Imagining a sex offender living close by to young children is scary. In fact it’s fatal which is why Georgia among other states passed a law which said, “registered sex offenders are banned from living 1,000 feet of schools, churches and other areas where children congregate.” I think this law is a necessity in cases where serious crimes have been committed.
A growing number of officials however want to ease the “not in my backyard” policies that communities are using to try to control sex offenders. Several states including Georgia are considering making changes to sex offender’s residency laws. Oklahoma State Rep. Lucky Lamans says loosening laws will help authorities monitor sex offenders more effectively, as right now offenders are forced to live in rural areas where it’s not easy for them to be monitored.
“We need to focus on people we’re afraid, of not mad at,” he Lamans says. Current laws don’t differentiate between the real predators and the type arrested for urinating in public.
It is a change in the law I feel is necessary which differentiates the seriousness of the crime; real predators need to be properly monitored.
Janet Allison mother of five in Georgia says she has been forced to move into a mobile home “way off a dirt road” because she allowed the 17 year old boyfriend of her 15 year old daughter to move in with them. This is where the system needs to be amended the law needs to focus on protecting the livelihood of children from the real predators.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Where to Live
American’s must have forgotten the natural laws that their country was founded upon. The three natural laws that the United States of America was founded is the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. John Locke is the first person to say these only he said property instead of the pursuit of happiness. Property is anything you can buy or achieve; so, why are we restricting people from buying land and homes.
Everyday on the news we hear of new sex offenders and new laws punishing them more severely. What American citizens do not realize is that these people are nearly left with nothing. People convicted of any type of sex crime are not allowed to live within 1,000 feet of a child daycare. This law is not that strict and normally people will apply to this law, but some new proposals of some restrictions have caused a major uproar.
One article in the Seattle Times covered this controversy, it said, “In April (2007), Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue signed a stricter law, which prohibits sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school-bus stop. Anyone who does not comply faces a minimum of 10 years in prison.” This is causing tremendous amounts of arguments since there are over 150,000 bus stops in the state of Georgia. Another problem is that the police cannot enforce these new laws. In the article it also says, “Sheriffs say the bus-stop restriction would be almost impossible to enforce.”
With schools in every county it is going to be nearly impossible for a person to find somewhere to live. This is taking away their natural right to property. Some would say they should not have these rights since they broke the law, but some people do not realize that all sex offenders are treated the same no matter what they did. These laws are not specific to one kind of sex law; so, a young boy or girl that had sex with a 16 year old when he or she was 18 would have the punishment as a person who violently rapes someone. If the laws were set for the type of sexual crimes there would be more compliance.
Everyday on the news we hear of new sex offenders and new laws punishing them more severely. What American citizens do not realize is that these people are nearly left with nothing. People convicted of any type of sex crime are not allowed to live within 1,000 feet of a child daycare. This law is not that strict and normally people will apply to this law, but some new proposals of some restrictions have caused a major uproar.
One article in the Seattle Times covered this controversy, it said, “In April (2007), Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue signed a stricter law, which prohibits sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school-bus stop. Anyone who does not comply faces a minimum of 10 years in prison.” This is causing tremendous amounts of arguments since there are over 150,000 bus stops in the state of Georgia. Another problem is that the police cannot enforce these new laws. In the article it also says, “Sheriffs say the bus-stop restriction would be almost impossible to enforce.”
With schools in every county it is going to be nearly impossible for a person to find somewhere to live. This is taking away their natural right to property. Some would say they should not have these rights since they broke the law, but some people do not realize that all sex offenders are treated the same no matter what they did. These laws are not specific to one kind of sex law; so, a young boy or girl that had sex with a 16 year old when he or she was 18 would have the punishment as a person who violently rapes someone. If the laws were set for the type of sexual crimes there would be more compliance.
Show a Little Love
USA Today ran an article which will make it possible for sex offenders to live less than 2,000 feet away from schools or daycare centers. This is not to endanger lives of citizens but give sex offenders somewhere to live. It has become increasingly difficult for sex offenders to find a place of residence. Many cannot live in the Atlanta area because of overlapping zones. With laws now banning sex offenders from bus stations and churches, legislation seems to have gone too far. Sex offenders after weighing their options, either break the law by lying about their address, move to a rural area or end up homeless. If we don’t change the laws, then sex offenders will keep lying about their true residence. It is better to have them living close by and knowing they do instead of not knowing at all. With programs such as Family Watch Dog, available online, the general public has the right to see where a sex offender lives, works and what crime was committed. The program however, is only as good as the information. Therefore we must let sex offenders reside with us so we can keep a close eye on them. The problem with sex offenders living in rural areas is that parole officers cannot easily get to the house of the sex offender to check up on them. In the woods, homes are difficult to locate and GPS devices are not reliable to find the destination. Some sex offenders resort to living in the street. If they offer a false address and cannot make rent, the only choice is living on park benches until caught. Is this really the world we want to grow up in, one where we boot our America out the door? Sex offenders have to be on a registry for the rest of their lives and many don’t deserve the same punishment as others. We need to forgive those who are just trying to earn a living and made their mistake as a young teen and now are remorseful.
No simple solution
Few public officials have acknowledged their responsibility to protect the well-being and fundamental rights of all residents—including those who have been convicted of crimes, according to hrw.org a human rights watch group.
This statement has become increasingly true in more recent years, not only across America but in specific states like Georgia.
Prior to 1994, few states required convicted sex offenders to register their addresses with local law enforcement. However, after the passage of the Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Act, today, all fifty states and Washington, D.C. have sex offender registries. The purpose of these registries being a way to keep “sexual predators” from living at least 1,000 feet away from schools, daycare centers, parks etc. They also allowed the general public the right to know when a sex offender was living or working in their area so that they could better protect themselves and their families.
However, these rights that are given to the general public seem to punish the sex offender even after they have served their punishment for the crime committed. In a sense, they are being persecuted every time they set foot outside their home. Is it fair to strip away their rights just because they have been convicted of a crime?
There are over 636,910 sex offenders in the United States. More specifically there are close to 15,000 in Georgia alone. This means that there are at least that many United States citizens who are being stripped of their right to be protected by the law even after serving the sentence for their convictions.
“People want a silver bullet that will protect their children, but there is no silver bullet. There is no simple cure to the very complex problem of sexual violence,” says Patty Wetterling, child safety advocate whose son was abducted in 1989 and remains missing.
Wetterling is completely correct. Making a person live in fear of having to live in a car or in a trailer out in the woods somewhere just so they can adhere to a law is not fair to them, even if it satisfies other people’s desires.
In the city of Demorest, there are at least 40 registered sex offenders as specified by familywatchdog.us. This means that while 40 people have complied with Georgia state law, it is more than likely that many others have tried to hide the fact that they were convicted of sexual crimes in order to live a freer life and escape double jeopardy.
Georgia has tried to change this sweltering melting pot of protection of all residents in its state by overturning the Georgia law prohibiting sex offenders from living 1,000 feet from anywhere that children may be for more than eight consecutive hours, including schools and parks, by ruling it unconstitutional in 2007.
The Georgia Supreme Court ruling said even sex offenders who comply with the law "face the possibility of being repeatedly uprooted and forced to abandon homes."
Until someone can come up with a better solution as to how to keep convicted sex offenders away from places where children would be on a dailey basis without violating the offenders’ fundamental rights, we are confined to being notified when an offender moves into the neighborhood or area. It is then up to the individual residents of that area what the next action will be.
This statement has become increasingly true in more recent years, not only across America but in specific states like Georgia.
Prior to 1994, few states required convicted sex offenders to register their addresses with local law enforcement. However, after the passage of the Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Act, today, all fifty states and Washington, D.C. have sex offender registries. The purpose of these registries being a way to keep “sexual predators” from living at least 1,000 feet away from schools, daycare centers, parks etc. They also allowed the general public the right to know when a sex offender was living or working in their area so that they could better protect themselves and their families.
However, these rights that are given to the general public seem to punish the sex offender even after they have served their punishment for the crime committed. In a sense, they are being persecuted every time they set foot outside their home. Is it fair to strip away their rights just because they have been convicted of a crime?
There are over 636,910 sex offenders in the United States. More specifically there are close to 15,000 in Georgia alone. This means that there are at least that many United States citizens who are being stripped of their right to be protected by the law even after serving the sentence for their convictions.
“People want a silver bullet that will protect their children, but there is no silver bullet. There is no simple cure to the very complex problem of sexual violence,” says Patty Wetterling, child safety advocate whose son was abducted in 1989 and remains missing.
Wetterling is completely correct. Making a person live in fear of having to live in a car or in a trailer out in the woods somewhere just so they can adhere to a law is not fair to them, even if it satisfies other people’s desires.
In the city of Demorest, there are at least 40 registered sex offenders as specified by familywatchdog.us. This means that while 40 people have complied with Georgia state law, it is more than likely that many others have tried to hide the fact that they were convicted of sexual crimes in order to live a freer life and escape double jeopardy.
Georgia has tried to change this sweltering melting pot of protection of all residents in its state by overturning the Georgia law prohibiting sex offenders from living 1,000 feet from anywhere that children may be for more than eight consecutive hours, including schools and parks, by ruling it unconstitutional in 2007.
The Georgia Supreme Court ruling said even sex offenders who comply with the law "face the possibility of being repeatedly uprooted and forced to abandon homes."
Until someone can come up with a better solution as to how to keep convicted sex offenders away from places where children would be on a dailey basis without violating the offenders’ fundamental rights, we are confined to being notified when an offender moves into the neighborhood or area. It is then up to the individual residents of that area what the next action will be.
Champions of Inhumanity: Whose rights are preserved?
According to http://www.safechild.org/research.htm
“For too many children, child abuse is what they know every day of their lives.”
• Over 2.9 million cases of child abuse were reported last year in this country (NCPCA) (see research section for all citations).
• Approximately 1/3 of sexual abuse cases involve children 6 years of age or younger (National Incidence Study, 1988).
• One in every four girls and one in every six boys will be sexually abused by the age of 18 (Kinsey, Finkelhor).
• Eighty-five to 90% of sexual abuse happens with a person known to the child (Russell).
According to Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org), “three out of four sex offenders do not re-offend within 15 years of release from prison.” This by default means that one in four sex offenders does re-offend within 15 years. Out of 2.9 Million twenty five percent is 725,000. What does this mean? It means that by allowing rapists to return to their original lives we are allowing 750,000 people to suffer sexual abuse.
Tell me, as a nation do we not enjoy bragging that we are the beacon of hope to all the world? As a nation we brag that we give equal rights to all. Who is watching over the rights of the children? One in four is twenty five percent. Do we really want these predators near our schools?
True, 90% of sexual child abuse is perpetrated by individuals who at least casually know the victim. Therefore, residency laws for sexual predators can not completely solve the problem. However, this by no means justifies ignoring the smaller minority. It justifies both residency laws and further steps in child abuse prevention. Personally I believe that sexual predators who have committed felonies, should be kept away from prospective targets. The laws should be strict.
And what of teenage sex? One source of controversy within Georgia was has been the fact that many believed the laws would cause teenage lovers to instantly become felons. However, this is a myth. According to Georgia State House Bill 1059, within the “Romeo and Juliet” (not kidding here) “ For the crimes of,Statutory Rape,Child Molestation, and,Enticing a Child for Indecent Purposes, If the victim is at least 14, but under 16, the defendant is under 18 and there is no more than a 4 year age difference, Then the punishment will be for a misdemeanor.” Therefore, the sexual predators mentioned above are not teenage lovers.
The evidence is clear and concise. The laws are not targeting teenagers. they are targeting sexual predators. These predators have a statistically significant possibility of repeating their crimes. One way to thwart these endeavors is to keep them away for their victims. It may not be the only way, but it exponentially more effective than simply turning a blind eye to statistical evidence.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Assignment Due Wednesday, April 9th
Research the issues surrounding sex offender residency laws in Georgia and write your opinion based on the information you find.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
From "Wife-Beater" to "Husband-Beater"
According to Webster.com, a family is defined as “a group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head.” The “head” of this family has no predetermined position or gender connected to it whatsoever. Is the “head” the breadwinner father or the strong-armed mother of the family? The average American has evolved over the years to have an independent personality and “do-it-yourself” attitude. The rise of women in professional careers is contributing to the breakdown of the traditional family but this is not necessarily a bad change.
Over the years, men have gained a certain amount of power associated with their work. The real change in work came when men began to work outside of the farm and away from the confines of the home life. Beginning in the 1800s, production moved “out of the household” and into large factories and businesses. People were no longer required to be self-sufficient and grow every crop that they used. With industrialization came dependency. There was a major shift in the tasks assigned to workers. Women, who’s nurturing state caused them to bear and rear children, were required to stay home and tend to a farm or household while the husband went to support the family. Women did not collect a regular salary - therefore were thought to not do any or very little “work.” Men were beginning to have more freedom because they were required to work outside the home. There was soon a demand for a factory work force where only the strong survived. Work became something of contracts, scheduling and six day work weeks. Women soon became accustomed to their “domestic” lifestyle, looking at it as an opportunity to not have to engage in paid employment outside of the home where they were required to live under another’s rules. It soon came to pass that a “lady” only acquired her title because of her father or as a result of a marriage. A woman’s identity was now grounded in her home role.
Leave-it-to-Beaver mothers are simply going out of style. Placing a father in a position of nurturing and caring will change children’s perspective and broaden their views. Children who grow up in homes with strong and dominant fathers have a tendency to rule their household similarly, sometimes taking advantage of their wives. If we take the passive mother role out of the household and allow a father-figure to nurture and care, we create a child who becomes stable and independent as well, having both parents to set examples. Children will have more respect for a wife or mother-figure simply because both parents are satisfied with their positions. With women having more control and power, in the future, the average person will now potentially walk into a store and give a tank-top-like shirt the title of “husband-beater” rather than the contrary.
Over the years, men have gained a certain amount of power associated with their work. The real change in work came when men began to work outside of the farm and away from the confines of the home life. Beginning in the 1800s, production moved “out of the household” and into large factories and businesses. People were no longer required to be self-sufficient and grow every crop that they used. With industrialization came dependency. There was a major shift in the tasks assigned to workers. Women, who’s nurturing state caused them to bear and rear children, were required to stay home and tend to a farm or household while the husband went to support the family. Women did not collect a regular salary - therefore were thought to not do any or very little “work.” Men were beginning to have more freedom because they were required to work outside the home. There was soon a demand for a factory work force where only the strong survived. Work became something of contracts, scheduling and six day work weeks. Women soon became accustomed to their “domestic” lifestyle, looking at it as an opportunity to not have to engage in paid employment outside of the home where they were required to live under another’s rules. It soon came to pass that a “lady” only acquired her title because of her father or as a result of a marriage. A woman’s identity was now grounded in her home role.
Leave-it-to-Beaver mothers are simply going out of style. Placing a father in a position of nurturing and caring will change children’s perspective and broaden their views. Children who grow up in homes with strong and dominant fathers have a tendency to rule their household similarly, sometimes taking advantage of their wives. If we take the passive mother role out of the household and allow a father-figure to nurture and care, we create a child who becomes stable and independent as well, having both parents to set examples. Children will have more respect for a wife or mother-figure simply because both parents are satisfied with their positions. With women having more control and power, in the future, the average person will now potentially walk into a store and give a tank-top-like shirt the title of “husband-beater” rather than the contrary.
Women aren't to blame
There is absolutely no doubt that women play a completely different role in society to fifty years ago. Women are much more career-minded and open to opportunities they could only have dreamed about years ago. At the same time we have this society shift, there are also many more single-parents than ever be before, causing a breakdown of the traditional family structure of mom and dad and the kids. Now stay at home dads are on the rise while some mothers become the main source of finance for the family with their careers. With the breakdown of the traditional family structure some believe that mothers going out to work and being more career-minded is causing this effect. I believe that it may contribute to it in certain situations but there are also other aspects that have caused the breakdown of the traditional family.
The conservative view might take the stand that women are far better than men at caring for a family and the house and therefore women should be less career-minded and concentrate on the home and the kids. However this view doesn’t fit into the real world. Can a family now afford for a woman not to work? Women should be able to work with a family if they wish, just like men, but should also work at making sure their career also allows them to give time to their family and children because this is where a problem could come into place.
Another argument is that consumerism is to blame for a breakdown in family life, longer opening hours and Sunday trading means less time is often spent in the home with family members participating in their own activities outside of the home, when traditionally Sundays were a time for a Family to spend together.
In conclusion I believe that if a family work together at spending quality time with each other then their should be no reason why women working is contributing the traditional family breakdown. Consumerism, single and gay parents and changing values is to blame.
The conservative view might take the stand that women are far better than men at caring for a family and the house and therefore women should be less career-minded and concentrate on the home and the kids. However this view doesn’t fit into the real world. Can a family now afford for a woman not to work? Women should be able to work with a family if they wish, just like men, but should also work at making sure their career also allows them to give time to their family and children because this is where a problem could come into place.
Another argument is that consumerism is to blame for a breakdown in family life, longer opening hours and Sunday trading means less time is often spent in the home with family members participating in their own activities outside of the home, when traditionally Sundays were a time for a Family to spend together.
In conclusion I believe that if a family work together at spending quality time with each other then their should be no reason why women working is contributing the traditional family breakdown. Consumerism, single and gay parents and changing values is to blame.
Gone Are The Days of The Stay At Home Housewife
By the age of 40, about 21 to 27 percent of women who graduated college in the 1980s have both a family and a career, according to Claudia Goldin. Goldin divides women of the 20th century into five “cohorts” in her book entitled The Long Road to the Fast Track: Career and Family. Each cohort shows the rise of women in professional careers and how women handled careers and families simultaneously. Today the number tackling both is higher than ever before. Women can and should raise a family and a career.
Due to the number of women that began to try to have a career and family, the 1980s are known as the “decade of greed.” I believe it should be known as the “decade of prosperity and grow.” Women finally began stepping up and showing they were just as strong as men when it came to handling multiple tasks. For this reason, women also became less dependent on their husbands and finally achieved a life for themselves.
Dana Browning-Ott is happily married with two young children. Browning-Ott owns a dance studio in Toccoa, GA that requires her to work three days a week teaching classes from around 3:00 to 8:00 pm. She believes it is good for children, especially daughters, to see their mother working for herself. She says that although work interferes with her family life a little, for the most part she is happy having a career that allows her to spend a lot of time with her children. “If more women would prepare themselves for the future, more would be able to have both a career and a family” Browning-Ott says.
Autumn Whitworth, a teacher at Woodville Elementary in Habersham, GA, agrees with Browning-Ott in that the reason she chose her profession was because it allowed her to work and still be a huge part of her children’s lives. Whitworth says “I’m independent because my mother was not.” Whitworth said she never wanted to put herself in a position where she could not support her family and her husband respects that.
Although I do not have a family myself yet, I plan to continue my career when I do. I know there are ways to have a career and still be a huge influence on your children. The statistics in Goldin’s book are clear that more and more women are becoming independent and I want to be one of those women. Gone are the days of the stay at home housewife.
Due to the number of women that began to try to have a career and family, the 1980s are known as the “decade of greed.” I believe it should be known as the “decade of prosperity and grow.” Women finally began stepping up and showing they were just as strong as men when it came to handling multiple tasks. For this reason, women also became less dependent on their husbands and finally achieved a life for themselves.
Dana Browning-Ott is happily married with two young children. Browning-Ott owns a dance studio in Toccoa, GA that requires her to work three days a week teaching classes from around 3:00 to 8:00 pm. She believes it is good for children, especially daughters, to see their mother working for herself. She says that although work interferes with her family life a little, for the most part she is happy having a career that allows her to spend a lot of time with her children. “If more women would prepare themselves for the future, more would be able to have both a career and a family” Browning-Ott says.
Autumn Whitworth, a teacher at Woodville Elementary in Habersham, GA, agrees with Browning-Ott in that the reason she chose her profession was because it allowed her to work and still be a huge part of her children’s lives. Whitworth says “I’m independent because my mother was not.” Whitworth said she never wanted to put herself in a position where she could not support her family and her husband respects that.
Although I do not have a family myself yet, I plan to continue my career when I do. I know there are ways to have a career and still be a huge influence on your children. The statistics in Goldin’s book are clear that more and more women are becoming independent and I want to be one of those women. Gone are the days of the stay at home housewife.
Working Women
A few years ago, you could walk into a corporate office and one thing would be missing. That one thing would be women, but as of today and throughout the past few years women have become one of the main forces to be found in professional careers. With the move to a professional workforce, the traditional household has had to make a few modifications.
Look Guys, it's called Anatomy
Freedom for women! Equality of the sexes! Estrogen power! Women, Save yourselves from the evil foot of the devilish white man! Is this not the tune being sung by the rising feminist movement? Perhaps this is only the extremes. However, recently there has been an enormous surge of women in colleges and the workforce. It seems that even though there are no longer campaigns for women’s rights, the feminist movement has never been stronger. Every day the envelop of what is socially acceptable for women is being expanded. The creed of political correctness has changed. It is no longer “equal rights,” but rather “sacred sameness”
Now to be fair, I absolutely agree with equal rights. I believe equal opportunities for all races and genders is absolutely imperative. However, I believe that sameness, absolute equality, sexual in-distinction and gender oriented identically leads to the destruction of the traditional nuclear family. To start, I found the following quotes at http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=2
"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage" -- Sheila Cronan
"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman
"The care of children ..is infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation...[This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women." Kate Millet, Sexual Politics 178-179
"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ... "Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests. ... -- Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969.
Thus far we note that many of the prominent supporters of the feminist movement are absolutely for the destruction of the nuclear family. They say that without the destruction of the family there can be no true equality of men and women. I agree. In order for women to become absolutely completely equal to men they must be indistinguishable from men in every possible way. Since the institution of marriage obviously recognizes differences in men, women and children, it can not be a component of an absolutely equal society. Therefore, the increasing rise of women as a product of feministic ideals is fundamentally opposed to the institution marriage and therefore the nuclear family. It is not the presence of women in the workforce that is fundamentally against the family, but rather that idea of absolute, total, sacred equality and sameness of the sexes is fundamentally diametrical to the philosophy of the nuclear family. It isn’t that women have equal rights and opportunities. The family breakdown occurs only when women attempt to make themselves identical to men. Perhaps it could have something to do with the anatomical and neural differences of men and women?
Since this is the case, the logical question that should follow is whether or not these changes in the nuclear family are desirable or dreadful. I say it is detrimental in the extreme. Hitler himself said, “When an opponent declares, ‘I will not come over to your side,’ I calmly say, ‘Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.’” In other words, if you can break down the family, if you can indoctrinate the children, then your government will wield absolute power. This is not the American Ideal. "Destroy the family, and you destroy society." -Vladimir Lenin
Overshadowing equality
The role of women changed dramatically throughout the 20th century. The early years of the century brought women the right to vote. World War II brought many women into the workforce, where they remained. The 1960's and 1970's brought women more rights and affirmative action. In the 1980's, women were the super moms; holding down a full-time job, motherhood, and PTA duty for moms whose children were in school.
Now that we are in the 21st century, the role of women has had its biggest change in history. Women are taking the challenge of professional careers.
According to Microtrends by Mark Penn, the rose of women in “wordy” professions has radically increased. This means that women are turning to law, journalism and public relations. However, these are not the only careers on the rise. Almost all of America retains twice as many women than men in a particular profession. The only difference remains in the male counterpart remaining in executive spots as woman try to clime there way up but fail.
Some say that this drive for making it to the top is causing women to focus more on work and less on family. While this may be true, I believe that it is the change in society values that has had more of an influence on the “traditional family”.
Penn states in his book, “Society is becoming more open, more tolerant, and ultimately more able to build on self-suppression rather than suppressing it.” This is absolutely true. Not only has American society opened its mind to ideas about homosexuality and religion but also about single-parent homes and divorce.
In 1999, Tom Smith, Director of the General Social Survey and author of “The Emerging 21st-Century American Family”, gave an interview to The University of Chicago Chronicle predicting the new living situation of the 21st century. He states, “Because of divorce, cohabitation and single parenthood, a majority of families rearing children in the next century probably will not include the children’s two biological parents. Moreover, most households will not include children.”
Americans has become accustomed to marriage being portrayed as a sacred union that one should not break. If it was broken than it would be a disgrace to one’s family and church. No longer is this the case.
Both men and women are free to decide whether or not they want to marry and reproduce. It is their decision how life is divided among work and home. No longer is it unacceptable for a woman to spend many long hours in a downtown office instead of at a home cooking and cleaning. Americans are opening their minds to new ideas and accepting the outcome.
The United States of America prides itself on equality. The fact that women finally have an opportunity to be equal to men in society should not be overshadowed by a preconceived notion that a traditional family should exist.
Women in professional careers are not the leading factor in the decline of children or the rise in divorce rates. There is more than one way to live life and more opportunities available for those who choose to stray from ancient traditions and beliefs. Times are changing and so are the minds of Americans.
Now that we are in the 21st century, the role of women has had its biggest change in history. Women are taking the challenge of professional careers.
According to Microtrends by Mark Penn, the rose of women in “wordy” professions has radically increased. This means that women are turning to law, journalism and public relations. However, these are not the only careers on the rise. Almost all of America retains twice as many women than men in a particular profession. The only difference remains in the male counterpart remaining in executive spots as woman try to clime there way up but fail.
Some say that this drive for making it to the top is causing women to focus more on work and less on family. While this may be true, I believe that it is the change in society values that has had more of an influence on the “traditional family”.
Penn states in his book, “Society is becoming more open, more tolerant, and ultimately more able to build on self-suppression rather than suppressing it.” This is absolutely true. Not only has American society opened its mind to ideas about homosexuality and religion but also about single-parent homes and divorce.
In 1999, Tom Smith, Director of the General Social Survey and author of “The Emerging 21st-Century American Family”, gave an interview to The University of Chicago Chronicle predicting the new living situation of the 21st century. He states, “Because of divorce, cohabitation and single parenthood, a majority of families rearing children in the next century probably will not include the children’s two biological parents. Moreover, most households will not include children.”
Americans has become accustomed to marriage being portrayed as a sacred union that one should not break. If it was broken than it would be a disgrace to one’s family and church. No longer is this the case.
Both men and women are free to decide whether or not they want to marry and reproduce. It is their decision how life is divided among work and home. No longer is it unacceptable for a woman to spend many long hours in a downtown office instead of at a home cooking and cleaning. Americans are opening their minds to new ideas and accepting the outcome.
The United States of America prides itself on equality. The fact that women finally have an opportunity to be equal to men in society should not be overshadowed by a preconceived notion that a traditional family should exist.
Women in professional careers are not the leading factor in the decline of children or the rise in divorce rates. There is more than one way to live life and more opportunities available for those who choose to stray from ancient traditions and beliefs. Times are changing and so are the minds of Americans.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
I give up...I can't do it all.
Women’s Lib didn’t liberate the women I know. Can women have it all and maintain their sanity? I think not. What were my sisters thinking back in the 1960s? Did they think burning their bras in protest was going to truly affect change or were they just acting out? Didn’t they realize how utterly exhausted their daughters and granddaughters would be just trying to live up to the lofty goals they advocated so hard to achieve?
Growing up steeped in the afterglow of all that forward movement, I believed a female could be anything she wanted to be. My career-minded father coached me as I grew up. He encouraged me to cultivate a firm handshake; one that would make a powerful first impression. No limp wrist allowed. I was going to conquer the world or at least remind everyone I met that I could hold my own in an arm wrestling match.
A circuitous path to success led to a sales job that propelled me up the corporate ladder in a company that promoted on merit. Quickly learning to survive in the male dominated construction industry was tough but I was ultimately promoted to national accounts manager for this dynamic playground safety surface company.
I had it all or so I thought: successful career, solid marriage and the freedom that comes from two incomes. There was just something missing. A new opportunity beckoned and I donned a new hat: “Working Mother.”
Oh, I still thought I could have it all. Continuing to crisscross the country during an obscenely healthy pregnancy, I was convinced an eight pound wiggling mass of humanity couldn’t make that much of a difference. The night before I checked into the hospital for a scheduled caesarian section, my to-do list was organized and I was eager to take the next step. Nothing was going to sidetrack my well-laid plans.
With a shiny new baby in one arm, I worked the phone with the other from the temporary cocoon of the maternity ward. Playground projects scheduled all over the United States didn’t present a problem; I had a network of support that would keep every detail in check.
Arriving home, I tucked my son into his crib and said to myself: “This isn’t so hard.” Phones ringing in a home office at the other end of the hall were a pleasant reminder that I was in still in control.
Fast forward four days when hormones and milk collided. What was I thinking? My precious baby boy wailed for sustenance and my chest was the only 24-hour diner in town. The veneer started to crack. I felt betrayed by an entire generation of women. Why didn’t someone tell me how hard it would be? Corporate ladder? Glass ceiling? I just wanted to sit and inhale the intoxicating aroma wafting up from the swaddled bundle I cradled. The carefully laundered baby blankets sopped up my tears those first few hazy weeks.
As I struggled to maintain my professionalism and dignity while juggling poopie diapers and breast pumps, Joseph was spending his days coming up with fresh ways to enchant me. When he was about 15 months old, the E.P.T. test told no lies. The biological clock was in overdrive and a second son was born 26 months after the first. That was when I surrendered and faced a uniquely female crossroads. I dove headlong into the loud, messy but wonderfully sweet world of full-time motherhood. A daughter came along to add icing to the family cake in 1999.
Trading the corporate ladder for a step stool to help my children reach the potty was a conscious decision and one I made with the support of my husband. I was one of the lucky ones. There are no easy answers; only hard choices to make. We can answer only for ourselves and our individual situations. This debate continues to be waged among working mothers and their stay-at-home counterparts.
Women still want to have it all, but maybe we don’t quite know what that means. It is a fleeting vision at best. The background noise of sibling rivalry and the hum of the dryer keep me grounded in a mundane but extraordinary life. However, there is always the siren song of that pesky woman waving a flaming undergarment around. The choice to feed my knowledge-hungry brain and being present for my family is a daily battle. Guilt whispers not so sweet nothings in my ear and I just want to take a nap.
Now that I’m back in school full-time and heading down a different career path, I feel I’m qualified to answer the original blog question with a resounding YES. Granted, this is just my opinion but we’re [women] tired. Bone tired. How in the world can a family be nurtured and sustained without someone to keep the laundry going? Even in the most equitable of marriages and partnerships, there is still a disproportionate amount of responsibility that falls on the shoulders of the female mate.
If I look back at a career gone fallow, I’m at peace with the tidbits of self-discovery I’ve managed to snatch while pulling fish sticks out of the oven. I’m OK knowing my greatest legacy will be that I successfully potty trained three children. I can say I celebrated when they scrawled their name for the first time and when they learned to read. I was there to witness those moments of profound discovery. My children are growing old enough to be independent and I sense there is still time for me to conquer the world. I have no regret that I invested a season in nurturing the gift of family. Maybe the next generation will find the balance I crave.
Growing up steeped in the afterglow of all that forward movement, I believed a female could be anything she wanted to be. My career-minded father coached me as I grew up. He encouraged me to cultivate a firm handshake; one that would make a powerful first impression. No limp wrist allowed. I was going to conquer the world or at least remind everyone I met that I could hold my own in an arm wrestling match.
A circuitous path to success led to a sales job that propelled me up the corporate ladder in a company that promoted on merit. Quickly learning to survive in the male dominated construction industry was tough but I was ultimately promoted to national accounts manager for this dynamic playground safety surface company.
I had it all or so I thought: successful career, solid marriage and the freedom that comes from two incomes. There was just something missing. A new opportunity beckoned and I donned a new hat: “Working Mother.”
Oh, I still thought I could have it all. Continuing to crisscross the country during an obscenely healthy pregnancy, I was convinced an eight pound wiggling mass of humanity couldn’t make that much of a difference. The night before I checked into the hospital for a scheduled caesarian section, my to-do list was organized and I was eager to take the next step. Nothing was going to sidetrack my well-laid plans.
With a shiny new baby in one arm, I worked the phone with the other from the temporary cocoon of the maternity ward. Playground projects scheduled all over the United States didn’t present a problem; I had a network of support that would keep every detail in check.
Arriving home, I tucked my son into his crib and said to myself: “This isn’t so hard.” Phones ringing in a home office at the other end of the hall were a pleasant reminder that I was in still in control.
Fast forward four days when hormones and milk collided. What was I thinking? My precious baby boy wailed for sustenance and my chest was the only 24-hour diner in town. The veneer started to crack. I felt betrayed by an entire generation of women. Why didn’t someone tell me how hard it would be? Corporate ladder? Glass ceiling? I just wanted to sit and inhale the intoxicating aroma wafting up from the swaddled bundle I cradled. The carefully laundered baby blankets sopped up my tears those first few hazy weeks.
As I struggled to maintain my professionalism and dignity while juggling poopie diapers and breast pumps, Joseph was spending his days coming up with fresh ways to enchant me. When he was about 15 months old, the E.P.T. test told no lies. The biological clock was in overdrive and a second son was born 26 months after the first. That was when I surrendered and faced a uniquely female crossroads. I dove headlong into the loud, messy but wonderfully sweet world of full-time motherhood. A daughter came along to add icing to the family cake in 1999.
Trading the corporate ladder for a step stool to help my children reach the potty was a conscious decision and one I made with the support of my husband. I was one of the lucky ones. There are no easy answers; only hard choices to make. We can answer only for ourselves and our individual situations. This debate continues to be waged among working mothers and their stay-at-home counterparts.
Women still want to have it all, but maybe we don’t quite know what that means. It is a fleeting vision at best. The background noise of sibling rivalry and the hum of the dryer keep me grounded in a mundane but extraordinary life. However, there is always the siren song of that pesky woman waving a flaming undergarment around. The choice to feed my knowledge-hungry brain and being present for my family is a daily battle. Guilt whispers not so sweet nothings in my ear and I just want to take a nap.
Now that I’m back in school full-time and heading down a different career path, I feel I’m qualified to answer the original blog question with a resounding YES. Granted, this is just my opinion but we’re [women] tired. Bone tired. How in the world can a family be nurtured and sustained without someone to keep the laundry going? Even in the most equitable of marriages and partnerships, there is still a disproportionate amount of responsibility that falls on the shoulders of the female mate.
If I look back at a career gone fallow, I’m at peace with the tidbits of self-discovery I’ve managed to snatch while pulling fish sticks out of the oven. I’m OK knowing my greatest legacy will be that I successfully potty trained three children. I can say I celebrated when they scrawled their name for the first time and when they learned to read. I was there to witness those moments of profound discovery. My children are growing old enough to be independent and I sense there is still time for me to conquer the world. I have no regret that I invested a season in nurturing the gift of family. Maybe the next generation will find the balance I crave.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Assignment Due Wednesday March 26
Is the rise of women in professional careers contributing to the breakdown of the traditional family?
Friday, March 14, 2008
Keep Guns out of College Campuses
Recently, three female college students, native Georgians, were killed. They had not been able to defend themselves, which led to each one of their deaths. This poses the question: if these women had been allowed to carry and become familiar with weapons on their college campuses, would these women still be alive?
I believe that similar events would have transpired and a “free gun” policy on college campuses would do more harm than good. Bringing a weapon into most situations is simply asking for trouble. It threatens and scares the recipient toward whom an individual is “aiming.” Consider that the average human’s brain is not fully developed in the frontal lobe, which is connected to rational thinking and making sound decisions, until that individual is around the age of 22. If a student attends college directly out of high school, as many do, this would mean that they graduate around the age of 21 or 22 – the time of maturation. So why must we allow guns inside the college campus? We shouldn’t.
Along with a lack of maturation, weapons also do not mix with another dangerous factor – drinking. If an armed student were to become intoxicated, have a brawl with another student, and draw a gun, what would happen to the targeted student? What events could potentially and likely transpire? And yes, it may be a nice idea to think of the two overcoming their differences, shaking hands and being friends, but even if no one is hurt on this night, the second student’s grudge could make him or her apt to retaliate. Although this is a purely hypothetical situation, these events could happen with the second student coming up with the short end of the deal with no way of defending him or herself against a deadly weapon. Allowing guns into colleges would make for an unfair playing field for those who choose not be armed.
As far as campus security carrying guns is concerned, an “out of sight, out of mind” approach would be an effective policy to adopt. Those whose purpose is to protect the students are allowed to have a hidden weapon (gun, baton, mace, etc.). With this policy, students will be told that security personnel are armed, but they won’t see it, except in extreme situations of danger. Students would have a secure feeling, while avoiding the heavy responsibility of a loaded weapon. So rather than the entirety of campus being helpless, students can sleep soundly knowing that there are a select few to whose sole purpose is to protect.
The mission of a college is to educate its students, not place them in a war zone. We as the American public must place a certain distance between college students and weapons in order to keep everyone safe.
I believe that similar events would have transpired and a “free gun” policy on college campuses would do more harm than good. Bringing a weapon into most situations is simply asking for trouble. It threatens and scares the recipient toward whom an individual is “aiming.” Consider that the average human’s brain is not fully developed in the frontal lobe, which is connected to rational thinking and making sound decisions, until that individual is around the age of 22. If a student attends college directly out of high school, as many do, this would mean that they graduate around the age of 21 or 22 – the time of maturation. So why must we allow guns inside the college campus? We shouldn’t.
Along with a lack of maturation, weapons also do not mix with another dangerous factor – drinking. If an armed student were to become intoxicated, have a brawl with another student, and draw a gun, what would happen to the targeted student? What events could potentially and likely transpire? And yes, it may be a nice idea to think of the two overcoming their differences, shaking hands and being friends, but even if no one is hurt on this night, the second student’s grudge could make him or her apt to retaliate. Although this is a purely hypothetical situation, these events could happen with the second student coming up with the short end of the deal with no way of defending him or herself against a deadly weapon. Allowing guns into colleges would make for an unfair playing field for those who choose not be armed.
As far as campus security carrying guns is concerned, an “out of sight, out of mind” approach would be an effective policy to adopt. Those whose purpose is to protect the students are allowed to have a hidden weapon (gun, baton, mace, etc.). With this policy, students will be told that security personnel are armed, but they won’t see it, except in extreme situations of danger. Students would have a secure feeling, while avoiding the heavy responsibility of a loaded weapon. So rather than the entirety of campus being helpless, students can sleep soundly knowing that there are a select few to whose sole purpose is to protect.
The mission of a college is to educate its students, not place them in a war zone. We as the American public must place a certain distance between college students and weapons in order to keep everyone safe.
Giving Everyone a Gun is Not the Answer
With the rising number of college shootings throughout the United States, it is clear that our schools are not safe enough. The deaths of many college students due to recent violent attacks have ignited an old debate over whether or not guns should be allowed on campuses. I believe that guns are not a method of solving problems and allowing them on campuses would just lead to even more violence.
Schools are not as secure as they claim to be. About a month ago at Stephens County Middle School (SCMS) in Toccoa, Georgia, a police officer staged an attempt to carry out a school shooting. SCMS is a very new facility that prides itself in being a safe learning environment. In the officer’s experiment, he easily walked into the school through a side door that is left unlocked for special education purposes. He walked the halls freely without ever once being questioned. Had this not been staged many middle school students could have died that day. How secure does that make you feel?
The answer to this security situation is not to allow anyone and everyone to possess guns on campuses. Although it can be said that if someone had had a gun during the recent school shootings some deaths might have been prevented, it cannot be said that the daily drawbacks don’t outweigh this fact. Students would begin to use guns as self defense more often and more lives would begin to be lost. Also, people could get away with killings much more easily because they wouldn’t even have to hide their gun.
Although I do not believe everyone should be permitted to have guns on campus, I do think campus police should be armed. Campus police are on campus to protect us as a college and I believe having guns would allow them to better do this. I trust them to only use the guns in extreme situations. I do not, however, trust college student to use the same judgment and digression. I would hate for a drunken rage or escalated fight to end in a death because guns were so easily accessible.
Piedmont College administration is currently undergoing debate as to whether there should be an armed officer on campus. If the projected plan goes through, there will be two officers on duty at all times, one certified officer with a gun and one security officer. Personally I would feel safer if we had an armed officer on campus but I would be much more afraid if I knew students possessed guns.
It is sad that our society is even having this debate. It is upsetting to see the families of victims of violent attacks. Campuses should strive to do everything they can to keep students safe.
Schools are not as secure as they claim to be. About a month ago at Stephens County Middle School (SCMS) in Toccoa, Georgia, a police officer staged an attempt to carry out a school shooting. SCMS is a very new facility that prides itself in being a safe learning environment. In the officer’s experiment, he easily walked into the school through a side door that is left unlocked for special education purposes. He walked the halls freely without ever once being questioned. Had this not been staged many middle school students could have died that day. How secure does that make you feel?
The answer to this security situation is not to allow anyone and everyone to possess guns on campuses. Although it can be said that if someone had had a gun during the recent school shootings some deaths might have been prevented, it cannot be said that the daily drawbacks don’t outweigh this fact. Students would begin to use guns as self defense more often and more lives would begin to be lost. Also, people could get away with killings much more easily because they wouldn’t even have to hide their gun.
Although I do not believe everyone should be permitted to have guns on campus, I do think campus police should be armed. Campus police are on campus to protect us as a college and I believe having guns would allow them to better do this. I trust them to only use the guns in extreme situations. I do not, however, trust college student to use the same judgment and digression. I would hate for a drunken rage or escalated fight to end in a death because guns were so easily accessible.
Piedmont College administration is currently undergoing debate as to whether there should be an armed officer on campus. If the projected plan goes through, there will be two officers on duty at all times, one certified officer with a gun and one security officer. Personally I would feel safer if we had an armed officer on campus but I would be much more afraid if I knew students possessed guns.
It is sad that our society is even having this debate. It is upsetting to see the families of victims of violent attacks. Campuses should strive to do everything they can to keep students safe.
Guns Control or Just another Temptation?
Recent school shootings have gotten everyone’s attention, but campuses are not sure what to do about the issue. Some campuses are just tightening security while others are actually debating on allowing students to carry weapons to classes.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Early action and alternate solutions save the day
“In 2003, 5,570 young people ages 10 to 24 were murdered—an average of 15 each day. Of these victims, 82% were killed with firearms,” according to the youth violence fact sheet from the Department of Health and Human Resources Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
With the recent happenings surrounding the nation in coalition with murders of college students, this statistic is being proven true. Since 2003 there has been at least two prominent shootings on college campuses. The first occurred in April 16, 2007 when a gunman who was a student killed more than 30 people in a dorm and a classroom at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Va. According to NPR.org, “The campus shooting at Virginia Tech was the deadliest in U.S. history.”
The other shooting, which happened more recently, is called the Valentine’s Day shooting because it occurred February 14, 2008. A little over a month ago a man armed with a shotgun opened fire in a lecture hall on the campus of Northern Illinois University. It took this shooting to open the eyes of the American people to the dangers of people obtaining firearms in any school setting, let alone an open college campus.
Beginning in 1966 when Charles Whitman pointed a rifle from the observation deck of the University of Texas at Austin's Tower and began shooting in a homicidal rampage for 96 minutes is when security on every campus should have been tightened and plans been made on how to prevent this from happening again. However, it would seem that as the years went by people allowed the violence to continue as more than 54 college students have been murdered in mass shootings on over 10 years with dozens more being injured.
This leads to the big question as to whether or not students should be allowed to carry guns for protection. Some students including Sarah Funk, a sophomore at Piedmont College, suggest that more people would be apt to die if students carry guns. “There are days when people can get frustrated or annoyed with a class or professor and feel like killing them,” Funk says, “If they were allowed to have guns there would be more opportunity for them to go through with it.”
Several students have suggested having “Code Red” drills like many of the high schools in the area. This would allow students on the Piedmont Campus to have an idea of what to expect if a real shooting were to occur. Some also say that the Security Guards should carry guns in case of an emergency.
This idea has actually been explored by the Piedmont Administration. “Security at Piedmont have not carried guns for at least 10 years because there has never been a threat of violence to the school or students,” say Dick Martin, head of security at Piedmont. It has been discussed that Piedmont have one armed police officer on campus and one security guard at all times.
However, not all students say that there should be no form of protection for each individual. Funk says, “I think that females if not all students should at least have pepper spray or something to use for protection.” This is in reference to the recent murders of three female college students from Georgia who were attending out of state schools.
Although two of these murders are said to be at random and did not occur right on campus soil the idea of self protection remains the same. Students could use the pepper spray as some kind of deterrent to allow themselves ample time to escape their attackers and possibly prevent another murder.
It is coming up with alternative solutions that will solve the problem at hand. A person cannot fight fire with fire. Therefore, the answer to preventing campus shootings nationwide is not to give everyone guns but to find some way to outsmart the attacker in a quick and orderly manner.
With the recent happenings surrounding the nation in coalition with murders of college students, this statistic is being proven true. Since 2003 there has been at least two prominent shootings on college campuses. The first occurred in April 16, 2007 when a gunman who was a student killed more than 30 people in a dorm and a classroom at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Va. According to NPR.org, “The campus shooting at Virginia Tech was the deadliest in U.S. history.”
The other shooting, which happened more recently, is called the Valentine’s Day shooting because it occurred February 14, 2008. A little over a month ago a man armed with a shotgun opened fire in a lecture hall on the campus of Northern Illinois University. It took this shooting to open the eyes of the American people to the dangers of people obtaining firearms in any school setting, let alone an open college campus.
Beginning in 1966 when Charles Whitman pointed a rifle from the observation deck of the University of Texas at Austin's Tower and began shooting in a homicidal rampage for 96 minutes is when security on every campus should have been tightened and plans been made on how to prevent this from happening again. However, it would seem that as the years went by people allowed the violence to continue as more than 54 college students have been murdered in mass shootings on over 10 years with dozens more being injured.
This leads to the big question as to whether or not students should be allowed to carry guns for protection. Some students including Sarah Funk, a sophomore at Piedmont College, suggest that more people would be apt to die if students carry guns. “There are days when people can get frustrated or annoyed with a class or professor and feel like killing them,” Funk says, “If they were allowed to have guns there would be more opportunity for them to go through with it.”
Several students have suggested having “Code Red” drills like many of the high schools in the area. This would allow students on the Piedmont Campus to have an idea of what to expect if a real shooting were to occur. Some also say that the Security Guards should carry guns in case of an emergency.
This idea has actually been explored by the Piedmont Administration. “Security at Piedmont have not carried guns for at least 10 years because there has never been a threat of violence to the school or students,” say Dick Martin, head of security at Piedmont. It has been discussed that Piedmont have one armed police officer on campus and one security guard at all times.
However, not all students say that there should be no form of protection for each individual. Funk says, “I think that females if not all students should at least have pepper spray or something to use for protection.” This is in reference to the recent murders of three female college students from Georgia who were attending out of state schools.
Although two of these murders are said to be at random and did not occur right on campus soil the idea of self protection remains the same. Students could use the pepper spray as some kind of deterrent to allow themselves ample time to escape their attackers and possibly prevent another murder.
It is coming up with alternative solutions that will solve the problem at hand. A person cannot fight fire with fire. Therefore, the answer to preventing campus shootings nationwide is not to give everyone guns but to find some way to outsmart the attacker in a quick and orderly manner.
More Guns on Campus?
We have recently been hit with news stories about the recent shootings of Georgia women on college campuses, which put fear amongst us as students about our own safety in the place we study. Now we ask the question should students be allowed to carry guns for their own safety or do we need tighter control of guns on campuses?
Some college students are pushing for schools to allow them to carry guns on their campus, following the massacre at Virginia Tech where 32 students and faculty were fatally shot the feeling amongst some is that students should have the right to protect themselves if they are in such a situation. Nationwide, 38 states ban weapons at school, and 16 of these specifically ban guns on college campuses, in fact Utah is the only state that specifically allows people to carry concealed weapons on public colleges.
However many believe that allowing students the right to use weapons in defense will not mean that they are going to use them safely, or train them to use them responsibly. I agree with this point of view however I also think that colleges need to have some defense against the shootings of its students. Andrew Dysart, a George Mason University Senior organized a group of students to campaign for Concealed Carry on Campus in the hope of allowing campuses to have ‘concealed, trained carriers’ of guns in the event of emergency. “There’s no way to know what could have happened, but the students at Tech, they really should have had a chance, “Dysart said.
Some college students are pushing for schools to allow them to carry guns on their campus, following the massacre at Virginia Tech where 32 students and faculty were fatally shot the feeling amongst some is that students should have the right to protect themselves if they are in such a situation. Nationwide, 38 states ban weapons at school, and 16 of these specifically ban guns on college campuses, in fact Utah is the only state that specifically allows people to carry concealed weapons on public colleges.
However many believe that allowing students the right to use weapons in defense will not mean that they are going to use them safely, or train them to use them responsibly. I agree with this point of view however I also think that colleges need to have some defense against the shootings of its students. Andrew Dysart, a George Mason University Senior organized a group of students to campaign for Concealed Carry on Campus in the hope of allowing campuses to have ‘concealed, trained carriers’ of guns in the event of emergency. “There’s no way to know what could have happened, but the students at Tech, they really should have had a chance, “Dysart said.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Assignment due Friday, March 14
Consider the recent shootings of young Georgia women on college campuses, and what that communicates about our safety. Some people have responded by calling for tighter control of guns on campuses, while others believe all adults, including students, would be safer if allowed to carry weapons. What do you think? Be sure to cite your sources.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)