasty generalization and a logical fallacy. It's called trying to falsely bandwagon, another fallacy. As far as I know, you have more people who voted for the president in your state than anything else. He won ALL of the 8 battlegrounds, including yours!

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.

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.

"Further, I'd like to see someone throw a drink at someone to "kill" them (splashing them)."

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 statistics are clear over and over again: IT IS THE GUNS. Not mental "illness," not alcohol, not cars, not the internet, not cell phones, not parents, not TV, not video games, not ANYTHING ELSE DIRECTLY.

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?

California, New York, ect. have the strictest laws, and lowest gun-deaths per 100,000 people while Nevada, Arizona, Tennessee, ect have the WORST laws and LEAST gun laws, and have the highest gun-death-rates per 100,000

This site says otherwise:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

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.

msn10 · Jan 9, 2013

*** LOL! OK come on and be serious now. You can only cary this so far before you start to lose credabiliety. Calling the most popular small game game hunting and target shooting .22 rifle, not even equiped with a telescopic sight a "sniper" rifle is getting pretty out there.

I agree PMFB-RN, if the Russians were using a .22 as an assault rifle it is because they are broke and couldn't afford anything else, kind of like their aviation system.

BlueDevil,DNP, DNP, RN · Jan 9, 2013

We are atheists, but descend from a strong Quaker tradition and have maintained many of those pacifist values. We are very anti-gun in our home. We have never permitted our children to have gun toys (no nerf dart guns, no air soft guns, no water guns, no bb guns,) or any other violent toys (swords, bows and arrows, etc). Now that I think about it, no member of my family has ever owned of fired a gun or owned a weapon of any kind outside of an ordinary kitchen knife, lol.

They have never been permitted to play games that glorify any sort of violence (no football, rugby, hockey, video games with violent subtext, no imaginary games with violent subtexts, no dodge ball). Above all, my children were never allowed to watch television until well into teen years, and then it was heavily censored (and I would bet the ranch the choices we permitted would shock you). The choice to avoid popular media, more than anything, saved them from mediocrity, and saved them from being exposed to the basest parts of humanity. You don't have to raise your kids in a bubble to protect them, we have raised our in large metropolitan areas for the most part.

We have raised seven of our own children and 3 foster children. Not one of them has ever had a violent altercation of any kind. None of them has ever been in any kind of school yard fight, in any kind of bullying situation (on either side of the coin). Two of our children have entered the Peace Corp., and one seems to intend to make mission work a lifetime commitment.

"Gun control" and a peaceful way of living starts at home, no matter where you call home. It starts by living a life that does not permit violent culture to permeate the sanctity of the home. As much as I dearly wish there were no guns in the hands of civilians in this country, that will not come to fruition and we cannot all be lucky enough to live in Sweden.

The guns, the killings and the rationalizations of same will never go away. All we can do is focus on service instead of self. We believe that we don't need guns or weapons because we have a commitment to the public good; we know we are better armed with useful knowledge, skills, understanding and commitment. That is our moral code. It saddens me that others feel they need weapons to protect themselves and their material things.

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