1. Tanja’s Puppy Mill Project is very thorough. She describes the situations and even an interview with a person on the front lines battling this injustice. Puppy mills are a disgrace to the United States. It really places shame on our economy to have such disasters in business. Trapping the females in horrid conditions where they are continually impregnated until they can no longer bear it any longer. Then they are sold off or killed. Neglect is common practice in these factories which were started by farmers who needed something else to sell. In addition, the Animal Welfare Act has not had much effect on these so called puppy mills. Online buyers and pet retail stores only fuel these disgraces and while the buyer never sees the horrible situation, they continue to buy without a second thought to the horrors going on behind closed doors.
2. Hunter’s Global Warming Project covered some very pertinent issues including how human’s have contributed to global warming, the scientific description of how it all works, and also notes examples of what humans can do to help fight the problem. I did not know that I could make my driving more efficient or actually help the Earth by simply using less hot water. He explained and provided enough information as not too be too scientific but to help the reader understand how humans contribute to global warming. I also enjoyed the Bigfoot section!
3. Rachael’s Cancer Project brings up a current issue involving a possible link between cancer and cell phones. The problem, as she discusses, is that in an age of technology, we have still been unable to find the direct cause of this disease and, therefore, have been unable to pinpoint a cure –causing disagreement and frustration among scientists as well as the general population. She does remind us, however, that all hope is not lost when she discusses Relay for Life. This program involves entire communities in all night relays to commemorate survivors as well as those who have been lost to or are fighting cancer. Relay for Life focuses its resources on funding the search for the cure.
4. Skip's Media Censorship Project goes into the details and problems of media censorship. I hadn't realized that censorship was such an immense topic. There are so many dangers that come with censorship because some countries might take censorship to an extreme -being able to control what the population believes and also what they think to be true. This is manipulative and, in America, contradicts our First Amendment right to freedom of speech. If we cannot freely express reality, how will we know what is going on in our ever changing world? At least we have the World Press Freedom committee which is apparently working on the behalf of citizens across the globe to preserve free and open communication between populations and amongst populations.
5. Kate's Gay Rights in Iran Project covers the horrors of being gay in Iran. I have never heard of this being an issue before but the photos say it all. Sodomy is punishable by death in Iran so gay men are prime targets for conviction in these cases. They are usually tortured and then hung in front of large audiences for their supposed "crime" which is not a crime at all. being gay is simply a personal decision which should not be interfered with by a government. Unfortunately, Iran's president has decided that there are no gay people in his country and seems determined to wipe them out, or deter them from their inclinations with horrifying lashings and public hangings. Women, on the other hand, are lashed if discovered but because they do not practice sodomy (clearly), they are not killed immediately. Instead, they are lashed until the fourth time they are caught, which is then punishable by hanging. Iran's practice violates the human right to life over something as insignificant as simply being gay. Unfortunately, the groups in Iran seeking to halt these practices have been forced into hiding at this time.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Final Essay Part 2
It was late at night when a 911 operator received a phone call from a distraught woman who said that her stalker was at her back door. (This man had previously slashed her tires among other things, simply because she no longer wanted to date him.) The operator then told the woman to go somewhere she could put a locked door between herself and the man. She soon, told the operator that from behind her upstairs bedroom door, she could hear him break a window and enter her home. Her voice lowers to a whisper and the operator asks if he has a weapon, only for the woman to respond that she had no idea –but that she had a gun. Finally, the call ends after you hear the man pounding down her door, two shots are fired and he asks her if she’s trying to kill him, and she fires a final shot that kills him. Her sobs are interrupted by the sound of sirens in the background –too late to have ever helped her.
Research on the Second Amendment has led to some interesting topics ranging from statistics to competitive shooting.
First and most importantly is gun safety. Being careful and knowledgeable around guns is extremely important so that no one ends up hurt because of a careless mistake. Rules such as always pointing the gun away from you and other people, never placing your finger on the trigger until ready to fire, and checking to see if the gun is loaded as well as if the safety is on are all equally and extraordinarily important. The full steps for safety can be found on the National Rifle Association’s website: http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp.
Through some of my expansive research, I was able to find statistics that helped to compare and see the results of changing gun laws. One very interesting one involved the right to carry law in Florida. Apparently, when Florida adopted the law in 1987, the “firearm homicide” rate actually decreased 37% while nationally, the rate increased 15%. This is strong evidence that guns do not really create violence. Sometimes people do not realize that even if you attempted to remove all guns from the population, first of all it would never work –if the situation was right might even create a revolt; and, secondly, criminals would still be able to find guns on the street. What is the difference between illegally gaining possession of narcotics and gaining firearms? Sure, you can make some drugs but the reality is that if you want something badly enough you will find a way to get a hold of it –and for criminals this is not an issue as they are clearly not worried about doing things lawfully. Just as intriguing is the fact that in 1995 only 1.5 % of fatal accidents were a result of a firearm (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp). More recently, "[t]he decision [of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller ] struck down the District’s bans on handguns and on having any gun in operable condition as violations of the Second Amendment” (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=235&issue=010).
With the Second Amendment right, people used to belong to the local militia and use their firearms to hunt. But, in today’s world, the United States has no need for a militia and now people still hunt and also participate in competitive shooting. Competitions have evolved to include many types of guns including hand guns as well as shotguns. During an interview with a competitive shotgun shooter, Mark Birch, I learned that shotgun shooting is not as affected by new gun restrictions because, due to their size and use, they are not concealable and are most often used for hunting or competition, and, therefore, are not frequently attacked by politicians.
Personal opinions vary but, by exploring the cyber world of Second Amendment rights, I believe that one can logically deduce that the right the keep and bear arms is a wholly American one which should be protected. Although guns can and are used in crimes, taking guns away from the honest population is unjust. People such as the woman being attacked by her stalker and other citizens who have found themselves in precarious situations should be able to protect themselves and their families.
Research on the Second Amendment has led to some interesting topics ranging from statistics to competitive shooting.
First and most importantly is gun safety. Being careful and knowledgeable around guns is extremely important so that no one ends up hurt because of a careless mistake. Rules such as always pointing the gun away from you and other people, never placing your finger on the trigger until ready to fire, and checking to see if the gun is loaded as well as if the safety is on are all equally and extraordinarily important. The full steps for safety can be found on the National Rifle Association’s website: http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp.
Through some of my expansive research, I was able to find statistics that helped to compare and see the results of changing gun laws. One very interesting one involved the right to carry law in Florida. Apparently, when Florida adopted the law in 1987, the “firearm homicide” rate actually decreased 37% while nationally, the rate increased 15%. This is strong evidence that guns do not really create violence. Sometimes people do not realize that even if you attempted to remove all guns from the population, first of all it would never work –if the situation was right might even create a revolt; and, secondly, criminals would still be able to find guns on the street. What is the difference between illegally gaining possession of narcotics and gaining firearms? Sure, you can make some drugs but the reality is that if you want something badly enough you will find a way to get a hold of it –and for criminals this is not an issue as they are clearly not worried about doing things lawfully. Just as intriguing is the fact that in 1995 only 1.5 % of fatal accidents were a result of a firearm (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp). More recently, "[t]he decision [of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller ] struck down the District’s bans on handguns and on having any gun in operable condition as violations of the Second Amendment” (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=235&issue=010).
With the Second Amendment right, people used to belong to the local militia and use their firearms to hunt. But, in today’s world, the United States has no need for a militia and now people still hunt and also participate in competitive shooting. Competitions have evolved to include many types of guns including hand guns as well as shotguns. During an interview with a competitive shotgun shooter, Mark Birch, I learned that shotgun shooting is not as affected by new gun restrictions because, due to their size and use, they are not concealable and are most often used for hunting or competition, and, therefore, are not frequently attacked by politicians.
Personal opinions vary but, by exploring the cyber world of Second Amendment rights, I believe that one can logically deduce that the right the keep and bear arms is a wholly American one which should be protected. Although guns can and are used in crimes, taking guns away from the honest population is unjust. People such as the woman being attacked by her stalker and other citizens who have found themselves in precarious situations should be able to protect themselves and their families.
Final Essay Part 1
Why choose the Second Amendment as an independent study topic? First of all, as the second amendment of the Constitution of the United States, it is very important. Citizens’ rights to bear arms are acknowledged and protected by that very statement: “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” (http://lauderdaledefense.com/images/eagle.jpg). In today’s world, it is a highly debated topic because many people feel that it has outlived its purpose while others disagree and believe that as a constitutional right, it can never be taken away. So, while doing research for my project, I was able to see many different perspectives on the issue and create a personal learning network. This type of learning allows a student to explore a variety of different sources from websites to podcasts in order to expand their own perspective. In the end, I was able to assemble a project that I feel accurately depicts the issue of Second Amendment rights.
Monday, December 1, 2008
***Project Plan***
For my Second Amendment project I would like to add an internet scavanger hunt to my wiki page. The hunt will include things from gun safety, to crime statistics, to recent bills and their status (voted in or out).
"Six 911 Calls Later"
This post will be a response to the podcast by Pink Rifle (by the way this podcast addition and the other discussing the woman protecting herself from her stalker can be found on iTunes by Pink Rifle who has a website: www.pinkrifle.com)
In this podcast addition, Pink Rifle plays and remarks on 911 tapings. As the story goes, a man is forced to call 911 a ridiculous six times because a "dark figure" was firing shots at his house and a neighbor's house from across a small lake. Even when he told 911 operators that his neighbor had felt a bullet "whiz by his head" that did not speed up the process and the victims waited almost 40 minutes until police officers reached the scene and over a dozen shots had already been fired. In the end, Pink Rifle plays a tape of the police department issuing a statement of apology, admitting that the call possibly should have been prioritized a bit more and that they were "investigating" the issue with their communications center.
Things like this should not happen but they are a reality. Quite honestly, this was a situation were people had no way of protecting themselves and were relying on the good old American system to pull through. Although one may argue that it is only more of a reason to remove weapons from the general population, I do not believe that point is valid. If the "dark figure" was at closer range this might have been a much more damaging situation. If anything, this story presents a major issue in our society: our police department. Clearly understaffed and with backwards priorities, the police department has shown itself time and time again to be virtually useless beyond posing speed traps (which they seem to work very hard at -maybe they should concentrate efforts elsewhere, like maybe, protecting citizens from malignant gunfire? -just a thought). The woman in the previously discussed stalker case was not aided by the police, she had already involved the police in early problems but this time they were too late and sirens could be heard in the background only after he had stormed into her room and she shot him to death. The police are not as accessible as they should be, opening the doors for more criminal activity and subjecting law-abiding citizens to torment and fear where there should be much less.
Point: protect yourself. Not because no one else can, but it seems that sometimes no one else will.
In this podcast addition, Pink Rifle plays and remarks on 911 tapings. As the story goes, a man is forced to call 911 a ridiculous six times because a "dark figure" was firing shots at his house and a neighbor's house from across a small lake. Even when he told 911 operators that his neighbor had felt a bullet "whiz by his head" that did not speed up the process and the victims waited almost 40 minutes until police officers reached the scene and over a dozen shots had already been fired. In the end, Pink Rifle plays a tape of the police department issuing a statement of apology, admitting that the call possibly should have been prioritized a bit more and that they were "investigating" the issue with their communications center.
Things like this should not happen but they are a reality. Quite honestly, this was a situation were people had no way of protecting themselves and were relying on the good old American system to pull through. Although one may argue that it is only more of a reason to remove weapons from the general population, I do not believe that point is valid. If the "dark figure" was at closer range this might have been a much more damaging situation. If anything, this story presents a major issue in our society: our police department. Clearly understaffed and with backwards priorities, the police department has shown itself time and time again to be virtually useless beyond posing speed traps (which they seem to work very hard at -maybe they should concentrate efforts elsewhere, like maybe, protecting citizens from malignant gunfire? -just a thought). The woman in the previously discussed stalker case was not aided by the police, she had already involved the police in early problems but this time they were too late and sirens could be heard in the background only after he had stormed into her room and she shot him to death. The police are not as accessible as they should be, opening the doors for more criminal activity and subjecting law-abiding citizens to torment and fear where there should be much less.
Point: protect yourself. Not because no one else can, but it seems that sometimes no one else will.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
"Pink Rifle" Podcast
If you type in "pink rifle" in the search bar of iTunes, you will find a podcast that covers the feminine side of gun use. One podcast features a 911 call that they play for the listener. It is about a woman with an aggressive stalker. A man who had previously broken into her home, slashed her tires, and consistently harrassed her even after she had restraining orders on him, simply because she refused to have a dating relationship with him. That night as she sat on the phone with the 911 call center, the man began to beat on her back door. After retreating to an upstairs bedroom she heard him break a window and enter her house. After she reported that he had made it up the stairs, the operator asked her if he had a weapon. She said that she didn't know but that she had a gun. After the operator confirms that the woman has the gun in her hands she tells her not to do anything rash. The phone is put down as the man begins to beat down her locked bedroom door. You can hear her across the room from the phone, crying and screaming for him to leave. The door crashes down and the noise is so loud that it is difficult to distinguish the clamor from the two rounds she fires off at him. You hear her still crying and screaming as he shouts "what are you trying to do? Kill me?" With that she fires off the thrid and final round. All that's left is her sobs, the operator calling out to her, and the sirens in the distance.
At the end of the call tape, the podcaster describes a bit more about what transpired during the final loud and confusing moments. Apparently, he barged in and came at her. The final shot was actually fired while he was attepting to strangle her. The gun was one given to her by a friend the day before who was worried about her safety due to the man's aggressive and violent advances. The man died with that third and final shot.
What would have happened if she had not had a gun? She could not have defended herself against him without it and he would have killed her -you only have to listen to the recording to tell that much. What is really awful is that you don't hear sirens until the very end. That means that she would have been dead by the time to police arrived if she had not had a gun.
People need guns for protection. Period.
At the end of the call tape, the podcaster describes a bit more about what transpired during the final loud and confusing moments. Apparently, he barged in and came at her. The final shot was actually fired while he was attepting to strangle her. The gun was one given to her by a friend the day before who was worried about her safety due to the man's aggressive and violent advances. The man died with that third and final shot.
What would have happened if she had not had a gun? She could not have defended herself against him without it and he would have killed her -you only have to listen to the recording to tell that much. What is really awful is that you don't hear sirens until the very end. That means that she would have been dead by the time to police arrived if she had not had a gun.
People need guns for protection. Period.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Do you carry a gun?
Let's go for something controversial. You might agrue that although it's OK to have a gun at home, but that only police officers on duty should be carrying around guns on their person. It sounds quite violent and maybe idiotic to allow people to waltz around town with guns in their jacket, but that's not all there is to it. There are rules, which vary by state, that determine where you can and cannot carry your gun -for example, government buildings are off limits.
Think in terms of employment, what if part of your job was going to people's homes -this can range from door to door sales to nursing? Now think of how you feel when you end up lost in a very sketchy part of town. Combine the two feelings. You've been sent by your employer to go and redo a bandage on a man in a very shady neighborhood. Wouldn't you feel safer if you had a gun to protect yourself in case of an emergency situation? I would.
Besides any of that, even if you don't worry about yourself going off the handle on a shooting spree, what about everyone else? First of all, I highly doubt that if you're planning on committing a massacre that you will bother to get a concealed weapons permit. Second, statistics have shown that since Florida has adopted the "right to carry law in 1987" the "firearm homicide," "handgun homicide," and overall "homicide" rates have gone down over 35% each. "Firearm homicide" decreases by 37%, while the "handgun homicide" rate has declined 41%, and the overall "homicide" rate has gone down 36% (all from 1987 -1996). So, this means that while Florida citizens were gaining concealed weapons permits, less bullets killed people in the homicide arena. This deeply contrasts the popular belief that allowing citizens to carry guns is barbaric and can only lead to violence.
Think about it.
amber
Think in terms of employment, what if part of your job was going to people's homes -this can range from door to door sales to nursing? Now think of how you feel when you end up lost in a very sketchy part of town. Combine the two feelings. You've been sent by your employer to go and redo a bandage on a man in a very shady neighborhood. Wouldn't you feel safer if you had a gun to protect yourself in case of an emergency situation? I would.
Besides any of that, even if you don't worry about yourself going off the handle on a shooting spree, what about everyone else? First of all, I highly doubt that if you're planning on committing a massacre that you will bother to get a concealed weapons permit. Second, statistics have shown that since Florida has adopted the "right to carry law in 1987" the "firearm homicide," "handgun homicide," and overall "homicide" rates have gone down over 35% each. "Firearm homicide" decreases by 37%, while the "handgun homicide" rate has declined 41%, and the overall "homicide" rate has gone down 36% (all from 1987 -1996). So, this means that while Florida citizens were gaining concealed weapons permits, less bullets killed people in the homicide arena. This deeply contrasts the popular belief that allowing citizens to carry guns is barbaric and can only lead to violence.
Think about it.
amber
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)