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

Home Health Columnist / 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.

Fixed the poll...

PMFB-RN, RN · 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....

*** My last long visit and when I purchased the silenced Ruger 10/22 was 2010. I am familare with their gun laws there, however as I mention guns remain widely available. In the area of central Queensland that I regularly visit everybody has and uses guns. Totaly normal to see them (rifles and shotguns) riding around in their Toyota Land Cruizers.

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.

*** So what? When I visit Australia I refrain from telling them how they should run their country.

On Swizerland, as I said before, each male (females are not allowed to be part of this "militia" you speak of)

*** I mentioned no milita in relation to Switzerland.

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),

*** WHile the issue of a draft is off topic unlike you I will not dodge the questions asked of me. I would like to see a draft so that our young people DO NOT HAVE TO GO TO WAR. I didn't notice any drafted Swiss soldiers invading Iraq.

However Swizerland's draft does nothing change the fact that most house holds have (real) assault weapons and gun ownership is highest in the world and directly refutes your argument that Euromean countries have stricy gun control laws.

Now how about you address the questions you have been asked? Kudos to you for once refraining from name calling.

PMFB-RN, RN · Dec 24, 2012

Fixed the poll...

*** But not the bias I see. Do you honestly not see the bias contained in this question?

" I support a ban on assault weapons and enacting other meaningful gun control reforms to protect society."

Sadala, ADN, RN · 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.

I'm well educated in logic and in the use of language devices. I have formal education in both. I also note that you do not answer any of the questions directly posted to you via the use of your own diversion. I see a good deal of projection on your part.

I will no longer debate with you on this topic if you cannot address the actual points people are making - directly - as they have been addressing yours.

If you do not agree with a POINT that I make, then debate it directly using your own sources. It would be nice if you would answer the questions posed to you. The first question is quite simple. What is the precise nature of the guns you wish to ban?

Sadala, ADN, RN · Dec 24, 2012

*** But not the bias I see. Do you honestly not see the bias contained in this question?
" I support a ban on assault weapons and enacting other meaningful gun control reforms to protect society."

Really the poll is quite biased. The questions should be as follows, do you support the ban on xyz weapons (assault weapons is a misnomer and a non-term by the way. There is NO standard definition for it. Assault rifles are already illegal in the US -therefore a definition of the type(s) of gun(s) you wish to ban would be helpful.) I believe I said this before but there are many people who do not have much knowledge of guns. (And that's fine, but one should acquire such knowledge prior to attempting legislation.)

When you add verbiage at the end about protection for society, it becomes biased. You need to ask if people support xyz or not. Period. Because people don't support xyz does not mean that they do not wish the protection of society. It merely means that they don't think xyz would provide the protection you seek (or that they think it infringes their freedom, whatever. Case by case basis there).

workingharder · Dec 24, 2012

I was at work all weekend so I'm getting into this a bit late. I'll address the three bullet points in the OP.

1) "Restore access to mental health services for individuals and families"

This is assuming that increased access will help thwart these events. In the case of Newtown, the murderer was from a wealthy family, what most people would characterize as " one percenters". They had full access to any mental health care they desired. The Columbine murderers were from solid middle class families who would also have had access to care. The murderer in Aurora was under the care (if I recall correctly) of a Psychiatrist.

If increasing funding/availability will deter further incidents than I am all for it. But, as is true with most other medical treatments, the afflicted person has to want and accept treatment. Most of the perpetrators of these crimes do not in fact believe they have a problem or are willing to seek and follow treatment ( I have no hard evidence of this, it's just a personal opinion). It also comes with the question of, "Where will the money come from?" The U.S., as well as most States, is broke. Any funding will have to come from an increase in taxes ( which I could live with) or diverting funds from other areas. Anytime funds are diverted/reduced from an area it costs jobs, and does anyone want to cut jobs in this economy?

Do we target individuals who we suspect may commit these atrocities? I can't ever recall anyone, after the fact, saying they suspected the perpetrator would end up committing the crime they did.

2)"Increase students' access to nurses and mental health professionals from the elementary school level through college"

Again, they have to have the desire for treatment. If those who know them best (parents, relatives, friends, teachers) can't recognize potentially dangerous behavior traits than how will a school nurse detect a potential problem? I'm sure those with more mental health education/experience can educate me on means to this end, but off hand I'm not familiar with any testing available.

3)"Ban assault weapons and enact other meaningful gun control reforms to protect society"

The hard definition of an assault weapon is one which can be fired in full automatic mode. As others have pointed out, "assault" weapons are pretty much illegal in this country. For a private citizen to own one requires a mountain of paperwork, extensive background checks, a pile of money, and in some jurisdictions the OK of local law enforcement agencies who may conduct interviews with the purchaser as well as acquaintances.

There are something on the order of 200 to 300 million guns in private ownership in this country, any one of which can be used to kill another human being. Personally, I have no problem with the banning of the sale of high capacity magazines and under the Commerce Clause I believe Congress has the right to do so. I also believe it would amount to little more than a "feel good" move.

Finally, the pole really does need to be restructured to obtain a true sampling of opinion.

itsnowornever, BSN, RN · Dec 24, 2012

I agree with the first two, but one simple statement to the last: drugs are illegal and have been for a while, yet we haven't seen that problem go away, banning guns will work how?

IndiCRNA · Dec 25, 2012

Really the poll is quite biased. The questions should be as follows, do you support the ban on xyz weapons (assault weapons is a misnomer and a non-term by the way. There is NO standard definition for it. Assault rifles are already illegal in the US -therefore a definition of the type(s) of gun(s) you wish to ban would be helpful.) I believe I said this before but there are many people who do not have much knowledge of guns. (And that's fine, but one should acquire such knowledge prior to attempting legislation.)
When you add verbiage at the end about protection for society, it becomes biased. You need to ask if people support xyz or not. Period. Because people don't support xyz does not mean that they do not wish the protection of society. It merely means that they don't think xyz would provide the protection you seek (or that they think it infringes their freedom, whatever. Case by case basis there).

Ya no way am I going to take part in this biased poll.

kcmylorn · Dec 25, 2012

[COLOR=#0066cc]http://mentalillnesspolicy.org/states/lauraslawindex.html

Involuntary Outpatient Commitment AOT Research[h=2]Research on Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT (Involuntary Outpatient Commitment)[/h]SUMMARY: Forty-four states permit the use of assisted outpatient treatment, also called outpatient commitment. However, having a law on the books does not mean the state uses the law. Many states do not. The six states that do not have AOT are Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Nevada, and Tennessee. Assisted outpatient treatment is a form of treatment limited to those individuals who have a history of dangerousness or multiple rehospitalizations associated with medication noncompliance. Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) is a court-order to accept treatment as a condition of remaining in the community. The court may order an individual to accept medication, and that is usually enough to ensure compliance

.New York and Kendra's Law (Assisted Outpatient Treatment/AOT) Home Page

Legislative history

AOT was proposed in 1989, by families of people with serious mental illness who wanted better treatment for their relatives. In 1994, NYS started a pilot program at Bellevue Hospital in NYC. In August 1999, when Kendra Webdale was pushed to her death in front of a subway by someone with untreated mental illness, the public recognized that AOT not only improved care for people with mental illness, it could also increase public safety. As a result, NYS enacted "Kendra's Law. The law was renewed in 2005 and 2010. It sunsets in 2015 unless renewed or made permanent. Cracks in Kendra's Law have been identified that need closing

Laura's Law and California

Why should we have Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws?

For those who suffer from an untreated severe mental illness like schizophrenia, time is brain. With each psychotic episode they lose the brain cells they will need to recover with. A malfunction in the frontal lobe (anosognosia) prevents somes from recognizing they are ill and that causes them to refuse treatment that can restore them to sanity. Hallucinations and delusions take over, too frequently causing deterioriation to the point of violence. Treatment can prevent the deterioration.

kcmylorn · Dec 25, 2012

[h=6]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/science/scientists-to-seek-clues-to-violence-in-genome-of-gunman-in-newtown-conn.html?ref=us&_r=0

News Analysis[/h][h=1]Seeking Answers in Genome of Gunman[/h]

Genomic analysis will be used to study the DNA of the man responsible for killing 20 children and seven adults in Newtown, Conn, in an effort to discover if there are biological clues to extreme violence.

[h=6]By GINA KOLATA[/h][h=6]Published: December 24, 2012[/h]

InfirmiereJolie · Dec 25, 2012

The FOCUS on mental illness is not only a red herring for the NRA, it can also be DISTURBING, as there have always been people who have EMOTIONS (up and down), who do not FIT THE "MOLD" and until the mid 20th century, there were still TORTUOUS mental asylums where they were essentially LOCKED UP and SEPERATED from normal society.

It was BARBARIAN.

Parts of their brains could have been CHOPPED OUT by lobotomies, making them UNABLE to properly function and essentially CHANGE THEIR PERSONALITIES.

There were wet sheet tests where they would be FORCED to be cold and wet. It was about shoving down pills so they COULDN'T THINK and would be SUBDUED to "fit the mold."

I've seen some post here that "before people were let out of these mental institutions society was better." This is DISTURBING. We cannot go back to this BARBARIANISM simply because of the NRA and its cold, callous methods of propaganda and lack of societal responsibility - preventing all PROGRESS or CHANGE for the better - which at the heart of these issue of these shootings is gun reform, not trying to control every single person because one person deems them "unfit" or "not normal."

Separation is not equal.

We cannot MAKE people unable to think.

We cannot FORCE people to have ONLY ONE TYPE OF PERSONALITY.

We cannot lock people up against their wills as the past.

Why are we not treating the human BODY, which can be felt and seen, why do we want to "regulate" unclear, easily misconstrued, feelings and thoughts of a person?

Some good opinions by Dr. Thomas Szasz, From Brown University's course Bl_278 http://www.brown.edu/Courses/BI_278/Other/Clerkship/Didactics/Readings/Crime_Against_Humanity.pdf

Not only can this be RESTRICTIVE for the PERSON'S FREEDOM and SELF-CONTROL of one's OWN body and mind, this masks the unquestionable problem of destructive killing machines which have the capability to injure entire crowds of people in seconds or minutes being used in our society.

THERE HAS BEEN HIGHER REGULATION of people's thoughts and feelings in the past (described as mental illness), e.g., with mental asylums, however, mass shootings and massacres continued to occur even with this stricter control.

It is unquestionable the cause of this problem are access to the weapons themselves, and not stricter control of one person's thoughts or feelings.

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.

InfirmiereJolie · Dec 25, 2012

I never said all guns should be banned. I said there should be better gun regulation, especially those with the capabilities to shoot entire crowds of people at once.

You ignored my evidence of Australia's gun laws...... which I thought was important... which show they are highly restrictive, FAR more restrictive than our own, yet LOWER MURDER RATES OVERALL and LOWER GUN CAUSED HOMICIDES.

The GAPING HOLE in your argument about Switzerland is that every man receives 260 days of military training. These people who own these guns are soldiers, not citizens.

LOOK AT THIS FACT, SWIZERLAND'S GUN LAWS ARE NOT SUCCESSFUL: "Four times more people die from suicide than from road accidents every year in Switzerland."

"Stop Suicide and similar organisations have been fighting for years for tighter firearms regulations, aware that international studies show a strong correlation between gun availability and suicide. 'The cantons with the highest suicide rates are Uri, Obwalden, Nidwalden and Schwyz, and they also have the highest gun possession rate,' says Anne-Marie Trabichet, a coordinator at Stop Suicide." Why Swiss gun love is coming under fire - The Local

Also, while Australia had zero mass shootings during the same time period, Switzerland had the Zug Massacre in 2001, killing 15 and injuring 18 others. Zug massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Domestic violence deaths are higher in Switzerland than other European countries with strict gun laws, "Per head of population, the rate is higher than in France" The death rate from domestic violence is rising steadily in Switzerland - swissinfo

As you can see, there are significant problems with this high gun ownership in Switzerland and low amount of gun regulations: two are high amounts of suicides (correlated with high amounts of gun ownership) and domestic violence.

*** My last long visit and when I purchased the silenced Ruger 10/22 was 2010. I am familare with their gun laws there, however as I mention guns remain widely available. In the area of central Queensland that I regularly visit everybody has and uses guns. Totaly normal to see them (rifles and shotguns) riding around in their Toyota Land Cruizers.
*** So what? When I visit Australia I refrain from telling them how they should run their country.
*** I mentioned no milita in relation to Switzerland.
*** WHile the issue of a draft is off topic unlike you I will not dodge the questions asked of me. I would like to see a draft so that our young people DO NOT HAVE TO GO TO WAR. I didn't notice any drafted Swiss soldiers invading Iraq.
However Swizerland's draft does nothing change the fact that most house holds have (real) assault weapons and gun ownership is highest in the world and directly refutes your argument that Euromean countries have stricy gun control laws.
Now how about you address the questions you have been asked? Kudos to you for once refraining from name calling.

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