You must show your work on all problems. You may type your answer right into this document. Total points for project:  45 points. Projects must be submitted as a Microsoft Word document and uploaded to the Dropbox for Unit 4. All Projects are due by Tuesday at 11:59 PM ET of the assigned Unit. NOTE: Project problems should not be posted to the Discussion threads. Questions on the project problems should be addressed to the instructor by sending an email or by attending office hours.

You will be able to come back to the Dropbox and view your graded work or in the Gradebook after your instructor evaluates it.

### Project

Get started on the assignment by watching the Should I Buy New Equipment Now? video on the link below then answer the following questions. The engraving department uses an aging rotary engraver to engrave plaques and trophies. The machine has been reliable, but requires regular maintenance and periodic replacement of parts.

Charlie has just found out that this engraver will no longer be supported by the manufacturer. This means that service and parts will be hard to get in the future and if it breaks it could take up to three weeks to get a new machine up and running. They keep this machine running almost 8 hours a day, every day. Each day that the engraver is down will cost around \$975 in lost income. If Charlie has to buy a new engraver, it would cost around \$25,000. Charlie can get a one-year loan at 12% to buy a new engraver, but he worries that this is a lot of money to spend, especially since the old engraver is still working fine.

He has to make a decision. Should he purchase a new engraver now or wait until the old engraver breaks before ordering a new engraver? What you know: New engraver cost: \$25,000 One-year loan cost: 12% interest Revenue per day from engraving: \$975 Profit margin on engraving: 25% Potential days lost, if engraver breaks: 18 What you are looking for:

1. Cost of new engraver in total if the full value is financed by a 12% loan (not including tax)
2. Total amount of revenue that could be lost if the engraver breaks
3. Amount of net profit that could be lost if the engraver breaks
4. How long it will take to pay for the engraver if the entire net profit is allocated toward paying for it?
5. Any other considerations that Charlie should factor into his buying decision

### Solution Plan

1. The local bank will loan Charlie \$25,000 for 1 year at an interest rate of 12% with only one payment due at the end of the year. If Charlie borrows the full \$25,000 for the new engraver, what will the total cost of the loan be? \$25,000 x 12% = \$3,000 \$25,000 + \$3,000 = \$28,000
2. Calculate the total amount of revenue (gross profit) that will be lost if the engraver breaks. \$975. 00 x 18 = \$17,550
3. If the engraving business makes \$975 per day in revenue and generates a net profit of 25%, how much profit is generated per day? \$975 x 25% = \$243. 75
4. What is the total net profit lost if the engraver is out of commission for the full 18 days? \$243. 75 x 18 = \$4387. 50
5. If the engraver is kept busy 269 full days per year, how much revenue (gross profit) will be generated? \$975 x 269 = \$262,275
6. If the engraver is kept busy 269 full days per year, how much net profit will be generated? \$262,275 x 25% = \$65568. 75
7. Given a 25% profit margin and \$975 per day in revenue, how many days would it take for the new engraver to earn back the total cost of purchase, if the entire net profit were allocated to pay for the unit? Round your answer to the next full day. \$28,000 / \$243. 75 = 115 days
8. What other factors should Charlie consider in order to make a good business decision? How long will business be delayed for installation of the new engraver?
9. Should Charlie buy the new engraver? Why? Yes because if the new engraver breaks down then it will take a very long time to make up the profits lost.

## Growing Problemof Gangs In The UK

This assignment is about gangs, which are now a growing problem in the UK. This is reflected in media coverage and governmental responses to gangs, crime, and violence. According to the Eurogang network’s definition, gangs are any durable street-oriented youth group whose involvement is in illegal activity as part of their group identity.

The article Dying to Belong” presents another definition of a gang. It describes a gang as a relatively stable group of young people who primarily operate on the streets and engage in criminal activity and violence. They identify themselves as a distinct group and lay claim to territory, often with some identifying structural feature. These gangs are often in conflict with other similar groups.

The article also suggests that disadvantaged communities are more likely to have issues that lead young people to join gangs and end up on the streets.

Most of the gang members seem to come from poor family backgrounds. The article suggests that there are key pathways to poverty that cause these young people to join gangs. These pathways can take the form of family breakdown, such as when parents divorce and a single parent tries to raise children alone. In most cases, problems begin to develop when these children feel the need for a male role model and decide to engage with older youth on the streets.

Economic dependency and unemployment are factors that drive young people to join gangs. Education failure also affects them greatly, causing some to give up on education and drop out of school. Others may be excluded from school and turn to the streets to join gangs (Aldridge and Medina 2007). Addiction and personal gratification are among the pathways found in Britain’s most deprived communities that lead to gang involvement.

UK and USA researchers suggest that there is a strong connection between gangs and violence (Communities That Care, 2005; Bennett & Halloway, 2004). According to Muncie (2011), Trasher (1927) and Puffer (1912) believe that a gang is any play group existing alongside the family and neighborhood. Trasher’s idea is that gangs are formed when youth in the same area come together as a playgroup initially but eventually come into conflict with their community, leading to a culture of delinquency.

According to Trasher (1927), gangs provide solace and a sense of belonging and support to disorganized communities. Gang members range in age from 10-year-olds up to 40-year-olds, but the most common age for joining a gang is between 13 and 16 years old. As members mature, membership tends to tail off (Aldridge and Medina, 2007). People join gangs for different reasons, such as protection; however, intra-gang conflict is endemic. In most cases, gang members themselves lack stability of membership.

Gangs have long been associated with crime, but they rarely commit crimes collectively as a gang. Instead, it is usually individual members who commit the crimes. Campbell and Muncer (1989) argue that contrary to what the media says, none of the USA gang culture is reflected in British culture.

In 2007, the media and government attributed killings to the rise of armed organized gangs in the UK and an emerging culture of violence among young people. Based on this vein, it has been suggested that there is a gang epidemic in the UK.

According to Downes (1996), the notion of gangs existing in Britain during the 1960s was a reflection of middle-class efforts to attribute structure and organization to working-class groups that they did not possess. Downes also suggested that while America is associated with gangs, Britain is known for its youth subcultures. In support of this idea, Bill Sanders moved to London and found that US-style street gangs were not present in the city, nor had they ever been (Sanders, 2005 as cited in Muncie 2011).

It has been argued that the UK has a significant number of gangs, which are a new phenomenon resulting from changing social conditions (Pitts 2007). London, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool are cities with high rates of gang-related crime, accounting for 65% of firearms offences in England and Wales. In the early 2000s, the media highlighted Bradford, Bristol, Leeds and Nottingham as cities with gangs that focused on high-profile firearms murders.

In 1998, Eurogang was established. It is led by the American academic Malcolm Klein and involves American researchers who aim to apply largely quantitative analysis to help European countries deal with their gang problems (Hallsworth and Young, 2008). This is also an attempt by the government to tackle gang problems in the UK. The UK is now expanding its knowledge about gangs, and some studies have documented the prevalence of gang membership and its relationship to offending (Aldridge & Medina, 2006).

The media (Observer, 8 September 2002) claimed that there were as many as 30,000 gang members in England and Wales, clustered within London, Birmingham, and Manchester. The year before, the same newspaper announced that girls lead the pack of gangland violence. The question is: how far is what the media says true about gangs in the UK? From January to September 2007, eight children and teenagers lost their lives in shootings while seventeen others died from stabbing. These crimes included the death of an eleven-year-old boy who was shot; it appeared to be an accident shouting in Liverpool.

When James Bulgar was killed, the telegraph declared that we were now caught in the crossfire of gangland Britain (Muncie, 2011). According to research by Manchester University School of Law, while police respond to gangs as clearly identifiable groups, in reality these gang memberships have no stability or continuity. They are also less criminally active than commonly believed and have less clear leadership (Guardian, 14 July 2008), contrary to what is portrayed in ‘Dying To Belong’.

A report from the Youth Justice Board (2007) suggests that young people between the ages of 10 and 17 are more likely to be involved in serious violence as part of a gang. However, the same report also warns against mislabeling youth groups as gangs, which could glamorize them and encourage young people to engage in more serious criminal behavior. The report also notes that most young people who carry knives claim it is for protection and have never used them.

There was also a suggestion that young men who are in offending groups recognize that claiming to be a gang gives them a certain status. However, they later discover that those claims were empty boasts and there was a clear difference between their group of affiliation and actual gang membership. Real gangs transgress certain norms, particularly with regard to their deliberate use of unacceptable levels of violence, which distinguishes them from other groups. (Youth Justice Board, 2007)

Between 1997 and 2006, there was a concern about knife crime. The number of young people convicted of carrying knives rose from 482 to 1265 during this time, but the statistics on knife-related crimes remain unknown. However, a survey conducted by the Metropolitan police in 2007 showed that knife crime dropped by 15.7 percent from 12,122 to 10,220 incidents (Guardian, May 12th, 2008). It is believed that carrying knives is driven by a concern for self-protection or status. As a result, the government enacted new laws making it illegal to sell imitation guns or knives or air rifles to anyone under the age of eighteen.

In 2008, £5 million was allocated to target knife hotspots and the use of electronic metal detectors was introduced. The police were also granted new powers to stop and search. The Prime Minister urged that there should be a presumption to prosecute any individual over 16 years old caught carrying a knife or anyone caught carrying a knife without good reason (BBC NEWS, 7 July 2008). This is an attempt by the government to deter young people from carrying weapons.

According to BBC news on February 13, 2009, London and Strathclyde police have each identified 170 gangs. In the London Borough of Waltham Forest alone, it is estimated that 600-700 young people are directly involved in gangs with an additional 8,100 people affected by them (J. Pitts, Youth Gangs in Waltham Forest, 2007). Merseyside police reported that around 60 percent of shootings in Manchester and Liverpool are gang-related (Home Office Crime Reduction Series Paper 13, 2002).

The Metropolitan Police Authority reported on May 29, 2008 that at least half of the 27 murders of young people in London were gang-related. However, there is a problem with conflicting figures. The Home Office Tackling Gangs Action Programme identified fewer gangs than the Metropolitan Police did. The MPS found 171 gangs operating in London, while the Home Office estimated only 356 gang members in London. This would mean that there are only two people per gang which does not meet the Home Office’s definition of a gang.

If the Home Office had a universal definition of a gang, it would be helpful if everyone agreed on what constitutes a gang. The media often has misconceptions about gangs, as they tend to associate them heavily with black males and crimes involving guns and knives. As a result, these individuals are often subjected to stop and search procedures. However, the truth is that gangs are made up of individuals from various ethnicities and are based in different communities. Therefore, it is crucial to establish a common definition of what constitutes a gang.

The Home Office refers to them as delinquent youth groups rather than gangs, according to Aldridge and Medina. However, this definition of gangs is not used by those who are involved in tackling them. This makes it difficult to produce a national assessment of gang membership and activities since there is no clear definition of what constitutes a gang for those who are tackling them. As a result, the true scale and nature of the gang culture and activity in the UK is very limited (Dying to Belong). It will not be easy to paint an accurate picture of the gang problem in the UK.

The government has started to address the ongoing problem of gang and youth violence in the UK, although they have not done enough over the years. The August 2011 riots exposed how prevalent gang culture is in the country, with one in five of those arrested during the riots being known gang members. It has also been discovered that gangs are responsible for 22% of all serious violence in London.

Currently, the government has established agencies to closely research and examine the extent of gang problems in the UK. Strategies for combating these issues have been implemented, such as the Metropolitan Services’ investment in monitoring gang activity in London. So far, 171 gangs have been identified. In September 2007, the Home Office established a subgroup called Tackling Gangs Action Programme to address gang-related issues in the UK.

Since August 2011, after the riots, a group of senior ministers led by the home secretary has been engaged in a range of projects to stop youth violence. The government has put welfare reforms in place to give young people who are at risk of being in gangs an opportunity to access work and overcome employment barriers. Additionally, they will be presented with good educational opportunities which will increase their chances of further study.

The government also wants all mainstream agencies that young people are involved with, such as jobcentres, schools and hospitals, to be involved in preventing future violence.

The government has proposed providing support to areas at risk of gangs or youth violence by improving their mainstream services. (Source: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime/knife-gungang-youth-violence)

Bibliography:

1. Antrobus, S. (2009). Dying to Belong.
2. Muncie, J. (2011). Youth and Crime, 3rd ed.
3. Newburn, T. (2007). Criminology.
4. www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime/knife-gungang-youth-violence
5. Young, T.M., Fitzgerald, S., Hallsworth and L.Joseph (2007). Guns ,Gangs and Weapons: Youth Justice Board.

“NO, STOP, DO NOT DO IT, you do not have to kill yourself over someone cyber bullying you”. People today get bullied over the internet. They are often at home and that is basically where the worst things happen. Mostly students get bullied everyday because of how they look, dress, how they talk, ect. Some people take the bullying too far and lead the person who is getting bullied to kill themselves, or cause any type of damage to their body.

Some people think there should be a crime law for cyber bullying, because they have been in that situation and it is devastating that people can talk down on other people. Threats or mean comments that focus on things like a person’s gender, religion, sexual course, race, or physical differences fall into this category. Whether it is done in person or online, this type of meanness counts as discrimination and is against the law in many states; not only cyber bullying hurting people verbally, but it is hurting people physically. Should there be a crime law for cyber bullying?

There should be laws for cyber bullying because it is just the same as hurting people intentionally. Cyber bullying is important because it leads to rumors, deaths, and tragic accidents. Victims of cyber bullying mostly get bullied where the most teens join with each other and chat like Facebook, Instagram, MySpace, and other teen websites. Cyber bullying has become what the most popularity rated for one time victimization. In the last 2 months it was 12. 8% for physical, 36. 5% for verbal, 41. 0% for relational, and 9. 8% for cyber forms. (Uhls, Yalda T).

Most studies have found that the majority of victims of cyber bullying know the person behind everything, with many bullies being peers from school. (Uhls, Yalda T) The Swedish study divided the kinds of cyber bullying into text (email and text) and visual (video and phone). Text based cyber bullying was seeming to have a less cruel impact than traditional bullying, but visual felt more cruel than traditional bullying. People who resist making cyber bullying a crime if it results in suicide argue that suicide results from many factors, including problems at home, clinical depression, drug and alcohol abuse, and separation.

Some people think cyber bullying should be disciplined at the home and school level, but is not a crime. If the attacks are only verbal, than the victim can let it go. In 1997 the United States Supreme Court said that the internet is protected by the First Amendment. This provides protection for speech that is reasonable under the situation. In the past many people have been cyber bullied, for example there were two students that brought a gun to school and killed 12 students, a teacher, and themselves, after posting threats of violence online.

Ever since then, tension has grown between student free speech, online speech, and school safety. ( “Cyber bullying. ” Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Detroit: Gale, 2012. ) Cyber bullying has become a common experience for teens around the world. It has the potential to become a more serious problem than traditional bullying. Cyber bullying is usually not a onetime communication, unless it involves a death threat or a credible threat of serious bodily harm. Kids usually know it when they see it, while parents may be more worried about the rude language used by the kids than the hurtful cause of rude and embarrassing posts.

The cyber bullying epidemic has the attention of state legislatures, the federal government, and countries across the globe. Cities and towns are also addressing the problem by passing laws about electronic harassment. In 2008 study, 75% of the students with a private profile on a public networking site report using it for creativity, communication skills, and being open to new and diverse views. Cyber bullying is by its nature, limited to verbal than physical insults, and that is why some people say that cyber bullying is not as serious a problem as traditional, or playground, bullying.(Jacobs, Tom, Teen Cyber bullying Investigated)

“The number of teens who experienced online harassment goes up by 50 percent from 2000 to 2005. ” Several campaigns have been mounted to educate teens on the dangerous of cyber bullying. The Advertising Council, working with the Family Violence Prevention Fund, has created a public service advertising campaign that focuses on cyber bullying’s role in domestic violence. (“Cyber bullying. ” Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Detroit: Gale, 2012).

Some people disagree with cyber bullying because if you get into an argument with someone you do not have to get that person back by getting on a web page that all of their friends and that person friends to see to get embarrass. Being a victim of cyber bullying is hard, especially when it is unclear as to why they are being harassed. But when the constant pestering and intimidating threats continue to bombard your computer or cell phone, they become hard to ignore. Some people should be banned from any websites if they are the person who is the one cyber bullying.

Mostly The victim of cyber bullying is girls, to some people girls are weak minded and that leads a person to bully them. Other People think that cyber bullying should be illegal because it causes a lot of problems like deaths, and a lot of commotion to other people. In conclusion causing harm to someone, mental or physical, should be taken seriously and when there is proof of harm that is when courts should have legal authority. The fact that this aggressive cyber bulling can be done without looking for the identity of bullies may stir others to participate in this cyber bullying without any thought.

Cyberbullying is the reason for somebody to commit suicide because they can look at it again and again and again, because it’s always there and it’s never going to leave that site no matter what they do, people can look at it and laugh. So it’s easier to give into the pressure of never wanting to see it again, so they kill themselves. Cyber bullies may not realize the consequences for themselves of cyber bullying. The things teens post online now may reflect badly on them later when they apply for college or a job. Cyber bullies can lose their cell phone or online accounts for cyber bullying.

Cyber bullies and their parents may face legal charges for cyber bullying, and if the cyber bullying was sexual in nature or involved sexing, the results can include being registered as a sex offender. Teens may think that if they use a fake name they will not get caught, but there are many ways to track someone who is cyber bullying. Some people might agree with this issue because this probably would be the best way to get back at someone by exposing that person in the wrong way. Most of the times people do cyber bullying because they either feel better expressing themselves in a wrong way.

Some cyber bullies may think their behavior is normal and socially acceptable, especially when friends egg them on. Some people think it should not be legal because they think it is okay to show how people act and show their personal problems. If serious bullying will almost always involve acts that are already crimes, harassment and making threats for example. They do not need to create more laws, goodness knows people have enough already. Some teen’s feet like they could get away with being mean without the victim knowing exactly who they are.

Some would not actually bully the victim in person. Most feel more powerful, like nobody can touch them. In some cases, the bully has been bullied in the past and is taken it all out on others. Maybe there are problems in their life that they just can’t handle so they turn to bullying to solve things. Many cyber bullies think that bullying others online is funny. They think it is okay to hurt people verbally than physically because they do not think it will cause any problems to them and do not think about the outcome.

Sometimes most people do not mean to hurt someone over the internet because they do it by mistakenly sending the wrong person the wrong thing, or saying the wrong information to the wrong person. Some people take the bullying too far and lead the person who is getting bullied to kill themselves, or cause any type of damage to their body. Some people think there should be a crime law for cyber bullying, because they have been in that situation and it is devastating that people can talk down on other people.

Cyber-bullying may seem like nothing since there’s no physical contact, but in truth is it can hurt even more than the actual thing. Behind the monitors are real people with real feelings; some have been driven to depression, some have been driven to physical bullying, and some have been driven to suicide. Not only cyber bullying hurting other people verbally, but it is hurting people physically. Paper title repeated exactly from your research paper.

Works Cited

1. “Cyberbullying. ” Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Detroit: Gale, 2012. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 8 Feb. 2013
2. Uhls, Yalda T. “Cyberbullying Has a Broader Impact than Traditional Bullying. ” Cyberbullying. Ed. Louise I. Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012.
3. At Issue. Rpt. from “Is Bullying Going Digital? Cyber Bullying Facts. ” PsychologyinAction. org. 2010.
4. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 8 Feb. 2013.
5. “Introduction to Cyberbullying: At Issue. ” Cyberbullying. Ed. Louise I. Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 8 Feb. 2013.
6. Jacobs, Tom, Teen Cyberbullying Investigated: Where Do Your Rights End and Consequences Begin : Jan 2010

error: Content is protected !!