Hipp Hipp Hooray!

Yay! I am done!!!
I have no idea why some of the font below is not the right color and some of the spacing is off. I tried to fix it . . . many times and have failed - hmph!
Oh well it is all there, though it might not be the prettiest of all posts.
Good Luck to everyone on Finals!
and Merry Christmas!

step EIGHT!

What is at the Bottom of the Gun Control Debate? . . . How to Control Crime, not Firearms

Current news coverage of violent acts, like the Virginia Tech shooting and the Washington, D.C. sniper shootings is raising questions surrounding the debate of gun control versus gun rights. There is no question that firearms can cause great harm to innocent people, but most forget the large number of United States citizens who feel the need to protect themselves or use firearms for leisure. Furthermore, the majority of people who use firearms often are not the same people involved in violent crimes with their firearms. The positive aspects of gun rights are too often overlooked; some think the only way to ensure safety and diminish the number of crimes is for the government to strictly control gun usage. However, research on the opinions of the National Rifle Association (NRA), Supreme Court, and Congress regarding gun control shows that the question at hand is how to go about regulating firearm use and which types of regulation should be utilized (Nisbet 16). They all agree that firearms can be dangerous and support the regulation of firearms, but they do not accordingly advocate a plan for regulating firearms. The National Rifle Association, Supreme Court, and each state’s Congressmen need to come together to eliminate illegal firearm markets, have more detailed background checks, implement a waiting period before receiving a firearm, and advocate gun education classes. Firearms do not need to be controlled, but simply monitored in order to control the increasing number of crimes.

Throughout the latter half of the twentieth century, gun control has become an increasingly popular political topic. Specifically, the interpretation of the Second Amendment has been at the crux of the debate. The Second Amendment does not clearly state who has the right to bear arms, and the Supreme Court has not been clear as to how the amendment should be interpreted (Harcourt 10-11). It supports the ban of the selling "of sawed-off shotguns, but only on the narrow grounds that no one had shown that having a weapon . . . would contribute to the maintenance of a ‘well-regulated militia’" (Pepper, Petries, and Wellford 30). Furthermore, the Supreme Court supports the restriction of selling firearms to felons. It also allows states to act as they wish, holding that "the Second Amendment affects only federal action" (Pepper, Petries, and Wellford 27). So, the arguments surrounding the interpretation of the Second Amendment are not truly relevant to the gun control debate. Lee Nisbet, a PHD, author, and researcher involved greatly in the gun control debate has determined that everyone, “involved in the gun control debate agrees that since firearms can be used wittingly or witlessly as lethal weapons, it is both legally and ethically essential to regulate and hence restrict firearm possession and use” (16).

The federal government simply needs to create guidelines for states to follow. This would create a more united effort in the elimination of gun related crimes and illegal gun dealing, which are aspects that people involved in the debate agree are important to control crime (Nisbet 16). Since 1871, when the National Rifle Association (NRA) was formed, the association has promoted shooting proficiency, gun safety, and mandatory licensing for carrying a "concealed weapon as well as mandatory sentencing and additional penalties for criminal misuse of firearms" (Nisbet 17). Even Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York City and member of the coalition Mayors Against Illegal Guns, notes the support they have found in the American Hunters and Shooters Association, “they understand that our goals and their goals are compatible—and that we can work together.” (Bloomberg 47). So the gun debate has shifted; it is now an argument over how to monitor firearms and promote gun safety. Bloomberg agrees, “that is where the new gun debate is, or at least should be, centered.” (Bloomberg 47).

Glimpses of government efforts to diminish firearm related violence has been noticeable. Beginning in 1968, Congress prohibited possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon, gun possession in a gun-free school zone, and gun use in the course of a predicate federal felony. (Harcourt 6). Decades later, in February 1994, the Brady Act promised new efforts to monitor gun trade and deplete gun violence. The Act required background checks and a five-day waiting period between the purchase and delivery of a gun, but the act was not effective for long because it was later revoked by Congress (Nisbet 17). Even more recently, the Committee to Improve Research Information and Data on Firearms concluded that elimination of illegal firearms markets would be most effective in decreasing the number of homicides, which presents a new way to prevent gun violence and control crime (Pepper, Petries, and Wellford). Michael Bloomberg and the Mayors Against Illegal Guns have already taken the committee’s advice. They now concentrate on targeting illegal trading of firearms (Bloomberg 47). The struggle over gun control is simply an effect of the larger more prominent struggle within the nation, the struggle to control firearm related violence.

In the United States, firearms are the most popular weapon to use for crimes because they are so easy to obtain. Just two years ago, in 2005, 71% of all homicides, 42% of all robberies, and 21% of all aggravated assaults were committed with a firearm (“Bureau of Justice Statistics”). In 2004, 29,569 people in America died from firearm-related deaths. 11,624 (39%) of those were murdered; 16,750 (57%) were suicides; 649 (2.2%) were accidents; and for the remaining the intent was unknown (“Injury Center”). Every day in the United States, nearly 30 people are murdered, and that it is correlated directly to the high availability of firearms (Bloomberg 47). Not only are people killed by guns, even more people are injured by them, and FBI statistics show that the number of violent crimes is increasing across America (Bloomberg 47). For one firearm related mortality in America, there are more than two non-fatal firearm injuries (“Injury Center”). In 2005, guns were responsible for 11,346 homicides, as opposed to more than half as many homicides, 5,346, with knives, blunt objects, and other weapons (“Injury Center”). The lack of monitoring over the trade and use of firearms allows violence and deaths to increase, whether it is due to suicide, homicide, or an accident.

The main reasons guns are often used in violence are because they are highly and easily accessible. Currently, the United States does not require background checks or require a waiting period between the purchase and retrieval of a firearm. Requiring these things would make it harder for guns to be traded, while also hurting illegal markets for firearms. A 1997 survey studied prison inmates and concluded that of those who owned a gun, 80% received it from an illegal source (“Bureau of Justice Statistics”). In addition, the various requirements of individual states regarding gun ownership and trade are ineffective because if one does not qualify to own a gun in their state then he or she can go to a neighboring state and purchase a firearm. In fact, most crimes are committed with illegal firearms and “1 percent of dealers sell more than half of all illegal guns” (Bloomberg 47). So, disunity between states on this national topic can actually feed the illegal firearms markets of certain states.

Firearms hold the potential to take a human life, but for many firearms are an important means of leisure and protection. If people want to protect themselves they should be able to. Guns do not need to be banned in order to control crime and have fewer murders. There are an estimated 13 million hunters in the United States, and the NRA sanctions over 11,000 shooting tournaments every year (Pepper, Petries, and Wellford). Alan Contreras, a gun owner, explains his reasons for owning a gun, “the police can't be everywhere,” and “There are few police officers in rural America.” (15). For Contreras and others like him, firearms are a precautionary tool that is necessary for self-protection. Compared to other nations, America has more guns per capita. So, there it is not surprising that people love their guns. They serve as a “source of recreation, a cherished instrument of sport, and a valued source of security in a crime-ridden world.” (Nisbet 17). Some even view guns as “a venerated aesthetic object to be collected and traded as well as written and read about,” but these gun “devotees” are not the source of crime in the nation (Nisbet 18). Furthermore, the memberships to shooting clubs, gun shows, hunting, and newsletters are harmless to society. The majority of the 80 million people who own guns take care of them, so it is clear, firearms cannot be taken from or controlled by the government.

Recent experience where crime is high has actually shown that banning guns can do more harm than good. Most likely this is because gun dealers resort to other illegal means to trade guns. When guns were banned in Washington, D.C., “D.C.'s violent crime rate went up, not down, after the ban” and “in the five years before Washington's ban in 1976, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 per 100,000. In the five years after it went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35.” (Lott). However, in New York where the urban environment and crime rate is similar, murders have been largely reduced without banning firearms. Instead, Mayor Bloomberg made eliminating guns a priority and over the course of six years New York City murders have been cut by forty percent. Specifically, Bloomberg conducted, “an undercover sting operation against a group of dealers in five states whose guns kept turning up in crimes in New York,” and they later concluded that, “many of them sold guns in violation of federal law” (Bloomberg 47). Now the illegal dealers have admitted their guilt and will be monitored for the next three years (Bloomberg 47). With time it is becoming clearer that firearms in the wrong hands cause crime and violence, and in order to prevent this elimination of illegal markets and other requirements for gun owners are necessary.

Guns do not need to be controlled, but because they are involved with so much crime, it should be required for owners to keep their guns safe. Furthermore, the United States government needs to vigorously work to eliminate illegal firearms markets, implement detailed background checks on gun owners, implement a waiting period between purchase and collection of a firearm, and advocate gun education classes. Regarding gun violence and illegal firearms New York City’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg states, “These are national problems that require national leadership,” which is important to remember (Bloomberg 47). Cities and even states will be most successful in controlling crime if they have national support. In addition, support should be like that of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns who, “have Republicans, Democrats, independents, big cities and small towns—north, south, east, west” (Bloomberg 47). Together they share the message that the debate over gun rights and gun control should not be focused on, “ideology or the Second Amendment. It’s about law enforcement . . . [and] cracking down on illegal weapons,” to ensure a safer, less crime ridden nation (Bloomberg 47).

Our government should ensure that those who have gun rights are responsible citizens, knowledgeable of the dangers of guns and gun safety because guns can cause harm and death to innocent people. It is imperative that gun owners are given detailed background checks, are required to attend gun control classes, and are required to wait uphold a waiting period before they can obtain a gun. These modifications to gun rights will allow citizens to continue to use guns however they choose, for protection or recreation, while also keeping the firearm accidents and casualties at a low rate throughout the United States. Guns will be safe in hands and not in the hands of violent people. Furthermore, in order for these requirements to successfully control crime, support must be found throughout all levels of the nation’s government. Working together, Congressmen, mayors, governors, and other leaders need to make the elimination of illegal firearms markets, requirement of background checks, requirement a five day waiting period (same as the one issued in the Brady Act), and the promotion of gun education classes all top priorities to control gun related crimes.

:-) List of Sources :-)

Bibliography

Becker, Joseph D. "Bearing arms (again)." New Jersey Law Journal 6 July 2007

Bloomberg, Michael. “The Changing Gun Debate.” Newsweek 30 April 2007: 47.

“Bureau of Justice Statistics.” U.S. Department of Justice. 2007. Nov. 14, 2007. .

Contreras, Alan. "In Defense of Self-Defense." The Chronicle of Higher Education June 15, 2007: 15.

Faria, Miguel A. “Public Health and Gun Control: A Review. Part I: The Benefits of Firearms.” 12 April 2001. 10 Nov. 2007 .

“Gun Control.” GunCite. 2007. 11 Nov. 2007 .

Harcourt, Bernard E. Ed. Guns, Crime, and Punishment in America. New York: New York University Press, 2003.

“Injury Center.” Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sept. 2007. 14 Nov 2007 .

Lott, John R. “D.C.’s flawed reasoning; The city’s handgun ban doesn’t save lives.” The Washington Times. 7 Sept. 2007

Nisbet, Lee, ed. The Gun Control Debate: You Decide. New York: Prometheus Books, 2001.

Pepper, John V., Carol V. Petries, and Charles F. Wellford, eds. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2004.

step . . . ? THE NEW BRIEF

Introduction/Main Brief:

Current news coverage of violent acts, like the Virginia Tech shooting and the Washington, D.C. sniper shootings is raising questions surrounding the debate of gun control versus gun rights. There is no question that firearms can cause great harm to innocent people, but most forget the large number of United States citizens who feel the need to protect themselves or use firearms for leisure. Furthermore, the majority of people who use firearms often are not the same people involved in violent crimes with their firearms. The positive aspects of gun rights are too often overlooked; some think the only way to ensure safety and diminish the number of crimes is for the government to strictly control gun usage. However, research on the opinions of the National Rifle Association (NRA), Supreme Court, and Congress regarding gun control shows that the question at hand is how to go about regulating firearm use and which types of regulation should be utilized. They all agree that firearms can be dangerous and support the regulation of firearms, but they do not accordingly advocate a plan for regulating firearms. The National Rifle Association, Supreme Court, and each state’s Congressmen need to come together to eliminate illegal firearm markets, have more detailed background checks, implement a waiting period before receiving a firearm, and advocate gun education classes.

Background Info Paragraph:

- The Committee to Improve Research Information and Data on Firearms recently concluded that elimination of illegal firearms markets would be most effective in decreasing the number of homicides.

- In 1968 Congress prohibited:
posession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon
gun posession in a gun-free school zone
gun use in the course of a predicate federal felony

- Brady Act (issued in February 1994) required background checks and a five-day waiting period between the purchase and delivery of a gun, but it was later revoked by Congress

- Formed in 1871, the NRA has always promoted shooting proficiency and gun safety

- NRA promotes mandatory licensing for carrying a "concealed weapon as well as mandatory sentencing and additional penalties for criminal misuse of firearms"

- Address that the Second Amendment is irrelevant

o Over the years, the Supreme Court has been unclear about how the second amendment should be interpreted; they have supported the ban of the selling "of sawed-off shotguns, but inly on the narrow grounds that no one had shown that having a weapon . . . would contribute to the maintenance of a "well-regulated militia." they have also supported the restriction of selling firearms to felons. they have also allowed states to act as they wish, holding that, "the Second Amendment affects only federal action"

o Each state can decide individually how to regulate firearm trading and use

REASONS:

1.) Guns are the main weapon of choice for crimes, allowing violence to increase
· Evidence: In 2005, 71% of all homicides, 42% of all robberies, and 21% of all aggravated assaults were committed with a firearm. (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics)
· Evidence: In 2004, 29,569 people in America died from firearm-related deaths. 11,624 (39%) of those were murdered; 16,750 (57%) were suicides; 649 (2.2%) were accidents; and in 235 (.8%) the intent was unknown. (WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports)
· Evidence: Everyday in the United States, nearly 30 people are murdered (Bloomberg, Michael)
· Evidence: In 2005, guns were responsible for 11,346 homicides, as opposed to more than half as many homicides, 5,346, with knives, blunt objects, and other weapons. (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics)
· Evidence: “most crimes are committed with illegal weapons”
· Evidence: In 2005, it was estimated that for one firearm related mortality in America, there were more than two non-fatal firearm injuries. (WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports)
· Main Resource = Death by Gun Statistics: www.cdc.gov/ncip/wisqars

2.) Guns are too easy to obtain
a. Advocate for a waiting period before guns are obtained and more detailed background checks
· Evidence: There are currently no required background checks for the sale of guns between family, friends, or other private sales.
· Evidence: A survey of State Prison Inmates in 1997 showed that, of those who owned a gun, the gun was from family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%. (Bureau of Justice Statistics)
· Evidence: “How insane is today’s situation where no civilian under any circumstance can own military vehicles or communications equipment, but where young men barely past puberty can buy the deadliest of all firearms through the simple act of going to any gun shop, filing an application, then waiting a few days as his papers are processed?” (“Gun Control Now” article in The Philippine News)
· Evidence: A bill that prohibited the sale and ownership of assault weapons expired in 2004 and was not renewed. People can now legally obtain and sell assault weapons as long as they meet the qualifications to own a gun in the specific state (Brady Campaign). Assault weapons serve no practical purpose in today’s society: hunters don’t kill deer with uzis; a machine gun would not protect citizens any better than a handgun; assault weapons fire at a rate too high to ensure the safety of any bystanders.

b. Advocate the elimination of illegal firearms markets

3.) Guns are needed for protection and hunting – if people want to protect themselves they should be able to. Guns do not need to be banned in order to have fewer murders
· Evidence = personal account of Alan Contreras, a gun owner
i. His reasons for owning a gun: self-defense from criminals and dangerous animals
ii. “Surely each person has the right to decide whether to kill or die” (In Defense of Self-Defense)
iii. “Some people would not shoot another person in self-defense. I would.”
iv. “the police can't be everywhere,” and “there are few police officers in rural America”
· Evidence: New York v. Washington, D.C.

i. In Washington, D.C. when guns were banned, “D.C.'s violent crime rate went up, not down, after the ban” and “in the five years before Washington's ban in 1976, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 per 100,000. In the five years after it went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35.” (John R. Lott)

ii. Over the course of six years, murders in New York have been cut by forty percent and they did not ban guns. Instead the city made eliminating illegal firearms the priority (“The Changing Gun Debate”).

4.) Address what we are advocating and the advantages to the following: Our government should ensure that those who have gun rights are responsible citizens, knowledgeable of the dangers of guns and gun safety. Guns can cause harm and death to innocent people. However, it is imperative that gun owners are given detailed background checks, are required to attend gun control classes, and are required to wait uphold a waiting period before they can obtain a gun. These modifications to gun rights will allow citizens to continue to use guns however they choose, for protection or recreation, while also keeping the firearm accidents and casualties at a low rate throughout the United States.
i. Elimination of illegal firearms markets
ii. More detailed background checks
iii. Waiting period before one can obtain a gun

iv. Gun education classes

CONCLUSION = Guns do not need to be controlled, but because they are involved with so much crime, it should be required for owners to keep their guns safe. Furthermore, the United States government needs to vigorously work to eliminate illegal firearms markets, implement detailed background checks on gun owners, implement a waiting period between purchase and receival of a firearm, and advocate gun education classes. Regarding gun violence and illegal firearms New York City’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg states, “These are national problems that require national leadership” (“The Changing Gun Debate”)

step THREE

Audience: James Lucas, whose preconception is that gun control laws are necessary in order to ensure fewer deaths and an overall safer nation. He will be arguing that gun control laws should be made in order to prevent future tragedies/deaths.

How to gain their trust and respect of James: by maintaining a confident tone that also does not presents reasons with a degrading or conceited tone. I will also appeal to his emotions and feelings using reason a personable character.

My Claim: Though guns can cause harm and death to innocent people, gun control laws are not necessary to keep the United States safe. Furthermore, people have the right, as stated in the Second Amendment, to bear arms, defend themselves, and use guns for their hobbies.

Reasons:
1.) To uphold law: The Second Amendment states that all citizens of the United States have the right to keep and bear arms.
a. Evidence = The Second Amendment provides that, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (“Bearing arms (again)”)
2.) Not to prevent deaths: Other weapons can be used to kill people, so gun control laws would not have an effect on violent deaths.
a. Evidence = In Washington, D.C. when guns were banned, “D.C.'s violent crime rate went up, not down, after the ban” (John R. Lott)
i. “in the five years before Washington's ban in 1976, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 per 100,000. In the five years after it went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35.” (John R. Lott)
b. Evidence = In Chicago and its neighboring suburbs, “Chicago's murder rate fell from 27 to 22 per 100,000 in the five years before the law and then rose slightly to 23. The change is even more dramatic when compared to five neighboring Illinois counties: Chicago's murder rate fell from being 8.1 times greater than its neighbors in 1977 to 5.5 times in 1982, and then went way up to 12 times greater in 1987.” (John R. Lott)
c. Evidence = “Children 14 to 15 years of age are 14.5 times more likely to die from automobile injuries, 5 times more likely to die from drowning or fire and burns, and 3 times more likely to die from bicycle accidents than they are to die from gun accidents.” (“Public Health and Gun Control”)
d. More guns does not mean more murder or suicide
i. Evidence = “If this were true, murder might well increase where people have ready access to firearms, but the available data provides no such correlation. Nations and areas with more guns per capita do not have higher murder rates than those with fewer guns per capita.” (Kates and Mauser)
ii. Evidence = “suicide rates were no worse in nations with many firearms than in those where firearms were far less widespread” (Kates and Mauser)
Percentages of: Suicide; Suicide with gun; Murder; Murder with gun, and number of guns per 100,000 people
Austria N/A N/A 2.14 0.53 41.02
Belarus 27.26 N/A 9.86 N/A 16.5
Czech Rep. 9.88 1.01 2.80 0.92 27.58
Estonia 39.99 3.63 22.11 6.20 28.56
Finland 27.28 5.78 3.25 0.87 411.20
Germany 15.80 1.23 1.81 0.21 122.56
Greece 3.54 1.30 1.33 0.55 77.00
Hungary 33.34 0.88 4.07 0.47 15.54
Moldova N/A N/A 17.06 0.63 6.61
Poland 14.23 0.16 2.61 0.27 5.30
Romania N/A N/A 4.32 0.12 2.97
Slovakia 13.24 0.58 2.38 0.36 31.91
Spain 5.92 N/A 1.58 0.19 64.69
Sweden 15.65 1.95 1.35 0.31 246.65 (Kates and Mauser)
e. Evidence = countries with gun control laws such as Japan have higher suicide rates with guns than the United States (“Public Health and Gun Control”)
f. Evidence = very few ordinary citizens will ever murder someone using a gun. “almost all murderers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopathology, substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors. ‘The vast majority of persons involved in life-threatening violence have a long criminal record with many prior contacts with the justice system.’ ‘Thus homicide--[whether] of stranger or [of] someone known to the offender--is usually part of a pattern of violence, engaged in by people who are known ... as violence prone.’” (Kates and Mauser)
g. Evidence = “There is a compound assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement (b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so.” (Kates and Mauser)
3.) For protection: People should be able to protect themselves
a. Evidence = personal account of Alan Contreras, a gun owner
i. His reasons for owning a gun: self-defense from criminals and dangerous animals
ii. “Surely each person has the right to decide whether to kill or die” (In Defense of Self-Defense)
iii. “Some people would not shoot another person in self-defense. I would.”
iv. “the police can't be everywhere,” and “there are few police officers in rural America”
4.) For leisure: many people enjoy hunting, skeet shooting, and other hobbies that involve guns which do not at all harm the lives of people.
a. Evidence = 12.5 million hunting licenses were sold in 2006 (Rocky Barker)

Arrangement of Reasons: 1, 4, 3, 2

Resources: My resources will include periodicals, websites, books, and any other reliable sources I find.
- “Gun Control.” GunCite. 11 Nov. 2007 .
- Faria, Miguel A. Public Health and Gun Control: A Review. Part I: The Benefits of Firearms. 12 April 2001 .
- Becker, Joseph D. "Bearing arms (again)." New Jersey Law Journal (July 6, 2007)
- Contreras, Alan. "In Defense of Self-Defense." The Chronicle of Higher Education 53.41 (June 15, 2007)
- Kates, Don B., and Gary Mauser. "Would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide? A review of international and some domestic evidence." Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 30.2 (Spring 2007): 649(46).
- Lott, John R. “D.C.’s flawed reasoning; The city’s handgun ban doesn’t save lives.” The Washington Times (Sept. 7, 2007)
- Barker, Rocky. “Modern living culls the herd of American hunters.” IdahoStatesman.com: Idaho’s #1 Website for News and Information. 23 Oct 2007. Voices.IdahoStatesman.com. 19 Nov. 2007. .


MAIN BRIEF:
In the United States, gun control laws are unnecessary, and the positive aspects of not having gun control laws are too often overlooked. Though guns can cause harm and death to innocent people, gun control laws are not imperative to keep the United States safe. Furthermore, people have the right, as stated in the Second Amendment, to bear arms, defend themselves, and use guns for their hobbies. My reasons against gun control include the Second Amendment, self protection, and leisure. Using convincing evidence, I will also ensure that gun control laws should not be made to prevent deaths. Instead, I will promote increased safety with gun use. I will also use my advocacy for gun safety, in particular, gun locks, to persuade my audience, James that gun control laws are unnecessary. I will, however, acknowledge the many deaths correlated to guns. But, I will provide strong evidence and reasons that will outweigh this positive aspect of gun control to show that gun control laws are not necessary for the United States.

step TWO

The topic I am arguing to mediate is gun control. I am against gun control. So, I will promote several reasons why gun control should not be allowed along with the benefits of not having gun control. My evidence against gun control will include reliable and just resources.

The sources I am currently using for research of gun control include:
- “Gun Control.” GunCite. .
- Public Health and Gun Control: A Review. Part I: The Benefits of Firearms. . (April 12, 2001)