Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Violent Crimes’

Todays mayhem began in schools classrooms in 1962?

April 25th, 2011 2 comments

It is clearly seen the results of removing prayer and God from the public schools, from a nation of respect, liberty to a nation of crime , fear and violence. Take a read on todays news , so much killing, violent crimes against children, drugs, –america to pray or not to pray in 1988, by David Barton a reseracher a statistical look ,at what happened since .39 million students were ordered to stop praying in public schools.It records from 1962 to 1980,sat scores , divorces , teen pregnancies ,sexually transmitted diseases,, in 1962 violent crime was at a 138 per 100,000inhabitants to 583 per 100,000 inhabitants!In 1962 birth per unmarried women 15 to 19 yrs old ,were 15 % by 1983 it doubled to 28.5%.One can see the rapid escalation of all that is ngative in our world , since prayer was stopped.This is th deadly result of the removal of school prayer,producing the death spiral pervading our towns , no matter the size. In his farewell address ,Washington said "Of all the depositions and habits that leads to political prosperty ,religion and morality are indispensable supports…..and let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion ….reason and experience both forbid us to expect national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle’.And as this country plunges into madness , mayhem dragging the rest of the world , consider what it would be like had that tiny crowd of atheists not prevailed in 1962.

No. Ask any teacher, prayer has no effect on classroom management. However, the minimum wage began losing its value in 1969 and has never reached real dollar value since the 1968 minimum wage. So if parents didn’t have to work 2 and half jobs they’d probably have time to be the parent that helps a child succeed in school.

what is the main point of this essay? and greatest strength of the essay?

March 22nd, 2010 1 comment

Marijuana has been illegal since 1937, went the Senate passed the marijuana tax act. Since then many states have made marijuana legal for medicinal purposes. Marijuana, if legalized, could be very beneficial for our country. In the following paragraphs I will expose the benefits for legalizing marijuana. Even though marijuana is illegal, it should be made legal to help the economy and create new jobs.
Driven by the war on drugs, the United States prison population is six times higher than most western European countries. “The United States is second only to Russia in its incarnation rate per 100,000 people. In 2000 more than 734,000 people were arrested in this country for marijuana related offenses” (legalizationofmarijuana.com). The war on drugs places a high priority on arresting people for the use of marijuana. “Since 1990 nearly 5.9 million people have been arrested on marijuana related charges in the United States. This is a greater number than the populations of Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming combined. In 2000, state and local law enforcement arrested 734,498 people for marijuana violations. This is an increase of 800 percent since 1980, and is the highest ever recorded by the FBI “(legalizationofmarijuana.com). The number of marijuana related arrests greatly exceeds the number of arrests for violent crimes. Marijuana is far less dangerous than any other drug there is. There are fewer deaths each year from marijuana than alcohol, or even prescription drugs.
Last year the North Metro Task Force in Colorado seizes nearly 900 pounds of marijuana in the two counties it patrols (nmtf.us/statistics/statistics.htm). In the state of Georgia approximately 2,462 pounds of marijuana and $2,700,000 in cash have been seized in 2009(justice.gov/dea/pubs/states/newsrel/2009/atlanta102309a.html). As hard as I have tried I cannot find a total amount of marijuana seized or its value to give an accurate total of how much money could be put back into the economy by legalizing marijuana. You can imagine though just how much it really is from the amount seized in just one state and two counties from another state and the total amount of money being well over two million dollars just how much it will help the economy to legalize marijuana. The president is giving all these tax rebates to stimulate the economy, when legalizing marijuana will put more money into the economy than most people realize.
The United States government taxes cigarettes at a rate of $1.0066 per pack (usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2009-03-31-cigarettetax_N.htm), the taxes imposed on marijuana could be at least that much funneling more money into the economy. Also by legalizing marijuana the prison population would be greatly reduced cutting the amount of tax payer’s money used to fund these prisons. By doing this more tax money could be used to help settle our national debt. Marijuana has already been made legal in many states for medical uses. These states have monitored farms where the marijuana is grown and distributed. These farms have created jobs in these states where marijuana is legal for medicinal purposes. Legalizing marijuana for the general public will have the same effect. Jobs will be created lowering the unemployment rate and boosting the economy by giving the people without a job a chance to get a job. By these people having jobs they will have money to funnel back into the economy. If demand is up for products in areas affected by this recession the companies will hire more people to boost production and meet the demands of their clientele. This is just another thing that the government has over looked in their reasoning as to why to keep marijuana illegal.
“Policymakers in the United States claim that marijuana use is hazardous, often leading to the use of more potent drugs, such as cocaine and heroin where this is just not true. As of 2000, eight states had passed laws allowing seriously ill patients to take marijuana as a prescription pain-control substance. However, people who grow, buy, or use the drug for such purposes can be arrested and prosecuted under federal law. Marijuana is the product of Cannabis sativa, a hemp plant, and it refers specifically to the plant’s leaves and flowers. Used for centuries as a painkiller, it has become popular as a recreational drug that produces a general feeling of well-being. Marijuana is known by a variety of alternative names—including marihuana, pot, weed, and grass. It is illegal in most countries, although some nations have lowered the penalties for owning or using small amounts of the drug. Movements have formed to legalize marijuana, at least for medical purposes, but critics of such efforts argue that the drug does more harm than good. Usually dried, crushed, and smoked in pipes or hand-rolled cigarettes, marijuana can also be consumed in food or drink. Users may experience both physical and psychological e

Main point: There are numerous benefits to rescinding the federal laws prohibiting the production, distribution, and use of marijuana.

Strength: Makes a good case for economic benefit of legalization.

Weaknesses: Grammar-punctuation-spelling-other language mechanics. Get a proofreader!

Correction: in this sentence, “The United States is second only to Russia in its incarnation rate per 100,000 people”, the 11th word should be "incarceration" (imprisonment) rather than "incarnation" (lifetime in a particular body).

Help proofreading and give suggestions for this paper?

March 20th, 2010 1 comment

Marijuana has been illegal since 1937, went the Senate passed the marijuana tax act. Since then many states have made marijuana legal for medicinal purposes. Marijuana, if legalized, could be very beneficial for our country. In the following paragraphs I will expose the benefits for legalizing marijuana. Even though marijuana is illegal, it should be made legal to help the economy and create new jobs.
Driven by the war on drugs, the United States prison population is six times higher than most western European countries. “The United States is second only to Russia in its incarnation rate per 100,000 people. In 2000 more than 734,000 people were arrested in this country for marijuana related offenses” (legalizationofmarijuana.com). The war on drugs places a high priority on arresting people for the use of marijuana. “Since 1990 nearly 5.9 million people have been arrested on marijuana related charges in the United States. This is a greater number than the populations of Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming combined. In 2000, state and local law enforcement arrested 734,498 people for marijuana violations. This is an increase of 800 percent since 1980, and is the highest ever recorded by the FBI “(legalizationofmarijuana.com). The number of marijuana related arrests greatly exceeds the number of arrests for violent crimes. Marijuana is far less dangerous than any other drug there is. There are fewer deaths each year from marijuana than alcohol, or even prescription drugs.
Last year the North Metro Task Force in Colorado seizes nearly 900 pounds of marijuana in the two counties it patrols (nmtf.us/statistics/statistics.htm). In the state of Georgia approximately 2,462 pounds of marijuana and $2,700,000 in cash have been seized in 2009(justice.gov/dea/pubs/states/newsrel/2009/atlanta102309a.html). As hard as I have tried I cannot find a total amount of marijuana seized or its value to give an accurate total of how much money could be put back into the economy by legalizing marijuana. You can imagine though just how much it really is from the amount seized in just one state and two counties from another state and the total amount of money being well over two million dollars just how much it will help the economy to legalize marijuana. The president is giving all these tax rebates to stimulate the economy, when legalizing marijuana will put more money into the economy than most people realize.
The United States government taxes cigarettes at a rate of $1.0066 per pack (usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2009-03-31-cigarettetax_N.htm), the taxes imposed on marijuana could be at least that much funneling more money into the economy. Also by legalizing marijuana the prison population would be greatly reduced cutting the amount of tax payer’s money used to fund these prisons. By doing this more tax money could be used to help settle our national debt. Marijuana has already been made legal in many states for medical uses. These states have monitored farms where the marijuana is grown and distributed. These farms have created jobs in these states where marijuana is legal for medicinal purposes. Legalizing marijuana for the general public will have the same effect. Jobs will be created lowering the unemployment rate and boosting the economy by giving the people without a job a chance to get a job. By these people having jobs they will have money to funnel back into the economy. If demand is up for products in areas affected by this recession the companies will hire more people to boost production and meet the demands of their clientele. This is just another thing that the government has over looked in their reasoning as to why to keep marijuana illegal.
“Policymakers in the United States claim that marijuana use is hazardous, often leading to the use of more potent drugs, such as cocaine and heroin where this is just not true. As of 2000, eight states had passed laws allowing seriously ill patients to take marijuana as a prescription pain-control substance. However, people who grow, buy, or use the drug for such purposes can be arrested and prosecuted under federal law. Marijuana is the product of Cannabis sativa, a hemp plant, and it refers specifically to the plant’s leaves and flowers. Used for centuries as a painkiller, it has become popular as a recreational drug that produces a general feeling of well-being. Marijuana is known by a variety of alternative names—including marihuana, pot, weed, and grass. It is illegal in most countries, although some nations have lowered the penalties for owning or using small amounts of the drug. Movements have formed to legalize marijuana, at least for medical purposes, but critics of such efforts argue that the drug does more harm than good. Usually dried, crushed, and smoked in pipes or hand-rolled cigarettes, marijuana can also be consumed in food or drink. Users may experience both physical and psychological e

This is lacking the structure of a good paper. See the link. It needs an introduction and a conclusion. The 1937 Marihuana Tax Act did not criminalize marijuana in the USA. Be specific such as The US Senate or the US marijuana act. It is "The President" and he is not the one giving all these tax rebates. This is a weak argument and the US legislators (The Congress and Senate) pass laws that provide the Stimulus monies. Umm – this is incorrect "Marijuana is the product of Cannabis sativa, a hemp plant, and it refers specifically to the plant’s leaves and flowers". The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 legitimized the use of the term "marihuana" as a label for hemp and cannabis plants and products in the USA. Turn on your spell check and use a dictionary to check the words you use. Make a good out line. Good luck.

There’s no evidence that banning guns cuts crime(WHAT DO YOU THINK)?

January 2nd, 2010 3 comments

John R. Lott Jr.

is a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland

Philadelphia had 406 homicides in 2007, and, at 28 per 100,000 people, it also had the highest murder rate of any major city in the United States. No wonder Philadelphians want things done.

Recently, the city focused on a new tragedy, the murder of a 12-year police veteran and father of three, Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski, by three bank robbers with long, violent criminal records.

To Gov. Rendell, Mayor Nutter, Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, and freshman U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, the solution is simple: more gun control. After pushes failed for new state and local laws, last Thursday these four politicians announced that the solution to Philadelphia’s problems was re-enacting the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

They focused on the Chinese SKS rifle used to shoot Liczbinski five times. Rendell claims that "the only people who should have weapons like this is the police and the military." Some are calling the SKS an "assault weapon," although it is not so defined in any federal law and is not banned as such. And although the phrase assault weapon conjures up images of the rapid-fire machine guns used by the military, the SKS rifle is not a machine gun, instead functioning the same way as any semiautomatic hunting rifle. It fires a bullet similar to (indeed, slightly less powerful than) those fired from deer-hunting rifles, with the exact same rapidity.

This debate might make more sense if there were some evidence that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban lowered crime rates, but all the published academic studies by criminologists and economists find that neither the initial ban in 1994 nor its sun-setting in 2004 changed rates of murder or other violent crimes. Similarly, there is no evidence that state bans have mattered.

For example, a report for the National Institute of Justice by Christopher Koper, Daniel Woods and Jeffrey Roth at the University of Pennsylvania’s Jerry Lee Center of Criminology studied the first nine years of the federal ban and found that "we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence." They note that "the gun-ban provision targets a relatively small number of weapons based on outward features or accessories that have little to do with the weapons’ operation."

Even gun control groups realize that the presence or absence of such laws make little difference. Before the federal law sunset, a representative for the Violence Policy Center, a gun control group, said that "if the existing assault-weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another in terms of our objective, which is reducing death and injury and getting a particularly lethal class of firearms off the streets." The center argued that the law involved only "minor changes in appearance."

Indeed, the U.S. murder rate was 5.7 per 100,000 people in 2003, the last full year before the law sunset. It was still 5.7 in 2006. Over the same period, the rate of violent crimes fell slightly. In the 43 states without their own assault-weapons bans, the murder rates fell, while they rose in the seven states with such bans. Violent-crime rates fell more quickly in the 43 without bans than in the seven states with them.

Yet it always seems easier for politicians to blame the lack of gun control rather than focusing on their own responsibilities. When Washington and Chicago experienced explosions in murder and violent crime after banning handguns, leaders there did not blame their bans, but rather they blamed the rest of the country that had not also adopted stricter regulations.

Ultimately, however, is it really surprising that Philadelphia’s murder rates have risen while its arrest rates have fallen?

Former state House Speaker John Perzel proposed a different approach (an approach Rendell opposes) to fix Philadelphia’s low and falling arrest rates. Perzel’s solution? Help Philadelphia hire more police.

If politicians are unwilling to spend more money on police or to make the police force work more effectively, there is another solution: Encourage law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. One possibility is to eliminate fees for poor law-abiding people, those who are the most vulnerable victims of crime, to obtain concealed-handgun permits. If the government isn’t going to protect people, why charge them for the opportunity to defend themselves? Research by David Mustard at the University of Georgia also found that more concealed-handgun permits reduce the number of criminals with guns and thus reduce violence against police officers.

Obsessing on gun control proposals distracts from doing what works. At some point it should be obvious to everyone, even politicians, that all the hype about "assault weapons" is just wrong.
I agree that when you take guns away from responsibility of owners all your doing is making the criminal job easer. The money that is wasted on gun control can be used to hire more cops and make the gun laws tougher against criminals.

Thank you for taking the time to lay out reasonable arguments. Serious discussion is needed to move forward here, and I appreciate your contribution. I think one of the issues we need to consider is what I might call, "I can take care of myself." Just give me a gun, and I’ll be just fine. The problem with this, is that there are other people, like Cripps and Bloods and M13 and a whole host of other groups that would be happy to tote around Mach10s, Tech9s, Uzis — modern day street sweepers, and suddenly the cops and everyone else is outgunned and hiding. It’s the flip side of, "I can take care of myself." It’s called, "I can rule the (block/neighborhood/town/borough)." What looked like safety just starts to look hairy. One guy with a 50 cal. sniper rifle and a home-made silencer could ruin your whole day from a thousand yards out.