Should Teachers Be Armed?

On December 14, 2012, 20-year-old Adam Lanza shot and killed twenty children and six adult staff members in a mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. This was one of the biggest mass murders in history and there has been much controversy over it. Mainly over whether or not teachers should be armed in schools. Some say that not as many people would have died at Sandy Hook Elementary if the teachers were armed. They think that if they can protect themselves they can fight back. Others disagree. They think that guns in schools are too dangerous and unnessesary. I think that if guns can save lives then let them.
        The article "Every Teacher in America Should Have a Gun" by Steve Siebold takes a very strong opinion. Siebold strongly thinks that teachers should carry guns (as seen in the title.) He says: 'How many more innocent children need to die before we wake up and prepare our teachers to fight back?'. He believes that we are putting up our children for slaughter by not arming our school staff. According to the article in 1997 there was a shooting where the assistant principle had a gun. The staff held the shooter at gunpoint until the police arrived and this, he claims, saved many lives. Currently many states have approved the law to let teachers carry guns in school.
        Steve Siebold does a great job of convincing you that guns in schools are good. He makes you feel guilty if you say there shouldn't be guns. For example, he brings up Victoria Soto who was a teacher at Sandy Hook who got shot and killed protecting her students. Siebold says that she might still be alive if she was armed and able to defend herself. He also makes a point of recognizing another shooting where the staff did have a gun and held the killer captive till safety. According to the article this 'most probably prevented more people from being killed.' The author wants you to agree with his views on the matter and uses evidence and facts to get what he wants.
        This article definitely changed my views. I wasn't so informed on the matter and didn't really have an opinion. However, now i think that guns should be allowed in schools. I think the author got me when he talked about the two different shootings and how one of them had a gun, and how much that helped. If it could even save one life I am in. I am not a violent person and I haei the fact of guns being in a learning place with children. But I believe that it will truly help. Safety should be the number one priority at schools and if that means fighting back and protecting kids with a gun then so be it. I loved how the author ened the article. He said : 'In a perfect world we wouldn't need to take such measures. But until that happens, critical thinking suggests that we all exercise our second amendment rights, arm our teachers and school officials to ensure the safety of our children.'

Source:  Siebold, Steve. "Every Teacher in America Should Have a Gun." The Huffington Post.                        TheHuffingtonPost.com, 22 Aug. 2013. Web. 02 Feb. 2014.
'

Is Power Good?

        In many science-fiction and fantasy books power is one of the major issues. The whole plot is usually based around who is in charge and how people fight to change that. The Mortal Instruments series by Cassandra Claire is no exception. Power plays an incredible role in these books and everything that the characters do, is somewhat related to it. Power is a dangerous thing and I think how they portray it in books conveys a very striking message.

        The first thing I noticed is that many different things fuel power. For example love. To love someone is to give them the power to hurt you. Also loving someone drives you to do crazy things for them. For example in The Mortal Instruments Clary loves Jace so much that he has the power to hurt her and when someone takes Jace away from her they captured that power creating destruction and hurt. I also noticed that debt fuels power, especially in books. When the characters owe each other their lives they give the other person power as a sort of way to feel like you are even. The last thing that I noticed fuel power in my book was resisting the power. When you resist the power you turn the tables. Now the person who used to be in power wants you to do something and you have the power to refuse. For example, Maia and Jordan in my book. After Jordan told Maia he loved her he gave her power not only because of love but he gave her the power to refuse him.

        To keep and sustain power I noticed that you cant be weak, you have to be totally in control. Showing weakness gives the other person power. In my book there is a scene where the vampire leader wants something from Simon. Technically Simon has the power to refuse but since Simon is such a meek person and Rapheal has such confidenece he seems like the one in power. In another scene I noticed how merciless and almost unfeeling you have to be. Jace couldn't bring him self to kill his father so he got killed. If you have power you have to be confident in it or it will be snatched away.

        After looking over my inquiries and answers I noticed that power has a huge impact on the story and characters and that it is a very dangerous thing. I notcied that power comes along with your personality and to keep power you have to have a very strong personality. This got me thinking; is it better to have a strong, unfeeling personality and be able to keep power or be more loving but give power to others and possibly put yourself in danger? Also how does this reflect on out world? Are the people in power all cruel and unfeeling and if so maybe these books are trying to tell us something. That instead of focusing on power and control we should just start focusing on making the world a better place.

there is no line at all: a close reading of 'Fox'

          Fox  is a story with many messages and themes woven into it. I looked closely at the word choice in the book and made some inferences about the characters and the themes. I mostly notice the differences in the character's personality and how that made them react to things. I noticed many things about the fine line between good and bad and how there isn't really a line at all. Fox, the character, made me think that there is really no good or bad and that humans are just characteristics and emotions layered on each other to create a complex being. Fox is a story about pain and dealing with it and that even if there is no good and bad there is always a right thing to do.
          First of all I noticed the words that describe each character and how they were different. The words that were related to dog were tend, offer, gentle, kind. This automatically makes the reader think that the dog is sweet and kind and good. However I looked deeper is also could be a weakness of the dog because he is naïve and it's too sweet and kind and too trusting so he might get hurt. The words that were related Fox were silent, ash, burnt. This gives you a very negative feeling about Fox however when I went deeper I thought about how these words aren't Fox but their what it became of him and they changed him.  Through hurt and being hurt he became cold. This relates to what I was saying about there being no good and bad. Sweet, kind people can be turned cruel through hurt and evil.
          As I thought more about the differences between dog and fox I realized something; both animals had to deal with the forest fire and probably had other troubles in the past. However dog trys to see life in a good way. He tried to see the bright side and try to get Magpie to see that too. He tried to make the best of the situation even though he had one eye. Fox on the other hand dealt with his losses by turning cruel and taking it out on others. He thought that if he could make others feel that he felt then his pain would go away but that wasn't true. This really shows how different people deal with loss and that one actually's better. Fox was a pessimist he didn't look on the bright side like dog and just made everything worse. Dog is an optimist and people like dog I can make the world a better place.
          In conclusion Fox and the story about what loss and pain can do to you and how it can do different things to different people. I think, sad as it is, that Fox will change dog. I think that when Magpie gets back, Dog will be hardened and not as naïve. As a closing thought I think the author meant to show fox the character as a representation of the forest fire. He uses words to describe Fox like tongue of fire, flickers, and scorches. What Fox does to magpie and dog is very similar to the forest fires well. He breaks them and leaves them in his wake changed and hurt. At the very end of the book is a line that says: "she couldn't tell if it was a scream of triumph or of despair."I think it was little bit of both I think that Fox was confused and hurt and made others feel the same so he was triumphant but still he did not feel happy therefore he was in despair.  Let this be a lesson if you were hurt seeking out to hurt others is not the answer but seeking love from others is you will not gain anything and you will not be happier if you destroy others as others have destroyed you.

The Best Books I've Read In 2013

     I read a lot of great books in 2013. I think it was a year that I really matured as a reader. I don't actually love to read (don't hate me Ms.Warren) but over the course of last year I found some amazing life-changing books that made me like reading more. I have many books that I would like to address but overall these were my favorite books of 2013. 
     This series became my second favorite series (after Harry Potter of course) ever. The Divergent series by Veronica Roth. And I know this is three books but I wanted to focus on the first and last. The first book was just one of these amazing books that you couldn't stop reading. It captured you with a thrilling plotline taking place in a dystopian world. Any book that starts with a brilliant idea Already has a strong foundation to build off of. Then it depends if the writer is good. For example Harry Potter was an entrancing book that you would want to read because of just the idea alone. I think that because JK Rowling was a great writer it made the books a hit. However the Twilight Saga, which also had a good idea, didn't have such a great writer in my opinion. This is why that series got more bad reviews and ridicule. Divergent was a book that I couldn't put down and I love it so much.
     Allegiant, the last book, was different. The only part that really spoke to me was the end SPOILER ALERT --> when Tris dies. This particular scene was so captivating and strong that I reread it over five times. It made me think so much about life and death. It made me think about what it would be like to be dying and what Tris might have felt leaving everything she loved behind yet she was so peaceful. And then in the aftermath of her death I thought about Tobias and how hard it would be to lose someone you love like that. I thought about all the people that I had lost and every time I think of them it feels as though I can't go on and that my world is coming down around me. I think about how death is so unfair yet it's placed with such precision that there's no mistake and that what happened was meant to happen. Over the course of three books you get to know Tris so well as a character that you feel as if one of your friends had died. As I read this scene it caused so much emotion that I was crying. I think it is the most powerful scene that I have ever read.
     Another book that brought tears to my eyes was The Fault In Our Stars by John Green. This book showed me a side of the world that I never saw before. The views that it put out about living and dying and treasuring life and loved ones really changed me. My grandfather died from cancer when I was nine. He was the first person I have ever lost and I hated it. The fault in our stars portrays death as something to accept. And instead of fearing it to come to terms with it and make sure you live life to the fullest. This book really changed my perspective about the world and really helped me cope with the losses that I'm still facing and will continue to face.
     Out of all the books I've read in 2013 these are the ones that spoke to me the most and changed me as a person. They helped me see the light in life as books can. They made me appreciate literature more, as I said before I'm not a fan of reading. I want to continue reading books like these that can change the way I see things. The world is beautiful you just have to look.

What Opinions About Goverment Are Books Giving To Teens

      As children become teens and then adults they need to understand the world around them and government is a huge part of that. How they were brought up will have the biggest effect on their decisions and opinions but what they hear and read will have some effect as well. Therefore it is important to know how authors are portraying the government and people in power.

      In the book Allegiant by Veronica Roth I've noticed that the power keeps shifting. Uprising after uprising occurs. Once the people who rebelled get into power there is a rebellion against them. They can never settle for a leader or even a democracy. The people who are in power usually have a dark secret or an alternate motive for good doing. This is what causes the uprisings. Is this a good message to teach children. That first of all the government has secret plots and isn't trust worthy. And secondly that rising up (and usually causing a war) is the answer. This isnt just in Allegiant. Many science fiction books portray a crooked dystopian society that needs fixing. And the reason it is so disfunctional is because of the people running it.

      I also noticed that the people in charge were portrayed as cruel and violent. In Allegiant when soldiers from the government go to the corrupt poor areas the people are afraid of them and their guns. However in that pacticular scene from the book their is also the opinion of the soldiers. To them the people are the violent ones. However you as a reader dont take the soldiers side because they think that they are better than the poor citizens.they think they are scum. Does that show that the government doesn't care for the people? This book doesn't seem like a government promoting book. You could spin it and take the side of the soldiers if you really wanted to but the way it's written doesn't make you want to. The main characters are against the power figures so that makes you want to be too.

      Basically the people in power are always the villian. Being portrayed as heartless people who don't have feelings. Like they are playing a game of peoples lives and they can't feel the effects.Do we want our children thinking that that government is bad and that authority figures can't be truly good. The government isn't perfect but it isn't our enemy either.

Death=?

     Death is a mysterious and complex thing. Yet in many science fiction books it is tossed aside as worthless. In The Hunger Games shows it as a game and as something so easy to lose. These books mention the deaths of main characters but if you read closer you'll notice the tons of lives lost. Whether from wars or revenge thousands of people die in each book. I think that it conveys that life isn't precious or that life is so little that it could be used as a punishment.
     In the book I'm currently reading Allegiant by Veronica Roth I noticed something in this futuristic world that relates to the death penalty that we have today. After a war that killed hundreds of innocents there is trials for the leaders of armies and the rebels. It brought up a question that is a current debate in the world: is death a valid punishment. Also, if you killed someone is it worth your own life? That brings up the question of what is equal to what. Death to death or death to jail. I've noticed that a lot of sci-fi books have the question of what is death worth. And is there a time where death is the better option?
     I concluded that in most books death is what the punishment ends up being. For example, in The Hunger Games President Snow has an execution date. I'm not sure if this portrays the authors opinion on the death penalty or if she only thinks it was a good punishment for this character in particular. In Allegiant People are sentenced to death but are rescued so that the only ones who died were the innocent citizens. This shows the opposite perspective that no matter how many you kill death is not the answer. Overall I do not think anyone should be sentenced to death. Rotting in a cell seems worst to me. However I disagree about how death is portrayed in many books for teens. Instead these books should show how valuable life is.
     

"Age-rated Books: Right or Wrong" Reading Response

The article "Age-rated Books: Right or Wrong?" by BBC news deals with a topic of major controversy. If YA literature is appropriate for teens/kids or if it deals with topics too extreme for that age. It shows one aspect of this argument by portraying the proposal of age-rating stickers. These are basically small sticker you can put on the back of books to say what age/ages it is appropriate for. She then states the argument against this proposal. Quoting real people who disagree and why.
     She then shows the side that is for these age-ratings. She puts out arguments that when you read the same book at a different age you can get a totally different message. Also poll results like 86%of adults  "would welcome age guidance on children's books as one of several tools to help them choose fiction". She uses craft moves like showing both sides opinion. I like that she did this because it gives readers the entire story not just one side. Also it lets the reader choose which side they're on without getting persuaded by the authors opinion.
     I personally think that the age-rating is a great idea. It doesn't stop kids from reading emotionally challenging books, but it can let them know what they're getting into and prepare them. Like it said in the article: its helps you choose fiction. Just a helping hand so that you don't read something that you're not ready for. In the article it says that people are opposed to this concept because children differ in reading skills and interests. I understand this but like I said before. There is no forcing just advising. For example a fifth grader picks up a book to read. Having no idea that it deals with rape and child abuse. If that child saw a teen+ rating they would know it deals with topics that are for teenagers and maybe too extreme and not read it because they know it might upset them. Overall age-rating seems like a great idea. It would solve lots of fights over who is allowed to read what. And everyone can have a happy and healthy reading life with the books that they will enjoy the most.