Causal Rewrite–NamasteBean

Social Media Use Has Severely Different Outcomes Depending On Whom Is Using

        Why is it that some people can go hours without being in the same room as their phone while others experience anxiety if they have not checked their social media within the last ten minutes? Unfortunately for most, the second scenario is the case.  A new Pew Center Research Survey done in 2018 of the U.S  on social media demographics found that 78% of 18-24 year olds use Snapchat and within that same group, 71% of them check the social platform multiple times a day. That sure seems excessive, but that same study revealed that  68% of adults (25+) in the U.S. belong to Facbook and more than half of those adults “admitted” to at least going on the site at least once a day. This causes confusion on what is considered immoderate; checking your facebook once a day is nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, it’s normal in this day and age. So, what seperates the group of people that can control their social media use and those who are completely indulged?

Let’s first take a look different personalities and how they may affect one’s social media use. Openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism are all factors to help measure one’s personality. In a research study done by  Isaac Vaghefi and Hamed Qahri-Saremi using these five factors, found that people who experience anxiety and stress more often than others (neuroticism) are highly more likely to become addicted to social media. People who are more dedicated and focused (conscientiousness,) are apparently far less likely to become so engufled in their social platforms. Howevever, you can not just lump everyone in these two categories to decipher if they could have a social media problem, it really is not that simple. Being more dedicated than most doesn’t necessarily  keep you safe from becoming hypnotized by your phone. The same research found that people who are generally focused and dedicated could still fall into social media addiction if they also experience stress and anxiety. The same goes for agreeablness and conscientiousness; when a person is empathetic and friendly, they are more likely to use social media in excess and mixed with high levels of dediation, this could vastly increase the likelihood of a person becoming addicted to social media.

If you’re one of the lucky few that do not fall victim to the false world of social media, than the chances of you experincing negative outcomes from the use of your phone are slim to none. Unfortunately for the rest of us neurotics, our mental health could very likey be at stake. Research has found that Facebook has been linked straight to cause sadness and overall low life satisfaction to its heavy users, and this could surely be said for phone applications such as instagram and twitter. Comparing your life to others is something that is done unintentionally when using social media so, when it is happening every day twenty, thirty times a day this can lead a person in to depression. The worst part is, the lives that we are envious of on social media are not true in reality. We only post what we want the world to see; an instagram model may post a selfie every day looking flawless, dressed in the most doiley fashions, but what she may not be posting about is her eating disorder Facebook has been linked straight to cause sadness and overall low life satisfaction to its heavy users, and this could surely bet or the fact that her pictures are highly filtered. This can affect one’s mental health because since they are not seeing the truth, they can not grasp why they can not reach these frankly, untangable standards.

 

References

Vaghefi, Isaac. “A Combination of Personality Traits Might Make You More Addicted to Social Networks.” EurekAlert!, AAAS, 12 Mar. 2018, eurekalert.com/.

“The Negative Impacts of Social Media Addiction.” Castle Craig Hospital, Castle Craig Hospital , 2018, castlecraig.co.uk/.

Schurgin O’Keefe, Gwenn, and Kathleen Clarke-Pearson. “The Impact of Social Media on Children, Adolescents, and Families.” AAP News & Journals Gateway, Council of Communications and Media, 11 Apr. 2011, pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/4/800.short.

 

Causal Rewrite-jokerthefool

What our searches after shootings say about us

Analyzing search trends after violent crimes provides insight into the intentions of the people searching. There are distinct groups created after a polarizing event happens. Some people search because they want to know more about the event, others search because they want to write about it, and others search because they want to prove their friends wrong. After a violent shooting blamed on video games happens, there is an increase in searches for topics like “gun control”, “video games”, and “shootings”, because people want to gather information for their own day to day arguments. Each of our key-words are searched in varying levels, depending on the group. Evidence suggest that not all of these groups are affected when a violent crime occurs because they don’t have a need for the information the internet offers.

The first group of people, who just want general information are the easiest to identify and examine. Their intentions are the easiest to guess at as well. They want information about violent crimes because they like finding out the information for themselves. After a shooting that happens, that’s blamed on video games they tend to react the least. These people don’t really care about what the shooting was blamed, they just want to know what the “what” is. For the most part, they also just want to be in the know of things that are happening in the United States. This group is created from anything big happening. There is always a hunger for information that people naturally have, regardless of whether that information is accurate. This is how fake news is spread often, because people simply want information of some kind relating to a topic. After a violent crime, this group tends to be the one’s searching for “shooting” the most, as they only have limited information and want more. For example someone unfamiliar with the Parkland incident in 2017, would likely search “Florida shooting”.

The second group, is the group of people who search to write about, or report the topics. Now this group is interesting because they are created for a purpose. The last group didn’t necessarily have a purpose outside of simply acquiring information, regardless of what the information entails. This group searches the most and for the sole purpose of getting the most accurate information. Most people who report on, or write about a subject want to have reliable information so they will obviously do quite a bit of searching. This group is also less interested in the “what” unless they are writing specifically about that. This group is significant because they are the group that takes information for their own benefit. The first group is mostly focused on acquiring some kind of information, while this group acquires accurate information that backs up their own opinion. A good example of this is news outlets. They will acquire accurate information of events, but may tweak what the causes, or effects are of the event to suite the message they are trying to send to their audience. A more right leaning outlet may focus less on ideas like gun control because they don’t even want that topic coming up. Now this group is the group that focuses the most of their searches on terms like “gun control”, “mental health”, and “shooting”. They want to see a correlation between these terms so that they can either include them in their own argument, or leave them out if they don’t agree with their point of view.

The last group of people is the group that searches to bolster their own personal arguments. Now this group isn’t writing for any outlet, or paper, so they don’t tend to be focused too much on accurate information. In fact, they mostly search for terms and ideas that only support their argument, not even acknowledging the other side for the most part. This group tends to search for all the key terms because they want to find a link of any kind between the terms in order to make their personal arguments sounder. This group searches the most out of any group because they are the group that makes up a majority of the searches. Directly after a violent crime happens that’s blamed on violent media, people either take the side of for or against. Are video games to blame for a violent crime, or is that a bunch of crap? People storm the internet searching not only for the answer, but one that satisfies them. It’s honestly extremely logical if we consider how many people want to prove themselves right. Especially if they are in an argument with their friends, or family about a topic. This is why the search trends increase so much after big shootings like the Sandy Hook, Parkland, and Las Vegas shootings.

 

 

References

Kilgarriff, Adam, et al. “DIACRAN: A Framework for Diachronic Analysis.” Lexical Computing, 2013.

Ramat, Anna Giacalone, et al. Synchrony and Diachrony: a Dynamic Interface. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2013, books.google.com/books?id=YdnA6nBjXjAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:9027272077&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQj6TkzY7eAhUyTd8KHQIXBiAQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q&f=false.

Rogers, Simon. “What Is Google Trends Data – and What Does It Mean?” Medium, Google News Lab, 1 July 2016, medium.com/google-news-lab/what-is-google-trends-data-and-what-does-it-mean-b48f07342ee8.

Campbell, C. (2018, March 10). A brief history of blaming video games for mass murder. Retrieved November 28, 2018, from https://www.polygon.com/2018/3/10/17101232/a-brief-history-of-video-game-violence-blame

 

Causal Rewrite-muggastackz

Applying Pressure

In the world today, society links everything together to receive satisfaction regardless if it is negative or positive. There will always be a crime in the world, but there are ways to help to reduce the amount of crime happening and to reduce the crime rate. Communities are in fearful trouble because crime gradually gets worse each day and they want things to go back to normal. Crime and crime rate comes with many questions and analysis that leave members of society puzzled. If there is a failure to reporting the crime, will crime get worst? Is social media and technology helping create more crime? Can police help reduce the amount of crime?

Failure to report crimes will lead to more crime. Society is fearful for what is going to happen next if they tell the police or people in the neighborhood. People in each community knows what is going on in the area, but they are nervous that they will be the next victim. People in urban areas will be called names like a ‘snitch’ if they told the police what they saw or heard. People in the community who are aware of the crime is only making their community better. When a crime isn’t reported, this will continue to grow in areas and will continue to get worst yearly. Most crime goes unreported in some urban areas. People in the community feel that not reporting the crime rate will help the situation when in reality, everything is getting worse. More crimes will continue to happen if they aren’t reported to the police because the community will be afraid that they will be the next victims of the future crime committed. Reported crimes are what makes statistics go down each year.

Steven Donziger writes, “The National Crime Victimization Survey, begun in 1973, is administered by the US Census Bureau. Approximately 40,000 households to determine how many people were victimized by one of seven crimes in the past year. The crimes recorded are rape, robbery, assault, personal theft, household theft, burglary, and motor vehicle theft.” Victims of crime will continue to feel that they are victims. According to John Gramlich, a researcher for Pew Research Center finds “In 2016, only 42% of the violent crime tracked by BJS was reported; And in the much more common category of property crime, only about a third (36%) were reported.” Society feels that nothing will happen if they report a crime. The more crime is reported, people in communities can feel safe knowing that a person has been found.

Everyone in the world uses social media, whether it is used to keep in touch with family, being updated with daily news or worldly events, or to show photos dealing with personal life. Children of today use social media and technology more than adults do. The press creates more crime daily; police brutality, discrimination, self-defense, etc. Brittni Brown, writer for International Policy Digest, states “In listening to and reading all of these reports about police and crime in the media, it is not hard to conclude that crime is on the rise everywhere and that the United States is no longer a safe place and allowing children to play in the front yard is risky.” Everything that deals with a crime is being plastered in the media to make a situation bigger. Media can be useful to keep people update, and it can also be harmful because jumping to conclusions can create a war that effects everyone.
Technology is Connected to an increase in crime. Both this paragraph and the previous are connected. If a child in an urban community is inside on their phones or playing games systems, they are less likely to be influenced by their neighborhoods friends. If a child in an urban city is inside on their phones or playing games systems, they are less likely to be affected by their neighborhoods friends, but these video games are very violent. These video games are introducing guns, drugs, robbery, gang affiliation at a young age. Michael Casey, a journalist for CBS News, writes “Over 90 percent of children play video games, with 85 percent of those games containing some violence.” Violent games result in violent behavior. We see mass shooting happening frequently; these shootings are always in the media which allows individuals to do the same thing. Casey finds that “Adam Lanza gunned down 20 children and six teachers Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. It later turned out that he was obsessed with violent video games.” Young people pick this trait up from the games they are playing. Videos games that are violent are giving youth a lousy outlook for their lives and others around them.

Crime prevention is something police officers do as a part of their job along with enforcing the law. Reporting crime will reduce the attractiveness of crime. The government and the police work together to try to reduce crime and how crime rates could drop. The criminal justice system is finding theories that could help urban communities reduce the amount of crime happening in those areas. Police and the government see that crime will increase every day so what can they do to fix everything. If police are brought on the street to help communities, less crime will happen. Lind and Lopez, writers for Vox.com, write, “while the number of police can affect crime rates, crime rates also affect the number of police. When crime rises, cities hire more police in response.” Lind and Lopez also state that “Research on specific areas, as well as the US as a whole, found that hiring more police helped decrease crime.” Crime, in general, was worst decades ago then what it is now and those models didn’t affect anyway in society. Crime, drugs, and gangs were more so a problem in the ’80s, and 90’s then in the 00’s and present day.

Brown, Brittni. “Is the Media Altering Our Perceptions of Crime?” International Policy Digest, International Policy Digest, 6 Nov. 2018, intpolicydigest.org/2015/03/11/is-the-media-altering-our-perceptions-of-crime/.

Casey, Michael. “Do Violent Video Games Lead to Criminal Behavior?” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 17 Aug. 2015, www.cbsnews.com/news/do-violent-video-games-lead-to-criminal-behavior/.

Donziger, Steven. “Measures of Crime.” Www.andrew.cmu.edu, www.andrew.cmu.edu/course/79-331/measures.html.

Gramlich, John. “5 Facts about Crime in the U.S.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 30 Jan. 2018, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/30/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/.

Lind, Dara, and German Lopez. “16 Theories for Why Crime Plummeted in the US.” Vox.com, Vox Media, 20 May 2015, www.vox.com/2015/2/13/8032231/crime-drop.

Causal Rewrite – ivonid12

Credit where Credit is Due

The MVP trophy in any sport always goes to who is considered the best player in the league that year, and on their team. It is a measure of the players great accomplishments in comparison to the rest of the best in their league. The competition is always fierce, but every year a player is voted by the Associated Press and is deemed the best, In the NFL, the league is disgustingly biased towards quarterbacks in their voting, as in the league’s history, exactly one defensive player player won the MVP award, with a few cases of running backs able to win the award as well. The absolute dismissal of the defensive player in recognition is disrespectful, and must end as soon as possible. Without a defense with great players, the quarterback wouldn’t nearly have the same success as he would with a bad defense. A great defensive player creates opportunities for that great quarterback and team, as without those opportunities by that great defensive player, the  quarterback cannot make his great plays possible.

The objective of any defense in the NFL is easy in concept. Get the opposing team’s offense off the field so the offense go and put points on the board. The best way to do that is to force a turnover. Whether it is a sack, fumble recovery, interception, or touchdown, the defense forcing turnovers is what provides an offense with the best chance to succeed. According to past history, a majority of MVP quarterbacks are those with defenses that force a good amount of turnovers. For example, in 2010, Tom Brady was the  first unanimously voted MVP in NFL history, and had an amazing year leading the Patriots to the Super Bowl. Brady was undoubtedly great, but his defense gave him plenty of opportunities, as the 2010 New England Patriots were second in turnovers on defense. The 2010 New England Patriots had many great defensive players that season, however as with most great defenses, the defensive got a significant boost from their best player. According to Pro Football Reference, Devin McCourty, a defensive back, on his own forced nine of the 38 turnovers the Patriots forced as a team, as he had seven interceptions, and two forced fumbles. McCourty forced just a hair under a quarter of his team’s turnovers by himself, yet he wasn’t even considered as an MVP candidate as opposed to his quarterback teammate. Another prime example of a quarterback’s great offensive season overshadowing an even better and more valuable performance by a defensive player is the 2011 Green Bay Packers, and their MVP winning quarterback Aaron Rodgers. The great defensive performance that season was by future hall of fame defensive back Charles Woodson who, in comparison to McCourty mentioned before, had an even better year. In 2011, Woodson led the league in interceptions with seven, had two sacks, forced a fumble, and even scored a touchdown on defense, all at the age of 35. Woodson had an absolutely outstanding season at the very old age of 35 as a defensive back, yet he received no consideration for MVP. Also, due to the performance of the defense and Woodson, the Packers were also third in starting field position as a team, undeniably caused by the defensive contributions of Woodson. Woodson undeniably impacted his team the most that year, and was easily the best and most valuable player on the filed for his team. Yet despite his efforts, was never considered for MVP as his teammate took home the award.

Turnovers are crucial to winning a football game. It is also crucial to win MVP for a quarterback. In fact, for 75% of the teams in which the NFL MVP came from since the 2000 to 2017 seasons, the team was in the upper half of the league for turnovers. The NFL MVP must’ve had a defense providing plenty of opportunities for the offense, further cementing the fact that defenses and its stars deserve more credit, and are more valuable. If the defense provides more opportunities for the offense, the offense succeeds as a whole. Along with turnovers comes the field position that they provide. Usually when defenses give up points, the kickoff sets the offense on the 25 yard-line to start their next drive due to a touchback, unless the returner decides to make a return in which it could be more or less field position. However, if a turnover is made, a majority of the time the offense gets great field position. With great field position, not only can the defense demoralize the opponent after a turnover, the ability to score is so much easier.  The less field you have to drive down, the easier it is to score, all caused by a great play made in the defense. Turnovers also negatively impact the opposing team’s defense as well. We’re all humans playing in the NFL, and we only have a certain amount of energy before we need a break to refresh and maintain our abilities. Whenever defenses force a turnover, that break the defense could so desperately need is cut short, and now they’re back on the field to try and stop that offense. With less time for a break however, their chances of stopping that offense diminish further. The quarterback cannot make plays and put up stats if never given enough opportunities. Additionally the quarterback can make more plays and given a better chance to put up numbers if given great field position. Lastly, opposing defenses cannot make plays if the great defenses always bring them back on the field.

However, undoubtedly the most biased and disrespectful case for a defensive player not winning MVP was for J.J Watt of the Houston Texans in 2014. J.J Watt accounted for a majority of the Houston Texan’s production in 2014, and was easily the main cause for their winning record. Watt had an unbelievable season in 2014, as he notched twenty and a half sacks, four forced fumbles, recovered five fumbles, lead the league in tackles for a loss with 29, scored a touchdown with an interception as a defensive lineman, and to top it all off, scored three more touchdowns playing offense. When has a NFL quarterback produced on both sides of the ball, dominating on one, and being quite productive on the other? J.J Watt was easily the most valuable player on any field in 2014,  and while he did receive votes for MVP, he still ultimately lost out to Aaron Rodgers in 2014. Watt’s season was greater than Lawrence Taylor’s MVP season, in an era of more productive offenses, yet he still didn’t receive the credit he deserved.

Defensive stars are undoubtedly the best players on the field, and deserve more recognition for MVP. Not only due their defensive efforts cause more opportunities for the offense, defenses have the ability to score and put up points as well. It is time we recognize those truly great defensive seasons for what they are, a representation of the most valuable player on the field that season.

 

References

“2010 New England Patriots Statistics & Players.” Pro-Football-Reference.com, http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/2010.htm.

“2011 Green Bay Packers Statistics & Players.” Pro-Football-Reference.com, http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb/2011.htm.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/awards/ap-nfl-mvp-award.htm

“J.J. Watt Stats.” Pro-Football-Reference.com, http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WattJ.00.htm.

Causal Rewrite- Flowers3399

Pharmaceuticals vs. Marijuana

There are different forms of anxiety but the most common is generalized anxiety. This can be caused by stress or a traumatic event and it sometimes can be genetic. The anxiety caused by mental illness can interfere with relationships, job performance, academic achievement, and the simplest of daily activities. While some resort to smoking weed, pharmaceuticals are more effective at reducing anxiety.

Anxiety causes a feeling of constant worrying or fear. These feelings can then make it hard for the person with the disorder to complete daily activities. It can also bring hardship to their families. In the article “Causes and Effects of anxiety,” it states, “He or she fears the worst outcome in every situation, even if it is illogical… person may even admit or know logically that such fears are irrational, he or she will be unable to stop the persistent worry.” Those who have anxiety experience that constant fear every day. They are not able to disregard their feelings even if they know they are being illogical. Anxiety can lead to sleeping issues, trouble interacting with others, no motivation, and disruption in other daily activities like work and school. Having trouble making it through the days without a sense of fear or worrying is rare for someone with anxiety.

Marijuana is used by a number of people. It can be smoked, an edible, or can even be a supplement. Prescriptions for weed can be filled out for medical reasons but for the most part, it is smoked recreationally. Some people with anxiety smoke weed to get high because the high is what does the reducing and relieving. However, smoking marijuana does not fully help reduce anxiety. Smoking it, in fact, can cause more anxiety or even heighten it. This can happen if it is smoked in low or high dosages. In the article, “Marijuana and Anxiety | Does Marijuana Help Anxiety or Cause it?”, it says “… marijuana can bring symptoms of anxiety or can heighten their existing anxiety.” For some, it can even bring about mental disorder. There are short and long-term effects that occur when using weed. The short-terms consist of but are not limited to heightened anxiety, short-term memory, increased heart rate, and a short attention span. The long-term effects are a little more alarming. These effects consist of breathing issues, depression, and changes in brain functions. Marijuana is not the drug to resort to when trying to reduce anxiety.

Pharmaceuticals are the most effective way of reducing anxiety. Those who have anxiety have many medication options to chose from. The most common medication choice is Benzodiazepines. This medication is used a lot because it is faster acting than the other anti-anxiety medication. Benzodiazepines alone have many different types of medication that can help with anxiety. Some of those include Xanax, Valium, and Ativan. All of these drugs are effective for treating anxiety. The cause of using Benzos is to reduce anxiety and to be able to daily activities with more ease. Using these medicines can significantly help relieve anxiety. In the article “Benzodiazepines(BZs),” the author states: “Studies suggest that they are effective in reducing symptoms of anxiety in approximately 70-80% of patients.” These medications have helped more people compared to marijuana. Medications reduce anxiety, bring a sense of relaxation, and can make it easier to get through the day. Those who use pharmaceuticals experience instant relief from anxiety. Taking medication can allow someone with anxiety to not have to go around with that constant fear and worry.

When it comes to deciding how to reduce anxiety the best way to do it is by taking pharmaceuticals. The medications are fast acting and bring relief instantly versus weed which could take awhile. Anti-anxiety medicines also do not tend to heighten anxiety like marijuana does. Having anti-anxiety pharmaceuticals guarantees a life filled with more ease.

 

References

“Anxiety Causes & Effects | Covington Behavioral Health Hospital.” Covington, www.covingtonbh.com/anxiety/signs-symptoms/.

Bowden, Ellie. “Marijuana and Anxiety | Does Marijuana Help Anxiety or Cause It?” The Recovery Village, 17 Oct. 2017, www.therecoveryvillage.com/marijuana-addiction/marijuana-anxiety-marijuana-help-anxiety-cause/#gref.

“Benzodiazepines (BZs).” Anxieties.com, www.anxieties.com/157/benzodiazepines-bzs#.W9EljRNKhAY.

Causal Rewrite – CarsonWentz11

The Motives for Murders

The crime of murdering another human is not something people do for enjoyment, unless they are a psychopath, which is why one could question why there were still 17,184 murders in the United States last year.  Because committing murder is such a heinous act, something or someone really needs to motivate the killer to commit the crime.  Criminals have stated many reasons for murdering people, and motives such as, revenge, domestic arguments, money or drug incidences, and alcohol related arguments are the most common.  All these common motives, usually have something to do with the murderer and the victim knowing each other and that is quite common.  According to the FBI’s “Crime in the United States 2011,” “In 2011, in incidents of murder for which the relationships of murder victims and offenders were known, 54.3 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.); 24.8 percent of victims were slain by family members.”

There are a lot of murders that are committed by people who are very close to the victims, so something major must have really happened for those murders to take place.  When thinking about close relationships, the main one is marriage and family. Domestic arguments that lead to domestic abuse is the reason for a big portion of female homicides.  The same FBI report states, “Of the female murder victims for whom the relationships to their offenders were known, 36.5 percent were murdered by their husbands or boyfriends.”  Domestic violence is a horrible thing to happen, but arguments in relationships and at home, that lead to violence, is sadly one of the largest causes for murder in our country.

Along with relationships and marriages, a common belief that revenge murder after relationship issues, like cheating, happens a lot is untrue.  Getting caught cheating on someone can make the other person in the relationship very angry and they might want to murder the person their girl or boy friend was cheating on, but not many actually act on their fantasies.  In fact, according to the NPR, in 2009 only 89 murders were committed out of sexual jealously.

Another major cause for homicides is actually from actions from other crimes.  Two main crimes that leads to homicides, which also has to do with the motive of money, is robbery and burglaries.  A lot of stealing crimes go into those two similar crimes, and sometimes when events go wrong, or too much is at stake, that’s when things can take a turn for the worse.  Even a far more worse crime than stealing, rape, also leads to a percentage of homicides.  The FBI reports, “Felony circumstances (rape, robbery, burglary, etc.) accounted for 23.1 percent of murders.”   Robbery and burglary are two crimes in which the criminal is trying to steal something, mostly to gain off of it.  Either if its money, or if its valuable items that can be sold for money, some people will do a lot for money, especially if they desperately need it.

Drugs and alcohol also can play a huge role in motives for homicides.  First, drugs and alcohol can very well impair people’s thoughts and actions, in which then could lead to making someone more angry and possibly act on that anger.  Even though drugs and alcohol can both impair people’s thought processes, alcohol is much more involved in homicides than drugs like cocaine and heroin.  A quote from the Alcohol Rehab Guide states, “In fact, about 40 percent of convicted murderers had used alcohol before or during the crime.”  When under the influence, it can make people do something, like commit a crime, that they wouldn’t do if they were sober.  Besides of drugs and alcohol making people impaired, the need for drugs can also make a motive for homicides.  When people are addicted to drugs, they might get to a point where they will do anything so they can receive the drugs.  This can lead to robbery, which could lead to a homicide, or they could have issues with their dealer, which could also lead to a homicide.  Drug addiction is very serious and dangerous, and can make those addicted do very bad actions just so they can get the high they need.

Another cause for homicides is gang-related violence.  Gang-related violence has had a horrible effect, mostly in large cities, in which they are responsible for a lot of crime.  Unfortunately, some of the crime involved with gangs, is homicide.  According to the National Gang Center, “The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2007 to 2012. During roughly the same time period (2007 to 2011), the FBI estimated, on average, more than 15,500 homicides across the United States. These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13 percent of all homicides annually.”  This statistic is significant because for the small amount of people who involved in gangs, the percent of gang-related homicides is very high.  Chicago, which gang violence is a major problem, according to ABC News, “gang members were responsible for 61 percent of all homicides in 2011.”

Out of all the bad homicides that are criminal, there are a few that are justified.  These justified homicides have motives for the safety of either themselves or for others.  Many police shootings fall under this category.  Also homicides by citizens who react in self defense are justified.  According to the FBI report from 2011, “Law enforcement reported 653 justifiable homicides in 2011.  Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 393 felons, and private citizens justifiably killed 260 people during the commission of a crime.”

Altogether, most people are not just going out committing murder for the fun of it.  To do something so drastically violent, there is usually a very strong motivation.  There are many motives for people to commit a homicide, in which it might be because of anger, they might be to under the influence and act unexpectedly, the need to drugs, gang-related decisions, domestic problems, and self-defense.

References

“Alcohol Related Crimes – Statistics and Facts.” Alcohol Rehab Guidehttp://www.alcoholrehabguide.org/alcohol/crimes/.

Domonoske, Camila. “CDC: Half Of All Female Homicide Victims Are Killed By Intimate Partners.” NPR, NPR, 21 July 2017, http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/07/21/538518569/cdc-half-of-all-female-murder-victims-are-killed-by-intimate-partners.

“Expanded Homicide Data.” FBI, FBI, 20 Aug. 2012, ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data.

“Hidden America: Don’t Shoot I Want to Grow Up.” ABC News, ABC News Network, abcnews.go.com/Nightline/fullpage/chicago-gang-violence-numbers-17509042.

“National Youth Gang Survey Analysis.” Measuring the Extent of Gang Problemshttp://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-analysis/measuring-the-extent-of-gang-problems.

Causal Rewrite — KevinBacon

Gun Laws: A Hit or Miss on Mortality and Crime Rates

As humans we are always looking for the fastest and easiest solutions to our problems, when it is possible to do so. This human characteristic pertains to the case of gun control. Anti-gun activists believe that with more gun laws and stricter policies, crime rates, murders, and homicides, where a gun was the weapon, will decrease. However these individuals have failed to see that there is no correlation between gun laws and crime. Gun policies such as not being able to own a rifle or handgun, and restrictions on the amount of weapons one can own do not stop crime. They fail to improve society and by no means put an end to violent crimes, murders, and homicides.

By definition criminals are individuals who disobey the law. Is it really plausible to believe that once a gun control law is passed, such as you cant own or carry a handgun, that these criminals will listen to this law. If these lawbreakers are robbing banks and murdering people with guns, they have already gone far enough, and will not pay any mind to these gun laws. A clear indication of this behavior is seen in the article, “How Criminals Get Guns,” by Dan Noyes. Towards the end of the article Noyes states that about 8% of the 124,000 retail gun dealers in the United States have sold handguns that were used in a crime. Where is the other 98% hidden then. Noyes answers this in his article when he describes the illegal means criminals take to get guns. They can obtain them through straw purchases, corrupt at home and commercial gun dealers, and of course in the underground market.

Not every single crime that happens in the world is recorded. It is nearly impossible to do so, and this means many crimes go unreported. Imagine the sheer amount of murders, and homicides that occur out of the public’s knowledge. There is a chance the murder weapon was a gun, and there is also a chance that it was not a gun. How do we know that a stricter gun law has decreased the mortality rate of some nation? Even if the numbers look like they are in favor of the gun law, not all the data is there. There is a chance that countless crimes went unrecorded.

In the article “Police Tactic: Keeping Crime Reports Off the Books,” by Al Baker and Joseph Goldstein, not recording crimes is actually a strategy used to keep the recorded crime rates down. This makes the data look better than it actually is. In addition, Goldstein and Baker list the other reasons to be: “to avoid the dull task of preparing reports; others may fear discipline for errors in paperwork. Sometimes officers run out of time because they are directed to another job.” This article was published by the New York Times and applies to the N.Y.P.D. The amount of unreported crimes has seen a decrease, and has dropped from 4.4 percent in 2000 to about 1.5 percent in 2011. Even though this rate is dropping it still is present in today’s world. This also is just crime that is reported to police. There is almost definitely more crime that occurs “underground” that law enforcement is not even aware of. So how can we account for all the murders and homicides caused by guns? The simple answer is we can’t. Police also might have their own viewpoints on gun control and gun laws. It is a police officers responsibility to make sure the citizens he is in charge of are safe. Sometimes in order to achieve this safety, the citizens should be armed. A police officer is a figure of public safety and 95% of the time they are carrying a firearm. This viewpoint of gun safety might lead an officer not to report that someone owns a gun, because it is for protection and safety, rather than for criminal means.

Implementing stricter policies wouldn’t affect those who carry out unknown crimes. If the police do not know about the crime committed, why would it matter if the suspect followed the gun laws in use? Disregard to these gun laws comes in its strongest form when we look at another underground aspect. This is the underground gun market. Just like bootlegging alcohol during prohibition, the underground gun market was established under the circumstances that made it harder to legally own a weapon. Gun laws do not pertain to these markets, and the weapons distributed in them are unregistered. According to the article “Underground Gun Markets,” across America the vast majority of criminals do not purchase their weapons through a legal process.

Since gun laws are aimed at making society safer by decreasing the availability of guns, they could almost be considered useless when the criminals committing crimes are buying guns illegally. According to the book “Can Gun Control Work?” by James Jacobs, if more guns resulted in more crime then the United States would have the highest suicide rate and a higher homicide rate. However this correlation can be easily refuted. Millions of households around the U.S own firearms, and is more than most countries in the world. However, our crime rates are not as high as some of these other nations. For example, in the article “Gun Violence: How the U.S Compares With Other Countries” by Nurith Aizeman, Brazil, a country with far less guns than the United States, had about 19.34 violent gun deaths per 100,000 people. This was more than 5 times as much as the U.S’s 3.85 deaths. Also, in other Latin American countries such as Colombia and Guatemala the amount of violent gun deaths per 100,000 people reached over 20 persons.  This trend shows there is no need for strict gun laws, where they would have no effect on a country where most of the population is responsible with their firearms. There is no relation between gun laws and crime rates, because the crime rates are not dependent on the amount of weapons in circulation, instead they rely on the mental states of who obtains them.

If there had to be any correlation between gun control and violent crimes, interestingly enough, it would be that more gun control causes an increase in crime rate. This notion is pretty counter-intuitive but it can be clearly seen in some European nations. Many countries in Europe have very strict gun policies, however the crime rates do not match up as one would think they should. The Harvard study “Gun Control is Counterproductive,” shines light on the fact that countries with strict gun laws witness higher murder rates than those who’s laws are less strict. This study focused on nine European nations with the lowest gun ownership rates (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000). The article also states, that these nations had a combined murder rate that was about 3 times greater than nine other nations with the greatest ownership rate of firearms (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000). Now murders and crimes committed throughout the world are not only carried out with the use of firearms. People are killed by knives, and countless other weapons. Crime rates can also be a bit shaky and inaccurate due to countless factors. This study should not prove that gun ownership decreases crime or on other end, increases it. However it should highlight the fact that gun control is ineffective at preventing murder. It is counterproductive and does not benefit society.

The article, “Guns in Other Countries,” provides clear evidence that is in support of rising crime rates are a result of strict gun laws. This article posted on gunfacts.info, debunks the myth that Britain has a low crime rate due to strict gun control. It states that Britain actually has the highest violent crime rate in all of Europe, and even more than the U.S and South Africa. Britain’s violent crime rate for 100,000 residents was about 2,034 instances which is much larger than the United State’s 446 instances. This article goes on to say that about 67% of British residents surveyed said that as a result of rising knife and gun violence, the area they live in was not as safe as it was five years ago. One would think because of the strict gun control policies in England, there would be a reduction in gun crime. According to this article, the driving factors behind gun violence are not legal, they are more culturally influenced.

More gun laws and stricter policies would not help the world’s problem with murder and crime. This is not a viable solution. Instead these ideas would just create more anger and irritability from the side that is pro-gun. This is just fuel for the fire of the debate between pro-gun and anti-gun activists. As unfair as it is, only one side can win this argument. One side will be right, and seeing that gun laws are counterproductive and also upset millions of gun owners, there shouldn’t be more of these laws enacted. Taking a step back from these laws, means that the anti-gun activist side ultimately loses in the game of gun control.

References

Aizenman, N. (2017, October 06). Gun Violence: How The U.S. Compares With Other Countries. Retrieved December 5, 2018, from https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/10/06/555861898/gun-violence-how-the-u-s-compares-to-other-countries

Cook, P. J., Ludwig, J., Venkatesh, S. A., & Braga, A. A. (2005, November 07). Underground Gun Markets. Retrieved October 21, 2018, from https://www.nber.org/papers/w11737

GOLDSTEIN, A. B. (2011, December 30). N.Y.P.D. Leaves Offenses Unrecorded to Keep Crime Rates Down. Retrieved October 21, 2018, from https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/nyregion/nypd-leaves-offenses-unrecorded-to-keep-crime-rates-down.html

Gun Control and Crime in non-US Countries. (2018, May 14). Retrieved December 5, 2018, from http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive. (2018). Retrieved November 4, 2018, from https://www.theacru.org/2007/05/08/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

Jacobs, J. B. (2002). Can Gun Control Work? Retrieved October 21, 2018, from https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=dpzN711aYlQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR15&dq=why gun control doesn’t work&ots=atIgrSsxHS&sig=aaEDwMulkkBHYhINAg6IBlNV6v8#v=onepage&q=why gun control doesn’t work&f=false

Noyes, D. (n.d.). How Criminals Get Guns. Retrieved December 4, 2018, from https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html