Author Archives: Itza

About Itza

Born and raised in Edinburg, TX Social Worker in the making

Guns Don’t Kill People, People kill People

Martin, Donald. “LETTER: Guns Don’t Kill People, Etc.”,  Hartford Courant.  19 Mar. 2013. Web. 11 Aug. 2015

In this article, Martin discusses an experiment that he performed and gives us his results. His experiment mocks the idea that people who want guns to be banned believe that guns are the ones who kill people. Martin says how he positions his shotgun in a wheelchair on his front porch to see how many people it will kill. He mentions how many people pass by and yet when he comes back to check on his shotgun it had not killed anyone. He furthers this with, “It had not even loaded itself.” He also says how “surprised” he was because of all the people arguing about guns being dangerous and to find out guns are not the ones who kill people but people who misuse them do or he is “…in possession of the laziest gun in the world.”  Martin ends his letter with another representation by saying, “So now I’m off to check on my spoons, because I hear they make people fat.”

Clearly Martin is targeting those who are non advocates of guns. He does this in a ironical way by presenting the gun with human characteristics. Martin claims that these non advocates are over exaggerating on guns by banning them. It is true, unrealistically speaking that guns are the ones who kill people but rather people who handle guns do. In this case, people with guns kill many people, more than they would if they didn’t have guns. People get angry and upset all around the world. Yet, there aren’t any mass shootings every few weeks in Japan for example or in England. The reason for this would be because residents of those places who have these impulses don’t have easy access to lethal weapons and unlimited ammunition. On the other hand, in America it is not difficult to find these firearms because they are everywhere.

Martin’s argument about people being the problem other than guns is not backed up with any evidence. Instead he only uses a fictional situation making his statement invalid. He argues that , “the media is wrong and the killing is by people misusing guns.” Although guns don’t have a mind of their own, the purpose of a firearm is to kill and extinguish a life with the minimum amount of effort possible. These weapons are made to kill at a great distance, speed and lethality. When these weapons do their job in a mass shooting, there is an endless list of excuses blaming things other than the gun itself. Making Martin’s argument about guns not killing people inaccurate because in reality they do. Though it is not relevant to the way Martin puts his dispute.

Overall, the way Martin approaches these controversy affects the effectiveness it would have on his audience. Readers would think he is not trustworthy because he mocks those who don’t agree with him or are on his side of the argument. His response to those who think guns are dangerous is immature and makes his justification seem less convincible.




Filed under Blog Post 4

Schumer on Gun Control

Oh, Inae. “Amy Schumer Announces Plan To Tackle Gun Control”, Mother Jones, 03 Aug. 2015. Web. 03 Aug. 2015

The controversy amongst what to do about gun control has been argued for many years now. I would like to focus on the video provided by the article where Amy Schumer discusses gun control. She talks about several shooting incidents and how there should be a new initiative to regulating gun control.

Amy Schumer seems to be a credible source because she is accompanied by her cousin, Chuck Schumer, Senator of New York. Assuming she is familiar with politics and legislative laws. Schumer is a respected stand-up comedian, writer, actress, and producer.  She mentions some recent incidents involving gun shootings, especially the one that occurred in Louisiana at a movie theater. Schumer shares that she took it personally due to the fact that it happened while her film was being shown. She also informs her audience about the two people who were murdered. This making her credible by showing that she did her background research and implying how they were just innocent lives taken away.

In the video, Schumer argues how there should be better gun control laws being passed. She starts off by saying, “Enough is enough” declaring that the shootings need to be stopped. She tells reporters, ” Unless something is done and done soon, dangerous people will continue to get their hands on guns,” addressing specifically to criminals and the mentally ill. She offers two solutions to limiting the access of guns to these people. First she states, “we can toughen background checks and stop the sell of firearms to folks who have a violent history or history of mental illness.” Another strategy she mentions is to, “invest more in treating mental illness instead of slashing funding.” Schumer affirms these solutions as “common-sense solutions” to reducing the amount of shootings and who possesses these guns.


Filed under RS 4




Filed under Blog Post 3

RS 3

The banning of guns has been a controversy for many years. In Ellen Grace Jone’s article, “Why the US should Not Ban Guns,” Jone’s discusses this controversy of making guns illegal in the United States. At the beginning and end of her article, she mentions how Obama may finally act upon the controversy of gun control. Throughout the article she also informs the audience about many gun related incidents. Jone’s agrees that guns are dangerous but declares that banning them will make matters worse.

Jones is a socio-political writer and commentator. She seems to be a credible source by using and listing many facts about the disadvantages gun control has on communities. Recent news of Obama on gun control is shown in the article , making herself credible to her intended audience. Jones uses many citations where her readers can just simply click on the underlined words and find the sources. By having all these resources to go to makes Jones trustworthy and persuasive to her audience.

In her article , Jones argues that making guns illegal can have the opposite effect rather than the intended effect of having less shootings and murders. By providing many facts Jones conveys her point on the gun issue. One fact she uses is how the ” murder rate is 25% higher than last year” in Chicago where there had been some “draconian gun laws.” Another fact Jones uses is how even in other countries such as the UK have had worse problems after guns were outlawed. She states, “…six years later gun-crime had more than doubled. By 2009 gun crime had escalated by 89%.” These facts show how Jones is able to access useful and resourceful items to back up her reasons on the banning of guns.

According to Jones, ”Prohibition; in whatever form, does not work.”  She references to the failure of banning alcohol the same as the case of banning armed guns. People will still be able to find any guns that they can get their hands on no matter if they are outlawed or not. She then continues to apply her well done research on the issue. Jones states, ” Fundamentally gun control is not for the protection of people but for the preservation of tyrannical entities.”

Furthermore, Jones mentions in the beginning of the article and the last paragraph about how she wishes firearms did not exist to make a deeper connection to her audience. In other words, even if she doesn’t agree that guns should be legal she tries to make her audience understand that by outlawing them would mean more burdens. She herself has to accept the fact that banning these firearms would only increase gun-crimes.


Filed under RS 3

My Communities

The two communities that have shaped who I am are being Hispanic and having divorced parents. Coming from a Hispanic family means it’s all about what is best for the family. In my generation we are taught to strive for more rather than follow the steps of our past generations. For example, the first to go to college and provide a better life to our future families. Ever since I was small my parents made sure my siblings and I got good grades in school.  They would constantly remind us how important education was and how they just didn’t want us to go through the same deprivations as they did. When my parents divorced I realized that how I let the situation affect my life was up to me and no one else. I decided to let it make me stronger than what my Hispanic family had already made me.

Of course there are many stereotypes for being Hispanic. I have been stereotyped because of how Hispanics are portrayed to be as people who are unsophisticated. I remember meeting one of my mom’s friend who was white and my mom started telling her about me attending UT. She seemed surprised by that and i could see it in her eyes. How did she get into such a great school? How is she going to afford it? Although I felt judged I let it go and it just encouraged me to prove how it is possible for a Hispanic to go and graduate college.

Even though I have never really been stereotyped for having divorce parents there is some stereotypes out there. One of them would be how people assume any child who goes through their parent’s divorce take the wrong path. They believe that the child becomes to depressed and so then chooses the easy way out of just not caring about anything anymore. That is getting addicted to drugs, going out to party, and getting in trouble with the law. In reality not all of us go through that because we choose not to. Yes, I was heartbroken but I knew better than to let it affect me in a negative way. I pulled through and saw all the positive help it would bring to me. How overcoming my parents divorce would make any other obstacle along the way seem like a small rock  I could just simply kick to the side.  Those with divorced parents know pain and most of us wouldn’t want others to feel like they are alone. I would want to help others cope with their burdens whatever they may be and make them feel aided.

The two possible organizations i would like to participate in are La Nueva Generacion Estudiantil de Tejas and Occupational Therapy Society at the University of Texas. La Nueva Generacion Estudicatil de Tejas as they have in their description is an organization that encompasses the new generations of student while honoring their distinct heritage. The second organization gives students the opportunity to explore the occupational therapy profession.

1 Comment

Filed under Blog Post 2


Ammerman, Seth. “Should Medical Marijuana Be Prescribed to Children?” U.S. News Digital Weekly 28 Dec. 2012. Web. 07 Jul. 2015

Seth Ammerman is a clinical professor of pediatrics at the School of Medicine and medical director of the Adolescent Health Van. He argues that marijuana is not benign for adolescents.  He affirms that even if marijuana is being used as a medicine, it can have side effects. Including that without the research background, we really don’t know if it will work or not and it makes it difficult to recommend marijuana under those circumstances.

Ammerman states that us humans produce “endocannabinoids” which are marijuana-like substances. From limited research cannabinoids and cannabidiol have some benefits however, as Ammerman says, “finding the proper dosage for maximum therapeutic benefit and least risk of side effects is problematic.”  Due to different levels of these compound plants dosing wouldn’t be as accurate.  If he would propose a few cannabinoids then he wouldn’t be able to prescribe a particular dose, how much to use or how frequently because they “make accurate dosing difficult.”

He then continues to explain how some marijuana products don’t have the information for the right dosage of cannabinoid because they are not tested.  Declaring that ” patients often need to try different preparations and doses to find one that will help with the symptoms being treated.” Ammerman believes there are other, better standard pain medications or maybe even nonmedical treatments for pain that should be considered first. As well as that everyone is different, “successful treatment for a specific problem in a particular individual do not necessarily project to a broader population. Patients may respond differently to and experience different side effects from the same medication.”

The maturation of the brain doesn’t fully develop until the early mid-20’s and Ammerman states that ” the developing brain of a child is often more vulnerable to exposure to compounds than that of an adult.” Meaning that substance use can alter an adolescent’s brain because it is still in the process of development. The younger they start using marijuana the worse the effect of it is on their brain’s pattern which shifts.  Ammerman describes the using of medical marijuana in pediatric and adolescent populations as being ” completely trial and error.”

Essentially,  this article contends that chidden should not use marijuana because even if it may have benefits there are still some weaknesses. It made me understand that it is some what risky to prescribe medical marijuana to adolescents due to the fact that we don’t know the outcome of it.

Leave a Comment

Filed under RS 2