Handguns Should Not Be Banned Handguns - 1677 Words

Gun violence, especially that as caused by handguns, is a major problem in America. It affects millions of people annually, and the effects it has are irreversible. However, this reality does not constitute for a complete ban on the private ownership of handguns. A ban on the private ownership of handguns should not be enacted on the grounds that the United States government ought to preserve democratic legitimacy and constitutionalism, and a ban is not feasible or just in America’s political climate. Every day, 282 people are shot in the United States but this is not merely the result of the array of firearms available in this country. Instead, a minority of the guns that Americans own are responsible for much of this violence.†¦show more content†¦Wintemute and Teret, professors at Johns Hopkins University attribute this to the shame associated with mental health in America. Data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation reveals that from 1990 to 1997, 90,000 of the 147,000 suicides committed were committed with a firearm―a tribute to the handgun’s operational simplicity and effectivity. Overall, handguns are responsible for seventy percent of firearm suicides. Douglas Wiebe of the University of California-Los Angeles School of Public Health conducted a nationally representative study which revealed that ninety-four percent of gun-related suicides would not have occurred had a gun not been present. A motley of international examples provide proof of concept for a national handgun ban. For example, the Australian prime minister announced in 1996 that Australia would be enacting a national handgun ban, and guns would be collected through a gun buyback program. This resulted in the confiscation of 650,000 guns, a forty-two percent drop in the homicide rate, and a fifty-seven percent drop in the firearm suicide rate. In addition, no mass shootings have occurred since the ban, a sharp contrast to the thirteen shootings that took place in the thirteen years before. The homicide rate also fell to less than one per one hundred thousand, while the United States’ hovers at five per one hundred thousand. Professor Donahue of Stanford University attributes this to â€Å"more than merely the

The Ethics of Belief Free Essays

Argumentative Essay on â€Å"The Ethics of Belief† PHIL 2641 Online – Section 001 February 13, 2008 William K. Clifford sets out to show in â€Å"The Ethics of Belief† that â€Å"it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence†¦Ã¢â‚¬  In this paper, I will show that his argument lacks key definitions needed in order to found his inference upon and that it begs the question as to what qualifies as â€Å"insufficient† evidence. Furthermore, I will show that the primary issue is not the belief but the results of the belief that is important and that all judgment and interpretation should be based upon said results. We will write a custom essay sample on The Ethics of Belief or any similar topic only for you Order Now Clifford introduces his argument by using the example of a shipbuilder who allows his ship to be used on a transoceanic voyage despite its age and the supposed need for repair. The vessel sinks and Clifford asserts that the ship owner is guilty of the death of the passengers because his belief in the ship’s seaworthiness was unsupported and ill-founded. However, there are several problems with his conclusion. First, Clifford ignores the ship owner’s reliance on the vessel’s past sailing history as being sufficient evidence as to its stable condition. The fact that the vessel had made many a voyage without incident can be viewed as sufficient proof of its ability to set sail safely. This begs the question, â€Å"How can one determine what constitutes sufficient evidence? † The ship owner by relying on the history of the ship alone could have met his obligation. A second problem with Clifford’s argument is that he likely oversimplified the cause of the ship’s sinking. Perhaps the ship sank because there was a collision with another ship. Perhaps it sank because it struck an iceberg in the water. It may have sunk because of human error. In all of these scenarios no amount of fortification of the ship’s structure would have Argumentative Essay on â€Å"The Ethics of Belief† Page 2 of 3 prevented the demise of the voyage. Any one or combination of these causes could have been responsible for the ship’s fate, yet the ship’s age and need for repair is identified as the sole cause of the ship’s sinkage. Finally, Clifford fails to address the source of the ship owner’s doubt and therefore leaves a multitude of unanswered questions. If the question of right or wrong has to do with the origin of belief and whether or not one has the right to believe in the first place, then would the ship owner have been culpable had the doubts about the ship’s condition not been introduced? Is a person required to investigate EVERY doubt or question that is raised by another, which directly or indirectly impacts their belief? What if the source of doubt is unreliable? Without properly addressing these questions it is difficult to determine what the ship owner’s (or anyone else’s) responsibility was in the first place. This, I assert, is the fundamental problem with Clifford’s argument. To implicitly assume that one is guilty for simply believing without â€Å"sufficient† evidence can not be easily determined because the standards and thus the determination for â€Å"right† and â€Å"wrong† are too vague. The solution follows immediately. Since a person can have a different belief at any given point in time and there is no metric by which to determine the sufficiency of evidence upon which they are based, it is not the belief that is to be judged, but rather the action and the positive or negative impact upon society that results from it. Clifford’s primary concern was how beliefs impact humanity, and the impact can only be determined by assessing actions, not beliefs. Argumentative Essay on â€Å"The Ethics of Belief† Page 3 of 3 We can now see that Clifford’s uncogent argument is the result of a lack of clarity as to how one could determine whether or not given evidence was sufficient and the vagueness surrounding the definitions of â€Å"right† and â€Å"wrong†. In its amended form, however, the argument is valid and can serve as a useful tool to determine and measure the overall impact beliefs have on society. My central argument is an inductive argument. Here are the premises and the conclusion: Premise 1: Premise 2: Conclusion: There are no clear metrics to measure the sufficiency of evidence from which a person’s beliefs are derived. Actions and their impacts on society are definite and measurable. Therefore, people should probably be judged based upon their actions and not their beliefs. My argument is cogent because my premises are true and it is improbable that my conclusion is false. Furthermore, no evidence which would have rendered a different conclusion has been ignored. How to cite The Ethics of Belief, Papers

Contract with Robert-Free-Samples for Students-Myassignmenthelp.com

Questions: 1.Can Peter enforce his Contract with Robert? 2.Each will bill and be exclusively entitled to the fees received in return for their own work. Is this a Partnership? Answers: 1.As per the Alberta Regulation 196/1999, Fair Trading Act- Public Auctions Regulations, it is the duty of the auctioneer to read out the conditions of sale or make sure that the conditions of the sale are read by those present at the sale. The auctioneer must do this before the commencement of the sale or at the beginning of the adjourned sale. However, the auctioneer need not ensure that the condition are read by those present at the auction if they are regular bidders in the auction sales business (Casey, 2012). Also, the auction sale business have to provide the bidders the necessary conditions of the auctions in the bid cards if they are registered bidders and may not be attending the auction on the given day. Moreover, the auctioneers cannot make statements which are incorrect in any manner. And for the bidders, it is their duty to read and understand the conditions of sale before the beginning of the Auction (Riefa, 2015). They should also inspect the commodities themselves be fore placing the bid so that they can be aware of every detail of the commodity in auction. In the given case, Peter owned a vacant land that he wanted to sell. Peter made a contract an Auctioneer named Howard. The rules and conditions of the sale were given in the catalogue made for the auction, wherein it was mentioned that the auctioneers do not have the authority to make the representation on behalf of the owner of the land. Robert was one of the bidders for the vacant land. Robert enquired Howard about the zonal arrangement of the vacant land and placed the bid relying upon the zonal arrangement as told by Howard. However, later on it turned out that the zonal arrangement as told by Howard was wrong and as a result Robert refused to pay for the property. When analyzing the case given above with the law governing the auctions, it can be said that both Howard and Robert have made mistakes. Howard made the mistake of making a representation for which he had no authority and also gave an inaccurate representation relying upon which Robert placed the bid. The mistake made by Robert was that he did not read the rules and conditions that was given in the catalogue for the auction because if he had read and understood the regulations, he could have known that Howard did not have the authority make the representation and he would have been careful in finding out the detail about the property. Moreover, it is the duty of the Bidder to inspect the commodity or the item held for auction. He did not do anything of this sort. Thus, it can be said that Peter, the owner of the land can enforce the contract on Robert for the vacant land because everything was mentioned in the catalogue meant for the sale of property at the auction. Despite, this he enquired the auctioneer who had no authority to make any representation. Moreover, Robert relied upon the representation made by the Auctioneer without even making any further enquiry about the property. Thus, it can be said that Peter can enforce his contract for sale of the property with Robert who cannot claim the fact that he relied upon an inaccurate representation made by the auctioneer. 2.As per the Partnerships Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.5, the determination of partnership can be done by the real intention of the parties involved. This can be determined by the way they conduct themselves. For the determination of the existence of partnerships, the court of law sees the business relationship of the parties involved rather than relying on the form of the relationship (legalline.ca, 2017). The factors that court sees to check the substance of the business relationship are as follows- The official registration of the partnership. The contributions made by parties involved in terms of property, knowledge, money, skills and so on. A joint interest in the property of the business The right of control or management of the property or business. The expectations of the profits from the business or the intention to earn profits. The profit sharing rights of the parties involved in the business (bclaws.ca, 2017). In the given case, Susan and Joyce are accountants and are carrying on their respective business as sole proprietors. In order to reduce their expenses they decided to enter into an arrangement. For the reduction of costs, they rented premises together; it consisted of 3 offices and 1 reception area. Both of them signed the lease as the tenant. Then they hired a secretary who would be working for the both of them. It was decided that they would share the office expenses equally. However, apart from the expenses that are shared, any other expenses incurred by them would be borne by the person incurring them. Any decision relating with the management of the office and the secretary are taken by with the consent of both the parties. The revenue they generate in the form of fees for their service is kept by the person providing the service. Analyzing the factors for the determination of the substance of the partnership with that of the conditions of the arrangement entered between Susan and Joyce, it can be said that the arrangement cannot be said to be a partnership because they do not have any formal registration of their partnership. Moreover, the contributions made by them are only in terms of expenses for the management of the office premises and the salary of the common secretary. Though they do have a joint interest in the property of the business it is not a conclusive evidence for the existence of a partnership between them. The most important factor considered in all the cases by all the court of law dealing with partnership determination is the intention of earning profit from the partnership and their profit sharing terms. However, both these factors are missing in the arrangement entered between Susan and Joyce. Thus, it can be said that the arrangement entered between Susan and Joyce cannot be said to be a Partnership because they do not have any official registration for their partnership deed. Moreover, their contributions merely reflect the sharing of expenses and do not reflect any fact which can be seen as spent for the purpose of the smooth sailing of the partnership. And the biggest factor missing from the arrangement is the intention to earn profit from the partnership and the profit sharing rights of the partnership business. Hence, it can be concluded that the arrangement between Susan and Joyce cannot be termed as a Partnership. Bibliography Casey, J. B. (2012).Arbitration Law of Canada: Practice and Procedure. Juris Publishing, Inc.. Riefa, C. (2015).Consumer protection and online auction platforms: Towards a safer legal framework. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.. www.bclaws.ca. (2017).Partnership Act.Bclaws.ca. Retrieved 31 July 2017, from https://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/00_96348_01 www.ianwyles.co.za. (2017).General Rules Of Auction | Ian Wyles Auctioneers amp Appraisers.Ianwyles.co.za. Retrieved 31 July 2017, from https://www.ianwyles.co.za/general-rules-auction/ www.legalline.ca. (2017).How to determine if a partnership exists - Legal Line.Legal Line. Retrieved 31 July 2017, from https://www.legalline.ca/legal-answers/how-to-determine-if-a-partnership-exists/ www.ontario.ca. (2017).Cite a Website - Cite This For Me.Ontario.ca. Retrieved 31 July 2017, from https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p05 www.qp.alberta.ca. (2017). Retrieved 31 July 2017, from https://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/1999_196.pdf www.thebalance.com. (2017).Eveything You Need to Know About Business Partnership in Canada.The Balance. Retrieved 31 July 2017, from https://www.thebalance.com/partnership-in-canada-2948122