Month: March 2019
Speak up about Gun Control
Twenty one thousand six hundred thirty seven by suicide. Twelve thousand two hundred two hundred forty six by homicide. Nine hundred eighty two by police brutally. That is the approximate number of gun related deaths each year. Two thirds of gun related deaths are through suicide. The likelihood of one committing suicide increases when one has possession of a firearm. Suicide by a firearm has a 85% success rate, suicide by any other way has a less than 5% success rate. Homicides are one third of the gun related deaths each year. America has a twenty times higher rate of homicide than any other higher income countries. Guns are the second leading causing among children in America. How many more people have to die before gun control is taken into effect?
February 14, 2018 at 2:18 PM, hundreds of students lives changed forever. Nikolas Cruz, 19, went into Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and opened fire, killing seventeen innocent people. Seventeen people who had families to go home to. Seventeen innocent people who had a future ahead. Seventeen innocent people who didn't know that day was going to be their last day. Seventeen innocent people's families lives changed forever. Seventeen innocent people who never knew a bullet would be what took their life. Seventeen innocent people ranging from the ages of 14 to 49 lost their life in one of the most inhumane ways possible.
Student, Samantha Deitsch, 15, addressed the situation in a poem titled, MSD shooting poem: My experience. Deitsch indicates the day she turned 15, was also the day she lost her friends. She asks the question, [u]ntil gun policy changes how many more do I have to lose? (16). In reality, what has to change before gun policies go in affect? Another school shooting? Higher rise in suicide and homicide rates? More gun related deaths? What has to change? Deitsch also expresses how she was feeling when shots were being fired, I sat in a closet scared and confused/As our second amendment right were being abused./No one needs an AR-15/Unless it is to kill and injure over seventeen (17-20). Cruz bought the firearm legally.
He had no issue purchasing one due to the fact he was over the age of 18. If gun control laws were stricter, tragedies like this one can be prevented. Cruz was mentally ill and a history of violence. A video on Snapchat, indicates Cruz used a sharp object to cut his arm up and express his desire to purchase a firearm. When authorities arrived to his house, the choice not to hospitalize him was made. Along with self harm, Cruz suffered from depression, ADHD, and was believed to have autism. Extensive background checks along with checking the person's mental stability should be conducted to ensure the person who is purchasing the gun is mentally fit and is able to handle a gun. One extra week of doing background checks, and mentally stability checks can save lives of others and even the one who wants to purchase the gun.
Noah Pozner, 6. Charlotte Bacon, 6. Lauren Rousseau, 30. Anne Marie Murphy, 52. Those name are among the four out of many victims whom were killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting. Shooter, Adam Lanza, was also mentally ill. Unlike Cruz, Lanza did not own the guns. Instead the guns were owned by his mother, Nancy Lanza. Mrs. Lanza was a fan of guns and took her son to the the range frequently. Therefore, Lanza had an early exposure to firearms and how to operate them. During earlier years, Lanza was bullied, shy, and a possible outcast. All reasons he was ruled as mentally ill. Another man who killed several due to him being mentally ill. Another thing mental illness can do to the human body.
Tragedy strikes often. But how much is too much? In 2003, the band, The Black Eyed Peas, wrote a song, Where is the Love? The rhetorical question makes society think about, where really is the love in all of this chaos? One verse that sticks out is, I think they all distracted by the drama and [a]ttracted to the trauma (The Black Eyed Peas). How many times has there been a shooting where it was top headline, then within a week it was old news? There was one in Las Vegas, Orlando, Manchester, Aurora, and Sutherland Springs. All of those shootings were tragedies, but no forgotten. It was the drama that distracted society at the time, trauma that attracts people to things. As time passes, things fade nothing is in the news for long, then it wouldn't be new.
Suicide noun: the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally. Although one may be mentally unstable, and feel the desire to kill themselves it doesn't mean life is worth ending. The phrase, Guns don't kill people, people kill people is quickly disproven by the definition of suicide. One is truly in charge of their one life, and nothing else. Firearms is the leading cause in suicide rates, along with the highest success rates. Guns can kill people instantly and effortlessly. Guns can take lives as soon as the bullet hits. If one is mentally ill enough to be suicidal, more than likely one will strive to achieve the goal. Although, not everyone who is suicidal would be able to go through the recommended background check and mental fit check. It could save a life. Saving one life at a time.
Firearms, should not be ruled out completely. That would cause more of an outrage to people. However, firearms should be harder to posses. Firearms shouldn't go out to every human over the age of 18 who deems fit. Firearms shouldn't go out to people who are mentally unfit. Although the process of background checks and mental stability checks could be lengthy, unneeded, and tedious. Should a students biggest fear truly be what would I do if a school shooter came in? Should students and staff truly fear going to school because of what may happen throughout the day? The answer is obvious, it is a no. A student should not have to wonder what they would do in a school shooting. Students and staff shouldn't be scared of what may happen throughout the day. The change starts with you. Speak up about gun control.
Cite this page
Speak Up About Gun Control. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/15/
Should the US have Stricter Gun Control
Someone once said If guns kill people then pencils must misspell words, spoons must make people fat, and cars must make people drive drunk. After recent acts of violence that involved guns, such as school shootings, America has almost been torn apart over the subject of gun control. This topic is highly controversial in the United States because of the two side of Pro-gun and Gun-control activist. The US should not have stricter gun laws, because of the fact that even if the government were to try and tighten the leash on guns it will not stop the violence.
To begin, Mental Health is not only a big part of today's issues but it also can play a part in acts of violence.
One of the topics that frequently arise in the aftermath of mass shootings in the United States: that mental illness causes gun violence. This statement is certainly true in most instances of violence. These issues become obscured when mass shootings happen and mentally ill people that had caused the acts of violence ceases to be a medical designation and becomes a sign of violent threat. In a contentious press conference, National Rifle Association President Wayne LaPierre blamed delusional killers for violence in the United States, while calling for a national registry of persons with mental illness.
This is important because what he was saying was that there should be some form of a list of people that have a type of mental illness. A number of states passed bills that required mental health professionals to report dangerous patients to local officials, who would then be authorized to confiscate any firearms that these people might own. People who have mental health issues should not have guns, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo told reporters after one such bill passed the New York Senate. They could hurt themselves, they could hurt other people. This is certainly true.
Additionally, one of the laws that Congress is discussing about this issue is that some would like to see teachers be armed in the schools, but there are security implications that are involved in this. One of the implications is that with further security in the schools it makes the students in the building feel like school is a scary and dangerous place to be whereas it should feel safe and welcoming to the students.
According to Bryan Wornick, a professor and associate dean at the University of Ohio State, Society can think of students in different ways at different times. But the more teachers think of students as threats to be assessed, the less educators will think of students as individuals to nourish and cultivate This goes to show that teachers will be forced into looking at students not as people who are there to learn but as potential people to carry out acts of violence thus objectifying them.
However there are some people that believe that American citizens should cherish the Second Amendment but should ban assault style weapons. For his 2016 book Rampage Nation, Louis Klarevas of the University of Massachusetts collected data on every gun massacre, during his research he found that six or more people shot and killed for the 50 years before 2016 were due to assault style weapons.
Though this may be true, there are other facts that are lost in the arguments about banning assault weapons is the fact that the vast majority of mass shooters use handguns, not assault rifles, in their attacks. That includes Seung-Hui Cho, who used two handguns, including a Glock 19, in 2007 to kill 32 people at Virginia Tech University, the third worst mass shooting in American history. This goes to show that banning assault style weapons may have an effect on mass shooting but not as big as an effect that certain people would want.
In conclusion, the US should not have stricter gun control laws for some good reasons. The mental health of the citizens of the United States is a huge factor in all of this. The fact that even if the government were to try and tighten the leash on guns it will not stop the violence.
Cite this page
Should the US have Stricter Gun Control. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/15/
A Gun Control is an Effective Way to Control Crime
Gun control is not one issue, but many. To some people gun control is a crime issue, to others it is a rights issue. Guns are not for everyone. Certain people cannot handle guns safely, and some individuals choose to use firearms inappropriately. Many of us have heard many times, Guns do not kill people on their own, it takes a person to pull the trigger. Even if people find this statement to be true, guns are an issue that needs to be discussed.
A gun is simply an easy tool that people can use and manipulate with hardly any thought. Many people suggest taking away guns and promoting peace through government help while others think that the guns are what keep them safe. Situations arise everyday where people have witnessed, know someone who has been affected by gun violence. Sadly, many of the cases result in death or severe injuries. Even though this is a very controversial topic, many people would agree with the fact that guns are an easy means to commit a crime.
It is a constitutional right to be able to have weapons to defend yourself, including guns. While some restrictions should certainly be in place, if the government is given too much power over these types of things it would be easier for them to attempt to take all guns from citizens. The government can make some rule for the citizens in order to buy a gun. For example, a person who wants to buy a gun need to be go through certain training and education about the gun. In this way, a person is familiar with use of gun. If the person does not have enough knowledge about the use of guns, then they harm other people.
In Pakistan, there is one organization which organize one training camp in summer every year for teenagers. In this training camp, all the participants go to the rural area where no population is. They stay there for one month with one professional team which teach every participant about the use of gun. In this way, during adolescence life they know the use of gun which prevent them and, other people from many big troubles even death. However, there is some people who grew up in bad environment try to injure other people with inappropriate use of gun because they are brain washed. If there is a terrorism in any country and terrorist obviously have dangerous weapons. But this does not mean that guns or people are bad. This could be some political benefits between two countries which lead the people of those countries toward the negative use of firearms.
The simple definition of a criminal is someone who does not obey the law. The simple definition of a law-abiding citizen is someone who does obey the law. Criminals break the laws with or without the use of gun. They break the law anyway so what is the difference if the gun laws are strict or not. Criminals also make weapons, use knives, and other objects besides guns to help in their crime. They do not get their guns through customary retail. For example, there is one incident happened in Crossroad Center Mall in St. Cloud. A guy came to mall to fix his cellphone according to his mother. Somehow, the guy ran around the mall armed with two steak knives stabbing before he was killed by an off-duty police officer. Since, the police officer was off duty and carried gun in mall which is not allowed. The police officer was suspended from his job until for further investigation.
No one knows that what happened with that guy who were fine suddenly start killing people. But this guy did not have firearm which shows that if something wrong with the person then they could injure other people with any weapons. However, the police officer who did a good thing to kill that guy, but he lost his job for several months because he unfollowed the rules of mall. This shows harsher gun control laws are not needed.
What is needed, however, is a greater focus on education about firearms. We should teach people from an early age the damage that they can do, how to properly and safely use them, and the steps to take to make sure that they are safely used and stored.
As of today, it is easy to get your hands on a fire arm. If the laws and regulations made to be much stricter and more regulated, then the amount of people who die from gun violence could possibly go down drastically. Illegal guns are a huge trade and business especially in the United States. According to the CDC from 2012 to 2016, the last years for which data is available, an average of 35,000 Americans died from gun violence every year (Abrams and Chan, 2018). Even, if gun control laws where made much more, strict these criminals would still be able to obtain illegal weapons and use them to inflict harm and commit violent crimes.
The only difference would be that the people who are not criminals would not have the ability to defend themselves. We see a good example of this in Switzerland most of its citizens own guns. For example, if someone were to go into a theater and start open firing, there would be a pretty good chance that they would get taken out by one of his/her would be victims who also had a gun. Again, it really depends on the country.
The act of making it illegal to own firearms does little to prevent criminals from getting guns. These laws only restrict people who respect the law, the people who would only use firearms for legal purposes. And when we give people the right to defend themselves, we find that criminals start looking for other victims out of fear that they will become the victims themselves.
Another source of information on the use of firearms for self-defense is the National Self-Defense Survey con- ducted by criminology professor Gary Kleck of Florida State University in the spring of 1993. Citing responses from 4,978 households, Dr. Kleck estimated that hand- guns had been used 2.1 million times per year for self- defense, and that all types of guns had been used approximately 2.5 million times a year for that purpose during the 1988 to 1993 period (2013). We must work to reduce crime, but we should look at the problem realistically, and develop plans that would be effective.
It is obvious that gun control laws are neither realistic, nor effective in reducing crime. Therefore, we must direct our efforts toward controlling crime, not controlling legal ownership of firearms. Therefore, if we pass laws restricting ownership of firearms, which category of people does it affect? The simple answer is that gun control laws affect law-abiding citizens only. By their very nature, the criminals will continue to violate these new laws, they will continue to carry their firearms, and they will find their efforts at crime much easier when they know that their victims will be unarmed.
The situation is similar to that of the disarmed blacks a century ago. US whites have twice the rate of gun ownership of blacks, oppose gun control to much greater extent than blacks, but are considerably more likely to kill themselves with those guns, than be killed by others or blacks. While the literature suggests that racism in whites' shapes fear of black violence and support for policies that disadvantage blacks, no research has examined whether racism is related to gun ownership and attitudes to gun-control in US whites (2013).
Innocent people are turned into victims when new laws make it impossible for them to fight back. An unarmed man stands little chance against an armed one.
Terrorism beams into our homes through television screens, it assaults us in newspapers and magazines, and it sometimes touches our lives in more direct manners. People do not seem to worry about the definition of terrorism at such times.
This religious terrorism comes from different nations, groups and individuals. The truth is terrorism has not religion. They just brain washed by bad people and behind the terrorism there is some political advantages. There are different organization in the world who brain washed teenager and also teach them who to use different kind of weapons. The question is that from where all these organization get weapons. Most probably they have political links who have approach to big weapon companies provide them all the dangerous weapons. For example, an incident happened in Pakistan on December 2014 (which is also called Tragedy of Army Public school).
When six terrorists entered in to school name Army public school in Peshawar. Peshawar school massacre, terrorist attack in which seven heavily armed Taliban fighters stormed an army-run primary and secondary school in Peshawar, Pakistan, on December 16, 2014, killing 150 people, of whom at least 134 were students (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2018). All the terrorists had so many dangerous weapons with them which they use to kill people. The people who were terrorist did not bear to kill people and they were not a bad people, but in the environment, they were raised and the way they brain washed make them bad.
And the other point which we consider that all those terrorists had the training of using firearms and they know how these gun harm people. Then we cannot say that those people who has the training of guns cannot harm people. It's all about the mentality of those people who use the gun whether they want to use it for positive thing or negative. I still remember the time when those terrorists killed because I was in Pakistan at that time. They way those terrorists scare all the people in Pakistan and especially the managements of all school in Pakistan. All the school had been closed for about three or four days.
At the end, people just blame to guns or terrorist, but no one try to figure it out what kind of things convert those people into terrorists and who are those people who convince those people to use all those weapons to kill innocent people. In my point of view, all those things happen just because of political benefits. Different countries train people to do terrorist attacks on other countries just to show the positive image of their own country. Just because of this benefit they kill so many innocent people and all they blame goes to weapons and terrorists. World leaders and prominent politicians and diplomats united to condemn the actions of the Taliban who've claimed responsibility for the attack on a Peshawar school on Tuesday that left more than 131 people dead, mostly school children. Six Taliban gunmen attacked the school and were eventually killed by Pakistani security forces (2014).
This shows that terrorism has no religion and there is no humanity in them.
On the other hand, we have seen that in the past years that opened fire incidents happened in USA and the one incident which happened at Santa Fe High School in Texas. There have been at least ten shootings in schools so far this year, with two of them, at the Majory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida and the Santa Fe High School in Texas, involving mass deaths, of 17 and ten people respectively (Royal wedding). One Pakistani exchange student name Sabika Sheikh also dead in Santa Fe High School in Texas including 9 other people. This is a form of terrorism. It shouldn't happen anywhere: not in America, not in Pakistan, said Sabika's father, Aziz Sheikh, in an interview at the family home in Karachi, Pakistan's commercial hub (Ahmad & Abi-habib, 2018). United States is a developed country and Pakistan is an underdeveloped country but there is terrorism in both countries. It could happen in any country and at the end media just blame to guns that why guns are legal in U.S for everyone but no one try to figure what are the thing behind those people which lead them to someone without any fear.
Why guns are issue today? Guns today are used for a variety of things. Hunters and professional sharpshooters use guns for sport. While some people have guns in house for the protection. Gun laws take away the important feeling of safety and protection along with a basic right in the Constitution that has been given to the public for centuries. The feeling of safety and protection are important to a community and a nation. Owning a gun allows one to have the safety the gun provides as well as a fighting chance against an armed robber or criminal. If gun control laws are placed, many people in the community would be denied a major component of safety as well as decreasing their chances of surviving an attack from local or international attackers.
Guns are useful way to physically and mentally protect family and friends. Guns are dangerous when used inappropriately, especially when they get into the wrong hands. Travis Roundtree said, If someone purchases a gun for someone illegally, they both should be punished. If it is used in a crime, they both should be punished the same (usa today).
There just isn't a problem with adults handling guns the wrong way, there is also children getting their hands on them and injuring and killing others as well. More gun control will not reduce crime because people will find other dangerous ways to injure and kill others. When a gun is sold and purchased, a certificate of ownership must be published. When a gun is sold and purchased illegally, a certificate of ownership will not be published. For those people who do buy and sell guns illegally, the punishment would be a 10-year jail sentence. Threatening people with larger punishments will have a positive effect on the annual number of deaths due to guns.
Most importantly, guns should be given to police and people with very clean criminal records. Police are to receive one and only one gun, no matter their position. People who have never had a criminal history may purchase a gun. If they have even the slightest crime on their criminal record, they will not be able to purchase nor own a gun. For those who wish to purchase a gun and are anywhere between the ages range of 18 and 30 years old, both, their criminal records as well as high school and college transcripts will be checked. In recent years, firearms have become easier to get access to them for example; by stealing them, in some states they don't require to have permits to own a firearm, friends and family letting someone borrow theirs. With this being said, this just goes to show how easy it is to get a firearm. Guns are incredibly powerful weapons. They can be used to protect and defend or to threaten and even kill. As high school students and upcoming college students, it is important to stay informed about the relevant events in the news.
As high school students and upcoming college students, it is important to stay informed about the relevant events in the news. It is very important to pay attention to the direction of where gun control laws are headed as the government works to create laws to both protect the public safety of the population and also protect the constitutional rights of the population at the same time. The Increase in Gun Violence Hearing about people getting shot has become a normal thing in today's society and we usually hear on media as well. It's happening more and more as time goes on because of the accessibility everyone has to a firearm. Even though gun violence is an arising problem, it can be slightly reduced by increasing security on weapon purchases and availability. This then increases the chances of something tragic happening on purpose or not.
The rise of gun violence in the past year or so has many people and families worried what the future has in store for us. Guns are everywhere, and they aren't going away anytime soon. Guns are in video games, movies or TV shows, hunting, war, and books. It's a huge issue and it needs to stop now to ensure our peoples safety. They have become easily accessible from the law the government put into effect. The right to buy a gun is given people to go purchase it for safety but some lying and use them for other causes. People don't fully understand how dangerous issues that guns have. For example, one of our relative had a gun in his home. He was cleaning his gun and her daughter was just in front of her to do some other stuff.
The guy didn't know that he has one bullet in his gun and while cleaning the gun he just clicked the trigger and he shoot his daughter. This shows that when people do not know the use of gun then they do silly mistake. As a result, someone lose their life. They have many malfunctions and can go very wrong, even if you are just simply target practicing. The politics of gun control remain to be a controversial topic in the United States. The issue here is not whether one should have the right to carry firearms, but rather the right to carry on college campuses. Recently Texas has passed Senate Bill 11, more commonly known as the campus carry bill, which allows the carrying of concealed firearms on college campuses because of the incident happened in Texas school. Cowboy up, Texas professors! Teach however and whatever you want. Don't worry about the presence of legally carried guns in your classrooms. If you are going to worry, worry about someone illegally bringing a gun on campus with the intention of causing mayhem, not someone who legally carries a gun in the hope of protecting himself from harm (Gilbert, 2016).
Although allowing guns on campus represents a safety hazard, most believe guns are essential in preventing school shootings. Unfortunately, however, licensing guns to students can be more detrimental than beneficial to the security and safety of learning institutions. Introducing guns into colleges and universities would be disruptive to the learning environment. One cannot possibly focus on their studies in a classroom with the prospect that a fellow classmate sitting next to them is armed and dangerous. Guns today are used for a variety of things. Hunters and professional sharpshooters use guns for sport.
While some people have guns in house for the protection. Gun laws take away the important feeling of safety and protection along with a basic right in the Constitution that has been given to the public for centuries. The feeling of safety and protection are important to a community and a nation. Owning a gun allows one to have the safety the gun provides as well as a fighting chance against an armed robber or criminal. If gun control laws are placed, many people in the community would be denied a major component of safety as well as decreasing their chances of surviving an attack from local or international attackers. Guns are useful way to physically and mentally protect family and friends.
Cite this page
A Gun Control Is An Effective Way To Control Crime. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/15/
Biggest Political Debate Issues
Perhaps one of the biggest political debate issues of our time is that on the topic of gun control. Even though the principle of bearing arms has been ruled a Natural right in the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, the fight still goes on as many people still do not agree with this right we were bestowed by our founding fathers. Stricter gun control laws can help us today by, reducing the risk of gun related incidences, making it harder get your hands on a firearm, and overall saving more lives.
To start off, the legal age set for a person to purchase a firearm in most States is the astoundingly low age of eighteen years old. Studies show that the brain does not fully mature until the mid-to-late 20s. Last to mature is the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for making intelligent, long-term decisions; for weighing risks and benefits; and for controlling impulses (Raise 9). While the prefrontal cortex isn't fully developed yet, the limbic system takes over, the limbic system runs off of emotional decisions (Raise 10).
As you can see from this study, while somebody who's eighteen years old is considered an adult by society, the most important part of their brain is still completely underdeveloped. This underdevelopment can lead to emotionally irrational decisions. A simple fix for this illogical plight is to raise the legal age of owning a firearm. A rational age would be somewhere around the age of twenty-five or older, at this age the brain is fully developed and has matured, causing the person to make more appropriate decisions.
Also, promoting a stronger set of gun control laws will make it significantly harder for the average person to get their hands on a firearm. Stunning statistics state that the United States of America has 88.8 guns per 100 people, or about 270,000,000 guns, which is the highest total and per capita number in the world. 22% of Americans own one or more guns(35% of men and 12% of women) (Procon 1).
In addition to the many people in the U.S. that own guns, in its current state the system for applying for a firearm license is completely in broken. It's limited by its vague policies, non-mandatory reporting standards, and low cooperation of individual states with the national background check registry (Kangas 1). The idea of this is absolutely absurd.
Further, Stricter gun control laws could prevent many accidents related to the use of firearms. Mental disabilities are a huge contributing factor in many gun related violence incidents. Whether it be PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), depression, alcohol abuse, substance abuse, or any other mental illness, they can all affect the way you think and handle situations. For instance, Navy veteran Chris Kyle helped out other former veterans dealing with PTSD and other disabilities. Kyle would devote his time to bonding with the veterans at a care center and occasionally take them to the shooting range.
Chris Kyle was shot and killed by a veteran suffering from PTSD (Lines 2). The killer was not in control of his actions when hit with the wave of PTSD. Should we really be allowing this to be a risk to us? This is just one heartbreaking instance where a mental illness can completely take over someone's mind and cause them to do things they would never do if they were sane. Further, mental illness paired with the unbelievably low legal age of eighteen to own a gun can be a diabolical combination. For decades people remembered and mourned over the tragic columbine massacre, today mass shootings seem to be the norm. Today, statistics show that there's actually nearly one mass shooting a day since December 14th 2012. One particular shooting I'd like to touch on is a recent tragedy, the Parkland shooting.
The Parkland shooting occurred on February 14th 2018, after this tragic day a shocking seventeen students and teachers were killed (Willis 1). The shooter, Nicholas Cruz, was only 19 years old. Cruz legally owned the automatic firearm that ensued chaos on the students at Stoneman Douglas High school. Cruz was suffering from mental disabilities and was under the age of full mental development. Even with these two huge factors, he was still approved to legally own a gun.
Cruz didn't own just any gun though, he owned an automatic firearm. If our gun control laws had more restrictions, we could have saved the lives of seventeen helpless students and teachers. Now, in the light of this tragic event, a Florida bill was passed to raise the legal firearm owning age from eighteen years of age to twenty one. Although this is a step in the right direction, it's not enough.
Furthermore, another issue affected by the topic is the problem we deal with today about Law Enforcement unarmed shootings. Statistics show that 40% of the victims of Police related shootings yearly are unarmed citizens (Maskaly 1). This truly is an unbelievable statistic. Police related shootings happen all throughout our country on an almost daily basis, to think that an astounding 40% of these shootings are unjustified and pretty much criminal, churns my stomach. A common thought on this topic starts and lies in the roots of gun control. The thought stems from the issue that it's so simple to pass a background check and the other various checks required before being able to legally own a firearm. Police these days have no idea who has a gun and who doesn't, they always have to be on high alert.
Would it scare you if it was your job to confront suspicious people on a daily basis not knowing if that person has a weapon of murder on them that could take your life in an instant? Police Officers always have to be on high alert when dealing with people like this, and the fact that almost anyone they see can have a firearm on them doesn't help their mental state when dealing with situations such as these. Complications from this issue can lead to the mass amount of unarmed shootings we see today.
Additionally, Using a gun for self defense is not morally correct. To appeal to the religious side of things we're going to look at the bible account of the Ten Commandments:
(I) I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt have no other gods before me. (II) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. (III) Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. (IV) Honor thy father and thy mother. (V) Thou shalt not kill. (VI) Thou shalt not commit adultery. (VII) Thou shalt not steal. (VIII) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. (IX) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house. (X) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's(Commandments 1).
We'll focus on commandment number five. Commandment number five states that Thou shalt not kill, in other words; do not be guilty of or commit such a crime as murder. Although the United States of America has its own legal system with its own way of determining if a crime was in self defense or not, any form of committing an act of killing someone is in fact considered murder. Is it worth taking someone's life in exchange for losing a few of your possessions? Murder is morally incorrect and downright wrong.
Adding on, yet another reason gun control should be made stronger is because people aren't just buying firearms such as pistols and small arms, many people are purchasing Automatic Assault Rifles (AR). Assault Rifles are by no means necessary to own by ordinary
everyday citizens. Assault Rifles typically have 30-60 rounds per magazine (depending on the magazine) and are most often used by the military by trained soldiers to fight in wars. The excuse many come up with is that they use them for hunting. With access to weapons of war such as an AR it's no wonder we have these kinds of incidents today.
On the contrary, there can be some potential downsides to increasing the amount of gun control exercised by the government. A big stumbling block is that it can threaten an individual's constitutional rights. Way back in 1787 our founding fathers gave us these rights with the intent that they were natural and couldn't be taken away from us. If we now decide to amend these rights who's to say we won't start taking away other natural rights given to us? When the government, or criminals, or a foreign power chooses to take that which does not belong to them, then the common man should have means to defend himself.(Mears 3). It's a citizen's right to stand up for and defend both himself and his neighbor. Therefore, the government need not to go as far as banning guns all together, but adding more restrictions to gun ownership.
Adding on, perhaps the biggest use for guns today is for personal defense.About 8.8 percent of adults carried guns in the preceding year 3.7 percent carried guns on their person, and 6.5 percent carried guns in a vehicle. Within a given year about 16.8 million U.S. adults carry a gun, 7.1 million who carry do so on the person and 12.4 million do so in a vehicle. On an average day, 2.7 million U.S. adults carry a gun for protection on their person and 5.0 million carry one in a vehicle(Kleck 1).
As you can very well see there's a good amount of people who use firearms for self defense, and keep in mind that those are just the legally registered individuals. As far as actually using guns for self defense, they're rarely needed to be fired. Usually an intruder will be scared off at the sheer sight of such a weapon, but for the cases that don't exactly go as planned it results in a high level of injury and can even result in the death of the victim. With such power, a firearm could protect your own life, family's life, and your belongings.
All in all, Gun control is a topic of great controversy, especially in light of recent tragic events. Gun control laws should be strengthened greatly to stop all of this madness going on in the country. If we enable stricter gun control laws it can help us by making it harder get your hands on a firearm, reducing the risk of gun related incidences, and overall saving more lives in total. America as a whole needs to decide if they want to keep being selfish, or if they want to save the lives of their fellow Americans.
Cite this page
Biggest Political Debate Issues. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/15/
Tangled and Romantic History with Guns
The United States of America has always had a tangled and romantic history with guns, and as the nation owning more guns than any other country in the world, some Americans view gun ownership and violence as a grave social danger. Several organizations and movements have formed in the last two centuries with the hopes of regulating the availability of firearms and limiting the freedom to own firearms. The ultimate goal then and now is to reduce crimes and accidents that involve guns. However, the entanglements of gun rights and organizations have put up a strong fight to hold on to their weapons.
In early America, guns were necessary for food and protection. With land unclaimed buy any lord or noble, hunting became an important source of food for early settlers. As the settlers began to embrace a more rural lifestyle, guns became a tool of everyday life in order to protect livestock, crops, and the family unit - especially from the psychological threat of Indians.
As America expanded, the South developed a non-utilitarian enjoyment of firearms for sport and target shooting. Every boy was taught to shoot. Soon enough, lighter and more powerful rifles and revolvers developed. To Americans, guns were essential to insure protection of local militias and the right to revolution. However, guns were also recreational and competitive. In 1871, the National Rifle Association formed to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis."
Following World War I, the transition to urbanization begins the association of guns with tragedy and death rather than sport. Entering the twentieth century, the rise of organized crime and the spirit of the prohibition led to a more intense push towards gun control and regulation. New York City was the first American city to see gun control regulation, and the Sullivan Act forced citizens to have a permit to purchase and own a firearm.
With so little media coverage, there was little opposition from gun manufacturers and dealers. Although gun deaths stabilized, effectiveness was difficult to prove. The legislation followed an assassination attempt on the mayor of the city, William Gaynor, and this series of events foreshadowed a future of assassinations having the emotional impact to hinder gun crime. Signed into law in May of 1911, legislation regarding gun control did not pick up again for two decades.
The motivation of early gun control movements were focused on helping the citizen, hurting the criminal. However, a majority of Americans still held the opinion that for ordinary, law abiding citizens, a pistol or revolver is a necessity to protection of himself and his family.
This did not hinder the activists, and their actions led to the cease of the sale of guns and rifles by Sears Roebuck department store in 1924. Boycotts and economic tools will be utilized in the modern fight as REI, Walmart, and Dick's Sporting Goods respond to pressure by changing their policies on gun sales.
The 1930's saw the adoption of the first two significant gun control laws on the federal level: the National Firearms Act in 1934 and the Federal Firearms Act in 1938. Early versions of these laws were deemed highly controversial, and the NRA actively condemned the potential legislation. As the final forms of the laws evolved, the NRA backed off, for they did not affect the rights of the honest citizen to own rifles, pistols, and shotguns. This was the first instance of National Rifle Association's involvement in legislation.
The gun control movement slowed from 1940 to 1960 due to the events of World War II, the Korean War, and the start of the Cold War. Americans found the obstruction of rights, especially to own firearms, undesirable during a time of crisis. Additionally, witnessing the increase of strict gun control laws in Europe made Americans grip their weapons more tightly. For example, strict gun control laws in the United Kingdom left the country unarmed during the outbreak of World War II.
When the potential for German invasion rose, many of the Home Guardsmen were only armed with the same "Brown Bess" muskets carried in the American Revolution almost two hundred years prior. In other parts of Europe, Americans saw citizens being forced to surrender their guns to the invading Nazis.
In the end of the fifties, a Gallup poll in August of 1959 showed that 75% of the population and 65% of gun owners would favor a law requiring a permit for a person to buy any gun. A month later, another poll showed that 59% of all persons interviewed favored a total ban on handguns, except for police use. Yet, the same poll showed that 49% of the respondents had a gun in their home. The only major reason suggested by the press in the 1950s for such ~high anti-gun sentiment is a concern over the eruption of violence over the civil rights issue in the south.
Cite this page
Tangled And Romantic History With Guns. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/15/
Gun Violence has Skyrocketed
Gun violence has skyrocketed over the past years, which has caused Americans to panic due to the lack of gun control laws. Gun control laws have been a debate for years and still is an ongoing issue today. Having gun control laws which require additional security measures to obtain firearms will result in a decrease of violent crimes.
The Supreme Court vetoed the ideal that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to protect the state militias from the deactivation of weapons by the government, it was found that the Amendment allows people the privilege to maintain and remain battle ready detached from military administration, which uplifts above all other interests the right of law-abiding, accountable citizens to use arms in defense of their home (Blocher, 2012). School shootings are happening more often and it is terrifying to contemplate, but there are ways to help prevent the massacres from ever happening again.
Violent crimes can be prevented in the United States if the ability to purchase dangerous weapons was harsher. Lawmakers should require training on how to safely secure firearms in the homes of citizens. Lawmakers should also diminish gun access to youth and people who are capable of injuring others or even themselves. Weapon should be retained from individuals who have been vicious toward their peers, and those who have a history of violent tendencies.
American's support for harder firearm enactment regularly changes, expanding in the wake of a mass shooting and dropping as memory of those horrendous occasions blurs. Be that as it may, the more extensive late pattern has been an expansion in help for more tightly directions. (Reinhart, 2018). There are numerous of people who are against gun control laws, but the debate in the United States is not going away. In a country where there are extremely amounts of guns, not everyone agrees with stricter laws. Citizens think gun control laws will violate their constitutional right to bear arms.
The Second Amendment ensures individuals ideal to own a gun not connected with military personnel, and to utilize that arm for customarily legalized purposes, such as protection in one’s home. Legislatures are currently considering something very unique: pressing together enemy of firearm control laws that supplant private requesting by making it troublesome or illicit for private gatherings to keep weapons out of their homes, off their property, and generally out of their real or helpful possession.
Perhaps most drastically, some have proposed or ordered laws expecting subjects to keep weapons in their homes. (Blocher, 2012) Traditionally, there has always been pressure for gun controls which was spawned by two situations: first, an enormous growth in the level of violent crime and, second, the assassinations of presidents and other politically prominent individuals (Singh, 2000). Many agree with the idea of eliminating mass murders, however, the question at hand still is, what laws can be created to decrease the mass shootings (Lewis, 2018).
Cite this page
Gun Violence Has Skyrocketed. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/15/
More Guns and Less Crime
John R. Lott has written a series of books, three to be exact, all with the same topic. More guns and less crime is the issued discussed. He is an American author as well as an economist and gun rights advocate, which has propelled him to research and the facts on how guns and crime relate. These books provide evidence and facts on gun control and how it relates to crime. In the latest addition of the series, Lott portrays American culture to one considered as gun culture.
One statistic states that in 2009, one hundred and twenty-four million people lived in homes that included a total number of two hundred and seven million guns. As time goes on, more and more guns are being bought, this increases the gun ownership rate. The gun ownership rate has been rising in recent years, however, the crime rate percentage involving guns is at an all time low. The NRA explains how more guns and more people that carry guns have a negative correlation with crime rate. As of 2016, gun ownership in the United States has risen to an all time high. The nation's total crime rate has fallen to a 44 year low and the murder rate has decreased to an all time low. Do more guns really decrease the crime rate?
John has been testing and researching for years his theory on more guns equals less crime. He has conducted numerous polls and surveys. Lott conducted mass amounts of research to track how gun ownership has changed over the years. He has tracked every detail that involves guns, whether it's from gun related crime scenes to gun self defense incidents. Due to high gun ownership, gun relevance with crime and accidents are always on the news. We are always reading and being told about gun shootings and deaths caused by firearms, all this is because In America, guns have been a part of the country's society since the beginning of guns. All through history guns have been big part of Americans, guns are used to protect this great nation, self-defense,to hunt for food, and sporting activities.
Gun control is one of the most heated topics in the country due to all the mass shootings and gun related crime incidents. It's not the guns that are killing people it is the people who are killing people. Mental health plays a huge part in gun shootings, for example, all the school shootings that have been happening lately, these kids who shoot up schools are not in the best state of mind and can be prevented easily. Statistics show that handguns are the most dangerous and misused firearms in America, this is due to its low profile and how concealable they are. In today's society two words are always linked together, Gun and Crime. The government is in a tough predicament on whether to enforce more gun laws or loosen them up, more guns could potentially equal more protection or more crime.
Guns are a fantasy to most people, guns have a certain picture which is portrayed by movies or toys and games. In reality most people have never held a gun let alone shot a firearm. To top that, most people have never seen somebody in real life being threatened by a gun or has seen a gun related crime. The majority of citizens have little to no experience with firearms. A study showed that the majority of police officers have never been in a gun related conflict with a suspect. The idea of guns and how they a perceived is greatly biased, one large factor is the news. One news story headline about a Japanese student who was shot and killed on his way to a party in Louisiana in 1992. This story soon became international as well as showing that gun defense can take a turn or the worst.
Gun laws affect the society we live in today, for example the city of Chicago. Chicago, Illinois has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country however the city has the highest gun murder rate. In some countries like Brazil, they banned the possession of guns in 2003, yet some people still have the access to guns, but those who carry guns find it difficult to find ammunition.
One statistic shows that, in on year, only 30 people were accidentally involved in a fatal gun shooting, they were mistaken for an intruder or a victim of some sort.
In comparison, policeman accidentally kill as many as 330 innocent people annually. Are criminals afraid of law-abiding criminals with a gun?, John asked. Yes they are when in fact most criminals are truly afraid of an armed citizen. In 2002, John Lott conducted a nationwide survey on gun ownership. He discovered that ninety five percent of people that have guns to use as self-defense, simply just waved or flashed their firearm at an attacker or victim to get them to start running. All these encounters are never talked about or discussed on the news, what is being talked about is the fatality shootings. This is how most people get the wrong picture about guns, they are only seeing and hearing about one side. Another survey was taken from convicted American felons and revealed that they criminals are much more worried about a citizen with a gun than dealing with the police. Some criminals said that in the interviews that they avoid late-night burglaries because it's the best time to get shot.
Throughout the entire book, Lott uses nothing but numbers and stories(news reports) to get his main argument across the board. He has very interesting and intriguing way of doing so, by sharing personal stories and going in depth with investigations and research. In the article or news report above, Lott used pathos, which is emotional appeal, to explain the story and how it affected the surrounding community. When Lott takes all of his stats that he has found and puts them into writing he uses logos, which is logical appeal, to prove a point. This book, as well as the entire series, are very convincing arguments. Between all of the research that goes along with the numbers, to the personal interviews, whether it's with criminals or witnesses, all of the literary devices are being used in the book. Logos and pathos being the biggest factor in the arguments.
Sooner or later bans will be put on guns in certain areas, all this does is increase violence and murder. If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns. The gun control question has changed drastically of the years, the question now is if gun ownership has any benefits at all and how useful the benefits are to the society we live in today, Gun rate is on a constant rise, more and more people are becoming gun owners ever before. In contrast, the gun related crime rate is on the fall, decreasing each year. Does this conclude that more guns equal less crime? The world may never know, because as long as there are guns, there will also be crime.
Cite this page
More Guns And Less Crime. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/15/
Gun Control and Public Policy
Recently, gun control has been a hot topic and many are trying to find a way to please everybody with new laws or to just change or alter the old laws a bit. Gun laws are tricky because the same guns that are protecting us are the same guns that are killing us. Which makes this topic a great topic for review in public policy.
Nearly two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides The U.S. gun suicide rate is eight times that of other high-income countries. (Gun Violence in America, 2018) it is also shown that access to a gun will increase the suicide by a gun by three times because it is readily available. Which make sense that suicides by guns are concentrated in areas that have high gun ownership. (Gun Violence in America, 2018) Most people who attempt suicide do not die”unless they use a gun. Across all suicide attempts not involving a firearm, less than five percent will result in death.
But for gun suicides, those statistics are flipped: approximately 85 percent of gun suicide attempts end in death. (Gun Violence in America, 2018)This is alarming because although the gun violence isn't towards someone else, self-harm is still a great concern.
While thinking of gun control and public policy, to models automatically came to mind; the Process model and Incrementalism. The process model is when you analyze the process of public policy. It begins with identifying a problem before trying to move on to the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of the problem. In this case, the problem is gun violence.
During the problem identification, the problems are being brought to the forefront for policymakers. The problem with gun violence and gun laws are that a person is more likely to die from a gun then be able to effectively use a gun for self-defense. 21 of 420 homicides (5%) involved a victim who had unsuccessfully attempted to use a gun in self-defense. (Zuckerman,1996) This shows a very big issue because policymakers want to keep that door open to have a weapon for self-defense but if it's not even being used in an effective way and typically used in a harmful way it can lead to laws that are not favorable to everyone. The next step is policy formulation which is when policy proposals come in to play, with us going through a major gun crisis right now this is where we are as a nation, we are in the proposal process. This model is a great representation of how policy comes about, however, the common criticism is that it has a narrow focus on process and that it can be ignorant to the content of public policy.
As stated before, we are in the policy-making process. We don't exactly know what the laws will be but we are making small changes in the meantime. Currently, we are limiting what kind of guns can be bought by citizens. (Zuckerman,1996) Right now what is proposed is that we restriction who can own a gun or use a gun. The way they are doing so is by requiring a license to get a gun and while applying for that you would have to pass a background check, meaning no criminal would be able to purchase the weapon. Adding to this, a minimum age should be required to purchase (Zuckerman,1996). Another proposal would be to decrease the number of guns for sale and the overall availability. If that's not possible to make it much more unpleasant to buy a gun by increasing the sales tax and raising the prices on ammunition. They also propose a ban on all lethal guns, such as the ones used by the military (Zuckerman,1996), if they can be used in war, we shouldn't be able to access them. Lastly, they want to increase the information on gun use to people and the fatality likelihood would be similar to the existing program on car accident fatalities. (Zuckerman,1996)
The second model that fits in with Gun Control would be incremental policymaking, with having a fairly conservative president right now, incrementalism fits in perfectly. It emphasizes existing policies and programs and doesn't typically favor new policy alternatives because it is looked at as threatening or inefficient. There are four reasons that incremental policymaking is done.
The first reason is the lack of resources which makes is very hard to identify policy alternatives. Second, usually a previous policy is already viewed as legitimate by policymakers, so why change it. Changing a policy can cause new threats and new or far worse challenges. Third, is the cost to implement a new policy. Heavy investments are put into policies so when the policy changes, many of those investments can be lost. Lastly, incrementalism is politically expedient. Incrementalism reduces conflict, helps to maintain stability, and preserves the political system.
I did want to note that I felt as rationalism model (which is a theory based on reason and facts) would probably fit better than incrementalism, based on my views. However, I wanted to show that there are opposing views on this topic and which model stands out to help us understand those views a bit more.
I personally believe incrementalism is a downfall in itself because we should want change. However, I can understand the reasons to keep a policy intact and possibly alter it a bit instead of changing it all together. As stated in the article Programs aimed at teaching children to resolve problems nonviolently have been developed and used in hundreds of communities across the country since their primary use has been in schools, they have depended on the support and interest of teachers and school systems for their success. (Zuckerman,1996) This is a good way to keep the current policy intact.
It allows for educating on guns at an early age, but not changing anything else about the selling and laws on the guns themselves. Another alternative to actually changing the policy on gun violence would be to reduce the violence that is shown to our children in the media. With hopes that it will reduce violence altogether.
Gun violence is a tricky topic because it goes between our amendment of the right to bear arms and our safety. On one hand, incrementalism comes into play because we don't want to alter our amendment. The policy process says that we need to evaluate that amendment and see how we can change it. We are currently feeling this struggle. The biggest incrementalist is the NRA, they don't want the laws to change because they are profiting off of gun sales. They are a great leading force that is hard to stop.
With the process model and incremental model being so vastly different, it's easy to apply to a topic like gun control because there are a couple of opposing views on it. You can look at it in a more conservative way and apply the incrementalism model or look at it in a more liberal way and dissect the problem and find a solution which closely aligns with the process model.
Cite this page
Gun Control and Public Policy. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/15/
Gun Laws have Changed
While gun laws have changed repeatedly throughout the years, the safety of the United States citizens has continued to be in danger ever since guns have been allowed in the United States, in 1619. When we take a step back and look at the history of gun control, it began with the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment provides U.S. citizens the right to bear arms.
Ratified in December 1791, the amendment says: 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. The Second Amendment was proposed by James Madison to give power to State Militias otherwise known as today's National Guard. It was a good way to compromise federalists and anti-federalists. Having just used guns and other arms to ward off the English, the amendment was originally created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government. Americans often disagree about the meaning and or the interpretation of the amendment.
Some people believe the amendment means it provides for collective rights, while others find that that it provides individual rights. Those who take the collective side think the amendment gives each state the right to maintain and train formal militia units that can provide protection against an oppressive federal government. They argue the "well regulated militia" clause clearly means the right to bear arms should only be given to these organized groups. They believe this allows for only those in the official militia to carry guns legally, and say the federal government cannot abolish state militias. Some people believe, to protect themselves in the face of danger, the amendment gives every citizen the right to own guns, without any federal regulations. It is thought that the amendment militia clause was never meant to restrict each citizen's rights to bear arms.
Gun Law proposals face a major uphill battle in Congress for many reasons. For one, leadership in both chambers must support it. For any debate to seriously take place in Congress, it must first have the blessing of the top two Republican leaders:. For example, during the time of the Florida shooting in 2018, the leaders were Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and the House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. They essentially control floor action and decide which bills get votes. But so far, they have yet to signal how they'll address this issue.
The Democratic party doesn't have as much control over action on the Senate floor and the House, although they will be major factors in just how unified their party will be on the issue, as long as they stay together. Democrats have the loudest voice on being pro-gun control, but not all members of the party in Congress want to address it. Some, for example, are from states or districts where gun control is not so popular, and that Trump won by far.
The Senate is also required to have 60 votes to pass most Legislation. For almost all legislation to advance in the Senate, it must first acquire support from 60 senators on a key procedural vote before moving on to final passage, which only requires a majority. Such a rule is designed to make sure bills have at least some bipartisan support. Although, the 60-vote threshold has thrown off major legislative efforts in the past. For example, soon after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, the Congress made a major proposal on a gun control-related package in 2013.
The bill was to expand background checks on gun purchases only, and it managed to get only 54 votes, despite some bipartisan support. The current balance of power stands at 51 Republicans to 49 Democrats (or independents who caucus with Democrats). That means that even if all Democrats supported a gun control measure, they would need 11 Republicans to hit that magic number of 60.
In recent years, the National Rifle Association, or the NRA, has consistently objected to gun law changes. They argue that any further restrictions would restrict Second Amendment rights and lead to more gun violence.
While the NRA has been supportive of the Cornyn-Murphy bill that better enforces existing laws, it opposes raising the age requirement for rifles and shotguns. Instead, the NRA calls for a better mental health system and more security at places like schools to address mass shootings. I said five years ago, after that horrible tragedy in Newtown -- and I wish, oh God I wish, more had heeded my words -- so, lean in, listen to me now and never forget these words: To stop a bad guy with a gun, it takes a good guy with a gun,' said Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president and CEO at the NRA.
The NRA even donates some money directly to campaign committees and candidates. But they spend the vast majority of their money on outside expenditures and lobbying, like making powerful ads that could either support or oppose candidates. For example, in the 2016 election, they gave nearly $1.1 million directly to party committees and congressional candidates. While that seems like alot, they also spent $54.4 million on outside spending.
The NRA also has influence on people with their report card system. The NRA grades candidates on a scale of "A" -- "F", with an "A" candidate being someone who's made "a vigorous effort to promote and defend the Second Amendment," while an "F" candidate is a "true enemy of gun owners' rights." While more liberal candidates freely tout their "F" rating, some are happy to announce their support from the NRA. Overall, the NRA is very big on making sure that their wide membership knows where candidates stand on gun rights.
When it comes to the people purchasing firearms, some people fear people with violent pasts, or mental disabilities will be able to get their hands on one. The opposing argument to this, would be background checks but unfortunately, background checks are not as reliable as people sell them to be. In order to own a gun, you are required to have a background check. These laws are crucial to keeping guns away from abusers, felons, and other people who may be prone to violence. However, these laws vary by state, regarding categories of prohibited people. Because of this, a dangerous person could be denied a gun in one state, and could buy one in another. This is one of the weak spots in federal and state attempts to prevent gun violence.
Due to Federal Law, people who fall within the categories of domestic abusers, specific kinds of mental health histories, and or convicted felons are prohibited from purchasing a firearm. Expanding state laws to cover these categories of individuals would close a glaring gap in federal law that makes it easier for guns to fall into the wrong hands. A 2012 study of the 13 states with the most lenient firearm possession laws found that almost a third of incarcerated gun offenders were not prohibited from buying the crime gun ” but would have been prohibited if their states had adopted stricter standards similar to those in place in a number of other states.7 In the 13 states with lenient gun laws, nothing prevented these firearm offenders from legally purchasing their guns.
Federal law does not generally include other types of people identified by public health researchers as being at a significantly higher risk than the general population of being dangerous, including:
- Those who have been convicted of violent or gun-related misdemeanors
- Those with a history of abusing alcohol or drugs
- Those convicted of juvenile offenses
- Additional people who have suffered from severe mental illness
Background checks are a way to control the flow of guns in the United States. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 handles these checks. When background checks were first required, they took several days. Buyers had to wait five days between applying for a gun purchase and completing the purchase, otherwise known as the cool off period. In November 1998, the FBI unveiled the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Using this electronic system, federally licensed dealers can perform an instant background check on anyone trying to purchase a firearm. The dealer completes a document called a Firearms Transaction Record. It includes information about the buyer and the gun. The dealer submits this document to NICS, which informs the dealer of the buyer's status within minutes.
After this is completed, the dealer can receive one of three responses. They can receive proceed, denied, or delayed. If given proceed, the buyer is given access to complete their transaction. If the buyer is given denied, that means the background check turned up with information, and this is typically a criminal record. This legally prevents the buyer from purchasing the firearm, and the transaction is stopped. If the buyer receives delayed, that means the background check turned up with information, but not necessarily a criminal record, but information that could possibly prevent the buyer from legally purchasing a firearm.
Although, due to the fact that the information is incomplete, further investigation is required. This gives NIC official three days to notify the dealer with a denial or approval. If within three days, the dealer does not hear from the NIC officials, the buyer can complete their sale. This is clearly a loophole in the system, and where many firearms can fall into the hands of ineligible buyers.
Since the NICS began, it has stopped more than seven hundred thousand gun sales to people who couldn't legally buy a gun. Supporters say this number shows that background checks slow the flow of guns to people who shouldn't have guns. Meanwhile, opponents of background checks argue that they're only partly effective. They don't prevent straw purchase- a transaction in which one person buys a firearm on another person's behalf- and they don't apply to transactions between individuals. Sometimes background checks prevent the wrong people from buying firearms.
A person who has the same name as a convicted felon, for example, may encounter difficulties. The information in the NICS database is entered manually. If someone enters data incorrectly, a dangerous criminal may slip through the cracks, or a dealer may wrongly deny a law-abiding citizen gun purchase. Some people also argue that background checks are an invasion of privacy. They say that Background checks have more flaws than than benefits.
There are just as many requirements, if not more, to be eligible to sell a firearm. Some of the requirements to receive a license to sell firearms are you must be at least 21 years of age and you must have not violated the Gun Control Acts or any of its regulations. These are only few of many. Applicants also must guarantee that the business is not prohibited by State or local law in the place where the licensed premises is located. The business must comply with the requirements of State and local law applicable to the conduct of the business within 30 days after the application is approved.
While it's obvious that the United States government has tried to continuously work to change gun laws to protect the United States citizens, ending gun violence all together is nearly impossible. While gun laws have changed repeatedly throughout the years, the safety of the United States citizens has continued to be in danger ever since guns have been allowed in the United States, in 1619. ?What we can do is to look at gun sales through the lens of social economics', explains John Wasik Forbes Magazine.
He then called for the establishment of market-based risk pricing, saying, Let's agree that guns as weapons are inherently dangerous to society and owners should bear the risk and true social costs. This would mean that both owners and sellers of guns would be required to purchase liability insurance according to relative risk, whereby people who are more at risk for directly or indirectly causing gun violence would pay more for their insurance than people unlikely to cause this violence. Ideally, high-risk households would have to pay more and take more safety measures, so at-risk people wouldn't have easy access to them. Responsible buyers would pay lower premiums for taking gun safety classes, and using gun locks and safes.
These premiums would be used to cover the costs associated with gun violence, giving relief to people injured in shootings and to the families of victims. This proves that there are people in our society that are willing to give their different ideas to stop gun violence. Since the twentieth century, there have been over twenty gun massacres in California alone. There have been over two hundred gun massacres in the United States. Because of this, citizens have a reason to fight for gun control, and a reason to stand up for their safety. There are ways we can alter gun rights without restricting the Second Amendment, we just have to use our voices and come together to find a better solution.
Cite this page
Gun Laws Have Changed. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/15/
Gun Control is One of the most Debating
Gun control is one of the most debating and isolating issues in America. Other than historical deadly shootings, few recent shootings are Orlando nightclub shooting, Stoneman Douglas High school shooting, incident in Nevada by 64 years old stephen paddock, church shooting in Southern Spring, Texas and many more. All of these incidents are different from each other, and have different stories. Despite of such differences, ease of purchasing guns are understandable by most of the people. As a result, some consider gun control as an effective way to confront these shooting and reduce the crime rate. However, gun control is not the best solution to resolve the problem of gun violence or control the crime. In fact, gun control is ineffective in reducing the rate of crime.
Guns do not kill. Guns are used by people for mass killing. Therefore, people have to be controlled first. The reason of the any mass shooting is not only the Gun, but also it is the reason of any psychological, social or ethical problem. In the perspective of psychological issue, mentally sick person tries to find out a way to reduce his/her agony. Therefore, some of them select a violent way, which is more convincing in the society. Popular media convinces people with disorderly state of mind that their desire for attention would be satisfied if they killed people. As a result, psychopaths choose shooting as their method to get instant popularity or attentions. According to Shooting rampages, mental health, and the sensationalization of violence by Miguel Faria, evidence mounts that deadly rampages associated with sensationalization of mass shooting by popular medias.
Besides,gun-controlling laws are unconstitutional as it violates the second amendment, which gives right to people to bear arms. This amendment was being created to ensure Americans' secured life, and to protect them from military putsch. If the gun control laws get strengthened,undoubtedly, life of Americans will be in danger. Founding fathers of United States created this amendment in greater context by thinking about lowering the power of federal government, and strengthening the internal power of the country. Subsequently, it protects the country from any foreign attack. These are the indirect benefits of having gun, which are not easily understandable by gun control supporters. Each and every constitution has great values and deep meaning. Right of bear arms has given the second priority. Therefore, any kind of unconstitutional thoughts and proposition has to be taken into greater consideration before it get ratified.
Gun control is not the best option to cut the crime, and to prove this claim, the best example would be Chicago. Chicago is one the major cities which has toughest gun laws in the country. In fact, Chicago had no gun shops; hands gun were completely banned until supreme court considered it unconstitutional in 2010. Despite of having strict gun laws, 4000 victims of gun related crimes were happened in Chicago in 2016. Does not Chicago proves that gun laws don't work ? After the deadly LA shooting, White House confronted the question about gun laws. Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sander responded those question with a hesitation as White House does not believe in gun control laws. To enforce the opinion of White house, she also illustrates the conditions of Chicago,and its strict gun laws. Furthermore, pointing at the Chicago, press secretary,Sarah Huckabee Sander, implicitly conveys the proposition that gun laws are unworthy.
Many people think gun control only reduces the crime rate and has no further consequences on the society. By focusing on gun-control law, supporters of this policy overlook the deeper problem of this. As it has serious economic disadvantages. In the report of CNBC, it states that annual revenue of gun manufacturing companies is around $1.5billion,besides,annual revenue from firearm store stands with a number of $478.4million profit. According to National Shooting Sport Federation, in total of 310,908 jobs are directly related with firearms and ammunition industry. In fact, the gun and ammunition industry was responsible for $51.41billion economic activity in 2017 according to NSSF. Therefore, gun industry has drastic impact on Americans. If gun-control laws get strengthened, thousands of Americans will lose jobs. In fact, the economy of United State of America will face catastrophic result of this.
All in all, gun control has various aspects to it. Popular figures often try to take advantage of this for their own progress, some do not understand the deeper consequences of gun control law, and indirect advantages of bearing arms. By controlling guns might reduce the crime rate, however, it will create more economical and political tensions, which will lead to social catastrophes. In contrast, the crime rate will go high. It is for these reasons that I believe gun control is not an effective way to cut the crime rate.
Cite this page
Gun Control Is One Of The Most Debating. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/15/
Gun Control Debate
Recent mass shooting led large number of American citizens to come to the conclusions that we should repeal the second amendment. They claim that not only would this stop mass shootings, but it would make every community safer in the United States. But to what extent would the repealing of the second amendment make the United States safer?
Except for a few exceptions, almost every mass shooting has been committed using an illegal firearm. Furthermore, mass shootings have been prevented from a law-abiding citizen that has a conceal carry license that thankfully put an end to the shooting before more victims were added to the shooting such as in September of 2017 when an usher at a church in Tennessee shot and killed a gunman who killed a woman and injured others in the parking lot. Repealing the second amendment would not make America safer but would rather make it more dangerous as citizens would not be able to protect themselves from criminals using illegally owned firearms.
Activists from this movement, such as David Hogg, a student at Stoneman Douglas High School where a mass shooting took place in February of this year states that the only way to save more children and people is to get rid of guns. Although this may sound to be a suitable solution there is one major flaw in the argument. More than half of criminals are smart enough not to buy a gun legally. They will get their firearms illegally through the black market.
This was exemplified during the prohibition when the American government banned the alcohol and is continued to be shown today with drugs such as Marijuana. Alcohol consumption skyrocketed as people made their own beverages and sold them illegally. This same thing would happen if guns were made illegal seeing as roughly four out of every ten guns are obtained illegally, according to Giffords Law Center. Therefore, if the amendment did get repealed, law-abiding American citizens would be put in more danger. Even if a person carried a knife on them at all times, they don't stand a chance to a person who has a gun.
If in fact every person in the United States over the legal limit had a gun in their possession, people would be too scared to use it as they would be neutralized another person carrying a gun. Advocates for the use of firearms say gun-carrying civilians prove that an armed populace can help mitigate the death toll of a mass shooter but could also prevent mass shootings as a whole from happening (2).
The only time we hear about gun control is when a mass shooting occurs. Troubled cities such as Chicago and Detroit have murders committed every day, yet we never hear about them in the media. According to the FBI UCR report in 2015, Detroit has some of the strictest guns laws in the nation yet had two hundred and ninety five murders reported whereas Wacko, Texas has less restrictive gun laws and only had twenty two murders reported.
The harder a city, county, or nation make it for people to buy a gun, the easier it is for criminals to commit murders and other types of crime. It is human nature for people to want what they can't have.
There is a small compromise that both sides of the argument want, tighter background checks. Today, there are many holes in the background check process that allow for a non-qualified person to obtain a gun. For example, mental health records are not looked at thoroughly or even at all by gun shops.
This is what allowed Seung-Hui Cho to buy a gun and commit the mass shooting at Virginia Tech in 2007. Cho originally was labeled as Troubled: Further contact within 2 weeks according to the Cook Counseling Center (3). People with high levels of suppression or thoughts of suicide should not be able to own a gun. But this shouldn't take away the rights for everyone to own a gun either. No one knows exactly what a person will do once they buy a firearm, that's why guns should only be sold to people that have no history of mental illness or arrested for a gun related crime.
As more criminals and mentally ill people get their hands on guns, we will continue to see murders and mass shootings throughout the country. Their need to be stricter gun laws but that does not mean taking guns away from law-abiding citizens that use them for protection. The more guns there are in the country, the more people will be afraid to use them. Although is it hard to predict how people will use their guns once they buy them, knowing other people have guns will discourage them to commit mass shootings. The second amendment was put in place for a reason and repealing it will only allow more crime to be committed.
Cite this page
Gun Control Debate. (2019, Mar 19).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/15/
National Action Plan NAP: the Implementation Mechanism of Implantation Achievement and Failures
Pakistan has been targeted of an intense layer of terrorism and bomb attacks for last 10 to 18 years. But it abruptly increases after 9/11. Bomb attacks on government and public institutions, military personals and line enforcement agencies and offices of various organizations and suicide bomb attacks had become order of the day. Which compel the government to carry out military operation in various parts of the country operation Al-Mizan, operation Rah-e-Haq, operation Zalzala, operation black thunderstorm, operation Raah-e-Raast operation sher dil, operation Rah-e-Nijat, operation Koh-e-Safaid and operation Zarb-e-Azab, operation Khyber I and II (Karachi operation I and Karachi operation II) costing over $123 of billion. The terrorism layer not only suffered Pakistan economically but it also created a sense of disability, chaos, and fear and sense of Horror in the country among mob/ general masses, apart from law and order situation in the country.
Pakistan is a country badly affected by acts of terrorism, threatening Pakistan’s law and order situation, human rights, damaging basic infrastructure and economic opportunities. And once Pakistan was about to be declined the most unsafe state in the world. Pakistan is facing the menace of terrorism, which is eroding the social structure, economic developments and political system. The immediate costs of terrorist acts are loss of human lives, destruction of property and infrastructure and depression of short-term economic activity apart from immense economic loss and economic pressure or burden on the country.
This include war on terror launched by security forces in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) and federally administrated tribal area (FATA) having borders shaved with Afghanistan and resultant displacement of some three million people from their homes.
As a part of this layer of terrorism, the terrorist attacked army public school on army run school at Peshawar killing over 140 innocent student, which were claimed by the terrorist outfit Tahreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (Taliban movement of Pakistan TTP) was ostensibly a game changer the heart rending and soul piercing Peshawar tragedy took place that much hyped political consensus against terrorism.
There are some events in the history of nations when all segments of society, irrespective of their differences came together and unite for a common purpose.
Same event was repeatedly happened in Pakistan when on 16th December the tragic massacre in Army Public School Peshawar brought the entire nation on one page. All the political parties, both from government and opposition benches, military leadership civil society and people at large from all walks of life expressed their design of wiping out terrorism from country once and for all.
This unprecedented unity and national consensus is significant, because all stakeholders of the safe for the first time collectively declared terrorism in all etc. forms and manifestations including that organized on the basis of religion and sect as the principal national security threat to Pakistan. This bleak and grief attack crowned into mourn and sorrow not only Pakistani nation, but also the international community. It united the whole nation under single slogan toe rush and wiped out terrorism from the county all party’s conference was called in Peshawar, in which the civil, political and military leadership after a long consideration and discussion framed a mechanism to count terrorism. Although several operation as mentioned were underway in sere veal parts of the country, but there was no fixed and functioning mechanism, to counter terrorism hill date.
So all the political parties and civil military leadership agreed upon a 20 points to counter terrorism. Which is called national action plan (NAP).
1. Methodology
The research is mainly of descriptive nature as the main concern is to specifically examine the national action plan.
I have used journals, article, magazines and newspaper’s for eh collection of data above mention source is called secondary data. Which is used for this research?
2. Title of the study
My research title is national action plan the achievement and failure.
3. Research Questions
- Although the Pak army has conducted the numbers of military operations than why nation action plan needed.
- What we achieved because of national action plan.
- What we lost in national action plan.
- Tool of data collection
This research is based on secondary sources e.g. newspaper, article book’s statistical bulletins.
1.2 Objectives
- To determine the need for NAP that why a mechanism like NAP became necessary in spite of many ongoing military operations. Were the military operations insufficient and ineffective?
- To determine what is NAP (National Action Plan) and what are its elements. To study the mechanism of implementation of NAP and institutions involved in its implementation. And also its expense or boundary.
- Scorecard of NAP (To study the effectiveness of NAP). What lop holes and Weaknesses were involved with its implementation and does it fail or succeeded in combating terrorism?
- What should have been done to make it effective and successful and what should be done to avoid such accidents in future.
- To study achievements and weakness in national action plan with an overview of what so far happen under NAP and what actions and steps are taken by concern authorities in pursuance of NAP.
1.3 Significance of the Study
- After the origin of national action plan the countries politics revolved around it. The Government of PML (N) became totally dependent on Army for its survival and Army got enormous power and authorities over various aspect and affairs of the state.
- The political parties and leaders alleged the government for limiting the national action plan into specific area and targeting certain specific political parties and people by using NAP,
- For some political parties and leaders NAP was a devised instrument for targeting political opponents of the government on the other side government totally negate it, and suppose it as an instrument to counter terrorism therefore its study and analysis is significant.
- It is important to know NAP and its elements, that what is NAP and what is it for?. The focus of my study is to know NAP and its elements in its basic form and its purpose.
- There is lack of consensus over the mechanism and target of NAP among the political parties and leaders.
- To study the effectiveness, ineffectiveness and achievements under NAP is of great importance to get the people out of ambiguity.
The twenty points agenda as devised by the civilian and military leadership with in collaboration to each one in order to counter the terrorist activist been curbed action plan resultantly the terrorist a hack on Peshawar army public school.
But since the national action plan had constituted or established, from that very time it has been criticized by defend circles belongs to various walks of life due to the some ups and down being found in mentionable assure thing (NAP).
So, therefore the research paper as preened by the researcher held, and vied to critically evaluate and scrutinized it’s achievement has been made so far through this (NAP) by law enforcement agencies, and the flaws or chemists as raised in proposed plan had also highlighted that what extent the national action plan had proved effective or ineffective.
To counter terrorism in the country and also the challenges as being faced by the various relevant state inabilities due to their such policy or strategy in order to formulate all-encompassing counter-terrorism policies to root-out effectively the extremism, radicalization and sectionalism.
Janjua 2016 (A Critical Analysis and Evaluation of the NAP’s Pitfalls Say’s)
Along with the few achievements as repaved throng the national action plan (NAP) by the also having some serious flaws and misters.
Under the (NAP) and national and counter terrorism association (NACTA), the anti-terrorism institutions and has not achieved any major objectives since form the inception of (NACTA) no significant efforts have been made to achieve or make active the almost inactive (NATA) under the protection of the (NAP) (Janjua, 2016).
Asad Ullah Khan (January 06-2017) (is NAP Really Working?)
Civilian and military government stands as a sign of success and progress over past few years.
The military has conducted many operations and tried their best to minimize the strength (number) of their cops/soldiers in the no go arrears successfully their performance can be estimated and gauged from the decrease of almost 50 parent in violence related casualties and accidents in Pakistan between 2012 and 2016.
At the national level, these efforts have gained immense public support which clearly reflects, that Pakistani society is trying to come out of this mess. Last but not least, national action plan needs some revision / review not in terms of new policy options. But in terms of political will to implement the available options on ground.
For serious implementation of all the twenty (20) points of the plan, these points must be subdivided into plans and directives for implementation, so that a tussle in institutions on implementation is avoided. Only military have power is not a final solution to curb the menace of violent extremism in Pakistan.
There is an extremely serious and urgent need to establish a national narrative based upon a mix of hard and soft power known as smart power to stabilize the society, namely provide sustainable peace and progress to the terror-victim areas in long-term
The Peshawar attack occurred amid a four-month political crisis, begin in mid-august 2014 in which the newly elected prime minister and serving chairman of Pakistan Tahreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party and the cleric political and leader of Pakistan Awami Tahreek Dr. Tahir ul- Qadri led large demonstrations demanding of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s resignation and parliaments dissolution because of the alleged and controversial election and were demanding for construction or formation of judicial commission to probe the election. Weakened by these the Pakistan Muslim league (Nawaz) PML-N government became more dependent on the other opposition parties (PPP, PML a and other) and coalition parties (QWP, JUI and other) and military for survival.
The military’s almost complete control over national security and counter terrorism policy should be seen in the light of its continual encroachment into civillian off airs since restoration of democracy in 2008. (www.southasiancews.com, October 27, 2009.)
The national action plan (NAP) prepared by the all parties conference in consolation with the military. The 16th December 2014 attack in Peshawar claimed by the Tehreek-e-Talban (TTP) was ostensibly a game changer. A week later, the Pakistan (Muslim league Nawaz) unveiled a new counter-terrorism strategy, the twenty point national action plan (NAP) with prime minister Nawaz Shairf and Army chief Raheel Sharif vowing to forget all terror groups without any distinction. Six months later and continued terror attacks, the NAP looks far more like a hostile conceived wish-list devised for public consumption during a moment of crisis than a coregent strategy. The meeting addresses the other tasks and responsibilities assigned down to the military and intelligence agencies and took decision regarding their implementation.
The national action plan empowered the military the performing institution. The legal authority awarded to the military seriously undermines the judiciary this over stepping would be detrimental to the cause of both the institutions. Whereas there was the need that the actions plan, should have come-up with ideas to correct the delays in dispensation of justice, and the development of modalities and procedure to deal with corruption.
After inaugurating the “NAP” on 24 December, the Sharif government implemented two major elements of the military without delay lifting the predecessor government’s 2008 moratorium on the death penalty, and passing on 6 January 2015 the 21st constitutional commandments empowering special military courts to dry all terrorists, and suspects, including civilians.
Thus the military with immense powers started their action to implement “NAP” under the prescribed and described principles eradicating and exterminating all the hurdles and obstacles, which were posed in its path either from civilian government or from other groups, the military openly condemned the barriers and hurdles, even it alleged and criticized the government for so many times for planning hurdle in taking away “NAP” to its logical and to act upon it in its read soul. At the military’s reservation over National action plan since the NAP has been launched. NAP has been launched.
As the attack on Army public school was a question mark lied on ongoing continued military operations in the same way despite the launch and swing of mechanism and set of actions against like national action plan another attack of the same type on Bacha Khan university Charsadda, and later on attack on Quetta hospital west creating an another question mark on national action plan (NaP) furthermore the bomb attack on a park in Lahore is another question mark lied on the implementation of NAP without any distention.
Cite this page
National Action Plan NAP: The Implementation Mechanism of Implantation Achievement and Failures. (2019, Mar 18).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/15/
Understanding Variations in Communication Related to Failure to Rescue
RESULTS
We conducted 58 interviews from February through June 2017. Table 1 describes the number of interview subjects by care area and role. Direct care nursing refers to General Care, Post Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU), and Surgical Intensive Care Unit (SICU) nurses. These nurses hold primary responsibility for their assigned patient's care and are considered the first line at the bedside. Consultation services include Life Safety nurses and Respiratory Therapists (RT). Life Safety nurses are ACLS and PALS certified critical care RNs, who are the first tier of the hospital's Rapid Response Team (RRT). A Life Safety Consult may be initiated by a frontline nurse whereby a Life Safety nurse comes to the bedside for assessment and provides necessary critical care and referral to a higher level of care. At the physician level, house officers are comprised of interns and residents, designated by their post-graduate year (PGY).
Recognition
Table 2 provides representative examples of facilitators and barriers to recognition of patient deterioration or complication by clinician type. The primary concepts identified within the recognition domain include 1) use of existing technology to aid in recognition of decline, 2) importance of staff experience level, and 3) acting on clinical intuition alone without supporting physiologic data.
The use of technology that aids in detection of patient deterioration was a common point of emphasis across clinicians. There was uniform agreement that these tools are helpful, but that they do not replace the importance of visual and physical assessment of patients. For example, PACU nurses commented on this socio-technical relationship, reflecting on both alarms being sensitive to alert when vital signs change and having nurses available with their eyes on the patients 24/7 to detect decline.
Respondents cited the importance of staff experience level is for identifying important problems and knowing when to call for help. General care nurses specifically noted that the majority of staff on the floor are inexperienced”both nurses and house officers. An Attending Surgeon stated the barrier is that both the direct care nurse and the junior house officer are the team members with the least amount of experience, yet they are the keystone to early recognition. Some noted the importance of allowing new staff to have teachable moments, however, when issues of patient safety arise, experienced level staff have to intervene and escalate care accordingly.
Clinical intuition is developed over years of experience and may not have traditional physiologic data that accompanies it. Clinicians cited difficulty in appropriately communicating development of a hunch or gut feeling of potential patient deterioration. For example, general care nurses reflected on hesitating to call when an issue first started to develop. They still felt the need to allow the issue to develop further before calling the surgeon or life safety team. Also, while junior house officers described having suspicions that their patient was not doing well, they deferred to the opinions of their senior resident, which may be delayed.
Communication Process
Table 3 provides representative examples of communication processes, such as handoffs and communication hierarchies that influence the rescue process. The primary concepts identified include 1) the availability of the primary and consulting services, 2) how well information was relayed and received in report, and 3) the involvement of staff during rounding.
The ability of primary and consulting services to connect with the direct care nurse was consistently described as a key barrier to early detection of deterioration. For example, general care nurses reported the unavailability of consultation and specialty services to meet face to face to discuss individual patients would often leave the nurse to communicate crucial information in an unstructured, ad-hoc manner. Nuances of patient concerns across providers could be lost in these circumstances.
The quality of information exchange during routine patient handoffs or discussions relied on three factors: 1) the clinician relaying the information, 2) the clarity of expectations or orders, and 3) the platform used to communicate. For example, nurses and RTs cited the need for physician to physician communication regarding escalation of care. Recommendations for escalation from nurses and RTs were taken into consideration, but not necessarily acted upon immediately. Also, more precise and clear instructions from physicians on postoperative care pathways proved invaluable to managing patients and detecting early deviation from the expected course. Finally, physicians and others cited verbal communication via telephone or in-person as key to effective communication of concerns or plans.
Many respondents also noted the importance of shared rounding and the presence of frontline staff to effective communication. For example, house officers and SICU nurses described rounds as a time for discussion and interdisciplinary contributions to the care plan. In particular, they noted the tension between both the immense value and logistic difficulty in interdisciplinary rounds for complex patients. Specifically nurses felt this poorly coordinated communication process may result in potential missed opportunities for early detection.
Communication Accessibility
Table 4 provides representative examples of the timely accessibility of appropriate clinicians involved in a patient's care. The primary concepts identified include 1) ability to contact the patient's primary decision-making clinician, 2) day of week and shift related staff availability, and 3) response times based on the position of who calls.
Clinicians reported barriers in the ability to contact the appropriate clinician responsible for decision making in a timely and efficient manner. General care and PACU nurses expressed that while access to urgent or emergent services like Life Safety or rapid response teams were excellent, the accessibility of the surgical provider or team often delayed care. Determination of the primary team by frontline clinicians was not always clear and resulted in frustration and delay. For example, if all interns were in the operating room, the general care nurses could not determine who the covering provider was. This seemingly routine step in communication was also highlighted by attending surgeons who found similar barriers in contacting consulting services.
A distinct and important factor in accessibility of providers was the day of week and shift. Uniformly, clinicians reported barriers to accessing staff and resources on weekends and during the night shift. Even in high acuity setting such as the SICU, nurses reported ease in getting a hold of a staff member on a week day or during the day shift, but significant difficulty on nights and weekends. House officers reported needing to alter their practices and adapt to having fewer people and resources during these off hours and days.
When contacting clinicians, response times varied according to the perceived positional status of the caller. Some staff reported that all concerns were not weighted equally when expressed by general care nurses versus PACU or Life Safety nurses. For example, PACU and Life Safety nurses reported receiving more respect from other staff solely based on their title. Interns and residents responded to Life Safety nurses with urgency, ensuring they were readily available by pager and responsive at the bedside.
Cite this page
Understanding Variations in Communication Related to Failure to Rescue. (2019, Mar 18).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/15/
Beloved be the Ones who Sit down an Exploration of an Economy Profiting off of Failure
Roy Andersson, a Swedish filmmaker known for his experimental yet simple approach to aesthetic and his humorous perspective on the destructive nature of human behavior, communicates a deeply rooted and concealed issue alive throughout the world today in his film Songs from the Second Floor (2000). Through this dark-comedy/drama film, the dread and existential crisis affiliated with the feeling of complete hopelessness, the act of contributing to your own destruction, and the steps taken that lead an individual to completely break down and begin attacking their own self identity as well as the unity and security of an entire country is communicated. These concepts are revealed through the instability of the character's relationships, the reactions to destructive behavior, and the loss of the stable foundations that seem to shape their lifestyles and identities entirely. Andersson's portrayal of our world as a dystopia through Songs from the Second Floor gives insight as to what our faith is built upon and awakens our sense of despair as we recognize our own society within the destruction shown throughout the film.
Employment status and one's contribution to the economy and industry are crucial factors when determining success and approval. Many individuals structure their lives around a job they are either working towards or already have in order to feel validated and useful to both themselves and those around them. This not only puts immense stress upon the individual to maintain their performance to their own standards but also introduces the risk of potential loss of stability and control if the opportunity or role in the industry is taken away. Throughout the film, Songs from the Second Floor, the importance of labor, employment, and a successful business or economy is evident. The society shown in the film and the individuals introduced are extremely dependent on the trust they have implanted in their industry and businesses. The characters seem to fail to understand the temporary state that jobs and money holds and completely disregard the qualities of life that bring authentic happiness and healthy joy into their lives. The economy in the film is presented as unstable and the community is struggling to cope with the loss of their most treasured foundation, the trust and dependency they have instilled into their jobs.
One of the main characters, a middle aged businessman invested in his work and ritual lifestyle, is introduced in the beginning of the film. He is shown shining his shoes in preparation for a meeting with his boss and debating with his wife about missing work to spend the day with her. He quickly declines his wife's offer to spend the day together and states that he hasn't missed a day of work in fourteen years, ending his rebuttal with everything has its day. This infers that while the man may hope to take a day to himself at some point in the future, his current lifestyle and obligations won't allow it. This reveals that labor and work is in high demand as well as the rewards that are granted to those that work hard and produce positive results for the economy. After we observe the interaction between the husband and wife, the camera cuts to a scene of the same man on his hands and knees at the feet of his boss begging to keep his job. We learn that he has been fired from his job of thirty years due to the crash of the economy and the poor state of the business. Despite the worker's begging and efforts, the boss explains that, there is nothing (he) can do, and frees himself from the grasp of the man before leaving him on the floor of the office. The individual introduced through this scene is just one of the many displeased workers present throughout the film.
Majority of the individuals presented in this society seem to be completely reliant and addicted to their jobs and positions in the industry. This behavior contributes to the identification of the society as a dystopia because the continuous, boring, and unrewarding work that is forced upon these individuals seems to be wanted and cherished despite the unhappiness it brings upon those involved. Acquiring an unwanted job and living an unexciting lifestyle is a possibility that many people fear today. This film brings that fear to life and not only demonstrates what happens when this is a reality but also puts the work we do in preparation for our future into perspective. Success and respect relies heavily on one's employment status, role in society, and wealth. This is evident in both the world presented in the film and and world we live in today. Studying hard, earning a degree, and being rewarded with a job that generates a large income and exciting life are qualities that are ingrained into the goals, hopes, and dreams of individuals everywhere. The amount of trust that we put into our jobs and consumer habits creates an economy that we can not successfully live without. However, based on the efforts and time that we devote to our business practices and industry the economy will equally suffer without our contributions. Our constant fear of not positively contributing to society is what actively keeps the demanding relationship between people and the economy alive.
The demand and strain that is put on individuals to maintain their role in society in order to keep the economy from crashing can be expanded upon in the essay, The Fethishism of Commodities by German philosopher, Karl Marx. Through his writing, Marx explores the effect of work and production on society and introduces the concept of labor acting as a commodity. The ideas presented in this essay explains the behavior of the characters in Songs from the Second Floor. Marx explains that we cannot disconnect labor from commodity without losing the sense of quality and use value of those products. One does not exist without the other. We depend on our own labor as a product and therefore put immense confidence in our jobs and their ability to create a blissful and rewarding lifestyle for ourselves and our loved ones. Throughout the film, the most prized and sought after commodity was work and the profit that comes with it. In current times, holding a steady job and having an influential role in the industry is just as easily recognizable as being highly respected as in the film. The tragedy that was experienced when the availability of labor was in danger and the effect this event had on the community gives insight to the possible negative outcomes of depending solely on the availability of labor.
While economy thrives off our want to be successful and contributive to society, it also survives off our frustrations towards the ways that our lives are affected by the industry and the demands we have created for ourselves. The need to constantly be working while at the same time contributing to society as both a consumer and producer leads to a tiring sense of endless disapproval and uneasiness. This is obvious throughout the entirety of the film through the apparent sadness and confusion displayed by the characters. The appearance of the individuals and the environment in the film are presented as physically plain, dull, lifeless, and near-death, yet they still seem to hold an immense amount of emotion and concern for what lies ahead. (Tucan). This theme is introduced within the first five minutes of the film, when we meet the characters controlling the businesses that will go on to destroy the foundation and faith of countless individuals' lives.
The two men discuss their failing business and what lies ahead for their company, their workers, the economy, and themselves. During the conversation, it is stated that if the company keeps performing poorly they will have to shut down entirely, leading to disaster for many people. This feeling of concern and empathy is quickly disregarded by one of the men, who seems to be the owner and boss of the corporation. In response to the struggle of living without a job or source of income he responds, What's that got to do with us, we won't be around then. What's the point of staying where there is only misery? (Andersson, 2:06). This opening scene hints at the obvious dissatisfaction present throughout the society and the burden that is brought upon the people living in a world dominated by business. The two men clearly understand the consequences that a failed business has on not only themselves, but also on everyone that may work for them. However, they don't offer any solutions or suggestions on how to save the company. They seem to understand that the business world and economy they have created has grown to be too powerful to be controlled or fixed. The world seems to be overrun by the sadness and confusion that has emerged from the working class of people unable to keep their jobs or make enough money to support themselves or their family.
Their lack of hope for the future and the mindless work that they force upon themselves in order to distract themselves from their failures and destruction can be explained by Guy Debord's theories in Society of the Spectacle. Debord describes the spectacle as, nothing more than an image of happy unification surrounded by desolation and fear at the tranquil center of misery, (Debord, Thesis 63). The spectacle is an explanation for why humans find a common discomfort among themselves as they attempt to achieve a false ideal image of what they hope to become based on the unrealistic expectations they have created for themselves. They dream of achieving success and prosperity in a society that thrives off their misery, therefore, turning their dissatisfaction into a commodity. Today, the economy and capitalist market takes control of our lives in a very similar way to the community in Songs from the Second Floor and to Debord's theory. Our market's thrive off the control that advertising, mass media, and social expectations have over our wants and needs. The standards we hold ourselves to would not exist without the media convincing us that we need certain products or services to be successful, liked, or noticed. This relationship between humans and the economy creates an unhealthy relationship with business and an overpowering need to fulfill our endless desires and wants to be what society deems as successful.
The pressures and expectations society puts on humanity leads to fears that overtake one's mental health and rationality, including the ability to determine imagination from reality and right from wrong. Being taught to believe that your main duty and goal as a conducive part of society is to hold a steady job and perform mindless work under the immense pressures of society puts a recognizable strain on those that choose to endure the burden of participating in a struggling economy. This struggle is clearly represented through one of the main characters' experiences with the world in which he has become a victim to and the way his reality mimics the fears he has for both himself and his future. This individual is the owner of a struggling furniture shop and the father of a young man that is thought to have been driven crazy from writing poetry. Over time, he encounters the ghosts of individuals that have lost their lives due to the evils that the economy has introduced into society. The ghost of a man who lost a large amount of money, the ghost of young boy that was executed, and the ghost of a young girl that was sacrificed for the good of a failing company follow him through his decline into insanity.
Jean Baudrillard comments on reality and originality in The Precession of the Simulacra. Baudrillard explains that over time, determining the true origin of any concept, product, or entity is impossible due to reality's tendency to mimic simulation. This connects to the lack of the characters' understanding as to where true contentedness originates from. During his time of desperation and confusion, the business owner struggles with identifying the issue with his current beliefs and his own value to society. He believes that working is the only way to have a positive contribution to society and that the only thing worth being concerned about is earning a profit. When faced with the three ghosts, he fails to understand that the qualities he cherishes most are the same things that lead to the downfall of many lost individuals. The society believes that the only way to be respected is by devoting an entire lifetime to endless work, leading to the misinterpretation of reality and expectations. This is similar to our society today because many people believe that by achieving the same status of idolized figures they will be able to create a lifestyle full of opportunity, profit, and success. This glorified image is encouraged through media and the false perceptions of reality that it creates.
In times of desperation and need, sacred items are either newly made or reintroduced into society in the attempt to establish a sense of comfort, hope, or stability among those that are struggling. Material things and products have taken a new role in our world as having the ability to bring a sense of familiarity or security despite the temporary form they have. In the film, as the community begins to lose hope in the world they have built around money and product, they turn to religion in hopes of bringing solace to those struggling. However, religion is reintroduced into society in a way that highlights where humanity went wrong. This attempt is made by a man who creates a business selling models of Jesus being crucified on the cross. The purchase of this product is meant to be a reminder of what faith used to be built upon and allow humanity to restore stability in something that may have the power to pull them out of the mess they created. While the focus should be on the meaning behind the product, most of the attention of both the producer and the consumers is on the money being spent on this purchase. It is revealed that this symbolic item was created in an attempt create business. The businessman tried to create and sell what he believed the people were looking for, faith and reassurance.
However, the creation of this product originated from an interest in personal gain as opposed to an authentic desire to bring a sense of healing to a damaged community. This is ironic in the sense that the image he is portraying through his business is meant to communicate a sense of understanding, care, and humanity. This scene can be discussed in relation to Emile Durkheim's essay, Origins of These Beliefs: Origin of the Notion of the Totemic Principle, Or Mana. Through this piece, Durkheim explains the purpose of symbolic images and their effect on society. He believes that through the belief of a higher power and the physical emblems they embody, people can begin to live in a more productive and healthy way. Because of the effect these totems have on people, society never stops creating new sacred items, (Durkheim). Despite its intentions, the image of Jesus on the cross fails to bring solace to the community, further proving that humanity has lost touch with the principles that previously brought them happiness.
As humans lead themselves even further into destruction and despair, it is easy to confuse right from wrong. Accurately recognizing who or what is determining these standards is essential to identifying whether these expectations come from a positive source. The community in the film has been trained to think that success only comes from a traditional industry job. This leads to many individuals that may be more interested in artistic or non-traditional careers to be cast from society or misunderstood. This concept is conveyed continuously throughout the film through the phrase, Beloved be the ones who sit down. In a world where everyone is distracted from life and consumed by the endless ritual of business, remembering to take time for one's self is often forgotten. The thought of sitting down and taking a break from work or refusing to participate in the demands of society is considered outrageous. Admiring those that choose this lifestyle is considered to be even more unacceptable. This makes this quote highly controversial in respect to the society created through this film. The first time we observe a strong negative reaction to this phrase, is when the business man visits his son in the hospital for the mentally ill.
The man is infuriated when his other son begins to recite a poem that includes the line, beloved be the ones who sit down, to his brother in the hospital. The man believes his son is being encouraged to remain secluded from society and unemployed, however, the intention of the poem is to reassure the son that those not involved in the lifestyle built by the economy are wiser and more cherished by those who recognize the destruction around them. This scene illustrates the idea that those that don't adhere to the image and role of the working man are thought of as insane, useless, and ill. Human connection and emotions are disregarded as insane when they aren't being utilized with the benefit of business in mind. The role that societal demand plays in creating a standard for what's right is illustrated through the essay, Interpretation of Cutures by Clifford Geertz. The chapter labeled, Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight explores the culture of a Balinese village and the meaning that has been constructed around the sport of cockfighting. He discovers that while the sport may be illegal, the society as a whole agrees to continue its practice. Society's ability to strongly influence the spectrum of right and wrong is apparent through both the essay and the film. Geertz suggests that, man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun, (Geertz). This theory is proven through the dystopia created by Andersson as well as the world we actively participate in today. Both societies are successful in convincing the public that by achieving a traditional lifestyle and having a stable job you are more likely to achieve recognition and happiness.
The themes presented through Songs from the Second Floor give deeper insight to the dangers we are exposed to if we continue to rely on an economy built from our own fears. Andersson's approach to the controversy surrounding our industry and the destruction it creates in our personal lives is expanded upon through the studies of past philosophers and continues to remain relevant as we study the current habits of businesses and consumers. The exaggerated and dramatic representation of a society in despair allows us to observe the faults in our own habits and recognize the false faith we have in the world we have created around us.
Cite this page
Beloved Be The Ones Who Sit Down An Exploration of an Economy Profiting off of Failure. (2019, Mar 18).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/15/
Neural Networks and their Failures and Successes
It's no secret at this point that there are some really smart AIs in today's world. From everything to self-driving cars, to something so simple it only takes 9 lines of code. Many AI systems today use something called a Neural Network, which tries to mimic the human brains cognitive abilities. A human brain consists of 100 billion cells called neurons, which are connected by synapses. When sufficient synaptic input reaches a neuron, that neuron will also trigger in a process called thinking. This is what Neural Networks aim to be, though 9 lines is only about 1 neuron. The main goal of Neural Networks and AI is to try and reach the same level of cognition and learning as a human does, where it becomes difficult to distinguish one from the other. For every success made in one area, there are many failures that arise, meaning that there are many examples of the problems with trying to teach Neural Networks how to actually solve problems the correct way.
Many Neural Networks are designed to learn different tasks and give consistent results back. This is done through a Training Process where, put simply, inputs are given and constantly adjusted until the correct output is given. Through this process, Neural Networks can learn to walk or play games or to even cheat a system. Neural Networks try to be like the human mind but, much like the human mind, they can learn the wrong things and accomplish tasks in a very different manner. This problem can result in very interesting problem solving. One great example is an experiment held in a system called PolyWorld. PolyWorld is an ecological simulator of a simple flat world, possibly divided up by a few impassable barriers, and inhabited by a variety of organisms and freely growing food (Yaeger). During one of the trials of this, an input mistake was made and, while food gave energy, creating a child did not cost any energy. This led some of the organisms in the simulation to come to the conclusion that a mostly sedentary lifestyle was the best option, as long as they reproduced and, in very much A Modest Proposal fashion, consumed their offspring to make more energy. This solved the problem of having to search for food, and allowed the organisms to not have to expend much energy to live.
This means that while we can train a Neural Network to create its own solutions to given problems, in this case of survival, we are not able to teach them a form of morality and that eating ones children, while practical, is not ethical, nor is it an actual solution to living. Because these kinds of systems essentially teach themselves new solutions after some training, they can adapt to new circumstances and find new solutions as they go, and can lead to some amazing success stories. In one instance, Facebook designed its own AI to learn how to make and carryout deals, which were originally trained with another AI system. Researchers at Facebook Artificial Intelligence Research (FAIR) began a study on multi-issue bargaining. Two agents in the Network system were given a set of items and told to split them amongst each other. While each agent was programmed with how highly they would value certain items, they were not aware of the value of each item for their opponents. These kinds of interactions had each system trying to create long-term plans in order to meet their needs and get the best personal value out of each interaction. One of the goals of FAIRs AI Network systems was to create an idea known as Dialogue Rollouts. These allowed the long-term thinking systems to understand the flow of a conversation and steer around and away from any part of the conversation deemed uninformative, confusing, or frustrating.
The knowledge of these kinds of interactions allows one of these systems to plan for future conversations and generate more value for themselves in future interactions. One problem of these experiments, however, was that the networks created their own language, which was essentially a very streamlined discussion and would conclude with deals being struck, though this was quickly shutdown in favor of basic English. Once the system understood what was needed and expected of it and could achieve favorable deals roughly as often as unfavorable deals. In other experiments, most people did not realize they were negotiating with a System and not another person. Other systems can pick up on language very quickly, even to the detriment of themselves. One mishap that involved a learning AI was Microsoft's Twitter AI Tay. Released to the public in March, 2016 and was designed to mimic a 19-year-old girl and learn from interacting with people on Twitter. Because Neural Networks and other AI need some form of a base to learn from, just as humans do, many people started abusing this and taught her inflammatory remarks. The generally accepted problem with Tay is that she was not designed with any kind of emotional intelligence. This led to her making remarks about Hitler and other controversial statements. While Tay seems like she should have succeeded, like many Learning Systems before her, she just didn't quite learn as intended.
In the case of one Learning System used by Berkeley students, a reward-shaping experiment was conducted where a Neural Network was rewarded every time it touched a soccer ball. In order to achieve the most rewards per session, the Network learned that it could get to the ball and vibrate, thus touching the ball as much as possible in as little time as it could, receiving a reward for each touch. In the same article, a Neural Network was rewarded for reaching a goal, and that's all it needed to accomplish. The Network discovered that it was not punished for moving away from the goal, so it began reaching the goal and moving in a circle around one end of the goal so that it would have a stable path and could keep moving through and being rewarded. It seems that when reward driven, if there are no set of rules saying you cannot do X, Neural Network systems kind very unique ways of accomplishing the given task in ways that give them the most reward, without actually accomplishing the real goal of the experiment. Many Neural Network systems are given tasks in which they learn to walk, with various limbs added or subtracted, and with different obstacles.
Some learn to walk in short pigeon-hops, while others learn how to correctly run while maintaining their balance. Each system is given a structure and each time they fail, a new generation is made with the knowledge of prior generations, so eventually, someone kind of forward momentum is gained. But in other, more extreme cases, like David Ha's article, when the Neural Network agent is allowed to change its own body in order to accomplish certain goals, such as reaching the end of an area, the agent may create ways never imagined. In one trial, the agent made its back leg more stable and usable as a base and the front leg allowed it to make short hops in order to get around different obstacles. One of the Neural Network agents designed it's body to have one extremely long leg that would allow it to simply fall over. In the trials given, the only goal was to make it as far to the goal as possible, but the agents were not required to reach it. By making one large leg and falling, these systems could meet all the requirements and had no need to ever reach the goal itself.
Neural Network systems are advancing every day, and get smarter and smarter with each new iteration. But just because they are smarter does not mean that they are going to exactly complete given tasks and meet human standards. On a level of cognition, Neural Networks are, in most cases, nowhere near where the human brain is, and can only think of certain tasks 1-dinmensionally. Many reward-based tasks given are worked around and the best way to accomplish the goal is overlooked for the best way to achieve the reward. Other language learning systems only accomplish what they can parrot back. While these are highly advanced systems, they do not truly meet the active cognition that the human mind works on, though there are many new programs coming out every year. In the next few years, we may even have some systems showing signs of emotions.
Cite this page
Neural Networks and Their Failures and Successes. (2019, Mar 18).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/15/
A Failure to Identify: a Look at United States Cyber Policy
The old adage that history repeats itself is ever so present in Fred Kaplan's Dark Territory: The Secret History of Cyber War. There is a recurring theme in the United States (US) government of implementation lag, policy lag, and a lack of proper oversight in this rapidly changing technology age. The problem is 3-fold: (1) the lack of an implementation plan makes the policy just a piece of paper with ink, (2) the absence of policy hinders the ability for entities to protect critical cyber infrastructure in a systematic manner, (3) the lack of proper oversight allows entities the opportunity to utilize technology with little to no accountability, on the fringe of ethical use in some instances. The reader finds these exact cases when you strip away the minutia of Kaplan's book.
Kaplan does well at setting the tone for the book. He paints a picture of science fiction becoming science fact with the introduction of a 1983 movie, WarGames, about a tech-whiz teenager who unwittingly hacks into the main computer at NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (Kaplan 8). What followed 15-months later, after President Ronald Reagan inquired his staff on the validity of the movie, was National Security Decision Directive Number 145: National Policy on Telecommunications and Automated Information Systems Security (NSDD-145), signed on 17 September 1984, which marked the first of many national policies involving the emerging cyber landscape. This, however, was short-lived as the issue vanished, at least in the realm of high-level politics, and [w]hen it reemerged a dozen years later, after a spate of actual cyber intrusions during Bill Clinton's presidency [1993 - 2001], enough time had passed that the senior officials of the day were shocked by the nation's seemingly sudden vulnerability to this brand-new threat. The technology climate, at the time of signing, was nowhere near as robust as today. Kaplan notes that, the first public Internet providers wouldn't come online for another few years. This climate clearly shapes the apathy by senior officials. While the prescient nature of the policy showed that the US government understood the impending threat, this meant nothing without proper implementation.
The recurring theme of lag, this time policy, continues in a 1990 study by the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, a congressional advisory group, called [the] Physical Vulnerability of Electric Systems to Natural Disasters and Sabotage. The study details a concerning picture of which power stations and switches, if disabled, would take down huge chunks of the national grid. Kaplan walks the reader through a timeline of subsequent events, culminating with Presidential Decision Directive “ 63 (PDD-63), titled Critical Infrastructure Protection, signed 22 May 1998. Kaplan does not explicitly note any protective actions occurring in the 8-years between the publishing of the 1990 study and the directive in 1998. The issue only compounded when the directive called for an additional 5-years to achieve and maintain the protection of these critical infrastructures. This inaction would soon change with the leak of classified documents from the infamous NSA analyst, Edward Snowden.
Snowden's 2013 leak of a treasure trove of amounting to tens of thousands of highly classified documents. Of those documents, the most damaging concerned a program known as PRISM in which the NSA and FBI tapped into the central servers of nine leading American Internet companies”Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple, and Paltalk”extracting email, documents, photos, audio and video files, and connection logs (131). The NSA released a statement shortly after the leak made headlines, stating that PRISM was the most significant tool in the NSA's arsenal for the detection, identification, and distribution of terrorist threats to the US and around the world. Kaplan goes on to show how NSA lawyers even altered plain definitions [with the FISA Court (a.k.a. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court), so that doing this [type of surveillance] didn't constitute collecting data from American citizens [which is illegal]. Under the new definition the NSA was just storing data; the collecting wouldn't happen until an analyst went to retrieve it from the files. Here is a depiction of gross manipulation in order to put the agencies goals over rights granted by the 4th amendment. Kaplan makes it clear that the restraints had been put up from the inside, and they could be taken down from the inside as well. There were no external auditors for checks and balances. Furthermore, what would have happened if a rogue NSA director or a different president, like Richard Nixon, were in power? The potential for abuse would be staggering.
From the first national level policy on cyber warfare, NSDD-145, to the political aftermath of the Edward Snowden leaks, the author presents a coherently weaved pieces of work, while providing the reader with first-hand accounts of the significant events throughout the US growth in the computer age. He sprinkles well-known characters (e.g. Edward Snowden, President Barack Obama) and federal agencies (e.g. FBI, CIA, NSA), while breaking down the US governments struggle of proper utilization of policy driven use of technology, . This is a recommended read for those with established cyber roles in the government to those who are wanting to understand how the failure of governmental cyber policy allowed for the overreaching of boundaries. What it comes down to is whether you want to At its core, Kaplan depicts a history of the United States (US) Government failing to create policy (i.e. the boundaries) for the use of emerging technological advances in the cyber domain.
Works Cited
Kaplan, Fred M., Dark Territory: The Secret History of Cyber War. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2017.
Underwood, Kimberly, The U.S. Government Urgently Needs to Address Cyber security Challenges, Signal, September 24, 2018, https://www.afcea.org/content/us-government-urgently-needs-address-cybersecurity-challenges.
PDD-63 - Critical Infrastructure Protection, 5/20/1998https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/12762
Cite this page
A Failure to Identify: A Look at United States Cyber Policy. (2019, Mar 18).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/15/
Failure is not the End
Failure is such a harsh and intimidating experience and thought to a developing mind. I recall the first time I felt out of control as life took over and I had no option but to fail. As we go through life, failing in that moment brings panic, sadness and even fear but at the end of every struggle there is a lesson to be learned. In this essay I am going to recount back to 2010 to my freshman year of highschool when I was newly diagnosed with severe depression and anxiety and had to put school on the back burner to take care of my mental health.
I have always since I can remember been such a conscience student and always strived to be my best and do my best at every hurdle I was given to jump over. I remember in elementary school I would have a passing thought about my day as I was drifting off to sleep. I got a sudden drop in my stomach as I remembered I forgot to do one homework assignment. I would wake up no matter the time and immediately go finish my work so I could relax and go back to sleep. In school when we would get warnings about our behaviour and I would go home with a yellow slip of paper from a warning I had during class I felt like I had ruined my whole day. This characteristic followed me into young adulthood.
This conscience behavior has followed me my whole life and sometimes burdened my day to day life. Common among most of the American society I became severely depressed as I was transitioning from middle school to high school. I quickly became less and less of the caring Darby I had always been. I was struggling greatly with my attendance and my grades because of the constant anxiety attacks. It inevitably came down to me choosing to do what was right for my well being and mental health in the moment and what was detrimental to my freshman year of high school and ultimately caused me to fail. After all the hard work I had done to literally save my own life, I felt that same drop in my stomach as I did in elementary school when I had realized that I would not graduate the same years as my peers. My only option was to take this failure for what it was and move on.
This failure I experienced affected my graduation date and really made me question myself and who I was. Although this failure was very hard for me in many ways, I would not trade that struggle I went through for anything in this world. This failure showed me that life knocks you down, it shapes you into who you are meant to be and nothing goes as planned, you don't always get to choose what happens to you and it helped me learn to cope and deal with these hurdles as they are thrown my way in this long distance track called life.
Cite this page
Failure is Not the End. (2019, Mar 18).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/03/page/15/
