Category: Gun Control

Speech Against Gun Violence

It is December, cold as ever, and the guns are as loud as ever. A few days ago, several shootings took place one by one in Chicago, Baltimore, and Minnesota. Across these states, at least 28 people were shot. Some of them are dead, some are wounded. However, those gunmen are still at large…

The United States has the largest number of privately-owned guns in the world, and the number is continuously increasing.

In 2000, there were 259 million guns in private hands in the United States. By now, the number of privately-owned guns has already exceeded the number of residents. According to a Gallup survey conducted in 2011, 47 percent of US adults reported that they had guns, and in the southern United States, 54 percent of adults had guns. On the one hand, concerns about the threat of violence have led many people to buy guns for self-protection. On the other hand, the proliferation of guns has increasingly been an important reason for violent crime. Since a large number of guns are privately held across the country, the United States has seen frequent shooting cases and an alarming number of shooting casualties. According to the 2014 report by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), because of the widespread school bullying phenomena, around 200,000 to 250,000 middle school students in the United States carried weapons to school, and according to statistics, 8.6 percent of the students who had been bullied before took weapons to school, and 4.6 percent of the students who had never been bullied also took weapons to school.

The United States is the country with the most gun violence in the world. In 2018, a total of 57,103 gun cases occurred in the United States, resulting in 14,717 deaths and 28,172 injuries, including 3,502 deaths and injuries of minors. The Huffington Post website reported on December 6, 2018, that an analysis of official data on gun deaths from 2000 to 2016 in the United States found that gun violence caused the average life expectancy of people in the US to drop nearly 2.5 years, with African-Americans decreasing by 4.14 years. Recurrent shooting cases have caused a large number of casualties in the United States, and deadly mass shootings have already become a major threat to public safety. Gun violence has severely violated human rights, especially the people’s right to life.

The road to stop gun violence is quite hard, but it still needs to be persevered.

‘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.’ —An ‘outdated’ manner, which origins from the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Now is the 21st century, a relatively peace and stable century. There is no need for the US people to launch a military campaign against British colonial rule at any time. Besides, with the increasing power of guns and the increase in population density caused by urbanization, the negative effects of privately-owned guns are becoming increasingly apparent. It is widely acknowledged by different countries in the world that privately owned guns are not conducive to public safety. Just as the data listed above, it’s obvious that the right to hold guns under the US Constitution does not accord with the needs of modern society. Because the proliferation of guns in private hands is directly related to gun violence, which has caused even will still cause a large number of casualties and an increase in violent crime.

Except for institutional reasons, the intense opposition between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, as well as interest groups, are the biggest resistance to gun control efforts in the United States. NRA, apparently, is a nonprofit organization that promotes firearm competency, safety, and ownership, as well as police training, marksmanship, hunting, and self-defense training in the United States. However, in fact, it is an absolute “arms dealer” who just cares about extravagant profits and political power, including 5 million members. And in order to strive for its political donations and voters during election years, the Republican Party keeps supporting gun rights.

Although there are still facing many difficulties to solve the gun issue in the United States, some existing efforts can bring hope. For instance, the opposite of the NRA—Brady Campaign， is one of the leaders of the American gun control movement. Although its power is weaker than NRA, it also has nearly 600,000 members, and its influence cannot be underestimated. A lot of influential gun control legislation and massive demonstrations against gun violence all thanks to the Brady campaign.

‘No matter how many guns we remove from the streets, people are still at risk of death’, RuQuan Brown, a high school football captain and advocate against gun violence from Washington, said in CNN. According to his words, his stepfather and his closest football teammate both died from a fatal gunshot in the last two years. And those painful memories turned into the impetus for him to take action to fight against gun violence. He launched Love1, a merchandising business that advocates against guns and aims to raise public awareness to end such violence. Afterward, his company donates 20% of proceeds to One Gun Gone, an anti-gun violence art project in Rhode Island. From proceeds raised, One Gun Gone offers a gun buyback program and makes art from them.

As John Whitley said, ‘Guns have one intended purpose: to kill. Sanctuary is intended to afford protection, especially from gun violence, and not to afford safe haven to protect these instruments of death. ‘What we really need to worry about now is not how to resist the government tyranny that we don’t know the specific time, but the individuals who hold guns at all times. As we always have such a ‘lucky’ chance to meet each other at any time and anywhere. Just hoping that in the following tomorrow, an exploding balloon will be neither a cause of panic for our citizens nor a tool to test their shooting skills.

Rhetoric Analysis of Barack Obama Gun Violence Speech

Have you ever wondered what the president has to do when they are in the process of preparing to give a speech? Well back in 2015 former President Obama was delivering a eulogy for Reverend Clementa C. Pinckney, who was a former member of the South Carolina Senate and he was a pastor of Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal church, but he was most notable because he was one of the nine people that were killed in the Charleston shooting in South Carolina, where gunman Dylann Roof opened fire and killed nine African Americans during a church service. Throughout his speech President Obama’s language in his speech was very appealing as the sense of his religious audience, he also uses ethos, pathos, and logos throughout his speech The ethos that was used in President Obama’s eulogy speech for Rev. Pinckney was the importance of racial equality in the United States is that he was president it makes his credibility more accurate because is his opinion on political issues is somewhat automatically placed at a higher level. In his speech, Obama defends his credibility by discussing various policies and statistics that point to significant racial inequity over gun safety and voter requirements, in his speech, Obama was very persuasive in these areas because of his position in government and how government and how he demonstrated his extensive knowledge on the issue.

Another example that Obama used for ethos in his eulogy speech was by discussing the religious acceptance of black churches and their importance in American history. Obama whose a devoted Christian and him being African American which gives the audience an immediate sense of his credibility because he is in a church setting and by discussing the history of black churches by saying “have been and continue to be, community centers where organize for jobs and justice; place of scholarship and network; place where children are loved and fed and kept out of harm’s way, that what happens in the church”(Obama). Obama demonstrates his credibility in an emotional sense to his audience so that they know what to him is a black church and what really means to the people of Charleston and how because of this shooting that has taken place has affected them because nine innocent African Americans had their life taken by a white supremacist.

President Obama uses pathos in his eulogy speech for Rev. Pinckney was emotional because when he started singing “Amazing Grace” also he ended his speech by reciting the nine victims names and by him doing that to me that means that each victim has found grace, in his speech he also discusses that we as a society must think about conscious and unconscious racial discrimination in our everyday lives, he also discusses in his speech that the controversy of the confederate flag and how the community of Charleston, South Carolina is in pain from it because that flag symbolizes systematic oppression for African Americans and how everyone is blind to it but now I personally feel that we as a society is now starting to see when it comes to racial injustices in our school systems, gun violence, and the laws that are set in place nationwide in systematic racism. The logos that were used in President Obama’s speech was how he was making points regarding Rev. Pinckney and his solutions to the tense race relations present at the time of his speech, he also discusses the history of black churches and the critical importance during the underground railroad led by Harriet Tubman but most importantly he further discusses why after this shooting this should be a turning point in race relations and gun violence by Obama doing this he is allowing the audience to reflect on the horror that has just taken place in this black church because this isn’t the first time this has happened where people were killed during a church service because many years ago in 1963 in Birmingham, Alabama four African American girls were killed when a Ku-Klux-Klan member bombed a church while they were in service. Obama also wants his audience to understand that this was a senseless act that happened and now it is time for a change. To me when it comes to this society regarding gun violence because that is something that Americans have been fighting about for a long time when it comes to trying to get gun control laws and to this day we are still fighting for laws and there still isn’t some kind of solution like how many people have to die before we get gun control laws and where still fighting racism.

In conclusion, the reason I chose to analyze this speech is because to me I felt this speech was good because Obama was able to relate to his audience because he was in a church and it was an appeal to the religious side of things and he also uses ethos, pathos, and logos throughout his speech. Another reason I felt this was a good speech was that since Obama knew Rev. Pinckney it made me feel his speech came from the heart compared to if it was someone speaking at his funeral and they didn’t know him.

Obama against Gun Violence: Critical Essay

Gun control has been a topic of discussion in the United States since the day we became a nation. The founding fathers made it known in the Second Amendment, that citizens of the United States should have the right to bear arms. This discussion in allowing Americans the right to own guns has proven to be both horrific and lifesaving. With great power comes great responsibility, and many times in America people have proven to themselves and others that they do not have the level of responsibility to own a weapon. Because of these people, gun restrictions have been made to try and keep guns out of the hands of these heinous individuals. Just a few of the gun control laws include Gun Free School Zone Act (1990), Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act (1993), etc. Gun control is very important and will always be a touchy topic; knowing what laws to activate, knowing the history of gun grabbers and gun nuts, and putting yourself into a position to see what you would do are all ideas that will help us get a better understanding o what is going on with firearms in America.

After the shootings of Sandy Hooks Elementary School, and Aurora, Colorado, President Obama wanted to require criminal background checks anytime someone bought a firearm, ban assault weapons, limit magazine clips to 10 rounds, and ban any firearm that can shoot through armor. I agree with President Obama that there needs to be a criminal background check anytime someone purchases a firearm to make sure that they are responsible enough to carry a gun. The reason these massive shootings have happened is that the people that sold the guns to the buyer did not do a good enough job making sure they are mentally stable and that they are not a criminal. If we were to thoroughly check everyone’s background before they bought a weapon, maybe there wouldn’t be so many tragic shootings. At the same time, I believe that if you are in the right mindset, you should be able to purchase any type of firearm you want whether it be a handgun or an assault rifle. There is no reason not to let someone who has been a great citizen not be able to have that weapon. Many Americans were unhappy with Obama’s ideas, Ted Cruz even put, “up a webpage with a menacing, altered picture of the president in a commando outfit. A caption read “Obama Wants Your Guns” next to a fundraising appeal, “(Lichtblau and Shear). At the same time, President Obama had many people back him up saying his speech was, “One of the most moving things I’ve ever seen,” (Lichtblau and Shear).

The issues between gun grabbers and gun nuts have been going on since guns have been invented. Gun grabbers do not like the idea of people having guns and rightfully so, “In 1974 alone, there were 325,000 reported incidents of firearms being used illegally to assault or threaten citizens,” (Winkler 16). Because of this crazy statistic, Washington D.C. put a ban on handguns and instead made people use shotguns and rifles, but these weapons were to not be used for self-defense, only for recreational use. In United States v. Miller, a case in 1939, the court ruled that Congress can ban sawed shotguns because they “bore no relationship to service in state militias.” After that case, the court said they would not rule in any cases that dealt with the Second Amendment; they ended up doing this for seventy years (Winkler 25). IN 2008 after the New York Giants won the Super Bowl, Plaxico Burress, a stud wide receiver for the New York Giants, was out partying one night; while walking up some steps, his gun slipped from his waist, and he ended up shooting himself in the leg causing him to rush to the hospital. John Feinstein said that “owners and players should agree that players can’t own handguns” and was also very high on abolishing the Second Amendment (Winkler 33). Any time something crazy happens with guns, antigun enthusiasts make a statement saying that wouldn’t happen if we didn’t have guns. Gun grabbers will always have something to say when something bad happens; when someone uses a gun to protect themselves and their family, this is where the gun nuts come in to praise the Second Amendment.

Gun nuts love being able to have their guns and proudly support the Second Amendment. In United States v. Emerson, there was a man who had charges for illegal possession of a firearm. Emerson’s wife filed a restraining order on him which then causes him not to be able to carry a gun, but Emerson did not give up the gun. Eventually, this problem was taken to court, but the court did not want to hear the meeting because they don’t like talking about the Second Amendment. Emerson got to keep his gun and returned to his life (Winkler 47). In the 2000 election, Al Gore was very anti-gun, and George W. Bush loved the individual rights theory. Bob Levy had a great point in saying,” You don’t want a bank robber or a crackhead up there as a poster boy for the Second Amendment,” (Winkler 59) he was saying that the case would probably be someone who fits his saying. He wanted to make sure that the court heard from people that feared criminals breaking into their houses or coming up to them on the street. If he could get a good person on the court, then he thought it would change the way some Americans feel about the Second Amendment. One case that helped the gun nuts accomplish this was Shelly Parker et al. V. District of Columbia. Shelley was an elderly woman who lived in a neighborhood where there were a lot of thugs and she fought them out of her neighborhood. This story is exactly what the gun nuts wanted; a sympathetic story that shows how guns can be used for good deeds. So now what must we do to ensure that guns do not get into the hands of the wrong person?

In almost every major shooting, the person who is shooting usually has something wrong mentally with themselves. After leading a rally Donald Trump, talking about people who shoot large crowds of people, said” These people are mentally ill and no one talks about that,” (McDonald). We need to be more open to people who have mental illnesses and get them to places where they can learn how to deal with the things they are going through. It is proven that “mental illness alone approximately triples the risk of some form of violence,” (McDonald). Being able to understand why someone wants to do a certain thing is a big part of how we make our country a better place to live. We need to be more aware of people around us and be able to know if they are mentally stable and talk to them to see if they are okay. In doing this I believe that we would cut down the number of shootings that took place. The House members had to vote on something of this matter in 2013.

If I was a member of the House of Representatives, I would vote against President Obama’s proposed gun control legislation. I would vote against it because no one would be able to protect themselves from being robbed or someone pressing them in the streets. I believe that saying I agree with some of the ideas that the President has would be good enough for me to keep a healthy relationship with the rest of my colleagues. If I were to just completely disagree with everything the President and the other house representatives said, then I would be looked at as if I didn’t know what I was talking about. Hopefully, most of us in the House of Representatives would be able to work together to find a better way to have less gun violence in America. Even though I do like the idea of checking everyone’s background before purchasing a firearm, it is mainly mental illness that causes these massive shootings. Instead of just taking away big assault rifles, I would propose an idea that involves checking the buyer’s mental state of mind and criminal background to see if they can own a firearm. Taking away everyone’s guns would be a major threat to the United States. Criminals would just be able to run around with no fear of someone putting them in their place.

In conclusion, gun rights will always be an issue people will debate about, I don’t know if there will ever be a set gun regulation or if they will be taken away completely. Since the time guns were made, they have been so fondly looked upon. As long as we don’t let the guns get into the wrong hands the country will be safe. Also guiding more people to mental health care if they seem out of the ordinary that way, they can learn how to deal with whatever is going on with them. When they do get into the wrong hands, we need to have someone who is going to stand up for themselves and the country to say we will not put up with this; if we were to abolish guns there would not be someone to put an end to it.

Persuasive Speech on Gun Violence

Gun violence it’s one of the biggest problems not only in America but in the whole world. At least 1.7 million children live with unlocked and loaded firearms, which means that 1 out of 3 homes with children own a gun. Firearms are the second leading cause of death in adolescents, after car crashes. There have been multiple incidents that involved firearms that have impacted the world. The United States has been trying to fix these issues.

Firearms are a big problem when it comes to the streets and gang-related issues.

But now, guns are starting to become a problem in schools across the United States and many teens go to school with the fear that a possible incident with a gun could happen at any time. “…school shootings have lasting ramifications for each family and also impact relationships among community members, including parents, the school law enforcement, and local government.” School shootings have impacted many families, and have left a big impact on some of them, for example, those who’ve lost a family member. Many students feared that an incident could happen at any time during school. Firearms are a huge problem when they’re around children. “Among children, the majority (89%) of unintentional shooting deaths occur in the home. Most of these deaths occur when children are playing with a loaded gun in their parent’s absence.” Looking at the percentage of unintentional deaths of children that are caused by shootings, it’s clearly visible that 89% of shootings that happen at home are because the parents or someone else from the family own a firearm, and leaves it loaded where children can easily reach for it could bring multiple problems. Lastly, gun violence can be seen anywhere around the world. “44% of all homicides globally involve gun violence” There could be firearms everywhere, and by this, the 44% of homicides that involve guns are most likely to be gang-related or some other cause. But there is always a solution to a problem.

There could be multiple solutions to this problem, but these two solutions seem to work out for this most for the most part. Having a strong and better background check on the buyer when it comes to buying a firearm will likely help reduce gun violence. “One thing that can lessen the effectiveness of expanded background checks in screening out more people who aren’t allowed to have guns is under-enforcement. ” So by adding a background check to those states that don’t count with one would most likely help decrease the percentage of homicides in the state. Also, this could make it harder for the person to get a firearm. “Eliminating ways for them to get guns without going through a background check can make it harder for them to obtain lethal weapons.” By checking the background of the buyer, the seller would have to see if the person who is buying the gun doesn’t have any high crimes on his or her record. But this doesn’t mean that the person that wants to buy the gun is going to be completely stopped from obtaining it. “…you can buy a gun from a private seller without getting screened to see if you have a record that bans you from owning a firearm.” This is still a common problem because the buyer can just buy a gun illegally. The buyer would just obtain the firearm without having a background check.

The second solution to gun violence is owning a permit in order to buy/own a gun. “They require residents to secure a permit from local law enforcement before they can own a gun.” Having a permit in order to own a gun is the same thing as owning a permit in order to drive. This would make the buyer get a permit before buying a gun. Citizens from areas where this rule is applied tend to believe that this has made a small change in those areas. “Research has shown that such “permit to purchase” laws are associated with significantly fewer guns used in crimes than in states that do not have licensing laws.” By adding this law, not everyone would be able to buy a gun, only those who count with a permit. But this would also have a negative impact. In some states, training on how to use a gun properly is not even required. “States like Maryland and Georgia do not require individuals to have any firearm training completed before they apply for and receive a concealed carry permit.” There wouldn’t be a point in owning a permit if training is not required. It would still be the same problem.

In the end, the best solution to gun violence would be the first solution, which is having a strong and better background check before buying a firearm. This will help decrease gun violence in states and even countries. “One thing that can lessen the effectiveness of expanded background checks in screening out more people who aren’t allowed to have guns is under-enforcement.” This would prevent people who have committed crimes in the past to get a gun. But this does not mean that they won’t be able to get a firearm. There are always other ways of obtaining a firearm illegally. But this would be the solution that would fit more into the problem.

Gun Violence in America: Speech

As United States citizens, do we have the right to bear arms? America’s growing gun culture stems in part from its colonial history, revolutionary roots, and the Second Amendment, which states: “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 amendment has been under severe scrutiny in the past decade as a result of mass murders with a gun involved. It is a heavily debated topic with two very polarizing viewpoints. On one side of the spectrum, it is believed that more gun control laws would cause less gun-related violence. On the other side, it is believed that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens isn’t the answer to controlling gun-related crime. This can be seen as an argument between protecting individual rights and fulfilling the needs and interests of the larger community. Taking away guns from law-abiding citizens not only leaves many people without protection, but it also won’t have the dramatic effect of controlling gun violence that everyone hoped for. It is easy to conclude that fewer guns in the possession of the public would result in less gun-related violence, but is that true? The fact is criminals will find a way to obtain a gun if they want. If a criminal was already planning to hurt someone with a gun, they don’t care if it is legally obtained or not. The problem with this issue is that many focus only on reducing gun violence/murders. The general murder rate is also an important statistic because you must think about all the instances in which American citizens used guns to protect themselves. America has approximately 1.45 guns per American, or about 393,347,000 which is the highest total and per capita in the world. In 1993 there was less than one gun per American. What may be surprising to hear is that the murder rate has gone down as gun ownership has increased. The idea that more gun ownership equals more crime or even more guns equals more mass shootings has very little evidence.

When people watch the news and see a mass-murder who used a gun it may spark anger. One may ask, “How do we keep letting things like this happen?”. Many people automatically think that with all this violence we need stricter gun control laws. The reason they believe this way is because the current gun-control laws aren’t as effective as hoped. The main thing to understand is that you can put a law into legislation for stronger gun control, but the criminals do not care. They are criminals, if they want a gun, they will get a gun illegally. It doesn’t matter if the gun is legal or not if a criminal is using it on someone else. The act in which they choose to use the gun on someone is illegal anyways so why would they care about some gun-control law? “Every mass shooting that has occurred has been carried out against current laws that did nothing to stop it. This is not because the laws aren’t tough enough, it is because you can’t legislate behavior.” Basically, criminal activity including guns can’t be stopped by a gun-control law because “you can’t legislate behavior” as explained by Ryan Cleckner. Here is another stat to show how current gun control laws are proven ineffective. Texas’s gun control has an ‘F’ rating from the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Texas yet has seen only 6.6 percent of total mass public shootings since 2000 which was lower than expected given that it holds 8.6 percent of the national population. On the other hand, Washington state has a ‘B’ rating and accounts for 2.2 percent of the population but 8 percent of mass public shootings since 2000. This is just another example of how gun control has failed to do its job and certain legislators believe that more gun control is the answer which is absurd.

I understand that when people fight for the argument of pro-gun control they are looking for ways to combat the amount of gun-related murders and violence across America. However, what defense does a law-abiding citizen have against a criminal with an illegally obtained gun? Passing strict gun control will only create more victims who are left defenseless against an armed attacker. Would it surprise you if I told you “gun-free zones” are the most popular locations for mass shootings? Probably not. What happens when all guns are outlawed, and the only ones left are illegal guns in the hands of criminals? How might one defend themselves? Adams (1996) identifies two theoretical explanations of defensive gun ownership: acute fear of crime and past victimization experiences. This is the reason many like to have a gun at home for protection. They choose guns as a means of self-defense for the same reason the Secret Service uses them to protect the president: guns stop bad people from doing bad things to good people. People think of guns and automatically think about murder. But the truth is guns save lives and without them, many more would be lost. “Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired, and no blood (including the criminals) is shed.” “Every year, 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.” According to the Justice Department’s own statistics, 67,740 people a year don’t become victims because they own a gun. It is plausible to suspect that if more states allowed concealed carry, the number of instances of defensive gun use would be even higher. The number of defensive guns used doesn’t matter much to the anti-gun supporters. Whether the number is 67,000 or 2.5 million or anywhere in between, they’ll do whatever they can to dismiss defensive gun uses as insignificant. They want to focus only on the dead people lying in the street rather than those folks who use a firearm to remain standing. While trying to limit the number of guns in the criminal’s hands, you are taking them away from law-abiding citizens who help the world immensely.

The idea that gun violence is the sole problem is absurd when violence in general is the problem. “Anti-gunners often point to countries where guns are effectively banned to show how safe we would be. This is absurd. This logic seems to think that only gun violence should be stopped.” I’m not sure why gun-involved homicide is any worse than homicide where a firearm isn’t involved. Most arguments I hear for banning guns involve decreasing gun violence and they completely ignore other types of violence that may very well increase when guns are banned. “This invites the question, was the world a peaceful place before guns? Of course, it wasn’t. However, I bet the rate of sword-involved homicide decreased when people stopped using swords. I’m not sure why the tool is the focus.” Whether it’s a “pressure cooker, a box-cutter, a fertilizer bomb, a rented Home Depot truck, or a firearm”, murders and terrorists are the problem. Not their weapon of choice. Especially when that weapon is the best defense against such murderers. As it has been stated before, “you can’t legislate behavior”.

Many will speak out on their opinion to have an assault rifles ban. The only thing unique about assault rifles is their menacing name and look. The “assault weapons” for sale in the U.S. now aren’t really weapons of war. Many people mistake these firearms for machine guns capable of shooting multiple rounds of ammunition with a single pull of the trigger. The 1994 assault weapons law banned semi-automatic rifles only if they had any two of the following five features in addition to a detachable magazine: a collapsible stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, or a grenade launcher. All these are only cosmetic changes and have no effect on the way the gun fires. What people don’t understand is that you can’t walk into a gun store and walk out with a military-style assault weapon (one that can fire multiple rounds with a single trigger pull). That’s because most gun dealers don’t carry the military version of the gun, you have to jump through a crazy number of hoops with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to even obtain a tax stamp that says you may purchase such a weapon (a process that takes months, if not years), and the actual versions of rifles used by the military are really expensive and unaffordable for the vast majority of prospective gun owners. They’re “semiautomatic” which is a technical term that applies to the way rounds are chambered, not to the way the guns shoot. Many handguns are semiautomatic too. Military-style rifles fire only one round for each pull of the trigger, just like a revolver, a shotgun, a hunting rifle, or any other of the 300 million legal guns in America. It can be understood that making an assault weapons ban will have very little to no effect on gun violence.

Persuasive Essay against Gun Control

In the article ‘A List of the Reasons Cited against Gun Control and an Effort to Think Them Through’ by Tanushree Ghosh, the idea that creating stricter gun laws is the solution to the problem is assessed. A multitude of reasons are given behind this statement. However, it is mentioned that criminals will find a way to get ahold of their weapon of choice no matter what laws are in place because they are criminals and that is what they do. I believe that stricter gun laws will not stop crimes violent crimes from happening. The problem is not guns, the problem is people. Putting stricter gun laws in place will not prevent these violent crimes from occurring.

Criminals kill people, not their guns. Making guns harder to get will not stop criminals from getting guns if they want them. This is because, as Ghosh noted, criminals will break laws in any way. The fact is that gun regulation laws are already in place. Not just anyone can walk into any store and simply purchase a gun. In order to buy a gun, a person must have a valid driver’s license, fill out paperwork and be above a certain age. However, many violent crimes involving a gun are committed by teens who are not even old enough to purchase these guns on their own. This can be related to the topic of underage drinking. Although high schoolers are not at an appropriate age to purchase or consume alcohol, a multitude of teens still find a way to get their hands on alcohol. The same pertains to guns. Just because the person purchasing the guns fits the regulations does not mean that is the same person who will be in possession of the gun. Just as young adults buy alcohol for teens or their underage friends, guns can be purchased for minors or people who do not fit the qualifications.

Mental illness is exactly what needs to be targeted more than guns do. There is a multitude of complexities associated with mental illness that many people fail to understand. Although mental illness can be the cause of vicious thoughts that make people commit violent crimes, not all mental illnesses make people feel that way. In the military, if a person admits that they need help, they will be put on a watch list and have many privileges taken away. If they seek help, their right to hold a gun is immediately taken away regardless of the situation. This stops people in the military from getting the help they really need. The taboo around getting help needs to be corrected. More help for such diseases should be more easily accessible to not only teens but adults as well.

Moreover, taking away guns takes away the rights of US citizens. The right to own a gun is protected under the Constitution in the 2nd Amendment. Taking away guns from the citizens who follow the law is not the answer. This takes their ability to defend themselves against criminals. Citizens who obey the laws will not get their hands on guns if they are made illegal, but criminals will still find a way to get them. This puts innocent people at more risk of danger. If guns are legal, at least people will have a method of defense against violent criminals.

When violent crimes happen, people immediately think the solution is stricter gun laws. Stricter gun laws are not the answer. If people want guns, they will find a way to get them. Taking away guns strips people of their rights and puts innocent people in danger. More resources should be available for people with mental illnesses. Changes need to be made, but taking away guns is not the appropriate one.

Why Guns Should Be Banned: Persuasive Essay

Since the independence of America, the United States Bill of Rights in 1791 stated that “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”. So, the concept of owning guns is very old, but it evolved since the last century because of the increase in crime with laws like the National Firearms Act (‘NFA’) or the Gun Control Act (‘GCA’). However, gun control is one of the most controversial and divisive issues in American politics. On that tone, I think guns should be banned in the US.

Since the legalization of guns in the US, we keep hearing of mass shootings happening around the country and the violence that emerged is hugely critical, so it’s time to make a move about the situation and revise the restrictions around gun laws. During 2017, the rate of crime increased, there were 427 mass shootings and more than 15,000 people were killed in firearm-related incidents, while over 30,000 people were injured, according to Gun Violence Archive (2019). These numbers are insane and show the seriousness of this situation. Let’s also recall the mass shooting that happened on February 14, 2018, in Florida during which someone murdered 17 people in class in a few minutes. This is evidence that the rate of crime due to using guns is increasing and that people don’t feel safe anymore to go to school or walk the street knowing that anyone around them could have a gun. Killing and owning guns became so easy and insignificant that lives keep getting taken away, condolences to families are not enough, and the situation keeps getting worse, but there is still no action from the authorities.

Not only the rate of crime is constantly increasing, but America stands first in the circulation of firearms in the world, and they are actually encouraging the diffusion of guns, as we can see in National Observer (2018): “According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the vast majority of guns seized and traced in Mexico are of American origin”. Other statistics of the same website show that more than two-thirds of all the victims in the US were killed by guns and that Americans are forty times more likely to encounter a gun than most other human beings in the world, and that is explained by the huge amount of guns circulating. “In 2011, 270 million firearms were circulated in the U.S., almost 90 guns for every 100 people”, and nowadays “There are an estimated 393 million civilian-owned guns in the United States. That translates to 1.2 guns for every man, woman, child, and baby in America”, according to Brian Klaas, an assistant professor of global politics at University College London. These numbers show that America is at the center of the production of firearms and proves the danger they are creating to society when approximately half of the population own a gun.

Let’s now talk about how much America needs gun control because the laws and restrictions are not enough, but we will first briefly introduce the procedure followed by American to own a gun. Generally, when someone wants to buy a firearm from a gun store, they have to go through a quick background check. The seller will call the FBI, which will eventually use a database called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to go through their customer’s records, and then, if he has a clear record, the purchaser can get his gun, but if he’s convicted of a felony or any type of crime, he won’t pass the background check (Euronews, 2017). However, a lot of mistakes and clerical errors can pass because the records of criminals are not always updated in the database of the FBI. For example, according to Euronews (2017), the shooter Devin Patrick Kelley was able to legally purchase a gun from a gun store and so was able to slip through the cracks of the system because of their mistake. Moreover, background checks are only made when you buy a gun from stores, but if a person wants to sell their gun, they could easily sell it to someone who has a criminal record, and so guns are circulating between people without knowing who is using it for a bad or good intention. In fact, 37,5% of the offenders obtained their guns from the streets (Daniel W. Webster, John S. Vernick, 2013). Additionally, each state has its own gun laws, and “out of 50 states, 35 do not require that gun owners hold a license, obtain a purchase permit, or register their weapons” (Euronews, 2017), which represents a big threat and danger to society. Therefore, these statistics show that the American government needs more strict laws about firearms and guns.

Although we know that guns can prevent accidents like home invasions and terrorist incidents, it’s very rare to see a mass shooting stop thanks to the intervention of a gun holder, but instead, he is more likely to scare people even more and get them confused, and by that shoot someone innocent rather than the intruder. In fact, 11,4% of the offenders detained in prison were licensed gun holders (Daniel W. Webster, John S. Vernick, 2013). This shows that even people with licenses are not able to take the situation in control and protect people during an incident. Moreover, more than 2000 unintentional shootings were registered in 2017 (Gun Violence Archive, 2019), and this number takes into consideration domestic violence, but also if someone who is angry or drunk could easily make an accident by shooting an innocent person without noticing because they are not in their stable state of mind. We also can’t deny the fact that the circulation of guns increases the rate of suicide because teenagers or even adults could have access to guns without necessarily having a bad record, and this creates a big danger since it’s hard to survive a gun blast: “In 2005, an average of 46 Americans per day committed suicide with a firearm, accounting for 53% of all completed suicides”(Matthew Miller, M.D., Sc.D., and David Hemenway, Ph.D.).

In conclusion, even if people have the right of defending and protecting themselves, the right of possessing guns has been abused and used to commit so many crimes that we can no longer neglect it. The crime rate is increasing rapidly and laws are not strict enough. People are losing families and friends because of barbaric behaviors and all they receive are some condolences, but it’s time for the authorities to make a move and stop this epidemic disease of killing.

Informative Essay on Gun Control

For many years, gun control has always been a heated topic, especially in the U.S. After all, there have been many massive shootings that can result in this debate. Especially, during the last 3-5 years. There has been a shooting in a school, workplaces, churches, etc. every time we turn around. Should we get rid of guns altogether? Or should we just make gun laws stricter? There are many questions we all have, and many opinions we have about this certain topic. In reality, we just want to live in a world that is safe, with no tragedies, and live in happiness. Yet, even though we would all love that, it is impossible. If we got rid of guns altogether, it would fight against the 2nd amendment in the U.S constitution. Which is, the right to bear arms. However, if we don’t act on this issue, there will continue to be more massive shootings, and just not across the United States. Though this is why Gun Control should not be legalized because it would become the worst crime rate, it can be an advantage for the country, and why the gun control movement fails altogether because it is seen as crime control instead of gun control.

Gun Control is the laws that forbid gun ownership and the manufacture of guns to be sold. Is the answer to massive shootings legalizing this law so no shootings or crimes happen? According to John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D. said, ‘States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. The effect of ‘shall-issue’ gun laws on these crimes has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent and injuries by 82 percent.’ (Lott) Why do we instantly think if someone ones a gun, they’re going to cause a crime? A journalist John Stossel says that criminals that want to commit a crime will commit them. For example, if guns were to be outlawed, the outlaws would find ways to get ahold of a gun (Stossel).

The legalization of Gun Control would just become worse in crime rates, and more shootings across the United States. According to an article on CNN by L.Z Granderson called “Gun Control is not the answer.” The author talks about how in Chicago that gun shops are illegal. Yet, in the city, they are affected by gunshot wounds, or even death in the streets each week. It also talks about how more people have died from gun violence here from home than during the nine years of warfighting in Iraq. The individuals that are committing mass shootings are coming from both legalized people who can carry a gun and ones who are not. So even though they are not allowed ownership of carrying a gun, they still find ways to commit that crime or even carry a gun (Granderson). According to John Stossel in an article from ABC News called, “Gun Control isn’t crime control.” He talks about instead of gun control legalization if we just invested in stricter gun laws and if that would help. He also gives the information that If a criminal is going to commit a crime, it doesn’t matter if we have strict gun laws or not. They will commit a crime regardless. So, if the gun laws were stricter it gives them another reason to commit the crime and find a way to come out on top. In that statement, there could be a bit of a disagreement among others. Such as, if stricter gun laws were to be that it harder to be able to own a gun, or where background checks legal for all 50 states to purchase a gun sale instead of eleven states. In 1997, there was a shooting in the United Kingdom in England that killed around 16 children. The effect of that crime, England created stricter gun laws for the country. England’s laws for gun control since then have been one of the strictest gun laws in the world. The law is preventing almost all citizens from having the right to own a firearm. Even though this law was set, there was no decrease in gun-related crimes in the U.K. at all. The crimes have actually doubled in England since the ban was established. It is a topic that is very controversial, could it help? Or could it not? The stricter the gun laws seem to become, the more the crime rates will increase.

When people think of guns, they think of them as killing machines. Such as for humans. Liberals believe and support that human lives are valuable and that killing humans is wrong. This is also true but they also believe that guns kill humans so we should limit the access of the use of guns completely. Every time a mass shooting occurs it seems like another opportunity for Liberals to fight against gun control. According to an article by Dustin Murphy called, “4 major problems with gun control arguments.” He states, “Making guns illegal or restricting access to them won’t end gun violence” (Murphy). Much how like there are substances and drugs that are illegal yet according to studies overdose of drugs is the number one death of people across the United States. Liberals are also to be said that they are blaming the mentally ill for the causes of the massive shootings. That because an individual committed a crime, they were mentally ill. This could be true, but it seemed like that was the reply to every shooting that occurred. According to the article written by S.E Smith called, “Don’t blame the mentally ill. Blame the guns.” He talks about how President Trump said that the lack of mental hospitals was to blame for the incident that happened in the Parkland, Florida shooting. President Trump also suggested imprisoning innocent people in mental- health facilities. Then stated, “he hasn’t committed the crime, but he may very well.” According to a 2015 analysis as well of about 235 mass murders including shootings found that only 46 of those people were actually mentally ill. A lot of the reasons identified as rage, hostility, and just being disgruntled were more common to have been the cause of the shootings rather than it being a mental condition. Some evidence that was presented in the article, it says that it suggests that mentally ill people are less likely to kill people with a gun or any other type of firearm. However, overall how sane they are also counterparts, and when that happens, they usually end up killing themselves in the situation (Smith).

Gun control not being legalized cannot be a disadvantage for the country. It can be an advantage, but why? Gun control not being legalized could be another open window for more black marketing to occur. If someone wants to own a gun, they will fight every will in their power to get what they want. There are also going to always be people who steal firearms for their own needs, and if the government gets rid of guns completely, it’ll be a bigger fight to get them, even though now people are still stealing and trying to get their hands on guns if they want them. Many also argue that more people are killed by guns through homicides, but there are more deaths in the U.S. caused by guns in suicide. Approximately 7,000 of them are suicides. Instead of worrying about getting completely rid of guns, there is studies that show there needs to be more dedicated to looking into mental health organizations instead. Most people have a fear of guns just because of the fact of what they can do to other people, not so much of how they function. Such things like gangs for example use the use of guns as a way to show their territory control because they don’t feel valued enough, or they suffer from insecurities. Also, some people look at gun violence to be a heart or a mental illness as well, instead of something else or even feeling valued (Ayres). Many people think if they cause a riot, they can get more people to pay attention to them or even get noticed by the outside world. They could be in a state of rejection or even feel they are not worthy enough to live. Even trying to get back at someone when maybe they treated them wrong. In past shootings, such as the Parkland shooting in Florida the student Nickolas Cruz, was also the shooter. In the article by Matias J. Ocner explains how he was bullied in school and didn’t feel welcomed, or even noticed. Later on, that brought on his mental illness and depression to cause him to get back with revenge for treating him the way the students may have(Ocner). That doesn’t give him an excuse to kill 17 students in a high school, but when talking about this issue it gives a more prominent description of why he could be causing such a huge massacre. A big one that is he wanted to be noticed, and he wanted others to feel the pain that he was going through.

According to an article by Gary Young called, “Why the Gun Control movement fails.” In the article, he talks about the failures that happened in the gun control movement in the U.S. Through the black American citizens and the low income. Young talks about how he’s talked to the parents of the victims of the children who were killed in a shooting back in 2013, and a police shooting in Ferguson. He then brings his audience to the point where he asked the parents an open-ended question. The question was about why they thought these tragedies kept happening. Young said that not one of their replies had anything to do with the use of guns themselves. Yet, when he asked a more leading question like what they thought of guns, almost all of them agreed and thought that guns being everywhere is a problem. They didn’t reply that getting rid of guns is the solution to all of the issues happening (Young). Judy Williams also talks a little bit about the issue as well. She explains that she doesn’t think the Second Amendment means what they think it means. That some of the issues happening don’t mean that there should be “no control.” Then she replies with, “The reality of it is, they are not going to do away with guns in this country… The fact is that they are so plentiful on the streets and people have them…. It’s ludicrous to think you can take guns out of people’s homes in this country… It ain’t gonna happen.'(Williams). Another solution can seem to be that it is not always the gun in general but the person carrying the firearm, and not blaming the gun itself. Lastly, Gary Young mentions, “None of the family members I spoke with raised the Second Amendment one way or the other. Almost all of them believed that guns were too readily available; none believed there was anything that could be done about it. Only one mother, according to her Facebook posts, had developed any real affinity with the gun-control movement.” (Young) However, when it comes down to it, no one is affiliated with the massacre that happened with guns themselves.

An article from the Washington Post, written by Nicole Lewis, gives us an insight into how congressional leaders acted after the terrible shooting that occurred in Las Vegas in October of 2018. From hundreds being wounded to 58 people dead in this mass shooting. They decided to re-open the debate on the issue of the legislation of gun control. Some politicians come into this debate and argue to the side that the right to bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment. As they are issuing more policies, more policies are coming out to not being as effective as they may have wanted. Members of Congress are trying to come up with ways and policies that could somehow prevent shootings from happening and keep the use of guns out of the wrong hands. Scalise made a claim about strict gun control laws are not having little to no effect. Much like Chicago, which is one of the strictest gun policies in the U.S., but still deals with gun violence at least once a week. Out of ranking with the strictest gun laws in the United States, Illinois is ranked number eight. Illinois gun laws and policies, include background checks on gun sales, waiting periods between the purchase and transfer of guns, and gun licensing (Lewis). New Orleans’ rates for homicides were shown to be the highest in 2016 even though their laws are set to be one of the strictest. Which in New Orleans is about 47 per 100,000 people in the state. Chicago had around 16 homicides per 100,000 people in the state. Researchers traced all new guns that were recovered or related to gun violence in Chicago. From crimes between the years 2009 and 2013. Through that, they found that 60 percent of new guns were used for gangs and that the other 32 percent were either purchased from other states or were non-gang-related crimes. There are some states that don’t have strict gun control policies, and the rates of gun death are also very high as well. According to the Law Center, Alaska ranks forty-four for their gun control policies and they have the highest rate of gun deaths in the country. Then Louisiana is ranked forty-third and again has the second-highest rate of gun deaths in the country.

On “State of the Union” on CNN on October 8th, Senator Chris Murphy said that tough gun laws don’t work and pointed at low rates of gun violence with states who have strict gun policies. According to several studies that Murphy’s spokesperson represented, they examined the changes and effects that have happened in the states that have banned assault weapons. Around the 2000s, gun violence had declined a bit, no one can really determine why that is the case. Instead, what has been banned has been semi-automatic weapons with large capacities that appear in military and criminal applications. In October 2016, Kleck gave the statement as, “gun control laws generally show no evidence of effects on crime rates, possibly because gun levels do not have a net positive effect on violence rates” (Kleck). Over the years, it has been shown that requiring a license to possess a gun rather than bans completely does help. It also has been seen to reduce the homicide rate and rate of robbery as well. Murphy made his claim of a 10-year ban on assault weapons, but it did not do much for reducing gun violence whatsoever. Some studies that say that gun control reduces gun deaths may not include deaths like suicide. There is a single study that talks and shows about the improvements in gun violence but can’t really be generalized correctly next to other states. After every mass shooting, politicians seem to have a debate over the gun control policy and how they can fix it. They talk about and focus on how to prevent another shooting from happening, and then the other argument is about how we can’t give up on the right to bear arms and the Second Amendment. Politicians can also only work with the information they have available at the time. Murphy then exaggerates and gives little evidence as to what he was supporting and on his side of the debate for gun violence. He only gives a hint of the support that he is giving on his side. This also comes back to President Barack Obama’s statement claim back in 2015. He said, “The States with the Most Gun Laws see the Fewest Gun-related deaths.” Which was also a similar claim to what Murphy said. Though, Obama’s statement was from a chart published in the National Journal (Lewis).

Many people believe that the Second Amendment isn’t an unlimited right to own guns. The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791 and since it was so long ago, people believe that it is okay to not follow it completely. According to the 2008 District of Columbia, U.S Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia, LLB, stated, ‘Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited… 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”(Scalia). Another big argument that people debate about is that they think that more gun control laws would reduce gun deaths. According to Daily Beast and CNN contributor, David Frum states, “American children under age 15 were nine times more likely to die of a gun accident than children in other advanced wealthy countries… About 200 Americans go to emergency rooms every day with gunshot wounds” (Frum). The use of gun licensing laws had shown there was a 14% decrease in homicides due to gun deaths. However, there was an increase in homicides shown in places where they were allowed the right to carry and stand your ground laws. Lastly, people make another statement that guns are rarely used when fighting for self-defense. There were 29,618,300 violent crimes that had been committed between the years of 2007 and 2011. Only 0.79% of victims which are about 235,700 protected themselves with the use of a firearm. Then in 2010, there were only said to be 230 justified homicides where a citizen used a gun to kill a felon. Rather than comparing it to 8,275 criminal homicides that year. The only property crimes that were committed in the year 2007 and the year 2011, there was only about 0.12% of victims, or 103,000 that had protected themselves with the use of a firearm in the use of their own home.

In Conclusion, gun control has always been a heated topic in our society. Whether it’s if we should get rid of guns completely, make stricter gun laws, or leave the laws as they are. Many people always have an opinion on what is best. Everyone just wants what is best and to live in a world where we can be protected and secure without the issues of having to worry about a massive shooting occurring, and the certain ways we can help to prevent them in general. All in all, shootings are going to happen because there are criminals in the world that want to have revenge on at least someone, or the fact their mind is not mentally stable. There could be many reasons why someone would choose to go to an area and use gun violence to take the lives of others. Though, increasing gun laws or even legalizing gun control is not a good idea. Because of the fact that criminals will and still do, use any capacity that they can to get a gun if they want it. Rather if it’s through black marketing and buying them illegally, stealing, or even using the use of their own firearm they have in their house. The more laws are prohibited, the more people are going to want to do them. Much like the use of drugs, which is more popular now, and has the highest rate of deaths than it ever has been. When in the main reality of this all, is that no one can control criminals, but they think they can control guns. The main issue in today’s society is crime control and not gun control.

Evaluation Essay on Women against Gun Control and Million Mom March

Introduction

The Million Women’s March was a protest that was organized on October 25, 1997. The march involved half a million people on Benjamin Franklin Parkway in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The theme and purpose of the march were family and unity. The full-day march consisted of prayer, music, and inspirational speeches. Family and unity are very important and the march wanted to show that to the world. Also, they wanted to show what it means to be an African American Woman in America. It was hard being an African American woman at that time because of rights and respect. “After the civil war, black women were discriminated against because of their skin color and because they were female.” As America expanded, women of color continued to bear the double burden of racism and sexism” (Doreen Rappaport, 179). The African American women on the march wanted the overall focus to be on their circumstances, trials, achievements, and success. This sought to bring African American women together to fight for equality. In the fight for equality, black women have always been on the front lines. Although their contributions to the Civil Rights and Women’s Movements were sometimes overlooked, their strength, resilience, and courage cannot be overstated. Black women have a unique perspective on the intersection of race and gender, as well as their own experiences of oppression. The women featured in this article are linked by an intricate network of activists from several generations. This march led to African Americans having a stronger mindset and growing mentally. The research question for the extended essay is How did the Million Women’s March change the mindset of African Americans? This research question is worthy of investigation because it challenges the existing viewpoints and research of this march on African Americans and even others impacted by this movement. The Million Women’s March changed the mindset of African Americans in them having self-determination and focusing on family and unity. Important activists were involved and it impacted many African Americans as a whole.

Who was involved and who was impacted by the march

African American women were involved in the march and two important activists organized this march. Phile Chionseu and Asia Coney were the organizers of the Million Women March of 1997. These are both activists. Phile Chionesu is a grassroots activist who organized the march and she is also the chairwoman for the Million Youth March that occurred in 1998. Another important march that is well known is the Million Youth March. The Million Youth March was held by Phile Chinese and it was a peaceful crowd of about 2,000 people that turned out Saturday for the Million Youth March, a controversial march and rally that ended with violence a year ago. Many African Americans looked up to the words of the Chinese. “The success of the march will depend on all of the black women who attend. Something had to happen for black women” (Phile Chinese). The other activist that organized this march is Asia Coney even though she was not well known she was asked to work on the march with Chionseu. Asia Coney has social media to connect with others and is still helping out in the community. She is president of the Resident Advisory Board. The Resident Advisory Board supplies the residents and the PHA with a forum for sharing information about the Agency’s Annual Plan. Specifically, African American women and teenage girls were impacted greatly by the march. Much research has shown that 94 of 1,000 African American teenage girls are victims of violent crime. The purpose and mission of the march were for them to have self-determination. Self-determination is the process by which a person controls their own life. The Million Women March was formed in response to the male-only march, the 1997 women-focused event was developed by a team of Philadelphian women. The march was day-long and the program was full of prayer and music and speeches. People still attended the march despite the cold temperature and the light rain that occurred this October. The people wanted to show this important event and support it. The supporters had flags, hats, and buttons with their march logo to show their support. This march changed the mindset of African American women completely. It helped them come together and share their voice and know about their worth. “This is going to be a historical event,”(Wessita McKinley). Wessita McKinely is the spokeswoman for the Washington-Virginia-Maryland organization, to The Associated Press. “They’re just coming to support their sisters, to see what they can do as a collective effort to better ourselves, our race, our families, and our country.”(Wessita McKinely). The attendees of the march knew that it was going to make a big impact and change the lives of many from just seeing the number of people that were there and spreading the word. To give a brief overview of the event of the march, in 1997, two local grassroots activists, Phile Chioneu and Asia Coney, had the bright idea to organize a march to bring attention to the good, the bad, and the ugly issues that black women were facing at the time. The issues that they believed were ignored by mainstream women’s organizations. It was a rainy Saturday, and the march was a day-long event that included multiple speeches, performances, and other things by local community organizers and civil rights activists. Now going into the keynote speakers of the march. The first of many keynote speakers, Representative Maxine Waters, a California Democrat who is president of the Congressional Black Caucus spoke on one of her favorite subjects, the proliferation of drugs in America’s inner cities. The second featured speaker was Winnie Madikizela-Mandela. She spoke for 20 minutes on the shared history of African and American women. She pays attention to the need to ”conquer the avarice of globalization that threatens our forests, our water and our flora and fauna.”(Winnie Madikizela-Mandela.)

Why did this march occur in importance?

But Despite having little star power or preparation, the small idea grew into a massive event. “It drew hundreds of thousands of women to Philadelphia, with estimates ranging from 500,000 to 2.1 million”(Jones, Ashley). They marched from the Liberty Bell to the steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Despite its unexpected success, the event did not make headlines again until recently, when a grandmother from Hawaii decided to create the Million Dollar Mile. Despite its random success, the event did not come back until recently, when the grandmother from Hawaii decided to organize the Million Woman March in Washington, D.C. the day after the Inauguration. After some complained that the name deviated from the original event in Philadelphia, organizers changed the name of this year’s protest march to the Women’s March on Washington. The original Million Woman March took over Philadelphia’s streets 20 years ago. The million women’s March from 2017 was well known more than the million women’s March from 1997 that this paper is based on. This march is more of a community action to achieve a certain goal. The 2017 women’s march is based on a political action that took place and the women held a march to state their opinion. A million women’s March was a march based on women stating their opinion on a matter. This march focuses on African American matters such as being an African American woman in the 1990s. However, history may repeat itself on Saturday, January 21, when an estimated 20,000 people marched down the Benjamin Franklin Parkway to fight for women’s rights. The march has great importance in history. March protest is a type of protest or demonstration that generally involves a group of people walking from an assembly point to a destination, usually culminating in a political rally, and often evoking a military march or parade. “The march was envisioned and intended to help bring social and economic development and power throughout the black communities of the United States, as well as to bring hope, empowerment, unity, and sisterhood to women, men, and children of African descent globally regardless of nationality, religion, or economic status”(The New York Times). The march was meant to have a positive impact on everyone in the black community and for them to showcase their power. Unity was one of the main keywords for the march. Unity is the state of being united or joined as a whole. The march was not just a gathering of black women, it was much more. “ Their common goal was the rebuilding of black communities. Chionesu and Coney hoped the march would counteract negative images of African American women in popular culture and the media.”( Black Past) Several important people attended the march including Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, former wife of South African President Nelson Mandela, and California Congresswoman Maxine Waters. Their common goal was the rebuilding of black communities, and having self-empowerment and self-pride. Many people said great things about the march including ”It’s exhilarating,” (Laceilia Scott), a 50-year-old secretary from Baltimore County in Maryland. Based on the New York Times, “The rally brought together women from across the country, some wearing jeans and sweatshirts.

General Aim

It was to bring all African American women together to address issues they have and things that interest them. It allowed everyone to take part and share their voice on the issues. Some of these issues included the economic deterioration of African American communities, the importance of nurturing young children in a positive environment, finding a collective voice in politics and the civil rights movement, and strengthening black families. It was important to spread the message about this march to everyone so the people relied on each other, flyers, mainstream media, articles, black-run media, the internet, and their mouths to spread the word. The leaders of the march Chionesu and Coney hoped the march would counteract negative images of African American women in popular culture and the media. Reflecting on the Million Man March, a well-known march that happened two years earlier than the Million Women March. The Million Women’s March did not rely on big names or the celebrities of the civil rights movement to fuel attendance. The march was a success and has been considered a ”social phenomenon” due to the way it was organized and how the women came together. ”The Million Women March continues to inspire African-American women across the nation to work for their improvement as well as that of their communities” (Phile Chinese). They wanted to send a message to the world, “send a bold message to our new administration on their first day in office, and to the world that women’s rights are human rights,”. The general aim for the march was unity and family because it is important for people to stick together especially if they have the same opinions and thoughts of something. The march’s aim is to demonstrate gender equality, civil rights, and other challenges faced. The march was sought and intended to help bring social development, even economic development, and power throughout the black communities of the United States, as well as to bring hope, empowerment, unity, and sisterhood to women, men, and children of African descent globally regardless of nationality, religion, or economic status.

My thoughts and why I choose this topic

When we were asked to choose a subject for this extended essay. The topic of History came to mind because it is interesting to learn about the past and what happened during past periods. Learning about African American history and what African American women had to go through. In the past, African Americans struggled to let their voices be heard so they used community action to help with that. Such as protests and rallies. Specifically, they used protests, rallies, and marches to connect with others and share their opinions. I am very interested in African American history and the marches so that’s why the Million Women March came to mind. Marches have a big importance and they are to achieve specific goals. Protest marches have a big impact on the community and they work. African American rights and marches go back into history, After the civil war, black women were discriminated against because of their skin color and because they were female. Ida B. Wells was one of a growing number of black southern professionals, who experienced Reconstruction’s failure to equalize opportunities for blacks, and saw the gradual person of her people’s hard-won liberty. She fought against the growth of Jim Crow Laws, Jim Crow Laws promoting segregation by race on public transportation and in schools, public facilities, and restaurants. Choosing to focus on this specific march because, at the time in Philadelphia, this was one of the largest gatherings of women. The march was seen on C-Span news and the organizer Phile Chionseu was seen giving inspirational speeches. Many recordings of the march were shared on media platforms and articles. Many famous African Americans and activists showed up and took part in the march. Despite having only a few months to carry out their plan, many influential Black women attended, including U.S. Representative Maxine Waters, activist and writer Sista Souljah, Jada Pinkett Smith, and Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, Nelson Mandela’s former wife. The women held up signs that stated “Black is Beautiful”, “The black man is awake”, and more. Organizers are correlating their mission with the faces of the African Union – an organization of African nations and interested parties dedicated to advancing the agenda of African people and who are planning a women’s empowerment action plan. Chionesu explained, ‘So what we’re about to present is not something we want to be looked at for one day,'(Phile Chionesu). So she wanted this march to continue to spread after one day. The weekend would include a Declaration of Violations rally on Friday at 5th and at Market Street — a ‘speak out’ protest to draw attention to human rights violations against black women throughout the diaspora throughout history. It is interesting to see what African Americans went through in the 1990s and the change that is happening around the world. Looking at the images it shows that say “Black is Beautiful”, My Black Is Beautiful was created to celebrate and uplift Black culture, but also to challenge the biases associated with Black culture. From the images, the signs also say “Your rise is our rise ”,“ The black man is wide awake”, and “ Rise up woman ”. There were many people there and many African American women sharing their feelings through speeches, music, and sayings.

Overall Reflection on the March

In conclusion, the Million Women’s March changed the mindset of African Americans greatly. It encouraged them to be self-empowered and self-determined. The march was focused on African American women but other races were involved and supported the marches. Overall the purpose of this march was for the family and unity of the black community so they can all come together and share their thoughts. Marches are a way to show community action on a topic or thing. Nearly two decades before, the Million Women’s March continues to inspire African-American women across the nation for them to work for their own improvement as well as that of their communities. A million women march focused on the discrimination and how badly African American women were treated in the 1900s. It is important to hear the thoughts of the black community and marches are a good way to show the thoughts. The march’s mission was to bring attention to African American women and their voices. This march was seen in many articles including “The New York Times” and articles from Philadelphia. It had gotten a lot of attention. Marches have a huge impact and get lots of attention from many. Other speakers stated that the march would only have a long-term impact if everyone went home and worked in their own communities. ‘This will all be for naught if you return to your communities and do not get involved if you do not put petty jealousies aside if you do not continue to organize and mobilize,’ (Leona Smith), the president of the National Union of Homeless. This day will be meaningless.’ Overall many will say this march from 1997 was a success and changed the mindset of many to this day. (Phile Chinese). “The way this is designed, we will literally be doing various kinds of activities and events for the entire year.” This time, organizers are planning their mission with the heads of the African Union. The African Union is an organization of African nations and stakeholders dedicated to advancing the agenda of African people planning a women’s empowerment agenda for 2020. ‘So what we’re about to present isn’t something we want to be looked at for one day,’ The Million Woman March reunion is set to take place on a Sunday, beginning at 5th and Market Street, in front of the President’s House memorial. Marchers will make their way to Washington Square, also known as ‘Congo Square,’ where Africans were held and sold as slaves during the colonial era. This march will continue to bless the hearts of many and for people to see the growth of community action. Women’s marches have been going back for decades but this march stands out because so many people attended and it was one of the well-known African American marches. The Million Women’s March changed the mindset of African Americans as a whole. It encouraged them to be self-empowered and self-determined. The march was very significant and had lots of positive feedback from the people that were at the march and the people that had witnessed it. During that time in the Philadelphia news articles, a million Women march was everywhere and was popular. Many say that It was formed in response to the million man march which was a male-only march. Every woman gathered for this day-long march to show their support. Many saw how important this women’s march is for history and for black women to state what they felt was wrong with society. They sought the sign of unity which we needed to say “Chicagoan Deborah Echols ”.

The power of the Million Man March concept has been duplicated countless times in America and around the globe “Yet in Philadelphia, a small committee of unknown women activists brought together Black women to address the pressing issues of interest to them”.

Informative Essay on Gun Safety

What’s the Problem? What do we know about it?

In the United States, situations are arising where children are being killed by guns either accidentally or by a school shooting. This creates concern among Americans about the safety of their youth. With these concerns, comes much debate over solutions. One possible solution that is largely debated over is gun control and whether or not it truly serves its purpose: reducing the amount of gun violence. It attempts to do so by introducing restrictions on gun manufacturers, gun possession, and gun sales and has even attempted to ban firearms altogether. This is done in order to deter people from purchasing more guns and reduce the number of firearms in society. With the reduction of firearms, there should have also been a reduction in gun deaths, especially among children. Instead, in response to increasing gun control, there are significant increases in gun sales. This occurred in California in response to more gun control. “Gun sales have surged in recent years, driven by sales of both handguns and long guns…long gun sales increased 75% and handgun sales increased 30% (probably in anticipation of the passage of several California gun regulation laws)…In 2016 more than 1.3 million guns were sold in California, reaching an all-time peak” (State of California Department of Justice). This means that the amount of guns in society increases, instead of decreases, increasing the possibility of a child being exposed to a gun. The reason for this increase is because of the second problem gun control faces: the consistent worry from the public that gun control is a threat to their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Along with specific restrictions made to firearms, there has also been talk of banning all firearms. Although the public agrees that something should be done to ensure the safety of our children, the talk of banning firearms creates panic among the public. In response, there is opposition to gun control out of fear that it would lead to the removal of the Second Amendment. This inevitably led to debate over what the Second Amendment actually protects. “The crux of the debate is whether the amendment protects the right of private individuals to keep and bear arms, or whether it instead protects a collective right that should be exercised only through formal militia units” (History). However, the Supreme Court addressed this dilemma, where they held that 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 (District of Columbia v. Heller). With this decision, it is ensured that the right of the people to bear arms should not be infringed. This makes it extremely difficult to attempt to decrease the number of guns in the United States, especially if Americans will only buy more every time new gun control policies are introduced. A policy must be introduced that not only prevents gun violence but reassures the public that their Second Amendment right is not under attack. This can be done by, instead of directing our attention to firearms specifically, rather we should focus on gun safety.

What are the Solutions?

Instead of further Gun Control policies, we should introduce more Child Access Prevention policies and Gun Safety policies. These policies will propose two new requirements that could aid in preventing gun violence. Under the Child Access Prevention policy, it would extend background checks to not only check the owner of the firearm but to check the children living in the home of the owner as well. If there is a child in the home or a child that has a registered mental illness, the owner is required to have a specific safe to store the firearm. In order to ensure that gun owners are not restricted from their right to bear arms just because they cannot afford the specific safe, these gun owners will be offered discounts in order to purchase the safe. These discounts will be funded by taxpayers.

The Gun Safety policy would require public schools to have Gun Safety classes. These classes would educate children and young adults on how to safely handle a gun and the consequences of pulling the trigger. This would not require children to interact with a gun in any way.

Are they Effective?

Child Access Prevention policies have been a major topic for discussion for quite some time and have shown to be very effective. “Numerous studies over the past 20 years have found that child access prevention laws can reduce suicide and unintentional gun deaths and injuries among children and teens by up to 54%, with the greatest reductions occurring in states which require safe storage of firearms” (Giffords Law Center). Child Access Prevention laws are very effective in preventing children from having access to a firearm. And with the new policy that is being introduced, will also address homes with children that have specific mental illnesses as well. After the past school shootings that occurred in the United States, it was discovered that some of the shooters had significant psychological issues that were ignored. If steps were taken in order to prevent them from obtaining a firearm from the home, these shootings could have been prevented. It would also shine a light for the parents onto their children, in order for them to notice and address the issues their child is dealing with. This new policy would require these gun owners who have children in the home, especially children with specific mental illnesses, to have a proper gun safe that denies them access. The technology of safes is becoming more and more advanced as time goes on. Today, gun owners can purchase safes that require fingerprints only in order to have access. And these kinds of safes run in a variety of sizes from a small case that carries only one gun to a large safe that carries a numerous amount. So gun owners are not required to buy a large safe in order to have a firearm in the home. However, if a gun owner can not afford the gun safe, they could be offered a discount for the safe so that they can still ensure the safety of their child and still practice their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The Gun Safety policy is a policy that would introduce a Gun Safety class in schools in order to educate children on firearms. This policy is not new, as schools across the country are also introducing these kinds of classes in their schools as well. One example would be how a hunter’s safety course is being introduced in two middle schools in Butler County, Iowa. “The week-long training program will train students on a variety of survival skills, including gun safety…” (Fox News). The reason for this is that, even with gun control policies, the number of guns being introduced into society is still increasing. This increases the chances of a child coming into contact with a gun once or twice in their life. And if this were to occur, it would be better for the child to understand just what they are dealing with, and not treat the firearm as if it is a toy. “The bottom line is: kids who are unfamiliar with guns are more likely to play with them and pull the trigger, potentially injuring themselves or others. But those who grow up with guns or who are trained in firearms safety, get it. They are better prepared. They may not know everything there is to know, but they’ve been exposed to it enough to respect firearms and to be cautious and careful. And that’s exactly the kind of safe, responsible citizens our country needs” (USCCA). However, not only would it educate students on how to be safe and report to an adult if they ever encounter a firearm, but it would also offer help to children who have been going through bullying or depression.