It suggests that the government, but more specifically Congress, puts gun violence above the means of fighting against it. Even more so, it shows that gun violence reins over attempts to hinder it in any way and how Congress is weak because it consistently fails to effectively do anything about gun violence in America. However, congressional gridlock can be more than Congress’ refusal to pass laws that are important The United States’ wellbeing. It can be the slow-moving process of passing a law or bill to benefit Americans. For example, immigration reform has been being considered since past President Barack Obama was reelected in 2012, as stated by The Washington Post (Nakamura, O’Keefe 4).
Jordan alludes to the idea more through background checks and surveillance could help. Besides that, Jordan offers no other suggests how the number of shootings could be lessened. She states that one problem in lack of communication, but she does not tell how this should be remedied. Jordan leaves the reader with a problem but no stance on the solution. To summarize Victoria Jordan has a valid argument about the need for change regarding the numerous mass shooting that take place in America each year, but her argument could have been much stronger if she did not rely on logical fallacy to prove her points.
Creating stronger gun control laws will cause much more harm to the American people than it will good. Gun restrictions are a huge debate in today’s society. It is constantly said that if we had more gun restrictions, then America’s violence and crime rates would go down. When examining statistics between cities with very strict gun laws compared to those whose restrictions are lax, there is a noticeably higher rate of crime found within the cities whose gun restrictions are tighter. In 2012 the CRS released a report showing that the number of privately owned guns has gone up by 56% since 1994; coincidentally gun related homicides have gone down by 49% as well.
Many of us have heard the shocking statistic that, apparently, half of all marriages end in divorce. This scares many people considering marriage for their life paths, so how can they avoid the trials that may lead to divorce? Although there is no divorce in Julia Alvarez's book, In the Time of the Butterflies, it does get close at times throughout the storyline. There are trials and tribulation in the marriages represented in the book. Patria and her husband have the most successful and happy marriage in the book, mainly because of their spirituality.
And might I stress highly marriage IS a lifelong commitment counter to popular belief of many. So let’s start with age, age is BIG factor in a marriage, it can make it crumble or thrive! Those who marry when between ages of 20 to 24 have highest rate of divorce - You’ve probably heard people say that 50% of all marriages end in divorce. And while this is kind of accurate, it’s also a bit misleading. As it turns out, age plays a big role in determining a marriage 's fate (As I stated before).
Kristof’s use of logos is strong due to the amount of facts and statistics he offers to his audience, but he fails to strongly use pathos and ethos, due to the lack of these elements Kristof’s argument is weakened. Kristof somewhat effectively argues that if guns and their owners were controlled in the same way that cars and their drivers are, thousands of lives could be protected each year by using persuasive techniques. Kristof’s essay adequately compares car regulations to gun control. He is extremely comprehensive on reasons why we should have gun regulations similar to automobiles controls. Kristof contrasts the statistics of firearm and automobile deaths to move the readers to harmonize with his opinion of the subject.
By never being born, crime rated dropped. However, this option is not utilitarian. This is shown when Levitt and Dubner write “Even for someone who considers a fetus to be worth only one one-hundredth of a human being, the trade-off between higher abortion and lower crime is, by an economist’s reckoning, terribly inefficient” (144). The loss of those fetuses greatly outweighs benefits of lower crime rates making it a non-utilitarian answer to crime. In their book, Levitt and Dubner take a utilitarian tone while discussing topics of increased police numbers, gun restriction, the legalization of abortion and the role they play in reducing crime rates in the 1990’s.
At a first glance, employment might not seem as controversial as topics such as abortion or gun control; however, when given the variable of criminal history, much discourse is created. There is a plethora of employers that are convinced if an applicant has any criminal record, they are automatically unfit for the work force. While conversely, there is a margin of employers who disregard criminal history and choose not to conduct background checks on the applicants. With the rise of technology, privacy of any person’s criminal background is easily bypassed due to the increase of background screening businesses. Angela Preston in her article, Ban the Box Has Turned Into a Big Employer Problem, maintains the belief that “no two versions of
Insurance premiums for physicians may be high, but this is not because of the current tort system. Professor Tom Baker wrote an entire book debunking the myths behind tort reform and addressed insurance premiums in great detail. Baker found that increased malpractice premiums had little or nothing to do with the alleged explosion of tort litigation and were instead just another component of the tort reform myth. For example, Baker notes that malpractice premiums are cyclical in nature and that "The sharp spikes in malpractice premiums in the 1970s, the 1980s, and the early 2000s are the result of financial trends and competitive behavior in the insurance industry, not sudden changes in the litigation environment." (Baker & Viscusi, 2009) Baker also noted that even if malpractice premiums were exploding, they account for less than 1 percent of total health care costs and thus are unlikely to be precluding physicians from
It went to the Supreme Court and the laws were overturned in a 7-2 decision with Justices White and Rehnquist dissenting. This case was monumental because it effectively legalized abortion during the first trimester in the United States. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the majority opinion in this case. In this opinion, he discussed the historical motives behind the type laws and the lack of current applicably of them or unconstitutionality. These motives were Victorian mores discouraging sexual promiscuity, the high mortality rate for mothers undergoing abortions and the interest of the State to protect life.