By: Isaac Lund

For every 100 people in the U.S., there are approximately 121 guns. This is the highest amount per capita of any country in the world, and it isn’t close with Yemen coming in second at only 52.8. According to NSSF, the U.S.’s guns and ammunition industry created over 60 billion dollars in economic revenue in 2020 alone. So, how come so many life-threatening weapons are allowed to circulate unabaided?

Pro-gun Americans have long repertoires of gun control downsides ready to spout at a moments notice.

Many tend to bring up the second amendment, which states: “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.” With support from the most central document to the U.S. government, who’s to argue that gun owners don’t have the right to own firearms?

Another common argument is that many gun-related murders are executed by undocumented and illegal weapons. The thought process here is that gun control would only prevent law-abiding citizens from acquiring guns to use in self defense, rather than shutting down black market deals that provide murderers with their weapons. Gun control laws such as background checks and microstamping are often seen as an invasion of privacy as well.

Finally, gun owners frequently look at countries with completely different socio-economic demographics and crime levels like Mexico as “great examples” for areas where strict gun control laws were not effective.

Supporters of gun control are steadfast in their beliefs as well.

First and foremost, most mass shootings come from legal firearms. In a study conducted by ‘Mother Jones’ journalism, it was found that roughly three quarters of the firearms used to take lives were legally purchased.

Also, owning a gun obviously increases the chance of utilizing one for homicide. ‘The New England Journal of Medicine’ published a study by Arthur Kellerman showing that people living in a home with a firearm are 40 times more likely to commit homicide than those without one in the house.

Also, background checks seldom occur during the private sale of a firearm, allowing even those who explicitly are prohibited from owning one to acquire a gun.

Finally, gun control measures don’t necessarily involve confiscation; even something like licensing or required tutorials would be a step in the right direction.

At the end of the day, the second amendment was not designed for a time when easily concealable, multi-shot weapons can be owned by civilians, and we should not treat it as such.

By: Isaac Lund

The minimum wage in the US was introduced under President Franklin during the great depression. At the time of its creation, it was 25 cents, but today, Saint Paul’s is $12.50.

1.8 million workers, or 2.3% of the US’s workforce, makes less than the federal nationwide minimum, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Should these minimums be increased?

Proponents of a higher minimum wage say it would increase economic activity and spur job growth. The Economic Policy Institute stated that raising the federal minimum wage by $2.85 would inject 22.1 billion dollars in the economy over a 3 year span, while simultaneously creating 85,000 new jobs.

Also, raising the minimum wage may reduce poverty: the current federal minimum wage is 8% below the national poverty level for single-parent households.

The minimum wage is also not indexed for inflation, so even as consumer prices rise, salaries for the poor do not necessarily increase in kind.

Increasing the minimum wage has also been shown to reduce income, gender, and race inequality. A Human Impact Partners study also showed that such an increase would reduce premature deaths by giving a wider range of people enough to eat.

Opponents of raising the minimum wage argue that raising minimum wage would increase unemployment levels. This would happen because companies would be forced to lay off some employees to stay afloat with the new minimum, and would also likely have to lower hiring levels. Many companies in their entirety may be forced to close.

Of course, consumer goods and housing prices would also increase sequentially.

Finally, many predict that more companies would outsource to countries with lower wages, like Southeast Asia, compacting on to an already-terrible issue.

Both proponents and opponents of this issue have valid points, and several of both sides’ predictions would likely come to pass if the minimum wage was increased. I personally believe an increase would be prudent, but maybe a small one at first, just to see what it brings.

By: Marcus Lund

This December, Saint Paul Public Schools announced an upcoming change to the daily lives of students and teachers: a four period block schedule. There are a multitude of reasons behind this change, the school board stated.

Firstly, the new schedule decreases passing time. With only three passing times, as opposed to six, the board hopes that this schedule will greatly decrease behavioral issues that occur during those passing times. “Less transition, less chaos,” says board member Chauntyll Allen.

Second, the school board believes that this new schedule will improve student mental health; an issue that rose in priority over quarantine. According to SPPS, seven-period days have always been stressful for students. College and career readiness director Darren Ginther says, “It was just extremely amplified during the pandemic.”

Third, this new schedule will allow for more electives for students, which will improve learning across more diverse subjects, as well as increase student’s drive to learn. Also, incorporated into the block schedule will be a daily advisory period, which will focus on school announcements and de-stressing.

However, Highland students don’t seem to agree with this transition. One student said that the change “Is like a pro and con essay, but there are no pros.”

Many students agree, wanting to keep their passing time, and not wanting daily advisory. “Advisory sucks, why would I want it everyday?” said one.

“I Literally see no point to the new schedule,” said another.

The most positive remarks I received were from students neutral on the matter. “I don’t really care,” said one of the more indifferent students.

Dissent for this system is brooding among parents as well. Some believe that a daily gap between consecutive classes will lead to more procrastination, as well as students forgetting the things they learned.

Is this really the change that anybody needed?

For more information, please visit:

• https://www.twincities.com/2021/12/07/st-paul-high-schools-to-adopt-block-scheduling-next-year

By: Isaac Lund

Throughout my many years of education, I’ve gone to schools with uniforms and to ones without them. Like me, many schools struggle to decide which option is best, with some schools completely switching policies over recent years. The Cleveland and Akron school districts in Ohio dropped uniforms for the 2021-22 school year, while schools in Hawthorne, California have recently implemented uniforms.

The majority of parents and teachers support uniforms, based on a poll taken by uniform manufacturer Land’s End. School uniforms help students stay focused on education rather than clothing, and increase timeliness in the mornings, with only one outfit to choose from. A study conducted in Texas shows that they can also increase school pride and community spirit. Furthermore, school uniforms often reduce bullying by leveling the playing field surrounding clothing, especially in schools with multiple socio-economic groups. Uniform policies also don’t completely eliminate individuality, as many policies still allow for unique accessories such as shoes, nail polish, and jewelry.

On the other hand, students tend to push for the elimination of uniforms. A study conducted at the University of Nevada at Reno found that between 80% and 90% of seventh and eighth grade public school students oppose uniforms. Uniforms restrict students’ freedom of expression, and encourage conformity instead of individuality. Uniforms can also hurt students’ self-image. Without the option of picking outfits fitted to one’s body type, many students may feel extra embarrassment at school. Of course, uniforms also create an extra expenditure for parents, which is especially noticeable in districts where school is otherwise free. Finally, many schools with uniforms tend to focus energy on enforcing uniform policies, instead of looking for more pressing problems.

So, uniforms of no? Both options have their fair share of upsides and downsides, and neither is truly superior. What it really comes down to is that different schools have different needs, and a uniform policy helps some schools meet these needs better than others.

By: Marcus Lund

Why can’t I vote? This question has plagued many of my politically interested peers recently, especially as our political climate has begun affecting us more. Because policies affect us just as much as someone 2 years older, why shouldn’t we be able to vote on them?

Firstly, one study found that 16-year-olds are just as civically knowledgeable as older voters, especially 18-year-olds. The study found that on “measures of civic knowledge, political skills, political efficacy, and tolerance”, 16-year-olds scored much the same. Other social scientists also claim that 16-year-olds have well established “cold-cognition” skills, which are used to make hard decisions like those needed in voting.

Another pro to lowering of the voting age is the inevitable higher voter turnout. Not only would it add a higher population to the available voters, but it would also propagate lifelong voting habits. With more young voters, a “trickle up” effect could also occur, with those voters’ parents and guardians also going out to vote.

Lowering the voter age also comes with a set of undeniable cons. The first is general maturity. With two less years of knowledge and experience, many experts argue that 16-year-olds will be unequipped to make the correct decisions when voting. Younger voters’ lack of maturity also comes with a higher capacity to be influenced by others, which makes them less likely to make decisions not influenced by outside voices.

Adding to the arguments against the lowering of the voting age includes the fact that voters aged 18-19 have extremely low voter turnout. Only 15% of those eligible in that age group voted in the 2014 election. This suggests that young voters are not ready to vote until later in life.

Lowering the voting age, while an interesting proposal, has both positive and negative aspects. As young people continue to push for it, I wonder what the government will decide on the matter.

For more information, please visit:

• “American Sixteen- and Seventeen-Year-Olds Are Ready to Vote” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
• “Why We Should Lower the Voting Age to 16” Nytimes.com
• “Trickle Up Political Socialization: The Impact of Kids Voting USA on Voter Turnout in Kansas” State Politics and Policy Quarterly
• “Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2014: Reported Voting and Registration, by Sex and Single Years of Age: November 2014” Census.gov