Morality of Politics and Justice
Op-Ed
Less Guns Means Less Shootings
318,000,000 people, 270,000,000 guns. With numbers like this, it comes out to be roughly 88 guns per 100 people in the United States, yet most conservatives and gun activists insist on adding to that surplus of weapons, suggesting it to be the ideal way to prevent gun violence. Research clearly shows that when states have more gun-restricting laws, there are less gun-related homicides there are in that state. With mass shootings appearing almost every week this year, the idea of preventing of gun violence becomes more and more prevalent with every shooting. The most efficient and beneficial way to prevent these recurring gun-tragedies and ensure security among Americans is to increase the amount of gun regulation on a federal level.
Mass shootings aren't a rare occurrence. According to “Shooting Tracker” as of October 1, 2015, there has yet to be a week gone by without at least one mass shooting, some weeks, a mass shooting is a daily occurrence. That comes out to 294 mass shootings, and still counting. For most people in our country, these numbers call for a change. However, gun activists they lean on the Utilitarian “the needs of the many to keep their guns outweigh the needs of the people dying in mass shootings.”
Gun-activists suggest that increasing the amount of regulations, such as universal background checks and banning assault weapons, would take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, but wouldn't affect criminals. Arguments like these simply aren't backed by evidence. A study by The Washington Post, as well as many others, found that gunmen in these mass shootings obtain their guns legally more often than not, meaning if they attempted to get a gun with a criminal history, they would not have been able to because of universal background checks. Adding regulations that could prevent an unstable person from obtaining a gun will only help prevent tragedies, not cause them.
Sure, you could argue that even if a killer couldn't get their hands on a gun, they would kill, but with a different weapon such as a knife. While guns don't cause these mass-shootings, they do provide a way to take as many lives as possible. Similar arguments are made when the idea of limiting magazine capacity on handguns. Most average 9mm handguns, such as the glock-17, hold magazines that contain about 15-17 rounds which could correlate to 15-17 people wounded or killed in a mass shooting. In cases where the shooter used multiple magazines, if the capacity were seven bullets rather than 17, that is possibly seven less people to be killed or injured per magazine used.
Many say that the banning of assault weapons and limiting magazine capacity is an infringement on citizens of the Unites States Second Amendment right to bear arms. The Amendment reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Universal background checks and magazine capacity limitations maintains the rights classified by the Second Amendment, but also regulates it in order to ensure security for every citizen in the United States. Arguments to keep assault weapons legal beg the question: Why do you need a military-grade weapon for home protection?
Before you can even argue for the Second Amendment, you have to look at the facts. The Second Amendment was passed by congress in 1789, a time where most guns were single-shot, and only accurate up to a hundred yards or so, with a reload time of around 30 seconds. The second amendment wasn't written for the firearms and assault weapons that we have today, so we shouldn't be using the same outdated amendment for modern firearms as we did for inaccurate 18th century weapons.
Opposers to more gun-regulation suggest that gun control simply doesn't work, but new studies and research show just the opposite. New research by the Harvard Medical School shows that states with more gun restriction and gun laws have significantly lowered gun suicide and gun homicide rates than states with less gun control. The amount of arguments when the “gun control doesn't work” opposition is proven wrong, there aren't many other arguments to be made as to why we shouldn't add more gun control.
When getting a driver's license, in some states such as Colorado, citizens must hold a drivers permit for one year before getting their official licenses to drive a car. Yet Guns, which were invented and manufactured to cause harm to someone or something, whether it be an animal or a person, require less safety courses and regulations than cars in the United States. Therefore, in addition to limited magazine capacity, gun owners should be required by federal law to take gun-safety classes before purchasing their weapons, and take annual gun-safety tests in order for gun owners to maintain their right to a gun. In the event that gun owners cannot successfully pass the annual safety test, they must retake the safety class until they can pass the tests.
Guns are a part of American culture, and there's no getting rid of them, but there are ways to prevent criminals from getting their hands on them, and keeping them away from the mentally unstable. Without stricter gun laws, these hundreds and hundreds of mass shootings will only grow. Ask yourself this question: Is your right to owning a gun really worth another person's life?
318,000,000 people, 270,000,000 guns. With numbers like this, it comes out to be roughly 88 guns per 100 people in the United States, yet most conservatives and gun activists insist on adding to that surplus of weapons, suggesting it to be the ideal way to prevent gun violence. Research clearly shows that when states have more gun-restricting laws, there are less gun-related homicides there are in that state. With mass shootings appearing almost every week this year, the idea of preventing of gun violence becomes more and more prevalent with every shooting. The most efficient and beneficial way to prevent these recurring gun-tragedies and ensure security among Americans is to increase the amount of gun regulation on a federal level.
Mass shootings aren't a rare occurrence. According to “Shooting Tracker” as of October 1, 2015, there has yet to be a week gone by without at least one mass shooting, some weeks, a mass shooting is a daily occurrence. That comes out to 294 mass shootings, and still counting. For most people in our country, these numbers call for a change. However, gun activists they lean on the Utilitarian “the needs of the many to keep their guns outweigh the needs of the people dying in mass shootings.”
Gun-activists suggest that increasing the amount of regulations, such as universal background checks and banning assault weapons, would take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, but wouldn't affect criminals. Arguments like these simply aren't backed by evidence. A study by The Washington Post, as well as many others, found that gunmen in these mass shootings obtain their guns legally more often than not, meaning if they attempted to get a gun with a criminal history, they would not have been able to because of universal background checks. Adding regulations that could prevent an unstable person from obtaining a gun will only help prevent tragedies, not cause them.
Sure, you could argue that even if a killer couldn't get their hands on a gun, they would kill, but with a different weapon such as a knife. While guns don't cause these mass-shootings, they do provide a way to take as many lives as possible. Similar arguments are made when the idea of limiting magazine capacity on handguns. Most average 9mm handguns, such as the glock-17, hold magazines that contain about 15-17 rounds which could correlate to 15-17 people wounded or killed in a mass shooting. In cases where the shooter used multiple magazines, if the capacity were seven bullets rather than 17, that is possibly seven less people to be killed or injured per magazine used.
Many say that the banning of assault weapons and limiting magazine capacity is an infringement on citizens of the Unites States Second Amendment right to bear arms. The Amendment reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Universal background checks and magazine capacity limitations maintains the rights classified by the Second Amendment, but also regulates it in order to ensure security for every citizen in the United States. Arguments to keep assault weapons legal beg the question: Why do you need a military-grade weapon for home protection?
Before you can even argue for the Second Amendment, you have to look at the facts. The Second Amendment was passed by congress in 1789, a time where most guns were single-shot, and only accurate up to a hundred yards or so, with a reload time of around 30 seconds. The second amendment wasn't written for the firearms and assault weapons that we have today, so we shouldn't be using the same outdated amendment for modern firearms as we did for inaccurate 18th century weapons.
Opposers to more gun-regulation suggest that gun control simply doesn't work, but new studies and research show just the opposite. New research by the Harvard Medical School shows that states with more gun restriction and gun laws have significantly lowered gun suicide and gun homicide rates than states with less gun control. The amount of arguments when the “gun control doesn't work” opposition is proven wrong, there aren't many other arguments to be made as to why we shouldn't add more gun control.
When getting a driver's license, in some states such as Colorado, citizens must hold a drivers permit for one year before getting their official licenses to drive a car. Yet Guns, which were invented and manufactured to cause harm to someone or something, whether it be an animal or a person, require less safety courses and regulations than cars in the United States. Therefore, in addition to limited magazine capacity, gun owners should be required by federal law to take gun-safety classes before purchasing their weapons, and take annual gun-safety tests in order for gun owners to maintain their right to a gun. In the event that gun owners cannot successfully pass the annual safety test, they must retake the safety class until they can pass the tests.
Guns are a part of American culture, and there's no getting rid of them, but there are ways to prevent criminals from getting their hands on them, and keeping them away from the mentally unstable. Without stricter gun laws, these hundreds and hundreds of mass shootings will only grow. Ask yourself this question: Is your right to owning a gun really worth another person's life?
Visual Piece
Project Reflection
The project that students were tasked with during this project was to pick a political issue that they feel strongly about, and think independently on what the most just course of action would be in working towards solving the problem. Students were challenged with thinking independently to find their own opinion on the political issue and not just the view of the political party you identify with. In addition to writing an op-ed conveying our view, we were assigned to make an art piece that correlates with our writing. Leading up to this project, we studied the philosophies of people such as Jeremy Bentham and John Rawls. To introduce us into philosophies, we studied a leader in transcendentalism, Henry David Thoreau and his writings, such as Civil Disobedience.
There are many differences between my first draft of my op-ed and my final draft that I turned in for a grade. For example, I added a whole other paragraph about the second amendment of the constitution to my op-ed to make my argument better. In the paragraph, I talk about how the constitution needs to be changed, as it was written at time where common gins were muskets, not high powered semi-automatic weapons like we have today. I also tweaked my sentence structure to be more concise when it was a bit wordy, or elaborate when my sentences are too concise. In the first draft of my op-ed, I found myself relating the same words over and over again. For example, I would say “Opposers to gun control would say gun control simply doesn't work” and I changed it to “Opposers to more gun control would argue that it simply doesn't work” A lot of the changes I made to key op-ed were not large, but each one worked to make the overall message and sound of my writing better.
In my art piece, I convey a man walking into a gun store declaring that he is in the gun store in order to buy his 8th gun. When asked why he needs so many guns he says "For Protection" This is a critique on the reasoning that some gun owners have on why they own their gun. Many gun owners say that the reason they have so many guns is to protect themselves and their family, but in reality, having more than one gun doesn't protect you any better than one gun would. I also stereotype the gun owner that owns so many guns to be a larger man with an ill-fitting shirt to convey my point better. I did some research on political cartoons, which was a strong influence on why I didn't put color into my art piece. It took me multiple attempts to put emphasis on the characters in the front with more detail, and the background with less detail.
Throughout this project, I learned to recognize the opposing arguments, and shoot them down with evidence and arguments for my side. This project also helped me identify myself as a more liberal person than conservative because I agree with most liberal ideas rather than conservative. I don't think that knowing the liberal perspective helped me develop mine, as I already had my own perspective in mind.
There are many differences between my first draft of my op-ed and my final draft that I turned in for a grade. For example, I added a whole other paragraph about the second amendment of the constitution to my op-ed to make my argument better. In the paragraph, I talk about how the constitution needs to be changed, as it was written at time where common gins were muskets, not high powered semi-automatic weapons like we have today. I also tweaked my sentence structure to be more concise when it was a bit wordy, or elaborate when my sentences are too concise. In the first draft of my op-ed, I found myself relating the same words over and over again. For example, I would say “Opposers to gun control would say gun control simply doesn't work” and I changed it to “Opposers to more gun control would argue that it simply doesn't work” A lot of the changes I made to key op-ed were not large, but each one worked to make the overall message and sound of my writing better.
In my art piece, I convey a man walking into a gun store declaring that he is in the gun store in order to buy his 8th gun. When asked why he needs so many guns he says "For Protection" This is a critique on the reasoning that some gun owners have on why they own their gun. Many gun owners say that the reason they have so many guns is to protect themselves and their family, but in reality, having more than one gun doesn't protect you any better than one gun would. I also stereotype the gun owner that owns so many guns to be a larger man with an ill-fitting shirt to convey my point better. I did some research on political cartoons, which was a strong influence on why I didn't put color into my art piece. It took me multiple attempts to put emphasis on the characters in the front with more detail, and the background with less detail.
Throughout this project, I learned to recognize the opposing arguments, and shoot them down with evidence and arguments for my side. This project also helped me identify myself as a more liberal person than conservative because I agree with most liberal ideas rather than conservative. I don't think that knowing the liberal perspective helped me develop mine, as I already had my own perspective in mind.
Voices from the animas
Seminar Prep
Future Implications: What is the best solution to both ensure economic prosperity and environmental health for current and future generations? (Should Silverton be designated as a superfund site?)
The most beneficial solution environmentally would be to designate Silverton and the Gold King Mine as a superfund site. When coming to this decision, you have to think about not only Silverton, but the surrounding areas as well, such as Durango and the Navajo Nations. The 3 million gallons of heavy metal contaminated water not only affected Silverton, but all the way to Farmington, New Mexico. Farmington, which has a population of 45,000, has a water reserve of 90 days before the river becomes a necessity for drinking and bathing. Towns around farmington such as Shiprock,with a population of around 8,000, also rely on the water reserves of Farmington in cases such as the Animas River spill. That’s over 50 thousand people being affected by the spill without bringing Durango’s population of 17 thousand into the equation. When the levels of heavy metals present in the water, the amount of lead compared to normal levels was 12,000 times higher. CNN’s “By the numbers” says, “Lead is just one of the many heavy metals released, and it's not the deadliest. The wastewater also contained extremely high levels of arsenic, cadmium, beryllium and mercury. It also contained zinc, iron and copper.” The amount of lead alone is far too high to remain acceptable for not only the environment, but all those who rely on the river for drinking water business, and recreation.The Superfund, while may not be very popular amount citizens of Silverton, would benefit the lives of all those who live in surrounding towns of Silverton as well as the environment of those communities.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/13/us/animas-river-spill-by-the-numbers/
http://www.city-data.com/city/Shiprock-New-Mexico.html
Causes of the spill: Could the spill have been prevented and if so how?
Most the reason that the Animas River spill got the attention and national news coverage that it did was because of the bright mustard-orange color it had as it started flowing through Durango. Similar spills with just as many health risks as the Gold King spill went through the river without notice because there was no change of color. According to an article by The Washington Post, the EPA sent the experts to the Gold King mine without knowledge of the water build up inside of the Gold King, ultimately causing the spill. If the EPA had studied the abandoned Gold King, they could have gone about testing the toxicity in a different way, preventing the massive spill. ‘Given the maps and information known about this mine, a worst-case scenario estimate could have been calculated and used for planning purposes,’ the report stated. As it was, the EPA’s team was ‘lacking emergency protocols in the case of a significant flow or blow out,’ the document said” If the EPA had a worst case sensor protocol set out for accidental situation like this one, the spill may not have been completely prevented, but could have been reduced or could have been less toxic.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/08/26/heres-why-warning-signs-for-epas-mine-waste-spill-were-missed-and-why-it-could-happen-again/
Historical Context: How was the Animas River affected before the actual spill?
Pollution to the Animas River is not a new subject. For almost 150 years, since the first miners started above Silverton, the Animas River has been a dumping ground for the pollutants from those many mines. Since the 1870s, the Animas River has been polluted at the rates up to 250 gallons per minute, or 100 million gallons of toxic waste per year. The toxic orange colored spill in the Animas could have been the wake up call that we’ve been needing in order to come to realize that the Animas has been polluted by miners far more than 3 million gallons. I believe that designating Silverton a Superfund site woulsd begin to right all of the wrong doings and the polluting that has been put into the Animas River for almost 150 years.
https://www.hcn.org/articles/beleaguered-watershed-animas-spill-epa-durango
Ecological Impact: How far Reaching will the ecological impacts be and how will they vary based on the region of the spill?
The spill in the Animas has not only has short term health risks and effects, but implication of long term effects whenever big water movies thorough the river. Sentiments on the bottom of the Animas River containing heavy metals and hazardous materials will churn up any tim there is heavy rain, or every spring from he snow runoff. “Those remaining metals on the river bottom still could affect aquatic life, agriculture and other aspects of life along the water in ways that are difficult to predict.” Fish populations have been in decline over the last 10 years with no prediction or indications that that rate will slow down. The fish in the Animas River have been affected by the toxic metals in the water ever since it began being polluted and it’s starting to show in fish populations. A local fishing business owner in Durango, Kyle Hartley says, “We’re lucky everything around us is so great, and we can go other places,” he said. “But we always tell people do not eat the fish (out of the Animas). Its been polluted forever.” The Animas River is great for recreational fishing for sport and for fun, but eating the fish could pose health risks for you. The pollutants and the toxins in the river have made lasting effects on the fish so much to the point where it makes it unsafe for people to eat. If the mines and the rivers were to be cleaned up, overtime, the fish in the Animas River would go bucket to normal levels and would eventually become safe to eat again The Superfund could benefit not only the people in the communities of Durango and surrounding areas, but also the aquatic life and the wildlife who feed off the fish in the river. http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20150826/NEWS01/150829696/Wildlife-officials-survey-Animas-River-fish-in-wake-of-Gold-King-Mine-spill
Future Implications: What is the best solution to both ensure economic prosperity and environmental health for current and future generations? (Should Silverton be designated as a superfund site?)
The most beneficial solution environmentally would be to designate Silverton and the Gold King Mine as a superfund site. When coming to this decision, you have to think about not only Silverton, but the surrounding areas as well, such as Durango and the Navajo Nations. The 3 million gallons of heavy metal contaminated water not only affected Silverton, but all the way to Farmington, New Mexico. Farmington, which has a population of 45,000, has a water reserve of 90 days before the river becomes a necessity for drinking and bathing. Towns around farmington such as Shiprock,with a population of around 8,000, also rely on the water reserves of Farmington in cases such as the Animas River spill. That’s over 50 thousand people being affected by the spill without bringing Durango’s population of 17 thousand into the equation. When the levels of heavy metals present in the water, the amount of lead compared to normal levels was 12,000 times higher. CNN’s “By the numbers” says, “Lead is just one of the many heavy metals released, and it's not the deadliest. The wastewater also contained extremely high levels of arsenic, cadmium, beryllium and mercury. It also contained zinc, iron and copper.” The amount of lead alone is far too high to remain acceptable for not only the environment, but all those who rely on the river for drinking water business, and recreation.The Superfund, while may not be very popular amount citizens of Silverton, would benefit the lives of all those who live in surrounding towns of Silverton as well as the environment of those communities.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/13/us/animas-river-spill-by-the-numbers/
http://www.city-data.com/city/Shiprock-New-Mexico.html
Causes of the spill: Could the spill have been prevented and if so how?
Most the reason that the Animas River spill got the attention and national news coverage that it did was because of the bright mustard-orange color it had as it started flowing through Durango. Similar spills with just as many health risks as the Gold King spill went through the river without notice because there was no change of color. According to an article by The Washington Post, the EPA sent the experts to the Gold King mine without knowledge of the water build up inside of the Gold King, ultimately causing the spill. If the EPA had studied the abandoned Gold King, they could have gone about testing the toxicity in a different way, preventing the massive spill. ‘Given the maps and information known about this mine, a worst-case scenario estimate could have been calculated and used for planning purposes,’ the report stated. As it was, the EPA’s team was ‘lacking emergency protocols in the case of a significant flow or blow out,’ the document said” If the EPA had a worst case sensor protocol set out for accidental situation like this one, the spill may not have been completely prevented, but could have been reduced or could have been less toxic.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/08/26/heres-why-warning-signs-for-epas-mine-waste-spill-were-missed-and-why-it-could-happen-again/
Historical Context: How was the Animas River affected before the actual spill?
Pollution to the Animas River is not a new subject. For almost 150 years, since the first miners started above Silverton, the Animas River has been a dumping ground for the pollutants from those many mines. Since the 1870s, the Animas River has been polluted at the rates up to 250 gallons per minute, or 100 million gallons of toxic waste per year. The toxic orange colored spill in the Animas could have been the wake up call that we’ve been needing in order to come to realize that the Animas has been polluted by miners far more than 3 million gallons. I believe that designating Silverton a Superfund site woulsd begin to right all of the wrong doings and the polluting that has been put into the Animas River for almost 150 years.
https://www.hcn.org/articles/beleaguered-watershed-animas-spill-epa-durango
Ecological Impact: How far Reaching will the ecological impacts be and how will they vary based on the region of the spill?
The spill in the Animas has not only has short term health risks and effects, but implication of long term effects whenever big water movies thorough the river. Sentiments on the bottom of the Animas River containing heavy metals and hazardous materials will churn up any tim there is heavy rain, or every spring from he snow runoff. “Those remaining metals on the river bottom still could affect aquatic life, agriculture and other aspects of life along the water in ways that are difficult to predict.” Fish populations have been in decline over the last 10 years with no prediction or indications that that rate will slow down. The fish in the Animas River have been affected by the toxic metals in the water ever since it began being polluted and it’s starting to show in fish populations. A local fishing business owner in Durango, Kyle Hartley says, “We’re lucky everything around us is so great, and we can go other places,” he said. “But we always tell people do not eat the fish (out of the Animas). Its been polluted forever.” The Animas River is great for recreational fishing for sport and for fun, but eating the fish could pose health risks for you. The pollutants and the toxins in the river have made lasting effects on the fish so much to the point where it makes it unsafe for people to eat. If the mines and the rivers were to be cleaned up, overtime, the fish in the Animas River would go bucket to normal levels and would eventually become safe to eat again The Superfund could benefit not only the people in the communities of Durango and surrounding areas, but also the aquatic life and the wildlife who feed off the fish in the river. http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20150826/NEWS01/150829696/Wildlife-officials-survey-Animas-River-fish-in-wake-of-Gold-King-Mine-spill