Gun Control Causes Gun Violence

The law does not prevent individuals from participating in heinous activities, they only allow governmental consequences if caught committing the crime. Although our government prohibits the manufacturing, use, and distribution of illegal narcotics, roughly 48.6% of criminals in prison are in for drug offenses. Although the goal of the War on Drugs was to end addiction rates, our society reaped the opposite results. If we were to seize the natural right of self defense from American families, it would not result in less violence, it would result in vulnerable targets.

In an attempt to remove guns from our streets, our government would be required to impose a nation-wide collection to remove guns from American houses. However, in America there are roughly 324 million citizens who own over 300 million guns. With only 1.1 million law enforcement officers, how could they be reasonably expected to remove these firearms? Not to mention all of the remote locations in which many citizens reside in. If a nation-wide collection was implemented, it is obvious that many guns will be left behind, leaving a massive threat for the American people.

Further, the border that America shares with Mexico is not secure enough for such a regulation. Currently, the Mexican drug cartel owns tunnels that burry beneath the border to make the smuggling of unregistered weapons and narcotics possible. These unregistered weapons consist of machine guns, pistols, assault rifles, and even grenades that are untraceable. If we were to somehow effectively eliminate all guns from our society, illegal firearms will still be bought by criminals, posing a large threat to the American people. This would result in vulnerable families and armed criminals, not a safe country to live in.

In the unlikely event that effective gun collection has passed, there will only be two types of people who will own guns: police officers, and criminals. After the purchase of an illegally-obtained firearm, a criminal will commit a crime. During the illegal situation, all of the citizens at risk are unable to defend themselves or those around them. The only people capable of defending others will be police officers, which take an average of 7 minutes to arrive to the scene of a crime. During those 7 crucial minutes, many terrible things could happen; but this easily preventable.

The idea of gun control is very appealing, after all, nobody likes gun crime. However, this does not mean that guns must be eliminated. In our society, guns have become a necessary-evil. Guns cause evil, but, they also prevent evil from hurting us and those we love. If guns never entered out society, we would be able to get by without them today, but for the fact that they now exist, guns are necessary to protect what is important to us.

Works Cited

Anonymous. “The Truth About Assault Weapons.” The Truth About Assault Weapons. Anonymous, n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2016. <http://www.assaultweapon.info&gt>;

“Assault Rifle.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2016.<http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Rifle>

“Federal Assault Weapons Ban.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2016. <http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&gt>;

“Assault Weapon Truth: The Facts about Assault Weapons.” Assaultweapontruth. Assault Weapon Truth, n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2016. <http://www.assaultweapontruth.com>.

Failing the Education System

Standardized achievement tests are wolves in sheep’s clothing that are detrimental to the health of the education system. Many parents, students, and taxpayers falsely believe that standardized testing is just a short chunk of time, usually a week or several days, where students take a state-mandated test and then go back to normal curriculum. While the actual pencil-to-paper testing may only take a week, the test itself effects a student’s learning throughout the entire school year. From narrowing curriculum to devoting a great deal of classroom time to test preparation, teachers feel forced to devalue education in order to allow their class to achieve high test scores. Achievement and intelligence are very complex concepts and presently they are being reduced to a score or percentile. This implies that the knowledge of a student is only as important as the score they achieve on a standardized test. In this way, standardized tests devalue the American education system.

Due to standardized tests increased emphasis on reading and math, studies have shown that teachers often exclude or limit topics that are not tested, particularly in elementary school. In the Center of Education Policy’s “Narrowing the Curriculum” study they found that many districts are cutting instructional time in areas like social studies, science, art, music, and physical education. A nationally representative study has found that 27% of districts cut a portion of social studies instruction time to increase reading and math instruction, 22% cut science, 20% cut music, and 18% cut other subjects. On top of this, 71% of districts admitted that students at risk of failing standardized tests had other subjects cut for them in order to make more time reading and math. For example, students at risk of failing the standardized tests would go to extra small group reading and math instruction while the other students went to music class or gym class. This means spending a majority of time on reading and math while spending the bare minimum time on other valuable subjects. Although some may believe that emphasis on reading and math does not sound so bad, it is simply unfair to deprive students of valuable topics that help make them well-rounded citizens. Subjects like history and science are just as important in helping children discover their passions while obtaining knowledge.

Another way that standardized tests devalue education is through a process called “teaching to the test.” According to the Center for Public Education’s “High Stake Testing and Effects on Instruction,” teaching to the test is made up of a wide variety of teaching practices such as scrapping classroom learning time for test preparation, narrowing curriculum to better fit test questions, and teaching memorization over high order skills. Teaching to the test is not just ensuring test readiness by making an effort to cover areas that are being tested. Teaching to the test is a deliberate attempt to base curriculum on the sole priority of achieving passing scores. With increased stakes for students and higher pressures from administrators who crave more school funding, teachers find themselves more and more in the position of teaching to the test. A study by Rand Corporation called “Standard-Based Accountability: Experiences of Teachers and Administrators” analyzed standardized testing in California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. Results found that an average of 90% of principals in those three states implemented a strategy of “matching curriculum and instruction with assessments” to improve scores. That means that in those three states, and likely across the country, teachers are being instructed by their bosses to teach to the test.

In addition, the high-stakes nature of tests devalues education by increasing the prevalence of cheating. Kenneth H. Wodtke’s study “How Standardized is School Testing? An Exploratory Observational Study of Standardized Group Testing in Kindergarten” demonstrates how increased pressure influences test scores. The study observed ten kindergarten classrooms, classes 1-5 were from upper-middle class communities and classes 6-10 were from lower income communities who were also participating in a district-sponsored program to raise test scores. Teachers in low income communities that were participating in the program were seven times more likely to commit significant procedural variations, ten times more likely to allow unauthorized item repetitions, and thirty-nine times more likely to cue correct answers than their wealthier counterparts. This study shows that teachers who are pressured, especially by a funded program that demands higher test scores, are more likely to cheat which clearly devalues not only the test but the value of education as a whole. Wodtke, after observing what he had, deemed that the scores of these ten tests were incomparable to each other since there was mismanagement in one way or another which would ruin test validity in eight of the ten classes. Yet, some of the districts in this study used the scores from these very tests to place children into first grade classrooms. The mismanagement of test administration may now have horrible consequences for those students who may have been placed in the wrong classroom.

The realization that teachers have a hand in the degradation of education leads many to question why teachers would willingly take part in such practices. Teachers devote their lives to a career thats goal is to provide children with knowledge, so understandably it is hard to consider that they would contribute to  devaluing student’s instruction. The most influential reason that teachers would voluntarily narrow curriculum, teach to the test, or cheat is the high-stakes nature of tests. In the Rand Corporation study, “Standard-Based Accountability: Experiences of Teachers and Administrators,” results found that an average of 54% of schools in the states of CA, GA, and PA use tests to assess teacher performance and 53% use them to decide student promotion and retention. Teachers want their students to succeed and in an educational system where passing a standardized test equates to success, there are not many options for struggling educators.

All in all, high-stake standardized testing, which has become the norm in American public schools, is devaluing education by reducing success in school to a number. As a society, we want well-rounded knowledgeable students that will contribute to the next generation yet we create simple standard tests to measure their capability.  It is time to create accommodating and specific tests that promote high-level thinking and allow every student the right and ability to achieve a high score. It is time to stop using a test score to define education. Tests should be used as educational tools for teachers that help them understand what topics students are struggling with and which they excel in. Tests should not be used to measure teacher quality, determine funding for schools, or to solely determine whether a child passes or fails a grade. Education is worth more than that and one high stakes test should never be used to measure the vast and brilliant knowledge that any given student possesses.

Works Cited

Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Marsh, J. A., McCombs, J. S., Robyn, A., Russell, J. L., et al. (2007). Standards-based accountability under No Child Left Behind: Experiences of teachers and administrators in three states. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Mitchell, Ruth. “High-Stakes Testing and Effects on Instruction.” Center for Public Education. Center for Public Education, 6 Mar. 2006. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.

“NCLB: Narrowing the Curriculum?” NCLB Policy Brief. Center on Education Policy, 1 July 2005. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.

One of a Million

When someone commits a crime, it is very easy for the government or parents to blame video games, because they are not associated with them. The fact of the matter is, violent video games are only one out of many sources of increased aggression, and it is not even a particular one that is directly correlated with criminal activity. If people would dig deeper, they would find that the video games and other media, are not the blame for mass murders and other crimes. An individual’s environment, upbringing, and social class create aggression and contribute to criminal activity.

Despite what others may say, not every United States citizen has equal opportunities. Some people have disadvantages against them based on their race, ethnicity, gender, etc. With this in mind, consider an experiment performed by Tobias Greitemeyer and Christian Sagioglou which proves that people of a lower socioeconomic status are more likely to be aggressive than those of a higher status. The United States government promises equal opportunity, and yet many people have it harder than others. If these same people are forced into a lower class, find increased aggression from their status, and then commit a crime, then it does not paint a very pretty picture of the government which allows such things to occur and blames video games for its own failures.

Furthermore, Jennifer Welsh wrote about a study by Michael Lorber, which discovered that an aggressive personality can be formed due to negative parenting when a child is still an infant. Since a baby is very impressionable, a parent’s negative treatment towards the child and around the child can assist in building a violent mind that could later commit crimes. The point is, violent video games are a proven cause of aggressive behavior in people, but it is not the only factor. There are other reasons for increasing aggressive behavior;  some of which are not flattering for various groups of people. If attention was put on society or parenting, as a cause for increased aggression, it might make the government or parents very concerned for their own image. In contrast, people put all of the attention on interactive media.

However, some might say that while there are other causes of aggression, violent video games on a whole, is the most noteworthy one. It allows a player to control the actions and desensitize them through that. If one form of aggression is to be considered more effective than another, then there should be some way to identifying this. A simple argument would be that crime clearly comes from playing violent video games. That argument holds very little validity,  when a study by the American Psychological Association shows that, while it has been proven that games do increase aggression, there is an inability to clearly correlate these aggressive behaviors to criminal activity; especially since aggression takes on a multitude of forms, some of which are not even physical. In the end, someone who commits a crime due to their socioeconomic status seems more apparent since they are obviously poor and have a more clear motive.

In conclusion, things such as parenting and social status are just as much a cause of aggression as violent video games. This opens the door for tons of other possible reasons for violent behavior. Video games may be correlated to increased aggression, but they are hardly the core cause of it. More so, they only play as a  partial factor.

Works Cited

Greitemeyer, Tobias, and Christina Sagioglou. “Subjective Socioeconomic Status Causes Aggression: A Test Of The Theory Of Social Deprivation.” Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology 111.2 (2016): 178-194. PsycARTICLES. Web. 6 Nov. 2016.

Welsh, Jennifer. “‘Negative Parenting’ Starts Aggressive Personalities Early.” Live Science. N.p., 26 Oct. 2011. Web. 6 Nov. 2016.

“APA Review Confirms Link Between Playing Violent Video Games and Aggression.” American Psychological Association. N.p., 13 Aug. 2015. Web. 30 Nov. 2016.

                                  The End of Romantic Misogyny, Thanks Internet

                 Our western culture has lead us to believe that women in  monogamous relationships are superior, happier women, but as another sexual revolution rears its noble head; thoughts are changing. Not all women want to, or can, fit the mold of girlfriend or wife, that is why the transition of monogamy to free and open lifestyles is so significant. Authors Pantea Farvid and Virginia Baum help to sum up the negatives of institutional monogamy. Pointing out that the interests of men and capitalism are nursed by the existence of possessiveness, jealousy, and exclusion, all conveniently disguised as “romance.” Women will no longer  feel the need to justify their sexual desires and experiences with a committed romantic relationship. They can behave sexually and independently without the fear of the societal damnation that they have faced for centuries. Social media and dating services are a significant causal factor in the realization that sex and romance can be two different entities. The “techno-sexual” age has supplied women with the tools to liberate themselves from the romantic misogyny of monogamous relationships.

               There is no reason why a long-term monogamous relationship cannot be healthy and supportive to a woman. Despite the possibility to be an equal partnership, societal restraints often create a power dynamic that gives authority to the man. Theories often attribute this phenomena to old-world ideals that view women as property to be transferred from father to husband through marriage.  A woman could be tied down to a good man, or alone like a sad spinster. If they did not fall into one of those two scenarios they faced being slut-shamed and titled as promiscuous. Women have been pigeon holed in positions as girlfriends and wives, being seen as independent sexual individuals is a rarity.

These opinions are especially true within the realm of heterosexuality. Farvid and Baum hit the nail on the head once more  when they say “Marriage and, in more contemporary times, monogamy, have been constructed as the ideal way to have heterosexual relationships; the pinnacle of all heterosexual unions (Jackson and Scott, 2004; Robinson, 1997; Stelboum,1999) and the desired outcome of dating and relationships.” . Stevi Jackson and Sue Scott elaborate upon the reason why some women abstain from monogamy. Having a full-on romantic partner can be burdensome, it includes loss of individual identity as one transitions from individual to half-of-a-couple.Jackson and Scott also elaborate upon how it also means having to integrate said partner into an already formed social life, meeting friends and family and “making it work.” Some women prefer to reap the benefits of sexual activities without the hassle of a partnership.

           The increased traffic found on social media and dating services helps for those looking to do just that. According to the journal entry provided by the Review of General Psychology : Journal of Division 1, of the American Psychological Association, titled “Sexual Hookup Culture: A Review,” the prevalence of sex-orientated relationships has increased and the presence of slut-shaming is (slowly) becoming less pronounced. Tinder is an application designed to match up local singles, and has coined the title as the “hookup app.” Women who desire a sexual partner and nothing more, can swipe through dozens of profiles in minutes and find a reasonable suitor; they are in control. Not only does increased use of Tinder lead to higher levels of casual sex; but sex positive websites, Tumblr pages, and YouTube channels, all encourage safe-sexual exploration and liberation.

         This obsession with sex and sex positive content has lead to the success of internet oriented entities. For example, Laci Green is a famous YouTube personality, her website gives some insight on what exactly she does, “Promote a comprehensive model of sex education using technology.” TIME Magazine named her one of the “30 Most Influential People on the Internet” citing that “In an effort to provide a more approachable version of sex education, the YouTube star offers sisterly advice on everything from hookup culture to body positivity to BDSM.” Laci Green’s success can be attributed to the increased open-mindedness of younger generations and their fascination with the internet and sex. Her fame is symbolic of the correlation between compulsory internet use and acceptance of alternatives to traditional monogamy.

                   Open and unstructured relationships are becoming more popular, their convenience and lack of commitment is enticing to people of the modern age. According to a collaborated review found on the U.S. National Library of Medicine’s website,  “…these encounters often transpire without any promise of, or desire for, a more traditional romantic relationship. A review of the literature suggests that these encounters are becoming increasingly normative among adolescents and young adults in North America, representing a marked shift in openness and acceptance of uncommitted sex.” This transition is a powerful movement for the modern generation, and is akin to the sexual revolution of the “Swinging Sixties.” During that time, acceptance of pre-marital sex increased; during present times, acceptance of casual sex is also are rising.

The cause of the sexual liberation and counter-culture of the 1960’s is attributed to many factors; one in particular is increased media. Television made radical new, feminist ideas accessible to anyone in front of a TV screen. Today, anyone with a laptop or smart phone can watch a YouTube video about sex positivity or download Tinder and start swipin’. As Justin Garcia and other write within their piece titled “Sexual Hookup Culture: A Review.” a point about media’s new portrayel of casual sex, “The media suggest that uncommitted sex, or hookups, can be both physically and emotionally enjoyable and occur without ‘strings.’” Talking openly about sex can be uncomfortable for some, but through outlets found online, people can explore their sexual thoughts freely and comfortably. These opportunities are helping women to liberate themselves.

               Approval of casual sex allows women to feel more comfortable as sexual beings. Societal constructs have previously worked against those who lived outside of typical romantic scenarios, this is especially true when dealing with discrimination against members of the LGBTQ+ community as well as individuals in the sex-industry worldwide. Through the internet and media, accessing testimonials of sex-workers, experiences of LGBTQ+ people, and the sexcapades of independent women, has worked to normalize alternatives to heterosexual monogamy. In fact, it has done more than that. The existence of sex positive conversations taking place on the internet have given support to those with questions and in need of help they cannot find elsewhere. Media has done more than just attempt to normalize sexual behavior for women, it has attempted to normalize life for those typically cast out.

                 This movement away from the status-quo may be similar to movements seen in the past, but it is entirely new. The power of the internet is grandiose and impressive and has made many societal impacts. It affects Presidential elections, world relations, and yes, even complex thoughts on heterosexual monogamy. YouTube channels, dating apps, Facebook, and online discussion forums, all help to include varying versions of sex and romance. Inclusion is an important step in our progress as a forward-thinking society, it will not be achieved without the help of the internet.

Vancouver will reduce its crime rate due to addicts by making heroin more accessible. Although this doesn’t make sense, considering that this drug is illegal, it will distract the users by taking away the motivation to commit a crime to possess the drug.  Easiest alternative methods for paying for heroin are burglaries and breaking and entry. The only thing an addict can focus on is getting their fix so that they can reach their high.These addicts are having a hard time completing daily activities such as maintaining jobs, interactions, and relationships. The “Free Heroin for Addicts” program is attempting to lower the crime rate of the city by providing heroin easily so that addicts do not have to commit crimes to get the drug. The program will also keep heroin users out of the hospital by reducing the use of laced drugs and unsanitary needles.  No matter what, addiction will always be stuck in an addicts mind with the help of these clinics many may reduce the use of heroin. Also by giving a safe environment for addicts to receive it sanitary equipment the spread of diseases such as HIV and AIDS Will also reduce. The heroine that is given at the clinics is pure and it provides these programs with finding a better way to treat addiction. These clinics will let users come in and get high multiple times a day for free and will provide medical professionals to help them out. These clinics will provide a progression and stability for addicts lives. Vancouver isn’t the only place that has tried using these clinics many places in Europe have also shown great success with their programs. So in the end free heroin clinics will benefit both The community and those suffering with addiction. This may be hard for many to take, but the reality of it is that giving heroin to those with its addiction Will in return make their community whole again.

The Neglect of College Students’ Emotional Well Being

At college, new students experience immense change. According to Brian Harke of the Huffington post, students come to college “overly optimistic and confident in their ability to manage the challenges they will encounter at college.” They struggle to manage new, unprecedented stress. Students who attempt to cope by delving into extreme parties or unhealthy relationships radically dysregulate.

Of course, there is the academic side of college, the main cause of stress. Students think that they can handle college academics, and often get a reality check in the form of a failed test or paper. College academics can get so stressful that experts write entire books on how to deal with said stress, such as “College Success” created by the Extended Learning Institute and Lumens Learning. But stress is not limited only to academics in college.

Many students know only the positive stories they’ve heard from their parents about “The College Experience” of decades ago. Talking about the “College Experience” as if there is a standard for activities in college does not help students in the least. Instead, pressure is put on them to achieve not only academically but also socially. The wild and sometimes-exaggerated stories set even more expectations for students to fulfill, so forced relationships and parties with unfamiliar and possibly unhealthy people occur. Non-organic interactions can cause dysregulation, as they did not happen naturally, they are forced, and they are unhealthy. Obviously, not all relationships and parties are inherently unhealthy or cause dysregulation, but it is important to consider the related statistics.

82% of college students have admitted to using verbal violence against a romantic partner, often brought on by the use of drugs or alcohol. In that vein, 44% of college students have been classified as binge drinkers. In those relationships and parties seen as part of the college experience, a good amount of dysregulation exists.

The immense change that college students are undergoing, and the pressure felt by many of them causes the dysregulation described by the earlier statistics. Not only academic pressure, but that to somehow “succeed” socially, if that is even possible. A student under almost constant stress who is not recieving help is bound to suffer from dysregulation. This brings me to my original point; college students need DBT. Once we stop looking at dysregulation as a part of being at college and see it as a real problem that has a clear solution, we are on the path to fixing it.

Works Cited

Ed.D., Brian Harke. “High School to College Transition, Part 1: The Freshman Myth.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 22 June 2010. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

Shook, Nancy J., Debora A. Gerrity, Joan Jurich, and Allen E. Segrist. “Courtship Violence Among College Students: A Comparison of Verbally and Physically Abusive Couples.” SpringerLink. N.p., Mar. 2000. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

ELI (Extended Learning Institute at NOVA), Lumen Learning. “College Success.” Candela Learning. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

The Preachers’ Attack on Rock ‘n’ Roll

People view Rock ‘n’ Roll as a type of music that highlights the worst qualities in human beings. When they think of it, these people picture scenes involving blood, darkness, satanic rituals, and vulgar movements. These beliefs are the effects of preachers’ efforts to denounce Rock ‘n’ Roll.  Why these religious individuals are acting against the popular form of music, and influencing people’s view of it, unsurprisingly involves more than one overlapping cause.

The most immediate cause of this attack on Rock ‘n’ roll is, of course, that the music genre highlights themes that are greatly looked down upon in religious groups. As two devoutly religious men by the names of Alan Yusko and Ed Prior have said, “The term ‘rock and roll’ means fornication. It is a street name for sexual immorality. It has wrecked the lives of many teenagers through suicide, drug abuse, immorality, perversion, satanism, etc.” These actions conflict entirely with the morals commonly taught in churches- including love, purity, morality, and respectfulness to the Lord. So, in the eyes of preachers, it would seem only logical to denounce the source of all this blasphemy.

Contributing to this cause is the way the media supports this portrayal Rock ‘n’ roll. It is no secret that the media will twist the truth and choose sides to produce eye catching news. Rem Rieder of USA Today once said, “Life is packed with nuances and subtleties and shades of gray. But the news media are often uncomfortable in such murky terrain. They prefer straightforward narratives, with good guys and bad guys, heroes, and villains. Those tales are much easier for readers and viewers to relate to.” Therefore, in this matter, it makes sense that God’s most devout followers are portrayed as the heroes. And it also makes sense that Rock ‘n’ Roll is portrayed as the villain, since it invokes dark forces and the Devil, as countless preachers have claim. The more interesting news story is not that Rock ‘n’ Roll has the power to make people’s lives better, but that it is a way for people to let their malevolent natures free. And through computers, TVs, tablets, and cell phones, the media is now always present in people’s lives. Our society is brainwashed into believing everything that appears news worthy, and rarely takes the time to search for the truth.

The most remote cause for preachers to denounce Rock ‘n’ Roll is the diminishing number of people attending church. According to Dr. Richard J. Krejcir of churchleadership.org, “Most of the statistics tell us that nearly 50% of Americans have no church home. In the 1980s, membership in the church had dropped almost 10%; then, in the 1990s, it worsened by another 12% drop-some denominations reporting a 40% drop in their membership. And now, over half way through the first decade of the 21st century, we are seeing the figures drop even more!” Each subsequent generation slowly drifted away from church. Many preachers, witnessing this loss of followers, decided to lay the blame on Rock ‘n’ Roll, using it as a scapegoat. They claimed that the music was connected to the blasphemous values of sex, drugs, and irresponsibility, which in turn would attract young people who were not educated enough to make the right decision. Their denouncement of Rock ‘n’ Roll would be publicized in the media, which would influence society’s view of the music, and which in turn they hoped would bring people back to church as protection.

There is a precipitating cause included, however. When Rock ‘n’ Roll truly hit the music scene and took the world by storm, it actually seduced the preachers. They had grown up in conservative lifestyles with very “tame” music, and with the emergence of Rock, they experienced types of sounds unlike any they had ever heard before. Eventually, the preachers realized that they had become attracted to something other than God, which they considered to be a great sin. They had fallen into temptation and did not want the public to find out. So, like their ancestral religious brothers did when confronted by the emergence of the scientifically-proven theories of evolution and the heliocentric system, they denounced it as the work of the Devil. And since new preachers were taught by those that came before, this thought process was passed down through the generations.

As shown, there are multiple causes related to preachers’ denouncement of Rock ‘n’ roll, and the influence it has on society. Although all these causes can be analyzed separately, the fact of the matter is that they are all connected through the effect that they had on society’s belief concerning Rock ‘n’ Roll.

Works Cited

Rieder, Rem. “Media Got Zimmerman Story Wrong from Start.” USA Today. Gannett, 14 July 2013. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

Krejcir, Richard J., Ph.D. “Statistics and Reasons for Church Decline.” Churchleadership.org. N.p., 2007. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

Yusco, Alan, and Ed Prior. “RELIGIOUS ROCK… The Music of Devils in the CHURCH.” RELIGIOUS ROCK… The Music of Devils in the CHURCH. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2016