Jump to content
InfirmiereJolie

InfirmiereJolie

Member
  • Joined:
  • Last Visited:
  • 104

    Content

  • 0

    Articles

  • 4,009

    Visitors

  • 0

    Followers

  • 0

    Points

InfirmiereJolie has 5 years experience.

InfirmiereJolie's Latest Activity

  1. InfirmiereJolie

    Is there a flu outbreak in your area?

    Not in CA yet, hopefully never! Not many people ever go out of the state (just stay within it for touristy), so that's good
  2. InfirmiereJolie

    Petition to help new grads get experience

    The nursing colleges in my area get 200 applicants each semester and only accept 40. Another has a 3 year waiting list. It's like this all around the country. You have to have a 4.0 to get in, great entry test scores, and even then you might not get in or wait 3 years. It's not as if they are pumping out as many graduates as are assumed. They are supplying as many graduates as they did in the past, but with cut throat competition to get in. I think there should be help for nursing grads in externship areas. At one nursing college it costs $1000. Before it was $500 and they raised it. Not everyone can afford to pay the increases in prices for externships/precepts.
  3. InfirmiereJolie

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

    All I can say is that the American Nursing Association supports it and a long list of authorities and studies
  4. InfirmiereJolie

    Today's Dr. Phil shocker: Nursing home abuse

    I *did* in-home care for a woman with Alzheimers. I've also *helped* people do in-home care for non-relatives. (The assumptions that I don't have first hand experience is WRONG, actually, without that experience I had little to no opinion on the subject) It is a better environment. They want to be home and socialize with people and friends who are not also sick. They want to see their family. For their mind and emotions, it is better for them to be home as they feel more independent as it is more like their every day life before they were sick. They feel more normal. Institutions are unnatural. They also have small, cramped living quarters (only a small room for their personal space). There's no telling what kind of public funding they get, either. Leaving the institution is unlikely, as they are kept in that building for the most part. It's like their own little world separate from the rest of the world. They rarely see anyone outside this environment. They should not be separate from the community, perhaps if they were around more healthy people, there would be more respect given to the elderly and sick in our country. It's not idealistic to say we are #38 in the world according to the World Health Organization and similarly as low (in the 30's) in terms life-span according to the OECD. We are one of the countries which spends the least on in-home healthcare, yet we are the #1 spenders in pharmaceuticals and other areas. Nevertheless, which do we want? Do we want more institutions, with the healthy separate from the sick, making them feel less independent, and disrespect for the elderly due to little knowledge of their conditions due to never seeing them? Or, do we want more in-home healthcare, which would cost more (publicly and privately), but would give a higher quality of living for the elderly? If everyone had medical devices in their homes and knew how to use them, don't you think it would increase the overall life-span? Why do we shove them aside and stick them in institutions, saying they are abnormal because they are old and sick? Why do the wealthy have the opportunity to prove 1 on 1 care for their loved ones, and the poor resort to institutions (which receive public funding)? There is no telling how a single person can care for 40 residents without there being a medical mistake. There are significant problems here, realistically speaking, and there needs to be a shift. For now, I hope the people who are reading this thread are nurses or future nurses who will question other nurses STAT if they see abuse and stop it. Also, more in-home healthcare (1 on 1), with knowledgeable professional medical caregivers (I never said by relatives, but for relatives to be in more contact, knowing what is going on), is (hopefully) going to be more prevalent in the future as it is the better choice for the person's welfare.
  5. InfirmiereJolie

    Win CASH! New Year Nursing Caption Contest - $100

    Time to do the Defillibrator New Year Macarena!
  6. InfirmiereJolie

    Today's Dr. Phil shocker: Nursing home abuse

    Considering that a person is caring for another human being's welfare, $18,000 is not very much money, especially when it is a family member. I would pay $1,000,000 if I had that money even if it made me 100% broke.... (Which is more important a person or money?) Most nurses make $60,000 median, which is not exactly near the federal poverty level, but definitely middle-income... I have seen in-home caregiving and it is a wonderful environment. They get to be at home, where they want to be, and it is 1 on 1 care. Many caregivers at home would agree with me. The family can also be actively involved, knowing exactly what kind of care is given as they are the employers. I've seen medical equipment being used by knowledgable cargivers. Some people who work in-home care are retired RNs... Public funding should be going to in-home care and shifted away from institutions. The way we treat our elderly is dreadful. There can be socialization at home too, as they can be taken out into public or have friends visit. They should not be separated from well people simply due to them being sick. They should be in the communities with the rest of us, and not end their lives in a foreign place. Quality of life can be improved
  7. InfirmiereJolie

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

    If people think anyone who disagrees with the use of definitions, data, statistics, and scientific evidence is being "condescending" then I don't know how anyone could possibly have a logically-based debate. How do those scientists, physicians, researchers, mathematicians, statisticians, and academia possibly converse with each other to make vital decisions if without the use of evidence to back those positions? If you won't listen to me, then listen to Harvard. "Mass shootings are not a trend unique to the summer of 2012. According to Craig R. Whitney, writing in the New York Times, 30,000 Americans die each year from gun violence, and an additional 200,000 are injured by weapons. ...The ready availability of an AR-15—the civilian equivalent of the standard military assault rifle and the weapon used in the Aurora shootings—goes beyond our Founders’ intent. Claiming weapons like these are needed for hunting is intellectually dishonest, and claiming that they are needed for protection is even less believable. What we need is not a complete ban on weaponry but a discussion on the merits of gun control in a country where nobody will talk about it. Pro-gun rights activists argue that increased carrying of weapons would have stopped killings like Aurora. They suppose that people in the theater could have shot the attacker before so many were killed. However, in a dark space with minimal visibility, who is to say a second attacker would not have caused more carnage? How many more would have been caught in the crossfire? How would people distinguish between a man trying to save them and an accomplice of the killer? The idea that Americans should carry their weapons everywhere for protection—even to watch a midnight premiere of a movie—instead of discussing the merits of gun control is irrational. The Associated Press reported that the weapons used in the Aurora shootings, the aforementioned assault rifle, a shotgun, a bulletproof vest, and 6,000 rounds of ammunition, required no licenses on the part of the buyer. Only the weapons required a background check, one that does not even require a waiting period for the purchase. But the argument that pistols don’t offer enough stopping power for protection, and that those without licenses should be able to purchase assault rifles, goes beyond discussing self-protection and creates issues of civilian safety. That gun manufacturers don’t always check for... criminal records is a public safety risk. Sensationalist media reporting on some killings is not enough. The same day as the Empire State Building Massacre, 19 citizens were killed in Chicago, many of them youths. The time is now to discuss gun violence in this country. It is a discussion with tremendous social implications; it is a discussion we cannot push off. To stay quiet here is, quite appropriately, silent but deadly." By David Freed, The Harvard Crimson, "A Silent Killing," September 18, 2012 A Silent Killing | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson If you won't listen to me, listen to Harvard School of Public Health. "Firearm Access is a Risk Factor for Suicide Every study that has examined the issue to date has found that within the U.S., access to firearms is associated with increased suicide risk. Case Control Studies How States Compare What Is it about Firearms? Is it Rurality? Twelve or more U.S. case control studies have compared individuals who died by suicide with those who did not and found those dying by suicide were more likely to live in homes with guns. For example, Brent and colleagues studied three groups of adolescents... Those who died by suicide were twice as likely to have a gun at home than either of the other two groups: [h=6]Adolescent Suicides [lethal] Attempters Non-attempters[/h][h=6]Firearm in home: 72% 37% 38%[/h]...(Brent 1999) compared 140 adolescent suicide decedents with 131 demographically similar community controls. Informants (usually a parent) for both groups were interviewed to learn about the adolescents’ life circumstances, mental health, and treatment status. Firearm access was a risk factor for suicide for both older (>15 years) and younger adolescents and for both males and females. More studies (See “Firearm Availability and Suicide Prevalance: Case Control Studies” for studies covering male and female adults, blacks and whites, youths, elders, and other groups.) How States Compare Ecologic studies that compare states with high gun ownership levels to those with low gun ownership levels find that in the U.S., where there are more guns, there are more suicides. The higher suicide rates result from higher firearm suicides; the non-firearm suicide rate is about equal across states. For example, one study (Miller 2007) used survey-based measures of state household firearm ownership (from the CDC’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System) while controlling for.... other factors associated with suicide. The study found that males and females and people of all age groups were at higher risk for suicide if they lived in a state with high firearm prevalence. This is perhaps most concrete when looking not at rates or regression results but at raw numbers. The authors compared the 40 million people who live in the states with the lowest firearm prevalence (HI, MA, RI, NH, CT, NY) to about the same number living in the states with the highest firearm prevalence (WY, SD, AK, WV, MT, AR, MS, IO, ND, AL, KY, WI, LA, TN, UT). Overall suicides were almost twice as high in the high-gun states, even though non-firearm suicides were about equal. Suicides in the 15 U.S. States with the Highest vs. the 6 U.S. States with the Lowest Average Household Gun Ownership (2000-2002) High-Gun States Low-Gun States Population 39 million 40 million Household Gun Ownership 47% 15% Firearm Suicide 9,749 2,606 Non-Firearm Suicide 5,060 5,446 Total Suicide 14,809 8,052 More ecologic studies (See “Firearm Availability and Suicide: Ecologic Studies”) State Data on suicide and firearm ownership rates What is it about Guns? Guns are more lethal than other suicide means. They’re quick. And they’re irreversible. About 85% of attempts with a firearm are fatal: that’s a much higher case fatality rate than for nearly every other method. Many of the most widely used suicide attempt methods have case fatality rates below 5%. (See Case Fatality Ratio by Method of Self-Harm.) Attempters who take pills or inhale car exhaust or use razors have some time to reconsider mid-attempt and summon help or be rescued. The method itself often fails, even in the absence of a rescue. Even many of those who use hanging can stop mid-attempt as about half of hanging suicides are partial-suspension (meaning the person can release the pressure if they change their mind) (Bennewith 2005).With a firearm, once the trigger is pulled, there’s no turning back. Case Fatality Ratio by Method of Self-Harm Methods of Fatal and Non-fatal Self-Harm" From Harvard School of Public Health "Powerful Ideas for a Better World" Harvard School of Public Health » Means Matter » Firearm Access is a Risk Factor for Suicide If you won't listen to me (about AR-15's), then listen to E.M.U School of Public Staff and Command, Sergeant Craig Bauldry, Canton Police Department, Canton, MI "..the AR-15 is most accepted. Suarez (1999) believed, “The simplest answer, financially, logistically, educationally, socially and even ballistically, is a version of the U. S. military service rifle” (P. 9) The current military service rifle is the AR-15/M-16, which was designed by Eugene Stoner for Armalite in the late 1950’s. Armalite sold the manufacturing rights to Colt and in 1962 the U.S. Army Rangers were the first to deploy the AR-15-M16 in Vietnam. The AR-15/M-16 was designed to be the new, modern military rifle. It was to replace the heavy and big 308 and 30-06 caliber rifles. It is made of light aircraft alloy reducing weight substantially. The magazine well and magazines are designed to be ergonomically correct for rapid reloading. Additionally, it was designed in .223 caliber to allow soldiers to carry more ammo with larger capacity magazines. The AR-15/M-16 proved to be a tremendous military advancement. The AR-15 is a production sporting model of the original M-16 rifle designed by Eugene Stoner. The current military model is basically the same, only it has a selector position for fully automatic or burst fire. The .223 caliber round will also defeat most body armor and will reduce the probability of an assailant to continue a hostile threat after being hit... Furthermore, officers may not find it necessary to deploy within 25 yards of a hostile situation, as they would have normally with a handgun or shotgun. Suarez (P. 3) The patrol rifle/carbine has increased accuracy over the handgun and shotgun at close and long range. The patrol rifle/carbine will be the most precise weapon available for first responders. With proper training patrol rifle/carbine officers should be able to engage targets from 100 yards in the prone position, 75 yards in the sitting position, 50 yards kneeling and from 25 yards and closer in the standing position. The patrol rifle/carbine will penetrate most soft body armor where the shotgun and handgun will not. Shotgun and handgun rounds are larger bullets and the momentums of these bullets are slower than a rifle round. Layered kevlar dissipates the larger rounds energy (size, mass, momentum). Felts (P. 2-4)... Handgun and shotguns using 00 buck are virtually ineffective beyond 25 yards. Furthermore, the semi-automatic patrol rifle/carbine will allow an immediate follow-up shot from any shooting position. Unfortunately an immediate follow-up with the shotgun is delayed due to the pump action being necessary. Moreover, the weapon retention “danger close” corner clearing method is much easier with the patrol rifle/carbine due its smaller size, weight and semi-automatic capabilities. (P. 6)" http://www.emich.edu/cerns/downloads/papers/PoliceStaff/Weapons%20,%20Technology,%20and%20Equipment/Patrol%20Rifle--Carbine.pdf (pg 33-34) Clearly, according to this Police Sergeant, the AR-15 is military-style and can shoot farther than handguns or shotguns (more than 25 yards), is more precise, can shoot more bullets in a shorter time (semi-automatic), faster bullets, and can penetrate body armor, wheras the others cannot. This is why it is the prime use in these mass shootings, which has to be stopped. Both Auroa and Newton used this type of gun. Australia banned these types as well as others for regular use (forbiddent to those who are not officers), and they haven't had a mass shooting since 1996. What you PMFB-RN, were arguing earlier is that there is not as large of a penetration of AR-15 bullets as pistols and shotguns, however, the main reason for this is the manufacturing of the bullets for these weapons. The bullets are fragile, hence, it cannot penetrate through brick and breaks off. It goes in 5 inches, not 12 inches like the others. A solution? Pass legislation requiring weaker bullets to be used, and the stronger bullets to be forbidden. The risks of ownership should be educated to the public, and a buy-back program put in place like Australia. If most of their laws were placed here, maybe we would see some improvement. (You did ask what you thought I could do to reduce them).
  8. InfirmiereJolie

    False accusations.

    We like to joke that it's not "right to work" but the "right to get fired." Anyhow, the only negative is the 30 minutes for EMT/ambulance to arrive. It seems heinous that it would take 30 minutes for them to come for two severely broken legs. The response time for an ambulance to arrive on calls should be within 6-8 minutes (better if it is even less - below 5 minutes). "The price of just a few seconds lost: People die" USATODAY.com I do 100% agree with the prioritization of the person with the broken legs (common sense, really!!! :)), but why is the EMT/ambulance in your city so slow (30 minutes to arrive)? Hopefully with this health reform, we can get this fixed. There obviously needs to be more funding for medical response care (especially in your area) and cut this time down with improvement.
  9. InfirmiereJolie

    Today's Dr. Phil shocker: Nursing home abuse

    The video of this is here: http://drphil.com/shows/show/1949/# This is disturbing. There are many injuries and cuts (one going across the entire arm and deep), and an unbelievable amount of bruises everywhere. Clearly this is abuse. If a person talks to the elderly, they will find these cases everywhere, unfortunately. These abuses are one reason why I will never put my elderly family members in a nursing home/LTC. I will have them stay at an independent home for as long as they can and hire personal caregivers. If it costs me $18,000 a year, so what? I feel sorry for the people who do not have the money to do this and have to send them to publicly funded nursing homes/LTCs. There are in-home services for the poor (IHHS), but this is not enough. Nursing homes/LTCs should be replaced entirely by in-home health care. Everyone should be at home with a caregiver 1 on 1, in a comfortable environment, and a calm and sunny place to live (I noticed in the video it was extremely dark, as if there were no windows in the place and dreary). Medical equipment should be more moveable and affordable, so everyone has their own system and equipment at home. For now, I will never let a family member go to an LTC and advise everyone to do the same and hire 1 on 1 caregivers if they can.
  10. InfirmiereJolie

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

    Everyone, all these chop ups of my post is called Shotgun argumentation - the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent can't possibly respond to all of them.[35] (See "Argument by verbosity" and "Gish Gallop", above.) I shouldn't have encouraged the chop ups, because it makes it hard to make anything like a real conversation or answer when people can "chop up" your quotes. This is not like real life, when a person cannot interrupt every single sentence when speaking (e.g., in a speech). This is a way of Red Herring: [h=3]"Red herring fallacies[/h] A red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion. Red herring – argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from the subject of argument. See also irrelevant conclusion." Further, all your attacks against me are Ad Hominem. Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument. It is also appeal to spite (also called argumentum ad odium)[1] is a fallacy in which someone attempts to win favor for an argument by exploiting existing feelings of bitterness, spite, or schadenfreude in the opposing party.[2] It is an attempt to sway the audience emotionally by associating a hate-figure with opposition to the speaker's argument. (By claiming I am "attacking them" or being "condescending" toward them, when I am not attacking them, I am simply attacking theargument, nor is it meant to offend them, as most of my statements are using valid data and statistics, but their appeal is to spite... This is also poisoning the well) Further, claiming I am supposedly "new" therefore,all my posts or opinions are "irrelevant" is a fallacy of Appeal to accomplishment – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer. (This is also listed under Red Herring). By calling me "new" and therefore "irrelevant" this is also Abusive fallacy. Abusive fallacy – a subtype of "ad hominem" when it turns into name-calling rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument. (Another Red Herring) PMFB-RN's claim of asking a rhetorical question then saying "he does not expect an answer to the question" is another fallacy called Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence (Another Red Herring). Do not be fooled by all these Red Herrings, it is to take the subject off of gun reform and reducing the 10,000 per year gun-homicides and 30,000 gun-deaths. Which only in the 100's are "accidents." Saying also "I speak for many" is another fallacy called appeal to the masses and appeal to belief the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so.". Comparing medical situations to gun-deaths is False Analogy False analogy – an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited.[40] This is also Association fallacy (guilt by association) – arguing that because two things share a property they are the same (That "all" deaths, accident (cars or medical) or homicide/suicide (guns) are "the same" and related, which is FALSE.) Saying my messages are "not clear" is not only an Ad Hominem against my character, it is an attempt at Red Herring to take the focus off the subject.
  11. InfirmiereJolie

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

    Did you know that your state (WI) has gun regulation laws? Indeed, it receives a grade of C-. The D and F states I was referring are the prime examples of not enough laws for protecting their residents, they mostly have the highest gun-death rates (homicide and/or suicide), proving my point. But the person did not get in the car wanting to harm someone or using it for this purpose, this is the difference with guns (which is what they are built for). They are using the car to get home, which they hope, will happen safely. Although there are punishments, it is still an accident. They are not doing it purposefully to harm others or themselves, but for transportation. The person who shot 77 people in Norway also put "deer hunting" on his license. Unless there are rules, anyone can obtain any kind of gun they please by claiming it is for hunting, when in fact, it certainly is not built for that purpose or was used for that purpose (as was that gun, which would have been banned in other EU countries, so it would have never have been allowed to obtain that kind there). There has to be set limits. Did I say they did not cause problems or deaths? No. What I said it does not directly correlate with gun-homicide or gun-suicide as there are numerous countries which drink far more than we do, but have far lower rates in gun-deaths. This is post hoc (thinking one directly causes the other in all situations). Their main claim to fame? Regulations, set limits for guns, and lower rates of ownership. Proven again and again. Further, I saw what you wrote earlier about mental "illness" Msn10: "we need to go back to the days where mentally ill people did not have to always agree to hospitalization" Did I really just read what I just saw? You want to back to forced imprisonment, asylum-type institutions (a crime against humanity) for simply thinking, having emotions, or acting differently? You do know that some of the most disturbing acts of history have had ruthless dictators enacting "psychiatry" programs and locking people up for these same aspects? The truth is, most of it is politically or socially motivated. They'll supposedly "prove" your case AFTER you are locked up. (Though not claiming mental "illness," recently in Russia a man was locked up and died there simply because we was a whisleblower, the USA enacted harsh trade sanctions, the EU protested it also, and they responded by preventing us from adopting Russian children - 2012). Though Russia has come far, this is wonderful, they have a ways to go still. They are still very interesting and worth visiting (Moscow is probably brilliant). The supposed "mental illness" labels further disturbs me as it is like rubbing salt on an open wound, or twisting the . Apparently, people have no understanding of how people in pain feel. I saw a woman with an amputated arm who was very sad and insecure because she just wanted people to treat her as "normal" like any other human being. She said, "I wish no one looked at me and think of me as disabled. I'm not disabled... I live a normal and active life......" It wasn't until people treated her normal, never mentioned the arm, and like another human being did she become happy. It made her feel worth something. If she had been treated any differently from others, and/or labeled, it would have crushed her, sending her further into her sadness and insecurities. This was a happy story, but just how happy are those people you are alienating, crushing, and salting the wounds by calling them supposedly "mentally ill"? Why is it there has always been labels, drugs, ECTs, people locked up, lobotomies, ect., but no real improvement (many spiraling into even worse situations)? Because people want to be normal and for people to understand them. They want to be treated decently, like other human beings. The best way to help someone is to prop them up, give them a chance, and give them opportunities. Once the label is there... it is difficult to remove it. It sends them into further sadness (and/or other emotions) and insecurities. Something which could have been solved by support and encouragement then becomes a life-long problem. It is very saddening to see this happening today. I hope I can make a difference somehow to improve the lives of those who not only have physical injuries, but also do something to make people understand that they should be encouraging, supporting, and providing opportunities for those who have emotional injuries, without the labeling and alienation, as this only increases their pain. What they think and feel is legitimate, important, and a common human condition. They are normal and need to be treated equally, and given something to stand on. Perfect. This link proves exactly what I've been saying all along. Demonstrated from this chart from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, almost all of the states (95% up) with high gun-homicide rates are from D or F grade states regarding gun laws. E.g., South Carolina (2nd highest, 5 and up per 100,000), Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana (highest, 10 and up per 100,000), Mississippi, Nevada, Tennessee. The link you gave me does NOT demonstrate ALL gun-related deaths (including suicide) which is further demonstrated by this chart. The states with the highest have grades of D or F. Your second sentence has been addressed above. The entire system, basically, has be reworked, overturned, and reformed. The current system of labeling, demeaning, and alienating a person for their emotions and thoughts has to end, and FORCIBLY locking them up certainly is NOT "educational "OR "understanding." The archaic, inhumane, brutal 17th century structure has to end... NOW for the sake of humanity.
  12. InfirmiereJolie

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

    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.
  13. InfirmiereJolie

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

    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.
  14. InfirmiereJolie

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

    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.
  15. InfirmiereJolie

    Implications of Obamacare... what's your opinion?

    Look at the numerous amounts of evidence: Flickr: Tea_Party_Racism_Truth's Photostream (Over 100 screenshots of their racist comments... and only to page 36 or so of their website out of 100's of pages) Look at their main website:teaparty.org (They claim he is illegitimate, then look at the comments, I'm sure you will see racism) Look at this link on teapartypatriots.org [h=3]Should You Care About Obamacare State Exchanges? | Tea Party ...[/h]255 comments and recent links close to this (from this December, 2012) exposing the TP racism. As you can see on another page, there are many who claim the president was born in Kenya... there is another page which calls him a "monkeyface." There is another page where people make sexist comments, immigration comments, and claim "the American South was the best society, until the civil war ended it" and yelling ethnocentrically against someone named "British Voice" Of course, this isn't even including the numerous interviews, photos, and recordings of their racism. People are not "planted" there. I have heard many of you people claim this, and it is really funny as you pretend that these thousands of people, who regularly comment, attend your events, and sponsor you are "plants." You obviously know nothing about "liberals" as you claim, as they are not racist so they wouldn't even joke about it even if it was to supposedly "plant" something. Nor do they even care. The entire world knows how racist they are. There are plenty of racist people in 2007, and the TP were just ready to rear their heads as an "official" movement by putting "Obamacare" on their racist signs. I saw their sources, but their statistics come from the OECD, which they fail to cite, and when they do it is indirectly on their list. The OECD supports their entire paper, when in fact, it does not.
  16. InfirmiereJolie

    How can I spiritually learn this...

    Brilliant! God is good! When you need help or guidance, ask him to stand beside you. I remember hearing this story (not certain where it comes from) where there was a man who was walking on the beach and he would leave foot prints in the sand. A pair of footprints would be beside his (God's), but when he was having hard times in his life there would only be one set of footprints. He asked, "Why was there only one set of footprints? Where were you God in my hard times?" God said, "I was carrying you, this is why there was only one set of footprints." So the message is, He will carry you when you need it. It's neat. I have no idea where it comes from. A good idea, too, is to re-read Jesus's miracles. He is such a loving, wonderful, heavenly, heroic, egalitarian who has saved the entire world and us all!! He won it for us. New life everlasting!! God's son and He said "I am" "The Father and I am one." God IS good!!! God Bless :)