Gun control laws were constructed to reduce the overall crimes that are involved with guns. The purpose behind gun control laws was to determine who can purchase/sell firearms, carry/store guns and to reduce and prevent gun related deaths. Gun control laws were deemed necessary because some believe perceived enforcing gun control laws would . According to Richard Perez-Pena in his article, “Gun Control” he claims that gun control is  broad term that covers any sort of restriction on what kinds of firearms can be sold and bought, who can possess or sell them, where and how they can be stored or carried, what duties a seller has to vet a buyer, and what obligations both the buyer and the seller have to report transactions to the government. I support this definition because it covers a good amount of what gun control is about, however it does not mention another part of gun control which is to limit or decrease crime and violence related to guns.

In Tony Cook’s article, “Indiana to blame for Chicago’s gun violence” he states that Indiana and other states with few gun restrictions are to blame for Chicago’s homicide problem. Cook makes this claim because later in his article he informs the audience that Chicago police have been complaining for a long time that there has been a steady stream of illegal firearms from neighboring states such as Indiana, where gun control laws are much weaker. From this evidence Cook has provided, if neighboring states would work together they could prevent this from occurring and lower Chicago’s homicide problem. It is possible because once neighboring states with fewer gun restrictions prevent people for importing guns into Chicago there would be fewer guns to commit crimes with ultimately lower the homicide problem.

According to S.H. Blannelberry’s article, “New Jersey Slaps Felony Gun Charge on Another Law-Abiding Citizen” he claims ” Sgt. Ray Hughes, a correction officers in Pennsylvania, was headed home after dinner with his wife in Atlantic City when they were hit by a drunk driver. Even though he was the victim, Hughes became a criminal – he’s now facing a felony charge for bringing his gun to New Jersey.” From the encounter that Sgt. Hughes experienced it is all the more reason for neighboring states to work together. In Pennsylvania the gun restrictions are considerably lower compared to New Jersey and this is not the only time where people have been convicted coming from states with fewer gun restrictions into strict gun control law states. In Joshua Rhett Miller’s article, “‘Honest mistake’ leads to Philly mother facing three years on gun charge” he states “Shaneen Allen,27, faces more than three years in prison if convicted after mistakenly entered New Jersey, where she was dropped for a traffic violation and found in possession of a handgun loaded with holly point bullets.” Later in the same article it was revealed Allen was in possession of a permit for her firearm, however the permit was not transferable to New Jersey. From the quote it reveals another incident where someone has been wrongfully convicted. In both occasions the accused has been pulled over for something that is unrelated to gun charges, unfortunately ending with gun charges. In order to prevent this wrongful convicts neighboring states must accept permits from surrounding states even if they have fewer gun control restrictions.

In Pro Con’s article, “Gun Control,” Pro Con claims that five women are murdered with guns every day in the United States. The study later stated a woman’s of being murdered increases 500% if a gun’s present during a domestic dispute. From this evidence it shows how even the present of a gun can alter the outcome of domestic disputes. If gun control is intended to be in control of who are the buyers and sellers of firearms, and who are eligible to possess firearms then it should be emphasis that guns should not be present during disputes between spouses and that guns should be tucked away out of reach to prevent the dispute from getting worse. In addition to domestic disputes the presents of a gun has impacted suicides as well. Pro Con has found that in between 1999 and 2013 there were 270,237 firearm suicides in the United States, accounting for all about 52% of all suicides during those years. From this evidence it reveals how the present of a gun impacts a lot of situations. a suitable alternate solution would be simply to keep these guns away from these occasions because without their presence a person wouldn’t able to use a gun to either murder someone or commit suicide.

Pro Con found that countries who have more restrictive gun laws then the U.S. have a lower gun homicide and suicide rates. From this information it reveals how other countries found a solution by enforcing more restrictive gun laws because with more restrictions there will be less guns and as a result less gun related crime and violence. Furthermore Pro Con revealed that approximately 50% of unintentional fatal shootings were self-inflicted. This evidence continues to support the reasoning for U.S. to follow suite with other countries because within other countries this is less likely to occur. Since other countries have fewer guns and more restrictive gun laws.

Pro Con has revealed that gun control laws can lead to preventing injustices from occurring because when looking into some cases it has been found that legally own guns have been frequently stolen and used by criminals. The solution of this reoccurring problem has been addressed because earlier in my work, I suggested that if guns were tucked away it would alter the outcome of situations. This would fix the solution because if done correctly there would be no guns in site for the criminals to steal. Pro Con has showed that high capacity magazines were used in at least 50% of the 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012. When high capacity magazines were used in mass shootings, the death rate rose 63% and the injury rate rose 156%. From the evidence provided it shows how the average civilian has few reasons to possess high magazine firearms, since most of them result in mass shootings.

People have debated what the root of the problem is behind gun related crimes, wither the gun control laws have been too strict or have they been too loose. In doing some research, I discovered some articles that stated how gun control laws have not been the problem, rather the factors around gun control laws are why gun related crimes still occur. Some of these factors would include the location of the states, as well as the guns that are involved in the crimes that are being committed. Furthermore, there are articles were people make the claim that how the idea that gun control is the problem is considerably appalling because the cause is other factors than gun control itself.

People have proposed that over the years gun homicide has decreased. This comparison was the back bone for Mark J Perry’s article, “Chart of the day: More guns, less gun violence between 1993 and 2013” Perry provides the audience with a graph comparing guns per person and gun homicide rate. As the graph goes from the 90s to the 2000s the guns per person increases while the homicide rate has depleted. Perry uses another graph using the number of total firearms and gun homicide rates to inform the audience that this is not a mere coincidence that there is a correlation between possessing more guns and gun homicide. The reasoning behind this correlation is because states have recognized licenses and permits for firearms. Due to states acknowledging people’s licenses for firearms, it has allowed people to feel more secure and comfortable with possessing a firearm. They are able to feel more secure because now that more and more states are recognizing licenses from other states. Now people won’t have to worry about being charged with possession of firearms or being wrongfully convicted with any gun related charges.

Additional factors that Perry mentions in his article, “Chart of the day: More guns, less gun violence between 1993 and 2013” are that more police officers on the beat better making greater use of computers, a decline in alcohol consumption, less lead exposure and an improving an economy. In terms of the effects of police officers improving and using computers more wisely, it has been revealed that police officers have a good amount of technology targeted to  track down crimes and find the criminal. Certain pieces of technology are specifically made for gun related crimes such has whenever a gun shot is fired the police are notified as soon as the shot goes of. The technology they notifies the police because the device is set to a certain frequency to only hear gun shots and once they pick up a gun shot in the area it pin points that area and relays this information back to the police station.

Another technology that helps aid police officers is their mobile digital communicator because it has allowed officers to keep in contact with not only each other but the station as well. This is very useful because it allows officers to call for back up or if an incident should arise the station could contact a nearby officer and inform to get to the crime scene sooner. This would decrease gun homicides because of this technology it reduces the amount of time for homicides to occur because the sooner the police officers can get to the scene and control the situation and prevent anyone from dying the less time there is for a gun homicide to occur. A decline in alcohol impacts the gun homicides as well because if people are intoxicated a variety of things could happen when they are in possession of a firearm such as an accidental shooting or altercations. People tend to much more clumsy and careless when drinking and if someone were to obtain a firearm it is much more possible an accidental shooting would arise then if they were sober because of the clumsy and carelessness people tend to show. Less lead exposure has effected the gun homicide because when looking back at the ammunition the police officers used it was said they tended to use more bullets containing lead. Lead poisoning has killed numerous people and when police officers used bullets with lead in them, even if someone were to survive the bullet shot the wound with lead within it would result in their death. By switching to non lead ammunition there is less lead exposure and as a result less deaths when people are shot by police.

Some consider issuing more guns to the community would increase the gun rate, however similarly to Perry’s article, Jeffery Goldberg supports supplying more guns. In Jeffery Goldberg’s article, “The Case For More Guns (and More Gun Control)” he claims that concealed carry permit holders commit crimes at a lower rate than the general population. Furthermore, Goldberg reveals that in today’s society the number of concealed carry permits is at its highest while the homicide rate is at the lowest it’s ever been in four decades. The reason behind why carrying a firearm impacts the homicide rate is because the chain reaction law abiding citizens hold with carry firearms. The chain reaction is because people can deter criminals by making it riskier for people to commit crimes, and one way to make it riskier is to create the impression among the criminal population that the law abiding citizen they want to target may have a gun. The deeper meaning to the chain reaction is that in order to prevent criminals from being criminals is to make it riskier for them to commit these crimes. By granting citizens to carry firearms, who intend to use them for the right reasons such as stopping a criminal then that would make the criminal reconsider if they want to commit the crime when the citizens who are at the scene of the crime are armed as well. Another reasoning for issuing more guns, at for self defense purposes. In particular situations such as robberies and shootings were guns are commonly used, if the victims were able to carry firearms they would be able to protect themselves. The victims would not be stuck between trying to hide behind a counter or doing whatever the criminal says in order to stay a live. By arming themselves, the victims would be able to defend themselves against the criminals.

Works Cited

Blannelberry, S.H. “New Jersey Slaps Felony Gun Charge on Another Law-Abiding Citizen – GunsAmerica Digest.” GunsAmerica Digest. Fox, 18 Feb. 2016. Web. 07 Dec. 2016. <Felony Gun Charge/>.

Dube, Arindrajit. “Cross-Border Spillover: U.S. Gun Laws and Violence in Mexico | American Political Science Review | Cambridge Core.” Cambridge Core. American Political Science Association, 10 July 2013. Web. 08 Dec. 2016. <Cross border Gun Violence between U.S. and Mexico>.

Goldberg, Jeffery. “The Case for More Guns (and More Gun Control).” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, Dec. 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2016. <More Guns More Gun Control/>.

“Gun Control – ProCon.org.” ProConorg Headlines. Pro Con, 28 June 2016. Web. 07 Dec. 2016. <Gun Control Pros and Cons/>.

Ludwig, Jens. “Concealed-gun-carrying Laws and Violent Crime: Evidence from State Panel Data ☆.” Concealed-gun-carrying Laws and Violent Crime: Evidence from State Panel Data. ScienceDirect, 21 Nov. 1998. Web. 08 Dec. 2016. <Concealed carry gun laws>.

Miller, Joshua Rhett. “‘Honest Mistake’ Leads to Philly Mother Facing Three Years on Gun Charge.” Fox News. FOX News Network, 16 July 2014. Web. 08 Dec. 2016. <Honest Mistake Leads Mother to 3 year gun charge>.

Perry, Mark J. “Chart of the Day: More Guns, Less Gun Violence between 1993 and 2013.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 4 Dec. 2015. Web. 10 Dec. 2016. <More Guns Less Violence between 1993 and 2013/>.

PÉrez-peÑa, Richard. “Gun Control Explained.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 06 Oct. 2015. Web. 07 Dec. 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/07/us/gun-control-explained.html?_r=0>.

Soften, Kim. “To Reduce Suicides, Look at Guns.” The Washington Post. WP Company, 13 July 2013. Web. 08 Dec. 2016. <To Reduce Suicide, Look at Guns>.

Star, Tony Cook The Indianapolis. “Is Indiana to Blame for Chicago’s Gun Violence?” USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, 28 Oct. 2015. Web. 07 Dec. 2016. <Indiana to Blame for Chicago Gun Violence>.

 

America Needs to Cut Out the Sugar

Americans in today’s society are living their lives like they never have before. With the advancement of technology and constant access to processed foods and artificially sweetened beverages, the national percentage of overweight people has gone up immensely. This has had a horrible effect on children. Statistics released by the Center for Disease Control state that about 12.7 million children are affected by obesity.  As these changes become more and more normal, such as letting children drinking soda, this percentage has grown and childhood obesity has become a nationwide epidemic.  In an article published by the American Society for Nutrition, they discuss how obesity comes from a reflection of intense interactions of genetic, metabolic, cultural, environmental, socioeconomic and behavioral factors. All of these factors play a role into the overconsumption of sugary beverages and how it affects weight gain. For years Americans have been unsure how to stop this nationwide problem as there is no one stop cure for all of these problems. Many efforts have been made to educate more people on this matter, unfortunately nothing has worked. The saying “History repeats itself” is nothing but true in this situation. The last time Americans were consuming something bad for them without knowing it was the consumption of tobacco, and now unfortunately it is the consumption of sugary drinks. The consumption of Tobacco and sugary drinks is very similar, therefor the country should put an age restriction on the purchase of these beverages the same way they did for tobacco as it has made a drastic positive impact on society.

The first step in the process of doing this is going to be to inform more Americans, being sure to include all demographics, of what sugary drinks constitute of. Many people really do not know what a sugary drink is. The ones that come to mind are drinks like Coke and Kool-Aid but sugary drinks include more than you would think. According to the National Cancer Center, “sugary drinks consist of fruit drinks, soda, energy drinks, sport drinks, and sweetened waters.”  The American Heart Association also gives a list of what is included in a sugary drink, including sweetened teas to the list as well. Some form of sugar is added to almost all drinks making it taste delicious and making the consumer want more. In the Advice for Patients section of the Arch Pediatric Medical Journal they give explicit examples of sugar drinks, including Coke, 7up, Gatorade, Hi-C, Monster, and cranberry juice cocktail. For many Americans they do not know how much sugar is in these drinks and in fact consider some of these drinks listed as healthy.

In an article written by Roderick McKinley he states that the average American consumes 1.6 cans of soda a day, resulting in them consuming more than 500 cans of soda in one year. Think about a one 12 ounce can of Coca-Cola, that can of soda contains 39 grams of sugar. According to an article published by Sugar Science “the average amount of added sugar a child should consume in one day is 18.5 grams, however this may vary based on age, but will should never be more than 25 grams.” If a child consumes just one can of Coca-Cola a day they have already doubled their sugar intake for the day. Sugary drinks are the largest source of added sugars in a youth’s diet and also the main source of calorie intake. The U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend “the total intake of discretional calories, including sugars and fats, should range between 5-15% per day. Yet most American children consume about 16% of their intake from added sugars alone, not including fats or any other foods.” While many Americans are shocked to find out these statistics they also don’t always understand where these added sugars are coming from, and do not seem to realize that they come from the drinks they are consuming.

These sugary drinks are often consumed without much thought. The fact that the person is consuming the drink and is drinking large amounts of sugar as well as drinking a large percentage of calories, not to mention doing so very quickly is something that most Americans don’t thing about or really care. What becomes the problem is that many people consume more of this than their body needs. In an advice column published by the Arch Pediatric Medical Journal they state that these drinks are all consumed before a person’s body can realize they have consumed it which in turn is before the body has time to realize it is full in the same way a body would when eating solid food.   The World Health Organization also adds to this by stating “these drinks have little nutritional value and do not provide the same feeling of fullness as solid food does,” making it so they continue to consume more even though their body has had enough.  The more people consume sugary drinks, the more sugar they have in their system, which exceeds the amount they need to be able to produce energy.  Because of the over consumption, the body breaks down only what it needs for energy and the rest is stored as fat. Over many years of consuming too much sugar and the body gets used to storing the excess as fat, especially after starting at a young age, the fat continues to add up ultimately resulting in the person becoming obese. In a study conducted by the American College of Nutrition they found that “Obese children consume significantly more servings of fats and sugary beverages than non-obese children in a study done between the two groups.” Many other studies have found similar results, assuring the connection between obesity and childhood obesity.

One of the leading reasons why American children are so directly affected by the consumption of sugar drinks is because of the heavy marketing toward children. According to an article published by the Rudd Foundation written by Jennifer Harris states that “In the 2 years between 2008 and 2010 children’s exposure to soda ads on TV alone doubled.” This does not include the advertisements on the internet, on the radio and in stores all around them. Sugary drinks are available everywhere from stores to schools to vending machines, which children have access to at all times. These companies have done a lot of research on what is appealing to children, and find that the best way to sell these products is through product placements and sponsorships. Harris discusses the advertisement through sponsorship by explaining that “63% of soda and energy drink ads on national TV include the sponsorship of an athlete, sports league or team, and in even some cases a sponsorship for an event or cause.” Coca-Cola’s partnership with the Olympic Games is one of the most known partnerships in the world. By this company partnering with the Olympics, a set of games that promotes healthy life styles and is composed of the best athletes in the world, they can hide the fact that their products are packed with added sugars and have no health benefits at all. Other Companies such as Red Bull have endorsed professional athletes, such a Neymar, the professional soccer play from FC Barcelona, to say that they use and love the products. When children see their favorite athletes using, wearing or talking about a product, they want to do the same, so they begin to consume products like Red Bull, having no clue how bad it is for them.

These companies are not just targeting children but they have targeted adults too. Harris also discusses how parents are lead to believe drinks like Capri Sun, Gatorade and Vitamin Water are healthy drinks to serve your children. Harris states “Parents think that nutrient claims about Vitamin C or “real” and “natural” ingredients mean that these are healthy options for children,” however these claims are not always true, and often times are focused on by the company to hid the unhealthy aspects to the beverage.

The company Gatorade is a company that markets to both kids and adults. Their promotions through endorsers, draws in children as those endorsers are athletes that all children idol, such as Serena William. The company also makes health claims, such as “thirst quencher that hydrates better than water.” In an article published by the Livestrong Foundation on the benefits of Sports Drinks, the author Amanda Cespedes says “Americans certainly seem convinced these hydrating drinks offer plenty of benefits.” Cespedes is not wrong Americans are convinced and in fact there are some benefits to drinks like Gatorade. Cespedes then continues to talk about some of the reasons why Gatorade is good for athletes by saying that “drinks like these are great for people who work out in excessive heat, for long periods of time and find themselves becoming dehydrated, as it can replace lost nutrients and energy.” The reason that products like this are great for consumption after these factors is because they are high in sugar and they have burned so many calories their body needs more calories, such as the sugar, to use as energy. Most Americans are lead to believe that articles like this one, that do not provide explicit examples of what a long period of time, ends up leaving the reader to decide how long is a long time, and coming to the conclusion that they need it too. Companies like Gatorade use their marketing to draw in customers and convince them they need their products.

While there is lots of promotions and marketing done by companies about how great their products are, there is also lots of campaigns going on all around the country to educate people on the problems with these sugar drinks. In one study done by the Preventive Medicine Journal, they look in depth at a campaign done in Oregon that focused on educating families on the amount of added sugars they are consuming in sugary drinks and how the extra calories consumed by these drinks are helping the increase of childhood obesity nationwide. The method used in the campaign was to first create awareness of the problem, eventually influencing people’s perception while motivating change, ultimately resulting in behavior changes when it comes to deciding what drinks to choose. In the overall evaluation of this specific campaign it was found that almost 80% of people that were made aware of the campaign said they were going to reduce the amount of sugary drinks they offered to their children. This is just one example of a campaigns positive effects on educating people more on the problem of sugary drinks, however these campaigns are not enough.

This nationwide epidemic cannot be ultimately solved by simply educating people through campaigns about the bad choices they are making when they drink a soda, especially with social media and large companies, like Coca-Cola, who are constantly promoting their products in a positive light to kids. While there have been many campaigns to help spread the word, there has only been one initiate attempted to help with obesity prevention efforts. This initiative included the idea to tax these beverages, in hopes that the rising price will stop people from buying the products however it did not go through. Something more needs to be done to prevent this epidemic from getting worse.

The issue of childhood obesity in American is not the first time people have been consuming something that was not good, with no knowledge of this and doing more harm to their bodies than intended. Tobacco products use to be a large part of the everyday society, similar to the way sugary drinks are today. In an article published by the National Academy of Sciences back in 1994 they discuss the changes that occurred when the Congress passed the Synar Amendment, that focusing on the control of youth access to tobacco. In the Article the author reports that in a survey taken in Illinois, 2 years after the passing of the law the number of seventh and eighth grade students that have experimented with cigarettes went from 46% to 23%. They also found that the number of kids this age who considered themselves as smokers went from 16% to 5%. While there was still a nationwide issue of enforcing these laws perfectly at this time the percentages still went down, as Americans knew if they were to get caught selling tobacco to minors they would get in trouble.

The government should put an age restriction on sugary drinks, similar to the way they added an age restriction to the purchase of cigarettes. With a new age restriction in place on the purchase of sugary drinks and stronger efforts to inform and teach Americans about healthy living and what they are putting in their bodies, the percentage of obese people would go down and hopefully stay down for many years to come, making American healthy again.

Work Cited

Boles, Myde, et al. “Ability of a mass media campaign to influence knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors about sugary drinks and obesity.” Preventive medicine 67 (2014): S40-S45.

Cespedes, Andrea. “Benefits of Sports Drinks Like Gatorade and Powerade.” Leaf Group, 09 June 2015. Web. 04 Dec. 2016

“Childhood Obesity Causes & Consequences.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 19 June 2015. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.

“Childhood Obesity Facts.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 17 Nov. 2016. Web. 30 Nov. 2016

Gillis, Linda J., and Oded Bar-Or. “Food away from home, sugar-sweetened drink consumption and juvenile obesity.” Journal of the American College of Nutrition 22.6 (2003): 539-545.

Go, A. S., D. Mozaffarian, and V. L. Roger. “Sugar-sweetened beverages initiatives can help fight childhood obesity.” circulation 127 (2013): e6-e245.

Harris, Jennifer L., et al. “Evaluating Sugary Drink Nutrition and Marketing to Youth.” New Haven, CT: Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity (2011).

Johnson. “How much is too much?” Research. SugarScience.org, 30 Mar. 2014. Web. 5 Dec. 2016.

Lynch, Barbara S., and Richard J. Bonnie. “Youth access to tobacco products.” (1994).

Malik, Vasanti S., Matthias B. Schulze, and Frank B. Hu. “Intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: a systematic review.” The American journal of clinical nutrition 84.2 (2006): 274-288.

McKinlay, Rodrick D. “Obesity Action Coalition » Childhood Obesity: The Link to Drinks.” Childhood Obesity: The Link to Drinks Comments. Obesity Action Coalition, n.d. Web. 04 Dec. 2016.

Ogden, Cynthia . Consumption of Sugar Drinks in the US (2005-2008), et al. . US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, 2011.

“Reducing Consumption of Sugar-sweetened Beverages to Reduce the Risk of Childhood Overweight and Obesity.” Reducing Consumption of Sugar-sweetened Beverages to Reduce the Risk of Childhood Overweight and Obesity. World Health Organization, 24 Aug. 2016. Web. 04 Dec. 2016.

Sugary Drinks and Childhood Obesity. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2009;163(4):400. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.16