These first two essays concern gun control.  The first essay argues for more stringent gun control laws, while the second states there are already too many laws on the book.  The second essay concerns environmental laws.  One essay states we need more laws, while the second states  we have enough laws already.

Ralph wrote the gun control  essay in April 1999. He was a little nervous about entering our composition class, as it had been years since  he had the privilege of sitting in an "English class.  Ralph was the 1999 recipient of the alumni association's writing award.

Ralph wrote, "The issue  of gun control is very debatable and both sides have good reasons to fight for their cause. This  in itself is interesting,  and to approach it with an open, neutral position, while doing research allowed for an honest evaluation of the two opposing forces."

Fred  wrote the environmental essays.  He, too, was a returning student who wondered how well he'd fare  in an English class.  He stated the hardest aspect concerning the class was finding the time to do the research   and write, while at times working 70 hours a week.     All of his work, without exception, was so outstanding, that I Xeroxed it for our class as a sample of good writing. 

Fred loves the outdoors - camping, fishing, whatever.

Ralph
Professor Walkup
English 111
April 19th, 1999

A Time for Gun Control

Increasingly, violent crimes committed with handguns are commonplace. So commonplace, the daily newspapers or evening news generally involves at least one report involving an incident with a firearm. No longer are we shocked to hear of a murder or robbery involving a handgun. True, when the crime involves a celebrity, or is unusual in its circumstances, we remember. But what about all the other violent crimes that happen daily across the nation? Most we don't hear about, and those we do typically involve people we don’t know, and therefore spark only a passing interest, quickly forgotten. After all, why should a shooting in New York City, or an armed robbery in Boston, or any other large city affect us? This de-sensitization is alarming, and perhaps one reason why it is so difficult to pass any law concerning the control of handguns. At what point do we realize that someday it could happen in our own community involving ourselves or someone we know? It is usually not until we are personally affected by an incident that we wake up and notice something is wrong. But will every citizen of the U.S. need to be victimized in a crime involving a handgun before we decide to do something about it? Let’s hope not. Handgun control may not prevent crimes from happening, but it will at least reduce the number of crimes committed with guns and reduce the number of deaths associated with guns.

Anti-gun law advocates stand fast behind the Second Amendment, which states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This amendment is a strong foundation for anti-gun control groups. But these are the words of a nation newly born and not yet come to power as a world leader. It was written at a time when the country needed to defend its shores from invasion (Wouters). Today are we threatened by, or likely to be threatened by invasion? Will it be necessary for civilians to arm themselves in defense of their country? Hardly so, since a formidable military machine now protects the U.S., armed to the teeth with all the guns it needs along with other state of the art weapons and technology. This fact alone makes the second Amendment outdated and unnecessary. Yet some argue that the Second Amendment is part of America’s heritage and is not open to interpretation (Wouters). If something is part of our heritage, does that automatically make it just and unchangeable? Slavery is part of our heritage, and yet we created an amendment prohibiting it. An amendment was also created for prohibition, and yet repealed fourteen years later. What this proves is that heritage is not always right, and the amendments rely heavily upon the era in which we live. The nation is always changing and if necessary the amendments should also change. Yet even with handgun control, the Second Amendment is not necessarily infringed upon. Banning handguns or severely limiting their sale or distribution would have no effect on the sale of rifles for hunting or sport shooting. The right to bear arms should not be questioned, but the type of arms should. Do handguns really serve a purpose in the hands of citizens? Would the nation fall in to discord and pandemonium without them? The obvious answer to both of these questions is no, although there are those who would argue that we need handguns for self-defense.

Self-defense through handguns is a myth presented by anti-gun control activists. Paul Blackman, Research Director for the NRA states, "There is a potent psychological benefit in having a gun, like iron bars or an alarm system"(qtd. in Wouters). The fact is ninety percent of household burglaries occur when no one is home, and the homeowner’s gun is often one of the items stolen, which account for about forty percent of the handguns used in crimes (Desuka 422). Eliminating handguns does not mean that there would be forty percent less crime if handguns were outlawed, but it would at least stop criminals from accessing handguns through homeowners, and then using them in later crimes. Of course criminals will always have access to handguns, just as drug dealers will always have access to drugs and car thieves access to cars. But with fewer handguns to gain access to, perhaps the drug dealers and car thieves would be less likely to step up to murder or homicide.

Another disturbing crime that is becoming common is those murders committed by children with handguns. A good example is the murder of three girls during a high school prayer meeting in Paducah, Kentucky, by a 14 year old boy with a semi-automatic pistol, in December of 1997 (Associated Press). Had this child been unable to access a handgun, those three girls would probably be alive today. Perhaps the boy would still have committed the crime, but would have been forced to use a different weapon, allowing time for the students to react. The fact is that the boy was able to conceal a handgun in his backpack and carry it onto the school grounds undetected until it was too late. There are few other weapons that are so readily available, so concealable and able to create such devastating effects in a short amount of time. This is what America is turning into, a place where hand guns are becoming so common that we need fear for our children in the public school systems. It is unacceptable to think that handguns should be legal for self-protection or for sport when the safety of our children is at stake. Some may argue that the number of crimes committed against children or by children with handguns is small compared to the number of handguns in the U.S., but even a small percentage is too costly to justify their existence.

Although the approach of making handguns difficult or impossible to obtain by law-abiding citizens seems backwards, it would have several advantages. First of all, it would reduce the 100,000 or so hospital emergency room visits for gun related injuries each year (Associated Press). There would be fewer crimes of passion, where a heated argument turns deadly because a handgun is readily accessible. Children would no longer be able to stumble across a loaded pistol at home, only to take it into the public later or be killed in an accidental or intentional discharge. Eventually, the reduction of handguns would take effect on criminals, since they would be unable to steal or even legally buy handguns, thus reducing the number of crimes committed with guns. This is one approach that would create an immediate, and long term effect on public safety. In an ever-changing nation de-sensitized by random violence, it is time we look beyond the words written by our Forefathers over 200 years ago and create laws based on and designed for the present day problems.

Works Cited

Associated Press. "Pain, Isolation Still Mark Days for Some Paducah Parents." CNN Interactive. 28 Nov

98. 04 Apr 1999 <http://cnn.com/US/9811/28/prayer.circle.shootings.ap/index.html>.

Desuka, Nan. "Why Handguns must be Outlawed." Current Issues and Enduring Questions. Sylvan Barnet

and Hugo Bedau. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1999. 421-425.

Wouters, Jorgen. "The Land of Guns and Death." ABCNews.com. 22 Jun 1998. 04 Apr 1999

<http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/guns/guns_romance.html>.

Professor Walkup
English 111
April 19, 1999

Gun Laws: An Illusion of Safety

The fact that there are many special interest groups whose mission is to disarm the American public is alarming. These groups are intent upon creating more laws regulating or banning the sale, possession, and use of firearms by law-abiding citizens. And yet, according to Daniel Polsby, a professor of law at Northwestern University School of Law, and Dennis Brennan, a professor of Economics at Harper College, "It is commonly estimated that more than 20,000 federal, state, and local firearm laws are on the books in this country, and more are being written all the time." So what is the effect of these laws, and the push for more laws in the United States? Certainly, for the average citizen, these laws have a good deal of influence on gun ownership. For the criminal though, these laws are virtually ineffective. However, special interest groups continue to push for more ineffectual laws regulating handguns and rifles, even though current statistics show that laws designed to regulate firearms, especially handguns, have done little in reducing the crime rate. In fact, the relationship between guns and crime is sketchy at best (Polsby & Brennan). The addition of more laws will only infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens, and have little effect upon criminals intent on obtaining firearms, or using firearms in the commission of crimes.

Many gun-law proponents believe that the outright banning of handguns would save lives and reduce crime rates in America. They often cite the protection of children as one of their major concerns, using statistics related to the injury or death of children as a foundation for their argument. Indeed, Cease Fire, Inc., a gun law proponent, opens its "mission statement" with statistics concerning firearm related deaths of children. Although the statistics shown by Cease Fire, Inc. are debatable, we unfortunately cannot deny the fact that there are gun-related deaths associated with children. What should be noted though is the fact that the number of deaths is very small when compared to the number of firearms in the United States (Gun). Another important fact is that gun ownership had increased by forty-five percent between 1973 and 1992, and yet the number of accidental gun deaths of children has decreased by fifty percent in the last twenty-five years (Polsby and Brennan; Gun). These inverse statistics prove that gun ownership does not necessarily increase the danger to children. Possibly, the decrease in deaths is actually due to increased exposure to guns, and the education of children by the parents who own firearms.

The increase in gun ownership may be attributed, at least partly, to those desiring to defend their home and family from criminals. However, gun control activists would have us believe that if a person owns a gun, and a criminal enters the house, he will certainly take it from you and use it. This is simply not the case. Dr. Gary Kleck, a professor in the school of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University, reports, "Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times a year – or about 6,850 times a day" (qtd in Gun). Of these 2.5 million cases of self-defense, less than 1 percent of the time is a criminal able to disarm a victim (Polsby & Brennan). Dr. Kleck also points out that only 12.7% of burglars in the United States are apt to enter an occupied home, whereas in Great Britain, Canada, and the Netherlands, who have stiff gun control laws, a criminal is 45% more likely to enter an occupied home (qtd. in Gun). This reasoning behind this is simple; criminals have more to fear in America, since it is a large gamble that the homeowner will possess a gun. If the United States were to adopt laws like those in Great Britain and Canada, it is reasonable to assume criminals will gain confidence and will be less apt to wait for a home to be vacant before entering. It could also be assumed that if the criminal owned a firearm, it is likely stolen or unregistered, and still in his possession long after any laws ban them, thus leaving the homeowner at the mercy of his assailant.

Another gun-control proponent, the Violence Policy Center, believes that the federal government should be able to further regulate all aspects of firearms, through the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms). It must be said that they have some good ideas concerning firearms, such as insuring that firearms manufactured are safe for their intended use, and could be recalled if there are defects in the manufacturing process. However, their proposal would also allow the BATF extreme power in the regulation of firearms, such that firearm ownership could be denied for the entire American public. In the Violence Policy Center’s proposal, the BATF would be able to "take immediate action to stop the sale and distribution of firearms or firearms products found to be imminent hazards." This is a very broad statement open to much interpretation. Undisputedly, all firearms pose imminent hazards. Such a proposal would open the doors for a "big brother" approach by the BATF, giving them legal jurisdiction to enforce registration of all firearms and then legally and systematically disarm the American public at the government’s request. Could this happen? The answer is yes, it already has. The Gun Owners Foundation, a pro-gun group, states that "In the mid 1960’s, New York City began registering long guns. They promised that they would never use such lists to take away firearms from honest citizens. But in 1991, the city banned, (and soon began confiscating) many of those very guns." The problems posed by such a possibility are frightening. Would the government attempt to disarm America now or in the near future? No, at least not completely. What about the future government, could this happen in a few years or more? An article from the Oxford University Library points out that the possibility is there, and has indeed, at one time or another, been accomplished in other countries:

China, the Soviet Union, and Germany, have a body count in the millions, all at the hands of tyrannical governments, as a testament to "gun control". Through the use of gun laws, citizens were eventually disarmed, allowing these governments a free reign to carry out genocide or virtually eliminate all political opposition with minimal risk to themselves. It is because of this that the Second Amendment was written by the Founding Fathers. For they realized that giving any government extreme powers would eventually lead to tyranny.

As American citizens continue to struggle with the debates over issues concerning firearms, we shouldn’t lose sight of the beliefs on which this nation was founded. The freedom to purchase and use firearms for sporting purposes or self-defense from criminals is not the only reason to protect this right. Our forefathers, whom had just won independence from tyranny, wanted to insure that America would be able to defend itself, not only from outside invaders, but from its own government as well, realizing that an armed nation is more difficult to sway under an oppressive regime (Oxford). As we continue to impose more gun laws aimed at honest citizens, we are slowly, but surely, chiseling away the Second Amendment and what it stands for. If all of the special interest groups banded together and sought to solve the real problem, they would find themselves not attempting to outlaw guns, but instead working to punish those who abuse their right to own a gun. Unfortunately, law-abiding citizens must now fight on two fronts, criminals on one side who have little concern for victims’ rights, and special interests groups on the other side, determined to destroy the rights that help protect us.

Works Cited

Cease Fire. "Mission Statement." Cease Fire, Inc. 18 Apr. 1999 <http://www.ceasefire.org/ceasefire.html>.

Gun Owner’s Foundation. Feb. 1997. "Firearms Fact Sheet (1997)." Gun Owner’s Foundation. 18 Apr. 1999 <http://www.gunowners.org/fs9712.htm>.

Oxford University Libraries Automation Service. "The Long List of Gun Control Myths." 5 Jan. 1998

Online posting. Talk.Politics.Guns. 18 Apr.1999 <http://www.lib.ox.ac.uk/internet/news/faq/archive/

talk-politics-guns.pro-gun-faq.part2.html>.

Polsby, Daniel D. and Dennis Brennen. "Taking Aim at Gun Control." Heartland Policy Study. 30 Oct.

1998. 18 Apr. 1999 <http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/guns/aiming.html>.

Violence Policy Center. "A More Comprehensive Strategy." Violence Policy Center. 18 Apr. 1999

http://www.vpc.org/studies/cfstrat.htm.

To the reader:

If you're interested as to which essay Ralph  (the author) sides with,  the answer is neither.  He believes  the answer is somewhere in the middle and that ideally  the two opponents should  and work together to find a solution. One solution would be to create laws  necessary to punish those who abuse their rights or the rights of others, while  at the same time protecingt Joe Citizen who legally and responsibly uses firearms.    Ralph commented guns are not a black & white issue,  as there are so many issues to consider: criminals' rights vs. victims' rights....

The two following essays deal with the environment.  One insists we have too many laws protecting our forests and our lands, whereas the other states we need more laws.  Each is equally convincing.

Fred
Professor Walkup
English 111
19 April 1999

The Endangered Species Act Makes Sense

In 1962, Rachael Carson published Silent Spring awakening the public to the importance of our environment and the need to protect it. The public began to realize that unfettered development could lead to ecological disaster; over the last 37 years much has changed. The government has become a major leader and regulator in the effort to protect our environment. Numerous regulations, passed by Congress and the various state legislatures, are helping in this cause: the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, to name a few. The Endangered Species Act, passed by Congress in 1973, and signed into law by President Nixon, is designed to regulate activities that affect, or may affect, species that are endangered or threatened to ensure their survival (US Fish). Today, this premier piece of legislation is itself endangered and there are calls for changes to the Act. Many in business and the timber industry say the economic impact of the Act is too great; I disagree. Congress needs to resist calls for changes to this legislation; economics should play no role in implementing the Endangered Species Act. We need to use research and science to minimize the impact on local economies, help those locales that are impacted, and protect our biodiversity that can never be reproduced.

In 1988, it was estimated that only 1,500 pairs of spotted owls existed in the Pacific northwest. In 1990, the government declared the spotted owl an endangered species tying up large tracts of land (WFPA). This resulted in significant reductions in logging on state and federal lands in the Pacific northwest and had a serious economic impact on many communities. Preliminary research indicated that spotted owls only nested in old growth forests. Research now indicates that there are more than 10,000 owls in this area and they inhabit second growth as well as old growth forests. Availability of an adequate food supply seems to be as, or more, important than the habitat (WFPA). We know this now because of additional studies and field research. The result is more flexibility in efforts to protect the owls.

Sally Christensen tells us that "An extract of the bark of the Pacific yew known as taxol has been found to have cancer fighting properties, particularly with ovarian cancer" (550). Yet if studies prove this to be an effective treatment, the amount of taxol needed and the resulting harvest of yews could push it onto the endangered list. Here again, research is called for. Biochemistry research has resulted in many synthetically produced compounds discovered originally in nature. No matter how good our science, or detailed our research, there will be times when placing a plant or animal on the endangered species list will result in economic disruptions to local economies. At these times, it is imperative that we help those localities overcome these disruptions.

Any economy that relies on one or just a few industries will always be susceptible to disruptions. We saw this in the industrial heartland, in the 1970s, when increasing oil prices and overseas competition caused major disruptions to heavy manufacturing. We saw it again in the Pacific northwest due to changes in the timber industry, partially resulting from closure of forests inhabited by spotted owls. When imposition of federal policy results in harm to local economies it is our duty to help mitigate that damage. The United States Forest Service returns 25% of the revenue derived from forest system resources to the states to benefit the counties in which National Forests are located. These payments, in the case of Washington, Oregon, and California, have been adjusted to account for a reduction in logging due to the spotted owl (Forest). These adjustments were made to help minimize the impact reduced logging had on county finances. In addition, the Forest Service through the Rural Community Assistance program makes additional funds available "to help relieve the impact of changing federal forest timber harvest practices." In the Sweet Home Ranger District of central Oregon the Forest Service gave $640,000 for community investment projects, between 1992 and 1996, to aid in diversification of the local economy (Schaleger). In 1991, John Mitchell visited Sweet Home for National Geographic, revisiting in 1997. He found the outlook in 1991 bleak, but by 1997 the outlook had improved dramatically; economic diversification was the reason. Good environmental stewardship, as in the Endangered Species Act, can have a negative impact on local economies. Good government policies can, and should, mitigate these negative economic impacts, but no policy can reverse the extinction of a species.

When we hear the word extinction, what do we think of? For many of us, we think of dinosaurs roaming the Earth millions of years ago. We do not think of the plants, animals, and insects becoming extinct today, and every day. E.O. Wilson, of Harvard University, tells us that in the tropical rain forests alone it is estimated that 17,500 species go extinct every year, or about 1 per hour. If the species that we lose this hour is the cure for AIDS, what have we lost? We are not losing species in this country at such an alarming rate due to a much smaller biodiversity and because of farsighted legislation like the Endangered Species Act. Yet in many quarters, implementation of the Act causes a great outcry. In response to restrictions on logging to protect the spotted owl, Leila Kysar writes, "Loggers are an endangered species, but the environmental groups, which so righteously protect endangered species in the animal kingdom, have no concern for their fellow human beings under siege" (545). Sally Christensen says, "This year alone, 12,000 women will die from ovarian cancer. Breast cancer will kill 45,000 women. Is preservation of the Pacific yew worth the price?" (551). How many women will be helped, in the long run, if we do not preserve the yew? Could it be Mrs. Kysar, that the environmentalists you decry, indeed have a greater concern for their fellow man than you wish to recognize?

We must protect our endangered species. Once they are gone, they are gone forever. Never will we know the potential of an extinct yew. Never will we benefit from the cancer fighting properties of the next taxol. What is the value, to generations unborn, of the 60 species going extinct in the rain forest, just today? We can not, we must not, let today’s economics come into play when deciding the fate of the Endangered Species Act. If we do, our children, our grandchildren, and generations to come will pay for our shortsightedness.

Works Cited

Christensen, Sally Thane. "Is a Tree Worth a Life." Current Issues and Enduring Questions. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s, 1999. 550-552

Kysar, Leila L. "A Logger’s Lament." Current Issues and Enduring Questions. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s, 1999. 545-547

Mitchell, John G. "Our National Forests." National Geographic. Mar. 1997: 70-84

Schaleger, Ron. Sweet Home On-Line. 17 Apr. 1999 <http://www.sweethome.or.us/

forest/owl//07_ForestHelp.html>.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 24 Mar. 1999 <http://www.fws.gov>.

United States Forest Service. 17 Apr. 1999 <http://www.fs.us/news/agenda/policy.html>.

WFPA Home Page. Washington Forest Products Association. 24 Mar. 1999

<http://wfpa.com/forestland_regulated.htm>.

Wilson, E.O. Biodiversity. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1988. 18 Apr. 1999 <http://gause.biology.ualberta.ca/bio208.hp/labs/biodiversity/ch1.htm>.

Fred
Professor Walkup
English 111
5 April 1999

Western Forests: Economics versus the Environment

There is a great debate in this country about the use and development of our natural resources. Inherently, development of any natural resource has some consequence to the environment. It is this impact on the environment that generates so much controversy. On one side, are strict environmentalists who would stop all development and harvesting of our natural resources. They feel any negative consequences to the environment, during that development, are too high a price to pay. On the other side, you have business and industry interests who, without restrictions, may look more to the bottom line than to the environmental consequences of their actions. In the western states of Washington, Oregon, and California, implementation of the Endangered Species Act has resulted in restrictions on logging, both on public as well as private land. This has resulted in job losses, economic hardships for business and communities, and numerous court battles over property rights. It is time for Congress to revisit the Endangered Species Act. Congress must decide several things. What role, if any, should economics play when implementing the Endangered Species Act? How should compensation claims be handled when government places restrictions on private lands due to the Act, and what is the role of the Fish and Wildlife Service in balancing competing demands for use of public lands?

The Endangered Species Act, passed in 1973, is designed to regulate activities that affect, or may affect, species that are endangered or threatened to ensure their survival (US Fish). Yet, there is no doubt that implementation of the Endangered Species Act has resulted in economic hardship to many communities in the Pacific Northwest. In many of these communities, logging and related industries have traditionally provided a significant number of the local jobs. The Sweet Home Ranger District, in central Oregon, annually produced 86 million board feet of timber in the 1980’s. In 1992, two years after the spotted owl was declared endangered, this district produced only 100,000 board feet of timber. Timber production, in the Sweet Home Ranger District, was expected to increase to about 12.7 million board feet by 1997 as areas were released for logging. Willamette Industries in this period closed 5 mills resulting in the direct loss of 425 jobs (Schaleger). As more federal lands become closed to logging, pressure increases on state and private lands to make up for the shortfall in timber production.

On federal lands, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the USFWS, is designated to regulate, and implement, the Endangered Species Act (US Fish). On state and private lands this has fallen to the individual states to regulate. State regulation of logging on private lands has resulted in numerous lawsuits, because the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the taking of private property without just compensation. In March of 1997, the United States Supreme Court ruled that farmers in southern Oregon could bring legal action against the federal government for economic losses caused by implementation of the Endangered Species Act. In 1990, the State of Oregon prohibited Boise Cascade from logging on a parcel of land that it owned because there was a pair of spotted owls nesting on it. In April of 1997, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that Boise Cascade could seek compensation from the State of Oregon due to that prohibition (Schaleger). Consequently, Federal officials are worried that the state will relax enforcement of the Endangered Species Act to prevent any financial liability. Kurt Smitch of the USFWS says, "Our preference is to have the states implement regulations to protect the species. But if they do not, we have an obligation to do it ourselves." This puts the Fish and Wildlife Service in the impossible position of having to regulate private lands.

The Fish and Wildlife Service is part of the Department of the Interior. Its mission is to conserve, protect, and enhance the fish and wildlife, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people (US Fish). Part of the mission of the Interior Department is to regulate and promote the many uses of our lands, including logging. The promotion of logging on Federal lands is clashing with the Endangered Species Act. This is putting the various roles of the Interior Department in conflict with each other. At the same time, rulings of the United States Supreme Court have called into question implementation of the Endangered Species Act versus Fifth Amendment rights.

Donella Meadows in her essay, "Not Seeing the Forest for the Dollar Bills," says that "The Endangered Species Act should not take into account economic considerations" (549). How can we not take into account economic considerations when you look at just the effect on one area in Oregon? People are part of the equation when conflicts of this nature arise. It is up to us as a nation, through the legislative action of Congress and state legislatures, to seek a middle ground that balances economic development with preservation of the environment. With all the competing interests over the use of both public and private lands, as well as the involvement of the Supreme Court in deciding property issues, it is imperative that Congress revisit and clarify the Endangered Species Act.

Works Cited

Meadows, Donella. "Not Seeing the Forest for the Dollar Bills." Current Issues and Enduring Questions.

Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 1999. 548-549.

Schaleger, Ron. Sweet Home On-Line. 5 April 1999 <http://www.sweethome.or.us/

forest/owl/index.html#newlandgrab>.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 24 Mar. 1999 <http://www.fws.gov>.