The Failure of the Road Map to Peace The WritePass Journal

The Failure of the Road Map to Peace Abstract The Failure of the Road Map to Peace . Roadmap to Nowhere.  Cato Institute. Chandler, D. 2006.  Peace without politics?. London. Einarsen, S. 2011.  Bullying and harassment in the workplace. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Fisher, R. J. 2007. Assessing the contingency model of third-party intervention in successful cases of prenegotiation.  Journal of Peace Research, 44 (3), pp. 311329. Forum, J. 2014.  The Road Map. [online] Available at: globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/189/38357.html [Accessed: 13 Mar 2014]. Golan, G. and Salem, W. 2013.  Non-State Actors in the Middle East. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Levine, M., Taylor, P. J. and Best, R. 2011. Third Parties, Violence, and Conflict Resolution The Role of Group Size and Collective Action in the Microregulation of Violence.Psychological Science, 22 (3), pp. 406412. Levy, M. P. 2012. The Palestinian-Israeli Conflcit: The Way Forward. Mason, R. 2013. The Price of Peace: A Reevaluation of the Economic Dimension in the Middle East Peace Process.  The Middle East Journal, 67 (3), pp. 405425. Miall, H., Ramsbotham, O. and Woodhouse, T. 1999.  Contemporary conflict resolution. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Migdalovitz, C. 2004. The Middle East Peace Talks. Milton-Edwards, B. 2004. Elusive ingredient: Hamas and the peace process.  JSTOR. Rioux, J. 2003. Third Party Interventions in International Conflicts: Theory and Evidence. Said, E. W. 2004.  From Oslo to Iraq and the road map. New York: Pantheon Books. Schanzer, J. 2012.  State of failure. ShiqaÌ„qiÌ„, K. 2006.  Willing to compromise. Washington, DC: U.S. Institute of Peace. Tocci, N. 2013. The Middle East Quartet and (In) effective Multilateralism.  The Middle East Journal, 67 (1), pp. 2944. Tristam, P. 2014.  Bushs Road Map for Peace in the Middle East, Five Years Later: Whats Been Achieved?. [online] Available at: http://middleeast.about.com/od/israelandpalestine/p/me070911.htm [Accessed: 13 Mar 2014]. Turner, M. and Y. 2011. Creating ‘Partners for Peace’: The Palestinian Authority and the International Statebuilding Agenda.  Journal of intervention and statebuilding, 5 (1), pp. 121. Van Der Maat, E. 2011. Sleeping hegemons Third-party intervention following territorial integrity transgressions.  Journal of Peace Research, 48 (2), pp. 201215. Wallensteen, P. 2002.  Understanding conflict resolution. London: SAGE Publications. Williams, P. and Jannotti Pecci, F. 2012. Earned sovereignty: bridging the gap between sovereignty and self-determination. Wohl and Er, S. B. 2001. A theory of third-party intervention in disputes in international politics.

Modern dance Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Modern dance - Research Paper Example Modern dance is considered a synonym of contemporary dance. The two dances share ideological or aesthetical characteristics. The name is a dance term that is used to refer to a dance trend born in the 16th century and had lasted up to the 1950’s. The dance trend had its homes in Germany, the United States and some of the surrounding countries. In the 1920’s there was a passion for interpretive dancing sweeping America. Dancers and audiences alike had been introduced to a new form of theatrical dancing that was serious. Most of the groundwork had already been laid for the first generation of the modern dancers; they then began to develop the art to what we have presently today. Lester Horton attended early classes in ballet dancing together with the Native American dance. He did this at a school called Denishawn. In 1932, his first dance group appeared and over the two ensuing decades, the group became quite renowned. They had adopted an individual theatrical style and technique that had embraced the themes of the political and social protests as well as dressing. He choreographed projects that were commercial and created dances for the nineteenth film of Hollywood. Some companies such as Alvin American Dance Theater still teach his dancing style (Kassing79). At the end of World War II, the founders of the modern dance style had already produced a group of talented students whom they sent out to start their own dance styles. The great battle that has been fought over respectability and position of the modern dance style has been fought and won already. The second generation did not have to take their art or themselves with the seriousness that the founders had in the dance. Artists who were renown during the second generation of modern dance include artists such as pearl primus, Paul Taylor, Twyla Tharp and Josà © Limà ³n (Kassing 35). The artistic and social upheaval of the late 60’s and late 70 has signaled radical changes to modern dance. Today modern

Impact of Heroic Medicine on Contemporary Medicin Research Paper

Impact of Heroic Medicine on Contemporary Medicin - Research Paper Example These developments in the physical sciences cover numerous areas including education, government, culture, society, law, religion, medicine, and economics. These developments also allowed for much discovery and experimentation to be carried out in these fields, allowing for the refinement in the practice as well as related innovations. This course has evaluated the development of the physical sciences and life sciences in the United States and their application from the colonial era up to the present. This course also evaluated the historical role of science in the US and the link between science and other institutions. This study will focus on heroic medicine and its role in general society and in the current application of the practice. Body Heroic medicine covers therapies which are aggressive medical interventions or remedies which were used mostly during the mid-19th century1. This type of medicine mostly includes risky and unproven options of treatment which the more scientific methods of healing have replaced. Benjamin Rush who was one of the first who helped ratify the US Declaration of Independence is one of the advocates and ‘fathers’ of medicine in America and of heroic medicine. His training in medical practice was at the Edinburgh University2. The age of heroic medicine covers from 1780 to 1850 where many educated medical practitioners actively engaged in this practice. During their practice of this type of medicine, they included practices such as bloodletting, intestinal purging, vomiting, profuse sweating, and blistering3. Doctors during these times mostly managed illnesses such as syphilis using mercury-laden salves4. Although these methods of treatment were very much supported by the intention to treat, these interventions were very much harmful to the patients. Heroic medicine became the norm of treatment during the mid-19th century. This practice actually became the accepted practice at that time, that even the educated and trai ned doctors were applying it5. The actual doctors who did not apply it were the ones who were actually known as alternative practitioners. Calomel and mercurous chloride was the most commonly used mineral for the purging practices. Illnesses at that point were viewed to be imbalances in the system which were attributed to an under or over stimulation of the body6. As such, purging was needed in order to rid the body of the illness. Bleeding was considered one of the initial remedies for illnesses as it can easily eliminate any poison in the system, allowing for the balance to be renewed in the system. Signs indicated that the practice indeed worked, or that some interventions were working. Most of the people during this time felt that they were being treated even if some of the treatments led them near death7. The doctor also made it appear that he was in control of the situation. This type of treatment is considered heroic for various reasons. The term comes from the significant im pact of the treatments and the large dose often needed to carry out the treatment. There is often a huge amount of calomel administered to lead to major and immediate effects, like severe vomiting8. As such, the intervention in this case is dramatic and is very bold. Although, these methods may not have been healing, they were certainly dramatic. During the 19th century, America was going through numerous civil and industrial changes in their lives. However, medicine was hardly within the same steady and progressive pace of growth and development9. The qualities of these practitioners were not the same as those who practiced during the 18th century. As was mentioned above, one of the major health practitioners during this time was Benjamin Rush who supported very much the philosophy of natural law10. Based on

Shame Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Shame - Essay Example According to Piaget’s theory of moral reasoning, children come to better learn morality when they work in groups with others. Piaget advanced that there is a way in which kids align to societal norms in terms expectations and the process is active. He also observed that young children will look at issues in terms of how certain actions affect them or what the outcomes of actions are. On the other hand much older children are more interested in the motive behind any action as opposed to the results of the particular action. The environment we grow up in or our developmental history is therefore a very important factor that influences our moral development. In the case study for instance, Dick Gregory had to go to school in order to learn hate. As a young boy he fell in love with Helene who is from a different social class but well mannered, clean and presentable. As a result of the friendship, Dick tries as much as possible to also look presentable, â€Å"I think I went to school then mostly to look at her. I brushed my hair and even got me a little old handkerchief. It was a ladys handkerchief, but I didnt want Helene to see me wipe my nose on my hand.† There is no doubt in taking all the sacrifices, Dick is trying to conform to the expectations of the new society expectations as dictated by the environment in the school. Considering that our development history and environment crucially influence our moral development process, it is therefore important to appreciate that our actions affect the way other people develop. The teacher’s attitudes in the case study greatly affected the two little children i.e. Dick and Helene. By turning off Dicks hard worked for contribution and referring to him in derogatory terms, â€Å"We are collecting this money for you and your kind, Richard Gregory. If your Daddy can give fifteen dollars you have no business being on relief,† Helene felt for her friend and even cried. On the other hand

Development through life stages Essay Example for Free

Development through life stages Essay Discuss the nature-nurture debate in relation to the development of the individual (M1) Evaluate how nature and nurture may affect the physical, intellectual, emotional and social development of two stages of the development of the individual (D1). Nature can be loosely defined as genetic inheritance or the genetic makeup (the information encoded in your genes) which a person inherits from both parents at the time of conception and carries throughout life. Several things in an individual genetically inherits include; ranging from gender, eye colour, risks for certain diseases and exceptional talents to height. The concept of nature thus refers to biologically inherited tendencies and abilities that people have and which may get revealed later on as they grow up. Nurture can be defined as the different environmental factors to which a person is subjected from birth to death. There are many environmental factors. They include both physical environments and social environments. Some theorists believe that people behave as they do according to genetic predispositions or even because of ‘animal instincts.’ This is known as the ‘nature’ theory of human behaviour. Other theorists believe that people think and behave in certain ways because they are taught to do so. This is known as the ‘nurture’ theory of human behaviour. (www.yourenglishlessons.wordpress.com) Nature refers to the inherited (genetic) characteristics and tendencies that influence development. Some inherited characteristics appear in virtually everyone. All children have a set of universal human genes that, when coupled with a reasonable environment, permit them to develop as reasonably capable members of the human species. Inherited characteristics and tendencies are not always evident at birth. Many physical features emerge gradually through the process of maturation, the genetically guided changes that occur over the course of development. Environmental support, and responsive care from others, is necessary for maturation to take place. Children’s experiences in the environment affect all aspects of their being, for example the health of their bodies or the curiosity of their minds. Nurture affects children’s development in many ways. With good environmental support, children thrive. Unfortunately, the conditions of nurture are not always nurturing. For example, children who grow up in an abusive family must look outside the family for stable, affectionate care. It is known that your genetics determine what you will look like and even your height. However your height  and looks can be changed if a person doesn’t eat properly or are in an accident. People can become anorexic, obese, anaemic etc. And all of these can affect how a person looks and their height. If a child is malnourished then this can cause their growth to deteriorate and they may develop problems like rickets. By looking at adoption studies it is shown that identical twins share similar intelligence whether they are brought up together or not. With this data we can make an argument that genetics has a greater influence in the intelligence of identical twins as well as the environment. Your IQ which is determined by your genes can also be af fected by the environment around an individual. If a person has not got as good school opportunities as another person with the same determined IQ, if they perhaps cannot go to a good as school as them or if their teachers are not as good as the other then they’re IQ will not be as developed as the other person which means that nurture also plays a part in a person’s IQ. (www.boundless.com) However in recent years there has been a growing realization that the question of â€Å"how much† behaviour is due to heredity and â€Å"how much† to environment may itself be the wrong question. Take intelligence as an example. Like almost all types of human behaviour it is a complex, many-sided phenomenon which reveals itself (or not!) in a great variety of ways. The â€Å"how much† question assumes that the variables can all be expressed numerically and that the issue can be resolved in a quantitative manner. The reality is that nature and culture interact in a host of qualitatively different ways. (McLeod 2007) Nature vs. nurture could refer to really intelligent people. One reason given for their being so gifted at learning and acquiring information might be that its in their genes. They have really intelligent parents; a high IQ i.e. their genetic makeup has enabled them to be intelligent. And likewise, you might argue the opposite for very unintelligent pe ople. (Nature) Whereas some people might argue that its how that person is raised. The child’s parents gave him all kinds of means to learn with, or encouraged his education from an early age, etc. The ‘less intelligent’ child’s parents, on the other hand, kicked him outside all day, kept him from school, called him stupid, etc. (Nurture) In my opinion, both nature and nurture have an effect on the development of an individual. Having read both sides, I personally believe that indeed nature does have a significant impact on the holistic development of the  individual. In my opinion, our personalities are related to our genetics. I have a very similar temperament to my father, which supports my view. My sister on the other hand, has a temperament which is very similar to my mum’s. Also, I believe that our intelligence is genetically driven. Some people are naturally more intelligent than others and this cannot be disputed. Of course, nurture with regards to intelligence and personality is also important. If a child experiences a lack of support with their education, they may not perform to the best of their ability. With that being said however, the level of support that the child receives does not actually alter their natural ability. Also, an individual may suffer a negative experience in their upbringing. This may result in their development being ‘altered’ or ‘different.’ Peer pressure also exists and therefore we must consider all of these extra factors regarding the development of individuals. Researchers have uncovered convincing links between parenting styles and the effects these styles have on children. During the early 1960’s, psychologist Diana Baumrind conducted a study on more than 100 preschool-age children (Baumrid, D. (1967) child-care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behaviour. Genetic psychology monographs, 75, 43-88). Using naturalistic observation, parental interviews and other research methods, she identified four important dimensions of parenting; disciplinary strategies, warmth and nurturance, communication styles and expectations of maturity and control. Based on these dimensions, Baumrind suggested that the majority of parents display one of three different parenting styles. Further research by Maccoby also suggested the addition of a fourth parenting style (Maccoby, E.E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical overview. Developmental psychology, 28, 1006-1017) The four parenting styles are: Authoritarian parenting: in this style of parenting, children are expected to follow the strict rules established by the parents. Failure to follow such rules usually results in punishment. Authoritarian parents fail to explain the reasoning behind these rules. If asked to explain, the parent might simply reply, ‘because I said so.’ These parents have high demands, but are not responsive to their children. Authoritarian parenting styles generally  lead to children who are obedient and proficient, but they rank lower happiness, social competence and self-esteem. Authoritative parenting: like authoritarian parents, those with an authoritative parenting style establish rules and guidelines that their children are expected to follow. However, this parenting style is much more democratic. Authoritative parents are responsive to their children and willing to listen to questions. When children fail to meet the expectations, the parents are more nurturing and forgiving rather than punishing. Authoritative parenting styles tend to result in children who are happy, capable and successful (Maccoby, 1992.) Permissive parenting: permissive parents, sometimes referred to as indulgent parents, have very few demands to make of their children. These parents rarely discipline their children because they have relatively low expectations of maturity and self-control. According to Baumrind, permissive parents ‘’are more responsive than they are demanding. They are non-traditional and lenient, do not require mature behaviour, allow considerable self-regulation, and avoid confrontation’’ (1991). Permissive parents are generally nurturing and communicative with their children, often taking on the status of a friend more than that of a parent. Permissive parenting often results in children who rank low in happiness and self-regulation. These children are more likely to experience problems with authority and tend to perform poorly in school. Uninvolved parenting: An uninvolved parenting style is characterized by few demands, low responsiveness and little communication. While these parents fulfil the child’s basic needs, they are generally detached from their child’s life. In extreme cases, these parents may even reject or neglect the needs of their children. Uninvolved parenting styles rank lowest across all life domains. These children tend to lack self-control, have low self-esteem and are less competent than their peers. It is extremely important for a parent to demonstrate good parenting skills. How parents interact with their child affects their development in a significant way. How a child is brought up could affect the child’s social skills, they could turn out to be too shy, suffer anxiety, get nervous around people or even become mute depending on their situations at home. If a child is bought up in a home with violence, they could grow up thinking that it is the normal thing to do. Similarly, if a child is brought up in a very stable and loving household, this could  enable them to be happier and enjoy life more and this could also help bring out their personality and feelings. I believe that this suggests that a person’s personality does take an effect on how they deal with their environmental surroundings and the person that they will grow to become. Nurture can significantly impact an adult’s emotional and social development. If someone was treated badly as a child, this may reflect on their personality and behaviour as an adult. The individual may be withdrawn and depressed. This could be caused by the negative experiences they had in their childhood. Also, if an adult is obese it may be as a result of nurture. If a child is brought up being allowed to eat nothing but junk food, they will consider this type of eating as ‘normal’. As a result of this, nurture has a significant impact on the physical development of a child and indeed an adult, with regards to obesity. We could argue however, that obesity is genetic and that is where nature is to blame. In a study that included more than 5,000 identical and non-identical twin pairs, researchers found heredity to be a much bigger predictor of childhood obesity than lifestyle. They concluded that three-quarters of a childs risk for becoming overweight is due to genetic influences, while just under a quarter of risk can be attributed to environmen t. Either way, both nature and nurture can have an impact on the physical development of an individual. (www.webmd.co.uk) I believe that if a child has grown up in a ‘rough area’ then it will be more likely that they might get into trouble with the police, in school etc. This may be because they have seen older children or maybe even adults do something they shouldn’t and this influences them to do the same. Drink and drugs may influence antisocial behaviour. If antisocial behaviour is seen as normal you may end up repeating the cycle. However, it is the parent’s responsibility to make sure that their child is safe. Therefore, I believe that environmental factors can change how a child behaves depending for example on where they live and what kind of people they are exposed to. I personally do not believe there is a correct answer to this debate. There is no way to prove how much influence each has in forming who we are, so we have to rely on logic and researc h that has been conducted regarding the issue. But each side has different interpretations of what evidence is available. I do believe however, that both nature and nurture play a significant part in our personal development but I believe  that they are equally as important, there is no ‘better’ theory. I believe that you are born with certain genetic traits and predispositions which influence how you react to your environment. Your environment shapes the person you are because it presents you with choices, challenges, and opportunities. Your genetic traits provide you with strengths and weaknesses. It is how you utilize those strengths to overcome the challenges, and take advantage of the opportunities, and of course the choices that you make that ultimately make you who you are. How does nature/nurture affect the development of Miya at 5 years old? Nature has a significant impact on the physical, intellectual, emotional and social development of Miya. During this stage of childhood, Miya will be going through a p eriod of growth. Miya’s physical development will be determined by her genes and this cannot be controlled. Growth is pre-determined by nature and therefore, it cannot be changed or stopped. Nurture also has a significant impact on Miya’s holistic development during this stage of her life. Parenting has a huge impact on her intellectual, emotional and social development. If Miya is fed a lot of junk food by her parents, then nurture would be responsible for her becoming overweight. Unless Miya is genetically programmed to become overweight, this would be at the fault of her parents for allowing her to eat too many unhealthy foods, and not providing her with a balanced diet. Also, nurture will impact significantly on Miya’s intellectual development. If she is encouraged to complete her homework e.g. by doing reading or simple maths with her parents, Miya will benefit intellectually. Also, if Miya’s parents did not take the time to do these activities with Miya her intellectual development may negatively be affected by nurture. In terms of emotional and social developmen t, nurture is significantly important at this stage of Miya’s life. If Miya is shown love, she will feel emotionally secure and accepted by her parents. Miya will be able to trust her parents and will expect affection and love from others if she is used to getting that at home. On the other hand however, if Miya experiences abuse from her parents, this can have devastating consequences on her emotional and social development both at this stage in her life and in the future. If Miya experiences abuse, she may have problems trusting people and this could continue on to her adulthood. How does nature/nurture affect the development of Miya at 14 years old? Nature/ Nurture have a  significant impact on Miya’s physical, intellectual, emotional and social development during this stage of the lifespan. In terms of her physical development, Miya will be going through puberty during this stage of her life. Puberty is controlled by nature. Puberty is genetically programmed, Miya cannot change that puberty will happen as it is determined by nature; the individual cannot change that it will eventually occur. Nature also affects Miya’s intellectual development. Miya will have a specific IQ which will determine her natural intelligence. Of course, through nurture, Miya can make the most of her IQ e.g. by encouragement to study, parents providing resources etc. but, her IQ cannot actually be changed as it is determined by nature. Miya’s IQ will be developed by nature, but it will be supported through the nurture she receives in her life. For example, by her parents and teachers supporting her to achieve her best possible outcomes in school. Nurture will have a major impact on the emotional and social development of Miya. During this time, peer pressure and the influence of her friends will be huge. As a result of peer pressure, Miya may engage in activities that she otherwise may not have considered (drinking, drugs etc.) With regards to her development, this may have a negative impact as Miya will most likely not be truly happy with the decisions she makes. The internet and social media will also have a significant impact on the development of Miya both socially and emotionally. Facebook will be a very important part of Miya’s life as she will want to keep in contact with friends by using this social networking site. If Miya uses Facebook correctly, it could be a positive experience. However, sometimes Facebook can result in bullying which could negatively impact on her social and emotional development at this point in her life. Nurture can also have an impact on the type of friends Miya may have. If Miya’s parents are strict, they may choose who she is allowed to/ not allowed to be friends with. This will affect Miya’s emotional and social development. If Miya is not allowed to socialise with certain people, she may become upset with the decisions her parents have made for her. Miya may rebel against her parents if she feels she hasn’t got enough freedom. If her parents are too strict, she may withdraw from talking to them as she might feel they will ‘judge’ her. As a result of this, Miya may not discuss concerns/worries she has and this could have a very negative impact on her emotional development. On the other hand  however, if Miya’s parents set reasonable boundaries the relationship may be better. Miya may feel more comfortable talking to her parents if they are not too strict. Also, Miya may be happier socially too. If she is allowed to socialise with who she wants, she will not feel the need to rebel against the restrictions that her parents create. References: McLeod, S. A. (2007). Nature Nurture in Psychology. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html (accessed 17/11/14) https://www.boundless.com/psychology/textbooks/boundless-psychology-textbook/intelligence-11/measuring-intelligence-62/genetic-and-environmental-impacts-on-intelligence-243-12778/) (accessed 19/11/14) http://yourenglishlessons.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/nature-vs-nurture-are-we-really-born-that-way/ (accessed 19/11/14) http://www.webmd.co.uk/children/news/20080211/nature-trumps-nurture-in-child-obesity (accessed 24/11/14)

Free Essay: Metamorphosis of Dimmesdale in Nathaniel Hawthornes The Scarlet Letter :: Scarlet Letter essays

The Metamorphosis of Dimmesdale in Scarlet Letter In The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne, there are many characters that transform; one of them is Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale. Dimmesdale committed a great sin of the puritan society, he slept with another mans wife and Hester Prynne became pregnant. Hester was punished for her sin but Arthur Dimmesdale had not admitted to it, so he lives with this guilt and it is much worst for him because he is a puritan minister. Dimmesdale inflicts punishment upon himself because of his adulterated sin. Dimmesdale transforms throughout the novel always in the same place "The Scaffold." The town is all out to witness the punishment of Hester Prynne some of the women are suggesting other punishments and the women are telling us about Hester and Dimmesdale. People say," said another, "that the Reverend Master Dimmesdale, her godly pastor, takes it very grievously to heart that such a scandal should have come upon his congregation." (Page 49) Reverend Dimmesdale is seen as a godly man. A man who does not commit sin and in his own mind at this point he feels fine and does not have any guilt. Dimmesdale at this point in the novel is seen as godly and throughout the novel is seen as godly even at the end after the last scaffold scene. Consequently enough, Dimmesdale is trying to convince Hester to reveal the man who has sinned along with her , so the man can be relieved of his guilt, some what ironic because he is the man who has sinned along side with her. "What can thy silence do for him, except it tempt him--yea, compel him, as it were--to add hypocrisy to sin? Heaven hath granted thee an open ignominy, that thereby thou mayest work out an open triumph over the evil within thee and the sorrow without. Take heed how thou deniest to him--who, perchance, hath not the courage to grasp it for himself--the bitter, but wholesome, cup that is now presented to thy lips!" (Page 65) This is the first scaffold scene Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale is not showing any signs of guilt at this point, he is still fairly the same and has not began to inflict punishment on himself or so it appears. Dimmesdale in the first scaffold scene seems fairly normal and has not begun to transform himself but by the next time we see him at the scaffold he is taken a turn for the worst.

Gun Control Essay

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