Every pet owner knows that there are excessive responsibilities that go along with having a dog or cat. They must feed and exercise the pet, to keep it physically healthy; they must play with it, and keep it emotionally healthy as well. They have to keep it safe from cars, people, or other animals, and they ought to protect other people, property, or pets from their own animal. There is another responsibility that not all pet owners think about, however: neutering or spaying, or “fixing.” What does “fixing” a pet mean? Simply put, it means taking the pet to the vet for a quick, cheap surgery that will prevent the pet from ever becoming a mother or father. This surgery solves problems that pet owners know about, and some that they might not have considered before. In fact, I believe that all pet owners should be required to have their pets fixed.
Everybody loves an adorable new kitten or puppy. But those cuties soon grow larger, and right now, there simply are not enough homes for them all. Some unwanted animals go to shelters, or “dog pounds.” These shelters are like prisons for animals, but with one important difference: many of the prisoners will never get out. Shelters have limited funds and limited space, and they cannot keep all the animals they collect. If a cat or dog is not adopted within a certain time period, that animal is killed. On the other hand, not all unwanted animals go to a shelter. What happens to a homeless animal left out on the street? Remember, our pets are exactly that - pets. They are not wild animals. They cannot find fresh water or hunt their own food, especially in a city. They cannot understand traffic laws, so they often get struck by cars. They are susceptible to common illnesses - illnesses that they can then spread to other animals, including pets. They are not tame, so they may attack other animals or people. In either case, the life of most unwanted animals is not long, but it is full of misery and pain, and it is also a life that is dangerous to pets or people who they meet. By not “fixing” their own animal, they will almost certainly be adding to this problem.
Of course, some people will not agree with me. “I don’t want to give my animal an unnecessary surgery,” they will say. “Surgery is risky, too, and it’s certainly expensive.” This idea shows ignorance. Spaying or neutering should be done as soon someone gets their pet - when he or she is young and healthy - and it is almost 100% safe. The animal is in much more danger if not fixed, for the urge to run away from home will put the pet in extremely dangerous situations. Likewise, almost all cities have a fund to help pay for the surgery. Just ask at your vet or the local S.P.C.A. (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). The cost can be as low as ten dollars.
No matter how someone looks at the situation, there truly is really no valid reason not to spay or neuter a pet. Whether considering the potential suffering of unborn animals, the health and comfort of your own pet, or your own convenience as a pet owner, you must agree that the facts all show that spaying or neutering is the way to go. It is not only the convenient choice, but also the morally right choice, and one that all pet owners should make.
Works Cited
Hoffman, Lyz. "Goleta Encourages Fixing Pets." Independent. N.p., 6 Apr. 2012. Web. 27 Feb. 2013.
Keith, Kristie. "The Unspoken Truth about Spaying and Neutering Our Pets." SFGate. San Francisco Chronicle, 10 Apr. 2010. Web. 27 Feb. 2013. <http://www.sfgate.com/pets/yourwholepet/article/The-unspoken-truth-about-spaying-and-neutering-2464233.php>.
"The Truth about Fixing Your Pet." Fixing Your Dog. Canine Obedience Unlimited, n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2013. <http://www.canineobedienceunlimited.com/dog-training-articles/the-truth-about-fixing-your-pet/>.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Friday, February 22, 2013
Later High School Start Times (3)
What time should the school day begin? School start times vary significantly, both within individual communities and across the nation, with many schools beginning earlier than 7:30 a.m. and others after 9:00 a.m. Regions often stagger the start times of different schools in order to reduce transportation costs by using fewer buses. Nevertheless, if beginning the school day early in the morning has a negative impact on academic performance, staggering start times may not be worth the cost savings.
I acknowledge that later school start times have some consequences. For instance, because most school districts have a delicately balanced bus transportation system designed to run as inexpensively and efficiently as possible, any change in the school schedule can have a severe impact. In addition, high school athletics are very important to many students who have obvious concerns about the impact of a change in start times on their ability to participate. Any delay in the start of school will most likely result in a later release time, which may reduce time available for practice and meets. However, there are easy solutions to these two issues. One solution that has worked to solve the transportation problem is flipping start times, most commonly elementary with high school. This solution requires no extra buses or drivers, just a change in the order of pickups. This schedule also seems to be more appropriate to elementary school students’ sleep schedules, because young children tend to wake up earlier in the morning. As for extracurricular activities, most districts that have changed their start time have experienced few problems with regard to athletics. Practice times are rescheduled, and in some cases lights are installed so practice can run slightly later. Meet times are changed so that students do not have to leave class early. Many districts have even seen increased participation in sports and improved performance by their teams. Research has shown that sleep deprivation has a severe negative impact on endurance and coordination, so it makes sense that better rested student athletes would perform better.
I strongly believe that Wake County school times should extend the start time of high schools to a later time. The consequences of sleep deprivation during the teenage years are particularly serious. Teens spend a great portion of each day in school; however, they are unable to maximize the learning opportunities afforded by the education system, since sleep deprivation impairs their ability to be alert, pay attention, solve problems, cope with stress and retain information. Young people who do not get enough sleep night after night carry a significant risk for fall asleep automobile crashes; emotional and behavioral problems such as irritability, depression, poor impulse control and violence; health complaints; tobacco and alcohol use; impaired cognitive function and decision-making; and lower overall performance in everything from academics to athletics. One statistic showed that, in Fayetteville County, Kentucky, teen driver crash rates reduced by 16.5% in two years after school start time was delayed by one hour while the rest of the state saw an increase in teen crash rates. In addition, The Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement at the University of Minnesota participated in a study of the impact of changing school start times on academic performance, behavior, and safety in urban and suburban schools. Results from three years of data from both Edina and Minneapolis showed improved attendance, increase in continuous enrollment, less tardiness, and students making fewer trips to the school nurse.
Adolescent sleep deprivation is largely driven by a conflict between teens’ internal biological clocks and the schedules and demands of society. Therefore, it makes sense to look at school start times, which set the rhythm of the day for students, parents, teachers and members of the community at large. Although there are a few negative side effects of later start times, on the whole, the benefits outweigh the costs of making this change. By simply adjusting school start times, far fewer students will be sleepless in America.
Works Cited
Cline, John. "Do Later School Start Times Really Help High School Students?"Psychology Today. N.p., 27 Feb. 2011. Web. 22 Feb. 2012. <http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sleepless-in-america/201102/do-later-school-start-times-really-help-high-school-students>.
St. George, Donna. "Education." Washington Post. N.p., 11 Dec. 2012. Web. 22 Feb. 2013. <http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-11/local/35767223_1_school-day-school-leaders-school-buses>.
Trudeau, Michelle. "High Schools Starting Later to Help Sleepy Teens." NPR. NPR, 18 Jan. 2007. Web. 22 Feb. 2013. <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6896471>.
I acknowledge that later school start times have some consequences. For instance, because most school districts have a delicately balanced bus transportation system designed to run as inexpensively and efficiently as possible, any change in the school schedule can have a severe impact. In addition, high school athletics are very important to many students who have obvious concerns about the impact of a change in start times on their ability to participate. Any delay in the start of school will most likely result in a later release time, which may reduce time available for practice and meets. However, there are easy solutions to these two issues. One solution that has worked to solve the transportation problem is flipping start times, most commonly elementary with high school. This solution requires no extra buses or drivers, just a change in the order of pickups. This schedule also seems to be more appropriate to elementary school students’ sleep schedules, because young children tend to wake up earlier in the morning. As for extracurricular activities, most districts that have changed their start time have experienced few problems with regard to athletics. Practice times are rescheduled, and in some cases lights are installed so practice can run slightly later. Meet times are changed so that students do not have to leave class early. Many districts have even seen increased participation in sports and improved performance by their teams. Research has shown that sleep deprivation has a severe negative impact on endurance and coordination, so it makes sense that better rested student athletes would perform better.
I strongly believe that Wake County school times should extend the start time of high schools to a later time. The consequences of sleep deprivation during the teenage years are particularly serious. Teens spend a great portion of each day in school; however, they are unable to maximize the learning opportunities afforded by the education system, since sleep deprivation impairs their ability to be alert, pay attention, solve problems, cope with stress and retain information. Young people who do not get enough sleep night after night carry a significant risk for fall asleep automobile crashes; emotional and behavioral problems such as irritability, depression, poor impulse control and violence; health complaints; tobacco and alcohol use; impaired cognitive function and decision-making; and lower overall performance in everything from academics to athletics. One statistic showed that, in Fayetteville County, Kentucky, teen driver crash rates reduced by 16.5% in two years after school start time was delayed by one hour while the rest of the state saw an increase in teen crash rates. In addition, The Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement at the University of Minnesota participated in a study of the impact of changing school start times on academic performance, behavior, and safety in urban and suburban schools. Results from three years of data from both Edina and Minneapolis showed improved attendance, increase in continuous enrollment, less tardiness, and students making fewer trips to the school nurse.
Adolescent sleep deprivation is largely driven by a conflict between teens’ internal biological clocks and the schedules and demands of society. Therefore, it makes sense to look at school start times, which set the rhythm of the day for students, parents, teachers and members of the community at large. Although there are a few negative side effects of later start times, on the whole, the benefits outweigh the costs of making this change. By simply adjusting school start times, far fewer students will be sleepless in America.
Works Cited
Cline, John. "Do Later School Start Times Really Help High School Students?"Psychology Today. N.p., 27 Feb. 2011. Web. 22 Feb. 2012. <http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sleepless-in-america/201102/do-later-school-start-times-really-help-high-school-students>.
St. George, Donna. "Education." Washington Post. N.p., 11 Dec. 2012. Web. 22 Feb. 2013. <http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-11/local/35767223_1_school-day-school-leaders-school-buses>.
Trudeau, Michelle. "High Schools Starting Later to Help Sleepy Teens." NPR. NPR, 18 Jan. 2007. Web. 22 Feb. 2013. <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6896471>.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Animal Testing (2)
We humans are not like animals; we are animals. Psychologists study animals to learn about people, by doing experiments that are permissible only with animals. Animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century - for both human and veterinary health. Animal experiments have therefore led to treatments for human diseases, like insulin for diabetes, transplants to replace defective organs, and vaccines to prevent polio and rabies. Pain and suffering is based on knowledge attained through research with lab animals.
Certainly, many animals die each year due to scientific studies. Each year in the United States, an estimated thirty million animals are hurt and killed in the name of science by private institutions, household products and cosmetics companies, government agencies, educational institutions, and scientific centers. However, researchers remind us that the world's thirty million mammals used each year in research are but a fraction of 1 percent of the billions of animals killed annually for food. While researchers each year conduct experiments on some 200,000 dogs and cats cared for under humane regulations, humane animal shelters are forced to kill 50 times that many. How many of us would have attacked Pasteur's experiments with rabies, which caused some dogs to suffer but led to a vaccine that spared millions of people and dogs from agonizing death? And would we really wish to have deprived ourselves of the animal research that led to effective methods of training children with mental disorders; of relieving fears and depression; and of controlling alcoholism and disease? Of course, the answer is no.
Animal research is ethical. Without animal research, medicine as we know it today wouldn't exist. Defenders of research on animals argue that anyone who has eaten a hamburger, tolerated hunting and fishing, or worn leather shoes agreed that, yes, it is permissible to sacrifice animals for the sake of human well-being. If humans give human life first priority, the second issue is the priority they give to the well-being of animals in research. Most researchers today feel morally obligated to enhance the well-being of captive animals and protect them from needless suffering. In one survey of animal researchers, 98 percent or more supported government regulations protecting primates, cats, and dogs, and 74 percent supported regulations providing for the humane care of rats and mice. Additionally, many funding agencies and professional associations have rules for the humane use of animals. For instance, British Psychological Society guidelines call for housing animals under reasonably natural living conditions, with companions for social animals. Humane care also leads to more effective science, because stress and pain distort the animals' behavior during tests.
Today's scientists are not motivated by cruelty, but by a powerful desire to push the frontiers of medical research and develop therapies for debilitating diseases. Professional ethical standards provide guidelines concerning the treatment of research participants, and university ethics committees safeguard participants' well-being. It is obvious that animal research benefits all living species and that we are able to live longer, healthier, happier lives because of it.
Works Cited
Christina, Cook. "Stand Up for Science." : Facts about Animal Research. Pro Test, 26 Mar. 2012. Web. 17 Feb. 2013. <http://www.pro-test.org.uk/2006/03/facts-about-animal-research.html>.
Claire, Madelyn. "Against Animal Testing." Teen Ink. N.p., 11 Feb. 2013. Web. 17 Feb. 2013. <http://teenink.com/hot_topics/environment/article/440790/Against-Animal-Testing/>.
Fox, Fiona. "Animal Research Is Brave, Not Cruel, Science." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 28 Sept. 2012. Web. 17 Feb. 2013. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/28/animal-research-brave-not-cruel-science>.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Say No To School Uniforms (1)
For many years, schools, parents, and students have conflicted over the controversy of managing school clothing. In 2007, cases including an anti-Bush shirt in Vermont, an anti-gay shirt in San Diego, and Tigger socks in Napa, California, traveled through the courts, compelling many to question whether this debate will ever be resolved. Meanwhile, researchers are split over how much of an impact dress codes have on student knowledge. A 2004 book states that uniforms do not improve school safety or academic conduct. A 2005 study, however, indicates that in some Ohio high schools, uniforms may have improved graduation and attendance rates, although no improvements were observed in academic performance.
I believe that uniforms should not be required for students; not in the United States, nor anywhere else in the world. According to studies, uniforms are difficult to enforce in public schools, are a financial burden for low-income parents, make students a target for bullies in other schools, and are simply a cover-up on the dilemma of school violence. In addition to these annoyances, uniforms violate a human's most important right : the right to freedom and expression. Currently, fashion plays an enormous role in the lives of all citizens. Not only does fashion serve as a popular study that supplies jobs to people in the industry, but most importantly, fashion allows people to develop their own sense of style; as the first thing one notices about a person, one's style should reflect their personality.
There are, of course, a few positive perspectives of school uniforms. In some cases, uniforms prevent gangs from forming on campus, encourage discipline, and help students resist peer pressure to buy trendy clothing. However, gangs can still form with uniforms, and gangs are not a big issue with most schools in the world. Also, uniforms may encourage discipline, but this discipline is not necessary. In fact, students may not act disciplined because many may rebel against the policy of uniforms. As for peer pressure, students need to learn to react to peer pressure in a smart way, and say no to situations they feel are unfair or unsafe. If schools require uniforms, they lose an opportunity to allow students to grow and learn from their own sense of style.
When institutions and people who run them become too authoritative, they resort to unnecessary actions that limit citizens' rights. By convincing themselves they can control youth culture through school uniforms, they become totalitarian regimes, which needs to change. The debate over uniforms encompasses many bigger issues than simply what children wear, and these uniforms should not be required anywhere in the world. For the sake of the children, let them wear what they want and be their own individuals.
Works Cited
Assack, Steve. "Allentown School Board Approves Student Uniforms." Mcall.com. The Morning Call, 11 Jan. 2013. Web. 25 Jan. 2013.
Hendricks, Shawn. "Dress Code Disaster." NUVO. N.p., 7 Apr. 2012. Web. 25 Jan. 2013. <http://www.nuvo.net/indianapolis/dress-code-disaster/Content?oid=1230767>.
Wilde, Marian. "Do Uniforms Make Schools Better?" GreatSchools. Great Schools, 6 Aug. 2012. Web. 25 Jan. 2013. <http://www.greatschools.org/find-a-school/defining-your-ideal/121-school-uniforms.gs>.
I believe that uniforms should not be required for students; not in the United States, nor anywhere else in the world. According to studies, uniforms are difficult to enforce in public schools, are a financial burden for low-income parents, make students a target for bullies in other schools, and are simply a cover-up on the dilemma of school violence. In addition to these annoyances, uniforms violate a human's most important right : the right to freedom and expression. Currently, fashion plays an enormous role in the lives of all citizens. Not only does fashion serve as a popular study that supplies jobs to people in the industry, but most importantly, fashion allows people to develop their own sense of style; as the first thing one notices about a person, one's style should reflect their personality.
There are, of course, a few positive perspectives of school uniforms. In some cases, uniforms prevent gangs from forming on campus, encourage discipline, and help students resist peer pressure to buy trendy clothing. However, gangs can still form with uniforms, and gangs are not a big issue with most schools in the world. Also, uniforms may encourage discipline, but this discipline is not necessary. In fact, students may not act disciplined because many may rebel against the policy of uniforms. As for peer pressure, students need to learn to react to peer pressure in a smart way, and say no to situations they feel are unfair or unsafe. If schools require uniforms, they lose an opportunity to allow students to grow and learn from their own sense of style.
When institutions and people who run them become too authoritative, they resort to unnecessary actions that limit citizens' rights. By convincing themselves they can control youth culture through school uniforms, they become totalitarian regimes, which needs to change. The debate over uniforms encompasses many bigger issues than simply what children wear, and these uniforms should not be required anywhere in the world. For the sake of the children, let them wear what they want and be their own individuals.
Works Cited
Assack, Steve. "Allentown School Board Approves Student Uniforms." Mcall.com. The Morning Call, 11 Jan. 2013. Web. 25 Jan. 2013.
Hendricks, Shawn. "Dress Code Disaster." NUVO. N.p., 7 Apr. 2012. Web. 25 Jan. 2013. <http://www.nuvo.net/indianapolis/dress-code-disaster/Content?oid=1230767>.
Wilde, Marian. "Do Uniforms Make Schools Better?" GreatSchools. Great Schools, 6 Aug. 2012. Web. 25 Jan. 2013. <http://www.greatschools.org/find-a-school/defining-your-ideal/121-school-uniforms.gs>.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Ways To Prevent Mass Shootings
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>.
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 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)