Sam Franks

English Final

Professor Brown

May 2, 2016

The End of the Line: Where have all the fish gone?

“How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when it is quite clearly Ocean”

           

-Arthur C. Clarke

One problem presently occurring across the globe at an alarming rate that  would be a great subject to protest is the issue of ocean overfishing. Overfishing is the exploitation of fish stocks at such a high ratio that the fish population can no longer sustain itself-which can lead to entire marine ecosystems collapsing. National Geographic sites that overfishing is distressing the delicate balance of the sea’s biologic system.A study of catch data on the National Geographic website published in 2006 in the journal Science grimly predicted that if fishing rates continue apace, all the world's fisheries will have collapsed by the year 2048 (National Geographic). Although no large-scale protests on this issue have yet to be created or organized, I believe that through a nation-wide act of a “fish strike,” citizens who want to take a stand against the devastating practice of overfishing can get the attention of the U.S. government to enact legislation to protect the fish populations. Large, profit-seeking commercial fleets need to stop their destructive tactics of collecting fish. This issue is widespread all over the world, but the United States is one of the largest consumers of the fishing industry, so I want to focus on the United States of America and the citizens within ournation who are consumers of fish. 

            While some might think of overfishing as a “modern concern,” it is actually not a new problem at all; in fact, humans have been taking more marine life from the oceans than are ecologically sustainable for hundreds of years (National Geographic). Around the(beginning, end middle, what?) 20^th century, efforts to increase the availability of protein-rich foods, like fish, led to the U.S. government launching a sizeable effort to increase fishing capacity. Soon after, large profit-seeking commercial fleets were born. They aggressively started to comb the world’s oceans in an attempt to extract large amounts of fish at a fast pace, so that the companies could keep up with the growing demand for “wide selections of fish species at affordable prices” (McDermott 1).  During the year of 1989, scientists and environmentalists started to realize the world had a problem. 90 million tons of catch were taken from the world’s oceans, and once prominent populations of fish, such as the Bluefin Tuna and Chilean Sea Bass, collapsed. The Census of Marine Life, during a decade-long international survey of ocean life in 2010, estimated that 90% of the big fish had disappeared from the world's oceans, victims primarily of excessive fishing (Levitt 1). 

            Overfishing our oceans is very problematic because depleting our oceans of it’s fish will not only lead to the collapse of entire fish populations, but also the collapse on the entire ocean’s ecological system.  Marine Science Today cites that “every single aquatic plant and animal has a role to play when it comes to balancing the ecology. In order to thrive, marine creatures require a certain kind of environment and nutrients, for which they may be dependent on other organisms” (Jetson 1).

Additionally, overfishing can wreak havoc on the marine ecology by completely disrupt the food chain. One example from Marine Science is in how herring is a vital prey species for cod. When herring are overfished, the cod population also suffers. If the food chain breaks at any level, it will have a domino effect on all living organisms in the chain (Jetson 1).

            The other dilemma with overfishing that leads to both the collapse of fish populations and other marine life and ecosystems that support them is the method of capturing fish called “trawling,” . Trawling is catching fish through a huge 60 meters-wide net that is dragged through the water, “which traps every creature that comes in it’s way” (Jetson 2). The size of the net’s mesh is exceedingly small, so young fish are captured in the net before they have the chance to pro-create. But besides fish, this net picks up coral, turtles, dolphins, manta rays, and other unwanted fish. The unwanted captured marine creatures are often not thrown back ito the ocean but are instead left to die on the deck of ships. Trawling is also causing irreversibly damage to coral reefs . d. Conservation Letters: A journal of the Society for Conservation Biology in 2010 pointed out that between the years of 2004-2008 upwards of one million sea turtles were estimated to have been killed as by catch in trawling nets (Wallace 131). Marine scientists have repeatedly tried to get the United States to agree to an international ban on trawling and a limit on fishing numbers, but our government has repeatedly failed to listen or comply. Fish species are on the verge of going extinct, and other marine life and coral reefs are in grave danger of forever disappearing from our oceans. What governments, fishing companies, and consumers don’t realize is that if we don’t reduce our catch of fish, we will no longer have any fish to catch and eat. Many scientists say most fish populations could be restored with aggressive fisheries management, better enforcement of laws governing catches, and additional laws protecting fish on the brink of endangerment or extinction (National Geographic). Yet, unsustainable harvesting still plagues the industry, which is why we must protest commercial fleets overfishing the worlds fisheries, and refuse to eat the fish they import into America.

            Looking back on successful protests in our nation’s history, I was very intrigued by the “Montgomery Bus Boycott” of the 1950’s. African Americans, whose demands for equal public transportation integration were not being met, decided to join together and non-violently boycott the bus system (History.com). The protest worked because African Americans represented at least 75% of Montgomery’s bus ridership. Alabama, due to great losses of public transportation revenue, was forced to adopt equal rights protection laws. By taking the Montgomery Bus Boycott as an example, and giving it a more “modern twist”, I can apply the same ideas and concepts to my own concept to protest of overfishing. To join United States citizens together, I would use a digitally mediated protest, which is a protest that uses social media to create a collective identity. Through Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and Snapchat, I would create my own trademark hashtag, #boycottfish. This hashtag would be used by anyone who wants to raise awareness through social media platforms on the issue of overfishing. This is also the hashtag that would be used to help spread the word about stopping the consumption of all fish products until the U.S. government agreed to ban the use of trawling nets, and put strict sanctions and regulations on commercial fleets. When the Montgomery Bus Boycott was occurring, townsfolk didn’t have access to the internet, so spreading the word and raising awareness was much more difficult. With a trademark hashtag, it will be much easier to spread the word on the consequences of overfishing. This protest largely uses the rhetoric strategy of logos, as I am attempting to spread the message that if we continue to overfish our seas, soon there will be no fish left for anyone. For future generations to have fish as a food source we need healthy oceans and a healthy fishing industry. Greenpeace reports that due to the fishing industries’ consumption rates, we have lost 80% of salmon and 95% of southern Bluefin and pacific Bluefin tuna (Greenpeace.org). Overfishing has tapped too far into the ocean’s vital resources, and we must do something to stop this problem before the world is faced with an unsustainable ecosystem or empty seas.

Using social media can also be considered a “pro movement,” as I am attempting to get the general public to accept a new idea that fishing our oceans to the point of depletion is a very serious matter. If I had never decided to become involved with animal rights, I would probably never even know that overfishing was even a problem over all the Earth. I honestly feel that most people are unaware of how substantial the negative effects of overfishing are both ecologically and environmentally. By getting the facts of this situation out to the general population through social media, I can help to bring the horrific and shocking effects to citizens on just how fast we are destroying our ocean and its resources.  After #boycottfish goes viral, the date would be set for when American citizens would stop buying fish all over the country. Like the Montgomery Boycott, Americans make up a large percentage of fish consumers.

 National Marine Fisheries Service estimated that in 2013, Americans consumed 4.8 billion pounds of seafood, or approximately 15.8 pounds of fish per person (NOAA Fisheries). You can only imagine what that would do to the fishing industry if all of a sudden almost 5 billion pounds of seafood stopped being consumed. While this protest may affect seafood restaurants and grocery stores who stock fresh seafood, it will most likely get the U.S. government to intervene sooner. If restaurants and grocery stores start to lose revenue and threaten to close down and go out of business, our government will become fearful of another economic recession, and they will appease food chains and protestors by creating bans on trawling and protocols on maintaining fisheries.

This protest will by no means be easy. If a large-scale participation effort of a “fish strike” can be achieved throughout the U.S., then this protest has a chance of seeing positive legislative change. Many fish and marine species are on the brink of going extinct, and we need laws and policies to go into effect immediately if we want to save our marine systems. Solving this problem will not be easy, but by standing together and raising awareness through boycotting the fishing industry and its products, we can hopefully come closer to restoring the ocean’s ecological balance. By cutting back on our harvesting of the worlds fish, we will be able to start a collective effort on replenishing our waters with fish again. We can repair the damage that has been done, but only if we stand together in unity and with strength in numbers demand social change. Although this protest is only in it’s inception stage, it has much potential to bring a transformation in the way that we currently fish. The facts don’t lie-if nothing is done we will be faced with empty oceans and future generations wondering: where have all the fish gone?

*Tiara B. was SUPER helpful to me for these last two papers! I owe her big time-she really helped me with organizing my thoughts and ideas, and also on coming up with a really good artifact and how to outline my artifact analysis. Thank you Tiara!

Explanation: I wrote the conclusion I did because I wanted to quickly go over the main points on why we need to protest overfishing (extinct species/ecosystems), and also that to protect fish for future generations we new need laws and policies. I wanted to emphasize standing together and joining together because I think that really creates a united identity. I feel like people are more willing to protest when there are many other people protesting or standing up to the same issue, so I think its important to mention that we can change overfishing, but only if we stand together. I also just quickly touched on logos because that was the rhetorical strategy I used in this paper.

Main Character Paragraph: Although no large-scale protests on this issue have ever been created or organized, I believe that through a nation-wide act of a “fish strike,” citizens who want to take a stand against the devastating practice of overfishing (This highlighted in yellow is the purpose of my paragraph, which is to talk about how creating a “fish strike” Is a way for citizens to stand up against overfishing) can get the attention of the U.S. government to enact legislation to protect the fish populations and large, profit-seeking commercial fleets to stop their destructive tactics of collecting fish. I understand that this issue is widespread all over the world, but America is one of the largest devourers in the fishing industry so I want to focus on just the United States of America and the citizens within that nation who are consumers of fish.  (The main characters of my protest are the U.S., citizens, the United States government, and commercial fishing fleets)

Works Cited

“Basic Questions about Aquaculture." National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. Office of Aquaculture, Jan. 2014.

Jetson, Krysten. "Impact of Overfishing On Human Lives." Marine Science Today.

Levitt, Tom. "Overfished and Under-protected: Oceans on the Brink of Catastrophic

Collapse." CNN.

"Montgomery Bus Boycott." History.com. A&E Television Networks, 01 Jan. 2010.

"Overfishing -- Pristine Seas -- National Geographic." National Geographic. 2012.

Wallace, Bryan. "Global Patterns of Marine Turtle Bycatch." Conservation Letters: A

Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology issue 3 volume 3 pg. 131, 2010.

Gun Rights Protest Final Draft

Henry Laks

Stephanie Brown

English 306

4/14/16  

                                                            The Gun Rights Protest

            Two opposing groups have formed around firearms in America, Gun Rights advocates and Gun Control advocates.  When America was founded and laws were established, there was one identity generally associated with firearms in America. It was defined by the bill of rights, “the right to bear arms”.  The Bill or Rights along with the Constitution are legal documents written to protect citizen’s freedom and liberty in America.  They were written to keep freedom from being lost to tyranny, like the tyranny of Britain which lead to the War for Independence.  The definition of tyranny is “Arbitrary or despotic exercise of power; the exercise of power over subjects and others with a rigor not authorized by law or justice, or not requisite for the purposes of government.  Hence tyranny is often synonymous with the cruelty and oppression,” (Webster).

Tyranny is what the founding fathers and the framers, the ones who actually wrote the constitution, were trying to avoid.  The constitution was written to limit the power of the government, so that it would not infringe upon the rights of individuals and their freedom in America (Bill of Rights institute). 

  Probably the largest underlying question of the debate is to determine what the authors of the second amendment actually meant.  From the gun rights perspective, the line of what is and what is not infringement of an individual’s rights is clearly stated by the second amendment.  They have “the right to bear arms”, thus government regulating firearms is an infringement.  On the other hand, Gun Control activists believe that guns are the cause of many crimes that could have been avoided through regulation.  For that reason, gun control advocates and gun rights advocates quarrel over what the constitution actually means.  This paper will primarily focus on the gun rights side of this argument, and how they have fought against gun control.  I will cover some historical background for the gun rights advocates which will include their first major disputes with gun control activists.  Some of the rhetorical strategies and language will also be discussed, and additionally, one of the largest gun protest items “assault rifles” will be analyzed.          

The Second Amendment is probably the most quoted of these rights by gun rights activists.   “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,” (U.S. Constitution. Amend. II, Sec. 8.).  It is a common misconception that people think that the second amendment says it gives Americans the right to bear arms.  However, the second amendment says “the right of the people… shall not be infringed,” (U.S. Constitution. Amend. II, Sec. 8.).  It does not say anything about giving anyone anything.  The people already have the natural ability to carry guns, and it shall not be infringed upon by the government.  The section of the second amendment which says “well-regulated militia” has unquestionably been an area of dispute. 

Today the meaning of those words “well-regulated” have changed over time from what it originally meant.  If that amendment was written today and enacted, it would be assumed that the government is responsible for keeping the militia regulated.  Back when the second amendment was written, well-regulated meant to keep things in proper working order the phrase had nothing to do with government (Halonen).  The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to limit the government’s power and in this case, it was to restrict the government from regulating firearms. Therefore, the words well-regulated militia refers to self-organized groups of armed American citizens.    

When you look at history from 1791, when Bill of Rights was created, America did not have any gun control laws which effected free citizens until the year of 1934.  Before 1934, gun control laws were passed in some states which prohibited the enslaved black population from carrying firearms.  The first gun control law was enacted in Louisiana 1751, before America was an independent country; It kept any probable weapon out of the hands of black slaves especially firearms (Cramer).  Gun control laws started from the enslaved population, but eventually spread to the free citizens, as well.  The prohibition, which lasted from 1920-1933, caused a substantial amount of criminal activity, which resulted in the passing of the 1934 National Firearms Act (Bureau of Alcohol…National Firearms Act).  The NFA put a $200 tax on NFA firearms for their transfer and creation.  Congress enacted the NFA to exercise their power to tax and to stop transactions which occurred with NFA firearms (Bureau of Alcohol…National Firearms Act). The 1934 NFA was soon followed by the 1968 Act.   

One of the strongest pieces of gun control legislation the Gun Control Act of 1968 is still active today.  What got this law passed was the determination to stop assassinations.  Just before the law had been passed the following assassinations occurred, John F. Kennedy, Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King (Bureau of Alcohol…Gun Control Act).  The law was emplaced to help prevent firearms, ammo, and other dangerous devices such as explosives from getting into the hands of criminals (Bureau of Alcohol…Gun Control Act).  Before this law was enacted the most they had done was require dealers to record weapon purchases.  This is the first big legal effort to stop firearm violence through regulation.  Fully automatic rifles were defined in the Title II of Gun Control Act of 1968 (Bureau of Alcohol…National Firearms Act).  The Title II Act is basically an extension and correction of the 1968 Gun Control Act.  A few years later, the 1986 Firearm Owner’s Protection Act defined what a silencer is and the parts which constitute a silencer.  The act also prohibited machineguns from being lawfully possessed after the date of May 19, 1986.  A machinegun is a fully automatic weapon.  

The Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is a much more recent big gun control law which passed, but is no longer active.  Jeffrey Roth and Christopher S. Koper wrote a thorough evaluation of this act and how it impacted crime.  They nicely sum up what the act did when it was enacted.  “The Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 bans a group of military-style semiautomatic firearms (i.e., assault weapons) and ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds,” (Koper, Christopher and Jeffrey A. Roth).  The 1944 Act caused a lot of controversy between the two groups, because many assault rifles operate in the same manner as many non-tactical semi-auto rifles do.  However, assault weapons have detachable magazines and are capable of holding larger magazines.  The detachable magazines enable them to hold more bullets and to be reloaded faster, than semi-auto rifles which don’t have detachable magazines (Koper, Christopher and Jeffrey A. Roth).  The 1994 Act banned civilian assault weapons which basically are semi-auto rifles or with modifications.   They can appear to be almost identical to their military counterparts which are fully-automatic. 

              The distinction between a semi-auto versus a full-auto is extremely important.  Roth and Koper give a wonderful definition between the two.  “A semiautomatic weapon fires one bullet for each squeeze of the trigger. After each shot, the gun automatically loads the next bullet and cocks itself for refiring, thereby permitting a somewhat faster rate of fire relative to non-automatic firearms. Semi-automatics are not to be confused with fully automatic weapons (i.e., machine guns), which fire continuously as long as the trigger is held down,” (Koper, Christopher and Jeffrey A. Roth).

These gun control laws and gun rights laws are what the gun debate’s foundation is constructed around.  Understanding them is essential to comprehending what currently is being debated by both sides.  As you have seen gun control legislation is approved when crime involving guns is high; the NFA act and the 1986 act are great examples of that.  The second amendment and its advocates only allow for so much regulation.  When acts such as the assault weapons ban are enacted and don’t have a noticeable effect, they don’t stay around for long.  Since crime statistics are always fluctuating there is not an automatic all out winner to the debate.  For this next portion the paper will focus on the rhetoric used by the gun rights activists to counteract gun control advocate rhetoric.  

                                          Rhetorical Positioning in the Gun Debate

            The Gun Control advocates can be categorized into many different groups, because there are many different reasons why Gun Control advocates want gun regulation.  Gun Rights advocates generally can be categorized into one group they all seem to think similarly and in agreement.  They all generally have firearms for one of the three reasons: self-defense, target shooting, or hunting (Agresti and Smith).  Having a collective identity is one way the gun rights advocates strongly hold their ground, and they have done it effectively.  The question of the Gun Debate is whether or not the gun control legislation has helped to reduce crimes. As America has had population growth it has had an increase of violence, crimes, and an increase in shootings.  Gun rights advocates think that gun control is the reason why there is more crime, and gun control advocates think there should be much stricter gun control to stop the violence in our country.  Recently with in the past decade, well recognized studies have been released showing that gun control is not helping reduce crime.  With these new studies Gun Rights activists are gaining the upper hand in the gun debate.  This paper will point out some significant uses of rhetorical mostly how logos is used by the gun rights group to combat the gun control group’s use of pathos.   

            A rather famous argument is the “more guns cause more crime,” (Cook, James and Kristin A. Goss).  Most criminals don’t purchase guns from a dealer instead they borrow them from friends and family, buy them from a black market dealer, or obtain them through stealing.  Less than 20 % of caught prisoners admit to buying a firearm from a store (Cook, James and Kristin A. Goss).  In America it is estimated that we have in between 270 million and 310 million civilian firearms (Gun Policy.org Civilian guns).  That means we currently have more guns per capita than any other country in the world.  In an environment where guns are easier to come by, a criminal can get one if he wants one.  From that point of view, it would take banning guns and confiscating them altogether to get rid gun crimes, and even if they did somehow obtain all firearms, the weapons used in crime would just change form.  That alone will not stop crime, because if guns are not available and someone “needs to be killed”, the instigators of the crime will improvise and use a knife or another suitable weapon instead.  America will never get rid of its guns unless gun rights activists decide to stop protesting.

             Pro-gun control advocates like to point out that “Legally owned guns are frequently stolen and used by criminals” (Gun Control procon.org).  Gun rights groups point out that “Gun control laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws” (Gun control procon.org).  This goes back to the previous argument if a criminal has the determination to break the law he will do it.  If he isn’t supposed to have a gun that will not keep him from getting one.  If a person is legally prohibited from buying firearms at a store he can buy one off the black-market.  With our, quantity of firearms there will always be someone willing to sell firearms illegally for the right money.  On the flipside, gun control laws do prevent law abiding citizens from buying firearms.  John R. Lott, Jr. PhD writer of “More Guns Less Crime” says, 

"The problem with such laws is that they take away guns from law-abiding citizens, while would-be criminals ignore them” (Lott, John: gun control misfires).

Assault rifles have a rather provoking name considering they are simply semi- automatic rifles.  The name is a clever move by gun control advocates using pathos is to make them sound more dangerous.  The name “assault rifle” projects the image of crime on tactical weapons.  The assault rifle’s similarity in appearance to its prohibited fully automatic big brother the “machinegun” is often a point of confusion.  Despite any confusion, an assault is a very violent physical crime punishable by law.  “So-called "Assault weapons" are more often than not less powerful than other hunting rifles. The term "assault weapon" was conjured up by anti-gun legislators to scare voters into thinking these firearms are something out of a horror movie,” (NSSF).

   A popular gun’s right phrase is “Guns don't kill people, people kill people”.    This rhetoric works quite well with logos, because it emphasizes that guns cannot fire by themselves, just as much as a knife cannot stab someone by itself.  This phrase draws the negative attention from the guns to the people actually committing the violence.  It’s observes the problem that needs the most attention.  This rhetoric could still be stronger if it used the word murder rather than kill in the phrase.  Murdering is a crime but killing is not necessarily against the law.  If a man assaults a woman in a parking lot and she kills him out of self-defense, with a gun, that is categorized as killing and its legal.

Jeffrey Snyder wrote an essay on America and how its filled with cowards.  One strong part of his message is the power and responsibility of protecting yourself.  “Is your life worth protecting? If so, whose responsibility is it to protect it?  If you believe that it is the police’s, not only are you wrong-since courts universally rule that they have no obligation to do so-but you face some difficult moral quandaries.  How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself?” (Snyder, Jeffrey).  Snyder represents a large portion of gun rights activists who own guns for self-defense.  If people aren’t willing to protect themselves who will protect them in a bad situation?  Like Snyder points out police can’t always save the day, but you can take the responsibility given to you as a free American and protect yourself with “the great equalizer”.  The gun, the tool that can even the odds when the enemy has the advantage.    

                                                Assault Rifles a Heavily Debated Item

            One of the largest gun controversies in the gun debate is assault weapons, and within that argument “assault rifles” are the most hotly debated popular weapon classification.    Gun rights activists think assault weapons should be legal, because of their effectiveness for self-defense and their adaptability which allows it to be used in multiple ways.  “Assault rifles” get a lot of attention because of their appearance, tactical performance, detachable magazines, and misconceptions of their functionality as a firearm.  This paper is primarily focusing on the gun rights identity, as a result I will pay more attention to the gun rights side of this protest artifact and how they fought against the suggested bans on these weapons.

Many people ask the question of what makes assault rifles so special.  Assault rifles are gun manufactures clever scheme to bypass the laws and restrictions on machineguns.  Assault rifles are an American citizen’s legal alternative to a machinegun.  The Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986 made the possession of burst fires and fully automatic rifles illegal, with the exception of ones made before May 1986 (Bureau…Gun Control Act).  However, law abiding citizens that pass an extensive background check can obtain fully automatic firearms after paying a Special Occupation Tax.   By paying the tax and filling out some paper work, you become legally recognized as a Class 3 weapons holder (NFA Class III).  The process for getting a fully automatic machinegun is more tedious than buying a civilian firearm that does not fall under class 3/title 2 firearm.  For that reason, gun manufacturers started making semi-auto civilian versions of the military’s automatic rifles.

When you compare a civilian assault rifle to a military assault rifle they look identical that explains a lot, because as mentioned earlier there is a lot of confusion surrounding assault rifles because of their appearance.  The picture to the right is a picture of the military’s M4A1 and civilians AR15.  Both guns have a similar external frame, and they shoot the same rounds.  The civilian rifle the AR15 is, according to the 1986 Act, fitted with more restrictive parts than the military m4.  The AR15 is a semiautomatic rifle, and the m4, depending on the model, is either a burst-fire or a fully automatic rifle.  Semi-automatic weapons can fire one shot as quickly as the finger can pull the trigger.  Burst fire weapons shoot a small group of two to three bullets for every pull of the trigger.  A fully automatic rifle can fire many rounds with one pull of the trigger.  That can be easily confused with their appearance and false labels put on the assault rifles.                             

In 1994 the assault weapons ban was enacted.  This legislation banned the possession, transfer, and manufacturing of semi-auto civilian assault rifles (Koper, Christopher S. and Jeffrey A. Roth).  Just to clarify this ban not only prohibited assault rifles, but it also included assault pistols too.  This ban prohibited any weapons specified as assault weapons “that appear to be useful for the military or criminal actions,” (Koper, Christopher S. and Jeffrey A. Roth). It also banned guns that had two or more military-style features.  The military style features give assault rifles and weapons the capability to use equipment that other guns need modification to use.   The ban also included prohibition of large capacity magazines or contraptions that function as magazines which hold more than 10 rounds that can be attached to semiautomatic firearms. “(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device,” (Bill Text103rd Congress).  An exception to this ban was magazines made before on the date of the bill, and this ban did not prohibit semi-auto weapons with internal magazines and semi-autos only capable of holding 5 round detachable magazines (Koper and Roth). Large magazines are certainly one of the most important features of assault weapons.

As you can imagine the ban was huge step for the gun control advocates.  A decade before the ban a number of publicized shootings occurred with an assault weapons equipped with large magazines.  That really helped to increase the support for an assault rifle ban.  The logic behind this ban was the presumption that assault weapons with large clips are capable of firing more rounds at a faster rate which increases the probability that criminals can wound more people during a shooting rampage (Koper and Roth).  The Assault weapons ban lasted until 2004, when the ban expired under the Bush administration.

Since the expiration of the 1994 Assault weapons ban a number of politicians have tried to reinstate a new more restrictive ban.  All attempts so far under Obama’s administration have been unsuccessful.  One reason these bans have not been successful is that the ban did not seem to have any noticeable effect on crimes (Koper and Roth).  Despite the failures to get another Act passed that will prohibit assault rifles, the gun control advocates will not give up. 

Today one major misconceptions surrounding assault rifles and weapons is some variation of, “Semi-automatic ‘assault weapons’ are high-powered guns that are meant for war,” (Background Information: NSSF).  Gun rights activists like to counter this by saying assault weapons and rifles in most cases use much smaller rounds than commonly used hunting calibers.  For an instance, assault rifles are chambered in many different calibers, but by far the most popular is the 223. Aka “5.56 AR”.  It is a powerful round, but it’s not as large as the extremely popular 308. hunting round in its power and mass. According to a gun rights advocate, the .223 is good for small and medium game, but it’s not a big round, some states don’t allow its use for large game (Rifle Bullet/Cartridge Guide).  The gun control advocates are right the 223. round was made for the military, but there are other rounds much bigger and even more deadly such as the 30-06 (which is even larger than the .308); it’s the legendary World War II, M1 Garand caliber now used in large game hunting rifles.  Gun rights activists say that just because the assault rifle body and bullets were made for the military, it doesn’t mean it should be kept away from citizens. 

            From my general observation, gun rights advocates like assault rifles for a few different reasons.  They think that assault rifles are very effective for self-defense situations with all of the equipable gadgets that can be mounted on them.  Some gun rights activists simply think they are cool firearms, consequently they should own one. “Remember that you have endless upgrading possibilities so, in time, you can actually own a pretty bad ass rifle,” (David Dawson).  This quote is from an article written by Dawson who is a great example of a gun advocate who loves assault rifles.  In his article he says he likes assault rifles for the protection they can provide, and because all the attachments make it “pretty bad ass”.  Another reason gun advocates love assault rifles is they are good all-around firearms that can be used for certain types of hunting, and last but not least they shoot cheap ammo making them economical for plinking.  Mark Kenyon hates the “demonization” of assault rifles, and to address this in his article he says, “They ask us, why do you need an “assault weapon”? Well let me count the ways …,” (Kenyon).  The five reasons he lists are as follows: predator hunting, deer hunting, self-defense, target shooting, and because it’s my right.  Again we see a similar theme with claiming rights, hunting, and self-defense.              

The debate over assault rifles is very interesting considering all of the elements which make it more complicated, and it is heavily influenced by the larger debate of firearms as a whole.  The civilian assault rifle is basically an identical replica of a military firearm, but the way in which the two types of rifles function is different but comparable enough to stimulate a debate that has lasted for many years.  Right now the verdict on the table, at least from the government’s view, is that no substantial evidence that assault rifles are increasing crime has been presented, therefore why keep from the citizens?  This is where it ties into the larger debate over firearms as a whole.  Right now the gun debate seems to be at a standstill, because neither side has conclusive evidence that will completely end the debate.  However, that could change at any moment if studies come out showing that a group of shootings involved assault rifles, or that a large number of crimes could have been prevented if there was more regulation.  Likewise, more studies could come out that show guns in the hands of civilians is reducing crime.  What happens to firearms in America all has to do with: what the Americans want, how armed people conduct themselves, how the studies and statistical representations influence Americans, and how the government authorities react by enforcing gun control or guns right legislation.

                                                  Cited Sources Page

Agresti, James D. and Reid K. Smith. "Gun Control – Just Facts." Gun Control – Just Facts. Just Facts, 13 Sept. 2010. Web. 29 Apr. 2016. <http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp>.

Bill of Rights Institute. "Bill of Rights of the United States of America (1791)." Bill of Rights Institute. Bill of Rights Institute, n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2016. <http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/>.

"Bill Text103rd Congress (1993-1994) H.R.3355.ENR." Bill Text. U.S. Government, n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2016. <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c103%3A1%3A.%2Ftemp%2F~c10360Bhaq%3Ae650830%3A>.

"Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives." Gun Control Act. ATF, n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2016. <https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/gun-control-act>.

"Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives." National Firearms Act.  ATF, n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2016. <https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act>.

"Background Information on So-Called 'Assault Weapons'" National Shooting Sports Foundation. NSSF, n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2016. <http://www.nssf.org/factsheets/semi-auto.cfm>.

Cook, James and Kristin A. Goss. The Gun Debate, What Everyone Needs to Know. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Print.

Cramer, Clayton E. "The Racist Roots of Gun Control." The Racist Roots of Gun Control. Greenwood/Praeger Press, n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2016. <https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html>.

David Dawson. "Best Assault Rifle to Have In A Survival Situation. “Survival Mastery. Survival Mastery, n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2016. <http://survival-mastery.com/diy/weapons/best-assault-rifle.html>.

Dizard, Muth, and Stephen Andrews. Guns in America, A Reader. New York, New York University Press, 1999. Print.

Halonen, Brian T. "Meaning of the Phrase." "well-regulated" Constitution Society, n.d. Web. 30 Apr. 2016. <http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm>.

Hill, Cindy. “Guns Are the Tools by Which We Our Liberty”. Guns in America, A Reader. Ed. Dizard, Muth, and Stephen Andrews.  New York, New York University Press, 1999. 388-389. Print.

Kenyon, Mark. "5 Reasonable Reasons to Own an "Assault Weapon” “Wired To Hunt 5 Reasonable Reasons To Own An Assault Weapon Comments. Wired Hunt, 16 Jan. 2013. Web. 28 Apr. 2016. <http://wiredtohunt.com/2013/01/16/5-reasonable-reasons-to-own-an-assault-weapon/>.

Koper, Christopher S. and Jeffrey A. Roth.  “The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban on Gun Violence Outcomes: An Assessment of Multiple Outcome Measures and Some Lessons for Policy Evaluation”.  Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2001. PDF. 

Lott, John R. “Does Allowing Law Abiding Citizens to Carry Concealed Handguns Save Lives?”.  Guns in America, A Reader. Ed. Dizard, Muth, and Stephen Andrews.  New York, New York University Press, 1999. 322-330. Print.

Lott, John R. "Gun Control Misfires in Europe." WSJ. Wall Street Journal, 30 Apr. 2002. Web. 11 Apr. 2016. <http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1020116142169084480>.

"NFA Class III." Old Glory Guns Ammo RSS. Old Glory Guns and Ammo, n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2016. <http://www.oldglorygunsandammo.com/nfa-class-iii-weapons/>.

Snyder, Jeffrey. “A Nation of Cowards”. Guns in America, A Reader. Ed. Dizard, Muth, and Stephen Andrews.  New York, New York University Press, 1999. 182-193. Print.

Webster, Noah. Noah Webster Dictionary 1828. 1st ed. Vol. 1. New York: S. Converse, 1812. Print.

U.S. Constitution. Amend. II, Sec. 8.