expandyourbrain

learn stuff, review stuff, just stuff

Ethics and Workplace Rights

Warning: Please do not use my work and submit it as your own. Students have been caught plagiarizing from this site, and at least one university knows about this site due to that issue. This blog is not peer-reviewed, and thus is also not acceptable for scholarly research. Feel free to read the articles and papers here, but do your own research for your own schoolwork. Thank you!

I’m skipping a chapter that takes a historical look at the debate over women’s suffrage. Tonight’s chapter, then, is about the workplace and individual rights. Everything above “My Thoughts” comes from notes taken from the textbook, everything in green will be my personal commentary, and everything under “My Thoughts”… are my thoughts!

Once again, the textbook is:

Mosser, K. (2010). Ethics and Social Responsibility. (E. Evans, Ed.) Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/books/

The issue:

What legitimate restrictions an employer can put on a worker’s rights, and what limits there are to those conditions.

Argument for broad restriction of individual rights

The main job of a manager is to run a company smoothly and efficiently, create a return on investment, and create profit. A company that cannot create profit will not stay in business.  Anything that interferes with that job should be avoided by managers, or minimized as much as possible.

Employees have certain rights, guaranteed by the Constitution or by laws that cover both employees and employers. Employees cannot be expected to work where they are likely to be injured or killed. Employees cannot be expected to work overtime without compensation. Employees cannot be fired for refusing to break the law.

However, there are certain rights that may be restricted. A worker at KFC can have their free speech limited so that he cannot tell Church’s what the secret ingredients in the breading are. This information is called “proprietary information,” and consists of competitive advantages of one company over another. Federal agencies, like the FBI or CIA, can require secrecy from their agents. Airlines can require drug tests. School employees can be required to live in a specific area. Many corporations require employees to act in a manner that does not bring bad publicity to the employer. Obviously working in a place that requires such limits is voluntary. The employee does not have to accept the job, and if they cannot function under those requirements, they are free to leave. (Unless your employer is the Navy…)

“At will employees” may be fired without cause. If they are not working under written contract, or working for the government, they are typically “at will.” It is usually in the company’s best interest to keep workers satisfied, if not happy, to keep job satisfaction up, which keeps productivity up. Employees cannot be allowed to violate conditions of employment or prevent smooth operation of the company.

Example: Jim works for Random Work. He goes on his blog and rants about the crappy work conditions at Random Work, and publishes some critical letters in the paper. Now Random Work’s reputation is tarnished, and their competitors have a new weapon to use against them. Random Work’s profits fall, and Jim gets fired. Is that ok?

Jim was an “at will” employee, so termination doesn’t have to be justified. Even if it did, Jim was wrong to do damage to the company, especially how he did it. So which is more important? Jim’s right to free speech, or the company’s right to maintain a profit? Not only was the company damaged, but all the employees of that company and all the investors in that company were as well. Such restrictions are legitimate and justified to “protect the company’s reputation, profitability, and responsibility to stockholders. ”

Argument for narrow restriction of rights

Workers have rights guaranteed by the Constitution and by labor law. Those rights cannot be violated without proof that restrictions are absolutely necessary for the company to function.

There are still some legitimate restrictions. An employee has no right to divulge proprietary information to a competitor. National security and public safety are also concerns that a small number of workers may have to be restricted to protect. Pilots do not have the right to fly while impaired, so drug tests have been demonstrated to be legal in court. The burden of proof is on the employer to show a legitimate and substantial need for restriction of rights. If they cannot, all “at will” employees retain all rights guaranteed them by the Constitution and all relevant state and federal laws.

Example: Susan lives in a small town with few jobs. She is interviewed by a local nonprofit agency that promotes strict gun control. Susan’s family hunts regularly and owns several shotguns. The agency offers her a job, with the stipulation that she does not own guns, and that she disposes of any that she does own. The agency is worried about the image portrayed if a member does not live by the same lifestyle it is promoting. Can it demand Susan’s agreement?

Susan’s choice is between taking the job, but having what she sees as her 2nd amendment rights violated, or not taking the job and placing her finances in jeopardy. (But not the game show, because that would be awesome!) There is extra pressure on her because there are no jobs in a small community that is already struggling in the current economy.

This is a plausible reason for restriction of rights, even outside the workplace. However, there is worry that those conditions go farther than what is legitimate, and cannot be shown to lead to company damage.  In the current economy, the danger of companies overstepping their bounds is even higher, since companies know the likelihood (or lack thereof) an employee would be able to find another job. This fear of being unemployed for an extended amount of time may lead some employees to accepting heinous conditions just to maintain a steady paycheck. This could easily lead to abuse of the worker’s rights.

Applying Theories

In legalese, a company is considered a person. Thus, a corporation can be held up to “virtue ethics.” Virtue ethics holds the ideal virtuous person up as a role model for all others to be judged against (sort of like the Christians’ “What would Jesus do?”). So what is the ideal virtuous corporation?

The number one focus of any corporation is profitability. However, acknowledging this goal, it must meet the needs of its employees, stockholders, investors, the community, and any other support mechanisms. A virtuous company “lives” by a Golden Mean, a good balance between all its virtues. A “good” corporate citizen is generous and charitable, supporting charities and other philanthropic work, but cannot give away more than it earns. The company must maintain a balance between worker happiness and profitability. Pay must be competitive, or workers will leave. If pay is too high, it reduces profit. Rights are also in balance. They need to be fair to workers, but also minimize potential damage to the bottom line.

Companies should be honest, with both employees and the community. Lying, cheating and stealing are never acceptable, while too much honestly could lead to competitive advantages being squandered.

Virtue ethics: striking a balance between all virtues to be the best well-rounded person possible.

Deonotology is a Golden Rule school of thought. The fundamental purpose of any company, again, is to carry out its mission, whether for profit or non-profit. There are certain rules that must be followed in pursuit of this mission: treat employees, community, and even competitors with respect. Do not develop strategies or policies that you would determine to be unfair if they were used against you. If an employer wants to develop a set of rules, would he mind working under them as well? People who demand drug tests are typically willing to follow them, so they suit the Golden Rule.

How does the Golden Rule fit unions, specifically the requirement to join a union (or not join a union)? This demand could not be universalized (everyone has to join a union, or nobody can join a union), so it seems morally wrong to demand membership (or non membership) in a union, at which point the notion of a union is pointless.  It is also possible that the employers who force membership (or non-membership) would not be willing to work under those conditions, so it does not meet the Golden Rule test.

Therefore, a deontologist would determine that any restriction that cannot be universalized or conflicts with the Golden Rule is unfair, unjust, and immoral.

Some Conclusions

The virtue ethicist and deontologist don’t really disagree- they both agree that some restrictions are necessary to maintain competitive advantage over other corporations, and that the main goal in a company is to make profit. The argument comes from where along the slider a company has the right to limit individual rights.

Example: Random Arms gets most of its profits through government contracts, and has a close relationship with Senator Smith. Senator Smith is from the state where the corporate HQ is located. Senator Smith tries to reward Random Arms with government contracts whenever he can influence the outcome. The company and Senator are mutual beneficiaries of their relationship. Senator Smith is up for reelection, and the CEO of Random Arms is the director of his campaign. Anne works for Random Arms, and is a supporter of Senator Smith’s opponent. She contributes money and quite a lot of time, outside work, to the opponent’s campaign. What can the company do about this?

Can the CEO ask Anne to remove a political sticker from her cubicle? Can he ask her to remove her bumper sticker, since her car is in the company parking lot? When a company picnic/Senator Smith fundraiser is planned, attendance is $25, and clearly attendance is not required, but expected, should Anne refuse to attend even though she feels she will be passed up for promotion if she does?

My Thoughts

I must admit, I’m not really sure where the line is supposed to be drawn between the two arguments. Obviously it makes sense that companies should be able to protect their secrets. My default, as I’ve said before, is to lean towards more freedom, more individual rights, and less restriction, which to me is the common sense answer in most cases. I suppose I would need a particular example to really choose a side. For Anne, I think she should be able to express her political views as she wants to, within certain common sense limits. For example, when I was in the Navy, I was allowed to say that I support one candidate over another, however, I was not allowed to go on TV in my uniform and say the same thing, because it would appear as though the Navy was endorsing a particular candidate. We were not allowed to march in protests or anything else like that while in uniform, or really identify ourselves with the military. I think that makes sense. You shouldn’t shop in Target wearing your Wal-Mart greeter vest. I don’t see a problem with the bumper sticker or cubicle sticker because it is private or within the realm of the company itself. Outsiders don’t see her cubicle, and can’t see her disapproval. 

As for Susan (and the example about joining an animal rights group and having to give up eating meat), I would have to be in some pretty severe conditions to take a job that goes against what I believe. I wouldn’t take a job with Greenpeace, PETA, Planned Parenthood, or any anti-gun organizations, just because I know I wouldn’t be able to keep that job for long anyway. I’d be way too tempted to mouth off about my personal views, and the likelihood of being fired would go up daily. Don’t work for companies if you don’t agree with them. It is a recipe for personal disaster.

Advertisements

05/29/2011 Posted by | College Papers, Learning, Thinking | , , | 4 Comments

Ethics and Prayer in Public Schools

Warning: Please do not use my work and submit it as your own. Students have been caught plagiarizing from this site, and at least one university knows about this site due to that issue. This blog is not peer-reviewed, and thus is also not acceptable for scholarly research. Feel free to read the articles and papers here, but do your own research for your own schoolwork. Thank you!

Day Two of my ethics reading. I’ll present the arguments as they are explained in my textbook, and at the end, I’ll provide my personal thoughts on the matter. Interspersed are green words in parentheses that indicate my words, vice the words of the text. Again, the textbook I am taking notes from is as follows:

Mosser, K. (2010). Ethics and Social Responsibility. (E. Evans, Ed.) Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/books/

The issue:

Whether organized prayer should be allowed in public schools, and distinguish between allowing prayer and promoting prayer.

The argument for allowing prayer:

For a religious or spiritual person, the relationship between himself and God is “the most precious relationship of all.” To respect that relationship, our First Amendment prohibits any interference with religion. Prohibiting school prayer is prohibiting the free exercise of one’s religion. (First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”) It follows, then, that eliminating prayer from public schools is wrong and unconstitutional.

Many religious values, like honesty, charity, and nonviolent problem solving, are important to society, and public schools should reinforce those virtues. Reinforcing moral lessons can reduce teenage pregnancy, STDs, gang violence, and drug/alcohol use.

The argument is not to force a specific view (which would violate the 1st Amendment and the Establishment Clause), but provide voluntary prayer for those who want to participate. For example, the Golden Rule is found in many religions, in many cultures, and is fundamental to “good” society.

History and current practice are in line with this argument: for 200 years, public schools allowed voluntary prayer. Thomas Jefferson refers to the Creator in the Declaration of Independence (one of my personal, favorite arguments to bring up about whether this country was founded on Christian values). The Senate and the House both maintain a chaplain, who opens sessions with a prayer. Money says “in God we trust”, the Pledge of Allegiance says “one Nation, under God,” and American presidents usually end speeches with “God Bless America.” (Our graduation at boot camp and most major military ceremonies also opened with  “Let us pray,” where even if you were not religious, you were still to bow your head for the duration, due to being in military formation) Most (sane) people don’t see these as violations of the First Amendment.

Preventing prayer in public schools (or any other public place for that matter), is to require people to follow the dictates of the non-religious minority (over 70% of Americans claim to be religious). Short prayers at ceremonies or other large get-togethers (football games and assemblies) remind students of moral values and reflect the wishes of a large part of the student body in most public schools. To prevent it is against their wishes, the wishes of their parents, and the Constitution itself. Denying the opportunity for prayer prevents moral lessons from being reinforced in children who need it, ignores our history, and conflicts with a large majority of the population’s desires.

The argument against prayer in public schools:

The United States is very diverse in many ways, including religion. All Americans have a right to religious expression, or no expression for atheists. To impose prayer on those who do not pray is to violate their rights.

Prayer at a ceremony or game may seem innocent, but if the prayer specifies a particular belief of God, it does not fit all religions. On the other hand, if it is vague and general, it doesn’t really serve a purpose, and will still single out some students who do not share that view. If prayer is included at mandatory events, the prayer is not voluntary. Also, students are very much influenced by peer pressure, and may not bring up alternative views for fear of embarrassment. They would rather “belong” than leave a venue due to prayer, so the prayer is not truly voluntary.

Public schools should not impose specific religious values on students. Schools can teach the history of religion, the differences in religion, and its role in society, but may not endorse one over another. Our public school system is failing, and students are achieving less academically than students in other countries, so the time spent in prayer and specific religious viewpoints would be better spent on the educational mission.

Many parents prefer to leave specific religious and moral education off the curriculum. Many religious parents do not want religion taught in public school so that those ideas do not conflict with what they are teaching their children at home and in the church- where religious teachings are appropriate.

“The Constitution does not allow public schools to promote any specific religion or religious viewpoint.” Any prayer in public school would either violate this ideal, or be so vague it is pointless. No view can encompass all religions as well as atheists, and schools have more important things to spend time on. Many parents do not want their religious views conflicted at school, and prayer in public schools cannot be seen as voluntary. Therefore, prayer in public schools should be prohibited.

Application of Theories:

The utilitarian view is “do the greatest good for the greatest number,” but what is the greatest number?

There is a saying “As long as there are math tests, there will be prayer in school.” This says that individuals cannot be prevented from engaging in private prayer. Such prayer is voluntary. The Supreme Court has also ruled that students may organize voluntary religious clubs, which can include prayer and Bible study, at public schools, like any other club.

This is the difference between allowing prayer and promoting prayer.

Act Utilitarianism

In a given school, district, or community, it is likely that a majority of its members belong to a specific faith. The greatest good for the greatest number, then, would be to allow that majority to pray how they wish. To prevent this is to hold the majority hostage to the will of the minority. It is clear that the greatest good for the greatest number means allowing the majority to practice their faith the way they choose.

Rule Utilitarianism

Not only are the minority’s views being ignored, but many in the majority will be upset with the fact that the minority are not being accounted for. This brings down maximum happiness (or utility), so the greatest good for the greatest number would prevent organized prayer.

Some (Textbook) Conclusions:

Religion is very personal. It is often a cornerstone of a person’s understanding of himself. Because a person can define himself by his religion, that person may feel his rights are restricted when he is not free to express his beliefs when he desires to. It is unlikely, however, that all people, of all faiths, and non-faiths, will be happy with any outcome.

Thinking about the issue legally and generally, people are paying more attention to the “voluntary” part of prayer. Individuals cannot be prevented from praying in public schools. Religious clubs cannot be denied. These are both voluntary acts. However, school-sanctioned events, like football games and graduation, are usually seen as “inappropriate locations” for prayer, because it automatically means the school is endorsing that view. Insisting on general prayers tends to make the prayer pointless to those who feel strongly about their beliefs.

There is no answer that will please everyone, but the two words to really learn from this debate are “sensitivity” and “tolerance.”

What Would You Do?

“You are a high school principal, and some students want to organize a school club devoted to studying and discussing atheism. You are concerned that they may spend some of their time mocking the beliefs of other students. Some of the students in your school have already expressed to you their concern that such an officially recognized student group represents a view that many find offensive.

“Do you allow the students to organize the atheist club? What restrictions, if any, do you impose on what they can do and say? What do you say to parents who call to protest the existence of such a club?”

My thoughts:

When I was in school, we had thirty seconds of silence after the Pledge of Allegiance. You could pray, you could study, you could do whatever you wanted, as long as you were quiet. It was a time for reflection, and a pause in the beginning of a hectic day. There was a guy in my first period class who used to say the Pledge with “under Gods.” I think he did it as a joke, but I didn’t take offense to it. There were some who would refuse to say that line altogether. Now, there are some kids who don’t even want to stand or put their hands over their hearts. That’s a different issue for a different day though.

Of course, especially growing up, I didn’t consider myself religious. I knew the thirty seconds was “supposed” to be for prayer, but that didn’t mean I had to pray. I didn’t take offense to it either. Everybody, whether Christian, Muslim, or atheist, can take thirty seconds out of their day to think. I think this is a perfect way to satisfy most people.

I know the text is specifically talking about during ceremonies and such, but why can’t any prayer be replaced by a moment of silence? Those who wish to pray, can. Those who don’t, can just wait. It is respectful to those who wish to pray to stay silent. I think respect is a big piece of the puzzle that seems to be missing in our society today.

If everybody treated everybody else with the respect they expect, I think there would be fewer issues in this world. Christians, or more generally, religious people, are the majority, and for a reason. I am not saying that the rights of minorities should be ignored, but I do not believe that ninety-nine people should be denied their wishes because the one doesn’t like it. I don’t like the minority taking the majority hostage.

In this particular instance, I think a moment of silence is the “right” thing to do.

As for the atheist club, I don’t think it would be appropriate to prevent the club. As far as I am aware, all school-sanctioned clubs had to have a teacher present, though. If they had an instructor, they’d be allowed to have a club, just as a Christian group would, and that is exactly what I’d tell concerned parents. The instructor would be expected to maintain civility and respect in the club, just as any other club would be expected to do. I wouldn’t allow another group to be disrespectful of any other, so this group would be the same. Respect and civility towards all.

05/27/2011 Posted by | College Papers, Learning, Thinking | , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Ethics and the 2nd Amendment

Warning: Please do not use my work and submit it as your own. Students have been caught plagiarizing from this site, and at least one university knows about this site due to that issue. This blog is not peer-reviewed, and thus is also not acceptable for scholarly research. Feel free to read the articles and papers here, but do your own research for your own schoolwork. Thank you!

The next five weeks of my life will be spent in an Ethics class, and we will be swiftly covering many hot-button topics in politics. What better way to take notes for class and formulate my own ideas than by sharing with all of you?

The text is:

Mosser, K. (2010). Ethics and Social Responsibility. (E. Evans, Ed.) Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/books/

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (part of the Bill of Rights) reads: “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.” The odd capitalization and punctuation are in the original.

The argument against restrictions: 

The Constitution specifically says people have the right to “keep and bear Arms.” This means that there should be few restrictions on what is seen as a constitutionally protected right. We should look at restrictions to this Constitutional right the same way we look at restrictions to free speech, only needing to be limited to guarantee public safety. Just like freedom of speech, the only regulations should be those that have “overriding public interest,” explained to be for the good of the vast majority of the public. However, these restrictions should be “absolutely minimal” and “absolutely necessary.”

Beyond the Constitution, our history also gives good reason to have few restrictions on individuals’ rights to own guns. The Revolutionary War was won by farmers and other civilians who were comfortable enough around, and knowledgeable enough about, guns that they could wield them against the enemy.   We may not have to worry about another nation invading us (we hope), but what about home invaders?  Americans have the right to defend themselves and their families, as well as their homes.

In addition to self/home defense, many Americans shoot for sport. Target shooting, skeet shooting, hunting, etc., are all lawful ways to use guns. According to the text, Americans own an estimated 250,000,000 guns, and more than 25% of Americans live in a household that possesses a firearm. (My household has five.)

Most people agree about certain restrictions, such as prevention of gun ownership by convicted felons, and those with a documented history of criminal violence. Many will also agree that anyone with documented mental illness that may inhibit the ability to realize when gun use is in appropriate should not have access to deadly weapons. However, many people are wary of giving government too much control, and say that allowing restrictions today means allowing greater restrictions in the future.

Imposing “unjust” restrictions on law-abiding citizens is unconstitutional and only hurts the people who have lawful, legitimate, interest in gun ownership, whether for sport or self-defense. Criminals care about gun laws as much as they care about the other laws they are breaking.

The argument for restrictions:

Sixty-eight percent of the people murdered in America in 2005 were killed with guns. Thirteen people were killed at Columbine with guns. Thirty-two people were killed at Virginia Tech with (a?) gun. Ten people were killed by the DC snipers. Sixteen were killed in Dover, Arkansas. Thirteen were killed in Wilkes-Barre, PA. Eleven, including the killer, were killed in Geneva County, Alabama.

NY Times writer Bob Herbert says: “Since the assassinations of Senator Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1968, more than a  million Americans have been killed by guns in the U.S.. That’s more than the total number of U.S. combat deaths in all the wars in American history.”

There are many guns in the U.S., and they are easy to get. In some states, the minimum age is twelve for purchase of a firearm. Background checks and waiting periods don’t work as intended. Easy access to conceal-able weapons has led to a culture in the U.S. that leads the developed world in violent crime and murder. Reasonable restrictions, like substantial background checks, waiting periods, trigger locks, etc., as well as limitations on the kinds of weapons and ammunition available, are necessary to stop this assault. The 1980s and 90s saw an increase in controls on gun ownership, and a corresponding drop in violent crime.

In Miller v. United States (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment clearly means the right of well-regulated Militias, not individuals. (There is a later conflicting ruling as well.)

“Supporting substantial restrictions should not be regarded as an illegitimate attempt by an oppressive government to seize all guns.” Background checks, trigger locks, and limits on types of weapons and ammunition do not prevent law-abiding citizens from sport shooting, hunting, and self-defense. They do minimize access by criminals, the insane, and “others who should not have access to deadly weapons.”

The Theories:

Utilitarian view (Greatest Good for the Greatest Number):

A fundamental duty of a government is to maintain the security and safety of the governed. Potentially violent intruders and oppressive governments are both threats to that security. The “Greatest Good” is the feeling of security and confidence that is gained from the knowledge that they have a weapon to defend themselves with. Robbers face significantly more risk breaking into an armed home than an unarmed home. If a robber believes you may be armed, and pose a threat to him, he may rob a different house, or give up crime (though that is not incredibly likely). Thus, people with guns, who know how to use them, feel safer in their own homes. If criminals fear home-owners with guns, crime, theoretically, would go down because the benefits of the items stolen would not outweigh the risk of loss of life. Restricting weapons means the risk for robbers drops markedly, and crime would rise. Therefore, the “greatest good for the greatest number” would be minimal restrictions. Following that, restrictions must be proven to increase public safety and security, such as preventing actual criminals and mentally incapable people from owning guns.

The relativist view (people in different cultures view things differently, so what might be wrong to one group may be right to another):

In Nigeria and the Philippines, gun ownership is 1% and 4.5% respectively. In Switzerland (yeah, the “neutral” guys) it is 50%. The United States has the highest rate- 90 guns for every 100 people. Some cultures have few guns because they didn’t play an important part in that culture’s history. (Try taking a samurai sword from a Japanese guy, though… yikes!) Some cultures, like ours, have guns in an important part of our history, like the Revolution and Westward Expansion. Beyond saying “neither is right or wrong,” relativism is fairly useless in solving moral dilemmas.

(At this point, I am surprised that they don’t offer an example of a specific theory of ethics that would be for restrictions…)

Some conclusions:

When does one person’s right to possess weapons infringe on another person’s right to keep their children safe? Some restrictions are actually relatively popular- like those on fully automatic weaponry and “cop-killer” armor-piercing rounds. 

My thoughts:

When in doubt, I err on the side of less legislation, less restriction, less government, less interference, more personal responsibility. As a whole, I am against restrictions on gun ownership. I do not personally own a gun, but my father had them growing up, my husband owns several, and my grandfather had a case of hunting rifles in his den. I know how to shoot, and I have been to a gun range to practice on occasion. I think that first and foremost, to own a gun, people should know how to handle it. If I didn’t know how to use a gun, I wouldn’t pick it up (unless it was a life-or-death-armed-robbers-at-my-daughter’s-door sort of situation).

Education is one of the most important aspects of gun ownership. Simple things like always treating a gun like it is loaded, never pointing it at anything you don’t want to kill, and don’t shoot yourself cleaning it (you know who you are…). Obviously you should keep your firearms in a place where children cannot access them, preferably a safe or other secure location. However, this all falls under personal responsibility. If you need the government to tell you not to let your kids play with your guns, you probably shouldn’t have kids in the first place.

Also, just because some yuppie in a New York city apartment feels he doesn’t need a gun doesn’t mean the guy in Alaska or Montana who hunts for food, or doesn’t have a police officer within 15 minutes of his house, doesn’t need one. I do feel safer in my home because I know we have firearms. Guns are the only weapons in the world that favor the victim. It levels the playing field between invader and defender, and it may give someone pause before breaking into your home.

When we lived in Virginia, we lived in a not-so-great neighborhood. My husband used to go target shooting frequently with a rifle on his shoulder, two pistols, and two cases of ammunition. The neighborhood kids referred to him as “the sniper guy.” As soon as you entered the apartment, there were two human targets on the wall- one  a close range shotgun blast with the center torn out, the other a long-range rifle target with neat holes in center mass and the head. You can bet if someone was getting robbed in that neighborhood, it wasn’t going to be us.

I agree that people with violent crime or mental illness documented should not have firearms. I also agree that people should not have ready access to, say, bazookas. However, I do believe that you should be able to have a permit for pretty much any type of firearm, if your location supports it. I see no reason why you shouldn’t be able to go out to the middle of the desert and fire off an AK-47. What is it hurting? The dirt? Properly used, properly trained, firearms can be fun. That doesn’t mean killing people. One of my dad’s favorite arguments about gun control is, “It’s already illegal to kill people.” We don’t have to make it “more against the law” to kill people with guns.

WARNING: I found this picture while Googling gun images, and could not pass up the opportunity to spread it further… but if you have a weak stomach, just ate, or get easily disturbed, avert your gaze. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

05/26/2011 Posted by | College Papers, Learning, Thinking | , , , , , | 5 Comments