Karen De Leon

Argumentative Blog Post

March 25, 2016

Cyber bullying Among teens around the world:

This is the story of a girl named Nicole that is victim of cyber bullying and that some teens have been and nobody sees because it is behind a screen and that’s why they make wrong decisions... One day she was celebrating her birthday at a concert with her friends and the music was too loud, she was  looking her facebook account that there were some teens that were sending text messages to her but she did not  know what they were talking about and she start looking for it and asking who were they and what they were arguing about and what was the issue with them . She was scared because she did not know who they were but the insults were coming and they were fouler,  they were horrible words like ¨whore¨“slut,” and “scared snitch.”. After 2 weeks she knew what the plan of them was and why were they doing that. She says that she did not have to do anything with what they were accusing her she was terrified and she could not find a way of how to stop that because she says “I always had my phone with me, and that made it impossible to escape from the horrific messages I was  receiving,” She says that bullying ruined her social life, she start believing what they were telling her and she also but she lost trust in many others who were involved in spreading rumors about her, her parents contacted the school about it but the school was not prepared to help and handle with this kind of situations. She start responding the messages but they did care about it and the text messages  start increasing more and more. She start ignoring those text messages and before he looked at them she erase them after 2 years  “Nicole would be helping other teen victims of cyber bullying. Shawn formed the Great American NO BULL Challenge, with Nicole as the campaign’s spokesperson. Speaking to kids about her cyber bullying experience has been healing for Nicole. “This has allowed me to stop running from my past,” Nicole says. “Instead of letting others tear me down, I’m able to live my life to the fullest while inspiring others to do the same. I am seeing how powerful it can be to stand up to cyberbullies.” Some teens that were bullied to Nicole were not been silenced yet , Finally one of her tormentors tell her that he wanted to apologize for been accusing her for something she had nothing to do with. Cyber bullies need to have greater  consequences so they know that  bullying is  wrong and that we need to stop it

There are many reasons why schools should give consequences for cyberbullying and I’m going to describe/tell one of them this is important because it can costs many live and it also may hurt some people hurts

One of them is that some of them might take a wrong decision by killing themselves but if school do something to stop it they can think and say “wait a minute I don’t care what this guys are talking about I’m going to follow my dreams and don’t let this guys win me and put me down for things they are saying” and there is no need for them to kill themselves because they are going to know what to do by the time they are being victims. For me this means that if school and families can talk to their kids about this they can react and know what to do when others are bullying them so we can help them and they can help others and help them by telling them that there is an issue in here that we can deal with… I think this matter to all of us ‘cause now all those teens are suffering by that and people can’t see that cause is behind a screen and they should be doing something so teens can open their mouths and says the true in here. For example here I read the article and I found a girl that was suffering cyber bullying “Rebecca Ann Sedwick, 12, would probably say cyber bullying is horrible – the embarrassment happens in front of an audience of the entire World Wide Web. But she can't. Rebecca climbed to the top of a building near her home and jumped to her death. She had texted a friend that she couldn't take it anymore.”

However, the consequences of cyber bullying can be just as terrible. Immediate consequences can include feelings of fear, dread or anger. Oftentimes, these immediate, feelings can turn into serious mental health issues like depression. In some cases, people feel so hopeless from the bullying that they turn to suicide.  Some people might say “My daughter can deal with it she is not going to kill herself for something is not even true I don't  think that can hurt her/him if she knows that is not true” but there is evidence for it and some parents might not know that because I also  found something that revels this  

"So they are trying to address the kinds of violent speech that can lead students to suicide."

Another reason why school should give consequences for cyberbullying is because it teaches teens that they did something wrong and if they do not stop that they think they can bully others, this lead  teenagers to make more bullying there are many ways to stop cyberbullying people need to help them so they stop bullying their peers and learn how to take care each others.

This means for me that teenagers are bringing more bully to the word and that nobody see that and try to stop it. “Every Facebook post or cellphone message can carry bullying messages. The bullies in the past could be avoided, but the bullies now can reach their target anywhere.  For example Rebecca's horrible bullying went on for months. She was homeschooled for a time, then transferred to another school. The bullies followed on her smartphone. One example of this is a high school student who played soccer. He was a goalie who was bullied on Facebook after allowing the winning goal in a major soccer game. His teammates stood up for him by posting a photo of him making a huge save in another game.

For this other people might say “Teens can’t bully someone else they are maybe just playing It’s just a game for teens they are just playing  each other like everyone else there is no issue with it and I don’t think there is any app where they can bully each others.”

"Most parents don't have a clue about how these social media sites and apps work, so some training there would be in order," says Suzanne Bogdan, an education expert.

The last  reason is that, because parents think there is no cyberbullying among them. Since cyberbullying is done by  using a computer, this means it happens behind a screen and cannot been seen as  is doing the bullying. “Too many parents, however, ignore their children's online behavior or say that their kids could never be bullies. Cyberbullying is often taken less seriously than regular bullying, because it happens behind a screen from one’s home.” Cyberbullying Presents Unique Challenges

Many people say  “I have not seen a teen  bullying other that is not true and I have shown my childrens  how to treat someone else and how to be respect full.”

Evidence for counterargument: Parents remain one of the best ways to prevent cyberbullying.

Counterargument: Some people might say “my daughter can deal with it she is not going to kill herself for something is not even true I don't  think that can hurt her/him if she knows that is not true”

School should give consequences for cyber bullying  because  Parents do not agree with it and think that there is no cyber bullying among them, as cyber bullying is using a computer that means is behind a screen and can not see who is doing the bullying. All of us should take care about this problem among teenagers, because if we don’t take care about this it is going to be more bigger and we are going to lose the control and the only thing we need is control it so people don’t die and they stop being victims of this. I want people to start taking action on this problem of cyber bullying and help other so they know they are safe and nothing can happen to them if  they stand up and speak up for themselves and also realize that there is a problem with teenagers now in the world and that we need to find a solution and also parents don´t ignore what your child is trying to tell you and try to understand them so they know what to do and they do not make wrong decisions , I also want to say that I am willing to help any persons who is victim of this and help them.

School(s) Should Give Consequences For Cyberbullying- Yaria Smith

A personal experience I’ve had with cyberbullying isn’t really deep to me because I didn’t take any offence to it but I was “Cyber Bullied” when I was in 6th grade by some random person calling me names and like stalking me. I didn’t really tell anyone about it because I just thought the whole situation was funny. Like the person wasn’t threatening me and telling me to kill myself but this person was like using a fake name texting me saying,“Oh you look nice today” and then would describe clothing I was wearing and then would like proceed to saying like how something I was wearing was ugly or something,but not only was this creepy person texting me s/he was also texting my friends. The whole situation was weird but funny until like this person started leaving like notes in our lockers saying like, “Hi” and “from Tina” and that’s when two of my friends got worried about this person and went and told a teacher. But even though we told the teacher there was nothing done about it and we never found out who the stalker was. My topic is about cyberbullying. I am writing/addressing this topic because this topic is very serious to me because I have friends has been cyberbullied and has thought about harming themselves.

The first argument on why cyber bullying needs to stop is because from a personal (stalkerish) experience I don’t like cyberbullying because my friends have also experienced it, and a couple of my friends have either thought about harming themselves or they just thought they weren't good enough because of it. Therefore, it needs to be dealt with and I feel that people who are going through things need to address it to their parents or to a teachers because majority of kids who cyberbully are either going through something or they just want to be mean. I feel that parents need to like check kids phones or something to figure out if they are involved in situations like that.   

Cyberbullying has been a problem for many years now and I feel that when kids first experience it they should automatically go and tell a teacher, parent, counselor and explain to them what’s going on.

However, some people who are involved in cyberbullying may think that it's fine to do what the are doing, that it's not hurting the victim as much as they think. And some parents might even say that there shouldn't be and consequences, even though their child could even be cyberbullying some innocent kid behind a screen. According to stopcyberbullying.org Daniel B.Wood he says, “But while some parents have complained that this practice is like the government spying into private lives, legal experts say the district is well within its rights to pursue the idea of monitoring social media accounts.”  

In conclusion Cyberbullying needs to be dealt with because lots of people in the world have comited suicide because of it, and everyone should be apart of fixing this problem because if you had a family member or friend who killed themselves because some rude person was telling your family member or friend that  they werent good enough to be in this world...what would u do if that person told you they couldn´t take life anymore what would u do? I advise you to go and tell your parents,teacher,aunt,uncle,or anyone who you know will take care of the situation.

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership. The Second Amendment of the US Constitution 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." (Gun Control - ProCon.org should more gun control laws be enacted?) Gun ownership is an American tradition older than the country itself and is protected by the Second Amendment; more gun control laws would infringe upon the right to bear arms. Justice Antonin Scalia, LLB, in the June 26, 2008 District of Columbia et al. v. Heller US Supreme Court majority opinion syllabus stated, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.¨ (Gun Control - ProCon.org should more gun control laws be enacted?)

 “Defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life" and "many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals."  Constitutions in 37 US states protect the right to bear arms for self-defense, most with explicit language such as Alabama's: "every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."  Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, stated, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." A May 9, 2013 48% of convicted felons surveyed admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed with a gun.  Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s.(Gun Control - ProCon.org should more gun control laws be enacted?)

Beyond that, who among us has the right to tell me I will murder someone because I have a gun? And who can tell me that I can only defend and protect myself in a way they feel comfortable with? Just having access to a deadly weapon doesn't turn someone into a killer. Have you ever felt road rage? Many of us who have cars have felt some form of extreme anger at other drivers because we feel they have put us in danger. We might even envision ramming their cars or cutting them off in return, but do we actually do it? No, because the overwhelming majority of us never want to take another human life.i think that this part of the evidence can tell how guns don’t do anything to us.

Guns #4: 'American Sniper' widow: Gun control won't protect us (Version B)

Cars are tools that is involved in about as many deaths as guns. If you are a driver prone to drinking and driving, should we only allow you to drive a small car? Not an SUV which could kill more people? No, we take away the drunk driver's access to legally drive any car. This is about freedom to do as you like until you prove incapable of showing good moral judgment. This piece of evidence that i found in ´´american sniper widow¨help by telling me how guns don't kill as much as cars and other things do and how people who try to do mass murders do drugs or have access to guns to do a mass murder

Guns #4: 'American Sniper' widow: Gun control won't protect us (Version B)

 “Defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life" and "many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals."Constitutions in 37 US states protect the right to bear arms for self-defense, most with explicit language such as Alabama's: "every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, stated, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." A May 9, 2013 48% of convicted felons surveyed admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed with a gun.Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s.”my piece of evidence(Gun Control - ProCon.org should more gun control laws be enacted?). In fact, the most rigorous research and analysis suggests that all these gun permits caused neither a drop in crime nor a spike in killings.]

Guns #3: Some Inconvenient Gun Facts for Liberals (Version B)

I don’t think that taking guns away from u.s. citizens isn’t going to do anything to the u.s. or the people of (THE TOP ONE IS IN MY WORD) america because it’s not going to stop people from killing each other and suicide rates(death rate)to drop.

We liberals sometimes equate guns with danger. In fact, it’s complicated: The number of guns in America has increased by more than 50 percent since 1993, and in that same period the gun homicide rate in the United States has dropped by half Guns #3: Some Inconvenient Gun Facts for Liberals (Version B)

If the u.s. Banns guns because people and families that own guns wouldn’t be able to protect themselves and their families from robbers or other people who would try to hurt them or their family with a gun one piece of evidence that i found said”The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would "make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families." Nelson Lund, JD, PhD, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, "The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life" and "many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals."

I think everyone who owns guns or anyone to know that if they do ban guns then they’ll take all of them and if they do you or anyone who thinks they need a gun because of the area that they live is  dangerous then you can’t protect yourself or your family from anyone who tries to hurt you and your family and if they do ban guns it won’t stop people from smuggling guns into the u.s.and it won’t stop people from killing each other and the suicide rate(death rate)./Does it matter what weapon they used? If it was a rifle, a pipe bomb, a truck of fertilizer, a pressure cooker or a plane -- the end result is the same. Yet millions of other people have the freedom to have those very same things and will never use them to kill.

Guns #4: 'American Sniper' widow: Gun control won't protect us (Version B) - TYLER BEAVER

Works Cited List

Gun Control - ProCon.org

gun-control.procon.org/

Author :procon.org

                                                          Publisher:procon.org

                                                                         Date published:2/26/16,11:06 a.m.

                                                                        February 18  2016

                                                                  Guns #3: Some Inconvenient Gun Facts for Liberals (Version B)

                                                        Author :by Nicholas Kristof

                                                        

                                                        Publisher: new york times

                                                         

                                                        Date published:January 16, 2016

                                                     

                                                     

                                              Guns #4: 'American Sniper' widow: Gun control won't protect us (Version B)

                                                    author:Taya Kyle

                                                    

                                                    publisher:CNN

                                                    Date published:January 8, 2016

Same Sex Versus Co-Ed School Debate

Same Sex Versus Co-Ed School Debate
by Lily Norris

There are a lot of reasons that co-ed schools are good.  They represent that diversity exists in our society today, the world is not full of all male or female.  According to recent studies done by St. Andrews College kids in co-ed schools participate more in class discussions.  As well as social reasons, there are many academic reasons. Most curriculum are developed for a dual gender community. A study done in Tel Aviv showed that there was great performance in a co-ed school with the same curriculum as a same sex school.  Co-ed schools are also essential for the brain's development.  Growing up without the opposite sex can be very harmful for the brain.  In life you will also be with or around the other gender.  If your brain if not developed like this since the beginning, then it will be more difficult to adjust as the brain stops slowly developing after our 20's. So co-ed schools are the obvious choice.

As stated earlier you will most likely not be in a single sex environment your entire life, seeing as the world isn't all male or all female.  Why should education be any different if most of it is preparing you to get a job and be able to survive?  It really shouldn't and though some same sex schools have a brother or sister school near them, it isn't the same as being in the same classroom and learning alongside the opposite gender.  "Collaboration between the sexes  in the classroom helps develop confidence in students and they excel at university as beyond as leaders," states The Benefits of Co-Education by St. Andrews College.  Without this type of interactions and collaborations students would not be able to become more confident and able to succeed.

Many will argue that with same sex schools the curriculum can be designed more efficiently for that classroom. But as many people know not all people of the same gender benefit the same amount from the same curriculum.  As the article Arguments for and Against Single Sex Schools says "Some argue that, the typical co-ed classroom demands verbal and sedentary or 'feminine' learning, girls have the clear advantage.  Opponents argue that using visual and kinetic or 'masculine' institutional methods and materials helps both boys and girls master abstract concepts."  I know that I personally learn better with the so-called "masculine" methods, so a single sex educational environment with the constant "feminine" teaching would be disruptive to my learning and not helpful.

There are many components to having a full education, one of which is having a healthy social life. To have a healthy social life it is very important to have a wide diversity of friends so you can grow as a person.  Diversity doesn't just mean race it means gender as well.  For many kids they see and meet the majority of their friends at school.  Without the chance to meet and interact with both genders they are missing out on learning and missing out on being able to grow and compare ideas. Just like how the article The Benefits of Co-Education written by St Andrew's College states, "working together in the classroom and on homework assignments provides boys and girls the opportunity to learn from each other intellectually as well as socially."  Students benefit from collaborating and interacting with the other gender so why separate and greatly decrease these vital interactions?

Many argue that being in a co-ed environment is distracting because the students often feel the need to show off to each other or get the other gender's attention.  Just like how the article Are Single Sex Schools Better than Co-Ed Schools says "The biggest issue in the single sex versus co-ed schools debate is the possibility of attraction and distraction in the classroom.  Many people say that if the other sex is in the classroom, the other will do nothing by ogle classmates and not pay attention to the teacher."  This statement is obviously false due to the fact that just because an other gender is near doesn't make learning impossible but can actually encourage students to want to do better.   And as another piece from the same article states "But what about the people attracted to the same sex? Or those not interested in dating anyone? Or those open to dating but not easily distracted in the classroom (which was my person experience) for these students and myself the co-ed classroom may be no worse at all."

Another very common argument is about how boys and girls brains are allegedly extremely different so different learning styles are needed as well as entirely different schools.  While boys and girls do learn differently like the article The Great Gender Debate: Should Boys and Girls Learn Separately? states "Many proponents of single sex education including staff at Riverview, site scientific evidence that boys and girls brains are hardwired differently."  That doesn't mean that a special curriculum can't support both genders equally.  As well as the fact that in another part of the article it states, "But according to Dr. Lise Eliot, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at the Chicago medical school for Rosalind Franklin University, these differences are very small statistically, and are not substantial enough to warrant separate lessons." So what is the point of single sex schooling?

In conclusion although this will still remain a very controversial topic, I believe that co-ed education is more beneficial than single sex education because in a co-ed environment students can interact and share ideas with the opposite gender.  Students will also be able to be better prepared for the co-ed world ahead of them.

St. Andrew's College.  "The Benefits of Co-education."
St. Andrew's College.  St. Andrew's College, 2015. Web. 3/22/2016

Morello, Rachel.  "The Great Gender Debate: Should Boys and Girls Learn Separately?"
State Impact.  The Trustees of Indiana University, May 29, 2015.  Web. 3/22/2016

Gun Lives Don’t Matter john tracy

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FKEHydEDOPZCGlIXNV-hjg_hwsmYFTJhuGWefTRVe2s/edit

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l8S_6-LNC78H0k3KZEp08MWJlSxmkg5txC0h6GLE6CY/edit

www.newsday.com

Jose was a kind man who has never done anything to hurt anybody. He migrated to San Francisco by walking all the way from Mexico! He was a hardworking man. When he arrived he got a job in the work force constructing houses and years later he got married. One night Jose was going to hangout with some friends in the mission. Before he left home his wife asked, “Are you sure it’s a good idea to wear that blue sweatshirt?” “Hey,  I’m a good man who would never hurt anybody.” Jose was walking past a dark alley when all of a sudden he felt several bullets shoot into his chest. He was murdered that night in the mission by a gang who had mistaken his identity. The next morning the headlines on the newspaper read, “Another innocent man shot in the mission.” This is one of many shootings that have been occurring all over the country.

   

Currently a citizen in the U.S. is allowed to legally own a gun. The origin of this law is from the Bill of Rights made in 1791, it is also the second amendment of the U.S. constitution. The exact law was “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.” This law is not relevant because citizens are no longer in danger from war. Gun control is important because they are deadly weapons that have been used to kill many innocent people in this country. In order to keep our country safe I think it is important that the government does not allow citizens to carry assault weapons. They should make owning guns either extremely difficult or illegal.

   The U.S. government should make it illegal for citizens to own guns. One reason for this is that there is no need for a citizen to own a gun. The main reason civilians have guns is to protect themselves from danger. But in situations of mass shootings having a gun can make the situation more deadly. Here is a passage that presents information on civilians and gun control, “None of the 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012 was stopped by an armed civilian. [41]Gun rights activists regularly state that a 2002 mass shooting at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia was stopped by armed students, but those students were current and former law enforcement officers and the killer was out of bullets when subdued. [41]Other mass shootings often held up as examples of armed citizens being able to stop mass shootings involved law enforcement or military personnel and/or the shooter had stopped shooting before being subdued, such as a 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, MS; a 1998 middle school dance shooting in Edinboro, PA; a 2007 church shooting in Colorado Springs, CO; and a 2008 bar shooting in Winnemucca, NV. [42] Jeffrey Voccola, Assistant Professor of Writing at Kutztown University, notes, "The average gun owner, no matter how responsible, is not trained in law enforcement or on how to handle life-threatening situations, so in most cases, if a threat occurs, increasing the number of guns only creates a more volatile and dangerous situation." [43] [http://gun-control.procon.org/]  This evidence shown through statistics, facts and expert opinions shows that in most situations guns fail to protect the citizen and succeed in making the situation more dangerous. This is because most citizens are untrained and not experienced with a gun. Making gun ownership illegal for a citizen matters because citizens are not police or soldiers and do not know how to use a gun. Citizens also should not have guns because most guns are meant for intense combat and war not civilian life. For example, Civilians, including hunters, should not own military-grade firearms or firearm accessories. President Ronald Reagan and others did not think the AR-15 military rifle (also called M16s by the Air Force) should be owned by civilians and, when the AR-15 was included in the assault weapons ban of 1994 (which expired on Sep. 13, 2004), the NRA supported the legislation. [48] The Second Amendment was written at a time when the most common arms were long rifles that had to be reloaded after every shot. Civilians today have access to folding, detaching, or telescoping stocks that make the guns more easily concealed and carried; silencers to muffle gunshot sounds; flash suppressors to fire in low-light conditions without being blinded by the flash and to conceals the shooter’s location; or grenade launcher attachments.[49] Jonathan Lowy, Director of Legal Action Project at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, stated, "These are weapons that will shred your venison before you eat it, or go through the walls of your apartment when you’re trying to defend yourself… [they are] made for mass killing, but not useful for law-abiding   citizens."[http://gun-control.procon.org] This quote is saying that the law allows civilians to own advanced military grade guns that are specifically  meant for war not civilian self defense. It is also saying that technology has made guns a lot more dangerous and deadly because back then there were no automatic weapons, so therefore you could not walk into a room and kill 20 people in 10 seconds.  This connects back to my claim because if the government lets citizens access military grade weapons without proper training they could be endangering many innocent lives. This matters because guns not only protect YOU they also endanger the life of innocent people.

                

Guns may feel safe in your hands but how about in the hands of the person next to you. In our country it is legal to own a gun and therefore making it easy to purchase. The point is that guns are frequently purchased by criminals, stolen by criminals or illegally bought. Here is a quote about criminals obtaining guns, “ Legally owned guns are frequently stolen and used by criminals. A June 2013 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report states that almost all guns used in criminal acts enter circulation via initial legal transaction." [18] Between 2005 and 2010, 1.4 million guns were stolen from US homes during property crimes (including burglary and car theft), a yearly average of 232,400. [19] Ian Ayres, JD, PhD, and John J. Donohue, JD, PhD, Professors of Law at Yale Law School and Stanford Law School respectively, state, "With guns being a product that can be easily carried away and quickly sold at a relatively high fraction of the initial cost, the presence of more guns can actually serve as a stimulus to burglary and theft”. http://gun-control.procon.org/

Even if the gun owner had a permit to carry a concealed weapon and would never use it in furtherance of a crime, is it likely that the same can be said for the burglar who steals the gun?" This shows the amount of guns that get into the wrong hands and how simple it seems to be. This means that if the government does not make guns illegal or harder to purchase than we see more crimes involving guns, more aggravated assaults, and more criminals stealing weapons. Many gun supporters will say that in order to purchase a gun you have to go through background checks, this is sadly incorrect and this is why, “A majority of adults, including gun owners, support common sense gun control such as background checks, bans on assault weapons, and bans on high-capacity magazines. According to a Pew Research survey in Mar. 2013, 83% of all adults surveyed and 79% of gun-owners; 86% of people living with a gun-owner; and 74% of NRA households approve of background checks for private and gun show sales. [27] As much as 40% of all gun sales are undocumented private party gun sales that do not require a background check (aka the "gun show loophole"). [28] 56% of all adults surveyed approve of assault weapon bans and 53% of all adults surveyed approve of high-capacity magazine bans. [27] 90% of adults with a gun in the home approve of laws to prevent the purchase of guns by the mentally ill, and 60% approve of a federal database to track gun sales. [27] Don Macalady, member of Hunters against Gun Violence, stated, "As a hunter and someone who has owned guns since I was a young boy, I believe that commonsense gun legislation makes us all safer. Background checks prevent criminals and other dangerous people from getting guns." Most people approve of background checks and not allowing certain people such as the mentally ill to purchase guns. But there is still little being done about criminals purchasing weapons especially when guns are bought without background checks”.[http://gun-control.procon.org/]. This matters because criminals are the cause of shootings and assaults so not letting them purchase guns by making them illegal is essential.

Another reason that I think owning a gun should become illegal is that the 2nd amendment is way outdated. It is outdated because it was made in 1791, back then guns were way less dangerous. The first ten amendments of the constitution make up the Bill of Rights. The second amendment read, “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." Here is a quote about the history of the right.“The Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns. Gun control laws are just as old or older than the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791). Some examples of gun control throughout colonial America included criminalizing the transfer of guns to Catholics, slaves, indentured servants, and Native Americans; regulating the storage of gunpowder in homes; banning loaded guns in Boston houses; and mandating participation in formal gathering of troops and door-to-door surveys about guns owned. [1] [2] In the June 26, 2008 District of Columbia et al. v. Heller US Supreme Court majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia, LLB, wrote, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose… nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."[http://gun-control.procon.org/] This quote is saying that when owning a gun there are a lot of restrictions. This means that society does not trust people who are not of authority to bring guns to certain places because of safety. If we do not trust people in certain  situations to have guns then why should we let them have guns anywhere? This matters because since we know that  there are dangerous people who will commit crimes with guns if we let them then we clearly need to put up a law against owning guns.

                                                              

We would not be the first country to make guns illegal. In fact the countries that made these laws have had huge success. Let’s take a look at Australia, a country that started banning guns in 1996 immediately  after a mass shooting had occurred. The statistics following up this law are staggering. “The main part of the policy was a huge buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles. These counted for one-fifth of all firearms in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners...homicides by firearm dropped 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no increase in non-firearm-related homicides. Suicides by gun dropped by 65 percent. Studies found a close relationship between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped a lot. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, despite fears that firearm ownership is needed to prevent such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia

since.[http://gun-control.procon.org/]  This quote is saying that because of all the gun buybacks gun violence dropped vastly. This means that putting strict laws on guns can make a difference. This should matter because if it worked in Australia it might work in the United States.

People will say that gun control is unnecessary because relatively few people are killed by guns, “According to the CDC's "Leading Causes of Death Reports," between 1999 and 2013, Americans were 21.5 times more likely to die of heart disease (9,691,733 deaths); 18.7 times more likely to die of malignant tumors (8,458,868 deaths); and 2.4 times more likely to die of diabetes or 2.3 times more likely to die of Alzheimer's (1,080,298 and 1,053,207 respectively) than to die from a firearm (whether by accident, homicide, or suicide). [4] The flu and related pneumonia (875,143 deaths); traffic accidents (594,280 deaths); and poisoning whether by accident, homicide, or suicide (475,907 deaths) all killed more people between 1999 and 2013 than firearms. [4] Firearms were the 12th leading cause of deaths for all deaths between 1999 and 2013, responsible for 1.3% of deaths with 464,033 deaths.[4] Internationally, the claim that the United States has a major problem with firearm homicides exaggerated. The United States is ranked 28 in international homicide rates with 2.97 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2012.” This is saying that guns are not a leading cause of death, so therefore we should not worry about controlling them. Although you cannot deny the fact that guns do not kill as many people as tumors do,this is not important because a lot of people are killed by firearms.  “More than 30,000 people are killed by firearms each year in this country. More than 30 people are shot and murdered each day 1/2  of them are between the ages of 18 and 351/3 of them are under the age of 20 Homicide is the second leading cause of death among 15-24 year-olds And the primary cause of death among African Americans of that age group”. Firearms may not be the leading cause of death but that does not mean gun control is unnecessary.

  

A common response from anti-gun control people is that guns do not make murderers or in other words, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Here is an anecdote that gives a summary of what they are talking about. This anecdote is in the opinion of a widow. ¨The person who killed my husband, Chris, worked in an armory with daily access to every caliber of high powered weaponfor years. He chose to kill when he got out of an environment of accountability and drug testing.Simply having a weapon did not make him a murderer. His life choices did. What red flags did he display?¨(Kyle,3)This is basically saying that in no way did having access to a gun influence his decision to kill. But saying this statement as if it were applicable in any situation is false because, None of the 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012 was stopped by an armed civilian. [41]Gun rights activists regularly state that a 2002 mass shooting at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia was stopped by armed students, but those students were current and former law enforcement officers and the killer was out of bullets when subdued. [41]Other mass shootings often held up as examples of armed citizens being able to stop mass shootings involved law enforcement or military personnel and/or the shooter had stopped shooting before being subdued, such as a 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, MS; a 1998 middle school dance shooting in Edinboro, PA; a 2007 church shooting in Colorado Springs, CO; and a 2008 bar shooting in Winnemucca, NV. [42] Jeffrey Voccola, Assistant Professor of Writing at Kutztown University, notes, "The average gun owner, no matter how responsible, is not trained in law enforcement or on how to handle life-threatening situations, so in most cases, if a threat occurs, increasing the number of guns only creates a more volatile and dangerous situation." This is saying that guns were nearby the offenders therefore influencing them to kill, the gun makes the murder.

As you can see the government should make owning a gun a lot more difficult or illegal because the law allowing gun ownership (2nd amendment, bill of rights) is outdated. Also, guns could get into the wrong people’s hands and cause harm to others. The last reason is that there is no reason for a citizen in this country to need an assault weapon. Everybody should care about this issue because the victims are all citizens like you and I. Crimes involving guns can happen anytime, anywhere that is why we need to have better control over guns. If we allow all citizens to own guns violent civil wars and terrorism could happen like in countries like Syria. A proposal I have for this topic is to support people in favor of gun control such as, the mayor, governor, district representatives, presidential candidates, organizations and supervisors that want more gun control. For example, San Francisco supervisor, David Campos, recently proposed a law that would penalize gun owners who fail to store their weapons in a lock box or trunk of a car. Voting and supporting people in favor of gun control will make a difference of what laws are passed about guns. You can also contribute to organizations to further your knowledge on gun control.