Gun Control by Kristine G. and Tom

"All of a sudden I'm in front of some man. No he's a youngin but he's got a gun in his hand. He looks fifteen, he looks frantic, no he looks afraid. Immediately apprehensive til I heard him say "Do you want this It's not mine I promise. I found it on my block in between a couple garages. Didn't wanna leave it for a child to stumble over, I don't even know how to hold it." It was a thirty eight, the poor man's machete. Held it in my hand, thinking damn man it's heavier then expected. Wedged it behind my belt buckle, knowing that its evil, even thought that I could smell trouble. The extra strength felt weak, but over there on the corner saw what I needed and proceeded to cross the street. Put the heat in the mail box to lose it. Figured that the post office knows whats best to do with it."

-Always coming back home to you/ Atmosphere

Gun control is a highly debated issue. Should America tighten the laws concerning firearms? Many believe so, saying that tighter gun control will lower street crimes and even accidental injury. On the other side of the debate, many believe that the laws concerning firearms is strict enough and any tighter regulations will make it harder to acquire a gun, violating the Second Ammendment, our right to bear arms.

Tighter gun legislation could mean less crime, especially if the amount of guns in America is reduced. They argue less guns mean less violence. The leading advocate in restricting gun laws is the Brady Campaign, they believe the laws in place now make it too easy for dangerous people to get a hold of firearms. Their main focus is to make America a safer place. But would tighter gun control really make america a safer place? There is already a market for guns purchased under the table, just walk into the ghetto, guns will always be around. But restricting control can lead to less accidental deaths in the home and even suicides. Studies show that keeping a gun in a home raises the risk of homicide, with statistics saying Higher gun ownership puts both men and women at a higher risk for homicide, particularly gun homicide (Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, 2009). They also argue that guns in the home are more likey to be used in a homicide, suicide, or accidental injury instead of actual self defense.

But what about our right to bear arms? We as Americans have have the right to self defense. The National Rifle Association believe that stricter laws will violate our rights and they argue that guns have actually decreased deaths. They argue that firearms are used for protection more often than they are used to commit violent crimes. Criminologist Gary Kleck analyzed National Crime Victimization Surveys and concluded, "robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all." But what if a firearm got into the wrong hands? A child, a dangerous felon, your younger brother or sister?

What do you think? Should we make it harder to obtain guns? Do you believe your rights will be violated if the laws do become stricter? Both sides of the issue need to take into consideration both sides of the argument. Maybe new laws could help reduce violence without violating our right to bear arms. New gun laws could include required gun safety classes not for just the person obtaining the gun, but for the family. Or maybe not allow guns in households with children. We as American's need to decide on what we think is a happy medium.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/
http://www.nraila.org/

Standardized Tests to Graduate Highschool?

Any of us who grew up in Florida are familiar with the FCAT and the arguments that it brings to the table. The only two sides in the argument are either to keep it or get rid of it. Those who want the test to stay say that its a good measure of where the students are at in their educational stand point and say its unfair to others who pass the test to allow students who didnt to move on. Those against it say that not all students are test takers and that the test doesnt portray the students actually learning ability.

But what these two sides over look is the fact that there are other sides looking in that could help get rid of these test and keep them at the same time. One of the biggest unlooked arguments would be to keep the test but not have it count toward such serious outcomes. For example, dont make it count towards graduation. There are a ton of students who had their college careers set out for them through sports scholarships and ended up having these scholarships removed because of a single test. Many people believe we should only use these tests as a bookmark to see where our students stand. Another popular view would be to have the test and the students GPA weigh out. Many colleges use this system with the SAT and ACT when students apply to college. This allows bad test takers to show that they still do good in school and maybe they had a bad day taking the test.

So as students, ask yourself , should these test stay as is? If not what changes would suggest? Or should they just be removed altogether?

Legalization of Marijuana, By Josh Patry and David Shaw

One of the largest debates in recent history continues as many people debate, should marijuana me legalized or not? Some people may believe that the pro’s out weigh the con’s and visa versa, but the real question is, what would teens, adults, and the government benefit from the legalization of marijuana? For the government to legalize weed, they have to consider the crisis that we Americans are in economically. Many economists agree that legalizing marijuana would give a boost to the deteriorating economy because the consumer would have to pay a tax on the product. Another argument is that by legalizing weed, there will be a decrease imprisonments and crime related to weed like trafficking? In 2000, state and local law enforcement arrested 734,498 people for marijuana violations (http://legalizationofmarijuana.com/). Imagine the reduction of imprisonments if Marijuana was responsibly used. A lot of those imprisonments were due to drug trafficking, which would be majorly reduced because people would be able to buy at local shops.

Another question lingers today asking if marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol. The majority of the people would say that if alcohol, a more dangerous drug than marijuana, is legal to adults 21 and over then Marijuana should also be legalized. There has been many cases in the U.S. where alcohol has cause addiction and domestic abuse (http://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/). However, cancer is also a major issue, specifically lung cancer. Many would argue that smoking Marijuana, one would have a high risk of lung cancer, which is a major cause of death here in the United States. With being said, many people would agree that marijuana couldn’t even be compared to alcohol. Do the pro’s out weigh the con’s? Should Marijuana be legalized? If so, what restrictions should be put on it?

Uniforms in the Education System

Throughout our past twelve years in primary and secondary schooling
we have always had the issue of uniforms. Some people never had them at all,
maybe just for middle school or a couple years. Whether you have them or not
there is always an ongoing debate about whether the schools should have
uniforms or they should practice free dress. Many people argue for uniforms
because they increases a sense of school spirit, reduces peer pressure for
the new “trendy” clothes, encourages discipline, and helps identify
outsiders that aren’t in the school. Maybe people can argue that because
there isn’t any proven research to say that it helps any academic
performance.

It is possible that they will limit fights and violence because
everyone is dressed the same so financially you can’t tell the difference if
one students parents are rock stars and one has parents that are unemployed.
It is meant to give a sense of unity and that everyone at the school is
equal. But it also can be a financial burden to those who don’t have the
money, people are sending their children to public school for the perk of no
cost and with uniform it is an additional fee they must pay.

Some schools use practice a partial uniform. Schools sometimes offer the
Option of wearing a certain colored collared shirt for example. This allows
students to have a small sense of individuality while at the same time not
worrying about what to wear to school tomorrow. Other schools just make
students wear one designated article of clothing and let them choose what
to wear for the other parts of their attire.

The biggest argument against uniforms is freedom to wear whatever you want
to. Since we live in America and we use public schools as the majority, people
argue against making children wear uniforms. It is a very debatable argument
and there are many pros and cons of all three. Who is to say what you can wear
and who is to tell the school they can’t make you wear a uniform?

Democratic, Republican, or Other?

In every Presidential Election, the competition is usually comes down to two parties, Democrat and Republican. Although this has worked over the years, our country has entered an economic crisis; maybe it is time to consider other parties as well to change things up a bit. Parties such as the Libertarians, as well as the Green Party, should be more greatly considered when voting for our nations president.

We should include the Green Party in the annual presidential debate to
showcase their ideals. They present an “eco-social” analysis for our country.
They focus on a sustainable future and economical growth. The Green Party
promotes a healthy and diverse environment and works to restore and protect
the planet's natural beauty. This party is deserving of a spot next to our two
major candidate parties because their vision should be recognized in the
election process. They not only want to rebuild our economy, but also tend to
the environmental needs of our country. Their contributions to the political
debates would bring a new light to those who don't wish to support neither
Democratic nor Republican Party. Another strong option would be present in the
election process making the debate more less “two-sided”

The Libertarian Party has a very unique way of government ideas. Being the third largest political party in the United States, behind Democrats and Republicans, Libertarians need to be considers for president as well. Libertarians are known for their minimal regulation and strong views. They strongly favor freedom of trade, minimal regulation of immigration, strong civil liberties, and a laissez-faire market system. With their unique ideas, they could be the solution to today's economic problems. As the Libertarians say, "Smaller Government. Lower Taxes. More Freedom."

With the given information, your eyes may be open to new ideas. What is your ideas on the subject? Is there any other views we didn't consider?

For or against gay marriage?

For almost all heavy topics, there are two main sides that people want to take; They either agree or disagree. A topic that is usually heavily argued and becoming more and more a part of life is gay or same sex marriage. People typically choose one of two sides; they are either for or against it. One of the not so obvious sides to take would be a more middle ground. When a person does not really choose to take a certain side, but rather agrees in some cases and disagrees in others. An example of this would be if two males or two females fell in love and wanted to get married a person might see that as a good thing and not as a problem. But if you add a child into the mix and that homosexual couple is trying to adopt, the person that once agreed with the situation might then disagree because they do not feel that, that is a good environment for a child to grow up in. Another middle ground to this topic and many others is that some people just do not care what happens. Having same sex couples around does not change their life at all. So, do you think there are more sides to this argument?

Pro Life or Pro Choice: But What's In Between?

Abortion is a well-known argumentative topic that is typically two-sided. Many will argue that there are only two choices concerning abortion: "pro life" or "pro choice", but what about the topics in the middle? There are more sides and exceptions to abortion. For example, what about rape victims or even someone who does not do well financially?

Not everybody is simply for or against abortion; there are some general sides or exceptions that a person would consider. What about a woman who has been raped and later found out she has become pregnant? She should have the right to abort. Even though she has the right to give the baby up for adoption she still should not have to have an everyday reminder for nine months from one excruciating night. Another side to this debatable topic is someone who might not have the financial support it takes to not only raise a child but to give birth to one as well. Doctor and hospital fees at the beginning of child birth can rack up quick and they aren't cheap. Then come all the diapers, formula, and clothing. A woman has the choice for adoption as well but the hospital and doctor fees never disappear completely. There are a lot of single moms out there who struggle to survive daily, but they never had the choice because they would have been looked at in a negative way.

These circumstances are realistic and can be a good argument for an abortion. That's why any American should have the right to argue these exceptions and not necessarily be "pro life" or "pro choice". With all these circumstances given what other types of exceptions can give a good argument rather than the typical two sides?