# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Most people like going to the zoo, especially with their kids. They think that zoos are entertaining and educational facilities that exist with animals' best interests in mind.

It's very bleak, but we all need to learn more to raise awareness about the actual conditions that captured animals live in.

Top 10 Animal Captivity Statistics and Facts

We all need to take a stand for these animals, and getting the facts straight could be your first step in the right direction.

Animal Abuse in Zoos Statistics

Animal lovers usually refrain from reading these stats because they can sometimes be too painful and shocking.

However, if you're reading this and want to find out more about the reality, bear with us because it isn't pink in the slightest.

1. Animal abuse is widespread in 75% of the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums facilities.

(World Animal Protection)

Zoos and aquariums that are a part of WAZA often break the rules of this organization.

Some basic WAZA guidelines restrict animal cruelty, displaying animals for entertainment, stunts, and tricks.

However, over 1,200 aquariums and zoos in 78 countries connected with WAZA participate in such animal misconduct .

Visitors of these entertainment facilities are often petting the animals. The animals are often trained to do degrading and unnatural acts only to attract more visitors.

2. Petting is the most common stressful captive animal activity that 43% of WAZA partners frequently offer.

(National Geographic)

[visualizer id="6021″]

Here are some of the most popular attractions:

Around 33% of WAZA partner facilities allow visitors to walk or swim with the animals.

About 30% of aquariums and zoos make animals perform in front of people.

23% of them let the visitors hand-feed the animals.

3. There is a 96% chance that an elephant in an entertainment facility is treated poorly.

(World Animal Protection)

Considering the size of elephants, one would think they are given plenty of space in captivity. Unfortunately, that's not true at all.

Captivity is very harsh on them. They are chained most of the time, with short chains.

Young elephants are often separated from their mothers, and they suffer a lot of beating and mistreatment while being trained.

It's especially disturbing when considering that elephants are known for being very emotional .

4. Polar bears have a million times less space in zoos than they would have in the wild.

(Freedom for Animals)

Elephants are not the only big mammals that require more space than they are given in captivity.

Besides polar bears, lions and tigers also have much less space than if they were free (about 18,000 times less).

Moreover, these animals are often perceived as aggressive. Hence, people think there are so many bear attacks , and they're often feared more than they should be.

5. The so-called "surplus" animals in zoos are often killed, even if they are healthy.

According to In Defense of Animals, up to 5,000 zoo animals are killed each year - mind you, only in Europe.

What's even more worrisome is that the European Association of Zoos and Aquariums recommends killing animals in some situations, even if they are perfectly healthy.

If this kind of euthanasia is legal, it's not really surprising that zoos practice it. For this to stop, some core rules need to be changed.

General Animals in Captivity Statistics

We know that animals in captivity are mistreated and deprived of their natural habitat. But they're not only kept for show. Sadly, they're often exploited for traditional medicine or for breeding.

6. China has over 5,000 captive tigers, which they use for traditional medicine.

(World Animal Protection)

World Animal Protection revealed this shocking fact about Chinese traditional medicine.

The captive tigers, as well as lions, are being exploited for their bones and body parts.

Supposedly, certain body parts of these animals have healing properties beneficial for treating various ailments, but they come at a hefty price.

Before collecting bones and organs, these animals are treated very poorly, leading to physical and psychological suffering.

7. Breeding programs in zoos across Europe include only about 200 animal species.

(The Independent)

Animals in captivity articles are rising in popularity, which is good for raising awareness. For example, The Independent reports that a tiny number of species in European zoos get breeding programs (about 5%).

Does this mean that the other species are simply not worth the effort? Most zoo species face similar problems, including disease, very little genetic diversity, and a lot of hybridization.

8. Cetaceans in captivity stay on the surface longer 80% of the time than they would naturally.

(Animal Welfare Institute)

Cetaceans are very social creatures, and they seek a lot of attention and nourishment from trainers. However, as they aren't allowed to act naturally in captivity, they are often bored and annoyed.

They don't have enough space to swim freely, and they are introduced to unnatural "roommates" in their tanks.

Plus, cetaceans are intelligent and aren't overly amused by visitors and the stunts they have to perform all the time. They are also not keen on the surrounding noise that gets very loud in entertainment facilities.

9. Aquariums and zoos worldwide do have an educational role.

10. The annual wildlife conservation investments amount to over $350 million.

This amount is divided across all global aquarium and zoo organizations and associations. It is a hefty amount of money invested in the greater good. It provides some hope for the future of endangered animals.

Endangered Animals in Zoos Statistics

Many think zoos are guardians of endangered species. But, keeping endangered animals in captivity deprives them of their freedom .

Captive animals are deprived of natural social structure and companionship. They're forced to be too close to humans and other species, which is unnatural.

11. More tigers are captive in America than free-roaming wild tigers worldwide.

(Advocacy for Animals, World Economic Forum)

Sadly, there are only about 3,500 tigers in the wild right now.

Their numbers aren't increasing, although they aren't declining either.

The total number of captive tigers is about 8,000, and they are kept at breeding farms.

12. Only 18% of captive animals are considered endangered, proving that m ost zoos aren't engaged in conserving rare or endangered animals.

One of the biggest zoo myths is that one of their primary purposes is animal conservation.

Zoo conservation statistics tell a different story.

A minority of animals kept in zoos are threatened. This is about 700 of almost 4,000 captive species.

Most zoos aren't planning on releasing the animals at any point - and even if they did, zoo animals would almost certainly die in the wild without human care.

Even the endangered captive species, such as tigers and polar bears, wouldn't make it in the wild due to their lack of survival skills.

13. Extremely threatened species are not supposed to be bred in zoos.

(Science Daily)

Animals in the wild need protection. Otherwise, there's no point in breeding them in captivity.

The study notes that captive breeding can be used as the last resort, but great efforts need to be made so that the endangered species can survive in the wild.

14. Only two female northern white rhinoceros remain captive, meaning that this endangered species in captivity is almost extinct.

(World Economic Forum, Access Science)

Unfortunately, since there are no known males of this species, captive or in the wild, they will soon be extinct.

The last known male died in the wilderness, and only his daughter and granddaughter remain. They are guarded in a Kenyan sanctuary.

Right now, there are only about 5,000 black rhinos and 20,000 white rhinos remaining in Africa, and they're all categorized as critically endangered.

15. How many animals are in captivity?

Today, around 1 million vertebrate animals live in captivity worldwide. There are over 10,000 zoos across the globe, and they accumulate more than 600 million visitors annually.

These statistics only account for the official zoos, while roadside attractions and private zoos are not included in them. In other words, many more animals live in captivity than necessary.

16. Are zoo animals happy?

Considering all we revealed above, it's safe to assume that zoo animals are not happy.

On the contrary, many of them suffer from depression and anxiety. This negative psychological state of captive animals is so frequent that it has a scientific term - zoochosis. The animals that suffer from zoochosis engage in odd behavior such as pacing, rocking, excessive vomiting, biting, grooming, and self-harm.

Zoochosis and other psychological and physical problems are very common in captive animals in zoos, circuses, and other similar facilities.

17. Why are zoos bad for animals?

Zoos prefer having baby animals (for attracting attention). However, when the animals mature, zoos quickly sell or trade them.

They keep capturing wild animals for profit.

As previously mentioned, conservation is not always the top priority.

Above all, most zoos care about entertaining their visitors, not educating them.

They justify bad conditions with cutbacks and losses, which they claim to be necessary because they don't get enough visitors.

Zoos aren't all bad, despite all the grim statistics mentioned here.

Some zoos have helped and keep helping conserve many species, which are slowly reintroduced to the wilderness. This process is not always successful, but even these efforts are essential.

Zoos are also a place of research and education. Scientists have learned a lot from captured animals and have preserved some ecosystems thanks to this knowledge.

Also, most children adore zoos because it's where they can learn about animals firsthand.

19. How many animals have died in captivity?

Finding the captive animal deaths stats is very difficult because those profiting from trading their parts try to keep it a secret.

Advocacy for Animals provided some gruesome facts, though:

Almost all (90%) farm-raised foxes die for their fur, which is sold on the trim market. This use of animal pelts is becoming more popular than its use for making coats.

About 100,000 carnivores in the US die to traps, poison, shooting, etc., on behalf of the federal government. These numbers account for both captive and free animals on private and public properties.

Chinese traditional medicine also makes use of bear organs. The practitioners keep many (near 10,000) unwilling bear organ "donors" on farms across Asia.

Conclusion

Thanks to them, we can conclude that aquariums and zoos aren't always places of education, conservation, and entertainment for everyone.

Sure, they have some benefits, but they put profits first and animal rights second for the most part.

We need to spread awareness if we want to see changes before it's too late for abused, neglected, or endangered animals in captivity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
19 Sad Animals in Captivity Statistics (2023 UPDATE) | Petpedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most people like going to the zoo, especially with their kids. They think that zoos are entertaining and educational facilities that exist with animals' best interests in mind. It's very bleak, but we all need to learn more to raise awareness about the actual conditions that captured animals live in.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Some of the most widely used AZA statistics, updated annually.

Annual Survey Results

AZA members (Individual Professional category members and Primary Contacts of Conservation Partner, Commercial, Related Facility and Institution Members) may log in and download the results of the most recent AZA Annual Survey of Members.

Accreditation

237 accredited zoos and aquariums in 13 countries (Updated September 2023)

USA: 213 in 46 states and the District of Columbia

Canada: 7

Mexico: 4

Bahamas: 1

Bermuda: 1

Dominican Republic: 1

Argentina: 1

Colombia: 1

Spain: 1

Hong Kong: 1

Singapore: 2

South Korea: 2

United Arab Emirates: 2

15 accredited related facilities
Accreditation occurs every 5 years
Approximately 25 facilities undergo the accreditation process every 6 months

Types of Accredited Facilities

134 zoos

59 aquariums

9 both zoo and aquariums

16 safari and theme parks

15 science and nature centers

2 aviaries

2 butterfly houses

54% non-profit

35% public

11% for-profit

Animals in AZA-Accredited Facilities

Over 780,000 animals in the care of AZA-accredited zoo and aquarium professionals

Over 8,600 species

Over 800 Vulnerable, Endangered, Critically Endangered, and Extinct In The Wild species as categorized by the IUCN Red List

Species Survival Plan® (SSP) Programs

42 Taxon Advisory Groups (TAGs)

Nearly 500 Species Survival Plan Programs

AZA Reproductive Management Center

Supports SSP ® programs by monitoring the safety and efficacy of contraceptives used for all mammalian species and helping bring new contraceptive methods to the zoo, aquarium, and wildlife community

AZA Population Management Center

Population planning for 500 species for the next 100 years

Conservation

$252.2 million was spent on field conservation in 119 countries in 2022

232 species and subspecies that benefited are listed as Endangered or Threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

$29 million was spent on AZA SAFE: Saving Animals From Extinction species programs in 2022

AZA's Conservation Grants Fund

Over $8.7 million supporting over 470 conservation projects since 1991

Economy

In the most recent survey in 2018, AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums:

Contributed more than $22.5 billion to U.S. economy

Supported more than 198,000 full-time jobs in the U.S.

Served more than 200 million annual visitors worldwide (183 million in the U.S.)

Informal Science Education

Based on the Education Programs survey data from 2019,

AZA members provided teacher professional development, curriculum resources and free planning visits that reached more than 96,000 teachers

5.5 million individuals were reached through field trips, outreach programs and education resources targeted to K-12 students

124 facilities reported more than 1,200 education programs that include content about connecting to nature, reaching more than 33 million.

(Updated April 2023)

Over 785 zoo and aquarium professionals have completed in-person AZA courses from 2020-present

Almost 250 zoo and aquarium professionals participated in virtual AZA courses from 2021-2022

AZA offers 18 in-person courses that are team-taught by professionals in the field, designed to develop a variety of animal management, education, and leadership skills

AZA's Executive Leadership Development Program prepares the next generation of executive leaders to successfully advance the zoo and aquarium movement in the future. More than 80 leaders have completed the program since 2014, with 27 having been promoted to the role of Executive Director or CEO.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn more about the Association for Zoos and Aquariums' members, educational programs, and conservation efforts, as well as the kinds of facilities we support.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The main benefits of zoos and aquariums include Conservation, Education and Research programs that are designed to preserve and protect wild animals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Back to Animals

A zoo can be an awesome place to see animals first hand and learn about what they eat, their habits, environment, and all sorts of other interesting facts about animals. Another name for a zoo is zoological garden.

Today zoos are becoming better and better places for animals. In the past some zoos were somewhat cruel to animals. Placing animals in environments they were not suited for and often not keeping the animal's best interest in mind. However, today many zoos do wonderful work in animal research and take great care of their animals.

Photo by Ducksters

Some good things that many Zoos do today include:

Acting as sanctuaries for endangered animals. They provide a safe environment for animals that are being threatened by changes in the environment. Often zoos will work to breed and maintain endangered animal populations. Sometime animals are nearly extinct in the wild and the only place they survive is in zoos.

Education on wildlife. Zoos provide a great opportunity for us to learn more about creatures from distant lands.

Research on wildlife and how we can help animals survive radical changes. Zoos do veterinary medicine research as well.

Today's modern zoos house animals in enclosures that are similar to the animal's natural habitat. This can include buildings made for nocturnal animals where they are bright at night, so the animals can sleep, and dark during the day, so zoo visitors can see the animals moving about. Also, climates are controlled in some zoo enclosures for animals like penguins and polar bears. Many zoos have great open spaces as well where animals may graze together. Some zoos have an area where you can take a mini-safari or ride around in a truck or bus to hopefully see the animals up close.

Perhaps the most famous zoo is the San Diego Zoo in Southern California. Many modern zoo practices were pioneered at the San Diego Zoo. The largest zoo in number of animals is the Bronx Zoo with over 6000 animals. The largest zoo in land size is the North Carolina Zoo with 535 acres.

Photo by Ducksters

Seeing an elephant, giraffe, lion, polar bear, penguins, seals, or other incredible creatures at the zoo can be an amazing experience. Be sure to check out your local zoo and get the opportunity to see some awesome animals and learn more about nature.

Another great place to see animals, similar to a zoo, is at an aquarium. Most states have an aquarium where they display all sorts of fish and some sea mammals.More on endangered species:
Amphibians in Danger
Endangered Animals
How Animals Become Extinct
Wildlife Conservation
Zoos

Back to Animals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn about the zoo. History and types of zoological gardens. List of Zoos with interesting animals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How do you feel about keeping animals in zoos? Read both sides of the argument to help you decide.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Some clever chimps stage escape at Kansas City Zoo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It took a branch, a wall, and a smart chimpanzee ringleader to cause a “Code Red” at the zoo.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Instructional Content Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Instructional Content Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Instructional Content Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Real sanctuaries are safe, comfortable places for animals to live after they've been rescued from not-so-nice places like circuses or laboratories. People can sometimes visit these sanctuaries, which is an awesome way to learn about and see animals without supporting businesses that hurt them, like roadside zoos or wildlife parks. Roadside zoos and wildlife parks use animals to make money. It's confusing because they sometimes call themselves "sanctuaries" or "rescues" to bring in more customers, because they know that people don't want to visit roadside zoos, but they're being dishonest when they do that.

It's important not to get these horrible places confused with actual sanctuaries. But how can you tell the difference? It's easy! There are a few simple questions you can ask about a place to figure out whether it's helping or hurting animals the animals who live there.

You can find answers to these questions by browsing a facility's website and social media pages (your parents can help):

1. How are animals housed?

Real sanctuaries make sure that an animal's living space is as close to their natural habitat as possible. Animals should live with others of their own kind so they can have friends. It's mean to keep them all alone in small, dirty pens with concrete floors and nothing to do-and you should stay away from places like that.

2. What kinds of activities do the animals get to do?

The animals' living area should have lots of ways for them to play and enjoy themselves! For example, there should be a large structure for chimpanzees to climb on, water for bears to soak and splash in, and large fields for roaming and exploring. Animals need these things if they're going to be healthy, happy, and comfortable.

Animals should also live with others of the same species so they can communicate with each another easily and form relationships and groups. In many sanctuaries, the animals who already live there help teach the newcomers how to get back in touch with their natural instincts and enjoy life again.

3. How big is the facility?

Animals should be given enough space to explore, roam, climb, and forage. And a real sanctuary NEVER takes the animals out of the facility to show them off.

4. Are visitors allowed to touch or hold the animals?

True wild-animal sanctuaries (with big cats, bears, primates, or wolves) NEVER allow visitors to touch or hold the animals, even babies, and that includes taking photos with them. This would be scary for the animals and dangerous to the visitors, too!

5. Where did the animals come from?

The animals who live there probably came from a place where they were mistreated, so they have a sad and painful past. The staff will want to share each animal's story so that visitors can learn about the various places that hurt animals (like laboratories, circuses, and roadside zoos). Real sanctuaries provide animals with a permanent home for the rest of their life. They NEVER trade, borrow, or loan animals.

6. Does the facility breed animals?

Sanctuaries NEVER breed animals, meaning that they don't make any of the animals have babies. Places that do breed animals are using them to make money-that's not right, and that's not a sanctuary.

7. What is it like to visit a sanctuary?

Most sanctuaries only allow very limited visits. Usually a guide takes people on a small tour of the place and doesn't let them walk around by themselves.

8. Is it accredited?

True sanctuaries are accredited by the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS), a group that makes sure sanctuaries follow strict rules to protect the animals who live there, like the ones listed above.
*****
All living, feeling beings deserve a comfortable place to live where people aren't always staring at them. A true sanctuary puts the needs and wants of the animals first. So if you care about animals, NEVER visit a roadside zoo or a wildlife park, and explain to your friends and family why places like that are bad for animals!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
8 Ways to Tell a REAL Sanctuary From a Roadside Zoo | PETA Kids

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Roadside zoo or animal sanctuary? This list will explain the difference-so you can figure out if a place is hurting or helping animals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Smithsonian's National Zoo: We Save Species

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
/ CBS News

WASHINGTON - The National Zoo has a reputation as a leader in animal care, science and cute photo opportunities such as the naming of Bao Bao the baby panda earlier this month.

But a CBS News investigation has learned that behind the scenes, there are insider allegations of mismanagement involving animal care. Five sources with more than 35 years' combined experience at the National Zoo have raised concerns to CBS News about recent animal injuries, deaths and escapes.

The sources don't want to be identified for fear of retaliation. They say problems began last year when the zoo decided to double the population of the Cheetah Conservation Station, adding a half dozen new species but no extra space. Besides cheetahs, the CCS also houses zebras, gazelles and other species.

CBS News asked animal biologist and ethicist Marc Bekoff to look at the complaints. He was an independent reviewer of a 2005 National Academy of Sciences investigation of the zoo that found "systemic problems at the highest levels."

Of the newly raised issues, Bekoff said: "I call it 'fetch and pray.' You get the animals and then you pray that the project will work out."

The CCS' new animal mix didn't always work out. Issues identified by the zoo sources include two newly acquired hornbill birds that were kept in an indoor shack for seven months because their exhibit yard wasn't ready. Only after a volunteer complained were the birds allowed in an outdoor space. But the wallaby that had to share its yard with these new arrivals became frightened, according to sources, bloodied its nose and spent much of its time frightened and hiding.

One of two new red river hogs quickly became malnourished and died of an infection. The other hog, along with oryxes and sitatungas (two types of antelopes), sometimes became overly aggressive when mixed together, and some were injured in vicious fights.

It's not unusual for animals to spar, but the zoo sources say management failed to predict easily foreseeable conflicts between species and genders, and had ineffective backup plans for separating and protecting the animals when the conflicts arose.

"It's no surprise to me as a field biologist that so many of them do not work out," Bekoff told CBS News. "They're just too hastily put together and they're not well thought through."

Zoo spokeswoman Pamela Baker-Masson says the National Zoo meets the highest industry standards and the animals always receive the best care.

"We take great care in introducing our animals to these various habitats and transitioning them. Ideally, these things wouldn't happen, of course," said Baker-Masson. "I think my colleagues were very well aware and they know these species and they know how to take care of these species. ... Every single animal has a very specific course of action and a plan."

Bekoff says the zoo's plans appear to have been inadequate. "They should only be able to get the animals when it can be shown that they can properly house them and care for them."

Two animals in the CCS, a Dama gazelle and a pregnant kudu (another type of antelope), died when they got spooked on separate occasions and ran into barriers in their confined spaces, breaking their necks.

The gazelle death happened last month after a zebra attacked a veteran zookeeper. The commotion apparently frightened the gazelle, which is on the endangered species list. Zoo sources say it wasn't found for hours. The pregnant kudu died last June. Zoo sources say as the animal lay suffering with a broken neck, workers were unable to quickly locate necessary veterinary records.

Baker-Masson says Dama gazelles and kudus are skittish animals by nature and were housed in adequate spaces that met the requirements of the American Zoological Association, which recently re-accredited the facility.

As for the hornbill birds that were keep indoors for eight months, Baker-Masson says the space was "more than adequate and it gave the staff a very good amount of time to prepare and work with the hornbills" but "ideally they would have [had] access to their outdoor yard space more quickly."

Bekoff calls the lengthy indoor confinement "totally unacceptable."

"There's not one single excuse that I would accept," he said. "Basically this is a form of animal abuse and animal neglect. ...They get an 'F' in this project.'

Zoo sources also expressed concern about two escapes from the CCS: a vulture whose wings were allegedly not properly clipped and a red panda who managed to climb out of its exhibit. Both animals were later recaptured and zoo officials say the failures that allowed the escapes have been fixed.

CBS News has learned that the zoo convened a task force last summer to investigate the internal complaints about animal care at the CCS. The task force made findings last August and Baker-Masson says some of its recommendations are already being implemented.

Zoo officials refused CBS News' repeated requests to release the task force report even though, under public records law, it's considered public material.

As to why the National Zoo is withholding the information, Baker-Masson provided a number of rationales. First, she said that the task force report was still only a draft, four months after it was scheduled to be completed. However, when CBS News asked for the draft, she would not provide that either.

Later, in an interview, Baker-Masson said that the task force report is finished, but that the zoo isn't ready to release it.

"We're more than happy to [release the task force report]," Baker-Masson told CBS News. "But we have to do it in a thorough and process-oriented way that makes sense."

She acknowledged that some of the concerns investigated were founded.

"Absolutely," Baker-Masson said. "Anytime a concern is raised, it's looked at very seriously and we have to examine, you know, what changes are appropriate for that particular species, what changes are appropriate for the staff, what changes are appropriate for the facility itself. So yes, absolutely, some changes have been made."

Another incident the zoo is keeping mum about is the November zebra attack on the zookeeper. Baker-Masson says that AZA standards require that there always be a barrier between a keeper and zebras, which can inflict serious bite wounds. But the zoo says three weeks after the attack, it still has not identified how the zebra got to the keeper and it would not release the incident report or other public information about it. The injured zookeeper was recently released after several weeks in the hospital.

Sharyl Attkisson

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are there animal care problems at National Zoo?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Behind the scenes, there are insider allegations of mismanagement involving animals at famed D.C. facility

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to main content

Why Zoos Matter

We at the Saint Louis Zoo are passionate about the work we do. We not only care about the work we're doing, we are fostering animals that are threatened or endangered and supporting their perpetuation into the future.

Making a Difference

The world around us is changing fast. Species of wildlife are facing global extinction on a massive scale. About 41 percent of all amphibian species and 26 percent of all mammals are now threatened with extinction, and fully half of the world's primates - our closest relatives - teeter on the edge of existence. We face the loss of one in eight of all bird species. Overall, the extinction rate has increased a hundred-fold over the last century, and today we estimate that over 18,000 species face oblivion. Zoos are in a unique position to make a difference. Zoos are focused on offering the very best possible nutrition, enrichment and environment for animals in their care.

The many committed people at zoos care deeply about animals, working with an incredible variety of species, from one-celled creatures to elephants. Our research on behavior, reproductive biology, nutrition, animal health and genetics is valuable to wildlife managers, field researchers and other scientists.

For example, the Saint Louis Zoo has been doing a mother/infant bonding study with antelope and other hoofed animals at Red Rocks for 14 years. The data we've gathered - how often and when a species typically nurses, who initiates nursing, proximity, grooming, nuzzling - has provided information to field researchers that would be hard to come by otherwise.

We are animal experts

Zoo professionals are experts on breeding small populations of endangered species. That knowledge, too, has become valuable to scientists working with wildlife populations. Nowadays animals in wild habitats are often found in small, fragmented groups because of agriculture, logging or other human activity.

We collaborate with organizations worldwide on conservation breeding, habitat preservation, community development, public education and research.

Explore our conservation efforts

From Fence to Field

In 2004, the Saint Louis Zoo established the WildCare Institute to work in conservation hotspots locally and around the globe.

From Forest Park and Missouri streams to the Horn of Africa or the coastline of Peru, the Zoo is taking a holistic approach to wildlife conservation. While the Zoo has been involved in helping save endangered species for decades, our goal today is create a sustainable future for wildlife and for people around the world. Ultimately, we need to help save the ecosystems on which animals and humans depend. WildCare Institute addresses three key ingredients in conservation success: wildlife management and recovery, conservation science, and support of the human populations that coexist with wildlife.

Connecting people to animals

People learn at zoos. They learn in our formal classes, lectures, camps, teacher workshops, distance learning, zoo tours, overnights and outreach programs. Informally they learn from keeper chats, docent volunteers, interpreters, signage and special exhibits. Most important, they learn from observing zoo animals.

On a scale of 1 to 10, our visitors rate their educational experience at the Saint Louis Zoo as a 9.1.

Unique Experiences.

Zoos are a place where families can have unique experiences together every time they visit. Today's families are more conscious than ever of the need to teach their children about the natural world and respect for living creatures.

Why do people come to the zoo?

Why do zoos matter?

Because we care.

We want to keep this planet's amazing wildlife around for future generations.

Donate to our Conservation Fund

If you'd like to contribute financially to our conservation efforts, you can make a donation through the Saint Louis Zoo.

Learn more

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Saint Louis Zoo is dedicated to saving species and bringing people and wildlife together. Home to over 16,000 animals, many of which are endangered, entry is free every day for everyone, an important part of our commitment to people and animals - always.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For a mother and kids at the Philadelphia Zoo, in Pennsylvania, it was a close encounter of the ferocious kind. Directly in front of them was a Siberian tiger. But the family did not panic. They laughed. The tiger was in a meshed-in walkway.

That tiger trail is part of Zoo360. The exhibit has changed the way humans and animals experience the zoo. But Zoo360's bigger impact may come from its effort to change animals' lives in captivity.

PHILADELPHIA ZOO

Many experts think zoos need a major overhaul if they're going to last. The Philadelphia Zoo may be the best model for that change.

Studies show that many animal species are smarter and feel more than we have understood. Animals may suffer when they are removed from the wild. If creatures suffer when they're confined, should they be held in captivity?

"Even the best zoos today are based on captivity and coercion × coercion GETTY IMAGES the use of force or threats (noun) The bullies used coercion to get Sam to hand over his lunch money. ," says Jon Coe. He is the zoo designer who invented the Zoo360 concept. "To me, that's the fundamental flaw."

PHILADELPHIA ZOO

Rethinking Zoos

In 1975, when David Hancocks took over as director of the Woodland Park Zoo, in Seattle, Washington, it looked like any other major-city zoo. But within a year, Hancocks hired Coe to rethink how zoo animals are kept. Coe developed a plan that incorporated natural vegetation, room to roam, and abundant light.

The new polar-bear exhibit at the St. Louis Zoo, in Missouri, is a good example of an exhibit that has the animals' best interests at heart. The $16 million, 40,000-square-foot enclosure dedicates an area to each of the polar bear's native environments: sea, coast, and tundra × tundra MICHAEL DEYOUNG-GETTY IMAGES a vast, treeless, arctic region ( noun) The tourists hiked across the Alaskan tundra. .

Many zoos, however, do not have the money and space needed to provide a proper home for an animal. Take elephants, for example. A recent study shows how elephants thrive when they have social connections and can gather their own food. In 2011, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) started requiring zoos with elephants to keep at least three of the animals and an elephant scientist on staff. Not every zoo can afford that.

FRANCK BOHBOT FOR TIME

Creature Connection

Hancocks has done a lot to shape the zoos we see today. Now he spends more time thinking about their future-and flaws. An exhibit might look better than a cage, but an animal might get little benefit from it. "A concrete tree is as useless as a light pole," he says. "From the animals' point of view, they're really no better off."

Most zoo officials don't agree. Many have dedicated their lives to working with animals. Ask a dozen zoo directors why these places should exist today, and education, conservation, and science all come up.

But helping people understand animals is the most common answer. "That moment at a zoo, when a person sees a gorilla look them back in the eye, helps them grasp their role in a greater natural world," says Mike Clifford. He works at a design firm that helps zoos create exhibits.

FROM TOP: ERIC GEVAERT-GETTY IMAGES; ART WOLFE-GETTY IMAGES; TOM MCHUGH-GETTY IMAGES

People are going to zoos in greater numbers than ever. According to the AZA, in 2015, more than 170 million people visited zoos in the U.S. Still, those big numbers will do little to lessen the growing arguments against keeping animals captive.

"Where are we going?" asks David Towne, who once oversaw the Woodland Park Zoo. "I guess I'm worried."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Experts say zoos need to better meet the needs of animals. For a mother and kids at the Philadelphia Zoo, in Pennsylvania, it was a close encounter of the ferocious kind. Directly in front of them was a Siberian tiger....

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
7 Reasons Why Animals in Captivity Deserve Freedom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About this film

It's no secret that our public water and sewer systems are in need of maintenance, repair, and upgrades, making them vulnerable to private corporations offering false solutions to cities struggling to pay for these necessities. When corporations take control of our water, they prioritize turning a profit, instead of access to clean, safe, affordable drinking water that we all need to survive. Unsurprisingly, after systems are privatized, water bills are often much higher than government-owned rates.

Fortunately, cities around the country are finding creative ways to keep their water systems out of corporate control. Our animation is narrated by Bernard Young, the Mayor of Baltimore - this is the first major city in the United States to ban certain forms of water privatization, setting a new standard for public water protection that other cities can aspire to follow.

Share

Movie Resources

Credits

The Story of Water was written by Ruben DeLuna, Miranda Fox, Michael O'Heaney, and Alissa Weinman. The film was directed and animated by Ruben DeLuna Creative and produced by The Story of Stuff Project. Voiceover by Mayor Bernard C. "Jack" Young. With creative and technical support from the Story of Stuff Project and Corporate Accountability teams: Jericho Apo, Miguel Astudillo, Heshan Berents-Weeramuni, Brett Chamberlin, Neil Gupta, Taylor Leake, Lizzie McQuillan, Elisa Ringholm, Ari Rubenstein.

Special thanks to: Mayor Young, Lester Davis, and Mayor Young's team, Rianna Eckel and Mary Grant at Food & Water Watch, Marc Steiner at Center for Emerging Media, and Justin C. Gladden at TERTLTANK Media Group, and Mayors Innovation Project.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About this film It's no secret that our public water and sewer systems are in need of maintenance, repair, and upgrades, making them vulnerable to private corporations offering false solutions to cities struggling to pay for these necessities. When corporations take control of our water, they prioritize turning a profit, instead of access to clean, safe,...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Are Some Advantages of Bottled Water?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While some people might argue that it’s silly to spend money on something you can get for…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I often hear of arguments saying bottles of mineral water should be banned. The logic of banning bottled water is that it is a strong commitment to reducing single-use plastic which has high environmental costs. However, others argue it is a rather drastic measure which only tackles small part of the problem.

Reasons to ban bottled water

1. Plastic bottles require oil, water and environmental costs of transporting. This use of oil and plastic contributes to global warming, carbon emissions and is unecessary.

2. Creates unnecessary landfill. Many plastic bottles end up as litter in the sea or the countryside where the plastic doesn't degrade. This is both a visual eyesore but can cause problems and even death for wildlife.

3. The water footprint of a bottled water is greater than just the water involved. Bottled water requires water in the packaging, production and distribution stage.

4. Banning bottled water will encourage people to choose sustainable alternatives - refillable water.

5. Already airports are providing places to top up water bottles rather than expect people to buy new ones.

Reasons not to ban bottled water

1. Water has a lower water footprint than other drinks. According to IBWA water has the lowest water footprint of any drink

It takes:

1.39 litres to make one litre of bottled water

2.02 litres for one-liter soda.

4 litres of water for one-litre beer

4.74 litres for one-litre wine.

34.5 litres of water for every litre of alcoholic spirits

2. Encourages less healthy options. If bottled water is banned, but people want to drink they will be forced to choose less healthy options such as sugary and carbonated drinks. The problem of single-use plastic is not reduced, but we just see a rise in demand for other types of bottled drinks.

3. It takes away people's choice of whether to buy water. Why should we ban bottled water, but not soda and alcohol which is worse for you?

4. There are better ways to deal with the problem of single-use plastic. Rather than ban bottled water, it would be better to tackle the wider issue. This could involve an 'environmental tax' on all plastic, single-use drinks. This provides a financial incentive to cut back on buying plastic bottles. The revenue raised could be used to fund clean-up operations in the sea and rivers.

5. Tap water may be unsafe or more likely to contain contaminants. Even in the US, potentially millions of people are drinking unsafe tap water. ( Science Mag) One study found that during the Flint water crisis in 2015, nearly 21 million Americans-about 6%-were getting water from systems that violated health standards.
Personal view
For what it is worth I'd like to give my twopence worth on this topic. But, first, I have to admit my bias and prejudices. The thing is I don't drink alcohol, I don't drink soft drinks - I really hate Coke and things like that. I'm vegetarian. I cycle to work. I vote Green (if I ever get round to voting). I get up at 6 am in the morning to meditate. But, I do have one weakness - I really like drinking bottled water.

Sometimes, I like to sip the nicely carbonated San Pelegrino, other times I like to drink the pure still Evian. Sometimes I drink filtered tap water. But, water is the only thing I like to drink. I know it's a bad habit - But, I've tried to kick it without success.

And I'm sure people are right when they say Thames tap water is much better for your health than Evian. (I mean all those nitrates, and chlorine is good for you right ?) And the fact tap water gets recycled seven times means it must be very eco.

Tax Bottled Water

Now as an economist I'm very fond of Pigouvian taxes. I believe we should have higher taxes on petrol, Fatty foods e.t.c

If people think bottled water has negative externalities (pollution, unnecessary landfill) then I'd be happy for an appropriate tax to be placed on bottled water so bad people like me can pay the true social cost.

But, if we tax bottled water shouldn't we tax soft drinks? And is not water good for you? Maybe we should subsidise bottled water and tax soft drinks to encourage people to drink sugar-free liquid?
Related

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should Bottled Water Be Banned? - Economics Help

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I often hear of arguments saying bottles of mineral water should be banned. The logic of banning bottled water is that it is a strong commitment to reducing single-use plastic which has high environmental costs. However, others argue it is a rather drastic measure which only tackles small part of...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Would Banning Plastic Bottles Help or Hurt the Planet?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Americans consumed 14.4 billion gallons of bottled water in 2019, up 3.6% from 2018, in what has been a steadily increasing trend since 2010. In 2016, bottled water outsold soda for the first time and has continued to do so every year since, making it the number one packaged beverage in the United States. 2020 revenue for bottled water was $61.326 million by June 15, and the overall market is expected to grow to $505.19 billion by 2028.

Globally, about 20,000 plastic bottles were bought every second in 2017, the majority of which contained drinking water. More than half of those bottles were not turned in for recycling, and of those recycled, only 7% were turned into new bottles.

In 2013, Concord, MA, became the first US city to ban single-serve plastic water bottles, citing environmental and waste concerns. Since then, many cities, colleges, entertainment venues, and national parks have followed suit, including San Francisco, the University of Vermont, the Detroit Zoo, and the Grand Canyon National Park.

Should Bottled Water Be Banned?

Pro 1

Banning bottled water would reduce waste and protect the environment.

About 70% of plastic water bottles bought in the United States were not recycled in 2015, which means the majority end up in landfills or in the oceans, harming the ecosystem and poisoning animals.

Almost all plastic water bottles are made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), the raw materials for which are derived from crude oil and natural gas. The Pacific Institute found that producing enough plastic for the bottles of water consumed by Americans in 2006 took about 17 million barrels of oil. Since 2006, American consumption of bottled water has increased 65% from 8.3 billion gallons in 2006 to 13.7 billion gallons in 2017, increasing the need for more plastic water bottles and thus more oil and gas.

Between 2012 and 2016, a ban on plastic water bottles in 23 US National Parks prevented (per year) up to 2 million plastic water bottles being purchased and up to 111,743 pounds of PET being produced.

A nationwide ban on bottled water would lead to an estimated 68 billion fewer plastic water bottles being manufactured, purchased, used, and discarded.
Read More

Pro 2

Banning bottled water is good for your health.

Bottled water is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and requires weekly testing; tap water is more stringently regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency through multiple daily tests.

A study published in Environmental Science & Technology found that the chemical antimony (Sb) can leach from plastic PET bottles into the water within. After six months storage at room temperature antimony (Sb) concentrations increased on average 90% in 48 brands of water from 11 countries. Exposure to antimony (Sb) can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, higher blood cholesterol, and low blood sugar.

Banning bottled water would reduce the number of plastic bottles manufactured via a process that emits harmful chemicals. Studies indicate that communities living close to PET factories suffer from increased levels of chronic illness and birth defects. In Corpus Christi, TX, where the US' largest PET factory is located, birth defects are 84% higher than the state average.
Read More

Pro 3

Banning bottled water would save money, and public water fountains are convenient and plentiful.

Mathematicians at Penn State University estimate that spending $20 on a reusable water bottle can save the average American up to $1,236 a year. For a family of four that amounts to nearly $5,000.

In San Francisco, where single-use plastic water bottles are banned, 31 water fountains have been added to public areas with 20 more planned. New York City, where Mayor Bill DeBlasio banned single-use water bottles via executive order in Feb. 2020, has 51 water fountains, with another 500 planned by 2025. With public fountains easily available, people can refill reusable water bottles.
Read More

Pro 4

Banning bottled water would protect local water supplies.

Almost 64% of the water being bottled comes from municipal supplies, which can drain water sources relied upon by local communities.

In Michigan, the state allowed Nestlé to pump and bottle clean water from the state's reserves while local residents in Flint fought for access to clean water.

In Pakistan, groundwater levels were depleted in a village neighboring a Nestlé bottled water production plant, resulting in the local water supply turning to sludge.

According to Matthew Davis, PhD, Associate Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of New Hampshire, "during droughts, bottling plants could dry up wells and wetlands or deplete the streamflows in the immediate area."
Read More

Con 1

Banning bottled water removes a healthy choice and leads to increased consumption of unhealthy sugary drinks.

Increased consumption of zero-calorie bottled water in place of high-calorie juices and sodas has cut trillions of calories from American diets.

Michael C. Bellas, Chairman and CEO of the Beverage Marketing Corporation, says "Imagine a person cutting 161 hot dogs, 126 chocolate doughnuts or 87 cheeseburgers from their diet last year. That's the kind of difference we're talking about when we quantify the number of calories saved due to this widespread shift to bottled water."

In Aug. 2017, the National Park Service discontinued its policy that encouraged national parks to ban sales of plastic water bottles stating that, "The ban removed the healthiest beverage choice... while still allowing sales of bottled sweetened drinks."

The International Bottled Water Association noted, "research shows that if bottled water isn't available, 63 percent of people will choose soda or another sugared drink - not tap water."

In Spring 2013, the University of Vermont banned the sale of single use plastic water bottles on campus. The ban resulted in increased sales of higher calorie beverages in place of zero-calorie water; sales of low-calorie (10-50 calorie) beverages increased 12%, juices increased 11%, and sugar-sweetened beverages increased 10%.
Read More

Con 2

Other types of beverages have plastic containers that are more harmful than plastic water bottles, and bans don't necessarily reduce waste.

Plastic water bottles contain much less polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic than soft drink bottles that require a thicker plastic container due to the drinks' carbonation - 9.89 grams of PET v. 23.9 grams for a 16.9oz bottle.

A study by Quantis found that between 2007 and 2015, bottled water providers reduced the amount of material used in 8oz-2.5 gallon plastic water bottles by 42.8% - PET plastic is the most common material used in these bottles.

Another study by Quantis, commissioned by Nestlé Waters, found that the packaging and distribution of "sports drinks, enhanced waters and soda produce nearly 50% more carbon dioxide emissions per serving than bottled water."

Plastic water bottles make up 3.3% of all drink packaging in US landfills, which is less than both plastic carbonated soft drink containers (13.3%) and aluminum cans (7.9%).

A study on the University of Vermont's ban on selling single-use plastic water bottles found that total shipments of plastic bottles actually increased 20% as consumers increased their consumption of less healthy bottled beverages rather than switching to using reusable bottles and drinking from water fountains.
Read More

Con 3

Bottled water is a practical emergency water supply.

If tap water is not drinkable, then bottled water is a necessary replacement, making its availability essential to public health.

Ready.gov, the Department of Homeland Security's preparedness website on how to prepare for natural and man-made disasters, recommends everyone "buy commercially bottled water and store it in the sealed original container in cool, dark place."

In Apr. 2014, officials in Flint, MI, changed the city's water supply from Lake Huron to the Flint River. Flint River water is highly corrosive - it eroded water pipes delivering tap water to residents' homes resulting in iron and lead leaching into the water, poisoning those who drank and bathed in it. Between Jan. 2016 and Apr. 2018, the state distributed free 16oz bottles of water to residents for use instead of tap water - it was estimated that a family of three used 151 of these water bottles a day.
Read More

Con 4

Banning bottled water restricts consumers' access to a product they want, and negatively affects small businesses.

A survey by Harris Poll for the International Bottled Water Association found that 93% of Americans think "bottled water should be available wherever drinks are sold," with 31% saying that they only, or mostly only, drink bottled water.

Research by Kantor Panel Worldwide found that "40% of all water servings come in the form of bottled water."

As one blogger said, "everyone tells me that I'm wasting away money and harming the environment, but if it weren't for bottled water I honestly wouldn't drink any water at all... My personal choice is just not tap. I don't like it."

Daniel Kenn, owner of Sudbury Coffee Works in Sudbury, MA, where a plastic water bottle ban was enacted, said, "people want water, it's probably the biggest money maker in that cooler... almost every other town still allows plastic water bottle sales, which will put Sudbury Coffee Works at a competitive disadvantage when the ban takes effect."
Read More

Discussion Questions

1. Should single-use plastics, such as water bottles, be banned? Why or why not?

2. Should other single-use beverage bottles (soda, sports drinks, etc) be banned? Why or why not?

3. What other ways might we prevent plastic from ending up in the ocean? Explain your answer(s).

Take Action
1. Consider the argument that single-use plastic is a " serious climate change hazard."

2. Explore which cities and states have single-use plastic bag bans.

3. Evaluate the argument that bottled water bans harm the environment and public health.

4. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? If so, how? List two to three ways. If your thoughts have not changed, list two to three ways your better understanding of the "other side of the issue" now helps you better argue your position.

5. Push for the position and policies you support by writing US national senators and representatives.
Sources More Environmental Debates
Should the United States Continue Fracking? - Proponents say natural gas is a bridge fuel to 100% clean energy. Opponents say we need to immediately move away from all fossil fuels.

Should Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) Be Grown? - Proponents say GMO foods have been proven safe. Opponents say studies have not confirmed the safety of GMOs.

Can Alternative Energy Effectively Replace Fossil Fuels? - The pros and cons of the alternative and renewable energies debate include arguments for and against solar, wind, and nuclear powers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bottled Water Bans - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say bottled water bans protect the environment. Opponents say bans lead to increased consumption of unhealthy sugary drinks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bottled water might seem like a silly product to consider using thanks to the reliability and safety of tap water around the world, but there are still many locations that need this product for basic life essentials. It is also very common to use a bottle of water as a way to stay hydrated while working, participating in athletics, going to the gym, and the other physical activities of life.

One of the reasons why it is such a common product is that it is highly affordable. For about 50% of the cost of a soda, juice product, or tea, you can purchase a zero-calorie option that can leave you feeling refreshed. Although glass bottles are sometimes available in some locations, small plastic containers tend to be the most popular option to use when bottling water.

The idea of drinking bottled water over a sugary beverage can make it seem like this product has multiple advantages and no concerns to evaluate. When we look at the bottling and disposal process that goes with this product, there can be some circumstances where the purchase of a bottle of water may not be the best choice.

List of the Advantages of Bottled Water

1. Bottled water provides a superior form of hydration.
When you are drinking a bottled water product, then you are consuming something that your body naturally wants when you feel thirsty. The reality of personal care in the United States and other developed countries is that 75% of the general population remains voluntarily dehydrated every day. If you have a portable water product that can go with you to any location, then it is easier to meet the needs of your body.

By drinking water, you won't be adding sugars, sodium, or other unhealthy ingredients to your body's systems that could lead to future health problems if the alternative items are not consumed in moderation.

2. Bottled water is a product of convenience.
Whether you choose to use your own bottle or container to bring water with you during the day or you purchase one from a store, you can take this beverage with you almost anywhere. You might be working out or practicing somewhere that doesn't offer a source of water when you become thirsty. Most offices will allow you to keep bottled water at your desk so that you can take care of your personal needs.

The convenience of this product is undeniable. You can purchase a reusable bottle to fill it up wherever you happen to be, or you can decide to buy some at most convenience stores or similar locations.

3. Bottled water can store for a long time.
If you have an unopened bottle of water, then you can usually store it indefinitely. The only requirement to meet when trying to use this advantage is that you keep it in the correct environment. Even if you decide to follow the shelf life requirements of the manufacturer for this product, you're still going to get 1-2 years of storage from the product.

Because bottled water is a food product, you should keep it in a similar environment to gain this advantage. You'll want to store it in a refrigerator instead of leaving it out in the open, like placing it in a shed or a garage. It must be kept away from chemicals, solvents, and fumes to maintain its profile. If you open a bottle of water that has algae, smells funny, or may look to be a different color, then either dispose of it or boil it before using it as an emergency supply.

4. Bottled water has a better flavor to it.
One of the primary reasons why many consumers purchase bottled water over using what they have at the tap is because of the flavor profile they receive. Some tap water can receive high levels of chlorination to ensure that it is safe to use, which can leave a funny taste and a smell when pouring yourself a glass to drink. Most commercial products do not have this concern.

Although you could purchase a filter at home to create your own bottled water from the tap (which is basically what some companies do to sell branded water), the convenience of picking up a bottle when you feel thirsty is what helps to drive the industry forward.

5. Bottled water is guaranteed to be of a specific quality.
When you purchased bottled water products, then you are buying an item that receives full monitoring during the manufacturing cycle. It is strictly regulated to ensure that it is completely free of contaminants that could make you sick. When households don't have access to tap water that is clean and safe to drink, purchasing bottled items can make sure that any adverse effects from contamination don't have a chance to settle in to become problematic.

The EPA in the United States sets standards and regulations for the presence or the amount of over 90 potential contaminants in the drinking water, including salmonella, E. coli, and cryptosporidium. You can check with your local utility to see what the latest testing results are for your community. If you are on well water, then you'll want to have independent testers check on the quality of your water.

6. Bottled water is a highly regulated product.
Most countries in the world regulate their bottled water supplies. In the United States, the EPA considers this product to be a food item, so it falls under the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration. There are specific guidelines in place that require producers to follow Good Manufacturing Practices during the creation of a sellable product, including licensing and monitoring requirements that ensure the quality of the water.

"Tap water can pick up pesticides which have been washed into streams and rivers," writes Toby Amidor for Food Network. "Chlorin e is added to tap water to help disinfect it, but it can react with fallen leaves to form a toxic byproduct. Even your own pipes can contaminate tap water with lead."

7. Bottled water offers several different options from which to choose.
If you rely on tap water to quench your thirst, then you have one basic choice for your drinking needs. When you choose to purchase a bottled water product, then there are several more options from which to select. Mineral water is a popular choice, as it comes from an underground source and contains a specific nutrient profile that might not be available with what comes from the faucet. Spring water is another option that producers can collect from the surface.

You can also purchase purified tap water in bottles as a way to take advantage of the convenience of this item without needing to do the extra work at home.

8. Bottled water does not use up a significant amount of freshwater resources.
The annual production of bottled water represents less than 0.02% of the total ground water withdrawals that occur in the United States each year. Even when a drought occurs in a region water supplies are part of the production chain, it is easy for producers to change their manufacturing processes to lessen their impact on the local supply chain. This product is one small part of the puzzle instead of being the primary driving force behind what we have, so it is essential not to mischaracterize the amount of waste that occurs in the system.

9. Bottled water waste does not make up a significant portion of our trash.
Although the statistics on bottled water waste and recycling can feel shocking, the reality is that the convenient-sized bottles that most people use each day account for less than 0.03% of all waste produced in the United States in the average year. Having better compliance with recycling programs can help to reduce this number even further. There might not be as much compliance in Asia with their developing economies, but there is a better understanding of the issues involved so that the impact we leave on the world is minimal.

List of the Disadvantages of Bottled Water

1. Bottled water will always cost more than tap water.
If you are using tap water to take care of your thirst, then you have one of the most inexpensive resources that is available on our planet today. You can meet your drinking needs for just pennies per day. When you move to bottled water as an alternative, then you'll be paying up to 100 times more for the convenience and availability of this product. Even if you filter your water at home, you'll pay about 10 times less than you would for the bottling, transportation, marketing, and retail costs of purchasing a grab-and-go item.

Even if you opt for the most inexpensive brands that are available in stores today, you'll still be paying a lot more for this product than with tap water. That's why many families are purchasing reusable bottles that they can take with them to meet their thirst needs.

2. Bottled water can still create health problems.
Although it is true that bottled water carries with it fewer health risks than the average tap water serving, you can still encounter problems with this product. Older bottles of water may have bisphenol A, or BPA, in them, and this chemical is known to seep into the water. There can be other contaminants present in the bottle materials as well. Depending on how you store the product, you can encounter issues with algae or mold growth that could be an issue too. You can even have the fumes from chemicals or cleaners seep into the fluid over time to create a higher risk of an adverse outcome.

3. Bottled water might still have contaminants in it.
Bottled water may be healthier than tap water in a direct comparison of averages, but that doesn't mean this product is 100% free of items that you don't want to put in your body. The primary requirement for this item is that it cannot contain an amount that exceeds the recommended guidelines that are put in place by the overseeing government entity or regulator. You'll have a local or federal maximum allowable concentration of components like arsenic or lead.

4. Bottled water creates a recycling problem for most communities.
When you pay for a bottle of water, then 90% of the expense goes to the plastic in the container instead of the fluid that you want to drink. Since 80% of these items never make it to a recycling facility, there is a lot of plastic waste that goes into landfills or exists as environmental litter around the world. Over 38 million plastic bottles that held water make it to landfills in the United States each year.

For the average American, 167 bottles of water are consumed annually that require some sort of disposal method. Since bottling and shipping it creates transportation costs to consider as well, this use of our resources is the least-efficient way to stay hydrated in the history of human cultures.

5. Bottled water can just be tap water in some circumstances.
The bottled water industry generates over $18 billion in revenues for the economy each year. What many people may not realize is that the Beverage Marketing Association admits that almost 50% of all of the products in this category in the United States is just purified tap water. The regulation standards for both products are very different. The only real difference between the two is that manufacturers use the bottled item as a product that is specific for human consumption.

That means you could purchase purifying agents for your tap or well water at home to receive a similar result. If you want information about what is in your water, then you can check your local government's website to see what type of filter would work best for your needs.

6. Bottled water doesn't contain fluoride.
Depending on your perspective, this could be an advantage or a disadvantage of consuming bottled water. Most municipalities add fluoride to their tap water as a way to encourage stronger teeth in children. In an Australian study on the comparison of drinking tap water vs. bottled water with children, those who primarily drank a bottled product had a higher risk of cavities, even with proper tooth care, compared to those who usually drank tap water instead.

There are some risks to consider with fluoride which are scientifically documented. Children under the age of six should not use a mouthwash with fluoride to avoid problems with fluorosis. Excessive exposure can lead to bone, thyroid, and neurological problems as well.

7. Bottled water creates a significant danger to animals and the environment.
The caps on the bottled water containers are often loose from the product on disposal. They make their way into the environment, including the ocean, where animals can accidentally ingest the product. Mammals, birds, and sea turtles tend to consume them the most, which creates injuries and a higher risk of a fatality because of the litter.

The amount of plastic litter in the ocean is enormous, with over 150 million metric tons currently circulating in our marine environments. An additional eight million metric tons gets added to that amount each year. That is why we must have recycling programs that take care of these bottles.

8. Bottled water leaves a significant carbon footprint.
It takes between 17-24 million barrels of oil each year to produce the plastics which are used to create bottled water products. That means you're contributing to the release of greenhouse gas emissions that could play a role in the overall warming trend of our planet. Even though the water may be healthy to consume, the processes used to create the item in the first place may actually use more freshwater than what you would have from the tap.

9. Bottled water labeling can lead to consumer confusion.
There are several different labels that you will find on bottled water products today. Drinking water is in a sealed container with no added ingredients except for fluoride, which is optional. Purified water can either come from a municipality or a spring, and then goes through an improvement process. Spring and mineral water come from natural resources, with the latter containing not less than 250 ppm of total dissolved solids. Sparkling bottled water contains extra carbon dioxide.

Verdict on the Advantages and Disadvantages of Bottled Water

Bottled water is an effective way to stay hydrated throughout the day. The overall availability of this product makes it easy to get something that should be healthy to drink whenever and wherever you happen to be. The only problem is that you're paying, hundreds, if not thousands, of extra dollars each year to take advantage of this convenience. When you purchase this item, most of your cost goes to the plastics manufacturing instead of the liquid you want to consume.

Testing from the NRDC found that over 30% of bottled water samples showed signs of contamination. That means it may not be safer than some tap water options that are available in the United States and around the world.

The best solution is to purchase a filtering product, or even a reverse osmosis system, that you can use at home with your current water supply. Then you can invest in resusable water bottles that will help you to stay hydrated at a fraction of the cost of the individual bottles you might be purchasing.

Author Biography
Keith Miller has over 25 years of experience as a CEO and serial entrepreneur. As an entrepreneur, he has founded several multi-million dollar companies. As a writer, Keith's work has been mentioned in CIO Magazine, Workable, BizTech, and The Charlotte Observer. If you have any questions about the content of this blog post, then please send our content editing team a message here.

---

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
18 Advantages and Disadvantages of Bottled Water

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bottled water might seem like a silly product to consider using thanks to the reliability and safety of tap water around the world, but there are still many locations that need this product for basic life essentials.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
" I think we should stop drinking bottled water. There's no need to be drinking it if you're living in western communities."

Cate Blanchett, Actress

Most often, plastic bottles are used to package this water.

Although bottled water is quite convenient and has many additional advantages, there are also several problems related to it.

1. Convenient way to store water

2. Bottled water is good for your trips

3. Plastic bottled water is lightweight

4. Bottled water is better purified compared to tap water

5. Contains fewer bacteria than tap water

6. Protection against harmful components in tap water

7. You can get it from almost all stores

8. Important in regions with quite bad tap water quality

9. Strict regulations to ensure safety of bottled water

10. Encourages people to drink more water

11. Water supply in case of emergency

12. Some bottles are recyclable

13. Bottled water industry provides many jobs

One important benefit of bottled water is that it is quite convenient to store.

You can put plenty of water bottles into your garage or your basement.

This means that it will be enough to drive to the store, buy many water bottles at one time and just store them at your home.

In general, bottled water can usually be stored for many years.

Therefore, you can easily buy large quantities since bottled water will likely not become bad too soon.

Especially if you are on vacation and travel around a lot, bottled water can be quite helpful to avoid dehydration.

For instance, if you go hiking, you will need plenty of water to stay vital and fit and bottled water is one of the easiest ways to carry around your water.

Another advantage of bottled water is that it is also quite lightweight, at least if you use plastic-bottled water instead of glass-bottled water.

This is quite convenient, especially if you want to make certain trips and you do not want to carry too much weight with you.

This lightweight feature can also be quite helpful for your home.

Especially for older people who are not that fit anymore, plastic bottled water can be a great way of water supply since it is easy to carry around and doesn't require too much physical strength.

Before bottled water ends up in our stores, it is filtered multiple times and also purified so that many harmful elements are removed from the water in order to protect our health.

Thus, using bottled water instead of tap water can also protect you from the consumption of unhealthy components in our water, which could potentially hurt your health in the long run.

Since bottled water is filtered, purified and processed, it also contains far fewer bacteria and other harmful microorganisms compared to tap water.

This can make a significant difference when it comes to the risk of infection with serious diseases.

Especially for older people, bacteria of many sorts can cause serious health effects since their immune system is no longer that strong and therefore, relying on bottled water instead of tap water might be a good idea for those risk groups.

For instance, in older apartment buildings, iron pipes still transport tap water to the different flats.

However, the transportation of tap water through those iron pipes can lead to the contamination of the water since fine particles of those pipes end up in tap water.

In turn, there may be many adverse long-term health issues related to the consumption of tap water from those iron pipes.

Especially if you live in the city, chances are that you will only have to walk a few minutes until you find the next store which sells bottled water.

Therefore, also the availability of bottled water is pretty good in most regions, which makes it easy to get enough of it right when you need it.

Many regions are simply too polluted and the tap water quality is rather bad. In turn, drinking this kind of water can lead to serious health issues.

Hence, especially if you live in one of those regions where the tap water quality is quite bad, you may want to rely on bottled water instead of tap water in order to protect your health from all kinds of issues.

In many countries all over the world, there are pretty strict rules and regulations regarding the production and distribution of bottled water in order to assure a pretty good water quality on a regular basis.

In contrast, this is often not true for tap water since there will be far less strict regulations in place most of the time.

Therefore, if you want to be sure that your water has been proven to be of pretty high quality, you may also go for bottled water instead of tap water.

In turn, their overall health level is also likely to increase significantly due to the higher consumption of healthy water and lower consumption of unhealthy soft drinks.

Bottled water also gives you the opportunity to prepare yourself in case of emergency.

For instance, imagine your region gets hits by some kind of natural disaster and the groundwater will become significantly polluted.

In turn, also tap water quality will suffer a lot and chances are that the consumption of tap water would no longer be safe anymore.

Hence, the demand for bottled water would be enormous among the general public and chances are that it would soon be sold out.

In such a case, you would severely struggle with water scarcity.

However, by storing enough bottled water at your home, you will be prepared for such kinds of adverse events and will therefore be able to overcome those disasters since you will have enough water left.

Some water bottles are even recyclable.

Depending on the material, bottled water must not generally be too bad for our environment.

If you buy glass-bottled water and dispose and recycle it in a proper manner, you can minimize your negative environmental footprint.

However, notice that drinking tap water instead of bottled water would still be much better for our planet.

Many jobs also depend on the bottled water industry.

Especially in regions where there are not too many jobs and unemployment rates are rather high, the local population may be greatly reliant on those jobs.

Hence, buying bottled water can also help to secure jobs in your local area.

1. Bottled water can be expensive

2. Plenty of unnecessary waste production

3. Bottled water is mainly sold in plastic packaging

4. Bottled water has to be carried over quite long distances

5. Air pollution

6. Particle pollution

7. Global warming

8. Tap water is pretty good in many regions

9. Plastic bottles may alter the taste of the water

10. Plastic bottles may release harmful substances into the water

11. Tap water is more natural compared to bottled water

12. Questionable whether bottled water is really healthier than tap water

13. Use of bottled water can lead to water shortages in certain regions

14. You will often have a bad conscience

15. Bad role model for your kids

16. Lack of disclosure regarding where the bottled water comes from

17. Flawed claims of bottled water companies

18. Tap water may increase your resistance against certain bacteria

Apart from the several advantages of bottled water, there are also some issues to them.

One disadvantage of bottled water is that it can be quite expensive.

In some cases, bottled water can even cost a few bucks for just a single bottle.

If you buy this kind of water on a regular basis, chances are that you will spend several thousands of dollars on bottled water each year.

Especially if you currently search for opportunities to save money, chances are that you might want to cut your expenses on bottled water.

Hence, relying on tap water instead of bottled water can also improve your finances and you have plenty of money that you can spend on other things instead.

The use of bottled water also implies plenty of unnecessary waste.

Especially if you use plastic-bottled water, you will use many hundreds or even thousands of water bottles over the course of the year.

Imagine the amount of waste that is implied by this behavior for just a single household.

Imagine now what that means for big cities. In order to avoid the enormous amounts of waste that are produced each year due to the use of bottled water, you might want to go for tap water instead of bottled water instead.

If you urgently want to rely on bottled water for some reason, at least make sure to use glass-bottled water instead of plastic-bottled water and to recycle your bottles properly in order to minimize your environmental impact.

In many countries of our planet, bottled water is also mainly offered in plastic bottles instead of glass bottles since it is often more convenient for people since plastic bottles are much lighter and easier to carry around.

However, the use of disposable plastic bottles also implies significant plastic pollution on a global scale.

In fact, large areas of our ocean surface are already covered with plastic, which in turn leads to serious water pollution and to the destruction of habitats of numerous animals and plants.

In order to supply our stores with bottled water, those bottles have to be carried over quite long distances.

In fact, the reservoirs for bottled water are often hundreds or even thousands of miles away from big cities and the transportation distances can therefore be enormous.

In turn, plenty of trucks have to be used in order to carry our water over those long distances, which in turn implies serious emission levels since most of those trucks still use fossil fuels.

Thus, in order to avoid those long transportation distances and the resulting pollution, make sure that you use tap water instead of bottled water to do our environment a huge favor.

Air pollution not only comes from the long transportation distances related to bottled water, it also results from the burning of waste from plastic bottles.

In order to get rid of those large amounts of plastic waste, a high fraction of it will be burned.

However, the burning of waste always implies the emission of harmful gases into our atmosphere, which will significantly hurt our air quality in the long run.

Especially in big cities, particle pollution is a serious problem.

Drinking bottled water can indirectly exacerbate this problem since it also implies an increasing need to transport water bottles with trucks and those trucks also contribute to particle pollution and to the resulting adverse health effects.

The burning of plastic waste that comes from bottled water also contributes to the climate change issue.

Large amounts of greenhouses are emitted into our atmosphere, which in turn speed up global warming.

Hence, in order to slow down global warming, it may also be a good idea to rely on tap water instead of plastic-bottled water.

The tap water quality in many regions across the world is actually pretty good and if you live in one of those regions, there might simply be no need to rely on bottled water since you will get similar water qualities by simply drinking water from the tap.

Hence, make sure that relying on bottled water is really necessary for you. In many cases, tap water will do the job as well and you can save plenty of money and waste by choosing tap water instead of bottled water.

Opponents of bottled water also often claim that the taste of bottled water can be worse compared to just using water from the tap.

In fact, some plastic bottles give away a certain flavor to the water, especially if you store them in hot rooms.

Hence, in such a case, tap water may actually taste much better compared to bottled water.

Not only the taste of bottled water may be worse, some people also claim that plastic-bottled water often also contains a significant fraction of harmful chemicals.

In fact, studies have shown that even though the amount of those chemicals is often rather small, adverse health effects from drinking this contaminated water may still be possible.

Another downside of bottled water is that it can not be considered to be natural.

Hundreds of years ago, our ancestors never used bottled water since they simply had not the technology for it.

Instead, they just used water from creeks or lakes, which can be regarded to be tap water in its most original form.

Therefore, if you are a person who likes to go back to the roots, tap water may be much better compared to bottled water also in this regard.

If you live in a region with pretty good tap water quality, it is also rather questionable whether bottled water is healthier compared to using tap water.

In fact, tap water can contain even more beneficial substances compared to bottled water.

Hence, make sure to do some research regarding the tap water quality in your region since relying on bottled water may not make any sense at all in case you have access to exceptionally good tap water.

The water that is used for the production of bottled water often comes from hundreds of miles away.

Quite often, there are central water reservoirs that supply many different regions with bottled water.

However, if those reservoirs are used in an excessive manner, chances are that there will not be enough water left for people who live close to those reservoirs and some people will even suffer from serious water shortages due to that.

Hence, while the production of bottled water may benefit some people, other people may greatly suffer from water scarcity.

Many people know that using bottled water is not good for our planet at all.

Yet, they still use it since they are so used to drinking water from the bottle.

However, over time, many people get a pretty guilty conscience.

If you are one of those people, chances are that you could get a much cleaner conscience by switching from bottled to tap water.

In turn, also your overall quality of life will increase significantly since you have made a positive contribution to protect our environment.

You should also be aware that everything you do will have a significant impact on how your kids will behave later on.

You are quite an important role model for your kids and if you use bottled water on a regular basis, chances are that your kids will adopt your behavior and will also use bottled water once they turn into grownups.

Hence, in order to be a good role model for your kids, you may also want to refrain from using bottled water, especially if you live in a region with excellent tap water quality and switching to tap water would not be a big deal.

Many companies often also do not disclose where their bottled water really comes from.

In fact, your bottled water may be produced many hundreds of miles away in regions where the water quality might actually be quite poor.

Therefore, if you want to know where your water comes from, you may rather want to rely on tap water instead of bottled water since you can easily ask your local tap water supplier where they get the water from.

Many companies that sell bottled water often also claim that their water is the best or the healthiest on the market.

In fact, quite often, bottled water isn't much healthier compared to tap water and those claims are just made to sell you on flawed arguments.

Using tap water may even strengthen your immune system.

Even though tap water may contain some bacteria, the concentration of those bacteria is usually quite low.

Thus, although we will not get sick most of the time by drinking this water, our body might still produce a certain level of antibodies, which may make us less vulnerable to several other diseases.

Hence, tap water can even have a positive effect on our health in the long run.

Bottled Water Pros

Bottled Water Cons

Use of bottled water can be quite convenient

Excessive production of unnecessary waste

Good way to store water

Bottled water can be expensive

Important in case of emergency

Not even necessary in many regions

Bottled water can be good for your travels

Plastic bottles can release harmful chemicals

Plastic-bottled water are lightweight

Air pollution

Bottled water will be purified better

Global warming

Important in areas with bad tap water quality

Particle pollution

Strict regulations regarding bottled water

Tap water may taste better

May be recyclable to a certain extent

Guilty conscience

Can help to create and preserve many jobs

Bottled water is bad for our environment

The use of bottled water is a quite controversial topic.

As we have seen before, there are many advantages and disadvantages of bottled water vs. using tap water.

In my opinion, if you live in a region where tap water quality is excellent, you should definitely go for tap water instead of bottled water in order to save plenty of money and also to protect our environment.
Sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_bottle https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/plastic-bottles/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottled_water About the author
My name is Andreas and my mission is to educate people of all ages about our environmental problems and how everyone can make a contribution to mitigate these issues.

As I went to university and got my Master's degree in Economics, I did plenty of research in the field of Development Economics.

After finishing university, I traveled around the world. From this time on, I wanted to make a contribution to ensure a livable future for the next generations in every part of our beautiful planet.

Wanna make a contribution to save our environment? Share it!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
31 Key Pros & Cons Of Bottled Water Vs. Tap Water - E&C

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
" I think we should stop drinking bottled water. There's no need to be drinking it if you're living in western communities." Cate Blanchett, Actress Most often, plastic bottles are used to package this water. Although bottled water is quite convenient and has many additional advantages, there are also several problems related to it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bottled Water - Always There When You Need It

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Water Bottles: Handy or Harmful? | Persuasive Writing | Scholastic Storyworks Magazine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sure, they make life easier. But they’re also hurting the environment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Author: Catherine Clarke Fox
Source: National Geographic Kids

If your family is like many, unloading the week's groceries includes hauling a case or two of bottled water into your home. On your way to a soccer game or activity, it's easy to grab a cold one right out of the fridge, right?

But all those plastic bottles use a lot of fossil fuels and pollute the environment. In fact, Americans buy more bottled water than any other nation in the world, adding 29 billion water bottles a year to the problem. In order to make all these bottles, manufacturers use 17 million barrels of crude oil. That's enough oil to keep a million cars going for twelve months.

Imagine a water bottle filled a quarter of the way up with oil. That's about how much oil was needed to produce the bottle.

So why don't more people drink water straight from the kitchen faucet? Some people drink bottled water because they think it is better for them than water out of the tap, but that's not true. In the United States, local governments make sure water from the faucet is safe. There is also growing concern that chemicals in the bottles themselves may leach into the water.

People love the convenience of bottled water. But maybe if they realized the problems it causes, they would try drinking from a glass at home or carrying water in a refillable steel container instead of plastic.

Plastic bottle recycling can help-instead of going out with the trash, plastic bottles can be turned into items like carpeting or cozy fleece clothing.

Unfortunately, for every six water bottles we use, only one makes it to the recycling bin. The rest are sent to landfills. Or, even worse, they end up as trash on the land and in rivers, lakes, and the ocean. Plastic bottles take many hundreds of years to disintegrate.

Water is good for you, so keep drinking it. But think about how often you use water bottles, and see if you can make a change.

And yes, you can make a difference. Remember this: Recycling one plastic bottle can save enough energy to power a 60-watt light bulb for six hours.

Read article in National Geographic Kids

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Drinking Water: Bottled or From the Tap? - Cool Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Author: Catherine Clarke Fox Source: National Geographic Kids If your family is like many, unloading the week's groceries includes hauling a case or two of bottled water into your home. On your way to a soccer game or activity, it's easy to grab a cold one right out of the fridge, right?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You love your video games, but how much is too much? Find out in this article for kids.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You know all those people that told you that video games are bad for you? They were wrong. Read this to find out more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Conventional wisdom and media headlines would have one believe that those who play video games are more at risk for engaging in a host of anti-social behaviors. There is certainly nothing new about this mentality: It was prominent in my 80s-era adolescence as well. I remember spending many hours playing Mortal Kombat on the classic Nintendo and, looking back, wonder if my parents worried about the toll it would take on my temperament.

While the games have become more realistic and engaging ( addicting?), the nature of the relationship between gameplay and aggression is still hotly debated. On one hand, the American Psychological Association released a statement in 2015 warning of the effects of violent video games. Multiple meta-analyses ( Anderson et al., 2010; Sherry, 2001) do suggest a pretty clear connection between violent video games and aggressive behaviors. But critics have questioned methodological decisions and statistical interpretations or pointed out that any effects observed have been relatively small ( Ferguson, 2007; Ferguson & Kilburn, 2010; Hilgard et al., 2017). And while there's been some research showing that those who play violent video games are more likely to engage in bullying ( Hamer et al., 2014), other analyses find no such effect ( Ferguson et al., 2017). So where does all of this leave us?

What Our Data Show About Gaming and Bullying

To learn more, we included some questions about gaming in a subsample of about 1,500 respondents to our 2016 survey of 12-17-year-olds. Here's what we found:

Overall, students who self-identified as "gamers" were significantly more likely to have said that they bullied or cyberbullied others during the previous 30 days. Specifically, 21% of gamers and 11% of non-gamers had bullied others at school, while 11% of gamers and 6% of non-gamers said they had cyberbullied others. Interestingly, gamers were also more likely than non-gamers to be the victim of bullying at school (40.7% compared to 27.2%) and bullying online (25.9% compared to 15.7%). So on its face, there seems to be a connection between gaming and bullying.

But if we dig a bit deeper, we can learn more. (In the following, for simplicity I will focus specifically on cyberbullying offending.) In a multivariate regression model controlling for the effects of age, race, and sex, those who identified as gamers were still significantly more likely to report that they had engaged in cyberbullying. But the model only explained about 5% of the variation in cyberbullying offending. So there apparently are many other variables required to explain why someone might participate in cyberbullying.

One such variable might be the type of game. Respondents who favored multiplayer online battle games as well as first- and third-person shooter games were significantly more likely to report participation in cyberbullying than those who preferred other types of games (17% compared to 7%, see Chart 1). There could be something about the game itself, or the kind of kid who likes those types of games, that explains the increased risk of offending.

Another consideration might be the number of hours per week played. Indeed, when number of hours per week played was added to the multivariate regression model, the effect of being a gamer completely disappeared. That is, whether a student was a gamer or not didn't matter when hours of play was considered. As shown in Chart 2, students who reported playing fewer than two hours per day were significantly less likely than those who played more to have cyberbullied others (15% compared to 7%).

Interestingly, hours of play was also important when it came to the types of games more associated with bullying others (multiplayer battle and first/third person shooter). About 13% of students who favored these types of games who said they played fewer than 2 hours per day said they had cyberbullied others, compared to more than 20% of those who played more hours per day. So limiting the amount of time played, even when the type of game is more violent, could be a potential way to reduce negative outcomes.

I should point out that we did not set out to settle the longstanding debate about video games and violence when we embarked on our 2016 study and therefore our data lack important controls to contribute meaningfully to this discussion (other relevant variables, more comprehensive measures, etc.). We are interested in exploring the relationship between bullying and gaming, and therefore included a couple of basic measures to see what we could learn in this go-around.

It's also important to point out that we collected these data before the explosion in popularity of Fortnite and Player Unknown: Battlegrounds (PUBG), the two biggest games right now. Fortnite and PUBG could be categorized as multiplayer online battle games (similar to League of Legends, although not team-based), but we don't know how these newer games (or any specific game for that matter) is related to violence or aggression.

Conclusion

In short, there is more work to be done. My review leads me to believe that there is a connection between gaming and deviance (and bullying behaviors specifically), but that influence is likely relatively small and mediated by many other factors (family, school, personal traits-variables not included in our data). And we still really don't know whether playing violent video games makes someone more violent or if aggressive youth are just drawn to these types of games. In addition, we can't forget about the possible positive effects gaming can have. Indeed, recent research has extolled the social, cognitive, and emotional benefits of playing certain games ( Granic et al., 2014; Markey et al., 2015). Indeed, a 2014 meta-analysis concluded: "Whereas violent video games increase aggression and aggression-related variables and decrease prosocial outcomes, prosocial video games have the opposite effects." ( Greitemeyer & Mugge, 2014, p. 578).

The immediate take away from my exploratory analysis is: take a look at what kind of game your child is playing, and make sure they aren't playing it so much that it interferes with other family and school responsibilities. Better yet, get in there and play with them. That way you can address any problems that might come up in the game. You can also have meaningful conversations with your child over the course of hours of gameplay.

By the way, harkening back to my "gamer" days, I do vividly remember skipping school one day to finish the original Legend of Zelda game. So even though gaming did lead to a bit of deviance for me, it didn't derail my future like some might have predicted. And yesterday I stumbled across a new puzzle game on my phone that occupied more time than I feel comfortable admitting. So I guess we never really shake our gamer tendencies. I've intentionally avoided playing the newer generation of multiplayer online games precisely because I know I could easily get wrapped up in them. I am happy to admit, however, that I still occasionally play Mario Kart with my eight-year-old. And we both have a good time.

Final note: The title of this post is intentionally provocative. I generally try to avoid labeling people, especially youth. Referring to someone as a "bully"-or even a "gamer"-can have unintended negative consequences. I'm not even sure what makes someone a "gamer." In our survey we asked students to tell us if they would consider themselves a gamer, for this very reason. If they identify as a gamer, they must be.

Image: ABC Illawarra - Rory McDonald

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are "Gamers" More Likely to be "Bullies"? - Cyberbullying Research Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Research suggests that teens who prefer violent video games and play them many hours each day are more likely to bully others.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A study carried out by an anti-bullying charity found that 57% of the young people it surveyed had experienced bullying online when playing games.

In addition, 22% said they had stopped playing a game as a result.

Ditch the Label surveyed around 2,500 young members of the virtual hotel platform Habbo, aged between 12 and 25.

One 16-year-old gamer, Bailey Mitchell, told the BBC he had experienced bullying while playing online games since the age of 10.

"If you're going to school every day and you're being bullied in school you want to go home to your computer to escape," he said.

"So if you're getting more abuse thrown at you it's going to put you off doing anything social - it has for a lot of people I know, me included.

"It's regular, every other game you're in, there's always someone who has a mic or types in chat. They'll call you some random abusive thing they can think of."

Death threats

Mr Mitchell said he regularly received death threats but enjoyed playing online as the competition against others made the games more challenging.

"Now, when I get things, I'll reply with something funny or ignore it. But when I was 10 it was like: who are these people, why are they being mean to me?"

Ditch the Label chief executive Liam Hackett said his charity was launching a global campaign to try to tackle the problem.

"Bullying within online gaming environments is a real issue," he said.

"We are standing for acceptance and tolerance within our games and making the internet a better place."

The report also found:

47% of those surveyed said they had been threatened in an online game

38% said they had been hacked within a game

74% said they would like the issue to be taken more seriously

29% said bullying and trolling did not affect their enjoyment of online games

Around half of the respondents said they believed extra human moderation would help prevent bullying from occurring.

"Online games are often violent and based upon conflict," said Dr Ian Rivers, a psychologist at the University of Strathclyde.

"However this study also shows us that we also need to look at the ways in which people interact online while gaming."

"We note the concerns highlighted in the survey of Habbo users, but the survey relates to a Habbo audience alone which is not indicative of the games industry as a whole," said Dr Jo Twist at Ukie, The Association for UK Interactive Entertainment.

The industry "consistently adapts" by introducing moderators, features to block or silence unwanted communication and issue advice to players and parents, she added.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A study carried out by an anti-bullying charity found that 57% of the young people it surveyed had experienced bullying online when playing games. In addition, 22% said they had stopped playing a game as a result. Ditch the Label surveyed around 2,500 young members of the virtual hotel platform Habbo, aged between 12 and 25.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Little boy in the dark playing with a digital tablet or iPad, the touch screen 's shine as a main light source. (iStock) Keywords: Child, Toddler, Dark, Night, Computer Monitor, Little Boys, Using Computer, Playful, Education, Computer, Digital Tablet, Glowing, Computer Equipment, Playing, Equipment, modern times, Lifestyles, Technology, Illuminated, Caucasian, Lying Down, 2-3 Years, Touch Screen, Multimedia, iPhone, iPad, screen, children, kids, kid, boy, young, (iStock)
Share Comment Save
Youngsters who spend too much time staring at televisions and computers may be more depressed than those who abstain completely, but kids who enjoy screen time in moderation may be the happiest of all, a recent analysis suggests.

Many pediatricians recommend that parents limit screen time to less than two hours a day because excessive use of television, computers and mobile devices is linked to obesity and other health problems and is also thought to impair cognitive development.

In the new study, researchers analyzed data from earlier studies involving more than 125,000 participants and found evidence that limiting screen time makes sense for children and young teens. Youth who spent at least five hours a day staring at screens were 80 percent more likely to be depressed than their peers who spent no time in front of screens.

There was, however, little difference in depression risk between children who didn't have any screen time and those who got about two hours a day.

And the connection between screen time and depression was only statistically meaningful for children younger than 14, the study found. Screen time didn't appear connected to depression in older teens.

Overall, in smaller doses, screen time appeared to be a good thing. Compared with children who had no screen time at all, those who got a half-hour daily were 8 percent less likely to be depressed, and kids allowed an hour a day had 12 percent lower odds.

"The finding of the lower depression risk with a relatively low quantity of screen time may suggest that exposure to screen/media, when in moderation, can have potentially positive impacts on adolescents' mental health," said senior study author Yao Shuqiao of the Medical Psychological Institute, Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University in Hunan, China.

Longer screen time may mean fewer hours in the day for more productive or active endeavors, whether exercise or interacting with friends, and may negatively affect physical and mental health, Shuqiao added by e-mail.

"We suggest that parents may consider limiting their children's screen time to under two hours a day, preferably about one hour," Shuqiao said.

It's also possible that the type of screen time matters, said Larry Rosen, a professor emeritus at California State University at Dominguez Hills, who wasn't involved in the study.

While passive activities such as watching television may be linked to a greater depression risk, active pursuits such as texting on mobile phones or chatting on social media don't necessarily carry the same risk, Rosen said by e-mail.

It's not surprising that the teens who had only moderate amounts of screen time had a lower risk of depression, said Gary Goldfield, a psychology researcher at the University of Ottawa, who wasn't involved in the study.

"People with such low levels of screen time are probably engaged in many other activities, such as organized sport, dance, music or other hobbies that involve interpersonal interaction, which may protect them from depression," Goldfield said by e-mail.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Moderate amounts of screen time may be good for kids, a new study finds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
But youths who spent five hours a day staring at screens were 80 percent more likely to be depressed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Do Video Games Cause Violence? 9 Pros and Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say playing violent video games causes more aggression. Opponents say the games are a convenient scapegoat for real-life violence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Game Theory: The Effects of Video Games on the Brain

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How do video games affect brain development in children and teens?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Playing videogames is a popular activity, with 70 percent of youth under the age of 18 playing videogames. Some games are solitary or single-player games; others are multi-player. Multi-player games - whether they are played on a computer, game console, handheld system, smartphone, or tablet - allow users to play with people they know in person and others they meet online. In fact, 65% of video game players of all ages say they play with others. There are many types of videogames: role-playing games, action games, shooter games, sport games, fighting games. There are also educational games like sandbox/build/construct games, puzzle games, and others.

Benefits of Online Gaming

Playing videogames can positively impact a players' cognitive, emotional, and social skills. It can also help children and teens enhance their problem-solving and strategizing skills. Multi-player team games may help youth learn how to cooperate with others. Youth who play videogames may also improve their motor skills and creativity. Videogames also offer players a space to work out their emotions, and can boost a player's mood and ease anxiety. Gaming can also be a place to make new friends and socialize.

Risks of Online Gaming

While gaming has the potential for positive benefits, it is also a place where cyberbullying can happen. If someone is not performing well in a game, other players may curse or make negative remarks that can turn into bullying, or even exclude the person from playing together.

Anonymity of players and the use of avatars allow users to create alter-egos or fictional versions of themselves, which is part of the fun of gaming. But it also allows users to harass, bully, and sometimes gang up on other players. When players are anonymous, it can be difficult to hold them accountable when they bully others and use the game as a tool of harassment. Some players may use the game as a means to harass others or to get their personal information, like usernames and passwords. They can even make others' personal information available online through a tactic called " doxing." Doxing can compromise not just a child's information, but their parent's information as well, and can make them targets of bullying and harassment.

Gamers often use online gaming communities and social media to connect with other players, learn tips and tricks, share strategies, create teams/guilds, and connect while they play or watch others play. These types of online communities are also a place where cybercriminals may seek to cause harm - for instance, by posting links that appear to be game-related but are truly computer viruses or malware (software designed to disrupt, damage or gain access to a computer) or where predators may seek access to children.

Prevent Cyberbullying for Gamers

Gaming can be a fun, safe and positive environment for all. Parents can help prevent cyberbullying of their children who play video games by:

Playing the game with your child or observing the game to understand how it works and what a child is exposed to in the game.

Checking in periodically with your child about who is online, playing the game with them.

Knowing which gaming communities, and social media, and apps your child uses while gaming and their security risks which you can research online.

Helping your child set the privacy and security settings for their games and apps.

Teaching children about safe digital behavior, including not clicking on links from strangers; not downloading bots (software for automated tasks) or clicking on links in gaming forums; not sharing personal information like emails, phone numbers, addresses, and passwords; not participating in bullying behavior of other players; and what to do if they observe or experience cyberbullying.

Establishing rules about how much time a child can spend playing video games.

Keeping an open line of communication about your child's digital life.

There are things that gamers can do if they are experiencing cyberbullying or see it happen to others while gaming:

Tell the player who is bullying to stop.

Block the player who is bullying from the game and de-friend them on social media and in gaming communities.

Report the player who is bullying to the game group, team, platform, community, or developers.

Take a break from playing the game.

Tell a parent or trusted adult and get some support.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Playing videogames is a popular activity, with 70 percent of youth under the age of 18 playing videogames. Some games are solitary or single-player games; others are multi-player. Multi-player games - whether they are played on a computer, game console, handheld system, smartphone, or tablet - allow users to play with people they know in person and others they meet online.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Instructional Content Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a recent article focusing on collaboration and developing collective efficacy, Katz and Donohoo write,

Katz and Donohoo's questions are important ones. Our collaborative work should add value. Unfortunately, in conversations with teachers and school building and district leaders, it is apparent that there are numerous conflicts they are experiencing which prevent deep collaboration , and it's not just due to COVID. It's actually due to politics and the infiltration of right-wing conservative thinking in our public school system.

Lately, there have been numerous news stories about parents who want to ban books. In a recent story on NBC News, they reported more than 50 percent of the books being banned center around an LGBTQ character and children of color. Coincidence that book-banning is around LGBTQ characters or characters of color? Probably not.

In fact, Harris and Alter write,

Isn't it interesting, or rather infuriating, that in the very place that students should be engaged in challenges to their own thinking in order to grow as learners, these people are actively making sure that schools are not able to create opportunities for that thinking? Isn't it interesting that some of the very groups who yell so loudly about cancel culture are the same people trying to cancel discussions about ideas that come to us through books? If Katz and Donohoo are correct about collaboration and conversation, which they are, where is the added value in banning books?
Pornography Is an Intentional Word
The dumbing down of America isn't due to watered-down curriculum as much as it is the direct result of parents, leaders, and teachers who choose to ban books because, somehow, they don't agree with what is written within those books.

In an effort to undermine the quality of the books, governors like Greg Abbot of Texas calls them pornographic. Although I would love to say that Abbott chose his words incorrectly, the reality is that he intentionally chose that word to get parents in his state up in arms. I wonder how many of the books being banned have actually been read by the parents trying to ban them.

Sure, they can read a passage at a board meeting, but have they actually read the whole book?

The interesting thing about reading is that it is supposed to expand our ideas and thoughts, not coincide with our confirmation bias. Books are supposed to inspire us to engage in debate and an exchange of ideas, but too many of these states that are banning books would rather censor the freedom of thought. What are they so afraid of? Isn't it funny that so many of these parents want to unmask their children at the same time they force a mask on their child's ability to choose a book for themselves? And they certainly seem to mask what this banning is all about, which is pushing institutional racism in their schools.
This Is Not New
The reality is that this issue is not new. People have been trying to ban books for as long as we have been a country. The sad, and often hidden side of all this is when librarians feel the pressure to self-censor the books made available in a library. They do not feel they will be supported by their principals, so they choose to not purchase books for their libraries that may make waves.

In fact, in this article published by the American Library Association (ALA), Asheim writes,

As you can see, censorship has many forms, and it's not just about the seedy instances you hear while watching the nightly news.
Representation Matters ... Even If It Makes You Uncomfortable
Many years ago, Albert Bandura began researching self-efficacy, which is the belief we feel in our own abilities. Self-efficacy is context specific, which means we all have areas where we feel confident and areas where we don't.

What Bandura found in 2000 is that leaders who feel efficacious double their efforts, but those who do not feel efficacious slacken their efforts. What this means is that when leaders, and in this case parents, feel uncomfortable, they will try to stay away from the conversation as much as possible. This is unfortunate, because the only way to become more comfortable is to engage in conversations that help build understanding.

So many people seem to be running away from the very conversations that we should be running toward. But they probably know that already. They don't want to understand it, nor do they want their children to understand it, which is why they want to ban it. Whether we are conservative, liberal or somewhere in between, we should see representation in the books offered at school. If we are Black, brown or gay, we should see ourselves represented in books. It's our choice whether we want to check them out or not.
In the End
Book banning is a weak response to ideas that scare us. Are the people banning books the same ones that yell from the rooftops that there should be less government involvement in decision making, and yet they want to ban books for others without giving those people a chance to choose for themselves? In states where books are being banned, there should be more and more people who are speaking up against censorship. Kats and Donohoo are right that collaboration within schools is difficult and sometimes complicated. It seems that collaboration within school communities is probably even more complicated.

All in all, the sad reality of all this is that censorship and book banning will definitely work. Too many teachers and leaders do not feel efficacious enough to speak up against these loud censoring parents because they love their jobs and students too much to risk losing their job and students. At some point, though, oppression and ignorance should not be allowed to win this battle.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Banning Books Is Not About Protecting Children. It's About Discrimination Against Others (Opinion)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a recent article focusing on collaboration and developing collective efficacy, Katz and Donohoo write, Katz and Donohoo's questions are important ones. Our collaborative work should add value. Unfortunately, in conversations with teachers and school building and district leaders, it is apparent that there are numerous conflicts they are experiencing which prevent deep collaboration , and it's not just due to COVID.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's easy to believe that simply sending a child to school is all it takes to ensure a child will learn, but that's simply not the case. Many outside factors can influence how well a child is able to learn. If your child is struggling in school, consider what is getting in the way of learning so you can make any possible changes to eliminate those factors and boost his academic achievement.

Learning Disabilities

While many learning disabilities cannot be prevented, they can be overcome to a degree that a child is able to be successful in the classroom. If your child isn't performing at grade level or visibly struggles to understand what he's learning, he might have a learning disability that's getting in the way. In fact, 15 percent of children have some type learning disability, according to "HealthyChildren.org." Speak with your child's pediatrician to learn more about what could be affecting his ability to learn. Once you've determined the exact problem, you can work with his teacher to make changes in the classroom that help him pay attention, internalize what he's learning and complete course work to a satisfactory degree.

Family Factors

The family environment and socioeconomic status influences academic achievement. Children who attend schools in poor, disadvantaged neighborhoods tend to perform at lower levels than their peers in higher achieving schools, according to the American Psychological Association. A lack of parent participation, both at home and by volunteering in the school, is also linked to a decrease in academic achievement. Children who aren't read to at home, don't receive help with their homework or aren't taught to value education also tend to do more poorly than children who do receive academic support in the home.

School Factors

Teachers and educators who don't place a value on education or don't work to meet the needs of their students can have a negative impact on academic success. It's sad, but some teachers genuinely don't care whether their students do well or not. These types of teachers don't place an emphasis on learning and don't teach their students to keep trying. Even schools that have the best teachers but also lack funding and resources can influence classroom performance, too. Schools who don't have enough books and other educational supplies can have a negative influence on how well the students perform academically.

Physical Factors

Children with health problems, such as cancer, that require them to miss a lot of school often lag behind their peers academically, though it is possible to get them up to speed when they are feeling better. Children who attend school in run-down buildings, such as those with peeling paint, damaged floors, malfunctioning lighting and heating that doesn't work properly, are likely to perform at lower levels than children in well-kept schools. These types of distractions get in the way of learning. If bullying takes places regularly in a school, it can distract and hinder a child's ability to learn.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Factors Affecting a Pupil's Progress in School

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Factors Affecting a Pupil's Progress in School. It's easy to believe that simply sending a child to school is all it takes to ensure a child will learn, but that's simply not the case. Many outside factors can influence how well a child is able to learn.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The National PTA shares findings about the benefits of involving parents in education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Parent involvement in their kids' education has far-reaching benefits. Here are the effects that researchers have found most consistently.

Academic Achievement

Countless studies have found that kids perform better in school when their parents are involved with their schoolwork.﻿﻿﻿ Compared to students whose parents are uninvolved, kids with involved parents get better grades and are thought more highly of by teachers. These effects remain in the future, even if parents become less involved as the child ages. Parent involvement in school-based activities seems to have the greatest effect on kids' grades, but home-based parent involvement also plays at least some role.﻿﻿﻿

Involved parents enhance school performance in a number of ways, including by fostering a mastery orientation toward learning and encouraging self-discipline, a skill that's critical to school success.﻿﻿﻿

Attendance

Kids whose parents are involved with their schoolwork attend school more regularly than kids whose parents are uninvolved.﻿﻿﻿﻿ This probably occurs for a number of reasons. For one, parents who are involved typically value school highly and encourage consistent attendance. Secondly, kids who get help from parents tend to feel more academically competent, so they are less likely to want to avoid going to school. Finally, parent involvement improves kids' attitudes about school, making school attendance more desirable.

Behavior issues often begin to appear during the tween years, especially as kids' cognitive development leads them toward risk-taking. Thankfully, parental attention can help to head off many of these behavior issues. For instance, children with involved parents have lower rates of substance use and delinquent acts compared to kids whose parents are uninvolved.﻿﻿ In addition, kids behave better and less aggressively in the classroom when their parents are involved with their education.

Social Functioning

Parent involvement in education also aids kids' social functioning.﻿﻿﻿﻿ In particular, kids with involved parents have better peer interactions than kids with uninvolved parents. Their social skills also seem to be more advanced. Notably, advanced social skills, in turn, lead to better academic outcomes.

Mental Health

Finally, kids with involved parents have better mental health than children whose parents do not get involved in their education. For one, parent involvement in education fosters kids' self-esteem. Children with involved parents also have enhanced skills for regulating emotions and feel negative emotions less often.﻿﻿ All in all, when parents choose to become involved with their kid's schoolwork, kids benefit not only in the classroom but far beyond it.

Additional Reading

By Rebecca Fraser-Thill
Rebecca Fraser-Thill holds a Master's Degree in developmental psychology and writes about child development and tween parenting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Parent involvement in their kids' education has far-reaching benefits. Here are the effects that researchers have found most consistently. Countless studies have found that kids perform better in school when their parents are involved with their schoolwork.﻿﻿﻿ Compared to students whose parents are uninvolved, kids with involved parents get better grades and are thought more highly of by teachers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Parents accuse school board of trying to indoctrinate students with controversial 'Critical Race The

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Black Texas Moms Fight Back vs. Book Bans in Kids’ Schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Oklahoma Bill Gives Parents The Right To Ban Books—And A $10k Incentive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Instructional Content Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
History of Gun Control Laws
Gun control laws are just as old or older than the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791). Some examples of gun control throughout colonial America included criminalizing the transfer of guns to Catholics, enslaved people, indentured servants, and Native Americans; regulating the storage of gun powder in homes; banning loaded guns in Boston houses; and mandating participation in formal gathering of troops and door-to-door surveys about guns owned.

Guns were common in the American Colonies, first for hunting and general self-protection and later as weapons in the American Revolutionary War. Several colonies' gun laws required that heads of households (including women) own guns and that all able-bodied men enroll in the militia and carry personal firearms. Read more history...

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1

The Second Amendment is not an unlimited or individual right to own guns.

Further, the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of militias to own guns, not the right of individuals to own guns. Former Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissenting opinion for District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, wrote, "the Framer's single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee 'to keep and bear arms' was on military use of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias," hence the inclusion of the phrase "well regulated militia."

Michael Waldman, President of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, stated there is nothing about an individual right to bear arms in the notes about the Second Amendment when it was being drafted, discussed, or ratified; the US Supreme Court declined to rule in favor of the individual right four times between 1876 and 1939; and all law articles on the Second Amendment from 1888 to 1959 stated that an individual right was not guaranteed.
Read More

Pro 2

More gun control laws would reduce gun deaths.

Approximately 50% of unintentional fatal shootings were self-inflicted; and most unintentional firearm deaths were caused by friends or family members.

Five women are murdered with guns every day in the United States. A woman's risk of being murdered increases 500% if a gun is present during a domestic dispute. During the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, 5,364 US soldiers were killed in action between Oct. 7, 2001 and Jan. 28, 2015; between 2001 and 2012 6,410 women were killed with a gun by an intimate partner in the United States.

Researchers found that a "general barrier to firearm access created through state regulation can have a significant deterrent effect on male suicide rates in the United States. Permit requirements and bans on sales to minors were the most effective of the regulations analyzed."

Gun licensing laws were associated with a 14% decrease in firearm homicides, while increases in firearm homicides were seen in places with right-to-carry and stand-your ground-laws.

More gun control leads to fewer suicides. When US gun ownership goes down, overall suicide rates drop; meanwhile, each 10 percentage-point increase in gun ownership is linked to a 26.9% increase in the youth suicide rate. In Indiana and Connecticut, after "red flag" laws to remove guns from people who may pose a threat were enacted, gun suicides decreased by 7.5% and 13.7% respectively, while suicides by other means did not decrease during the same time. A person who wants to kill him/herself is unlikely to commit suicide with poison or a knife when a gun is unavailable.

The US General Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that 31% of total accidental shooting deaths could have been prevented by installing safety devices on guns: 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills him/herself or another child could be prevented by automatic child-proof safety locks; and 23% of accidental shooting deaths by adolescents and adults per year could be prevented by loading indicators showing when a bullet was in the chamber ready to be fired.

Marjorie Sanfilippo, PhD, Professor of Psychology at Eckerd College who has researched children's behavior around guns, stated, "We put gates around swimming pools to keep children from drowning. We put safety caps on medications to keep children from poisoning themselves.... [B]ecause children are naturally curious and impulsive, and because we have shown time and again that we cannot 'gun-proof' them with education, we have a responsibility to keep guns out of the hands of children."
Read More

Pro 3

The presence of a gun makes a conflict more likely to become violent.

The FBI found that arguments (such as romantic triangles, brawls fueled by alcohol or drugs, and arguments over money) resulted in 1,962 gun deaths (59.9% of the total).

An editorial published in the American Journal of Public Health noted, "gun-inflicted deaths [often] ensue from impromptu arguments and fights; in the US, two-thirds of the 7,900 deaths in 1981 involving arguments and brawls were caused by guns." A study published in the same journal found that "the weapons used [in altercations]... were those closest at hand." And thus, according to another study, "[r]ather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."

Common sense gun control laws can decrease the likelihood of a violent situation turning deadly. President Ronald Reagan and others did not think the AR-15 military rifle (also called M16s by the Air Force) should be owned by civilians and, when the AR-15 was included in the assault weapons ban of 1994 (which expired on Sep. 13, 2004), the NRA supported the legislation. A Mother Jones investigation found that high-capacity magazines were used in at least 50% of the 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012.When high-capacity magazines were used in mass shootings, the death rate rose 63% and the injury rate rose 156%.
Read More

Pro 4

A majority of adults, including gun owners, support common sense gun control such as background checks, bans on assault weapons, and bans on high-capacity magazines.

According to a Feb. 20, 2018 Quinnipiac Poll, 97% of American voters and 97% of gun owners support universal background checks. 67% support a nationwide ban on assault weapons, and 83% support mandatory waiting periods for gun purchases.

As much as 40% of all gun sales are undocumented private party gun sales that do not require a background check (aka the "gun show loophole").

53% of all adults surveyed approve of high-capacity magazine bans. 89% of adults with a gun in the home approve of laws to prevent the purchase of guns by the mentally ill, and 82% approve of banning gun sales to people on no-fly lists.

77% of Americans support requiring a license to purchase a gun.

Don Macalady, member of Hunters against Gun Violence, stated, "As a hunter and someone who has owned guns since I was a young boy, I believe that commonsense gun legislation makes us all safer. Background checks prevent criminals and other dangerous people from getting guns."

Many would like to see the U.S. enact more laws like other countries, citing the fact that countries with restrictive gun control laws have lower gun homicide and suicide rates than the United States. Both Switzerland and Finland require gun owners to acquire licenses and pass background checks that include mental and criminal records, among other restrictions and requirements. In 2007 Switzerland ranked number 3 in international gun ownership rates with 45.7 guns per 100 people (about 3,400,000 guns total). In 2009 Switzerland had 24 gun homicides (0.31 deaths per 100,000 people) and 253 gun suicides (3.29 deaths per 100,000 people). Finland ranked fourth in international gun ownership rates with 45.3 guns per 100 people (about 2,400,000 guns total). In 2007 Finland had 23 (0.43 deaths per 100,000 people) gun homicides and 172 gun suicides (4.19 deaths per 100,000 people).
Read More

Con 1

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership.

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution 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."

Lawrence Hunter, Chairman of Revolution PAC, stated, "The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights."
Read More

Con 2

Gun control laws are discriminatory and infringe on citizens' rights

Current gun control laws are frequently aimed at inner city, poor, black communities who are perceived as more dangerous than white gun owners. Charles Gallagher, Chair of Sociology at LaSalle University, stated that some gun control laws are still founded on racial fears: "Whites walking down Main Street with an AK-47 are defenders of American values; a black man doing the same thing is Public Enemy No. 1."

Background checks and micro-stamping are an invasion of privacy. Background checks require government databases that keep personal individual information on gun owners, including name, addresses, mental health history, criminal records, and more. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) worried that Senator Harry Reid's 2013 proposed background check legislation (the bill failed 54-46) would have allowed the government to keep databases of gun purchases indefinitely, creating a "worry that you're going to see searches of the databases and an expansion for purposes that were not intended when the information was collected." Micro-stamping similarly requires a database of gun owners and the codes their personal guns would stamp on cartridge cases. Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Ted Cruz (R-TX) wrote that they would oppose any legislation that infringes "on the American people's constitutional right to bear arms, or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance."

Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self-defense and deny people a sense of safety. The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would "make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families." Nelson Lund, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, "The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life" and "many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals." A Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s.

Gun control laws, especially those that try to ban "assault weapons," infringe upon the right to own guns for hunting and sport. In 2011, there were 13.7 million hunters 16 years old or older in the United States, High-powered semiautomatic rifles and shotguns are used to hunt and in target shooting tournaments each year. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, "So-called 'Assault weapons' are more often than not less powerful than other hunting rifles. The term 'assault weapon' was conjured up by anti-gun legislators to scare voters into thinking these firearms are something out of a horror movie... [T]he Colt AR-15 and Springfield M1A, both labeled 'assault weapons,' are the rifles most used for marksmanship competitions in the United States. And their cartridges are standard hunting calibers, useful for game up to and including deer." According to a Feb. 2013 Pew Research report, 32% of gun owners owned guns for hunting and 7% owned guns for target or sport shooting.
Read More

Con 3

Gun control laws simply do not work.

Gun control efforts have proved ineffective. According to David Lampo, Publications Director of the Cato Institute, "there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates." Banning high-capacity magazines will not necessarily deter crime because even small gun magazines can be changed in seconds.The "gun show loophole" is virtually nonexistent because commercial dealers, who sell the majority of guns at shows and elsewhere, are bound by strict federal laws. According to a Mar. 10, 2016 Lancet study, most state-level gun control laws do not reduce firearm death rates, and, of 25 state laws, nine were associated with higher gun death rates.

Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people). The country has only one legal gun store (the Directorate of Arms and Munitions Sales), compared to at least 63,709 legal gun stores and pawn shops in the United States as of Feb. 10, 2014. Mexico's gun store is on a secure military base and customers must present a valid ID, go through a metal detector, and turn over cellphones and cameras to guards. To actually buy a gun, customers have to show proof of honest income, provide references, pass a criminal background check, prove any military duties were completed with honor, and be fingerprinted and photographed. If allowed to purchase a gun, the customer may buy only one gun (choosing from only .38 caliber pistols or lower) and one box of bullets. Between 2006 and 2010, Mexico's one gun shop sold 6,490 guns, yet as of 2012, Mexicans own about 15,000,000 guns, or about 13.5 guns per 100 people.

The main reason gun control doesn't work is because laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws. Of 62 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, 49 of the shooters used legally obtained guns. Collectively, 143 guns were possessed by the killers with about 75% obtained legally. A Secret Service analysis found that of 24 mass shootings in 2019 at least 10 (42%) involved illegally possessed guns.

The logical conclusion is that gun control laws do not deter crime; gun ownership deters crime. A study in Applied Economics Letters found that "assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level" and "states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders." While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. Journalist John Stossel explained, "Criminals don't obey the law... Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job... As the saying goes, 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.'"

More gun control is not needed; education about guns and gun safety is needed to prevent accidental gun deaths. 95% of all US gun owners believe that children should learn about gun safety. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, Inc (SAAMI), stated, "Whether in the field, at the range or in the home, a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner is rarely involved in a firearms accident of any kind." According to Kyle Wintersteen, Managing Editor of Guns and Ammo, studies show that "children taught about firearms and their legitimate uses by family members have much lower rates of delinquency than children in households without guns" and "children introduced to guns associate them with freedom, security, and recreation-not violence." [82] [85] [154]
Read More

Con 4

Gun control laws give too much power to the government and may result in government tyranny and the government taking away all guns from citizens.

57% of people surveyed by Pew Research in Feb. 2013 said that gun control laws would "give too much power to the government over the people."

The NRA's Wayne LaPierre stated, "if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it [the Second Amendment] there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny."

Concurring, Alex Jones, radio host, stated, "The Second Amendment isn't there for duck hunting, it's there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs... 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!"

Marco Rubio (R-FL), US Senator, speaking about gun control laws during his 2016 presidential campaign, stated, "If God forbid, ISIS visits our life, our neighborhood, our school, any part of us, the last thing standing, the last line of defense could very well be our ability to protect ourselves."
Read More

Did You Know?

1. A Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer, and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer.

2. The US General Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills him/herself or another child could be prevented by automatic child-proof safety locks.

3. The Centers for Disease Control listed firearms as the #12 cause of all deaths between 1999 and 2015, representing 1.3% of total deaths. They were also the #1 method of death by homicide (67.3% of all homicides) and by suicide (51.9% of all suicides).

4. Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people).

5. Carrying a concealed handgun in public has been permitted in all 50 states since 2013, when Illinois became the last state to enact concealed carry legislation.

6. Five women a day are killed by guns in America. A woman's risk of being murdered increases 500% if a gun is present during a domestic dispute.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns. Opponents say the amendment protects individual gun ownership.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On October 1, 2017, 58 people were killed and 546 were injured when a gunman opened fire with a semi-automatic weapon equipped with a bump stock from a hotel suite in Las Vegas.

On June 12, 2016, 49 people were killed and 58 were wounded when Omar Mateen took firearms onto the property of the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida.

On December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza took firearms into an elementary school and killed 20 children, between the ages of 6 and 7. He also killed six staff members at the school.

On July 20, 2012, James Holmes took firearms into a movie theater during a screening of The Dark Knight Rises and killed 12 people and injured another 58 more. 12 additional injuries occurred during the response to the shooting.

On April 20, 1999, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris brought firearms to their high school and killed 13 people before taking their own lives.

The history of mass shootings in the United States is one that tells a dark chapter. In 1873, a group of white citizens in Louisiana killed and hung up to 150 African-American citizens. In 1890, US soldiers took machine guns into a Lakota village and killed 200 men, women, and children. In 1921, white citizens in Tulsa set African-American neighborhoods on fire and then shot at those who fled, killing upwards of 300 people.

It's long overdue to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of gun control in a meaningful way. Here are some of the key points to think about.

List of the Advantages of Gun Control

1. Most mass shootings in the US come from legally purchased firearms.
Mother Jones reviewed over 70 mass shootings in the United States that covered more than 3 decades of incidents. They discovered that in nearly 75% of the incidents they looked at, the firearms used to take lives were legally purchased. By creating more restrictions on legal purchases, it may be possible to reduce the number of mass casualty incidents that occur.

2. Having access to a gun increases the risk of violence.
According to a 2004 study by Linda Dahlberg, simply having a firearm in a home increases the risk of a homicide or a suicide occurring. That increase remains no matter how many guns are owned or how safely they are locked in a gun safe. The New England Journal of Medicine published a study by Arthur Kellerman that shows people living in a home face a risk of homicide that is 40 times higher than people in a home without a firearm. The risk of a firearm-related suicide is 90 times higher when a gun is in a home.

3. People who shouldn't own guns can still purchase them.
Private-sale exemptions exist under US law that do not require a background check on the individual. The Brady Bill states that private sellers can sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the state where they live as long as they do not know or have a reasonable cause to believe that person should be prohibited from owning a firearm. Although some state laws have closed this loophole, it is still possible for people who are restricted from owning firearms to still purchase one. Gun control legislation could stop this from happening.

4. Gun control does not require confiscation.
There is a right to bear arms for self-defense in the United States, protected by state laws and the Constitution. The US Supreme Court has struck down handgun restriction laws because of this right. Gun control doesn't need to involve confiscation or restriction. Something as simple as licensing and requiring an understanding of how to use it could reduce gun violence. Funds could even be set aside so that licensing and safety classes are low-cost or free.

5. It could reduce accidental injuries.
Unintentional shootings caused the deaths of over 600 people in 2010. From 2005-2010, more than 1,300 people who were the victim of an unintentional shooting were under the age of 25. Over 30% of unintentional deaths caused by firearms could be prevented by the addition of a loading indicator and a childproof safety lock. Even in gun control legislation included safety measures alone, lives could be saved.

List of the Disadvantages of Gun Control

1. Gun control legislation would likely create a black market.
If someone wants to own a gun, they're going to own one. That is a pretty basic principle that applies to legal and illegal gun owners. Gun control legislation attempts to create more safety by creating more loops for legal owners to jump through to own a firearm. There will always be people who steal firearms or alter information on background checks to circumvent laws. Gun control legislation would likely create a separate black market for ownership for those who simply want a self-defense option.

2. Fewer guns doesn't change the condition of the heart.
Gun control laws have arguably caused gun violence incidents to reduce around the world, but alternative weapons are still used to commit crime. Knife attacks, vehicle attacks, and homemade explosives can do just as much damage as a gun can, and in some instances more damage, when put into the right hands.

3. Most gun-related deaths in the US are from suicides, not homicides.
Out of the 10,000+ firearm-relate deaths that occur every year in the United States, more than 7,000 of them are suicides. That data point shows a need to improve access to mental health services, community supports, and other resources that can help people in crisis.

4. People fear guns because they don't understand them.
Guns are often feared not because of what they can do, but because of what they represent to an individual. Most people own a firearm because they use it as a tool or for a sport. By getting to know a firearm and learning how to use it responsibly, being around a gun doesn't need to be a fearful experience.

5. It won't change the value of a human life.
Gun violence occurs because there is a lack of respect for the value of human life. Arguments devolve into violence because of an emotional reaction. Gangs use gun violence as a way to establish territorial control because they feel like their lives aren't being valued. Some might say gun violence is a heart problem, but it is a value problem. The US Constitution speaks of equality for all. That should be what is addressed instead of a person's access to firearms.

The advantages and disadvantages of gun control are divisive. Some see them as controversial. Others see it as a pointless conversation. The bottom line is this: every person offers an important perspective that deserves to be shared. Our stories, combined with the proven facts about guns and firearm violence, can lead us toward the right course of action.

How do you feel about the idea of gun control?

Blog Post Author Credentials
Louise Gaille is the author of this post. She received her B.A. in Economics from the University of Washington. In addition to being a seasoned writer, Louise has almost a decade of experience in Banking and Finance. If you have any suggestions on how to make this post better, then go here to contact our team.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Advantages and Disadvantages of Gun Control

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On October 1, 2017, 58 people were killed and 546 were injured when a gunman opened fire with a semi-automatic weapon equipped with a bump stock from a hotel suite in Las Vegas. On June 12, 2016, 49 people were killed and 58 were wounded when Omar Mateen took firearms onto the property of the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some say the US should have more gun control laws because the Second Amendment was intended for militias; that gun violence would be reduced; that gun restrictions have always existed; and that a majority of Americans, including gun owners, support new gun restrictions, while others say that the Sec…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | PRO/CON: Is it time to pass tough gun control laws?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For or against stricter gun control laws?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Instructional Content Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Bill requiring gun applicants to pass a social media screening is proposed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As kids return to school, debate is heating up once again over how they should spend their time after they leave the classroom for the day.

The no-homework policy of a second-grade teacher in Texas went viral last week, earning praise from parents across the country who lament the heavy workload often assigned to young students. Brandy Young told parents she would not formally assign any homework this year, asking students instead to eat dinner with their families, play outside and go to bed early.

But the question of how much work children should be doing outside of school remains controversial, and plenty of parents take issue with no-homework policies, worried their kids are losing a potential academic advantage. Here's what you need to know:
The issue
For decades, the homework standard has been a "10-minute rule," which recommends a daily maximum of 10 minutes of homework per grade level. Second graders, for example, should do about 20 minutes of homework each night. High school seniors should complete about two hours of homework each night. The National PTA and the National Education Association both support that guideline.

But some schools have begun to give their youngest students a break. A Massachusetts elementary school has announced a no-homework pilot program for the coming school year, lengthening the school day by two hours to provide more in-class instruction. "We really want kids to go home at 4 o'clock, tired. We want their brain to be tired," Kelly Elementary School Principal Jackie Glasheen said in an interview with a local TV station. "We want them to enjoy their families. We want them to go to soccer practice or football practice, and we want them to go to bed. And that's it."

A New York City public elementary school implemented a similar policy last year, eliminating traditional homework assignments in favor of family time. The change was quickly met with outrage from some parents, though it earned support from other education leaders.

New solutions and approaches to homework differ by community, and these local debates are complicated by the fact that even education experts disagree about what's best for kids.
The research
The most comprehensive research on homework to date comes from a 2006 meta-analysis by Duke University psychology professor Harris Cooper, who found evidence of a positive correlation between homework and student achievement, meaning students who did homework performed better in school. The correlation was stronger for older students-in seventh through 12th grade-than for those in younger grades, for whom there was a weak relationship between homework and performance.

Cooper's analysis focused on how homework impacts academic achievement-test scores, for example. His report noted that homework is also thought to improve study habits, attitudes toward school, self-discipline, inquisitiveness and independent problem solving skills. On the other hand, some studies he examined showed that homework can cause physical and emotional fatigue, fuel negative attitudes about learning and limit leisure time for children. At the end of his analysis, Cooper recommended further study of such potential effects of homework.

Despite the weak correlation between homework and performance for young children, Cooper argues that a small amount of homework is useful for all students. Second-graders should not be doing two hours of homework each night, he said, but they also shouldn't be doing no homework.
The debate
Not all education experts agree entirely with Cooper's assessment.

Cathy Vatterott, an education professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, supports the "10-minute rule" as a maximum, but she thinks there is not sufficient proof that homework is helpful for students in elementary school.

"Correlation is not causation," she said. "Does homework cause achievement, or do high achievers do more homework?"

Vatterott, the author of Rethinking Homework: Best Practices That Support Diverse Needs, thinks there should be more emphasis on improving the quality of homework tasks, and she supports efforts to eliminate homework for younger kids.

"I have no concerns about students not starting homework until fourth grade or fifth grade," she said, noting that while the debate over homework will undoubtedly continue, she has noticed a trend toward limiting, if not eliminating, homework in elementary school.

The issue has been debated for decades. A TIME cover in 1999 read: "Too much homework! How it's hurting our kids, and what parents should do about it." The accompanying story noted that the launch of Sputnik in 1957 led to a push for better math and science education in the U.S. The ensuing pressure to be competitive on a global scale, plus the increasingly demanding college admissions process, fueled the practice of assigning homework.

"The complaints are cyclical, and we're in the part of the cycle now where the concern is for too much," Cooper said. "You can go back to the 1970s, when you'll find there were concerns that there was too little, when we were concerned about our global competitiveness."

Cooper acknowledged that some students really are bringing home too much homework, and their parents are right to be concerned.

"A good way to think about homework is the way you think about medications or dietary supplements," he said. "If you take too little, they'll have no effect. If you take too much, they can kill you. If you take the right amount, you'll get better."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is Homework Good for Kids? Here's What the Research Says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As kids return to school, debate is heating up once again over how they should spend their time after they leave the classroom for the day

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Should elementary schools assign homework? TFK asked two experts to weigh in.

Janine Bempechat is a professor of human development and psychology at Wheelock College, in Massachusetts. She studies kids' motivation for learning. Below, she explains why homework serves an important purpose for students of all ages.

Etta Kralovec is a professor of education at the University of Arizona. She is also a coauthor of the book The End of Homework. Here, she argues that homework is a waste of time and explains her reasoning.

RICHARD NESTEAD-GETTY IMAGES

Yes!
By Janine Bempechat
Particularly for elementary school, homework has become a debated issue. That is because studies show that doing homework does not necessarily improve younger students' grades.

Still, many teachers and parents are in favor of homework in elementary school. They view it as a way for students to review what they are learning in school and develop the learning habits and study skills they will need through middle school and high school. Homework helps you practice how to plan your time, manage distractions, and persevere when learning becomes difficult.

Research shows that homework pays off. Students who invest effort in their homework are better at keeping track of their work and managing their time. When they begin middle school and high school, they are more positive about learning than students who do not invest time in homework. They also do much better in school.

This payoff may not appear during the elementary school years. But that doesn't mean homework should be abandoned. Instead, educators should focus on designing high-quality, enjoyable homework that is challenging in the best sense of the word.

No!
By Etta kralovec
I hated homework when I was in elementary school, and I hated it even more as a parent. As I recall, my kids and I argued more about homework than about anything else.

Now that I'm an educator, I spend a lot of time in schools. When it comes to homework, there is still a lot of controversy. And it's not just students who are unhappy. Many teachers and parents tell me they think homework is a waste of time. I couldn't agree more.

Homework has been around about as long as there have been schools. You may be surprised to know that it was not always popular. In 1905, California banned homework for students under 15. In the 1920s, doctors formed a group called Physicians Against Homework. They said homework harmed students' eyes and kept kids cooped up, denying them exercise and fresh air. More recently, researchers at Stanford University found that it causes considerable stress in students' lives.

My colleagues and I have put together healthy homework guidelines, which we hope will stimulate conversation between teachers, parents, and students, and eventually lead to some common-sense solutions for the age-old controversy of homework in our schools. It's a conversation worth having, don't you think?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Should elementary schools assign homework? TFK asked two experts to weigh in. Janine Bempechat is a professor of human development and psychology at Wheelock College, in Massachusetts. She studies kids' motivation for learning. Below, she explains why homework serves an...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
7 reasons homework should be banned | Vera Huang - Grade 9 - Taipei Teen Tribune

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Staff writer Vera Huang explains why homework is vastly overrated and needs to be taken off students plates. Take a look at what she thinks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
College life is an amazing period when most people find their soulmates, meet friends, obtain knowledge, study favorite subjects, and decide on the career path. Don't you agree?

However, homework has always been the main stumbling block for most students who choose to keep a balance between studies, work, and personal life. While some teachers and parents agree that homework assignments help to improve knowledge and train theoretical skills. However, when kids have no experience in doing assignments out-of-class or school students who get many assignments, they spent hours of homework which led to stress, headache, and burnout. Obviously, parents see these negative effects and start thinking about whether the government should ban homework.

Since students want to enjoy their youth, it's no wonder that more and more people ask themselves: should students have homework?

Image Source
The debate over banning homework isn't new, but it has gained in popularity over the last few years. Today, more and more schools and colleges in the USA and Canada implement the 'no-homework' policy.

In this article, we're going to find out whether homework should be banned.

The Pros:

First things first: let's find out why homework is bad. Here comes the list of the pros of banning homework.

1. Stay Interested in Subjects

It's no secret that students spend at least five days a week at colleges, but when they come back home, they still have to work on their homework which also takes a lot of time. Since most teachers assign too much homework, students waste many days working on assignments, so they lack sleep and feel stressed. Why? They are afraid of completing their tasks on a bad level, and therefore getting bad marks. While kids study hard to be skilled and well-rounded, they waste a lot of time online and these factors lead to stress and mental health problems, so students are losing interest in subjects.

2. Keep a College-Life Balance

The college life is not just about attending lectures, hitting the books, and doing your homework. It's an amazing period of life that most young people love as it helps them meet new friends and decide on their career paths if they keep a college-life balance. With the growing amount of homework assignments, it's getting harder for responsible students to manage their time wisely. Not only do students spend much time working on their tasks and projects, but also teachers assign too much homework.

More and more famous people support the idea of a homework ban as they believe that working too much on homework assignments doesn't allow kids to keep a college-life balance. Here's a popular Tweet from Gary Lineker, for example:

Image Source
Having a balance in life is crucial for every person, but when it comes to the youth, it's even more important as it affects their productivity, performance, and overall well-being. To get great grades, students do their best to complete tasks on a good level, but they have to spend many days to complete their workload, so they can't keep a balance.

3. Improve Mental Health

When students have to work on difficult assignments, they may get stress, headaches, and exhaustion. When kids have too much homework, it can result in lack of sleep and healthy relationships with peers and family. No matter how much they love various subjects, homework can negatively affect mental health which can lead to serious problems. The 'no-homework' movement helps to protect children from getting too much homework which also helps to improve mental health over the long haul.

The Cons:

Having too much homework is bad, but having no homework at all - is it good? Although more and more people want to implement the no-homework policy and discuss whether should homework be banned, working on assignments after classes is still a great way to obtain knowledge and improve skills. Let's find out the cons of banning homework.

1. Have Poor Time Management Skills

Students get too much homework. At first blush, it seems to be a problem. However, it has a positive effect on their time management skills. With a desire to get great grades for their assignments without sacrificing personal life, most students find a homework routine that works best for them. In other words, this means they learn how to prioritize tasks, stay focused on their duties, and therefore improve time management skills which can help them in every aspect of life.

2. Increase Screen Time

The popularity of technologies has both advantages and disadvantages. While adults can make the most out of gadgets, younger people may have some problems using their smartphones/tablets. As specified in Common Sense Report, 59% of parents believe that their children are addicted to their devices. Since kids love gadgets so much, they always choose to get through the days playing video games or browsing social media networks unless they start working on homework assignments.

Gadgets have become a common problem most children face, so parents seek out alternative ways to occupy their kids. Believe it or not, homework reduces the amount of time the youth spends scrolling Facebook feeds or texting with peers. There's a correlation between the amount of time people spend on education and screen time. The sum up? More education means less screen time:

Image Source
Simply put, if you choose to ban homework, it may lead to serious problems caused by phone addiction. Thus, it's a negative aspect of a homework ban that can become a global problem in the short term.

3. Damage Children-Parents Relationships

When it comes to homework, every student has asked their parents for help at least once in a lifetime. Since students seek out assignment help, it's no wonder they turn to their parents. In most cases, parents do their best to help children get their questions answered. It's psychologically proven that working together with parents on difficult tasks leads to better relationships, but when there's no homework, students (especially teenagers) are less likely to contact their parents. In other words, this means a lack of communication between children and parents, which negatively affects their overall relationships.

In Short

Homework has both pros and cons, so it's hard to say whether it should be banned or not. However, it's obvious that teachers should take into account the amount of homework students get weekly and how many days they work on these tasks. Once teachers assign fewer tasks and students stop procrastinating on their homework, working on assignments at home will be more beneficial for everyone in the educational process.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should Homework be Banned? The Pros and Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
College life is an amazing period when most people find their soulmates, meet friends, obtain knowledge, study favorite subjects, and decide on the career path. Don't you agree? However, homework has always been the main stumbling block for most students who choose to keep a balance between studies, work, and personal life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

Homework is the main public and private schooling experience for many of us grew up doing it. Long nights spent on science projects, book reports and all of those repetitive math sheets. In any case, it felt like an unavoidable part of the educational experience. Except you could power through all of your assignments during your free time in class, then you had some time to spend at home working on specific subjects.

Homework has been part of the schooling experience for multiple decades. Undoubtedly, there are some lessons that are perfect for the classroom environment, but on the other hand, there are some things that children can learn better at home in their comfort zone. As a standard rule, the maximum amount of the time, which student should have to spend each day on any lessons outside of the school is 10 minutes per each grade level.

This means that a first-grade student should spend about 10 minutes each night on homework. If you are senior in your high school, then the maximum limit would be two hours. For some students that might be still too much extra time doing work. However, there are some calls to limit the amount of time spend on extra limit of 30 minutes per day at all of the older K-12 grades.

More educational sectors are looking forward to the idea of the banning homework from the modern educational experience. Instead of sending work home with students, try to find alternative ways to ensure that each student can understand the curriculum without involving parental involvement.

Even though banning homework might seem like an unusual process, there are genuine advantages to consider with this effort. On the contrary, there are some disadvantages which some families may encounter as well.

There are several pros and cons of banning homework from the current school structure. The following are the updated list of the pros and cons for your consideration, let's have a look on them.

List of the pros of banning homework

1. Homework doesn't improve student academic outcomes

For modern students, the reality of the homework is that we don't know if it is helpful to have an extra task assigned to the student outside of the class. Every study has shown many flaws which cause the data collected to be uncertainty at best & Students also search on the internet someone do my homework online. However, there is some information to recommend that students in secondary school or higher can get benefit from limited homework, banning it for younger students seems to be beneficial for their learning experience.

2. Banning homework can decrease burnout issues with students

Teachers are often looking at homework stress in the classroom today more than before. About 25% of grade school teachers say that they have seen stress in the students regarding homework. It can have a tremendous adverse impact on students if they are dealing with the impact of homework.

3. It can increase the amount of family time

Homework creates a noticeable disruption to family relationships. Over half of the parents in North America say that had an important argument with their children over homework in the past month. 1/3 of the families say that homework is their primary source of struggle in the home. It doesn't only reduce the amount of time with family, but it reduces the chances that parents have to teach their own belief and skills system to their kids.

4. It can reduce the negative impact of homework on the student's health

Many students suffer mentally when they fail to finish a homework assignment on time. Even though assumptions are often made about the time management skills of the student when the outcome occurs, the reasons behind it are usually more complex. It can be too difficult, dull and boring or there is not enough time left in the day to complete the work. When students experience huge failure in this area, it can lead to severe mental health issues. Some perceive themselves as an intellectual failure and believes in an inability to live life successfully. It can discourage a desire to learn in students. However, there is even a risk of suicide of some youth because of this issue. Banning would totally eliminate the risk immediately.

5. Increases the amount of socialization time

People who tend to spend time in school and then going home to do homework are at higher risk of experiencing isolation and loneliness. When these emotions are alive then the students are more likely to feel down and out by mentally and physically. They often lack meaningful connections with other people. However, these feelings are equivalent to smoking 15 cigarettes per day. If a student spends time on the homework, then they are not spending time connecting with their friends and family.

6. The home environment is chaotic

However, some students can do homework in a quiet place while others can't. There are several events that happen in a home, which distract students from the work that their teachers want them to do. It isn't just video games, internet, and television, which is problematic. Family issues, household chores, employment can make it a challenge to get the assigned work finished on time.

List of the cons of banning homework

1. Homework enables parents to be involved with the educational process

It is important that parents need to know what their children are learning in school. Even a parent asks their children about what they are learning, the answer tends to be generalities rather than specific. Sending work home from the classroom will allow parents to see and experience the progress of their children about what they are doing when they are in school during the day. Parents can easily involve the learning process to reinforce the essential concepts that were discovered by their children each day.

2. Homework can help parents and teachers identify learning abilities

Many children develop a self-defense mechanism in them, which allows them to look like other kids of their classroom. This process allows them to hide their disabilities in learning which may be hindering their academic progress. The homework makes it possible for teachers and parents to identify this issue because kids can't hide their learning disabilities when they must work 1on1 with their parents on specific subjects. Banning homework means eliminating 50% of the opportunities to identify potential issues immediately.

3. Homework enables teachers to observe how their students understand the material

Teachers usually use homework as a way to measure how well a student understands the lectures and materials that they are learning in the classroom. However, some might point out that the exams and assignments in the classroom can do the same thing, testing usually requires preparation at home. It creates more stress and anxiety sometimes than even homework does. That is why banning it might be problematic for some students. Some students feel more pressure during quizzes and tests as they are the only measurement of their success.

4. It teaches the student how to manage their time

With time, people grow older they realize that time is a finite commodity. It is important to manage time wisely in order to maximize productivity. Homework is a way to encourage the development of skills at the very beginning age. The trick is to keep the amount of time for the work to the managerial level. Students should spend 10 minutes doing homework, organize their schedule around this need. If a student is having difficulties to create scheduling then the families should offer a chance to create priorities.

5. It encourages students to be accountable for their role

Teachers in the classroom offer skill-building and access to the information opportunities that can improve the quality of life for every student. Faculty chore is to find the curriculum that will benefit the students in an efficient way. Parents try their best to ensure that their kids make it to school on time, communicate with their school district and follow healthy routines to ensure the most effective learning opportunities possible. None of all that matters if the student is not invested in the work. Homework not only teaches children how to work independently, but it also teaches children how to take responsibility for their part of the overall educational process.

6. Teaches important life lessons

Homework is an important tool in the development of life lessons such as comprehending something or communicating with others on something they have just read. It teaches kids how to solve problems, think and even build an understanding of the issues that occur in our current society.

Final words
Ultimately, the decision of banning homework or not, or simply minimize homework quantity, totally depends on each individual district and educator. However, parents always have the option to pursue homeschooling or take "online homework help" if they disagree with the decision made in this area.

One way is to ban homework entirely. By taking action that would require parents and teachers to be proactive in their communication, it could help to equalize the educational opportunities in the classroom.

Until more research occurs in the area, the pros and cons of banning homework are simply subjective cases. If you feel that your child would benefit from a reduced workload, then speak to your child's teacher to see if this is an option. For teens and older students, there is always an option to adopt any form of education, such as vocational school or an apprenticeship if the traditional schooling doesn't seem to be working.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Do My Homework For Me Online At Cheap - ProHomeworkHelp.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Introduction Homework is the main public and private schooling experience for many of us grew up doing it. Long nights spent on science projects, book reports and all of those repetitive math sheets. In any case, it felt like an unavoidable part of the educational experience.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | More parents, schools trying to dig out from piles of homework

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Instructional Content Platform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Homework Should Not Be Banned: Important Considerations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Students from all levels of education have been doing assignments since time immemorial. The main difference is the length and complexity of the assignments. The majority of students, parents, and teachers agree that at-home tasks are beneficial and should continue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Zoos go by several different official names. They can be called "animal parks," "menageries," or

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Books Should Not Be Banned, for the Sake of Learning | Well+Good

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Books can provide a vehicle for learning about oneself and different people experiences. Here, experts explain why books should not be banned.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Article at a Glance
* Video games can be used to help improve test scores, teach life and job skills, improve brain function, and encourage physical exercise.
* Most popular video games and apps are addictive by design
* Because video game addiction can negatively impact social and physical health, parents should be aware of the symptoms.

Kids have been wild about video games for decades. But the introduction of mobile game systems and smartphone apps took that to new heights.

Mobility brought gaming into the car, the bedroom, and even to the bus stop. With roughly 95% of U.S. teens owning smartphones, it's hard to find a kid who isn't playing some kind of game.

Although video games get a lot of bad press, they do have some benefits. The trick is to strike the right balance of good content and appropriate limits. After all, video games should enhance your child's life, not take it over.

Video Game Pros:

Education

Studies have found that video games can improve learning. When video games have been used in the classroom, teachers see improved test scores. Games also allow students to learn and then apply what they have learned in a real-life situation. Medical and military training programs both use simulation-style games to teach tools and strategy.

Life Skills

Many video games teach kids how to delegate, work as a team, and prioritize. Internet-enabled games that let kids play with their real-life friends often require collaboration and division of tasks to beat the level.

Improved Brain Function

Video games have been shown to help us improve our ability to reason and solve problems. They help us make split-second decisions, process information more quickly, and multitask effectively. Games can also improve hand-eye coordination and boost auditory perception.

Exercise

Motion-controlled games like the Nintendo Wii were once thought to be the answer to parental concerns about video games leading to obesity. But studies have shown these video games alone don't increase kids' overall activity level.

However, there is some hope in the form of smartphone games that encourage kids to leave the house. Pokemon Go is one example, but your kids may also enjoy the real-life treasure hunt appeal of activities like Geocaching. Some apps like The Walk, blend storytelling and exercise to get players moving.

Job Skills

The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) argues that kids need to play more video games in order to be competitive in the current job market. In a report they released in 2010, the FAS said games helped teach higher-order thinking skills like problem-solving, interpretive analysis, and more.

Video Game Cons:

Violence

While every other study seems to draw opposite conclusions about the social effects of playing violent video games, studies involving brain scans are concerning.

Simply put, children playing violent video games show decreased activity in areas of the brain dedicated to self-control and an increase in emotional arousal.

Even though the debate continues, be aware of how violent games affect your children. If you notice a problem, go with your gut.

Help your children choose games you feel are appropriate. Many console game ratings include detailed information about the contents of the game's violence level, language, topics, etc.

Addiction

England's National Health Service began treating video game addiction this year, after the World Health Organization listed "gaming disorder" in its International Classification of Disease.

What makes video games addictive? Playing releases dopamine into our systems, which gives us a feeling of pleasure and tells our brain to "do it again."

As a matter of fact, video games are designed to be addictive. John Hopson, a games researcher at Microsoft Game Studios is also a doctor of behavioral and brain sciences who writes about game design.

In "Behavioral Game Design" he explained how game designers can control behavior by providing simple stimulus and rewards at strategic times and places.

Children with poor impulse control or who have a hard time fitting in are most vulnerable to game addiction. This may be because video games offer an easy way to fill the void created when real-world relationships are hard to form.

Social Replacement

Be aware of how much your children are playing video games and if it's replacing or negatively impacting other aspects of their lives.

Internet-connected games make it easy to "hang out" with friends after school without ever leaving home. But this type of virtual get-together is no replacement for actual face-to-face interaction.

Setting aside the potential problems of online predators and cyber-bullying, virtual hangouts rob kids of the opportunity to practice their social skills and to move their bodies from one house to another.

Our Role in Video Games

Video games can play a positive role in our children's lives, but we need to be there to help set limits.

If you're worried that your child is becoming too obsessed with games, then it is time to sit down and talk. Be sensitive and nonjudgmental. Try to agree on a reasonable amount of space for video games to occupy in your family life.

Enlist the help of your pediatrician if you have concerns. He or she may have great tips and can even recommend a therapist who specializes in tweens or teens.

Remember, even though video games have their place, they should occupy less time than what kids need to devote to exercising, socializing, studying, and sleeping. In our ever-more-connected world, we could all use a little more practice just being unplugged.
Signs and Symptoms of Video Game Abuse:

Falling grades

Not sleeping enough, feelings of fatigue

Free time is used almost exclusively for playing video games

Irritability when not playing video games

Neglect of hygiene

Disinterest in other activities

Increased anxiety

Reviewed on November 21, 2019 by:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kids have been wild about video games for decades but video games should enhance your child's life, not take it over. Get the pros and cons.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bottled water might seem like a silly product to consider using thanks to the reliability and safety of tap water around the world, but there are still many locations that need this product for basic life essentials. It is also very common to use a bottle of water as a way to stay hydrated while working, participating in athletics, going to the gym, and the other physical activities of life.

One of the reasons why it is such a common product is that it is highly affordable. For about 50% of the cost of a soda, juice product, or tea, you can purchase a zero-calorie option that can leave you feeling refreshed. Although glass bottles are sometimes available in some locations, small plastic containers tend to be the most popular option to use when bottling water.

The idea of drinking bottled water over a sugary beverage can make it seem like this product has multiple advantages and no concerns to evaluate. When we look at the bottling and disposal process that goes with this product, there can be some circumstances where the purchase of a bottle of water may not be the best choice.

List of the Advantages of Bottled Water

1. Bottled water provides a superior form of hydration.
When you are drinking a bottled water product, then you are consuming something that your body naturally wants when you feel thirsty. The reality of personal care in the United States and other developed countries is that 75% of the general population remains voluntarily dehydrated every day. If you have a portable water product that can go with you to any location, then it is easier to meet the needs of your body.

By drinking water, you won't be adding sugars, sodium, or other unhealthy ingredients to your body's systems that could lead to future health problems if the alternative items are not consumed in moderation.

2. Bottled water is a product of convenience.
Whether you choose to use your own bottle or container to bring water with you during the day or you purchase one from a store, you can take this beverage with you almost anywhere. You might be working out or practicing somewhere that doesn't offer a source of water when you become thirsty. Most offices will allow you to keep bottled water at your desk so that you can take care of your personal needs.

The convenience of this product is undeniable. You can purchase a reusable bottle to fill it up wherever you happen to be, or you can decide to buy some at most convenience stores or similar locations.

3. Bottled water can store for a long time.
If you have an unopened bottle of water, then you can usually store it indefinitely. The only requirement to meet when trying to use this advantage is that you keep it in the correct environment. Even if you decide to follow the shelf life requirements of the manufacturer for this product, you're still going to get 1-2 years of storage from the product.

Because bottled water is a food product, you should keep it in a similar environment to gain this advantage. You'll want to store it in a refrigerator instead of leaving it out in the open, like placing it in a shed or a garage. It must be kept away from chemicals, solvents, and fumes to maintain its profile. If you open a bottle of water that has algae, smells funny, or may look to be a different color, then either dispose of it or boil it before using it as an emergency supply.

4. Bottled water has a better flavor to it.
One of the primary reasons why many consumers purchase bottled water over using what they have at the tap is because of the flavor profile they receive. Some tap water can receive high levels of chlorination to ensure that it is safe to use, which can leave a funny taste and a smell when pouring yourself a glass to drink. Most commercial products do not have this concern.

Although you could purchase a filter at home to create your own bottled water from the tap (which is basically what some companies do to sell branded water), the convenience of picking up a bottle when you feel thirsty is what helps to drive the industry forward.

5. Bottled water is guaranteed to be of a specific quality.
When you purchased bottled water products, then you are buying an item that receives full monitoring during the manufacturing cycle. It is strictly regulated to ensure that it is completely free of contaminants that could make you sick. When households don't have access to tap water that is clean and safe to drink, purchasing bottled items can make sure that any adverse effects from contamination don't have a chance to settle in to become problematic.

The EPA in the United States sets standards and regulations for the presence or the amount of over 90 potential contaminants in the drinking water, including salmonella, E. coli, and cryptosporidium. You can check with your local utility to see what the latest testing results are for your community. If you are on well water, then you'll want to have independent testers check on the quality of your water.

6. Bottled water is a highly regulated product.
Most countries in the world regulate their bottled water supplies. In the United States, the EPA considers this product to be a food item, so it falls under the supervision of the Food and Drug Administration. There are specific guidelines in place that require producers to follow Good Manufacturing Practices during the creation of a sellable product, including licensing and monitoring requirements that ensure the quality of the water.

"Tap water can pick up pesticides which have been washed into streams and rivers," writes Toby Amidor for Food Network. "Chlorin e is added to tap water to help disinfect it, but it can react with fallen leaves to form a toxic byproduct. Even your own pipes can contaminate tap water with lead."

7. Bottled water offers several different options from which to choose.
If you rely on tap water to quench your thirst, then you have one basic choice for your drinking needs. When you choose to purchase a bottled water product, then there are several more options from which to select. Mineral water is a popular choice, as it comes from an underground source and contains a specific nutrient profile that might not be available with what comes from the faucet. Spring water is another option that producers can collect from the surface.

You can also purchase purified tap water in bottles as a way to take advantage of the convenience of this item without needing to do the extra work at home.

8. Bottled water does not use up a significant amount of freshwater resources.
The annual production of bottled water represents less than 0.02% of the total ground water withdrawals that occur in the United States each year. Even when a drought occurs in a region water supplies are part of the production chain, it is easy for producers to change their manufacturing processes to lessen their impact on the local supply chain. This product is one small part of the puzzle instead of being the primary driving force behind what we have, so it is essential not to mischaracterize the amount of waste that occurs in the system.

9. Bottled water waste does not make up a significant portion of our trash.
Although the statistics on bottled water waste and recycling can feel shocking, the reality is that the convenient-sized bottles that most people use each day account for less than 0.03% of all waste produced in the United States in the average year. Having better compliance with recycling programs can help to reduce this number even further. There might not be as much compliance in Asia with their developing economies, but there is a better understanding of the issues involved so that the impact we leave on the world is minimal.

List of the Disadvantages of Bottled Water

1. Bottled water will always cost more than tap water.
If you are using tap water to take care of your thirst, then you have one of the most inexpensive resources that is available on our planet today. You can meet your drinking needs for just pennies per day. When you move to bottled water as an alternative, then you'll be paying up to 100 times more for the convenience and availability of this product. Even if you filter your water at home, you'll pay about 10 times less than you would for the bottling, transportation, marketing, and retail costs of purchasing a grab-and-go item.

Even if you opt for the most inexpensive brands that are available in stores today, you'll still be paying a lot more for this product than with tap water. That's why many families are purchasing reusable bottles that they can take with them to meet their thirst needs.

2. Bottled water can still create health problems.
Although it is true that bottled water carries with it fewer health risks than the average tap water serving, you can still encounter problems with this product. Older bottles of water may have bisphenol A, or BPA, in them, and this chemical is known to seep into the water. There can be other contaminants present in the bottle materials as well. Depending on how you store the product, you can encounter issues with algae or mold growth that could be an issue too. You can even have the fumes from chemicals or cleaners seep into the fluid over time to create a higher risk of an adverse outcome.

3. Bottled water might still have contaminants in it.
Bottled water may be healthier than tap water in a direct comparison of averages, but that doesn't mean this product is 100% free of items that you don't want to put in your body. The primary requirement for this item is that it cannot contain an amount that exceeds the recommended guidelines that are put in place by the overseeing government entity or regulator. You'll have a local or federal maximum allowable concentration of components like arsenic or lead.

4. Bottled water creates a recycling problem for most communities.
When you pay for a bottle of water, then 90% of the expense goes to the plastic in the container instead of the fluid that you want to drink. Since 80% of these items never make it to a recycling facility, there is a lot of plastic waste that goes into landfills or exists as environmental litter around the world. Over 38 million plastic bottles that held water make it to landfills in the United States each year.

For the average American, 167 bottles of water are consumed annually that require some sort of disposal method. Since bottling and shipping it creates transportation costs to consider as well, this use of our resources is the least-efficient way to stay hydrated in the history of human cultures.

5. Bottled water can just be tap water in some circumstances.
The bottled water industry generates over $18 billion in revenues for the economy each year. What many people may not realize is that the Beverage Marketing Association admits that almost 50% of all of the products in this category in the United States is just purified tap water. The regulation standards for both products are very different. The only real difference between the two is that manufacturers use the bottled item as a product that is specific for human consumption.

That means you could purchase purifying agents for your tap or well water at home to receive a similar result. If you want information about what is in your water, then you can check your local government's website to see what type of filter would work best for your needs.

6. Bottled water doesn't contain fluoride.
Depending on your perspective, this could be an advantage or a disadvantage of consuming bottled water. Most municipalities add fluoride to their tap water as a way to encourage stronger teeth in children. In an Australian study on the comparison of drinking tap water vs. bottled water with children, those who primarily drank a bottled product had a higher risk of cavities, even with proper tooth care, compared to those who usually drank tap water instead.

There are some risks to consider with fluoride which are scientifically documented. Children under the age of six should not use a mouthwash with fluoride to avoid problems with fluorosis. Excessive exposure can lead to bone, thyroid, and neurological problems as well.

7. Bottled water creates a significant danger to animals and the environment.
The caps on the bottled water containers are often loose from the product on disposal. They make their way into the environment, including the ocean, where animals can accidentally ingest the product. Mammals, birds, and sea turtles tend to consume them the most, which creates injuries and a higher risk of a fatality because of the litter.

The amount of plastic litter in the ocean is enormous, with over 150 million metric tons currently circulating in our marine environments. An additional eight million metric tons gets added to that amount each year. That is why we must have recycling programs that take care of these bottles.

8. Bottled water leaves a significant carbon footprint.
It takes between 17-24 million barrels of oil each year to produce the plastics which are used to create bottled water products. That means you're contributing to the release of greenhouse gas emissions that could play a role in the overall warming trend of our planet. Even though the water may be healthy to consume, the processes used to create the item in the first place may actually use more freshwater than what you would have from the tap.

9. Bottled water labeling can lead to consumer confusion.
There are several different labels that you will find on bottled water products today. Drinking water is in a sealed container with no added ingredients except for fluoride, which is optional. Purified water can either come from a municipality or a spring, and then goes through an improvement process. Spring and mineral water come from natural resources, with the latter containing not less than 250 ppm of total dissolved solids. Sparkling bottled water contains extra carbon dioxide.

Verdict on the Advantages and Disadvantages of Bottled Water

Bottled water is an effective way to stay hydrated throughout the day. The overall availability of this product makes it easy to get something that should be healthy to drink whenever and wherever you happen to be. The only problem is that you're paying, hundreds, if not thousands, of extra dollars each year to take advantage of this convenience. When you purchase this item, most of your cost goes to the plastics manufacturing instead of the liquid you want to consume.

Testing from the NRDC found that over 30% of bottled water samples showed signs of contamination. That means it may not be safer than some tap water options that are available in the United States and around the world.

The best solution is to purchase a filtering product, or even a reverse osmosis system, that you can use at home with your current water supply. Then you can invest in resusable water bottles that will help you to stay hydrated at a fraction of the cost of the individual bottles you might be purchasing.

Author Biography
Keith Miller has over 25 years of experience as a CEO and serial entrepreneur. As an entrepreneur, he has founded several multi-million dollar companies. As a writer, Keith's work has been mentioned in CIO Magazine, Workable, BizTech, and The Charlotte Observer. If you have any questions about the content of this blog post, then please send our content editing team a message here.

---

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
18 Advantages and Disadvantages of Bottled Water

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bottled water might seem like a silly product to consider using thanks to the reliability and safety of tap water around the world, but there are still many locations that need this product for basic life essentials.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Gun control is the attempt, usually by a government, to restrain or stop people from owning or using guns. Gun control may also regulate the making, moving, and selling of guns. People want gun control because guns are very dangerous. Gun control is very controversial in some countries, such as in the United States. Some countries such as the United States, Switzerland, and Israel allow people to own guns to defend themselves, but most countries do not.

Gun Control in the United States

Because of the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, every American citizen has the right to "keep and bear arms". This has been taken to mean that most people can own guns. Originally, it was thought that the federal government could not ban guns, but states and cities could. However, in 2010, the Supreme Court said that states and cities could not ban handguns. Although banning all guns is not allowed anymore, states and cities can still stop the sale and use of certain kinds of guns, such as guns that fire many bullets very quickly. They can also say that certain people, such as criminals, cannot own guns. There is a strong "gun lobby" in the United States. It is led by the National Rifle Association, which supports the right to own guns. They want it to be fairly easy to get a gun. Other groups, such as the Brady Campaign, want guns to be hard to get because they believe that guns cause violence, injury and death. Some states have very strict gun laws, but others, such as Arizona, Utah, and Mississippi, do not.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gun control is the attempt, usually by a government, to restrain or stop people from owning or using guns. Gun control may also regulate the making, moving, and selling of guns. People want gun control because guns are very dangerous. Gun control is very controversial in some countries, such as in the United States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Parents are in charge, and that's something we all accept to a certain extent, but as children turn into teenagers we all like to have more independence. So should parents tell us what we're allowed to read when there's no law against young people buying adult books?

If you're a little child and you walk into your local library or bookshop, you don't go straight to all the adult books, do you? You normally go to the first book that grabs your attention and looks the most exciting, and it's unlikely that the book you find is unsuitable - you just head for the brightest cover!

Once you've read at that level for a while the books aren't exciting any more, the covers not quite so bright; you want to feel that excitement again so you seek out something new. Kids are constantly growing out of the books they read - the whole point of reading is learning, absorbing and moving on - and I think once you have got to that stage, even as a young teenager, you should be allowed to explore bigger and better things. Why should adults tell their children that they have to continue reading the books they're now bored of, when they're itching to try something new?

Teenagers especially like to test pushing themselves outside of their comfort zone. Sometimes that's by watching horror films or reading gruesome books which leave them scared, but if no one experienced discomfort in their childhood they wouldn't be able to face life as an adult. And pushing ourselves right up to the line - even if it leaves us terrified and quaking with nightmares - has to be a good thing, because that's the only way we can understand what we can and can't tolerate.

Age labelling is a crucial part of his debate. Whilst researching what people thought about age labelling books, I found an article from 2008 in which the Publishers Association found that 86% (of adults, mind!) support age labelling books and 40% said they would buy more books if they had age labels. The article claimed that by autumn 2008 all children's books would have age labels; that didn't happen, but the debate still rages on!

In 2012 Christi Daugherty (author of Night School) told the Daily Telegraph, "a recent study by Brigham Young University in America found that 88% of the young adult books they reviewed included at least one swear word. The implication was that those books were irresponsible. That, parents should be worried."

Teenagers should be old enough to deal with the responsibility of suitable books themselves, and so should children. Why do people believe that any child would read something that wasn't suitable for them, because ultimately it would be boring; if they weren't ready, they wouldn't enjoy it - and if they don't enjoy it, they won't keep reading.

Life's an adventure and we all grow up one day, so when you tell your parents you want to try something new, they should let you be the judge of whether you're ready. In the right circumstances I think adults can tell a child what they are and aren't allowed to read, but if someone bans a child from reading the books they feel ready to read outright, or until they reach a particular age, then they'll stop enjoying reading. As children get older, their parents have to let them make some of their own decisions and give their children some responsibility and freedom.

Patrick Ness believes that putting an age certificate on books won't make any difference to what is read:

"I don't think it works, if it's got an 18 certificate then younger children will look at it when their parents aren't around ... children are great self-censors: they know what they can read and they know what they want to read.

Teenagers look at the internet, they look at the news, they look at pornography on the internet and they look at violent movies on the internet. So if children's literature is not addressing that, if it's addressing the world as it should be rather than how it is, then why would anybody want to read you? I always think if you tell the truth about what's difficult, that their lives can be dark and hard, then when you tell the truth about what's good, they listen to you and take it more seriously because you haven't lied about what's difficult."

Patrick Ness has basically taken all my thoughts and said them out loud in a better way than I could have myself. My opinion is he's 100% correct, it won't make any difference, it will more likely just make children and teenagers read even more books that aren't suitable for them, just to spite their parents. Teenagers like to feel that they are actually allowed to grow up and do more stuff independently, and that's the only way we'll grow up to become independent adults.
Do you agree with ABitCrazy? Email us your thoughts at childrens.books@theguardian.com, get in touch on Facebook or tweet us @GdnChildrensBks, and we'll add your responses below

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Parents are in charge, and that's something we all accept to a certain extent, but as children turn into teenagers we all like to have more independence. So should parents tell us what we're allowed to read when there's no law against young people buying adult books?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to main content

Happy is an Asian elephant. She lives at the Bronx Zoo, in New York City. But the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) says the zoo doesn't give Happy the space and socialization she needs. The NhRP is taking the Bronx Zoo to court. The case will be heard next year. It has restarted talks about whether zoos should still exist. Some say zoos save species from extinction. Others argue that living in captivity is bad for an animal's health. Here, TIME for Kids readers weigh in.

KELLI NICOLE PHOTOGRAPHY
Grace Hipp, 8 Nashville, Tennessee
Many animal species are saved from extinction thanks to zoos. This past summer, I saw the California condor at the San Diego Zoo and learned about the breeding program there. Several decades ago, these vultures were almost wiped out in the wild. But the zoo has taken some of them in and helped them breed. Now there are many more California condors.

COURTESY WINKI WARRENSON
Yanni Warrenson, 12 San Francisco, California
We shouldn't have zoos. In zoos, animals might not be given proper living conditions. They might also be mistreated. Animals can feel stressed by cage restraint, an unfamiliar environment, and the presence of humans. A 2003 study of 35 species of carnivores found that zoo enclosures were too small for some of the animals to carry out their normal routines.

LIFETOUCH PHOTOGRAPHY
Shane Madrak, 10 Foster City, California
We should still have zoos for a few reasons. Zoos provide animals with food and a habitat that is made to look like their natural habitat. Zoos also breed animals to increase their population. And most zoos have educational programs that help children learn about different animals and conservation efforts.

COURTESY ANNSLEY SLAWSKY
Susie Slawsky, 9 Pelham, New York
Animals are kept away from their homes and put in fenced areas or cages. If it's a crowded day at the zoo, some animals might get overwhelmed. When they're in zoos, they can also lose their natural instincts. If they were released into the wild, they wouldn't know how to survive. An animal's health is more important than our entertainment.
The Next Debate! Should the government set screen-time limits for kids? Email tfkeditors@time.com by January 6, 2021 for the chance to appear in an upcoming issue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Happy is an Asian elephant. She lives at the Bronx Zoo, in New York City. But the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) says the zoo doesn't give Happy the space and socialization she needs. The NhRP is taking the Bronx Zoo...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
8 Reasons Video Games Can Improve Your Child

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Parent-approved video games that are played in moderation can help young kids develop in educational, social, and physical ways.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Last school year, nine-year-old Elijah did something his family would never have expected: he got up in front of the whole school and danced in the talent show. Never mind that the moves were inspired by victory dances that take place in the video game . "If it wasn't for his friend putting this together, Elijah never would have been in a talent show," says his mom, Narie Ju-Hong, who adds that all his male classmates, even the very shy ones, voluntarily agreed to participate in the dance.

Video games have influenced Ju-Hong's family, including six-year-old Claire, in other positive ways. For example, they play the dance competition game Just Dance multiple times a week, and compete for who has the best dance moves. "You actually work up a sweat," adds Ju-Hong.

While console-based games, like Nintendo and PlayStation, have been popular with kids for decades, tablets, smart phones and computers have made screen-based electronic games more accessible and affordable than ever. Exact numbers for Canadian kids aren't available, but research in the United States from 2011 found 91 per cent of American kids play video games-and that was before tablets were popular.

If video games aren't already part of your family's life, it's likely only a matter of time before your kid asks about Minecraft, a game in which you use blocks to create worlds and beat challenges. Fortnite, a third-person, multi-player shooter game, is also popular, though more controversial (and one that Ju-Hong's son isn't actually allowed to play yet, despite being familiar with the dance moves).

But between articles circulating about the potential for addiction and the common worry that video games will bring out violent behaviour, it can be tempting to issue a house-wide ban on this form of entertainment. In reality, that's probably not needed. You'll likely want to hold off on certain games due to violence until your kids are older, but not all video games need to be locked away until your kid's eighteenth birthday. It turns out that with moderation and supervision, video games could actually be a positive influence in your kid's life.

The positives of video games

While video games have the potential to offer kids a range of benefits, one of the strongest is around helping them develop their sense of self. "They can give kids a sense of competence, connection and autonomy that really boosts their self-esteem," says Michelle Ponti, a London, ON-based paediatrician and chair of the Canadian Paediatric Society's digital health task force. "What might just look like a fun waste of time to parents can actually be teaching kids valuable life skills including problem solving, how to make and take ownership of choices and how to control their own behaviours and goals." Some games, generally those that are multi-player, even have the potential to teach kids empathy, due to the shared experienced of completing the game together, explains Ponti.

Jennifer Turliuk, CEO of MakerKids, a Toronto-based company that offers STEM-oriented camps, classes and parties, says she likes to use video games to teach skills like conflict resolution. For example, in Minecraft, players can sometimes-accidentally or otherwise -build on each other's land or even destroy each other's creations. While this has the potential for meltdowns when you're dealing with grade schoolers, with the right guidance from adults, these incidents can be teachable moments on how to talk (or type) through conflict. Turliuk has then watched these skills be applied away from the screen, for example, when a summer camp group is taken to the park.

The interactive aspect of some games can also be beneficial for kids who struggle with face-to-face social interactions. "Online communication can sometimes be a lot easier for socially anxious kids," notes Ponti. She adds that while real-life world interactions are crucial in this instance, online gaming can be a great space for these kids to practice social skills.

Video games and STEM skills

Video games can also benefit a kid academically. Executive functioning skills like paying attention, planning and organizing, can also be nurtured by certain games. "Some games are quite intricate and really require you to plan ahead," says Ponti.

Research out of Europe that surveyed the parents and teachers of over 3,000 kids age six to 11 (and also included a self-assessment by the kids) found that children who played video games for five or more hours a week were likely to have better intellectual functioning and academic achievement and fewer problems with their peers. (It also failed to find a negative connection between playing video games and mental health concerns.)

"Games can also help kids build skills in coding, math, logic, design," says Turliuk. She notes that besides the obvious route of a career in gaming (the eSports market is estimated to surpass $1 billion in worldwide revenue this year while in Canada, the video game industry contributed $3.7 billion to our economy in 2017), video games can be the "first-point of contact towards careers in computer programming, engineering, design." And considering that STEM careers are among the most in-demand, and highest paid around, playing video games could literally pay off big time for your kid.

While video games have the potential to be a positive influence in your kid's life, Ponti is quick to note that children don't need to play them. This is particularly true for kids under five. Canadian screen time recommendations say kids ages two to four should have less than an hour of screen time a day, and that it should be avoided altogether for kids under two.

The biggest problem with any form of screen time is that it can displace other activities kids need to grow up strong and healthy. Ponti notes that after your kid has attended school, met their personal needs including bathing and eating, and gotten the recommended amount of sleep and physical activity, they may only have an hour or less of free time available.

"Video gaming and screen time are a privilege that is to be earned after those other healthy activities have been completed," says Ponti.

It's also important to be involved in your kids' digital lives-including knowing what they are playing and when-and to familiarize yourself with the parental and privacy controls associated with the systems and games your child uses. The tech that allows for social benefits of multi-player games can also put your children at risk of exposure to hateful language, inappropriate images and even online predators. "Don't allow kids to play with anonymous users," says Turliuk. Thankfully, most online, multi-player games allow you to set up private profiles and restrict interactions to only playing with other known, approved accounts. (YouTube has tutorials for setting those up.)

Signs that your kid might need less (or even no) video game time include having trouble turning the game off, acting out following the end of a gaming session, complaining about being bored or unhappy when not gaming or if you find that gaming interferes with your child's ability to sleep, eat or-super-importantly-socialize in real life.

Best types of video games for kids

Ready to allow video games into your child's life but feeling a little overwhelmed by all the options out there? Ponti recommends starting with what your kid is interested in (Sports? Fantasy? Puzzles?), then talking to other parents to learn what they allow in their household and what pitfalls they've encountered. While Ponti doesn't recommend one specific technology over another, note that for younger children, transitioning away from a device can be particularly problematic, meaning any device that you can't easily monitor, such as a tablet, might lead to more clashes than a TV-based gaming system, where you can more easily spot a potential transition point.

She encourages games that involve multiple players and that encourage movement as part of their game play, or that might inspire kids to get outside and play a sport. "What we don't want are kids sitting alone in a basement, by themselves."

You can check out Common Sense Media, for an updated look at some of the best games out there for kids as well as in-depth reviews on games for all ages. Ponti says Media Smarts is a great Canadian resource for all digital and media literacy and notes the Canadian Paediatric Society also has online resources.

Before purchasing or downloading any game, review the product's rating. Almost all console and computer game are rated by the Entertainment Software Rating Board and for kids under 10, you'll want to look for an "E for Everyone." Tablet and smart phone games are also often rated however these can be heavily influenced by the game's developer, so it's best for you to actually play those games before you let your kids have access.

Turliuk is a big fan of Minecraft, which she notes is even used in classrooms around the world. In addition to potentially inspiring kids' interest in STEM topics, the game is great at teaching essential computer skills. While we tend to think of modern kids as tech-savvy, Turliuk says, "A lot of kids these days don't know how to type or use a mouse." With Minecraft, kids are forced to do such basic tasks as typing and using folders, skills that are crucial for post-secondary and white-collar careers. For this same reason, you may want to consider giving your kids access to games that are played on a laptop or desktop.

In Ju-Hong's household, her kids have access to tablets, but her son's favourite system is by far his Nintendo Switch, due to its ability to connect him to his friends. The Switch also links to the TV, allowing for the family's Just Dance sessions and making it a device that Ju-Hong recommends for others. The gaming system is also Common Sense Media's top pick for families with pre-tween kids, because of its social nature and strong parental controls.

As for her son's video game-inspired dance, it received the biggest cheers of all of the performances at the talent show. It also gave Ju-Hong another reason to cheer on video games and their surprisingly beneficial impacts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The surprising benefits of video games for kids - Today's Parent

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last school year, nine-year-old Elijah did something his family would never have expected: he got up in front of the whole school and danced in the talent show. Never mind that the moves were inspired by victory dances that take place in the video game .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Instantly access over 40,000 of the best books & videos for kids on Epic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Get unlimited access to 40,000 of the best books, audiobooks, videos, & more for kids 12 and under. Try it free.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Twelve Years of Mass Shootings in the United States
An Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund Analysis Last updated: June 4, 2021
In the years between 2009 and 2020, the horrific scenes of mass shootings have haunted the nation's collective conscience. Each breaking news alert floods the nation with grief and anger at this senseless, preventable violence. The United States is not the only country with mental illness, domestic violence, or hate-fueled ideologies, but our gun homicide rate is 25 times higher than other high-income countries.The difference is easy access to guns. This connection is not just theoretical. US states with weaker gun laws and higher gun ownership rates have higher rates of mass shootings.

While the popular perception may be that mass shootings are the nation's largest share of gun deaths, the data tells a different and more complex story. In reality, mass shootings are the tip of the iceberg of this country's gun violence crisis. More than 99 percent of gun deaths in the US are from shootings other than mass shootings. Nevertheless, because of the high number of casualties and often extensive and horrific media coverage associated with them, each mass shooting sends shockwaves of pain and harm through families, communities, and the nation. Just like the daily gun violence that contributes to the more than 100 gun deaths each day in the US, mass shootings are largely preventable through evidence-based policy interventions.

This analysis reflects a compilation of 12 years (2009 to 2020) of original data on mass shootings in the United States, sourced from media reports and official police and court records. These records enable unique insights into the circumstances of mass shootings. For full details on data collection, see our methodology.

Mass shootings are not a random, inevitable element of American life today. Rather, this report illuminates trends that can help point lawmakers to strategies to curb these tragedies. These trends include that mass shootings are often:

perpetrated by someone who was legally prohibited from possessing a firearm;

perpetrated by someone who displayed prior warning signs;

intermingled with acts of domestic violence; and

far deadlier when they involve assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Between 2009 and 2020, 1,363 people in the United States were killed and 947 more were wounded in 240 mass shootings, an average of 20 shootings each year. Among the casualties were at least 362 children and teens killed as well as 21 law enforcement officers killed and 35 wounded. These numbers are staggering, yet they represent just a small portion of the lives forever changed after a mass shooting shakes a community with terror and grief.

In nearly all mass shootings over this period, the shooter was an adult man who acted alone. Thirty-two percent of mass shooters, or 92 shooters, ended with the perpetrator dying by suicide, and another 24 shooters were killed by responding law enforcement. The remaining 145 mass shooters were taken into custody by law enforcement, while the outcomes and identities of 23 remain unknown.

The archetypal mass shooting occurs in a public place like a school or a bar. While mass shootings in public places tend to receive more media attention, the majority of these shootings actually occur in private homes.

In the absence of a comprehensive federal law that requires background checks on all gun sales across the country, criminals, domestic abusers, and other prohibited people can easily avoid background checks in 29 states simply by buying guns from unlicensed sellers-including strangers they meet online.

The harm posed when people who should not have guns can easily avoid a background check is particularly evident in mass shootings, where one in three incidents involved shooters that were legally prohibited from possessing firearms at the time of the shooting, whether because they had a felony conviction, had been adjudicated mentally ill by a court of law, or had a domestic violence restraining order, among other reasons. These shootings resulted in 364 deaths and 125 injuries, or one in four deaths and one in 10 injuries, that may have been prevented with a stronger, more comprehensive background check system.

Closing loopholes in our federal and state background check laws can prevent guns from ending up in the hands of those who are legally prohibited from having a firearm. Read more about how background checks save lives and protect communities.

The fact that so many mass shooters displayed warning signs prior to their acts of violence highlights the opportunities to intervene and prevent these tragedies. Extreme Risk laws are one such opportunity. Sometimes referred to as "red flag" laws, these laws empower loved ones and law enforcement who recognize warning signs to petition a court to temporarily restrict a person's access to firearms when they pose a significant risk of using them to cause harm. Research shows Extreme Risk laws are effective in saving lives, especially in cases of firearm suicide. Read more about the research here.

Although many people think of mass shootings as random acts of violence, this analysis shows that most mass shootings are not at all random: In at least 53 percent of mass shootings between 2009 and 2020, the perpetrator shot a current or former intimate partner or family member during the rampage. These domestic violence-related mass shootings resulted in at least 632 people shot and killed and 106 people wounded, amounting to almost half of all mass shooting deaths and one in ten injuries.

Nearly 3 in 4 children and teens killed in mass shootings died in an incident connected to domestic violence.

Too often, children and teens are the victims of domestic violence mass shootings: Of the 362 children and teens killed in all mass shootings in the past 12 years, nearly three in four (72 percent) died in an incident connected to intimate partner or family violence.

In at least 71 mass shootings, the shooter had a known previous history of domestic violence. In 56 of those mass shootings, the shooter shot and killed an intimate partner or family member as part of their rampage.

Intimate partner and family violence are far more likely to turn deadly when guns are involved. Abusers with firearms are five times more likely to kill their female victims, and guns further exacerbate the power and control dynamic used by abusers to inflict emotional abuse and exert coercive control over their victims. Read more about the deadly nexus between domestic violence and guns and the policies that help prevent domestic homicides here.

Handguns

Assault weapons

High-capacity magazines

High-capacity magazines allow a shooter to fire more rounds without pausing to reload. The more rounds a shooter can fire consecutively, the more gunshot wounds they can inflict during an attack. While nearly every assault weapon used in a mass shooting over this period included a high-capacity magazine, an additional 20 mass shootings involved the use of high-capacity magazines with other guns. In total, at least 42 mass shootings involved high-capacity magazines, which resulted in 422 people killed and 710 people wounded. Of those 42 mass shootings that involved high-capacity magazines, three-fourths occurred in public places. As a whole, the mass shootings we know involved the use of high-capacity magazines resulted in nearly five times as many people shot on average as those that did not.

A growing body of research shows that states can reduce gun violence by limiting access to assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. States with restrictions on magazine size experience mass shootings at less than half the rate of states without restrictions. Another study estimated that mass shooting deaths were 70 percent less likely to occur when the federal prohibition on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines was in effect. In fact, when looking at possible factors such as socio-demographics and gun laws, laws restricting magazine size were by far the strongest predictor of a state's rate of mass shootings. Read more about assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and the policies that help prevent their use in gun violence here.

Between 2009 and 2020, the 5 deadliest mass shootings all involved assault weapons and/or high-capacity magazines.

Mass shootings cause indelible harm to survivors and communities

Every bed was full. We had people in the hallways, people outside, and more people coming in.
Dr. Jay Coates, a trauma surgeon in Las Vegas

The destructive reach of a mass shooting stretches far beyond those killed and wounded, damaging the well-being of survivors, their families, and communities. Studies of survivors from various mass shootings consistently find that mass shootings harm the mental health of both direct survivors and community members, including psychological symptoms like post-traumatic stress and depression. Even those living far away, such as those watching coverage of a mass shooting on the news, can experience increased fear of crime or victimization and uncertainty about their safety at school and in the community.

Mass shooting response also burdens health care systems, local economies, and taxpayers. One researcher estimated that the cost of the Las Vegas mass shooting would be at least $600 million after tallying costs such as medical and mental health care, police work, work loss and employer expenses, and quality of life. The fear of mass shootings only increases these costs-one investigation found that since Columbine, at least $811 million federal dollars have been spent to help school districts hire security guards.

"While I have no physical scars, I have had increased anxiety and hypervigilance in my daily life since that day. Outdoor events are difficult for me, and I constantly think of an escape plan, wherever I am. We need change, so no one has to be afraid of 'fireworks' ever again."
Geena Marano, a survivor of the Las Vegas mass shooting.

Only through understanding the true nature of mass shootings can we begin to seek evidence-based solutions. Lawmakers should pass legislation requiring background checks on all firearm sales, temporarily removing firearms through Extreme Risk laws, keeping firearms out of the hands of domestic abusers, and restricting the purchase, possession, and manufacture of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mass Shootings in America | Everytown Research & Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund Analysis Last updated: June 4, 2021 In the years between 2009 and 2020, the horrific scenes of mass shootings have haunted the nation's collective conscience. Each breaking news alert floods the nation with grief and anger at this senseless, preventable violence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Data shows gun ownership in the US has grown over the last several years

Gun violence is a fixture in American life - but the issue is a highly political one, pitting gun control advocates against people who are fiercely protective of their right to bear arms.

We've looked into some of the numbers behind firearms in the US.

Mass shootings on the rise

There have been more than 560 mass shootings across the US so far this year, according to the Gun Violence Archive, which defines a mass shooting as an incident in which four or more people are injured or killed. Their figures include shootings that happen in homes and in public places.

For each of the last three years there have been more than 600 mass shootings - almost two a day on average.

The deadliest such attack, in Las Vegas in 2017, killed more than 50 people and left 500 wounded. The vast majority of mass shootings, however, leave fewer than 10 people dead.

How do US gun deaths break down?

48,830 people died from gun-related injuries in the US during 2021, according to the latest data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

That's nearly an 8% increase from 2020, which was a record-breaking year for firearm deaths.

While mass shootings and gun murders (homicides) generally garner much media attention, more than half of the total in 2021 were suicides.

That year, more than 20,000 of the deaths were homicides, according to the CDC.

Data shows more than 50 people are killed each day by a firearm in the US.

That's a significantly larger proportion of homicides than is the case in Canada, Australia, England and Wales, and many other countries.

How many guns are there in the US?

While calculating the number of guns in private hands around the world is difficult, the latest figures from the Small Arms Survey - a Swiss-based research project - estimated that there were 390 million guns in circulation in the US in 2018.

The US ratio of 120.5 firearms per 100 residents, up from 88 per 100 in 2011, far surpasses that of other countries around the world.

More recent data out of the US suggests that gun ownership grew significantly over the last few years. A study, published by the Annals of Internal Medicine in February, found that 7.5 million US adults became new gun owners between January 2019 and April 2021.

This, in turn, exposed 11 million people to firearms in their homes, including 5 million children. About half of new gun owners in that time period were women, while 40% were either black or Hispanic.

Who supports gun control?

A majority of Americans are in favour of gun control.

57% of Americans surveyed said they wanted stricter gun laws - although this fell last year - according to polling by Gallup.

32% said the laws should remain the same, while 10% of people surveyed said they should be "made less strict".

The issue is extremely divisive, falling largely along party lines.

"Democrats are nearly unanimous in their support for stricter gun laws," another Gallup study noted, with nearly 91% in favour of stricter gun laws.

Only 24% Republicans, on the other hand, agreed with the same statement, along with 45% of Independent voters.

Some states have taken steps to ban or strictly regulate ownership of assault weapons. Laws vary by state but California, for example, has banned ownership of assault weapons with limited exceptions.

Some controls are widely supported by people across the political divide - such as restrictions governing the sale of guns to people who are mentally ill or on "watch" lists.

Who opposes gun control?

Despite years of financial woes and internal strife, the National Rifle Association (NRA) remains the most powerful gun lobby in the United States, with a substantial budget to influence members of Congress on gun policy.

Over the last several election cycles, it, and other organisations, have consistently spent more on pro-gun rights messaging than their rivals in the gun control lobby.

A number of states have also gone as far as to largely eliminate restrictions on who can carry a gun. In June 2021, for example, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed into law a "permitless carry bill" that allows the state's residents to carry handguns without a licence or training.

Similarly, in April last year Georgia became the 25th in the nation to eliminate the need for a permit to conceal or openly carry a firearm. The law means any citizen of that state has the right to carry a firearm without a licence or a permit.

The law was backed by the NRA, and leaders within the organisation called the move "a monumental moment for the Second Amendment".

Copyright 2023 BBC. All rights reserved. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.

Beta Terms By using the Beta Site, you agree that such use is at your own risk and you know that the Beta Site may include known or unknown bugs or errors, that we have no obligation to make this Beta Site available with or without charge for any period of time, nor to make it available at all, and that nothing in these Beta Terms or your use of the Beta Site creates any employment relationship between you and us. The Beta Site is provided on an "as is" and "as available" basis and we make no warranty to you of any kind, express or implied.

In case of conflict between these Beta Terms and the BBC Terms of Use these Beta Terms shall prevail.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How many US mass shootings have there been in 2023?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explaining some of the key statistics behind gun ownership and attacks linked to guns in the US.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Gun Violence: Facts and Statistics

According to the scientific literature, American children face a substantial risk of exposure to firearm injury and death. Following are additional relevant gun violence facts:

In the Home

In 2019, 4,483 young people ages 10-24 were victims of homicide - an average of 12 each day.

According to a 2022 analysis, gun injuries are the leading cause of death among U.S. children and teens ages 1-19.

There are more than 393 million guns in circulation in the United States - approximately 120.5 guns for every 100 people.

1.7 million children live with unlocked, loaded guns - 1 out of 3 homes with kids have guns.

Between 2014 and 2018, more than 15,000 children (ages 19 and under) died due to firearms, and at least 13,000 sustained unintentional firearm-related injury or death

An emergency department visit for non-fatal assault injury places a youth at 40% higher risk for subsequent firearm injury.

People that die from accidental shooting were more than three times as likely to live in a home with a firearm

Among younger children (ages 0-12 years) who are killed by a firearm, 85% are killed in their own home

People who report "firearm access" are at twice the risk of homicide and more than three times the risk of suicide compared to those who do not own or have access to firearms.

Suicide rates are much higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership, even after controlling for differences among states for poverty, urbanization, unemployment, mental illness, and alcohol or drug abuse.

Among suicide victims requiring hospital treatment, suicide attempts with a firearm are much more deadly than attempts by jumping or drug poisoning - 90% die compared to 34% and 2% respectively. About 90% of those that survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide.

States implementing universal background checks and mandatory waiting periods prior to the purchase of a firearm have lower rates of suicides than states without this legislation. To read more about suicide and firearms, click here.

In states with increased gun availability, there were higher rates of child deaths due to firearms.

The vast majority of accidental firearm deaths among children are related to child access to firearms - either self-inflicted or at the hands of another child.

Studies have shown that states with Child Access Prevention (CAP) laws have a lower rate of unintentional death than states without CAP laws.

Domestic violence is more likely to turn deadly with a gun in the home. An abusive partner's access to a firearm increases the risk of homicide eight-fold for women in physically abusive relationships. Read more about the impact of child exposure to domestic violence.

Safe Storage of Guns in the Home

The U.S. General Accounting Office estimated that 31% of accidental deaths caused by firearms might be prevented with the addition of two devices: a child-proof safety lock and a loading indicator.

Approximately one in three guns in homes with children is kept loaded and unlocked.

Most parents don't think their child knows where their gun is stored, but when researchers ask children directly, 40% of these same children are able to correctly identify the location of the gun. Parents also often incorrectly believe their child has never handled their gun, when in reality, 36% of children say they have.

More than 80% of guns used by youth in suicide attempts were kept in the home of the victim, a relative, or a friend.

Gun owners in a household are more likely to report that their gun is stored unlocked and loaded, compared to the non-owners in those households. This suggests a need for better education of household members regarding safe storage in homes with children.

Assault-style Weapons

These weapons are responsible for a minority of gun deaths in the US, but have become the weapon of choice for the assailant whose intent is chaos and casualties.

In a December 2020 review of mass shootings in the U.S., 118 mass shootings have occurred since 1982, from which approximately 83 semi-automatic handguns and 94 assault weapons and weapons with high magazine capacity were recovered.

On May 18, 2018, a teen shooter used a shotgun and a .38-caliber revolver that he took from his father to kill 10 people and wound 10 others at Santa Fe High School in Texas; this marked the 1,686th mass shooting since Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012.

In 2017 alone, 11 mass shootings in the US caused 117 fatalities and 587 injuries occurring in concert, religious, workplace, airport, and shopping venues and in the community.

At Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. in 2012, Adam Lanza reportedly fired more than 150 shots in less than five minutes from his assault-style rifle with a high capacity magazine.

On June 12, 2016 at Pulse Nightclub, a single shooter killed 49 people and injured 53. It was the worst mass shooting in US history until the mass shooting in Las Vegas in October 2017 took 58 lives and left 546 injured.

In February 2018, a school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL left 17 people dead and 14 wounded. The teen shooter used an AR-15 semi-automatic style weapon, the same weapon used during the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

States that restrict assault weapons also have the lowest per capita homicide rates. However, because guns are easily trafficked in interstate and international commerce, federal rules are needed.

Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health demonstrated that from 1982 to 2011, mass shootings occurred every 200 days on average. From late 2011 to 2014, they found mass shootings had occurred at triple that rate-every 64 days on average.

Gun Violence Injury Prevention Research

Federal legislation passed in 1997 stated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control." The vague nature of this law, and its 2011 extension to the National Institutes of Health, has effectively prevented federal funding for firearms-related research.

In 2013, following the Sandy Hook shooting, former President Barack Obama issued an executive order calling for the CDC to "conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it". Despite this and without specific appropriations from U.S. Congress, new research proposals remain unfunded.

After the federal legislation preventing firearm research, there were 25% fewer publications on firearms compared to what would have been expected relative to other causes of death in children.

In March 2018, a new spending bill clarified that the CDC can conduct research into gun violence but did not allocate specific funding toward this effort.

In 2019, Congress specifically allocated funds to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for firearm research for the first time in more than 20 years.

Pennsylvania-specific Gun Violence

According to the CDC, there were 1,636 firearm fatalities in Pennsylvania in 2017.

From 2008-2017, a gun homicide occurred every 17 hours in Pennsylvania.

In 2018, there were 1,757 firearm related injuries in Pennsylvania; almost half of these were in persons under 25 years old. More than half (913) of all firearm related injuries in Pennsylvania occurred in Philadelphia County. The firearm mortality rate for Pennsylvania is 12 per 100,000 people, slightly higher than the national average and higher than any of our neighboring states.

In Pennsylvania, suicide and homicide accounts for over 98% of all firearm-related deaths according to data collected from 2013-2017.

Self-injury of Pennsylvanians by firearm is fatal 91% of the time, compared to hanging and poisonings which are fatal 79% and 3% of the time, respectively.

Read more about the issue and about public health approaches to gun violence on the Research in Action Blog.

Updated January 2021

There are numerous sources for the gun violence facts and statistics listed above including databases from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Pennsylvania Department of Health, and Mother Jones; research reports from Congressional Research Service, US General Accounting Office, Brady Campaign, and Every Town for Gun Safety; and many peer-reviewed journal articles. This page was reviewed by physician-scientists from the Center for Violence Prevention. If you would like to request a specific citation on gun violence, please use the website's Contact Us form.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It is a fact that American children face a substantial risk of exposure to firearm injury and death according to scientific literature. Learn more gun violence facts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A hard look at the numbers behind 2021’s record gun violence in Philly, and an overview of what’s being done

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
People of color and young adults bore the brunt of city shootings.