A sprinkle of rain won’t cause a puddle, however persistent rain will flood the land. Why can’t individual gun safety work the same?

Americans have always prided themselves on their right to bear arms, however many Americans feel that this right is under attack from gun regulations and limitations. However when you take a step back and look at the statistics on gun violence in this country, it is clear that America is messing something up. The united states is the leading country for gun related fatalities and injuries in the world. Many of these deaths are children under the age of 12. It can be argued that Americans are shooting themselves in the foot by resisting, heavily I may add, reasonable gun regulations to help prevent crime involving firearms as well as gun related fatalities. What gun regulations can be or have been implemented and are effective? Who is resisting these regulations and why? Is regulation worth seeking, or are we too stubborn? Will this problem continue to get worse in the future? How can people as individuals address this problem?

According to the Gun Violence Archive there has been over 15,000 incidents involving firearms across the United States so far for the year of 2016. The Gun Violence Archive “is a not for profit corporation formed in 2013 to provide free online public access to accurate information about gun-related violence in the United States. GVA will collect and check for accuracy, comprehensive information about gun-related violence in the U.S. and then post and disseminate it online” (GVA). This is alarming considering it has only been 4 months into the New Year. As a result of these incidents there have been over 3,876 deaths and 7,822 injuries. As of right now the United States is headed down the same track that it has over the past decade, with each year growing far worse than the previous. Is there nothing that Americans can do to help prevent further gun violence as a nation?

The question isn’t what can we get the government to do in order to fix this problem for us, with that state of mind we will continue to head down the same track as the previous decade. The question that Americans as individuals should be asking is, what can I do to make my home a safer place for my family and those that live around me? For the families that own a firearm, they should be asking themselves how can I keep this out of the hands of people I don’t want to touch it?, as well as is my family well informed on how to operate a firearm safely? People who do not own firearms still play a key role in the regulation and safety of firearms, even if you don’t realize it. Staying well informed on how to handle and respond to a workplace shooter, or reporting a firearm on the street can help save lives from unnecessary gun violence.

Some may say that government regulation of what firearm we can and cannot own, as well as the regulation of people who can buy the firearms, is a violation of their constitutional right to bear arms. However how can you argue that the government is abusing their power by regulating firearms, when it is clear that there is a lack of regulations? According to Kate Masters “For nearly two decades, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has devoted scant resources to the study of gun violence, even as fatal shootings constitute a public health issue claiming more than 30,000 lives each year.” This is unacceptable considering the CDC has a multibillion dollar budget, of almost $11 billion, which should be dedicated to researching ways to prevent threats to the public health and safety. “Instead, they say, senior CDC brass made the conscious choice to restrict gun research, rather than risk political retribution…Right now, there is nothing stopping them from addressing this life-and-death national problem”(Masters). It is astounding that a government agency whose main purpose is to prevent threats toward the safety and health of the general public, would rather let the threat continue unhindered rather than face political outcry and potentially address a serious national health crisis. This lack of interest from the CDC in the study of gun violence “has greatly inhibited the ability of social scientists, law enforcement agencies, and policymakers to understand the scope and causes of shootings — while also limiting understanding of interventions that might save lives.” It is clear that political scorns and discontent is more severe than the threats to the health and safety of Americans. Either that or the government does not recognize that the United States has a serious gun violence issue, considering it is the highest rated country for gun violence among 23 other high income countries accounting for over 82 percent of all gun related deaths among all 23 countries.

 

So you may ask yourself now, Why don’t the people put pressure on politicians in order to make things happen politically?

According to the International poll of 1,384 people done by Yale University researchers Benjamin Miller and Peter Aronow most Americans support stricter gun ‘laws, estimating about 53 percent of Americans supporting stricter gun regulations. Whereas “41 percent believe the federal government already requires universal background checks for gun purchases. There is no such law, and Aronow and Miller believe that the misconception could be reducing pressure on politicians to pass stricter gun laws” (Masters). Miller also goes on to say that people are more likely to base their decision on voting on gun regulations based off their idea of fair gun regulation or their misinformed idea of current gun laws. However, it goes to show that a majority of Americans are misinformed about gun laws and regulations that are currently in place. So, this is where we can fill in the “activism gap” that Miller addresses. If Americans take the time to become informed about current gun laws in their state, without even knowing it they are contributing to a national effort. This is a perfect way for individuals who are not comfortable being activists to contribute to addressing a public health issue. Miller goes on to say “We’re thinking of running an experiment where we inform subjects about the current laws that background checks aren’t required for gun sales at gun shows or over the Internet and see whether that shifts people’s positions on stricter gun laws”(Masters). Hopefully this future national survey will shed some light on the degree in which Americans are misinformed about gun policies in this nation.

 

Now, to put things in perspective, gun violence doesn’t just consist of homicides involving firearms, it also includes a large number of teen suicides and child related deaths and injuries according to the Gun Violence Archive and Jennifer Mascia’s article on TheTrace.org. Mascia highlights 15 statistics that help portray gun violence in America over the course of a year. These statistics are honestly shocking and certainly need to be addressed as soon as possible, either by regulation by the government or by the people. In 2015 the amount of gun related deaths surpassed the amount of deaths caused by motor vehicles. “While motor vehicles have been getting progressively safer, guns have killed people at a consistent clip over the past 15 years” (Mascia).

A key reason for this is the use of a firearm as a method of suicide as well as the increase in the amount of firearms available in circulation as Mascia points out in her article. The increased amount of weapons in circulation are easily available to the public makes it easy for anyone to buy a firearm, making this firearm easily available for use in crime and for suicide. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying we should make it impossible to buy firearms, I’m saying we should just know who we are selling the weapon to before we sell it to them. Crime is a matter in which the police should handle and the government should prevent and unfortunately is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to gun violence in the United States.

“At a rate of more than twice a day, someone under 18 has been shot and killed” (Mascia), Totaling at least 756 teens and children killed by firearms. Out of the 756 children killed by guns about 75 percent of these children have been under the age of 12. In 2015 there was a recorded 330 mass shootings, shootings in which four or more people are injured or killed, reported in the United States. Everyone remember the impact the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting had on the victim’s families and friends but also the impact it had on politicians, who immediately after began drawing attention towards gun control, or the lack there of, in our country. However it is sad to say that these mass shootings only account for “less than 2 percent of the annual gun deaths” (Mascia).

So this means that the majority of the children killed over the last year were not done in a mass shooting. Now, this is a serious problem. An incredible amount of small firearm related incidents that did not cause a national uproar are beginning to cause the start of a national health crisis as if they were never noticed. It is sad to think that politicians and the people themselves aren’t willing to take safety into their own hands to help prevent unintentional shootings, in order to allow a stronger focus on the criminal aspect of gun violence for law enforcement agencies. Instead it seems we, as a nation, only become activists when a tragedy occurs. However I though the whole point of gun regulations were to prevent further mass shootings and to help save lives.

How Can Gun owners prevent Child related injuries?

A lot of gun owners argue that locking up their guns in a vault is a hassle and prevents them from having quick access to their firearm during the event of an emergency. And as a result gun vaults often get left unlocked or the firearm remains in the open, easily accessible to anyone even children. Many pistol owners like to keep their firearm stored in a drawer or somewhere they can easily reach. Again this provides the same issue of easy access for children and people who you don’t want to have access when you aren’t around. Both of these situations can be fixed by buying a quick access rifle safe or handgun safe. Both of these gun safes are available on amazon.com for reasonable prices. The best way to prevent a gun related tragedy in your home is to make sure your firearms are secured, with their safeties on, and out of reach from young children. Another precaution as I said earlier is to keep your family informed about firearm safety, and to make sure children know that guns are not toys.

We can prevent another tragedy if we work together as a nation, a little bit of effort from a lot of people goes a long way and can save lives. We can stop America’s gun problem and make it a safer place. It is all up to us as individuals to contribute to stopping gun violence and begin treating it as a public health issue.

Sources:

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/12/gun-violence-stats-2015/

http://www.thetrace.org/2016/02/41-percent-americans-wrong-background-checks-guns/

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1764757417/FF309D10D99435CPQ/6?accountid=14214

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1708138127/FF309D10D99435CPQ/3?accountid=14214

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1733934473/FF309D10D99435CPQ/1?accountid=14214

http://search.proquest.com/docview/465835734/AC1F14CBFD1E4F91PQ/2?accountid=14214

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/13/us/lumberton-nc-store-shooting-manal-abdelaziz.html

http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/getpdf.php?id=cqresrre2013030800

 

 

 

 

WRT 205/Spring 2016                                                                     Grading Rubric: Unit III NYTs Magazine

 

[1]  How well does the title provocatively focus the reader’s attention, as well as the lede? Is it thoughtful, creative, clever? Does it lead the reader into the text and provide some insight into the issue?

1. I think that my title catches the eye of the reader because I feel that the title gives off a sense of urgency or being important. I thought my lede was creative and caught the readers attention by making them think. I also think my lede was simple yet efficient. I believe that my lede lets the reader know what my stance on this argument is and where my article is going to go.

 

[2]  How well does the introductory section of the article invite the reader into the paper, as well as offer up exigency?  How does it locate a problem or controversy within a context that provides background and rationale?

1. Well my introductory paragraph invites the reader by talking about Americans and what they pride themselves on, the right to bear arms. However I then go on to say that we are too sensitive about this right and need to be able to compromise in order to keep everyone safe. My intro provides the idea that guns and gun violence are a national health crisis. I believe that by using “health crisis” provides an extreme sense of exigency.

 

[3] How well does the writer offer up a strong ‘idea’ that requires analysis to support and evolve it, as well as offers some point about the significance of evidence that would not have been immediately obvious to readers.?

1. I used statistics and collected data in order to help drive my argument further in my article. I tried not to use people’s already stated opinion on the subject, rather I used numbers and primary data to show the correlation between the numbers and our society. I believe that this puts a greater significance on the information being provided to the reader.

 

[4] How well does the writer show clarity of thought; uniqueness of presentation; evidence of style; and historicized topics?

1. I believe that my thought process during the composition of this article was pretty clear and straight forward. Although I do think that my paragraphs are a big lengthy for an average NYT article. Although I used some images that were used in my TED talk, I believe that they were used correctly in order to help drive my point across.

 

[5]  How well does the writer recognize that a NYTs Magazine audience will challenge ideas that are overgeneralized or underdeveloped or poorly explained? (that is, did the writer avoid cliché and vagueness or address points/issues readers are likely to have?)  How well did the writer decide about how to develop, sequence, and organize material?

1. I tried to avoid using generalizations that could be argued against, and I tried not to be too vague when addressing statistics and sources. I organized my material in a way that got increasingly more revealing and had a little more importance the more I wrote. Basically the more I wrote the more exigent the material became.

 

[6]  How well does the writer research a controversy, develop a persuasive stance, utilize research about the topic,  and join the ‘debate’ by making an argument of importance?

1. I believe that I researched my controversy quite well because I was able to look over 3 years’ worth of gun violence statistics taken straight from police records as well as government agencies. I was also able to look at politicians responses to mass shootings followed by their views and actions towards gun control.

 

 

[7]  How well does the writer meet or exceed research expectations of assignment requirements (6 appropriate secondary sources, 1 visual source, (or more) and primary research? ).

1. I had used over 8 sources for this article, many which were from proquest or JSTOR. In addition to the primary sources that I used, I used many news websites, as well as a visual source.

 

[8]  How well does the writer integrate secondary and primary sources (that support and complicate the topic) effectively into the text, introducing and contextualizing them, and “conversing” (i.e. no drop-quoting) in ways that deepen and complicate the analysis?

1. I believe that I was able to use my sources in a way that gave them a deeper importance towards my topic. I didn’t take quotes and rearrange them to fit my argument. I used information that supported one another in order to help drive a point across. I would use a quote and not explain why it was important to my article.

 

[9 How well does the writer persuade an audience to consider claims made from a particular position of authority on which you have built your research?  How strong and effective is the writer’s use of rhetorical tools (ethos, logos, pathos)?

1. I believe that my ability to persuade the audience to see the argument my way was pretty successful. I believe that I was able to give off the impression that America is experiencing a gun control crisis and that it needed to be addressed relatively soon. I also believe that I had a very strong sense of exigency as well as ethos in my article.

 

 

[10] How well does the writer select appropriate, interesting, revealing visual?  Has the writer placed a visual strategically in the essay and provided relevant commentary on and/or analysis of them?  Do the visuals contribute to the essay in meaningful ways (i.e. would the essay be affected if the writer took the visual away)?

1. I tried adding visuals after long portions of text, in order to provide my reader with a break from reading long paragraphs. However I do think that my placement of visuals with the appropriate relating paragraphs helps drive my point further to the audience. I believe that my visuals help the reader truly understand and see the significance behind the gun violence statistics that are being provided in the article.

 

 

[11] How well does the writer show development of final article using various drafts, in-class peer editing and workshops, and/or teacher comments?

1. I believe that my drafts have come a long way since the very first draft I wrote. Initially I don’t think that I had much of a vision towards where I was headed with my article. However the more I wrote and the more drafts that I came up with the more and more I knew where I was going and how to go about addressing the audience. I believe that thein class workshops were very beneficial.

 

[12]  How well does the writer use hyperlinks—are they effective/appropriate?

1. I use multiple hyperlink in my article in order to provide the reader with links to relevant, important information about gun violence in the U.S. I also provide hyperlinks to objects that are available for purchase, as well as any interesting ideas the reader may not have any background knowledge on. I also hyperlinked most of my sources.

 

[13]  How well did the writer edit for grammar, style, and usage effectively? Does the writer’s attention to sentence level issues help him/her establish authority or credibility on the issue?

1. I spelled checked and read my article out loud on multiple occasions. I also tried to keep the article in a continuous flow of ideas that related and built off of one another instead of introducing totally new unrelated topics consecutively. I believe that my sources and article appear and sound very credible.

 

 

 

 

 

Food Politics: Money Over Everything

            You may think your food supply is safe, but is that really in the best interest of producers? If it was, why has there been an epidemic of food outbreaks over the past decade? Perhaps the only health food producers are concerned about is the health of their bank accounts.

It is impossible to deny that that over the past decade, the technology used in the United States’ food production system has improved greatly. The United States is now able to produce a great deal more crops, such as corn or soybeans, in a fraction of the land required in the 20^th century. Another scientific and agricultural accomplishment that the food production industry is responsible for is the significant reduction in time of growth for chickens. In the mid-20^th century it took roughly a little more than 3 months to raise a full grown chicken, today on the other hand a full grown chicken can be produced in less than 50 days. This rapid advance of the food production industry is the result of the growing population and demand for food in the United States. Although these advances have allowed us to have a steady food supply, they have also presented problems for regulating government agencies. These advances create loopholes in existing regulations in which food producers can take advantage of.  Another problem is the close relationships that some of the regulating agencies have with food producers. Top food producers are able to pressure regulating agencies, such as the FDA or USDA, in order to sway regulations in their favor.

Issues are made clear, from multiple viewpoints in Food Inc., You Are What They Eat, Marian Nestle’s Resisting Food Safety, and Blake Hurst’s Organic Illusions. These texts have brought up issues and controversies that I have not heard about before in my life. These texts have been able to provide me with both sides of a “war” that I did not really know was going on. I admit I was ignorant to the supposed corruption between food production companies and Federal agencies such as the FDA, as well as the lack of consideration for the health and safety of the general public. I knew money made the world go round but I thought we at least cared about ourselves as a society more than making money. This appears to be one of, if not the largest motivating factor in this ‘war’ we call food politics. All of the pieces we have read or watched have had consistent themes throughout one another, although they did not necessarily take the same stance on the same issues. For example Organic Illusions by Hurst was clearly against the method of production used by the organic food industry and one of his main arguments was that organic production is not efficient enough to sustain the entire country, and would require more workers to join the work force. “People who are now working in other industries would have to leave them in order to provide the manpower necessary to replace technology in agriculture, and what they would have produced in those careers would figure into the cost of organic farming. These opportunity costs would be huge” (Hurst). It is clear that this argument is based on the premise that it would cost too much money to have only organic, ‘healthier’ food. Similarly, In Food Inc. Carole Morison was explaining how she was being forced to always upgrade to new equipment, along with various other farmers interviewed during the film. In particular Morison was in the predicament where she needed to upgrade her chicken coop to an enclosed version, which was even more inhumane than the conditions that chickens were currently in. These chickens would die daily due to sicknesses caused by living in close quarters in their own feces. This showed me that the food producers don’t care about the safety of the animals or the people that consume them, and that they only care about making extra money on having more chickens in a smaller inhumane space and upgrade fees. Continuing with the common thread of money being the most important factor, in Nestle’s “Resisting Food Safety” she clearly addresses many current and growing problems relating to our food supply and the increasing number of food-borne illnesses. She calls out organizations and federal agencies on their corruption and oversight of food handling and contamination issues going on with our food supply. She also explains how agencies such as the FDA are not able to put regulations in motion due to a lack of funding. This surprised me because it shows how we don’t have a priority for the general public’s food safety. Nestle and Food Inc. both bring up the argument that there are people who hold positions of power in government agencies such as the FDA that have close connections with Big name food producers, such as Monsanto. In “You Are What They Eat” both sides of the argument on food safety is brought fourth. However a common theme throughout the article that stuck me was when the people working for the food industry were saying that these cheap and fast solutions that kill bacteria on our food, instead of addressing the issue that is actually causing the growth of harmful bacteria on our food. For example, they say that cattle and chicken are still fed corn based feeds. This corn based fed is known to causes growth of unwanted bacteria inside the animals that eat it, however it is significantly cheaper to feed the animals corn because it is cheaply available. Michael Pollan, an author, journalist and activist who has been featured in various publications around the world exposing the problems in the food production industry, says in Food Inc. “E. Coli is the product of the way we feed these animals.” This requires food producers to use ammonia solutions on possible contaminated meats, which is also shown in Food Inc. This means that food producers would rather save money on feed and have a cheaper, not necessarily safer, solution to food contamination, instead of addressing the source of the food contamination, the feed.

Nestle’s article on food safety in particular addresses the complicated politics that involve the government’s ability to properly regulate the United States’ food production standards and safety protocols. “Although outbreaks of food-borne illness have become more dangerous over the years, food producers resist the attempts of government agencies to institute control measures, and major food industries oppose pathogen control measures by every means at their disposal”(Nestle, 27). Nestle points out that major food industries have significant power when it comes to rallying against an unfavorable regulation proposed by government agencies. This claim is further backed up by Food Inc. when the small farmers that were fighting a very powerful company, Monsanto who is the creator of genetically modified soy beans. The fact that Monsanto is the creator and patent holder of these seeds not only gives them total control over their product, it also gives them legal and financial power over the farmers that use their seeds. Monsanto has made it illegal for farmers to save their seeds, which is a serious concern for neighboring farmers that do not use Monsanto products. Roger Nelson was interviewed in Food Inc. because he was being sued by Monsanto for promoting other farmers to save their seed by continuing to save his non-genetically modified seed as well as his clients’. Ultimately, Nelson was unable to continue running his farm and business due to a copious amount of legal fees. Furthermore Nestle goes on to say in her article “the FDA proposed to restrict the use of antibiotics in animal feed. Congress, however, overruled this idea under the pressure from farm-state lawmakers, livestock producers, and the makers of drugs” (Nestle, 46). Perhaps this is a wake up call for government agencies to take power away from the businessmen and into the hands of the correct regulating agencies that way the public can be assured a safer food supply.

In conclusion, all of these texts share the same information stated in a way that supports their arguments, however the most common theme when you look from an unbiased perspective is that it is easier for the food industry to find a cheap adjustment to the system we have instead of changing the parts of the system that need to be. It all seems to boil down to money being the main wall that is preventing the proper regulations to take place to make our food supply safer.