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

PMFB-RN, RN · Dec 23, 2012

Although you are not afraid of these objects capable of being used to kill, others are

*** 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.

,

as I already stated. Further, you are speaking of continuously advancing technology of the military. Your argument supporting to "never attempt to create improvement or ban any assault weapons ever, because the military will always have stronger weapons,"

*** 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.

i

s a futile and pointless attempt to halt all progress, creating a climatic affect of conflict. If we following this argument, we would continuously allow stronger weapons onto the streets, no matter the cost of life or its potential danger, simply due to the fact the military will always have stronger weapons. This is not only dangerous, this is never-ending, as your position is inflexible.

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

Using the internet and other forms of media are not only irrelevant, they are straw arguments. You are using straw men to deflect the subject of the discussion.

*** 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.

Further, "the militia" segment can be interpreted in various ways. However, seeing this segment in context to the time period, the 1700's. There was a rising up against the government to create a new one. They created militias to do this, i.e., what we would consider to be soldiers, i.e., part of the military. "Militia" does, yes, mean military. Centuries later with more governmental protection, branches of power, a supreme court system, more amendments to protect us (e.g., from the states as well), support from other countries by the UN "Universal Human Rights Agreement," there is LITTLE use to arm the public with semi-automatic assault weapons as if part of a modern militia, especially since these weapons will be used, 99.9% of the time, not against the government, but against other PEOPLE doing little to no harm to the person wielding them. Not only this, they are FAR more dangerous today than they were then.

*** 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.

I think it is interesting that you point to Norway. Norway, however, has other correlating effects causing this narrow event, as there are other countries which have bans, but far less violence, even great success. One does not necessarily cause the other, post hoc. E.g., Norway has weak punishments for crime. The person who perpetuated this event in Norway ONLY received 22 years in prison - Norway's maximum sentence for ANY crime. This by itself would be a significant cause of the problem, as this person and others would not feel they would be punished for their crimes, no matter their negative effects. Since laws differ for punishment by each country with these bans, yet many of these countries have SUCCESS, this likely to be one, if the most, important of the main issues.

*** 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?

I'm not attacking you personally, I am attacking your argument, which I found to not be thoughtful to others views and fears of semi-automatic weapons capable of shooting entire crowds of people in seconds, minutes (as if minutes are any better)

*** 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.

IndianaHH · Dec 23, 2012

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.

IndiCRNA · Dec 23, 2012

You are chopping up my arguments and not responding to my post in full... nevertheless, I will not chop up yours and I will respond to it with a fluid, complete thought.
Although you are not afraid of these objects capable of being used to kill, others are, as I already stated. Further, you are speaking of continuously advancing technology of the military. Your argument supporting to "never attempt to create improvement or ban any assault weapons ever, because the military will always have stronger weapons," is a futile and pointless attempt to halt all progress, creating a climatic affect of conflict. If we following this argument, we would continuously allow stronger weapons onto the streets, no matter the cost of life or its potential danger, simply due to the fact the military will always have stronger weapons. This is not only dangerous, this is never-ending, as your position is inflexible.
Using the internet and other forms of media are not only irrelevant, they are straw arguments. You are using straw men to deflect the subject of the discussion.
Further, "the militia" segment can be interpreted in various ways. However, seeing this segment in context to the time period, the 1700's. There was a rising up against the government to create a new one. They created militias to do this, i.e., what we would consider to be soldiers, i.e., part of the military. "Militia" does, yes, mean military. Centuries later with more governmental protection, branches of power, a supreme court system, more amendments to protect us (e.g., from the states as well), support from other countries by the UN "Universal Human Rights Agreement," there is LITTLE use to arm the public with semi-automatic assault weapons as if part of a modern militia, especially since these weapons will be used, 99.9% of the time, not against the government, but against other PEOPLE doing little to no harm to the person wielding them. Not only this, they are FAR more dangerous today than they were then.
I think it is interesting that you point to Norway. Norway, however, has other correlating effects causing this narrow event, as there are other countries which have bans, but far less violence, even great success. One does not necessarily cause the other, post hoc. E.g., Norway has weak punishments for crime. The person who perpetuated this event in Norway ONLY received 22 years in prison - Norway's maximum sentence for ANY crime. This by itself would be a significant cause of the problem, as this person and others would not feel they would be punished for their crimes, no matter their negative effects. Since laws differ for punishment by each country with these bans, yet many of these countries have SUCCESS, this likely to be one, if the most, important of the main issues.
The so-called "ban" you point to in Connecticut did NOT ban the sale of the semi-automatic assault weapon bought legally and used in the crime. This person also bought the ammunition LEGALLY. This "ban" you speak of is a mild, watered down version and not TRULY the semi-automatic assault weapon ban needed to stop many of these events, nor is it strong enough. Essentially, you are attacking this "ban" and trying to use this as a failed example to support your argument for full use of semi-automatic assault weapons, no matter how dangerous they are, when this event ACTUALLY would portray an event OF NOT ENOUGH regulation, since EVEN WITHOUT the ban (as you are arguing for) this event would have STILL occurred.
I'm not attacking you personally, I am attacking your argument, which I found to not be thoughtful to others views and fears of semi-automatic weapons capable of shooting entire crowds of people in seconds, minutes (as if minutes are any better).

Why do you insist of attributing arguments to PMFB that he didn't make? Stop putting words into others mouth and stick to your point. To me it is very revealing that you can only name call and argue aginst points NOT EVEN MADE.

Why don't you address some of the questions you have been asked?

HM-8404, BSN, RN · Dec 23, 2012

The First Amendment is NOT about technology which can be used to kill and injure an entire crowd of people. Therefore, it is unrelated to the discussion.
Wow. Delusional much? Technology such as the internet has been used to control or kill millions of people.
I knew you feared the government... Further, there is no use in needing to overthrow it with semi-automatic weaponry. This is, yes, illogical and based purely off your OWN fears (many others do NOT fear it, but feel it is PROTECTIONIST).
You know I fear the government? Please O Swami let us in on your secret since my only mention of the government was to say that the purpose of the Second Amendment was so citizens would not have to fear their government. If you don't believe that I suggest you stop posting on this thread and read the Second Amendment because you are starting to look silly.
I am not confusing the two. This entire time I have been discussing weapons which are semi-automatic, have numerous rounds, and have to capabilities to injure numerous people in seconds (and excessive... ultimately useless in recreational use).

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.

Sadala, ADN, RN · Dec 23, 2012

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.

Trauma Columnist · Dec 23, 2012

This is a very charge thread - lets keep it civil, no name calling, debate the topic, not the poster.

InfirmiereJolie · Dec 23, 2012

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.

*** 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.

InfirmiereJolie · Dec 23, 2012

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.

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.

InfirmiereJolie · Dec 23, 2012

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"

InfirmiereJolie · Dec 23, 2012

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.)"

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.

Home Health Columnist / Guide · Dec 24, 2012

Added a poll to this topic to gauge AN members sentiments.

PMFB-RN, RN · Dec 24, 2012

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.

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