The Effects of Rap Musice Have on American Culture Essay Example for Free

The Effects of Rap Musice Have on American Culture Essay Rap music has sexual content imbedded in the lyric that teach our youth undignified messages. When youths are listening to the music, they are being introduced to sex, drugs and alcohol. In most cases rap music is the blame for the many problems that occur in households. Especially with teenagers who are exposed to television inside of their homes. They tend to watch music videos that have a lot of sexual content that is being shown for the teens to watch. The youth of America can be easily influence by the activities that rappers are seen doing in music videos. They then rein act the things they see that are lorified by the rappers. This may cause problems later on in life. â€Å"Many experts have agreed that raps greatest effects are on children where its influence can be particularly strong n. d. www. newsnet. byu. edu/story†. Teens often listen to rap music as a way out when they are going through personal issues at times. This is especially true for teens that are from broken homes. These teens â€Å"live what they learn and learn what they live†, n. d. www. newsnet. byu. edu/story. Teenagers also look up to rappers as role models but I feel that there is too much exposure to lead and suggestive material being shown. Rappers tend to wear a lot of high fashion trends and jewelry in the music videos. This is a really big influence that may cause teenagers to steal things that they really want but cannot afford. It is also a heavy emphasis that influences and makes our society into a materialistic and superficial one. Though stealing can be very tempting at times when you see popular celebrities and rappers wearing trendy clothing and shoes, stealing can affect the entire rest of your life if you get caught. It’s also hard for those aren’t as fortunate to buy nice things. Music encourages rage and anger towards each other that will cause senseless behavior. Rappers have a way of expressing to their fans that it is okay to call women sexually explicit names like† hoe†,† bitch†, â€Å"slut†, â€Å"tramp†, â€Å"whore†, etc. I believe that this is one of the biggest influences on young men. They grow up to think that it is okay or cool to be disrespectful towards women. This is not okay and it is not cool to put down women. Rap music forces young women to have low self-esteem physically and mentally. Along with low self-esteem, rappers have caused young women to feel a lack of self-resect and self-worth. This situation is a very hard one. I have witnessed seeing women trying their hardest to meet everyone’s expectations. It is very hard trying to feeling pretty and trying to look flawless and perfect like video vixens that you see wearing hardly any clothing and showing a lot of skin in magazines and videos. There are more women making a lot of changes with their bodies through plastic surgery so they can land a job in the music industry. In this case I feel that they are disrespecting themselves by allowing these music videos to influence them and their body image. Women don’t see how it is affecting them the lyrics in rap music are derogatory. I don’t understand why some women want to participate in the videos when the music has insulting remarks toward them. Ice-T is an American rap artist that has a past with hardcore explicit lyrics. He is most known for the controversial song â€Å"Cop Killer† that debuted in 1990. The â€Å"Cop Killer† song has been involved in at least two shooting incidents and has inflamed racial tensions in cities across the country. This song was to inform cops that they are most hated and should stay away from their neighborhoods. This song later sparked citizens into a rage that broke out in a riot in South Central Los Angeles. There were assaults toward incident individuals which. 53 people died and thousands were wounded, there where looters and arson’s that also transpired. â€Å"Music has the power both to â€Å"soothe the savage beast† and to stir violent emotions in man. Ferrell; Jeff (1993) http://www. axt. org. uk/HateMusic/Rappin. htm â€Å"African Americans is one of the biggest cultures that have a really big effect more than any other culture in America. This has affected the African American culture and the culture of American society in many ways and transmits the wrong message to the youths of America. Rap music has caused a lot of situations to occur and it has made the crime rate go up. In conclusion rap music has affected American culture in so many ways. In most cases rap music has promoted negative habits. Toward young individuals and young adults whether for the good or bad, rap music has affected American culture literally. Hip hop music is just something that people will always hero-worship. We just have to understand that we cannot change the fact that youths are going to listening to the rebellious messages and the derogatory lyrics that are put out.

Brain Function Essay Example for Free

Brain Function Essay A Neuron is a specialized nerve cell that receives, processes, and transmits information to other cells in the body. Basically, it is the messenger cell responsible for receiving and transmitting information. Neurons are the information processing components of the brain, each part of the neuron is responsible for receiving and transmitting information. Each neuron please do use role in the communication of the flow of information throughout the body. Neurotransmitters neurotransmitter Chemical substance through which one neuron sends a message to another. A neurotransmitter is a chemical substance that helps communicate information throughout our brain and body by relaying signals between neurons. neurons to occur. Numerous neurotransmitters affect the way a person behaves, learns, emotions, and sleep. Some also affecti mental illnesses. Some examples of neurotransmitters which affect our learning and development are; Acetylcholine affects a persons voluntary movement, learning, memory, and sleep. Dopamine affects a persons movement, attention, and learning. Axon An Axon is a long, slender projection of a nerve cell, or neuron, that typically conducts electrical impulses away from the neurons cell body  transmiting neuroal signals. The axon is the tail-like part of the neuron where sinformation exits the cell. It helps in the transmit information. The function of the axon is to transmit information to different neurons, muscles and glands. Myelin sheath Myelin sheath is an insulating envelope of myelin that surrounds the core of a nerve fiber or axon and that facilitates the transmission of nerve impulses, formed from the cell membrane of the Schwann cell in the peripheral nervous system and from oligodendroglia cells. Myelin sheaths three main functions include are protecting the nerve fiber, insulating the nerve fiber and increasing the rate and efficiency of the transmission of conduction of the nerve impulse. Dendrites Dendrites are a short branched extension of a nerve cell, along which impulses received from other cells at synapses are transmitted to the cell body. Dendrites are treelike extensions at the beginning of a neuron that help increase the surface area of the cell body. These tiny protrusions receive information from other neurons and transmit electrical stimulation to the soma. Dendrites bring information to the cell body and axons take information away from the cell body. Synapses The area where two neuron connect allow transmission of information to occur from one to the other. The messages flow across one neuron to the next through this small gap which separate the pair. . 1. In order for neurons to properly communicate, an electric pulse must occur. It happens as it travels down an axon to the synaptic terminal where the impulses trigger the vesicles to move which contain the neurotransmitter. It is said that most learning is though to involve the change between neurons and synapse. Learning consists of strengething synapses that are already there or by the creation of new ones. Sometimes, eliminating some helps. By learning new things we must realize that our old thoughts aren’t accurate and replace them with new ones in order to change the thoughts and behaviors we once exhibited. (Bruer Greenough, 2001;Lichtman, 2001; Merzenich, 2001). â€Å"Historically, theorists and researchers have believed that the physiological basis formost learning and memory lies in changes in the interconnections among neurons— in particular, in forming new synapses, strengthening existing ones, or eliminating counterproductive ones.†(e.g., Merzenich, 2001; M. I. Posner Rothbart, 2007; Trachtenberg et al., 2002) progress . Cortex cortex Upper part of the brain; site of where complex, conscious thinking processes takes place. It is the large lumpy area that covers the sides of our brains. â€Å"The  area of the brain immediately behind the forehead—the prefrontal cortex—seems to be the primary headquarters for working memory and its central executive, although all of the cortex may be active to a greater or lesser extent in interpreting new input in light of previously acquired knowledge† (Byrnes, 2001; Gonsalves Cohen, 2010; Huey, Krueger, Grafman, 2006; Nee, Berman, Moore, Jonides, 2008). This is the main area that the learning process occurs. Synaptogenesis Universal process that occurs in early brain development in Which cause the formation of numerous synapses. Being able to think more complex and eddicent thoughts, development change in this brain must be the first thing to happen, which is done by synaptegeneis. â€Å"neurons begin to form synapses long before a child is born.  But shortly afterbirth the rate of synapse formation increases dramatically. Neurons sprout new dendrites in many directions, †¦life. Much of this early synaptogenesis appears to be driven primarily bygenetic programming rather than by learning experiences. â€Å" (Bruer, 1999; C. A. Nelson, Thomas, de Haan, 2006). Synaptic pruning Synaptic pruning is the process when old formed synapses wear away due to universal process in the brain development. A developmental process that eliminates â€Å"nuisance† synapses that are inconsistent with typical environmentalevents and appropriate responses. Synaptic pruning, then, may be Mother Nature’s way of making the brain more efficient (Bruer Greenough, 2001; Huttenlocher Dabholkar, 1997; Spear, 2007). Adults and children happen to form new thoughts and synaose based on expierence and new discovery. They replace one thought with the other they learning through these developments. Myelination Myelination is the formation of fatty substance around the axons of the neurons. This is what helps speed up the electrical pulses therefore speeding up the transmission of the messages and information shared between the pair of neurons. As myelin is created over neuron transmissions more quickly, greatly enhancing the brain’s overall efficiency. Myelination continues throughout childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood, especially in the cortex (Lenroot Giedd, 2007; Merzenich, 2001; Paus et al., 1999).

John Dillinger: A Biography

John Dillinger: A Biography John Dillinger was one of the Midwest and our nations most elusive and notorious bank robbers. Many thought of Dillinger as a modern day Robin Hood that stole from the very institutions that where foreclosing on broken farmers. (Life, 2003). The truth is that John Dillinger was a career criminal that lead a life of crime that started with Deviance in his youth. Some described his behavior as just kids being kids, but in Dillingers case this was just the beginning. John Herbert Dillinger was born June 22, 1903 in Indianapolis, Indiana to John Wilson Dillinger and Mary Ellen Lancaster. He was the younger of the two children from his fathers first marriage. John Jr was best described as a well behaved child leading up to his mothers death when he was just four years old. This was a difficult time for young Dillinger and allot for him to take in at a young age. Johns older sister took on the responsibilities of the mother figure in the house hold while his father ran his grocery business, but this lasted only a year when his sister moved out and John was left with only his father. (Materra, 1955). In 1912, John Dillingers Grandfather Mathias passed away and his father met Johns stepmother at the funeral. When John was nine years old his father remarried and John was left to adjust yet again to another change in his environment. (Materra, 1955). As Dillinger got older he was involved in more and more deviant behavior that started as pranks and escalated to juvenile court. He was best described by his peers as a bully and a juvenile delinquent that frequently defied authority. ( Materra, 1955). By the time that Dillinger was in the sixth grade he was the leader of a neighborhood gang called The Dirty Dozen. This was composed of numerous children from the neighborhood in which Dillinger grew up, but only a select few participated in the theft of coal from the rail yards in Indianapolis. Dillinger and some of the more prominent members of the gang managed to steal tons of coal and sold it to neighbors at a discounted price, until a railroad detective caught members of the gang that told on Dillinger. This would be Dillingers first encounter with the law that brought him to juvenile court. (Toland, 1963). This could have been said to be the first step in Dillingers criminal career. These were early signs that Dillinger was on his way to a life of crime. The earliest sign was obvious when he was labeled as the ring leader of a gang in the sixth grade that was found guilty of coal theft. No one could have predicted that Dillinger would go on to capture the attention of the nation and make history as one of the nations most notorious outlaws. The public both feared and idolized Dillinger. Some called him a Tommy gun wonder that was swift and gracious in his robberies. When John was twenty he committed his first major crime that put him in the Indiana state prison for ten to twenty years. In the 1920s leading up to his arrest his father decided to sell his grocery store and move to the country and take up farming in Mooresville, Indiana. His father hoped that John would take up farming, but Dillinger was not partial to the country life having been raised in the city. Dillinger never held steady work having dropped out of school he did odd jobs and helped on the family farm. At twenty John stole a car, and to avoid prosecution Dillinger fled and joined the Navy. His days in the Navy lasted only 5 months before he deserted. He then returned home and married a young bride that was sixteen years old. (Girardin and Helmer, 1994). When Dillinger was married it was about the same time that he met Ed Singleton on a local baseball team that they both belonged to. Singleton, who was an ex convict presented the idea of robbing the local grocer to Dillinger. The local grocer Frank Morgan was to be Dillingers first victim in an armed robbery. Morgan just happened to be a very good friend of Dillingers father. Dillinger attacked him on the street with a bolt wrapped in a handkerchief. After struggling with Morgan John pulled a gun and fired it in the air, he then fled out of fear. Weeks later the local sheriff figured things out and brought Morgan out to the Dillinger farm to identify John Jr. Dillingers father was assured that the court would be lenient if he confessed and plead guilty to assault and armed robbery, so Dillinger admitted to committing the crime. When his day came in court there was no leniency and he was sentenced to fifteen to twenty years in the state prison. After 5 years Dillingers wife asked for a divorce and this added to his bitterness and caused him to request to be transferred to the Michigan City State penitentiary where he would be schooled by hardened criminals on how to carry out a successful bank robbery. ( Materra, 1955). Nothing could explain how John Dillinger learned to become a professional bank robber than the hard time that he had served at Michigan City with other notorious criminals. Michigan City state penitentiary was the turning point that changed John Dillingers course in life to a criminal career. From John Dillingers progression from his childhood of deviance and minor criminal activities such as stealing coal and leading a local gang of kids he progressed into the first criminal in history to be known as public enemy #1. (Girardin and Helmer, 1994). The robbery of his local grocer and family friend that put him in prison for ten to twenty years could be observed as the turning point that made Dillinger into a career criminal. In his time at Michigan City he took to education on how to rob banks. Before meeting his tutors he managed to gain quite a reputation in prison. In letters that he wrote his wife in the first ninety days read things such as Ill be home for Christmas (Materra, 1955). In the first ninety days John Dillinger managed to receive another six months added onto his sentence due to two attempted prison breaks. In 1929 John was up for a parole hearing that quickly was turned down due to the size of Johns file. After being denied parole he merely shrugged it off and requested a transfer to Michigan City state penitentary, according to John because they had a better ball team. At twenty six years old Dillinger was about to embark on his criminal education. (Toland, 1963). When Dillinger arrived at Michigan City he was given a job manufacturing clothes where he met his three mentors; Harry Pierpont, Charles Makley, Russell Clark, and Jack Hamilton. All three had been convicted of bank robbery and were more than willing to share their plans and expertise with Dillinger. This gang didnt only share their expertise they shared a list of banks with the weakest security in the Midwest. ( Materra, 1955). In 1933 Dillinger was facing yet another parole hearing. By this time Dillinger got smart and discontinued getting in trouble for petty offenses and focused on the possibility of being released. This time Dillinger was successful in being released receiving two out of the three votes for parole.(Reppetto, 2004) John returned home to Mooresville not to be greeted joyfully, but with the grief that his stepmother had passed away. (Materra, 1955). It wasnt long after Dillinger was released that he went right back to his old ways that gave him 10 years. In late may of 1933 Dillinger teamed up with Noble Claycomb and nineteen year old William Shaw. The trio planned out a job and carried out the first criminal act that John Dillinger had committed since his release. The trio entered a grocery store and made off with $100 in bills after Dillinger assaulted the store manager with the barrel of his hand gun knocking out his teeth. The very next day Dillinger kept his meeting with his parole officer lying to him and stating that he was seeking employment and helping his father on the farm. (Materra, 1955). It wasnt long after that Dillinger embarked on another criminal adventure with William Shaw also known as The Kid and Paul Parker. The three headed out for Indianapolis where they carried out the robberies of a drug store and a Kroger grocery store. Dillinger and Paul Parker scouted some banks that were on the easy jug list, but they had been hit by a much stronger force already. The Great Depression had taken its toll on many banks of the time causing them to go out of business. (Materra, 1955) After a number of robberies Shaw was captured leaving Dillinger with only one other member of what was known as the White Cap gang. After Shaw and the rest of the gang where captured by police Dillinger and their wheel man Copeland decided to carry out the planned bank robbery in Daleville Indiana. Dillinger entered the bank alone and a six-foot cage separated Dillinger from the clerk. In a daring leap Dillinger cleared the top of the wall and ordered the clerk to open the second cage and she did. This leap earned John the famous nickname of Jackrabbit. Dllinger managed to go into the vault and score diamond rings that were in safe keeping and handfuls of cash. Shortly after this successful hoist police cornered Shaw in a cell forcing information out of him until he finally gave up the others in the gang. This was the end of Dillingers first serious gang, but other plans were in the making. Dillinger was back in the recruiting process looking to aspire to bigger takes.(Toland, 1963) Dillingers successful robbery in Daleville Dubbed the Jackrabbit job was quickly linked to Dillinger by authorities, and wanted posters were printed out and dispersed throughout the state. This was the start of Dillingers fame.( Toland, 1963). Dillinger carried out a number of robberies through out Indiana and was captured in Dayton Ohio where john was visiting his girlfriend at the time. Dillinger was taken to the local jail where he was booked and held for trial. While Dillinger was in jail, his mentors where in the process of escaping from prison with weapons that Dillinger had smuggled in for them. After breaking out they returned the favor by getting Dillinger out of jail. This marked the start of Dillingers famous fourteen month career. (Materra, 1955). After the gang was reunited they choose to hit a near by town police station and rob them of their guns and ammunition. For fourteen months these criminals terrorized the nations banks as just bank robbers. On January 15th Dillinger and gang decided to rob the First National Bank of Chicago where things took a twist for Dillinger. This was the day that Dilliger went from a bank robber to a cop killer. When the gang entered the bank the president hit the silent alarm button that was connected directly to the police station a block and a half away. When the officers arrived they found themselves staring down the barrel of Dillingers Tommy gun and quickly retreated out of the bank. One heroic officer tried to take Dillinger down with four shots from his .38 caliber service revolver that all struck Dillinger in the chest. Disoriented Dillinger regained balance and returned fire with his Tommy gun sending eight bullets into the officers body killing him instantly. (Materra, 1955). Dillinger was now known across the United States as not just a bank robber but also a murderer. As Dillinger fired short bursts from his .45 caliber Tommy gun he pulled his wounded associate into the get away car as police fired a barrage of bullets in their direction. (Toland, 1963). With Dillingers fame growing he was growing less popular with the director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover and other authorities that he managed to humiliate. After Dillinger and his gang made their get away they all choose to leave the Midwest for a new area. Soon the gang was in Tucson Arizona and up to no good. They wound up drawing allot of attention to themselves by authorities and locals wherever they went with their flashy cars and jewelry. The fall of the gangs bloody reign of terror was the clever work of the Tucson police department who managed to do what the FBI and police departments in the Midwest failed to do time and time again. Without even firing a shot the Tucson police department managed to trick the gang into a trap that put them all in jail and seized more than $27,000 in cash, and a large stash of guns and ammunition. This made the police in the Midwest look even more incompetent. Dillinger was sent back to Indiana where he was to face trial for murder and multiple counts of robbery and assault. While in jail Dillinger managed to craft a gun out of a piece of wood and used it to spring himself to freedom after putting his captures into the very cell in which he was in. (Materra, 1955). When Dillinger fled from the Jail he stole the sheriffs car and drove into Illinois. When he crossed state lines he violated a federal law and now Hoover had all the authority he needed to launch the nations largest man hunt in U.S. History. The man hunt leads authorities to the far northern town of Mercer in Wisconsin where the Dillinger gang was hiding out at a lodge. The lodge named Little Bohemia became the sight of yet another humiliation for Hoover and his G-Men when they did not manage to capture Dillinger. After this the heat was on for John and he returned to Chicago and went into Hiding. He changed his appearance and was hiding out with a call girl named Anna Sage. Anna Sage led to Dillingers fall when she contacted the FBI and told them where he was going to be. Her plan was to avoid deportation by cooperating with authorities. She lead authorities to an air conditioned theater in Chicago where she viewed a movie with Dillinger. She told authorities to look for a lady in a red dress. When they exited the theater the FBI was waiting outside. As Dillinger walked down the side walk he heard some one call his name and he ran down the alley way. As Dillinger ran he was followed by a barrage of bullets that killed him instantly. This was the end of Dillingers life, but the beginning of a legend and many myths about his life. (Girardin and Helmer, 1994). Dillinger will always be remembered in the history books as the first bank robber to challenge authority and rob police stations. He may have been gunned down in that Chicago alley, but his legend will live on throughout the Midwest. Dillinger was the first and last of his kind. His style has never been duplicated and never will be. Many legends of Dillinger still live today. There is still a legend of a lost hoard of cash that only Dillinger knew the location of in northern Wisconsin and many other myths of his notorious career. No one knows if there is any truth to these myths, but there is truth in his actions and his crimes. (Toland, 1963) John Dillingers life was proof that the system and its prisons act as universities for criminals. The question remains whether Dillingers path would have been different had he never gone to Michigan City. His life was an early indication that our prison systems needed to implement correctional programs rather than giving them an education to more criminal activities. Dillinger is one example product of the system, since his time there have been many that go in the system and come out worse off than before entering it. References Girardin R. and Helmer W. 2005. Dillinger: The Untold Story. Copyright 2005 William J. Helmer Matera, D. 2004. John Dillinger: The Life and Death of the First Celebrity Criminal. Caroll and Graf 2004. Toland, J. 1963. The Dillinger Days. De Capro Press Edition 1995. Copyright John Toland 1963. Reppetto, T. 2004. American Mafia. Henry Holt and Co. New York, New York. 2004.

Coleriges The Eolian Harp Essay -- essays research papers

A single inanimate object, The Eolian Harp, sends Coleridge flitting in, out, over and through introspection. The trajectory of the poem may be plotted as follows: terrestrial observations, fixation upon single terrestrial item (i.e. the harp), exulting single item into transcendence, an astral purview of the terrestrial via the item, reassessment of mind frame, guilt and denunciation of transcendent thought, and finally, remorse and dismissal of all preceding drivel (as to adequately and respectfully embrace the noumenal realm). Coleridge’s brain waves wend in a circuitous manner, however, the final result is a sentiment-shift regarding man’s position before (or, as Coleridge concludes, beneath) God.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Stanza one proffers an apostrophic dupe, as Coleridge calls out to his â€Å"pensive Sara†. Pedestrian predictability would indicate an amorous ode, perhaps asserting (due regard given to the title) that Sara is a form of caution thrown to the wind, thus generating sweet music from aforementioned harp. This is immediately proven incorrect, as seen in the succeeding lines. The first stanza curtails with a descriptive rant, offering a sense of conviction, as though it be a poem unto itself. Lines 10 through 12 read: Snatched from yon bean-field! and the world so hushed!/The stilly murmur of the distant sea/Tells us of silence/. The barrage of exclamation in concomitance with mentions of silence serve as a paradox which ultimately muzzles narration. â€Å"Silence† is apropos in halting a poem, as logic indicates that once a poem reaches its end, the mind ceases churning and goes â€Å"silent†. However, in this instance, it may be construed as poe tic device. Acknowledging that the poem (both literally and figuratively) chimes on, the remaining syllables curiously missing from line 12 are transferred to line 13: /And that simplest lute,/. Coleridge once again takes possession of his narrative, linking the two stanzas with a conjunction. Moreover, this line seethes with audible sound, the only tangibly present noun being â€Å"lute†.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Here, with the commencement of Stanza 2, Coleridge begins to divest himself of earthly bodies as to become engrossed in the harp’s presence. First, the harp is only stationed atop the window’s sill. Gradually, Coleridge introduces the components necessary for the harp to function. At line 20... ...with a return to that with which he began: â€Å"/Peace, and this cot, and thee, heart-honored Maid!/. As asserted by the preceding lines, the so coined ‘holier-than-thou’ God is responsible for all fortunes bestowed upon Coleridge. He has also chosen to reveal to the reader that the entire poem was, in fact, an address to his â€Å"heart-honored Maid†. Conceivably, Coleridge has addressed her as such in order to absolve himself of any perceived wrong-doing; specifically in Line 15: /Like some coy maid half yielding to her lover,/. Distinguishing between â€Å"maids†, (one being a trollop, the other a lady of virtue) is a final attempt to get himself ‘off the hook’, colloquially speaking.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  As delineated in paragraph one, Coleridge’s poetic field is one rampant with erratic thought and ultimate change. The proposed subject of the poem, an eolian harp, is virtually abandoned and replaced with veneration of a God as well as a lover. One would think that such a fickle publication would be kept isolated by its author. Although, Coleridge may have staked importance in showing his adoration for God publicly. Hence, the ingress and resultant revocation of the Eolian Harp. Coleriges The Eolian Harp Essay -- essays research papers A single inanimate object, The Eolian Harp, sends Coleridge flitting in, out, over and through introspection. The trajectory of the poem may be plotted as follows: terrestrial observations, fixation upon single terrestrial item (i.e. the harp), exulting single item into transcendence, an astral purview of the terrestrial via the item, reassessment of mind frame, guilt and denunciation of transcendent thought, and finally, remorse and dismissal of all preceding drivel (as to adequately and respectfully embrace the noumenal realm). Coleridge’s brain waves wend in a circuitous manner, however, the final result is a sentiment-shift regarding man’s position before (or, as Coleridge concludes, beneath) God.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Stanza one proffers an apostrophic dupe, as Coleridge calls out to his â€Å"pensive Sara†. Pedestrian predictability would indicate an amorous ode, perhaps asserting (due regard given to the title) that Sara is a form of caution thrown to the wind, thus generating sweet music from aforementioned harp. This is immediately proven incorrect, as seen in the succeeding lines. The first stanza curtails with a descriptive rant, offering a sense of conviction, as though it be a poem unto itself. Lines 10 through 12 read: Snatched from yon bean-field! and the world so hushed!/The stilly murmur of the distant sea/Tells us of silence/. The barrage of exclamation in concomitance with mentions of silence serve as a paradox which ultimately muzzles narration. â€Å"Silence† is apropos in halting a poem, as logic indicates that once a poem reaches its end, the mind ceases churning and goes â€Å"silent†. However, in this instance, it may be construed as poe tic device. Acknowledging that the poem (both literally and figuratively) chimes on, the remaining syllables curiously missing from line 12 are transferred to line 13: /And that simplest lute,/. Coleridge once again takes possession of his narrative, linking the two stanzas with a conjunction. Moreover, this line seethes with audible sound, the only tangibly present noun being â€Å"lute†.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Here, with the commencement of Stanza 2, Coleridge begins to divest himself of earthly bodies as to become engrossed in the harp’s presence. First, the harp is only stationed atop the window’s sill. Gradually, Coleridge introduces the components necessary for the harp to function. At line 20... ...with a return to that with which he began: â€Å"/Peace, and this cot, and thee, heart-honored Maid!/. As asserted by the preceding lines, the so coined ‘holier-than-thou’ God is responsible for all fortunes bestowed upon Coleridge. He has also chosen to reveal to the reader that the entire poem was, in fact, an address to his â€Å"heart-honored Maid†. Conceivably, Coleridge has addressed her as such in order to absolve himself of any perceived wrong-doing; specifically in Line 15: /Like some coy maid half yielding to her lover,/. Distinguishing between â€Å"maids†, (one being a trollop, the other a lady of virtue) is a final attempt to get himself ‘off the hook’, colloquially speaking.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  As delineated in paragraph one, Coleridge’s poetic field is one rampant with erratic thought and ultimate change. The proposed subject of the poem, an eolian harp, is virtually abandoned and replaced with veneration of a God as well as a lover. One would think that such a fickle publication would be kept isolated by its author. Although, Coleridge may have staked importance in showing his adoration for God publicly. Hence, the ingress and resultant revocation of the Eolian Harp.

Weak Enforcement of the Bankruptcy Laws :: Expository Exemplification Essays

Weak Enforcement of the Bankruptcy Laws   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   In an article in The Business Journal Mukherjee tells of "A health club executive in Texas persuaded a bankruptcy judge that his Rolex watch was off-limits to the creditors because the watch was a part of his look and personality. Stripping it would make him feel naked" (69).   They even let him keep it.   This is the kind of thing that need to be dealt with.   It just sends an image that the government and the courts want people to get away with bankruptcy fraud.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Bankruptcy is no new thing.   There are some people who need it just to survive and there are others who take advantage of the way it works.   When they do that, they are looking for a way that they can keep all their money but get rid of their debts.   People think of many ways to take advantage of bankruptcy.   Sometimes the FBI can't find all of the fraud and then the tax payers suffer.   The people commiting the frauds are also making bankruptcy look bad.   While in reality, it is one of the best ways for people to get back on their feet.   More states need to focus on investigating their bankruptcy frauds and then prosecuting them.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   John R. Roberts, a bankruptcy attorney, states that "bankruptcy is nothing more than a fresh financial start.   It is designed to help those who are in debt beyond a reasonable means to pay" (online).   This is only if the person in debt didn't get there through anything dishonest.   People get in debt for a number of things like losing their job, accidents, and business failure.   When that happens people have different options of bankruptcy or different sections of the banckruptcy ammendment to choose from.   The most common is Chapter Seven.   This section allows you to sell some of your assets to clear as much of the debt as possible.   In most cases, it also permits you to keep your property.   Chapter 13 is for those who are temporarily in debt.   It helps to set up payments that are reasonable for the debtor.   (online)   Bankruptcy is a way for a person to regain their life.   After getting so far in debt some people ha ve no way out.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   In an article published in Newsweek, "The Sorry Side of Sears", McCormick tells about a recent case involving Sears.   Sears was using a credit card and issuing it out to anyone that would use it.

Letter to State Official On Gay Rights :: essays research papers

Dear Mr. Governor: Since I was in third grade, I have learned that there are certain "inalienable rights", the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, all of which the United States government is committed to protecting for every human being. I understand that you will soon have the opportunity to look at a bill which would allow gay marriage to be legalized, and I ask you to not veto this bill, but to support these inalienable rights to which every American is due. Whatever happened to all men are created equal? It seems to me that the people of America have a certain standards to the â€Å"all men† part of that statement, which is, that they need to be heterosexual in order to be considered for being treated equal. Americans are so proud of their freedom and their liberty, yet they are so anxious to take that same freedom away from someone else. Why can’t we take that statement for what it is, and start treating everyone equally regardless of his or her race, gender, or sexual preference? Homosexuals should be entitled to all the same rights as heterosexuals have. They are no different than the rest of us, they simply choose to practice there intimate life in a different way. What is marriage? Recently, people argue with respect to the definition of marriage. To get married is a very important event for almost everyone, it is often considered to be one of the single most important decisions and days of ones life. However, what would you do if you could not get married to the person that you loved because it was socially unacceptable and the law would not allow it? Sometimes it seems as if we are reverting back in history when interracial marriages were the topic of discussion, people were against interracial marriages because they did not understand. Now, people are against same-sex marriages for the same reasons. The United States is denying two people who love each other the right to legally be married. Gays and lesbians are just like heterosexuals, they want there marriages to be recognized by the law. They are like any normal couple and want a marriage to prove and show their love for one another. They want that simple document that the government gives to heterosexuals which binds two people into a marriage.

Gun Control Essay

â€Å"Should Private Gun Ownership Be Banned?† Widespread gun ownership in a community could provide a general deterrent to criminal predation, lowering the risk to owners and non-owners alike. But widespread gun ownership could also lead to increased risks of various sorts, including the possibility that guns will be misused by the owners or transferred to dangerous people through theft or unregulated sale. Whether the social costs of gun ownership are positive or negative is arguably the most fundamental question for the regulation of firearms in the United States. Gun control laws and policy vary greatly around the world. Some countries, such as the United Kingdom, have very strict limits on gun possession while others, such as the United States, have relatively modest limits. In some countries, the topic remains a source of intense debate with proponents generally arguing the dangers of widespread gun ownership, and opponents generally arguing individual rights of self-protection as well as individual liberties in general. So me in the United States view gun ownership as a civil right (Snyder i-ii), where the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. One of the earliest U.S. gun-control legislation at the state level were the black codes (laws that replaced the pre Civil War era slave codes which, among other things, prohibited black ownership of firearms) in an attempt to prevent blacks’ having access to the full rights of citizens, including rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment (Halbrook 108). Laws of this type later used racially neutral language to survive legal challenge, but were expected to be enforced against blacks rather than whites. Following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in December 2012, where 20 young children were killed, Wayne LaPierre, vice-president of the National Rifle Association (NRA) proposed, at an NRA press conference, that the solution to such tragedies is to place armed officers in schools, saying: â€Å"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun† (Washington post). LaPierre blamed the media, politicians in favor of gun-free zones, U.S. mental health services, and violent movies and video games for the shooting. He introduced an NRA-backed proposal to put armed guards in all schools in the U.S., which he called the National Model School Shield Program. In January 2013, the Newtown school board voted unanimously to ask for police officer presence in all of its elementary schools. A 2004 review by the National Research Council concluded that, â€Å"higher rates of household firearms ownership are associated with higher rates of gun suicide, that illegal diversions from legitimate commerce are important sources of crime guns and guns used in suicide, that firearms are used defensively many times per day, and that some types of targeted police interventions may effectively lower gun crime and violence† (Welford). Another review conducted in 2011 by the Firearm Injury Center at Penn determined that, â€Å"the correlation be tween firearm availability and rates of homicide is consistent across high income industrialized nations: in general, where there are more firearms, there are higher rates of homicide overall†. A 2004 review of the literature conducted by researchers at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center similarly found that, â€Å"a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries† (Homicide – Firearms Research). Reviews by the HICRC also assessed variation in gun ownership and violence in the United States and found that the same pattern held: states with higher gun ownership had higher rates of homicide, both gun-related and overall. A review published in 2011 found that the health risks of a gun in the home are greater than the benefits, based on evidence that the presence of guns increases the risk of completed suicides and evidence that guns increase the intimidation and murder rate of women (Hemenway 502). The researchers found no credible evidence that guns in the home reduce the severity of injury in a break-in or confrontation or act as a deterrent of assault. A p revious study (2003) had similarly found that the presence of a gun in the home significantly increased the risk of suicide and adult homicide (Wiebe 12). A number of studies have examined the correlation between rates of gun ownership and gun-related, as well as overall, homicide and suicide rates internationally. Martin Killias, in a 1993 study covering 21 countries, found that there were significant  correlations between gun ownership and gun-related suicide and homicide rates. Gun control has a serious public health, political and economic concerns that need to be addressed respectively. HEALTH/SAFETY Every year, more than two thousand people die in the United States from gun-related injuries. The population groups most affected by these avoidable deaths are children and young adolescents. The misuse of firearms is a problem worldwide, of course. However, the incidence of firearm use does vary from country to country. According to the United Nations Report on Firearm Regulation, Crime Prevention, and Criminal Justice (1997), the United States has â€Å"weaker firearm regulations and higher numbers of deaths involving firearms than all other industrialized and even most developing nations.† The study also noted that the total firearm death rate in the United States in 1995 was 13.7 per 100,000 people, â€Å"three times the average rate among other responding countries and the third highest, after Brazil and Jamaica†. More than half the homes in the United States possess firearms, so it is hardly surprising that they rank among the â€Å"ten leading causes of death ac counting for more than 30,000 deaths annually† (Wintermute 3107). While most people have guns primarily for sporting activities, many owners also have them for personal protection and security purposes. The public health approach to violence prevention attempts not only to reduce the occurrence of violence, but also to limit the numbers of fatal and nonfatal injuries when such events occur. To prevent gun-related violence, indeed any type of violence, it is important to understand the dynamics of violence as well as the role of different kinds of weapons in both fatal and nonfatal injuries. Research from around the world indicates that socio-structural factor such as high unemployment rates, ethnic and religious hostilities, political instability, financial inequalities, lack of resources, and economic deprivation increase the likelihood of violence. When guns are readily available in such settings, or where legislation to curb their illegitimate use is lax or inappropriate, injuries are more likely to occur, intentional or otherwise. Individual factors can also precipitate violence, including the use of firearms. Substance and alcohol abuse, mental disorders, feelings of personal i nadequacy and social isolation, and an individual’s experience with violence in the home are  among some of the factors that have been associated with violence. The more guns there are in circulation, the greater the likelihood that they will be misused. Hence, from a public health perspective, it is important to devise strategies which aim to ensure that those in possession of arms use them for legitimate purposes and not for violent or criminal acts. There are a variety of ways of dealing with the problems caused by guns in society, and legislation is one of the methods most commonly used. Franklin Zimring has noted that laws that regulate gun use fall into three categories: those that limit the place and the manner of firearm use, those that keep guns out of the hands of high-risk users, and those that ban high risk firearms. Place and manner legislation sets out to do as it suggests, to limit certain uses of firearms in certain locations. Examples include banning the use of firearms in public places and prohibiting the carrying of a firearm (except for those carried by security personnel and police). This legislation is difficult to impl ement, however, without the active support of the police force, and that support requires additional funding to make sure that police monitor potentially violent events. Successful place and manner legislation has been implemented in the country of Columbia, where firearms are involved in 80 percent of homicides. Here, an innovative gun control intervention was implemented by the Program for Development, Security, and Peace (DESEPAZ), in collaboration with the Mayor of Cali, Colombia’s third largest city. A police-enforced ban was introduced in Cali that prohibited carrying firearms on weekends, public paydays, public holidays, and election days because â€Å"such periods were historically associated with higher rates of homicide† (Villaveces 1206). Media-led information campaigns informed the public of the new gun control measure. On the days when the ban was in operation, police set up strategically located checkpoints in areas of the city where criminal activities were commonplace, and they conducted random searches of individuals. â€Å"During the ban, police policy directed that if a legally acquired firearm was found on an individual, the weapon was to be temporarily taken from the individual and the individual fined. Individuals without proof of legally acquiring the firearm were to be arrested and the firearm permanently confiscated† (Villaveces1206). Denying high-risk users access to firearms is the second type of legislative tool to control gun misuse. In order for this approach to work, the law has to define clearly who falls into the category of â€Å"high-risk user.† The term is usually applied to convicted criminals, those deemed â€Å"mentally unfit,† and to drug addicts. It also applies to minors. Such legislation attempts to make it difficult for members of these groups to possess a firearm. Every year, in developed and developing countries across the globe, thousands of children and young adolescents die while playing with loaded guns. Additionally, studies have shown that adolescents are vulnerable in terms of firearm misuse and successful suicide attempts. In the United States between 1965 and 1985 â€Å"the rate of suicide involving firearms increased 36 percent, whereas the rate of suicide involving other methods remained constant. â€Å"Among adolescents and young adults, rates of suicide by firearms doubled during the same period† (Kellermann 467). Restricting minors the access to have weapons can help to reduce these events. Many states now attempt to prevent high-risk groups from obtaining firearms by identifying â€Å"ineligible† individuals before they can acquire a gun. Minors would obviously fall into this category. â€Å"The screening system included in U.S. legislation known as the Brady Bill which permits police to determine whether a pros pective gun purchaser has a criminal record. If the check turns up nothing the purchaser can obtain the gun† (Zimring 53). The third legislative strategy used to combat the misuse of firearms is to introduce legislation regulating the use of very dangerous weapons. Such â€Å"laws limit the supply of high risk weapons† and â€Å"can complement the strategy of decreasing high risk uses and users† (Zimring 53). Such supply reduction laws â€Å"strive to make the most dangerous guns so scarce that potential criminals cannot obtain them easily† (Zimring 52). They also set out rigid requirements that must be met to prove that possession of such a weapon is necessary. Sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, and certain military devices are the kinds of weapons covered by this type of legislation. Research into this area in the United States has shown that states in which such strict laws operate have lower levels of violent crime than states that do not. Another means of legislating for firearm misuse is to introduce stiff penalties for criminals caught using firearms. â€Å"More than half of t he states in the USA have passed such laws. This approach is popular with gun owners because the penalties concern only gun related crime and place no restrictions on firearm ownership† (Zimring 52). ECONOMICS After the school massacre in Newtown, everyone has been putting out proposals for how to reduce gun violence. President Obama created an inter-agency task force. The NRA asked for armed guards in every school and now economists are weighing in with their own, number-heavy approaches (Washington post). In the United States, there are an average of 32,300 deaths (the majority of which are suicide) and approximately 69,000 injuries annually most common in poor urban areas and frequently associated with gang violence, often involving male juveniles or young adult males, with an estimated annual cost of $100 billion(Bjerregaard and Alan 37). American society remains deeply divided over whether more restrictive gun control policies would save lives and prevent injuries. Scholars agree the rate of gun violence in the United States is higher than many developed OECD countries that practice strict gun control. The United States’ low life expectancy (relative to other wealthy countries) may be attributable to guns, with a reduction in average American lifespan of 104 days (Lemaire, 359). Disagreement exists among academics on the question of whether a causal relationship between gun availability and violence exists, and which, if any, gun controls would effectively lower gun related violence. Cook and Ludwig created a data set that used the number of suicides by firearm in a county as a proxy for gun ownership and checked it against a variety of existing survey data. They figured out the â€Å"social cost† of owning a gun. The two economists determined that a greater prevalence of guns in an area was associated with an increase in the murder rate, but not other types of violent crimes (guns, the authors argue, lead to â€Å"an intensification of criminal violence†). Why does this happen? One possibility: The two economists found evidence that if there are more legal guns in an area, it’s more likely that those guns will be transferred to â€Å"illegal† owners. When the two economists added up the costs of gun ownership, more injuries and m ore homicides and weighed them against various benefits, they concluded that the average household acquiring a gun imposed a net cost on the rest of society of somewhere between $100 to $1,800 per year (379-382). Now, normally when economists come across a product that has a negative externality like cigarettes or coal-fired plants, they recommend taxing or regulating it, so that the user of the product internalizes the costs that he or she is imposing on everyone else. In this case, an economist might suggest slapping a steeper tax on guns or bullets. Others  might object that this isn’t fair. There are responsible gun owners and irresponsible gun owners. Not everyone with a gun imposes the same costs on society. Why should the tax be uniform? And that brings us to John Wasik’s recent essay at Forbes. Instead of a tax on guns, he recommends that gun owners be required to purchase liability insurance (Washington post). Different gun owners would pay different rates, depending on the risks involved. Who pays the least for gun insurance would be least likely to commit a crime with it. Economist John Lott, in his book More Guns, Less Crime, provides data showing that laws allowing law-abiding citizens to carry a gun legally in public may cause reductions in crime because potential criminals do not know who may be carrying a firearm. The data for Lott’s analysis came from the FBI’s crime statistics for all 3,054 US counties (Lott 50). University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt argues in his paper, Under standing Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not, that available data indicate that neither stricter gun control laws nor more liberal concealed carry laws have had any significant effect on the decline in crime in the 1990s. A comprehensive review of published studies of gun control, released in November 2004 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was unable to determine any statistically significant effect resulting from such laws, although the authors suggest that further study may provide more conclusive information. Fully automatic firearms are legal in most states, but have requirements for registration and restriction under federal law. The National Firearms Act of 1934 required approval of the local police chief, federally registered fingerprints, federal background check and the payment of a $200 tax for initial registration and for each transfer. The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibited imports of all nonsporting firearms and created several new categories of restricted firearms. A provision of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 prohibited further registry of machine guns manufactured after it took effect. The result has been a massive rise in the price of machine-guns available for private ownership, as an increased demand chases the fixed, pre-1986 supply. For example, the Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine-gun, which may be sold to law enforcement for about $1,000, costs a private citizen about $5,000 (Stewart). POLITICS Gun politics addresses safety issues and ideologies related to firearms through criminal and noncriminal use. Gun politics deals with rules, regulations, and restrictions on the use, ownership, as well as distribution of firearms. Gun control laws and policy vary greatly around the world. Some countries, such as Australia, the United Kingdom or Germany, have very strict limits on gun possession while others, such as the United States, have relatively lenient limits. Most nations hold the power to protect them, others, and police their own territory as a fundamental power vested by sovereignty. However, this power can be lost under certain circumstances: some countries have been forced to disarm by other countries, upon losing a war, or by having arms embargos or sanctions placed on them. Likewise, nations that violate international arms control agreements, even if claiming to be acting within the scope of their national sovereignty, may find themselves with a range of penalties or sa nctions regarding firearms placed on them by other nations. National and regional police and security services enforce their own gun regulations. For example, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) supports the United States’ International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) program â€Å"to aggressively enforce this mission and reduce the number of weapons that are illegally trafficked worldwide from the United States and used to commit acts of international terrorism, to subvert restrictions imposed by other nations on their residents, and to organized crime and narcotics-related activities. The issue of firearms has, at times, taken a high-profile position in United States culture and politics. Mass shootings (like the Columbine High School massacre, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and Virginia Tech massacre) have continually ignited political debates about gun control in the United States. According to a 2012 CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, 10% of Americans support banning all guns except for police and authorized personnel, 76% support gun ownership with some restrictions, and 10% support gun ownership with no restrictions. Michael Bouchard, Assistant Director/Field Operations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, estimates, there are 5,000 gun shows annually in the United States. In 1959, the Gallup poll showed that 59% of Americans supported banning handgun possession. In 2011, the Gallup poll showed that 26% supported banning handgun possession. In 1990, the Gallup poll showed that  78% of Americans supported stricter laws on gu n sales than existed at the time, 17% felt the laws were fine as they were, and 2% supported less strict laws. In 2011, the Gallup poll showed that 43% supported stricter laws on gun sales, 44% felt the laws were fine as they were, and 11% supported less strict laws. In 2001, the Gallup poll showed that 51% of Americans preferred that current gun laws be enforced more strictly. In 2011, it was 60% (Gallup politics). A 2009 CNN/ORC poll found 39% favored stricter gun laws, 15% favored less strict gun laws, and 46% preferred no change. CNN reported that the drop in support (since the 2001 Gallup poll) came from self-identified independents and Republicans, with support among Democrats remaining consistent. There is a sharp divide between gun-rights proponents and gun-control proponents. This leads to intense political debate over the effectiveness of firearm regulation. Democrats are more likely to support stricter gun control than are Republicans. In an online 2010 Harris Poll, of Democrats, 70% favored stricter gun control, 7% favored less strict gun control, and 14% preferred neither. Of Republicans, 22% favored stricter control, 42% favored less strict control, and 27% preferred neither (Krane 1-2). In the same 2011 Gallup poll, 55% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents had a gun in their household compared to 40% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. Of Republicans an d Republican-leaners, 41% personally owned a gun. Of Democrats and Democratic-leaners, 28% personally owned a gun (Gallup politics). Incidents of gun violence and self-defense have routinely ignited bitter debate. 12,632 murders were committed using firearms and 613 persons were killed unintentionally in 2007 (CDC 89). Surveys have suggested that guns are used in crime deterrence or prevention around 2.5 million times a year in the United States (LaPierre 23). In 2004, the NAACP filed suit against 45 gun manufacturers for creating what it called a â€Å"public nuisance† through the â€Å"negligent marketing† of handguns, which included models commonly described as Saturday night specials. The suit alleged that handgun manufacturers and distributors were guilty of marketing guns in a way that encouraged violence in black and Hispanic neighborhoods. The NAACP lawsuit and several similar suits, some brought by municipalities seeking reimbursement for medical cost associated with  criminal shootings were dismissed in 2003. Gun-rights groups, most notably the National Rifle Association, portrayed it as â€Å"nuisance suits,† aimed at driving gun manufacturers (especially smaller firms) out of business through court costs alone, as damage awards were not expected. These suits prompted the passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) in October 2005. On January 22, 2013, Congressman Adam Schiff introduce d a bill in U.S. House of Representatives to counter the PLCAA, the The Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act. CONCLUSION Since the days of the pioneers, guns have been around as part of the tradition in countries such as the United States of America (USA), Switzerland and Canada. In recent years, issues concerning the ownership and possession of private guns have become a hotly debated topic in these societies because of the rapid growth of gun crimes. However, guns are still valuable for self-defence. Allowance of private gun ownership can decrease crime rates and a gun abolition policy will produce unwanted outcomes to society. One of the arguments against banning private gun ownership is that allowing private use of guns is effective for self-protection. If a person carries a weapon, it can be used as self-defence against criminals. It is believed that citizens who are unarmed have higher chances to be targeted and assaulted by criminals as most lawbreakers would want to reduce their risks when committing crimes. The supporters of total gun confiscation argue that police who are allowed to carry fir earms will be able to stop the crimes. Americans are finally beginning to have a serious discussion about guns. One argument we’re hearing is the central pillar of the case for private gun ownership: that we are all safer when more individuals have guns because armed citizens deter crime and can defend themselves and others against it when deterrence fails. Those who don’t have guns, it’s said, are free riders on those who do, as the criminally disposed are less likely to engage in crime the more likely it is that their victim will be armed. When most citizens are armed, as they were in the Wild West, crime doesn’t cease. The criminals get better. There’s some sense to this argument, for even criminals don’t like being shot. But the logic is faulty, and a close look at it leads to the conclusion that the United States should ban private gun  ownership entirely, or almost entirely. One would think that if widespread gun ownership had the robust deterrent effects that gun advocates claim it has, our country would be free of crime than other developed societies. But it’s not. When most citizens are armed, as they were in the Wild West, crime doesn’t cease. Instead, criminals work to be better armed, more efficient in their use of guns (â€Å"quicker on the draw†), and readier to use them. When this happens, those who get guns may be safer than they would be without them, but those without them become progressively more vulnerable. Gun advocates have a solution to this: the unarmed must arm themselves. But when more citizens get guns, further problems arise: people who would once have got in a fistfight instead shoot the person who provoked them; people are shot by mistake or by accident. And with guns so plentiful, any lunatic or criminally disposed person who has a sudden and perhaps only temporary urge to kill people can simply help himself to the contents of Mom’s gun cabinet. Perhaps most important, the more people there are who have guns, the less effective the police become. As more private individuals acquire guns, the power of the police declines and personal security becomes a matter of self-help. For the police to remain effective in a society in which most of those they must confront or arrest are armed, they must, like criminals, become better armed, more numerous, and readier to fire. But if they do that, guns won’t have produced a net reduction in the power of the government but will only have generated enormous private and public expenditures, leaving the balance of power between armed citizens and the state as it was before, the unarmed conspicuously worse off, and everyone poorer except the gun industry. The logic is as more private individuals acquire guns, the power of the police declines, personal security becomes more a matter of self-help, and the unarmed have an increasing incentive to get guns, until everyone is armed. The logic of private gun possession is thus similar to that of the nuclear arms race. When only one state gets nuclear weapons, it enhances its own security but reduces that of others, which have become more vulnerable. The other states the n have an incentive to get nuclear weapons to try to restore their security. As more states get them, the incentives for others increase. If eventually all get them, the potential for catastrophe whether through irrationality, misperception, or accident is great. Each state’s security is then much lower than it would  be if none had nuclear weapons. But, as with nuclear weapons, we would all be safer if no one had guns or, rather, no one other than trained and legally constrained police officers. Gun advocates sometimes argue that a prohibition would violate individuals’ rights of self-defense. Imposing a ban on guns, they argue, would be tantamount to taking a person’s gun from her just as someone is about to kill her. But this is a defective analogy. Although a prohibition would deprive people of one effective means of self-defense, it would also ensure that there would be far fewer occasions on which a gun would be necessary or even useful for self-defense. Guns are only one means of self-defense and self-defense is only one means of achieving security against attack. It is the right to security against attack that is fundamental. In other Western countries, per capita homicide rates, as well as rates of violent crime involving guns, are a fraction of what they are in the United States (New York Times). Gun advocates claim it has nothing to do with our permissive gun laws or our customs and practices involving guns. If they are right, should we conclude that Americans are simply inherently more violent, more disposed to mental derangement, and less moral than people in other Western countries? If you resist that conclusion, you have little choice but to accept that our easy access to all manner of firearms is a large part of the explanation of why we kill each at a much higher rate than our counterparts elsewhere. REFERENCES Mcmahan J. The Stone: Why Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough. The New York Times December 19, 2012, 1:03 pm. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/why-gun-control-is-not-enough/. 5th April 2013. Kellermann A. L., Rivara F. P., Somes G., Reay D. T. â€Å"Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership.† New England Journal of Medicine 327.7 (1992): 467-72. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1308093. 10th April, 2013. Villaveces A., Cummings P., Espitia V. E., Koepsell T. D. â€Å"Effect of a Ban on Carrying Firearms on Homicide Rates in 2 Colombian Cities.† Journal of the American Medical Association 283.9 (2000):1205-9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10703790. 10th April, 2013. Wintermute, G. J., Teret S. P., Kraus J. F., Wright M. A., and Bradfield, G. (1987). â€Å"When Children Shoot Children.† Journal of American Medical Association 257.22 (1987): 208-209. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1025799/. 7th April, 2013. Zimring, F. E. â€Å"Firearms, Violence and Public Policy.† Scientific American (November 1991). Brad Plumer. â€Å"The economics of gun control†. The Washington Post December 28, 2012 at 3:42 pm. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/28/the-economics-of-gun-control/. 7th April, 2013. Snyder J. â€Å"Nation of Cowards: Essays on the Ethics of Gun Control†. Saint Louis: Accurate Press, 2001. i-ii. Print. Halbrook S.P. That Every Man be Armed: The evolution of a Constitutional Right. 2nd ed., The Independent Institute, Oakland, 1994. 108. Print. Welford, C.F. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press, 2004. Print. Hemenway, David (2011). â€Å"Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home†. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine 5.6(2011): 502–511. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058_2. 10th April, 2013. Wiebe, Douglas (2003). â€Å"Homicide and suicide risks associated with firearms in the home: A national case-control study†. Ann Emerg Med 41.6(2003): 12. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12764330. 10th April, 2013. Martin Killias. â€Å"Gun Ownership, Suicide and Homicide: An International Perspective† 1993. http://www.unicri.eu/documentation_centre/publications/series/understanding/19_GUN_OWNERSHIP.pdf . 10th April, 2013. Bjerregaard, B. and Alan J. L. (1995). â€Å"Gun Ownership and Gang Membership†. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 86.1(1995): 37–58. http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/BjerregaardAndLizotte.htm. 10th April, 2013. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. â€Å"Nonfatal Injury Reports â €Å". Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System, December 7th 2012(WISQARS). CDC. www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars. 10th April, 2013. Cook J. P. and Ludwig J. The social costs of gun ownership. Journal of Public Economics 90 (2006): 379–391. www.elsevier.com/locate/econbase. Lott, John R.Jr., â€Å"More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws†. Chicago Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1998. 50-122.