Weapons

Gun violence is a horrible action that effects Americans each year through; death, injuries, domestic violence. The number of Americans who die from guns is around 33,000 people from the FBI information, 73,500 are nonfatal firearm injuries, and about one million women today have been shot by their significant other with approximately 4.5 million women today have been threatened with a gun. This is a serious problem in America and there are policies in place to try to reduce gun violence.

One policy in place is the National Firearms Act of 1934. This policy was created to stop gun violence in America and to basically prevent access to NFA weapons to the public by creating a tax on; $200 for the making and transferring of NFA firearms, $500-1000 occupational tax on importation, manufacturing, and dealing of NFA firearms. The policy was enacted due to the frequency of gangsters who use these weapons, which were used in crime such as the St. Valentine Day Massacre. The policy which would mandate all weapons be registered of all NFA firearms which included; shotguns and rifles 18 inches or less, machine guns, mufflers, silencer, and other weapons, to the Secretary of Treasury. In the Gun Control Act of 1968 which amended the NFA which made all guns contain a serial number.

This policy was successful at reducing gun violence associated to NFA weapons. Even though the $200 tax on the making and transferring of the firearms have not been changed since 1934 which with inflation would be $3,500 allows for easer availability for NFA firearms. According to Ryan Cleckner has a statistic that shows the number of NFA firearms in America as of April 2017 is 5,203,489. Which this in mind according to Mother Jones database of all mass and spree killers dating back to 1982 of the 108 kills have reported that not one has been used with an NFA weapon. This is due to the registration of NFA firearm only allowed to consumers who go through a more intensive background check which includes; fingerprints, photograph, and a having to register the weapon fully and must receive a documented permission from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tabaco, Firearms and Explosive.

The other policy in place is the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994. This policy mandates that students are not allowed to bring a firearm to school or would lead to expulsion for not less then a year. States will receive federal funding under the act if schools would implement the policy. States can still bring education to a student of expulsion due to the act the availability for education. Local education must report to the states to insure that local educational agency are in the compliance with the state law.

A Solution

This policy would eliminate federal funding restrictions for gun violence research. In 2013 president Obama allowed the CDC to conduct research on gun violence. But due to the NRA pushing Congress to pass the Dickey Amendment, which stops the CDC to use the funds on research that would promote gun control. This Amendment stopped all gun violence research for the CDC in fear of losing more federal funding. According to Jay Dickey who was the one the bill was named after said “It wasn’t necessary that all research stop, … It just couldn’t be the collection of data so that they can advocate gun control” (Dickey). Their predicted budget was $1.4 billion but they only receive $22 million. With research for gun control can start to understand the reasons of gun violence and help pass policies that would be beneficial to reduce gun violence. With no restrictions on what can be federally researched the CDC could have the opportunity to research topics like; the studying of what lawful and illegal gun ownerships look like, kids who have witness routine gun violence, safe gun storage. Understanding these topics would only help prevent gun violence or reduce suicides among kids and adults.

With the research done on gun violence would bring an enlightenment of understanding to very controversial topics. They could have studies done to see if what the NRA advocates for would really work like More gun equals Less violence. According to a statistic done by PEW research center states that 69% of Americans do not own a gun, but 36% of all Americans state they could see owning one in the future. If stronger research would be done to know weather owning a gun would reduce crime, then that might have them to go purchase a firearm. With having easy access to guns in the home creates a problem for children potentially having position of the firearm. A statistic done by Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia states “More that 75 percent of first and second graders know where their parents keep their firearms and 36 percent admitted handling the weapon, contradicting their parents’ reports,” this is very bad to have easy access to guns and should promote a better safe gun storages to prevent children to have access to deadly weapons.

Over the past century, gun control has evolved into a pressing matter for our country. On one side of the argument there is a group that believes that guns need to be banned and that more laws need to be enacted to protect the general public. The rest believe that the right to bear arms for American citizens is protected by the Second Amendment and that the gun laws in place need to be repealed. However, evidence suggests that illegal firearms are to blame for a large amount of shootings and homicides. Also, banning guns completely will not stop violence in our streets as seen in England in this decade. The most effective way to curb gun violence in America is to enforce greater penalties on people who possess illegal firearms. In addition, prospective gun owners must have a thorough background check performed as well as take part in mandatory firearm safety courses.

In this heated debate, there are two large parties that struggle to press their agenda into government. This dispute began when the very first gun restriction law passed in our country in 1934, the National Firearms Act. This law “required the registration of certain firearms, imposed taxes on the sale and manufacture of firearms, and restricted the sale and ownership of high-risk weapons such as machine guns and sawed-off shotguns” (Gale, a Cengage Company). Soon after this law was passed, it was questioned by the other side of this argument, which supports the Second Amendment and citizens rights to bear arms. This group believes that gun control is unconstitutional and unacceptable. They attempt to repeal current legislation as well as pass new laws that protect gun owner’s rights.

Five years after the National Firearms Act was passed, it was challenged in the Supreme Court case, United States v. Miller. This case had to do with “the interstate transportation of an unregistered sawed-off shotgun, a favorite weapon of gangsters during this time” (Gale, a Cengage Company). The law was upheld and would lead to more gun control laws throughout the century. However, anti-gun control laws would later be passed. In, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled on District of Columbia v. Heller. This time, “the court ruled that the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from making it illegal for private individuals to keep loaded handguns in their homes” (Gale, a Cengage Company). This shows a shift in the Supreme Court’s beliefs, drawing the line on how far gun control can go in our country.

In the pro gun control argument, there are flaws, which are visible in Washington D.C.. This city has been plagued by gun violence in recent years. However, the city has very strict gun laws, as it “prohibits registration of sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, short-barreled rifles, assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles” (King). The underlying problems that scar the city is the amount of illegal firearms that flood into the capital and the punishment that goes with this behavior. These weapons are used to commit numerous crimes, such as armed robberies and homicides. Even though this is a massive issue, the district “voted to decrease sentences for felons convicted of illegally possessing a gun in the District and to reduce the impact of prior felon-in-possession convictions on any future sentence an offender might incur” (King). Because of this relaxed sentencing, these convicted felons are not afraid or respectful of the law. Instead, they spit on it and return to their lives of crime, bolstered by these illegal weapons. This is a very pressing matter, in which the pro gun control movement has turned a blind eye towards.

Instead of creating more laws that will be disregarded by criminals, the district needs to increase the sentencing on men and women who are found in possession of an illegal firearm. By doing this, criminals are going to think twice before acquiring and using these weapons. This will make the streets of Washington D.C. a much safer place for it citizens.

Another hole that has been shown in the pro gun control side is the extreme rise in stabbings in England. This country has some of the most strict gun laws in the world, which have been expanded within the last decade. With the reduction of guns has come a rise in stabbings, many of which have been fatal. This is horrible, as “The number of homicides in England and Wales hit their highest level in a decade, official statistics showed on Thursday, as authorities struggle to halt a surge in fatal stabbings” (Nicosia). Again, this shows that gun control does not protect from all forms of violence. Now, criminals have turned to knives, which are easy to hide in public and do not make a sound. This is a crisis which England has not been able to solve. In 2018, “there was a 12 percent increase in homicides” (Nicosia). These facts point to truth that strict gun laws have not been able to protect British civilians from violence. America needs to learn from these recent events in England and not follow in their footsteps.

Additionally, anti-gun control supporters have major issues as well. In Louisiana, gun laws are extremely relaxed. For example, if a person is at least seventeen years old, they can openly carry a firearm without a permit in this state. Also, there is no law requiring the registration of guns. However, this state “ ranks first in the nation for the overall rate of gun violence” (Caiazza). This shows a monumental flaw in Second Amendment follower’s beliefs. The state of Louisiana stands for everything that this group believes in, yet these relaxed firearm laws have been unable to protect citizens from danger. This issue is not only found in Louisiana, as “the 10 states with the weakest gun laws collectively have levels of gun violence that are more than three times higher than the 10 states with the strongest gun laws” (Caiazza).

Again, there is a direct relationship to nonexistent gun laws promoting violence in our country. In order to reduce the amount of firearms being used for illegal activity and homicides, prospective gun owners need to have background checks performed, as well as take part in a mandatory firearm safety course. By doing this, states can track who owns guns, and prepare these men and women for the responsibility to own a firearm. Also, these background checks will weed out convicted felons and people with mental health issues. This will prevent deadly weapons from falling into the hands of the wrong people, while still allowing Americans to bear arms to protect them and their families from danger.

Another state in which gun violence is a pressing issue is Alabama. Similar to Louisiana, this state allows open carrying of a firearm without a permit as long as you are eighteen years old. In 2017, Alabama was second in the nation for the rate of gun deaths per year in our country. In this state “ 1,100 people died from complications of gunshot wounds—573 suicides, 506 homicides, and 21 accidental discharges” (Webb-Hehn). These statistics are sobering, as over 1,000 people lost their life to a gun. By performing background checks, these numbers could be reduced significantly. This method will point out criminals and prevent them from acquiring a legal firearm. This can reduce the amount of homicides. For suicides, some of these men and women suffer from mental health issues and are unstable. Again, the background check will highlight a person’s health history and will not allow these mentally ill people the opportunity of gun ownership.

For accidental discharges, many of these could have been prevented if prospective gun owners were educated through a formal safety course prior to owning the firearm. This statistic is very sad, as the operator of the firearm had no intention to kill anyone of hurt themselves. However, due to a lack of experience and comprehension of firearm use they put others as well as themselves in danger. With weapons that are so lethal, owners need to fully understand how to operate a gun safely. This tool of protection can quickly be turned into a machine of destruction and future owners need to be aware of these truths so that they can remain safe.

To reduce gun violence, penalties for illegal gun ownership need to be expanded. In addition, background checks and mandatory safety courses need to be enacted to ensure that firearms are not purchased by dangerous and unstable people. For the pro gun control side, there are holes in their argument that are clearly seen. Places in which strict gun laws have failed are Washington D.C. and England. In our nation’s capital, illegal firearms paired with relaxed sentencing for people who are in possession of an illegal gun are to blame for the elevated gun violence here. In England, deadly stabbings have risen dramatically over the past decade due to the stringent gun laws. This evidence shows that removing the right to bear arms is not a solution for violence in our nation.

However, states such as Louisiana and Alabama have very relaxed gun laws and their gun violence rates are some of the highest in the country. In these cases, background checks and mandatory firearm safety courses can curb gun violence. By doing these suggestions, these states will reduce the amount of guns being obtained by convicted felons as well as the mentally unstable. The safety course will show prospective gun owners the real dangers of owning a gun and how to promote safety during use. Gun violence is a real issue in the United States of America, but extreme laws from both sides will not solve this prevalent crisis.

Reaction Paper: Nuclear Weapons – Danger or Necessity? The use of nuclear weapons has been under much debate from the moment the world witnessed their destructive power. As seen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the aftermath left by these weapons is utter chaos, having a profound effect on both victims and witnesses lives. However, author Kenneth N. Waltz advocates the necessity of nuclear weapons as a balance of power between countries.

Another author, Robert S. McNamara stands in favor of eliminating nuclear weapons for good, bringing reassurance of peace for a fearful world. As debates over nuclear weapon use rage on, the threat is still present and must be handled carefully to avoid a man made apocalypse. McNamara and his stance on eliminating nuclear weapons is sensible, primarily due to the common man and woman agreeing with his logic.

Nuclear weapons in today’s world have no purpose but to scare opposing countries from complete warfare, a purpose that hopefully stays that way. While they were an everyday occurrence during the cold war years, concerns with the growth of existing nuclear stockpiles are no longer front page news. In an era where the security agenda is topped by fighting terrorism, we are more worried that terrorist organizations or rogue regimes might acquire nuclear weapons and inflict unspeakable damage to the targeted countries.

McNamara argues that “The countries of the world should try to eliminate their nuclear arsenal because of the utter devastation these weapons can inflict on humanity” (p 147). McNamara also states that “By intensifying its efforts in sustaining, modernizing, and improving its nuclear stockpile while refusing to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the United States sends a message that it is not serious about nuclear non-proliferation” (p 147).

In order for complete nuclear disarmament, all cards must be playing the same game. Kenneth Waltz is one of few advocators in favor of nuclear weapons, but he does have a solid argument. Leading scholars of international relations and policymakers share in the belief that the sheer destructiveness of nuclear weapons prevents them from being used by friends and foes alike. The deterrent effect of nuclear weapons is rooted in their possession rather than in their use.

Waltz argues that “Nuclear weapons make states cautious and less likely to engage in reckless behavior” (p 156). He also states that “While the enormous destructiveness of nuclear weapons makes them excellent weapons for defensive purposes-the weapons have no offensive rationale” (p 155). Though Waltz does not advocate widespread nuclear armament, he does submit that nuclear weapons are great contributors to stability in the international system.

After reading and analyzing the arguments of both authors, I take my stance with McNamara and his view toward eliminating nuclear weapons. Recently in an article on NY Times, the US and Russia agreed on a nuclear disarmament treaty that shows progress in eliminating nuclear weapons by dismantling the two biggest stockpiles of nuclear weapons in the modern world. This, I believe, is just the beginning of the end for nuclear weapons around the world which would keep humanity much safer and hopefully create long lasting peace.

Globalization can be defined as the process of integrating the social, economic, political, and cultural of different countries globally. Globalization stems back all the way to the second half of the 20th century. Globalization has plenty of accolades, but it also has major negative consequences. Scientific developments hastened with globalization and tools of mass destruction like chemical weapons started being produced on large scale and demand. This paper focuses on how the use of chemical weapons in Syria has affected the Syrian environment and its relations with its neighboring countries.  Chemical weapons are some of the most dangerous tools to be used in war.

Chemical weapons have been used for centuries in fight, but it was not until the First World War that they were used in large scale. According to Ahmet Üzümcü says that this was all made possible by the rapid advances in science technology that enabled the mass production of these lethal weapons. Despite the early efforts to control the use of these weapons by signing the Geneva protocol in 1925, it did not require that one could not stock chemical agent; therefore, they continued to be used in warfare during the cold war and even the Iran-Iraq war. In 1993, the world community signed the chemical weapon convention, which was enforced in 1997 .

This was a much comprehensive ban on chemical weapons. Destruction of these weapons is projected to conclude in the next few years. Recent events in Syria have reminded the world of the horrific impact of chemical weapons. According to Pita René and Juan Domingo, the Syrian government accused a terrorist group of firing a chemical rocket at the southeast of the city of Aleppo, Khan Al Asal that took the lives of 25 innocent people and injured more than 110 people.

Jefferson quoted the US secretary of state on the event as “moral obscenity”. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) could not investigate the disaster since at the time Syria was not a member of the Chemical World Convention. However, after the Syrian Government asked the United Nations to investigate whether the use of chemical weapons caused the attack, it started the UN Secretary-General Mechanism (SGM).

The UN Secretary-General assembled a mission that consisted of OCPW personnel and medical staff from the world health organization. The investigation did confirm that the attack was chemical based, and also set the base for the investigation of other alleged chemical weapon attacks with France and the United Kingdom accusing Syria of another chemical related attack. These were followed by other allegations by Qatar and the USA.

They were all alleging that through their investigations they had found the 12 different attacks to have been caused by chemical weapons which were in possession of the Syrian government. The investigations were conducted through the means of individualized governments, which meant that the UN could not use the findings. The United Nations could not use these findings because they did not have the proper chain of protection, as the United Nations required the investigation to be done by its personnel. However, after all the turn of events, the Syrian government decided to join the CWC led to the commencement of international efforts to completely Syria of these dangerous chemical weapons. The use of Chemical weapons in Syria attracted a lot of attention from big world powers. Greg says that the USA and the UK became the most spoken in the fight against removing chemical weapons and a new regime in Syria.

After the statement of the US secretary of state John Kerry, the then President of the United States of America Barrack Obama also issued a statement warning Syria that any use of chemical weapons by the country would be crossing a global red line. The British Prime minister David Cameron despite conceding the parliamentary vote on taking part in military action and gave a striking warning that the use of chemical weapons would quality a strong response from the United Kingdom.

According to Christian Henderson, the UK decided that by “legal basis military action would be humanitarian intervention.” Syria had potentially made unnecessary powerful enemies who could subdue it if it went past diplomacy. Syria was not part of the CWC when the first attack took place; this meant that the relevant authority that was assigned with the task of investigating chemical attacks could not get involved.

Even though other individualized governments had carried out their investigation due to the lack of chain of custody of the investigations, even the UN could not take any action. This meant the process would drag on for a longer period than it should have and the relationship between the countries involved would continue to strain. In turn, the process of ridding the universe of chemical weapons would suffer setbacks.

The attack in Syria brought back the attention of the world to a problem that needed an urgent solution. Syria was still one of the countries that were still not in the CWC, and the attack showed the world that they needed to do everything possible to get the other countries to join CWC. According to Catherine Jefferson, Syria did allow and joined CWC and had since cooperated with the body in the destruction of the chemical weapons stock. For the OPCW to get involved in the first investigation, it required the activation of the SGM, the enactment of this mechanism showed the importance of achieving Universal membership.

Since Syria became part of the CWC actions have been taken to ensure that Syria destroys the chemical weapons and through this Samiotis and Grekos, shows in 2014 chemical weapons from Syria were destroyed aboard a vessel belonging to the US Maritime Administration by the name MV Cape Ray in the Mediterranean Sea. This was a big milestone in the fight for a world free from chemical weaponry.

The first agreement against chemical weapons, the Geneva protocol was signed in 1925, but countries were still stockpiling chemical weapons, and it took well over 68 years before the Chemical Weapon Convention was established in 1993. It took another four years for it to be enforced, but the drawback is that there are countries that are not part of the CWC; thus, this does not affect that which puts the convention under threat.

This is seen when the attacks in Syria take place by the use of the weapons, and it is even harder to assemble a mission to investigate the attacks due to the lack of custody. The convention has played a big role in destroying chemical weapons, but there is still a long way to go before they accomplish this mission entirely. The use of chemical weapons in Syria has a very negative effect on the natural environment of the countries affected.

According to Pita René and Juan Domingo shows, that the samples collected from the scene of the attack had Sarin decomposition and metabolites. The destruction of chemical weapons in the Mediterranean Sea according to has consequences that even from a scientific perspective still do not know the extent to which it may destroy the sea. The chemicals involved in the making of the weapons cause a lot of damage to the environment which if not dealt with my cause a permanent problem.

Many of the attacks have happened within Syria, and any signs of way are a threat to political stability and attainment of world peace. The claims that have been made against the Syrian government have not been proven, and thus no one has taken responsibility for the attacks. According to Christopher Jenkins, the CWC is on the right track towards the complete destruction of chemical weapons. The CWC should engage the countries that have not joined them to subscribe to the cause and help the world become chemical weapon free.

Most of the countries are storing the weapons because of the uncertainty that they might face a war shortly. If the CWC and other relevant authorities come together, get involved and guarantee these countries that they won’t fall into the attack, then it may be possible to get them to join CWC.

Recommendations

The Syrian government has strained relations with other countries due to the recent attacks. It is important for these countries to have a good international relationship for the CWC to be well enforced and reduce any chances of them getting into a war and spark another wave of large-scale production chemical weapons. The Syrian government should also get involved in the process of restoring the country to a more stable state. They should get as much outside help as possible and enhance their international relationships.

The topic of concealed carry is something that a lot of people are talking about. Turn on the news, the radio, read the newspaper, surf the internet and the topic of conceal carry will be discussed. The reason it is so highly discussed is due to the effect that conceal carry will have on everyone regardless of race, age, and socio- economic background. As a resident of Illinois, the most recent state to adopt concealed carry, there continues to be much concern about how it will be monitored and enforced.

Will there be an increase in public safety with the adoption of concealed carry or will here be an increase in gun related injuries and fatalities. The research process for this paper consisted of a comprehensive search via internet of Journal articles related to gun control and concealed carry, library database review, newspaper archives, and broadcast media reports. For the Journal articles and the library database review, the key words “concealed carry’ and “gun control” were utilized.

In reviewing the results from the use of the key words, Journal articles were then organized chronologically from oldest to most recent publication date within groups of relevant subject matter. The selected articles were reviewed and pertinent information was noted for use. Since Illinois is the most recent state to adopt the concealed carry law, newspaper archives were examined for articles concerning the issue in the local News Gazette, the Springfield State Journal Register and the Chicago Tribune. Articles written in 2013 discussing the adoption of the law were used to build a timeline covering the process to date.

Broadcast media sources were searched for recent broadcasts related to concealed carry and gun control, and for examples of recent gun violence where the assage of concealed carry was proposed as the solution to preventing future incidents or blamed as the reason the incidents occurred. Broadcasts fulfilling these requirements were viewed and used to provide evidence on both sides of the issue. Finally, websites for groups on both sides of the issue were reviewed for commentary and viewpoints that would greater examine the arguments both for and against concealed carry.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Students for Concealed Carry, both national organizations provided the voice for pro concealed carry. To represent those against concealed carry, The National Order of Fraternal olice and FINDINGS The May 2013 online article by Facts on File News Services, takes a closer look at gun control following the violence that broke out in an elementary school taking the lives of children and teachers. It was another senseless shooting that shook the nation and seemed it was the final straw forcing individuals and government offices to increase efforts to tighten gun laws.

The second-deadliest mass shooting ever to occur in the United States was the Newton shooting. Only by the 2007 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University shooting where a gunman had took 32 lives hootings in the United States to three in 2012. It was reported in December of 2012 that the Obama administration would support a bill to ban assault weapons, as well as consider a ban on high-capacity magazines, preventing the operator of a gun from rapid fire and rapid reload ofa firearm. January 2013, President Obama urged Congress to pass gun control measures requiring background checks and declaring a ban on assault weapon.

His message was that background checks would tighten the ability of individuals to purchase weapons from gun shows or from private dealers where background checks were not required. Close control on the sale of military- style semi-automatic guns or ‘assault weapons’ was perceived to be a much more difficult process. When put toa vote in front of the senate, Senators voted 54-46 against universal background checks, 54-46 against limits on the size of high-capacity ammunition magazines, and 60-40 against a ban on the manufacture and sale of assault weapons in April 2013.

In response to the vote, Obama blasted the gun lobbyists of spreading lies about the expansion of the background checks by implying that gun registry would be controlled by government officials. Those on both sides of he aisle, who assumed a Pro-gun control stance for legislation, committed their voice to the pursuit of gun control. In all 50 states, the carrying of a concealed gun is now legal according to an article that appeared on the website ProCon. org in October 2013. Only Washington, D. C. revents concealed carry except for both active and retired law enforcement officers. This article explores both sides of the concealed carry debate. For example, between May 2007 and March 2010 statistics reveal that nine law enforcement officers and 142 non-law enforcement individuals were killed by concealed carry handgun permit olders across the nation. It is also statistically significant to note that the majority of those who legally carry concealed do not abuse their rights and are non-violent.

While it may seem obvious that criminals are less likely to attack someone that they believe might be armed, it is also important to emphasize that handguns are not an effective form of self-defense often resulting in injury and death for the individual carrying. A concealed handgun significantly increases the chances of a confrontation escalating in violence to a lethal degree. The risk of suicide is magnified as a vast ajority of all suicide attempts are done in times impulsiveness where not only owning, but carrying a handgun gives an individual a method to act.

There are those proponents of concealed carry who will tout the Second Amendment of the U. S. Constitution as a proof that citizens, who are to bear arms for a well-regulated militia, should be entitled to personal carry. Those on the anti concealed side remind us that the Second Amendment provides for bearing arms when there is a need for “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”. The Constitution does not discuss nor promote concealed handguns for personal protection.

Eleven states have “may issue” laws which give law enforcement discretion in issuing permits. In a February 26, 2013 newspaper article written by Tom Kachich, State Representatives from Illinois approved a number of amendments to pass the concealed-carry law which would allow Illinoisans to carry weapons in public; however they would need to meet certain requirements that needed to be completed concealed-carry, legislation stated that Illinois was going to be a “shall state”, meaning that larger numbers of citizens would be able to acquire permits.

The catch to obtaining a permit is eight hours of training including live-fire training, and would need to undergo a criminal history background check. In order to get a permit, the individual would have to pay an eighty dollar fee for a five-year permit. Representative Brandon Phelps elaborated “that there would be no limitation on the number of weapons a permit-holder could carry, but that the bill is more restrictive than we ever wanted it to be. ” A weapon may not be carried in schools, child care facilities, local government buildings, libraries, stadiums, places of worship, casinos, and is even restricted on mass transit.

Phelps’ amendment would also not permit for those on campuses of colleges and universities to carry a firearm. State Representative, Naomi Jakobsson, proposed another amendment which was approved by the House which stated that firearms should be restricted in hospitals and mental health facilities. Karen Farkas wrote an article in the September 2013 edition of the Cleveland News about concealed carry on college campuses. Of the 1,649 students surveyed at fifteen public colleges in the Midwest, 78% reported that they did not support the carrying of handguns on college campuses.

Most students reported that not only ould they not feel safer on campus; they were concerned about the potential for an increased risk of suicides and homicides. Ohio is a part of 49 states that have concealed carry weapons laws and one of 22 states that ban carrying a concealed weapon on a college campus. “l think for the majority of people this (concealed handguns) is not on their radar screen because it is so absurd,” said Amy Thompson, who is a professor in the department of public health at the University of Toledo who led the study. Why bring guns into the learning environment? When I talk to my students (about concealed carry) they say ‘Are you kidding me? I don’t want a kid sitting next to me in class with a backpack with a gun in it. ” Thompson, who is a part of a team of researchers, conducted a survey with the faculty and university presidents to see who supported the concealed carry and who didn’t. “As a public health professor I wanted to look at who is pushing this and is it something that really, truly everyone wants,” she said.

College students need to be aware of the value of a concealed carry weapon because a college campus is no different than a small city. Kurt Mueller, who is the organization’s public relations director said, “The survey aid that most students believed that allowing concealed carry would increase the risks of suicides and homicides, and if you wanted to commit a homicide with a firearm you don’t need a carry a permit to do it because they aren’t worried about violation of the firearms law. Thompson said that a survivor of the Virginia Tech shootings who was shot four times spoke on her campus and said even if he had been armed he wouldn’t have been able to do anything and would have been more likely to be killed. And Thompson says, “There is tons of research that will back that up. The study that she instructed also found that about 16 percent of undergraduate students own a firearm and 20 percent witnessed a crime on their campus that involved firearms; about 66 percent felt that if they carried gun it would make them less likely to be bothered by others. eapons on college campuses, and five other states put forth bills that would prohibit concealed weapons on campuses. Even though the legislation was pushing for weapons, studies suggest that a large number of college students did not support allowing concealed weapons while attending school. 78% of the students, who were urveyed at 1 5 different Midwestern colleges and universities, expressed opposition to concealed weapons, according to the study which was published in the Journal of American College Health. This issue of allowing people to carry concealed weapons at universities and colleges around the U. S. has been raised several times in recent years,” said Jagdish Khubchandani, who is a member of Ball State University. “This is in spite of the fact that almost four of every five students are not in favor of allowing guns on campus. ” In a statement published July 12, 2013 The National Rifle Association (NRA) roposed that the Second Amendment is a far more important portion of the Bill of Rights, suggesting that far more emphasis should be placed on it than even the First Amendment.

This belief is behind the NRA attempts the legislature and the courts to be able to expand rights to gun owners while weakening the rights of gun opponents. The NRA views the resistance to concealed carry as a type of reverse discrimination which would prevent people who should have the ability to protect themselves from that right. The passage of concealed carry laws has been a focus of the NRA. Their tance is that while individual rights are important, nothing is important as the right to carry. Another group that is pro- concealed carry law would be a student organization known as Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.

These students believe that if they were allowed to carry a concealed weapon on them that they would feel safer walking alone at night or even if someone they did not know approached them. They support the individual’s right to defend themselves in times of personal Jeopardy. For every group that supports concealed carry, there is a group of people who do not. One such group is The National Order of Fraternal Police. A group of law enforcement officers, this group strongly believes that they should be the only ones to have a handgun. Police officers have been highly trained regarding the necessity of the use of a weapon.

These officers are entrusted by their cities and communities to utilize firearms only when essential for public safety. In a profession which is not only dangerous, but also unpredictable, the concern that the officer will not know whom is armed and who is not could raise the intensity surrounding altercations, and holds the potential for concealed carriers to get involved in situations they are ot prepared for. Further Research Currently the most interesting sources were the ones about the facts about concealed carry and the attempt to pass the gun control law after the school massacre fail.

One of the issues emerging was whether or not college campuses should allow students to carry a concealed weapon on them while at school. Some students thought that they should be able to carry a gun so that they would feel safer when walking alone at night; while others weren’t keen on the idea of carrying a weapon. Most people would agree with having a concealed weapon, even though you ave to complete a certain amount of training hours and live fire hours to carry a concealed carry rather than be for it since there has been so many school shootings and even shootings in my town not too long ago.

Should Teachers Be Able to Bring Guns to School? Guns are powerful weaponry used mainly for protection. Misuse of this type of weapon is the cause of laws and regulations that are enforced today, for people can be greatly injured if not used for pragmatic reasons. Guns have literally been banned from many public places, such as schools, for this reason.

Absolutely no one, aside from law-enforcement officials, are allowed to carry a gun on them in schools; however, teachers should be allowed to carry guns as well because they know their responsibilities and need the ability to protect their students, as well as themselves, in a case of emergency. In a time of crisis, such as an intruder or another person with a gun at school, teachers act as an aegis to their students, for most teachers treat their students as if they were their own children.

Knowing their responsibility of protection, teachers know that it would be difficult to shield their students if an intruder were to infiltrate their classroom or place where they were assigned to teach or monitor students. However, by being able to bear a gun, they would not only be able to protect their students, but they could also stop the intruder from harming any other student or faculty member as well.

This process of being able to allow teachers to carry guns would be inevitably difficult, for, in most places, as Brad Knickerbocker says, “District policy prohibits anyone except a law-enforcement officer from bringing a weapon onto campus” (1). However, as Knickerbocker also says, “Throughout the country, lawmakers are filing bills that would make it legal for adult school employees to carry firearms…” (1).

Therefore, there is a chance that a bill will be passed and allow the great advantage of being able to possess a gun on school property for the responsible teachers wanting to provide a protected environment for their students, be able to protect themselves, and simply have a security measure for any emergency situation that may come up. Initially, students are the major components that make up a school, for, without them, educators would have nothing and no one to teach. Students should be able to come to school worry-free and comfortably, for they should not have the fear of a school not being safe at any time.

Moreover, in order to be a preventative of students being afraid, there should be more security measures than there are currently in schools today. Indubitably, most schools have emergency drills and practices for protection; however, that is not always enough, for people in a school can still be harmed, or even worse, executed. For example, a student could walk into a school with a concealed weapon and easily start firing off into a crowd of students; therefore, law-enforcement officers alone may not be able to reach the situation fast enough.

Furthermore, if each teacher were allowed to carry a gun, with proper training, they would be able to stop the student from harming any more students than they could have before. Nevertheless, this does not mean only a gun such as a pistol, for even Taser guns could be used if the intruder or the threatening student didn’t need to be injured to the extent to where they are immediately deceased. Basically, students would be much more protected where they could roam the halls without apprehension if teachers were allowed to carry and use guns accordingly.

Subsequently, teachers should not only be able to protect their students, but they should be able to protect themselves as well. Although there are risks where teachers could harm themselves by accidental usage of a gun, misplace a gun, or have their gun stolen, there still seems to be more pros than cons on the situation. As students are known to be the main components of a school, the educators are very important as well. Because of this, those educators need to be protected in case something abominable was to happen to them as well.

Most teachers would agree that if a situation came up where law-enforcement officers were needed, they would want to be equally equipped with protection, and, in this case, that protection would be a gun. Unfortunately, there are still teachers that would rather not have a gun, for, as Kenneth S. Trump, President of National School Safety and Security Services, said, “The vast majority of teachers want to be armed with textbooks and computers, not guns” (qtd. in “Arming Teachers” 1).

However, those disagreeing teachers most likely wouldn’t believe that if an emergency came up to where their own lives were threatened. Typically, the majority of teachers would agree that a gun could be a great advantage in a case of emergency, whether or not there could be a few risks at stake. Finally, emergency situations can happen in the blink of an eye, and the phrase, “expect the unexpected,” should be applied as a preventative for anything harmful that could have been avoidable. Also, an emergency situation can get so out of hand that numerous law-enforcement officers would need to be present.

An example of this would be the Columbine High School massacre, where a student brought a gun to school and fired off into a crowd of students, which injured 21 people and executed 15 people; however, this could have been avertible if teachers were allowed to have guns, for a teacher could then have had the ability to stop the student from causing any harm, aside a simple scare of the school’s students and faculty being wounded. Moreover, that massacre is merely an example of an event that could have been much worse, for, with violence becoming worse in today’s world, an execution of a whole school could even happen.

This, at least, should be a reason for teachers to have guns so everyone would feel safe in the long run. In addition to this, the matter of teachers having guns shouldn’t be a complicated matter when emergencies come up because it would be a great advantage for all teachers with training for the usage of guns to be able to have a quick way of response to any type of thing that may endanger human lives; therefore, avertible situations should be taken into consideration, and, if nothing else, arming the teachers with guns would be a great way to fulfill that thought.

Mostly, some people could say that a process as complex as this would seem not worth fighting for; however, many teachers could agree otherwise, for they would rather be protected and take risks than to be like a sitting duck and not take even the slightest risk to support an advantage that could save other people’s lives, as well as their own. Trump says, “The arming of teachers and school staff goes is a significantly different issue that goes beyond simply the issue of an individual’s right in a number of states to be licensed to carry a concealed weapon” (qtd. n “Arming Teachers” 2). This is partially true, for it does inevitably go beyond the basic rights of individuals; however, that does not mean that it shouldn’t be taken into effect because complexity comes around. Basically, when push comes to shove, people shouldn’t back down due to the lack of simplicity of a certain matter, and, in this case, that matter would be allowing teachers to carry guns.

Ultimately, risks are taken every day, and the risk of wounding a few students to a whole body of students seems to be a much better way out. That way, the teachers wanting to protect their students, as well as themselves, can act as a precaution, for most realistic teachers know that, if an emergency situation came up, it would surely be atrocious to go back and see that less harm could have been done after all.

As Knickerbocker says, “The NRA and other gun advocates view allowing guns on school property as a safety measure” (2); therefore, overall, if an organization such as the National Rifle Association were to agree that teachers should have the advantage to step up in emergency situations in order to protect their students, as well as themselves, then it shouldn’t be such a crucial matter to allow guns to be carried by teachers after all.

Works Cited “Arming Teachers and School Staff with Guns. ” schoolsecurity. org. National School Safety and Security Services, 1996-2008. Web. 2 Oct. 2012. Kinckerbocker, Brad. “Should Teachers Be Able to Bring Guns to School? ” seattletimes. nwsource. com. The Seattle Times Company, 2007. Web. 2 Oct. 2012.

The Necessity of Nuclear Power As time goes by and the world becomes more advanced technologically, we develop a greater need for energy sources. Most of the fuels that we use today are non-renewable, such as coal and oil. Nuclear power is a source of power which brings many benefits. It is less expensive because it is based on uranium, which is easily accessible. With very little amounts of uranium, great amounts of energy can be produced. A significant advantage is that by producing energy using nuclear power, the process does not give off Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide which contribute to the rising problem of Global Warming.

One of the biggest advantages of nuclear power is the discoveries made in nuclear medicine, such as CAT scan, cancer therapy and MRI machines. Nuclear power has become more useful in the past century with the inventions of nuclear weapons. The invention of atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs and other weapons of mass destruction has given nations more power and source of safety. A single weapon can be capable of destroying a whole city. Nuclear weapons have only been used twice in history, both during the closing events of the Second World War in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It is a wise decision to possess nuclear weapons if you are a wealthy nation with power. If a nation feels threatened at any time, it can depend on these weapons to protect themselves from the enemy. Nuclear power has disadvantages as well. If any accidents were to occur, many people can be fatally injured. Nuclear plants are only reliable to a certain extent. In reality, if any accident were to happen, a whole city can be expected to evacuate. One major disadvantage of nuclear power is that is creates significant amounts of radioactive waste.

This waste causes problems for the world because of its high radiation. The waste remains for hundreds of years and creates high temperatures. Although nuclear power does have disadvantages, I believe that it necessary as long as it is used in the correct manner. The fossil fuels used for energy today are not an infinite resource. Someday, humans may need to rely on different sources of power and energy for consumption. Without the proper source of energy, our world would stop because people would not know how to react to the shortage of resources.

In nuclear power and the production of energy can be handled correctly, a possibility of an accident is relatively rare. Nuclear power can be a good substitute for the burning of fossil fuels for energy. The manufacturing of weapons of mass destruction is also beneficial to the well-being of nations and the people. If any disputes that led to war were to occur, countries have the ability to protect themselves if need be. Knowing the fact that multiple nations may be in possession of such weapons, decreases the likelihood of severe combat.