GUNS ARE BEST CONTROLLED BYGOOD AIM.
Guns, like many other issues of the day, have two distinct opposing views with many people in the gray area. Even when looking at a tragic situation, people will have two opposite spins on it. For example, a suicidal madman on top of the Empire State Building kills six people including himself with a gun. Gun-control advocates think that outlawing guns would have stopped the killing from ever happening. Pro-gun advocates think that it would have been stopped by innocent people being armed and fighting back. In order for an issue to even be at hand, both sides must agree that there is a problem with guns and gun control. Both gun-control and pro-gun advocates do agree there is a problem, pro-gunners say it is too hard to own a gun and the gun-controllers say it is too easy to get a gun. While using a point-counterpoint style to argue against gun control I will show guns are best controlled by good aim. The government must keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and the mentally ill, and they must not limit the rest of the society from owning them.
Gun control advocates will argue that gun ownership is not a right and is not protected by the 2nd amendment. They further believe guns are harmful to society. Gun control advocates also believe guns are not needed for self-defense. Gun-controllers use points such as: the constitution, specifically the 2nd amendment, hunting and gun related assaults to try to prove their point. Some of their arguments are based in emotions and only have significance in the specific case they are trying to illustrate.
When a high school aged boy kills a teacher, two students and then injures one other what should we do? According to gun-control advocate, we must make it impossible for kids like him to get their hands on a gun. Their number one goal is to make personal use or ownership of guns to be viewed as wrong. This is a typical emotional argument that the citizen of the United Sates citizen are bombarded with in the media. They want all guns in the United States to be outlawed, confiscated and destroyed.
In order to stop gun violence and approximately 38,500 gun related deaths each year we, society, must choose to wipe out the easy accessibility of guns. In order to prove this to the Americans who believe the second amendment gives them a right to own a gun, anti-gunners must ...
... middle of paper ...
.... http://www.gunfree.Inter.net/csgv/bsc_ass.htm. Friday, Jan. 17, 1997.
Carlile, Dr. Simon. FAQ's Re Gun Control. http://www.med.usyd.edu.au/medfac/GunControl/fp_10_1.htm. Friday,
Jan. 17, 1997.
Carlile, Dr. Simon. USA Gun Deaths. http://www.med.usyd.edu.au/medfac/GunControl/fp_3_1_1.htm. Friday, Jan.
17, 1997.
Ethical Spectacle, The. A Letter to Mr. Gingrich. http://www.spectacle.org/395/newltlet.html. Friday, Jan. 17, 1997.
Ethical Spectacle, The. Living Downstream From the NRA. http://www.spectacle.org/495/guns6.html. Friday, Jan. 17,
1997.
Ethical Spectacle, The. What the Court Really Say About the Second Amendment. http://www.spectacle.org/996/2d.html. Friday, Jan. 17, 1997.
Ethical Spectacle, The. Where are the Illegal Guns?. http://www.spectacle.org/495/guns5.html. Friday, Jan. 17, 1997.
Lott, John R. Jr., Mustard, David B. Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns. http://www.law.lib.uchicago.edu/faculty/lott/guncont.html. Friday, Jan. 17, 1997.
Sterba, James P. Morality in Practice. San Francisco: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1997
Sugarmann, Josh. Reverse FIRE. http://bsd.mojones.com/mother_jones/JF94/sugarmann.html. Friday, Jan. 17, 1997.
In America guns have been a part of the country’s society since it’s birth. Throughout history the citizens of the US have used firearms to protect the nation, protect their families, hunt for food and engage in sporting activities. The issue of Guns and gun control is complex. Weighing the rights and liberties of the individual against the welfare and safety of the public has always been a precarious balancing act. In the United States, gun control is one of these tumultuous issues that has both sides firmly entrenched in their positions. Those parties in favor of gun ownership and the freedom to use and keep arms, rely on the fact that the provision for such rights is enshrined in their constitution. In this climate of growing violence, rife with turmoil and crime, gun advocates feel more than ever that their position is justified. As citizens of the “Land of the Free” possessing a gun is a fundamental right, and may even be a necessity... Anti- gun lobbyists point to the same growing violence and gun related crimes in an effort to call on the government to take action. By enacting more laws and stricter control, these people not in favor of guns feel society would be better safer.
The two sides of this argument are the pro and anti gun groups. The anti-gun groups main goals range from more stringent gun control laws to a total ban on handguns. The political supporters of this group are susally liberal democrats and a few other small independedt groups such as Handgun Control Inc. Their main arguments are questionin gth eoriginal intent of the framers of the constituion adn the way of life in the time it was written, and also the purpose of guns in modern siciety. For thte most part, their claims are mainly emotional and use popular incidences adn the high number of people killed annually from firearms and, gun saftey in households. On the other side of the fence is the pro-gun grouuups who lobby to support law abiding citizens' second amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Their suporters tend to be conservative republicans and pro-gun groups. The most popular of these groups is the NRA(National Rifle Association) which is a strong political group consisting of over three million members. Theses groups tend to use statistics and sases wehre lives have been saved by the use of firearms while strongly stressing gun saftey and training programs. They favor strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights. INthsi paper I am taking a stand against gun control. I feel that law abiding citizens should be entitled to their second ammendment rights to keep and bear arms for the purposes of protection of home, property, and person.
Osteoporosis is a condition, in which bones are weak from deterioration, loss of bone mass, and quality-bone strength. Osteoporosis usually triggers postmenopausal women (women who have not had their period for a whole year), or older men and women. Some risks both older men and women endure when experiencing Osteoporosis are decrease of calcium and bone fractures. These symptoms or effects can all be caused by weight loss, smoking, age, ethnicity, genetics, medications, bone structure, and certain diseases that can later on contribute to Osteoporosis, such as rheumatoid arthritis. Osteoporosis may be prevented by going to drug therapy to stop alcoholism and smoking, a sufficient amount of calcium intake, and exercising; such as jogging, walking,
“I don’t believe people should be able to own guns. (Obama)” This said prior to Obama’s presidency, in the 1990’s, is still a topic that is constantly questioned today. Many American’s feel the need to seek ownership of weapons as a source of protection; While others believe that private ownership of guns will do nothing more but heighten the rate of violence due to people taking matters into his or her own hands. Philosophy professor Jeff McMahan agrees with Obama’s statement in regard to the ownership of guns. In his New York Times editorial titled “When Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough,” McMahan provides evidence to support his theory of the dangers that quickly follow when allowing the community to own guns legally. McMahan, throughout the text, shows responsible reasoning and allows the reader the opportunity to obtain full understanding and justifies his beliefs properly.
Osteoporosis is a common problem worldwide. It affects people of all races and ages. Older people are particularly prone to the disease because the ageing process involves bone weakening,
Abstract: Osteoporosis is a bone disorder that occurs in people with poor bone density. This disorder can cause secondary illnesses such a fragility fractures. There are many risk factors that can cause osteoporosis, and there are preventative measures that can be used in prolonging a person’s chances of developing osteoporosis in later adulthood life. Diagnosis is easily achievable.
Osteoporosis is a bone disease of that causes a decrease in bone mass. In osteoporosis the bones become weak and fragile. Since the bone mass is decreased, the bones have more of chance of fractures. The bone is continuously breaking down by cells which is known as osteoclasts and rebuilding by other cells known as osteoblasts. Osteoporosis happens once the reabsorption causes the bones to reach a fracture threshold. Any fall or lifting action that would not ordinarily bruise or strain the common person would break one or additional bones in somebody with severe osteoporosis. “Women of fair, freckled complexion with blonde or reddish hair, and women from northwest European background have a higher incidence of osteoporosis than the general population” (Rosdahl, 2012, p.1248). Osteoporosis most commonly happens in postmenopausal women. Some risk factors include age, menstrual status, smoking, sedentary lifestyle caffeine use, and alcohol consumption.
In the United States, approximately 10 million people over the age of 50 have osteoporosis and an additional 34 million have osteopenia, which is characterized by reduced bone mass [10]. This disease can be defined as low bone mass and deterioration of bone tissue, which is characterized by bone fragility and an increased susceptibility to fractures, especially of the spine and hip. The risk of bone fracture from osteoporosis increases with age and it is approximated that 50% of those affected are women [6]. As the population ages and life expectancy increases, the number of osteoporosis cases will likely increase, making the disease a major public health burden in the western world.
Osteoporosis is one of the main types of bone diseases that is more commonly developed in the adult years of men and women, but can also affect younger aged people too. This disease contributes to “…decrease bone mass, increased skeletal fragility, and an increased risk of fractures…” (Caple & Schub. 2014). Bones are constantly being replaced by new bone hence it is living tissue. Osteoporosis eventually occurs when new bone has failed to be developed. In Canada, “1.5 million Canadians 40 years of age or older (10%) reported having been diagnosed with osteoporosis, of which, women were 4 times more likely to report having osteoporosis than men” (“What is the impact,” 2010). Women are at greater risk then men because the hormone changes in women can affect the bone density. Estrogen is essential for bone density but after menopause the levels fall resulting in bone loss. On the other hand, the cause for men is still unknown. However, testosterone: the male hormone helps to keep bones healthy. Even though men still produce the male hormone at an old age, there is still a risk of osteoporosis because the levels have dropped. Occasionally bone loss occurs without any cause, and later realizing that it is a silent theif when you ultimately develop symptoms (“Osteoporosis – Review,” 2014). In most instances osteoporosis is preventable, even though it is not reversible and harmful disease.
Then those who oppose gun control argue guns are a necessity: hunting in the wild, self-defense, and it is part of the American culture. Furthermore, gun violence is having a vast impact on loved ones; losing a family member can have enormous affects socially, physically and mentally.
Gun control has been a controversial issue for many years. A vast majority of citizens believe that if gun control is strictly enforced it would quickly reduce the threat of crime. Many innocent people feel they have the right to bear arms for protection, or even just the pleasure of hunting. Americans have a constitutional right to own hand guns and stricter laws and licensing will not affectively save lives.
People have questioned gun control long time. Many people wonder if anyone, aside from those who join the law force, should be allowed to carry guns. Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” (Wright 4). Franklin understood that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens would not uphold their liberty. Some people who argue for gun control state many violent crimes involve guns. Others believe a child could find the gun and something bad could happen to the child or others when a gun is unsafely stored. People who argue against gun control might say there is a huge psychological gap between citizens who shoot to protect themselves or their property and those who go into schools and shoot at others. Criminals will always find a way around gun control laws and will be able to obtain and use guns illegally. The second amendment protects gun rights for individual citizens. Reasonable gun control laws and educational steps can be taken to protect the majority of U.S. citizens. Gun control does not only take guns away from criminals, gun control also limits law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves and their families when necessary.
Gun control is an awfully big issue in the United States today. Many people in America don’t agree with the gun control laws that they have today. Gun control laws only take guns and freedom away from law-abiding citizens. Many citizens have their own reasons for owning a gun. Why would the government want to make it harder for people to own a gun? People that own guns aren’t very likely to be attacked by criminals. Owning a handgun is one of the best ways of protection when used correctly. The second amendment states “the right to bear arms”; does this grant everyone the right to own a gun? Gun control laws have not been proven to do anything for citizens. Gun control laws just make it harder for the good guy average Joe to own a gun. Gun control laws are not a good idea, and are taking part in the loss of our freedom that was given to us.
Although an act of cyberterrorism has yet to occur, officials and scholars continuously study the possibilities of such an attack. As our physical and virtual worlds continue to intertwine the risk of such an event rapidly increases. Everything from our transportation systems to pharmaceutical manufacturing are computer controlled. The closest the world has come to an act of cyberterrorism was in 2000. Known as the Maroochy Shire case in Queensland, Australia was committed by Vitek Boden. Boden was an engineer for Pacific Paradise, a sewage pumping in Australia. He was able to successful hack into a control system modifying the operations and dumping millions of litres of raw sewage into the local waterways. Boden’s motivation was the only reason the act was not classified as cyberterrorism was his motivation. It was personal rather than political or religious in nature (Sharp Parker, 2009). The only reason this wasn’t the first act of cyberterrorism was motivation. As companies invest in upgrading their technological capabilities, they too need to invest in security structure to protect their systems and the public from threats of terrorism. Our government must also decide how to address public safety in regards to cyberterrorism. On September 11th, 2001 America was reminded how vulnerable we are when it comes to acts of terrorism. The sheer complexity and varying design of attacks often makes it very difficult to create a catch-all defense in fighting terrorism. To improve the disruption of terrorist activities by government agencies in the United States many laws needed to be updated to include the latest areas of electronic communications.
All four countries are undergoing an epidemiologic transition as treatment and control of infectious diseases continues to improve. However, the major issues that affect each country and how the country has responded to their problems are vastly different. It is funny, but in the midst of writing this reflection, I somehow found myself in a conversation with someone who was horrified by the quality of healthcare in “third world” countries. This assumption that poor countries have horrendous quality of healthcare is not uncommon. Fortunately, these assumptions are wrong. Though developing countries are facing the unique problem of operating a healthcare system in an environment with inadequate resources and public health infrastructures, they have managed to develop incredible solutions. In Latin America and the Caribbean, a combination international and national interventions has been so successful that these countries have the highest percentage of ART coverage in any low-to-middle-income countries (Garcia et al., 2014). Cuba’s WHO health ranking is 39, approximately the same as the U.S. and achieved at a fraction of the price. As countries shift into the third epidemiologic transition, many of the basic systems for obtaining medications and seeing health care professionals are already in place. These four have taken the first important step and declared that healthcare is a right for all, something that even the U.S. has failed to do. Though they must continue building upon their current infrastructure, they have the advantage of hindsight and seeing what has worked in other countries. As we have seen during our study of the U.S. and other OECD countries, there is no one perfect health system. However, I am confident that the health systems that emerge from these developing countries will be one that works for the