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

PMFB-RN, RN · Dec 24, 2012

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."

IndiCRNA · Dec 24, 2012

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.

Home Health Columnist / Guide · Dec 24, 2012

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.

Sadala, ADN, RN · Dec 24, 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.

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.

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.

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.

IndiCRNA · Dec 24, 2012

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.

Riseupandnurse · Dec 24, 2012

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.

allnurses Guide · Dec 24, 2012

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 support increased student access elementary thru college to nurses and mental health professionals.

InfirmiereJolie · Dec 24, 2012

Maybe you went to Australia more than 20 years ago, as since 1996 they have had some of the strongest laws in the world.... There was a student in my government class in college who was from Australia and he was was strongly for us enacting bans as they had in Australia in response to these US shootings.

From AUSTRALIAN SITES THEMSELVES:

Scientific Australian study, "Australia's 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings." by S Chapman, P Alpers, K Agho, M Jones, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/Other-Research/2006InjuryPrevent.pdf

"Results: In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm-related deaths before the law reformsaccelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p = 0.04), firearm suicides (p = 0.007) and firearm homicides (p = 0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution effect for suicides or homicides was observed. The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws. Conclusions: Australia's 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."

Here is an unbiased review of their restrictions from Australia's OWN government website: Australian Institute of Criminology - Legislative reforms

"The Australian, state and territory governments, through the then APMC and COAG, entered into three national agreements that became responsible for the shaping of contemporary Australian firearm laws. These agreements were the:

National Firearms Agreement (1996);
National Firearm Trafficking Policy Agreement (2002); and
National Handgun Control Agreement (2002).

Also shaping Australia's firearm laws is its commitment to international controls. Australia is a signatory to, although has yet to ratify, the United Nations Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing and Trafficking of Firearms, Their Parts and Components and Ammunition 2001 (herein referred to as the UN Protocol; UNGA 2001), and is thus committed to find measures to handicap the illegal trade in firearms and their diversion into the illicit market. "

"...Unauthorised possession of firearms in 'traffickable' quantities Four jurisdictions--New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory--have created offences or introduced more substantial penalties for the unauthorised possession of multiple numbers of firearms. In New South Wales, the prescribed quantity is three or more firearms; in Victoria, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory it is 10 firearms..."

It is long, but has good detail on their laws, which are certainly restrictive.

According to former Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, writing for the Sydney Morning Herald "The murder rate in the US is roughly four times that in each of Australia, New Zealand, and Britain." Gun Control Australia - Supporting Gun Control in Australia

This is a great website about their laws. Apparently, the gun used in the Colorado shootings was the same gun banned nearly 20 years ago in Australia. These bans are called the Port Arthur Laws (1996).

There are also articles showing bipartisan Australian leadership suggesting to the United States to enact more restrictions, especially after the Connecticut shooting.

"Former deputy prime minister Tim Fischer said a person was 15 times more likely to be shot dead in the USA than in Australia." Australian politicians agree on gun laws | SBS World News

On Swizerland, as I said before, each male (females are not allowed to be part of this "militia" you speak of) is FORCED to be trained to be a part of their military to go to war. There IS NO CHOICE. If you want all males to be DRAFTED and FORCED to go to war (not a voluntary military as we have), and have more gender and social INEQUALITY (Swiss are 25th and we are 22nd out of 115 studied countries) this extremism would fit... I doubt most Americans want this and would NOT allow this to happen.

*** 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?
*** 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.
*** 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.
*** 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.

InfirmiereJolie · Dec 24, 2012

The focus on these other objects is the use of a red herring fallacy: Red herring is an English-language idiom that commonly refers to a type of logical fallacy in which a clue is intentionally or unintentionally misleading or distracting from the actual issue.

The change in topic is meant to reflect the original argument but is really meant to change the topic. It is a deflection to avoid actually talking about the original premise.

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.
I think it's a very apt comparison. And I think that it illustrated my point rather well.
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.

kcmylorn · Dec 24, 2012

I'm finding this ban gun posts alittle long winded and pretty boring, along with the nit picking of every sentance made by posters with the opposing view.

All the banning in the world is not going to stop someone who is mentally distubed from getting a gun and killing people.

I think we can all agree that DUI is against the law and has been banned. We had a group formed and they lobbied hard-MADD- and won. However, do we not still have people who continue to drink and drive and kill people- including innocent children??

What about using a cell phone and texting while driving- there are laws, atleast in quite a few states- it is illegal to drive while on a cell phone and texting, yet it is still done.

In both these cases- in contrast, the offenders are not mentally ill and know right well what they are doing, yet they continue to do it.- I know personally- I was rear ended by some one who was texting- $3,000 damage to back of my car!! That person that ran into me was not mentally ill, and having a law banning it did not prevent him from texting and running into me.

So nit picking everyones arguments with what is going on in Switzerland, is getting alittle old!

The fact remains- there is still a behavior that causes these deadly insidents, public health emergencies, and until we stop the behavior, you can have all the laws and bans you want, which I think will just cause more illegal behaviors. and yes, just like drug trafficking, no it doesn't belong on another form, and whoppie , now we can have gun smuggling to worry about and foot a bill for.

Put the money into fixing the shame of a mental health programs we have in this country. Clean up this sick society.

I personally will take this one step further- so flame me if you want, I don't really care, but I have to state that I think that kid's mother had a drinking problem- neighbors, friends, fellow barmates, state she went to this " restaurant and bar" 3 times a week to"unwind", the owners of which have been interviewed several times; in addition to every picture that is published of her, has her holding a glass in her hand. I kind of think that is inappropriate and poor judgement if you have a kid at home alone your concerned about. And the lasted report , she had just returned home 3 days prior form a "holiday" at some spa and resort in upstate NH, leaving the kid alone at home while she was gone. So she drinks regularly, has a mentally unstable fragile kid at home( never mind his chronical age- that doesn't even count, he wasn't 20 years old in the mind), neither of them have coped well with this sepration and divorce inspite of alot of money, keeps guns in the house, lets the kid deteriorate down in the basement with violent video games, allows the kid to behave which ever way he pleases- kid is sick and makes mom sit out side the bedroom door all night, and where's the mention of ongoing psychiatic care?? And there are posters on this thread that think banning guns are going to solve this kind of problem???

TopazLover, BSN, RN · Dec 24, 2012

kcmylorn touched on the fact that we have a public health crisis. Mr. LaPierre said you can call him crazy. This is an example of how bad the situation is. We talk about mental illness in a pejorative way, making light of a group of illnesses.

We need to look at this from a public health stand point. The examples of DUI and inappropriate cell phone use are indicative of how poorly a punitive approach works. We now are filling our jails with more alcoholics rather than the cheaper, more likely to be effective treatment, of real treatment for an illness. If we only treat the symptom of mass shooting, as we do now, we will continue to have the same outcome as other punitive efforts for illness. And more people will die at the hands of these people who need help.

Somehow people seem to have been identified as either pro-gun or pro-mental health approach. Many of us find ourselves wanting to have the freedom to have guns and seeing a mental health crisis that needs to be addressed. I happen to find myself in that camp. I believe many are there and find the rhetoric from both extremes tiresome because it breaks down discussion rather than seeks answers.

I am hopeful the VP Biden will gather people from all beliefs to give guidance. In some ways this is a bigger issue the the health care issues that resulted in ACA. It took somewhere around 60 years to get better access to health care given. In that time many died from under diagnosed diseases, poor or no treatment, and we watched the lobbyists get stronger. In the issues of guns I expect we will see that we have similar problems. Mental health issues that have not been recognized, diagnosed, given poor or no treatment, and lobbyists who have fed the Congress well in order to have their way - sell more guns.

I expect no easy fix. Arming everyone in everyplace only allows easier access to those who suffer mental illness to get into areas where mass killings can still happen: darkened theaters, crowded shopping malls, churches in prayer. Where ever you have a crowd you can have a mass murderer. To place guns in the hands of everyone at the event means more innocent victims. Ask a cop how many shots he could fire in a crowded theater with a gun totting killer spraying the audience. He could no more "take out" the shooter than any other armed person safely. In our area one of my GS's friends was killed by a stray bullet fired at a soccer match. If everyone there had pulled a gun the police would have had more difficulties that multiple deaths from a couple of shooters who wanted to silence a witness to a crime. This is real crazy thinking - Kill one person who may be a witness in another crime by multiple killings in a crowded area where you cannot shoot all the witnesses and many know you. My GS's friend was just an innocent bystander who happened to be playing soccer that day.

TopazLover, BSN, RN · Dec 24, 2012

The NRA Thinks More Guns Are The Answer. Bless Their Hearts. Then Watch This.

http://www.upworthy.com/the-nra-thinks-more-guns-are-the-answer-bless-their-hearts-then-watch-this?c=bl3

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