My comments

In response to: http://amysanimaltestingargument.blogspot.co.nz/

"I can't say I agree with animal testing, but that being said, the other alternative would be human testing (which I would imagine happens anyway although a little more discreetly) because there will always be people in the world who do not care about the damage the cause as long as they profit in the end. If it was necessary for the good health of many I would have a different opinion on the subject, but for cosmetic purposes or just general experimenting, animal testing is just cruel and unessessary."

In response to: http://banningfastfood.blogspot.co.nz/

"Fast food will realistically never be banned simply because it makes too much money and the large corporations would never allow such a thing to jeopardize their profits. However, as Stacey mentioned, pressuring them into making healthier food is an option, though if you look closely at some of the new 'healthy' menus many fast food joints so proudly advertise, they are still nowhere near as healthy as a homemade sandwich or salad or wrap, where you know exactly what has gone into it. The lack of grease is made up for by copious amounts of sauces and dressings, no doubt full of sugar and preservatives. So, perhaps something you could've argued could be the 'fat tax' or something similar where fast food is made more expensive and therefore less desirable as it is no longer 'cheap and easy', also bringing down the price of fruit and vegetables at the same time would help people make healthier decisions without 'banning' anything enjoyable from their lives."

In response to: http://inequalityin-equality.blogspot.co.nz/

"There really is no way to get around the issue of harassment, though a gay PM would give many others confidence in being accepted themselves, the timing may not be great, but, in a way it could be a good thing to deal with it now rather than later because it could really push acceptance and equality into being something that could actually happen soon, here and now, as opposed to when we are all grandparents and our grandchildren are still fighting for acceptance. It will always be hard to be the first of anything, but once the way is paved it could be surprising how much support and acceptance come thereafter. I do not disagree with your argument entirely, just showing a little more argument from the opposite direction, I would've liked to see your thoughts on the possibility of the positive effects that could come from a gay PM, though. It does seem a little like a doom and gloom prediction, but is completely plausible and a very likely outcome."

In response to: http://danielgadaiwriteblogbrief2.blogspot.co.nz/

"I never knew there was so much to this topic, alot of in depth explanation of how sexuality is portrayed in media and society. I'm glad you chose this topic because it tackles not only the issue of prejudices against people who are considered 'different' or 'not normal' by many because of their sexuality, but also how the media in general subtly controls the perceptions of many through stereotypes and gender roles. This argument rolls both of these ideas into one, (both of which I have a strong opinion about) and though I admit some of the theory goes over my head a bit, my eyes are more open. Great work."

In response to: http://darksideofkfc.blogspot.co.nz/

"there will always be alot of debate about the health risks of eating food such as this, most people know it as generally 'unhealthy' but actual evidence to show any links between diseases that may or may not be caused by it must be hard to come by. Most people will continue to eat food like this without a thought for what its doing to their bodies, however, the more evidence that finds its way to the surface will hopefully cause many more people to stop and think before they chow down."

In response to: http://thezimmermandebate.blogspot.co.nz/

"You've got alot of facts there and a good explanation of what happened, but I couldn't figure out what your argument was supposed to be until you said something about racism in the last piece there. From the beginning there doesn't really seem to be any indication from you that racism/prejudice in America is a subject in the argument and is to blame for the outcome of this trial. Perhaps a longer introduction that states what the main point of the argument is would help clear up the confusion a little"

References

Watson, S. (2013, September 20). Less than half of Americans want stricter gun laws. http://www.infowars.com/less-than-half-of-americans-want-stricter-gun-laws/

Furrer, A. (2013, June 11). Gun violence and control in America. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amanda-furrer/gun-violence-and-control_b_3413323.html

Kumar, N. (2013, April 18). US gun control: Sandy Hook was meant to have changed America. Then politics got in the way  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-gun-control-sandy-hook-was-meant-to-have-changed-america-then-politics-got-in-the-way-8579245.html

Porter, H. (2013, September 21). American gun use is out of control. Shouldn’t the world intervene? http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/21/american-gun-out-control-porter

Pizzi, M. (2013, September 12). Study: Gun ownership linked to increase in firearm homicides. http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/12/study-gun-ownershiplinkedtoincreaseinfirearmhomicides.html

Gun Violence in America

The right to bear arms is a popular debate in countries such as America. There are many conflicting viewpoints on the issue ranging from gun enthusiasts trying to relax the laws involving firearms even further to make it easier for them to obtain restricted firearms, protesters advocating to ban guns altogether based on moral grounds and general American citizens who are unsure or neither for or against the idea of guns being owned by a number of the general populace, for personal safety. 'Banning' guns is not the answer to America's so-called gun control problem, it is a naive solution to a problem that was not caused by the inanimate objects themselves but the troubled individuals who could just as easily pick up a knife or a baseball bat to finish the job.

Firearms are generally viewed in three different types of classes, Long guns, Handguns, and Automatic and Semi-automatic weapons. Long guns are often associated with hunting and sport, and include rifles and shotguns respectively. Some states allow for the open carry of weapons that fall into this category, few of which do not even require a permit for purchase and/or possession, allowing citizens, if they wish, to freely carry their firearms in a non-threatening manner, providing they understand and adhere to the laws of their state regarding firearm possession. Handguns are smaller firearms that can be held in one hand, such as revolvers and pistols. They are much easier to conceal, and so many of the American states consider carrying a concealed handgun on one’s person without a permit to be a felony punishable by state law. Automatic and Semi-automatic weapons are associated by the general public with military uses as an automatic weapon will fire multiple rounds with only one pull of the trigger, and semi-automatic weapons will fire one round with the pull of the trigger, then automatically load the next round for discharge. These types of weapons include machine guns, sub-machine guns and assault rifles. These firearms are completely illegal for possession in some states as they are the most dangerous when used on people due to the rapid fire and larger ammo capacity, which was obviously designed for warfare, as such a weapon would be useless for sport and hunting purposes.

There has been a recent outcry in America for stricter gun control and even attempts to ‘ban’ guns altogether in lieu of the recent shootings that have taken place, one of the most recent and tragic cases being the Sandy Hook shooting, where twenty children and six adults were gunned down at Sandy Hook Elementary, Sandy Hook, Newton, Connecticut. Despite the public outcry against guns and violence in general, it is the view of many that banning guns altogether is not the answer, after all it is the person holding the gun that does the damage, and many feel that helping and educating people on the subject of violence would be a more worthwhile pursuit. To ‘stop violence at the source’ so to speak, before another tragedy such as the Sandy Hook massacre takes place in the future.

The regulation and control of firearms is important for the prevention of gun violence. If all the states had similar gun legislations that required all weapons to be registered and require permits to carry, such as New York, which requires handguns to be registered and also permits to purchase and carry them, it is likely there would be a noticeable decline in the statistics of gun-related deaths in America. Though try as they might to provide stricter gun control laws in the future, it still does not account for all the illegally imported and black market weapons that will inevitably be sold to people with ill intentions, so arguably removing or ‘banning’ guns from society is not going to stop those few people who are determined to cause trouble and hurt others, whether it be for personal gain or their own pleasure.

From the many different viewpoints on the issue, many would presume it safe to say that relaxing gun laws, such as allowing restricted firearms such as some automatic weapons to be easier purchased, and at the other extreme, banning guns altogether, is not the best solution to the never ending problem that is gun violence. However, better regulation on the purchase and ownership of firearms and education of what causes violence in society would better help the general public to understand the causes of gun violence and therefore help prevent it.