- Messages
- 1,134
- Reactions
- 1,512
I'm starting this thread with an essay that I wrote about a month ago. I would like to see some response from users on NWFA that may have more insight to how I should go about this. My essay and other applicable information is below-
Raidingtime
15APR2015
Marketing Public Health
Choice Reflection #1/ Option 2
Public Health and Firearm Safety (option #2)
Marketing Public Health by Michael Siegel and Lynne Lotenberg has been a great read so far. Currently, I've read up to Chapter 4 and I believe this book explains a lot of good points regarding public health. It's been an easy read that flows well with very informative referencing and reasoning. I have stumbled upon a few shortcomings within this book and I will explain them in better detail. Marketing and Public Health makes many references to firearm safety. Overall they use an extensive amount of referencing, which suggests to me that the authors are well versed in their topics. However, There are some topics that they may have unconsciously or arrogantly mislead their readers. Their assessment, conclusions, and referencing of firearm use and safety is incorrect. I will provide quotations of passages of their book by leaving off added wording. I will do this in a fashion that will not mislead the reader of my article as they may have done when referencing articles. I have researched several, but not all, of the references Segal and Lotenberg used. I have added appropriate references and information that is pertinent to the topics Lotenberg and Siegel have addressed. Unfortunately, thus far I have come across many references that do not correspond with the intended passage within their textbook. Let me explain in greater detail about what I'm addressing in this book.
Siegel and Lotenberg make several attempts to discuss public safety and firearms. I will address their statements, conclusions, and references throughout this paper in a fashion that minimizes word count. Talking about firearm safety is an important topic regarding public health in the 21st century. There is evidently increased interest among U.S. citizens because of recent publicized violent acts carried out by violent people that chose to use firearms. Siegel and Lotenberg describe firearm use and violence within the United States. They assess firearms as being a base for increased violence throughout the United States.
"….homicide rate among teenagers is nearly three times as high as it was in 1950, and the homicide rate among teenagers is more than twice as high, mostly due to the widespread availability of firearms (NCHS, 2004; Satcher, 1996).( Lotenberg, pg. 7). These references had nothing to do with correlating homicide rates with firearms. Furthermore, the date of publishing the two compared references are 8 years apart, which makes myself wonder if a quality comparison ought to be made. Stoeger does make some comments on firearm use and homicide rate within the young adult black male population because they have disproportionally higher rates of violence (FBI, 2010). Interestingly, this point seems to have left out that people of black ethnicity and of the age range of 18-29 have the lowest rate of gun ownership (Morin, 2014). This conclusion that Siegel and Lotenberg beg the reader to take on firearms is incorrect. There is no increase in violence in the U.S. due to an increase in firearm availability. In fact, there are more restrictive laws imposed upon firearm owners today than there were 20-250 years ago. I suppose they were hoping that their readers would listen more to their own insecurities about firearms than immerse themselves in gaining knowledge and understanding of the matter at hand?
"….Violence is the leading cause of lost life in this country today…. (Applebome, 1993, p. A7)" (Lotenberg, pg. 15). This is just a blatant lie. Violence is not the leading cause of lost life. In fact, I won't even counter reference this reference made by Siegel and Lotenberg because there is no need to. Anyone with internet or library access can come across innumerable articles, tables, graphs, etc. about the current leading cause of death within the United States. The leading cause of death in this country is heart disease by a long shot. Maybe Siegel and Lotgenberg would do a better job by telling their reader that holding your breath will make reading their book appear more legitimate.
"… 100,000 [firearms] are carried by children to school each day (Bok, 1996) These firearms cause an estimated 30,000 deaths each year (NCHS, 2004)." (Lotenberg, 15). This is another dishonest statement. First off, the 2004 NCHS makes no attempt to put a number on firearms carried by children to school everyday. Secondly, NCHS does not estimate firearms cause 30,000 deaths in any year they've recorded data (NCHS, 2005). I was not able to obtain information regarding the reference made to Bok in 1996. I will assume this reference follows the other trends in referencing of firearms within this textbook.
"… the link between the availability of firearms and the increasing homicide rate is "every bit as strong as the studies that linked cigarettes to lung cancer" (Taubes, 1992)" (Lotenberg, 15). This reference makes up a word called "eqidemiologists" in the actual reference page but I will assume they meant epidemiologist. I was not able to retrieve this reference but did come upon information that suggests this maybe, or once was, at least a semi legitimate article. However, due to the trends with referencing within this book I will regard this reference as misleading and or false. The CDC, along with anything that I've read, does not interpret the rise in homicide rate to the increase in the availability of firearms (CDC, 2010). In fact, firearm ownership is actually associated with a decrease in violence (Smith, 2008; FBI, 2010). To continue my point, an estimated 162,000 people claim to have deterred violence to protect the life of a loved one each year in the United States (Kleck, 1995; Agresti, 2015). I hate to say it but Siegel and Lotenberg have once again dishonestly led their reader to believe in information that is not true. If they wanted to state their opinion they ought to label their statements as such. CDC lists that there are 11,208 deaths from homicides involving firearms each year. Doesn't specific how many were used for self-defense, law enforcement, and suicide. The CDC states that 61% of deaths from firearms are suicides (CDC, 2010).
The quotations that I drew from Marketing Public Health were only a few that I selected by highlighting sections throughout my reading. These quotations are by no means an exhaustive list. They are simply the first few that I found which happened to be within the first 15 pages of the 608-page book. I have highlighted more quotations that I have assessed but have left them out of this paper because of the word count guidelines. I presume my point has been made regarding this book. It is surprising to me that this book has made its way to publication with such discrepancies within it. A common reader would presume that the author would use their references to accurately and honestly reflect the text within the book. This is not the case regarding firearm public safety within this text. The lack of discrepancy and honesty within this print has uttered a ramification that may prevent my concentration and respect for the further read of this textbook. I wonder how many college students, readers, and scholars have read this book and taken to heart the false information within it. I do think there is much to be learned from this textbook and believe that there is much to look forward to reading this. However, I'm appalled at what I found upon closer scrutiny of the information within Lotenberg and Siegel's book.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division. Uniform Crime Reporting Program, United States. 1960-2008. June 15, 2010. Retried from: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr-publications#Crime
Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Fall 1995. Retried from: http://www.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/backissues/86-1.html
James D. Agresti and Reid K. Smith "Gun Control Facts.". Just Facts. September 13, 2010. Revised 2/7/15. Retried from: http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
Meg Smith and Leah Carliner. "A History of D.C. Gun Ban." Washington Post. June 26, 2008. Retried from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/...
Morin, Rich. The demographics and politics of gunowning households. FactTank. 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...aphics-and-politics-of-gun-owning-households/
National Center for Health Statistics .US Chartbook on Trends in the Health of Americans. 2005. Retried from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus05.pdf
Satcher, David. "CDC's first 50 years: lessons learned and relearned." American journal of public health.1996. Pages: 1705-1708. Print.
Siegel, M. Lotenberg, L. Marketing Public Health: Strategies to Promote Social Change. Jones and Bartlett Publisers. Onatario, Canada. 2008. Prin
(grade was 90%) Daniel – I'm sorry for the delay in grading this; I wanted to carefully consider my response. I appreciate that you have taken the time to question how the data is framed and dig a bit deeper into it. However, in your zeal to dispute the authors, I think you are missing the point somewhat, in terms of the connection to public health and the relevance to this course. The authors are challenging us to think about public health in a different way. Violence is a public health issue in that it negatively impacts the health of so many people. Guns are related to violence, the same as drugs and other risk factors. The same as drugs do not cause crime or violence, I would agree that guns to not. However, they are related and it is important to look at all the potential connections. I do not agree with focusing solely on "supply side" solutions to these issues, but I also don't think we can ignore them.
You expressed concerns about the work load for this course the other day, so I will give you the feedback that the time and effort you seem to have put into this paper was disproportionate to the requirements of the assignment and relevance to the course topics. I think your point could have been made with less data and more reflection. Also, I don't know whether you did this intentionally or not, but including a draft with mark-ups and potentially offensive comments is not a good idea.
Debbie
I then discussed her response with my professor after class. I have always been in good standings with my teachers including this one. In fact, I am typically the stereotypical "teachers pet". I tend to begin most of my classes engaging my professors with light hearted and good-natured discussions. I asked her what offensive language she was referring to but she couldn't quote any. I do not know what she was referring to. Nonetheless, my professor made these statements during our discussion:
- You're being over critical of the book
- No one is comprehending the reading like you are
- I don't care what the statistics are
- I'm sorry you had to spend so much time writing this paper
She made no attempt to answer my questions regarding the lies and false references her textbook had within the first few pages. I can only assume that statistical data and honesty stands behind what she feels are good for everyone. It is also worth noting that my professor is a middle aged Portland woman that is what some may call a "modern day liberal democrat".
I have since been getting worse grades from my professor for turning in what I think is the same quality of work. I have an assumption that my other classmates that wrote in accordance with what my professor wanted to hear, regardless of how stupid it was or poorly written, had gotten a better grade than me. I'm not sure what I ought to do in this situation because I don't find myself in this type of scenario often.
Should I inform anyone up the chain of command within PSU regarding the false information in this text book and my professors response to my paper or should I just let it go?
In case anyone was wondering the structure of the assignment here it is:
Choice Reflections
Points: 10 each; there will be 6 due dates with the top 5 grades counting; total of 50 points
Due Dates: #1 - Sunday, Apr 19th#4 - Sunday, May 10th
#2 - Sunday, Apr 26th#5 - Sunday, May 17th
#3 - Sunday, May 3rd #6 - Sunday, May 24th
All reflections are due by 11:30pm, submitted in the D2L Dropbox.
As the name implies, there are a couple of choices for these reflections. You can use prompts that are provided, or select another reading or activity from the course for your reflection. The primary goal of this assignment is that you demonstrate your engagement with the course concepts by applying them to a personal situation or interest.
Option 1: During the term, several prompts will be provided following a particular reading or in-class activity. You can use the prompt for your reflection for that week, or any subsequent week. For example, the prompt provided during week 1 (Prompt A), could be turned in for Reflection 5. Always indicate at the beginning of your paper which prompts you are using.
Option 2: Pick a chapter or article from the assigned reading, or a class activity that you find particularly interesting. It can be interesting for various reasons, such as you like the ideas, you disagree with the ideas, or you find the ideas especially applicable to your own experience in some way.
At the beginning of your paper, indicate "option 2" and reference the specific reading or activity you are using. Then, respond to one or more of the following prompts:
What did you find particularly interesting about the reading or activity, and why?
In what way does it apply to your own life, interests, work you have done, or work you are interested in doing?
Did this reading/activity change the way you think about something?
Do you think the author got it wrong? What perspective did they miss?
Does this reading contradict something else we have read or done in this class?
Parameters: These reflections should be 800 to 1000 words, and include appropriate citations and references lists as needed. Because they are personal reflections and applications, you can (and should!) use "I" statements and express your opinion. However, they are not just for "spouting off." For example, if you are bothered by alcohol companies targeting youth with their advertising, cite research by a credible organization, such as the Center for Alcohol Marketing and Youth, then talk about why this bothers you. Don't use statements like, "We all know alcohol companies target youth in their advertising." If you are unclear about these parameters, please ask!
You can select which reference guidelines you use (such as MLA or APA), but you should be consistent and thorough. Any assignments that use material from another source (whether copied or summarized) without the proper citations will receive a zero, per PSU policy.
Grading Criteria – These are the things I will be looking for when grading.
Did you follow the directions for the assignment?
Did you proofread and edit your paper? Grammar? Spelling? Did you use the right word, not just whatever word your spell-check suggested? (My pet peeve is using "defiantly" for "definitely." Please be clear whether you are being definite or defiant!)
Did you properly cite any quotes or ideas that you used from others? Did you include a reference list?
Did you incorporate concepts or ideas from the reading, class discussions or activities? While I don't want you to just "regurgitate" these things, I should be able to tell that you have done the reading and been in class.
What new perspective or idea will I learn from what you have written?
Raidingtime
15APR2015
Marketing Public Health
Choice Reflection #1/ Option 2
Public Health and Firearm Safety (option #2)
Marketing Public Health by Michael Siegel and Lynne Lotenberg has been a great read so far. Currently, I've read up to Chapter 4 and I believe this book explains a lot of good points regarding public health. It's been an easy read that flows well with very informative referencing and reasoning. I have stumbled upon a few shortcomings within this book and I will explain them in better detail. Marketing and Public Health makes many references to firearm safety. Overall they use an extensive amount of referencing, which suggests to me that the authors are well versed in their topics. However, There are some topics that they may have unconsciously or arrogantly mislead their readers. Their assessment, conclusions, and referencing of firearm use and safety is incorrect. I will provide quotations of passages of their book by leaving off added wording. I will do this in a fashion that will not mislead the reader of my article as they may have done when referencing articles. I have researched several, but not all, of the references Segal and Lotenberg used. I have added appropriate references and information that is pertinent to the topics Lotenberg and Siegel have addressed. Unfortunately, thus far I have come across many references that do not correspond with the intended passage within their textbook. Let me explain in greater detail about what I'm addressing in this book.
Siegel and Lotenberg make several attempts to discuss public safety and firearms. I will address their statements, conclusions, and references throughout this paper in a fashion that minimizes word count. Talking about firearm safety is an important topic regarding public health in the 21st century. There is evidently increased interest among U.S. citizens because of recent publicized violent acts carried out by violent people that chose to use firearms. Siegel and Lotenberg describe firearm use and violence within the United States. They assess firearms as being a base for increased violence throughout the United States.
"….homicide rate among teenagers is nearly three times as high as it was in 1950, and the homicide rate among teenagers is more than twice as high, mostly due to the widespread availability of firearms (NCHS, 2004; Satcher, 1996).( Lotenberg, pg. 7). These references had nothing to do with correlating homicide rates with firearms. Furthermore, the date of publishing the two compared references are 8 years apart, which makes myself wonder if a quality comparison ought to be made. Stoeger does make some comments on firearm use and homicide rate within the young adult black male population because they have disproportionally higher rates of violence (FBI, 2010). Interestingly, this point seems to have left out that people of black ethnicity and of the age range of 18-29 have the lowest rate of gun ownership (Morin, 2014). This conclusion that Siegel and Lotenberg beg the reader to take on firearms is incorrect. There is no increase in violence in the U.S. due to an increase in firearm availability. In fact, there are more restrictive laws imposed upon firearm owners today than there were 20-250 years ago. I suppose they were hoping that their readers would listen more to their own insecurities about firearms than immerse themselves in gaining knowledge and understanding of the matter at hand?
"….Violence is the leading cause of lost life in this country today…. (Applebome, 1993, p. A7)" (Lotenberg, pg. 15). This is just a blatant lie. Violence is not the leading cause of lost life. In fact, I won't even counter reference this reference made by Siegel and Lotenberg because there is no need to. Anyone with internet or library access can come across innumerable articles, tables, graphs, etc. about the current leading cause of death within the United States. The leading cause of death in this country is heart disease by a long shot. Maybe Siegel and Lotgenberg would do a better job by telling their reader that holding your breath will make reading their book appear more legitimate.
"… 100,000 [firearms] are carried by children to school each day (Bok, 1996) These firearms cause an estimated 30,000 deaths each year (NCHS, 2004)." (Lotenberg, 15). This is another dishonest statement. First off, the 2004 NCHS makes no attempt to put a number on firearms carried by children to school everyday. Secondly, NCHS does not estimate firearms cause 30,000 deaths in any year they've recorded data (NCHS, 2005). I was not able to obtain information regarding the reference made to Bok in 1996. I will assume this reference follows the other trends in referencing of firearms within this textbook.
"… the link between the availability of firearms and the increasing homicide rate is "every bit as strong as the studies that linked cigarettes to lung cancer" (Taubes, 1992)" (Lotenberg, 15). This reference makes up a word called "eqidemiologists" in the actual reference page but I will assume they meant epidemiologist. I was not able to retrieve this reference but did come upon information that suggests this maybe, or once was, at least a semi legitimate article. However, due to the trends with referencing within this book I will regard this reference as misleading and or false. The CDC, along with anything that I've read, does not interpret the rise in homicide rate to the increase in the availability of firearms (CDC, 2010). In fact, firearm ownership is actually associated with a decrease in violence (Smith, 2008; FBI, 2010). To continue my point, an estimated 162,000 people claim to have deterred violence to protect the life of a loved one each year in the United States (Kleck, 1995; Agresti, 2015). I hate to say it but Siegel and Lotenberg have once again dishonestly led their reader to believe in information that is not true. If they wanted to state their opinion they ought to label their statements as such. CDC lists that there are 11,208 deaths from homicides involving firearms each year. Doesn't specific how many were used for self-defense, law enforcement, and suicide. The CDC states that 61% of deaths from firearms are suicides (CDC, 2010).
The quotations that I drew from Marketing Public Health were only a few that I selected by highlighting sections throughout my reading. These quotations are by no means an exhaustive list. They are simply the first few that I found which happened to be within the first 15 pages of the 608-page book. I have highlighted more quotations that I have assessed but have left them out of this paper because of the word count guidelines. I presume my point has been made regarding this book. It is surprising to me that this book has made its way to publication with such discrepancies within it. A common reader would presume that the author would use their references to accurately and honestly reflect the text within the book. This is not the case regarding firearm public safety within this text. The lack of discrepancy and honesty within this print has uttered a ramification that may prevent my concentration and respect for the further read of this textbook. I wonder how many college students, readers, and scholars have read this book and taken to heart the false information within it. I do think there is much to be learned from this textbook and believe that there is much to look forward to reading this. However, I'm appalled at what I found upon closer scrutiny of the information within Lotenberg and Siegel's book.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division. Uniform Crime Reporting Program, United States. 1960-2008. June 15, 2010. Retried from: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr-publications#Crime
Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Fall 1995. Retried from: http://www.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/backissues/86-1.html
James D. Agresti and Reid K. Smith "Gun Control Facts.". Just Facts. September 13, 2010. Revised 2/7/15. Retried from: http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
Meg Smith and Leah Carliner. "A History of D.C. Gun Ban." Washington Post. June 26, 2008. Retried from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/...
Morin, Rich. The demographics and politics of gunowning households. FactTank. 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...aphics-and-politics-of-gun-owning-households/
National Center for Health Statistics .US Chartbook on Trends in the Health of Americans. 2005. Retried from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus05.pdf
Satcher, David. "CDC's first 50 years: lessons learned and relearned." American journal of public health.1996. Pages: 1705-1708. Print.
Siegel, M. Lotenberg, L. Marketing Public Health: Strategies to Promote Social Change. Jones and Bartlett Publisers. Onatario, Canada. 2008. Prin
(grade was 90%) Daniel – I'm sorry for the delay in grading this; I wanted to carefully consider my response. I appreciate that you have taken the time to question how the data is framed and dig a bit deeper into it. However, in your zeal to dispute the authors, I think you are missing the point somewhat, in terms of the connection to public health and the relevance to this course. The authors are challenging us to think about public health in a different way. Violence is a public health issue in that it negatively impacts the health of so many people. Guns are related to violence, the same as drugs and other risk factors. The same as drugs do not cause crime or violence, I would agree that guns to not. However, they are related and it is important to look at all the potential connections. I do not agree with focusing solely on "supply side" solutions to these issues, but I also don't think we can ignore them.
You expressed concerns about the work load for this course the other day, so I will give you the feedback that the time and effort you seem to have put into this paper was disproportionate to the requirements of the assignment and relevance to the course topics. I think your point could have been made with less data and more reflection. Also, I don't know whether you did this intentionally or not, but including a draft with mark-ups and potentially offensive comments is not a good idea.
Debbie
I then discussed her response with my professor after class. I have always been in good standings with my teachers including this one. In fact, I am typically the stereotypical "teachers pet". I tend to begin most of my classes engaging my professors with light hearted and good-natured discussions. I asked her what offensive language she was referring to but she couldn't quote any. I do not know what she was referring to. Nonetheless, my professor made these statements during our discussion:
- You're being over critical of the book
- No one is comprehending the reading like you are
- I don't care what the statistics are
- I'm sorry you had to spend so much time writing this paper
She made no attempt to answer my questions regarding the lies and false references her textbook had within the first few pages. I can only assume that statistical data and honesty stands behind what she feels are good for everyone. It is also worth noting that my professor is a middle aged Portland woman that is what some may call a "modern day liberal democrat".
I have since been getting worse grades from my professor for turning in what I think is the same quality of work. I have an assumption that my other classmates that wrote in accordance with what my professor wanted to hear, regardless of how stupid it was or poorly written, had gotten a better grade than me. I'm not sure what I ought to do in this situation because I don't find myself in this type of scenario often.
Should I inform anyone up the chain of command within PSU regarding the false information in this text book and my professors response to my paper or should I just let it go?
In case anyone was wondering the structure of the assignment here it is:
Choice Reflections
Points: 10 each; there will be 6 due dates with the top 5 grades counting; total of 50 points
Due Dates: #1 - Sunday, Apr 19th#4 - Sunday, May 10th
#2 - Sunday, Apr 26th#5 - Sunday, May 17th
#3 - Sunday, May 3rd #6 - Sunday, May 24th
All reflections are due by 11:30pm, submitted in the D2L Dropbox.
As the name implies, there are a couple of choices for these reflections. You can use prompts that are provided, or select another reading or activity from the course for your reflection. The primary goal of this assignment is that you demonstrate your engagement with the course concepts by applying them to a personal situation or interest.
Option 1: During the term, several prompts will be provided following a particular reading or in-class activity. You can use the prompt for your reflection for that week, or any subsequent week. For example, the prompt provided during week 1 (Prompt A), could be turned in for Reflection 5. Always indicate at the beginning of your paper which prompts you are using.
Option 2: Pick a chapter or article from the assigned reading, or a class activity that you find particularly interesting. It can be interesting for various reasons, such as you like the ideas, you disagree with the ideas, or you find the ideas especially applicable to your own experience in some way.
At the beginning of your paper, indicate "option 2" and reference the specific reading or activity you are using. Then, respond to one or more of the following prompts:
What did you find particularly interesting about the reading or activity, and why?
In what way does it apply to your own life, interests, work you have done, or work you are interested in doing?
Did this reading/activity change the way you think about something?
Do you think the author got it wrong? What perspective did they miss?
Does this reading contradict something else we have read or done in this class?
Parameters: These reflections should be 800 to 1000 words, and include appropriate citations and references lists as needed. Because they are personal reflections and applications, you can (and should!) use "I" statements and express your opinion. However, they are not just for "spouting off." For example, if you are bothered by alcohol companies targeting youth with their advertising, cite research by a credible organization, such as the Center for Alcohol Marketing and Youth, then talk about why this bothers you. Don't use statements like, "We all know alcohol companies target youth in their advertising." If you are unclear about these parameters, please ask!
You can select which reference guidelines you use (such as MLA or APA), but you should be consistent and thorough. Any assignments that use material from another source (whether copied or summarized) without the proper citations will receive a zero, per PSU policy.
Grading Criteria – These are the things I will be looking for when grading.
Did you follow the directions for the assignment?
Did you proofread and edit your paper? Grammar? Spelling? Did you use the right word, not just whatever word your spell-check suggested? (My pet peeve is using "defiantly" for "definitely." Please be clear whether you are being definite or defiant!)
Did you properly cite any quotes or ideas that you used from others? Did you include a reference list?
Did you incorporate concepts or ideas from the reading, class discussions or activities? While I don't want you to just "regurgitate" these things, I should be able to tell that you have done the reading and been in class.
What new perspective or idea will I learn from what you have written?
