The doors of Sandy Hook Elementary school bursts open, and with them comes a shower of bullets; a storm of death produced by twenty-year old Adam Lanza on innocent children in the Connecticut shooting. As United States citizens become more aware of this tragic event, they think more about ways to prevent this from occurring again. Yes, the scene described is from the horrific incident that occurred last week, on December 14, 2012, one of the most horrible shootings in America's history. Millions of people nationwide are wondering what action should be taken in order to prevent a shooting from happening again.
Certainly, the level of violence depicted in movies and video games in the media may be partially to blame for acts of violence. Television, especially, has come under attack from proper people for shows like CSI, Bones, and Burn Notice. When viewers closely follow these shows, they extract the violent messages that are shown and sometimes act them out. The news often centers its reports around homicide, rape, assault, and gang related cases. With these types of activities being promoted over charity and good will activities, it can be hard to see the difference between right and wrong. This could cause people to use violence as a source of attention, knowing that it is recognized by the public. However, with the emphasis TV puts on violence, the chance that the government will get rid of these violent programs is unlikely. TV, especially action shows, are incredibly popular among people throughout the United States, and is one of America's top sources of entertainment. Also, news is essential for people to become aware of the current events taking place, like giving people updates on weather patterns and safety procedures.
In addition to taking violence out of the media, another option toward preventing shootings is allowing certain civilians to carry weapons. I agree that the use of weapons can be successful in certain situations. In 1997, assistant principal Joel Myrick used a handgun to stop fleeing school shooter Luke Woodham. Woodham, who had killed his mother that morning, murdered two students and wounded several others before Myrick, an Army reservist, rammed his car into Woodham's and then forced him to the ground. Nevertheless, not all interventions are successful: Other armed civilians who have attempted to stop shootings have been left severely injured or have been killed. An investigation by Mother Jones concluded that no more than 1.6 percent of mass shootings were ended by armed civilians. Also, there can be killings in private, like how Woodham had already killed his mother before Myrick appeared. In a setting where nobody is around, nobody - not even with a weapon - can stop a shooter.
Another option, the most popular one, of preventing shootings is establishing stricter gun laws. I understand that firm restrictions on guns could prevent many shootings occuring. For example, on April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history. Twelve days later, Australia’s government announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. This gun law obviously had noteworthy affects in Australia, however, here in America, things are different. Washington DC, the only location in America where people are forbidden from bearing firearms, have the highest murder rate in the country; in fact, its nickname is the "murder capital" of the United States. As for the mass shootings that have taken place, nearly all of them have been from diabolical people with mental disorders. This being said, if guns were banned, these murderers would have found explosives, poison gas, or some other kind of weapon to create the horrors.
Removing violence from the media, increasing weapons on certain civilians, and implementing stricter gun laws are not wise answers to decreasing shooting rates. The most effective choice would be improving mental health care. As said previously, the majority of shootings that have occurred in America's history have been from mentally ill patients who did not receive proper treatment. The three most prominent shootings in Americans' minds today are the ones in Connecticut (at the elementary school), Virginia Tech, and Aurora, Colorado (at the Dark Knight Rises movie). Each of these were due to mentally ill shooters. Pushing the blame onto weapons and media diverts the shooting situation from where the real need is: better, more comprehensive mental health services and facilities; addressing these issues in the person's infancy when they are first manifesting in childhood or puberty instead of assuming 'it's just a phase' or 'they'll grow out of it'; getting people to understand that they will not be punished or labeled weird for seeking help. Mental health problems affect 1 in 10 children, so treatment of these victims need to be America's number one priority to prevent more shootings.
While not only improving the state of the individual, reconstructing health care will prevent mass shooting from happening in the future. If the federal government does not take action in improving mental wellness issues, then the calamities that arose are going to be rippled down throughout people's communities for years to come.
Works CitedFerner, Matt. "Hickenlooper: 'Level Of Violence In Media' And 'Video Games' May Be Why Assault Weapons Are Used In Mass Shootings." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 18 Dec. 2012. Web. 20 Dec. 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/hickenlooper-level-of-vio_n_2324686.html>.
Susmann, Dalia. "Poll Conducted After Shooting Shows More Support for Stricter Gun Laws." The Caucus Poll Conducted After Shooting Shows More Support for Stricter Gun Laws Comments. The New York Times, 17 Dec. 2012. Web. 20 Dec. 2012. <http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/poll-conducted-after-shooting-shows-more-support-for-stricter-gun-laws/>.
Wickman, Forrest. "Do Armed Citizens Stop Mass Shootings?" Slate. Slate.com, 18 Dec. 2012. Web. 20 Dec. 2012.<http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html>.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Major Environmental Issues
The Environment is constantly experiencing destruction and transformations. Cars and factories release greenhouse gasses into the air, and forests are being cut down. In many sections of the world, people are behind on cures for diseases. Also, people often talk about how the polar ice caps are melting and the ozone layer depleting. Even the government has played a tremendous role in the altering of the environment. These environmental controversies affect everyone, but most people are oblivious to the changes taking place. I grew up in a setting where pollution, disease, and other problems were huge issues. I do multiple things to make myself more environmentally friendly. I walk to the restaurants and other stores instead of driving because I live close to many of them. I also ride my bike when I go to my friends' houses. When I need to travel somewhere and many people are going, I carpool with my friends. I recycle any papers and plastic items, and I reuse water bottles instead of buying more water. I take short showers and I do not leave the facet on when I am brushing my teeth. Even though I do all of these exemplary things, I have become aware that there are much larger factors around the world that have affected the environment. Millions of people nation-wide are wondering what the most important contribution would be to improve the environment.
There are many different perspectives about what the most important change could be to improve environmental destruction. Some people believe that nothing can be done to change the environment. They believe that since the environment is nature, and nature is out of human control, that nothing can be done to alter the patterns of the environment. I, however, do not agree with this. There are many ways in which people can help improve the environment, like recycling, using less fossil fuels, etc. I do understand why people may believe that "fixing" the environment is impossible, since nature is not made by humans, however, every individual is fully capable of making some kind of impact on nature, either positively or negatively. Which option the individual chooses is completely up to him/her. I know fully well that people cannot alter the environment completely, but small changes will make a difference.
Another idea that people believe the most important contribution is to the environment is global warming. The name global warming is given to the phenomenon where there is an increase in the temperature of the Earth’s surface. This is usually due to the collection of greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrous oxide and methane in the Earth’s atmosphere. These gases trap excess heat and light from the sun that would otherwise escape back into space. Global warming has many affects on the earth's natural environment. Due to the slowly rising temperature on earth, polar ice caps are melting. In addition to the ice caps melting, the sea temperature is also rising. This is causing the widespread death of various types of marine life such as algae and plankton. The changes in the earth’s atmosphere are also contributing to changes in weather patterns. This means that both droughts and floods will become more likely as rainfall patterns are altered. It also means that the likelihood of hurricanes, severe thunderstorms, hail and acid rain will increase. All of these changes that occur because of global warming have something in common: they are completely out of human's control. I do know that there are things people can do to improve global warming, like preserving a tree to conserve Carbon Dioxide, buying energy efficient products, and driving less. However, these activities that humans can do are not likely to make much of a difference for the planet. People do not typically have time to plant trees, energy efficient products are expensive, and people often have no choice but to drive long distances.
Staying on the topic of human activities helping the environment, some people believe that humans are the primary source of the world's environmental issues. Indeed, humans have many contributions to these issues, such as hunting, farming, oil, fertilizer, sewage disposal, toxic man-made chemicals, and solid garbage. However, all of these issues are capable of being regulated, and many of these detrimental activities are essential for people to carry out their everyday lives. There can be restrictions on hunting, and there already are rules, like how you cannot hunt groundhogs until the season between September 1 and March 9. Likewise, time periods of hunting can be narrowed by the government.
Which brings me to another reason that is the main contribution to the environment: the government. Without a doubt, the government has many organizations that aim to protect the environment, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Earth System Governance Project, the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The UN has created many projects aiming to improve the environment, like the UN Convention to Combat Desertification and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. However, there is a large lack of participation in these projects from the United States and other countries, which many people feel is disrespectful towards citizens and nature. The loss of biodiversity in an ecosystem has a direct correlation with the health and well-being of the humans in that area. By choosing not to participate in this convention, the United States is showing a remarkable lack of vision for the future in this country and choosing not to promote sustainability. As a young teenager, I am disappointed of the insolence the United States government displays in their lack of participation in this important conference. I feel honored that I was born and raised in the United States and express my concerns because I care very deeply. I wish for my children to enjoy the natural beauty that I grew up with in the woods of North Carolina and have a planet that is not completely destroyed by resource extraction and development. Citizens cannot control global warming, nor can they affect the actions people are making around the world, however, they can issue a call of action to the government. The government, unlike citizens, have power - and a remarkable amount of it. They have the power to influence American citizens to preserve and conserve the environment. If the government makes this a priority for our country, then not only will the government itself improve the environment, but they will influence the people to improve it as well, thus improving global warming. Many people believe that there are no ways of contacting the government, or being able to alter their policies, however, there certainly are. These are just some of the examples in which the people can speak out to the government: political parties or individual politicians, lobbying decision makers in government, voluntary organizations, community groups, public opinion, public consultations, and the media. If enough people take control of this situation and discuss the issues to people of the government, a change is sure to occur for the better.
In conclusion, people should opt for the best choice of making the greatest difference in the environment: influencing the government. Through the power of the people, citizens of the United States can issue a call to action, and together, they can spark excellence.
Works Cited:
Cordato, Roy. "The Impossibility of Harming the Environment." : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education. The Freeman, 7 Sept. 2012. Web. 13 Dec. 2012. <http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-impossibility-of-harming-the-environment/>.
Gillis, Justin. "Damaging the Earth to Feed Its People." Green Damaging the Earth to Feed Its People Comments. The New York Times, 4 June 2012. Web. 13 Dec. 2012. <http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/04/damaging-the-earth-to-feed-its-people/>.
There are many different perspectives about what the most important change could be to improve environmental destruction. Some people believe that nothing can be done to change the environment. They believe that since the environment is nature, and nature is out of human control, that nothing can be done to alter the patterns of the environment. I, however, do not agree with this. There are many ways in which people can help improve the environment, like recycling, using less fossil fuels, etc. I do understand why people may believe that "fixing" the environment is impossible, since nature is not made by humans, however, every individual is fully capable of making some kind of impact on nature, either positively or negatively. Which option the individual chooses is completely up to him/her. I know fully well that people cannot alter the environment completely, but small changes will make a difference.
Another idea that people believe the most important contribution is to the environment is global warming. The name global warming is given to the phenomenon where there is an increase in the temperature of the Earth’s surface. This is usually due to the collection of greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrous oxide and methane in the Earth’s atmosphere. These gases trap excess heat and light from the sun that would otherwise escape back into space. Global warming has many affects on the earth's natural environment. Due to the slowly rising temperature on earth, polar ice caps are melting. In addition to the ice caps melting, the sea temperature is also rising. This is causing the widespread death of various types of marine life such as algae and plankton. The changes in the earth’s atmosphere are also contributing to changes in weather patterns. This means that both droughts and floods will become more likely as rainfall patterns are altered. It also means that the likelihood of hurricanes, severe thunderstorms, hail and acid rain will increase. All of these changes that occur because of global warming have something in common: they are completely out of human's control. I do know that there are things people can do to improve global warming, like preserving a tree to conserve Carbon Dioxide, buying energy efficient products, and driving less. However, these activities that humans can do are not likely to make much of a difference for the planet. People do not typically have time to plant trees, energy efficient products are expensive, and people often have no choice but to drive long distances.
Staying on the topic of human activities helping the environment, some people believe that humans are the primary source of the world's environmental issues. Indeed, humans have many contributions to these issues, such as hunting, farming, oil, fertilizer, sewage disposal, toxic man-made chemicals, and solid garbage. However, all of these issues are capable of being regulated, and many of these detrimental activities are essential for people to carry out their everyday lives. There can be restrictions on hunting, and there already are rules, like how you cannot hunt groundhogs until the season between September 1 and March 9. Likewise, time periods of hunting can be narrowed by the government.
Which brings me to another reason that is the main contribution to the environment: the government. Without a doubt, the government has many organizations that aim to protect the environment, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Earth System Governance Project, the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The UN has created many projects aiming to improve the environment, like the UN Convention to Combat Desertification and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. However, there is a large lack of participation in these projects from the United States and other countries, which many people feel is disrespectful towards citizens and nature. The loss of biodiversity in an ecosystem has a direct correlation with the health and well-being of the humans in that area. By choosing not to participate in this convention, the United States is showing a remarkable lack of vision for the future in this country and choosing not to promote sustainability. As a young teenager, I am disappointed of the insolence the United States government displays in their lack of participation in this important conference. I feel honored that I was born and raised in the United States and express my concerns because I care very deeply. I wish for my children to enjoy the natural beauty that I grew up with in the woods of North Carolina and have a planet that is not completely destroyed by resource extraction and development. Citizens cannot control global warming, nor can they affect the actions people are making around the world, however, they can issue a call of action to the government. The government, unlike citizens, have power - and a remarkable amount of it. They have the power to influence American citizens to preserve and conserve the environment. If the government makes this a priority for our country, then not only will the government itself improve the environment, but they will influence the people to improve it as well, thus improving global warming. Many people believe that there are no ways of contacting the government, or being able to alter their policies, however, there certainly are. These are just some of the examples in which the people can speak out to the government: political parties or individual politicians, lobbying decision makers in government, voluntary organizations, community groups, public opinion, public consultations, and the media. If enough people take control of this situation and discuss the issues to people of the government, a change is sure to occur for the better.
In conclusion, people should opt for the best choice of making the greatest difference in the environment: influencing the government. Through the power of the people, citizens of the United States can issue a call to action, and together, they can spark excellence.
Works Cited:
Cordato, Roy. "The Impossibility of Harming the Environment." : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education. The Freeman, 7 Sept. 2012. Web. 13 Dec. 2012. <http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-impossibility-of-harming-the-environment/>.
Gillis, Justin. "Damaging the Earth to Feed Its People." Green Damaging the Earth to Feed Its People Comments. The New York Times, 4 June 2012. Web. 13 Dec. 2012. <http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/04/damaging-the-earth-to-feed-its-people/>.
Shah, Anup. "Climate Change and Global Warming." Globalissues.org. N.p., 2 Dec. 2012. Web. 12 Dec. 2012. <http://www.globalissues.org/issue/178/climate-change-and-global-warming>.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)