Each year in the United States, nearly 100,000 individuals are shot or killed due to firearms. Specifically, handgun incidents account for 10,527 deaths annually. These numbers greatly exceed the gun-related death tolls of Sweden (13), Great Britain (22), and Japan (87). The primary reason for these significant disparities is that Sweden, Great Britain, and Japan have stricter gun control laws compared to the US. It should be noted that these statistics solely refer to deaths caused by handgun incidents; however, various types of firearms contribute to the thousands of gun violence fatalities occurring in America every year.
The tragic event underscores the elevated risk of death that comes with the presence of a gun, even in apparently benign situations. Although guns were initially created for warfare, they continue to be employed as weapons today. However, we are presently grappling with a distinct type of conflict – one pitting us against each other. It is distressing to witness individuals from all walks of life resorting to firearms as means to fatally harm others for various motives. This often results in vengeful acts, perpetuating an endless cycle of violence. Regardless of ongoing debates regarding whether guns serve self-defense purposes or not, their primary purpose remains terminating another person’s life.
Despite my strong opposition to guns and belief in the need for nationwide regulations, it is important to recognize that implementing these regulations would violate an individual’s Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment ensures the right to a well-regulated militia for the security of a Free State and grants individuals the right to possess and bear arms. Consequently, any attempts to restrict gun ownership within communities would be unlawful as this right is safeguarded by legislation. Although this may be disheartening, prioritizing safety over legal concerns becomes imperative.
The Poetic Techniques Used In Robert Frost’s ‘The Telephone’
In Robert Frost’s poem “The Telephone,” an individual shares their personal reflection on a phone conversation with someone else. The speaker mentions a previous meeting with this person, indicating a history and suggesting that this conversation is a continuation of their previous exchange. Throughout the poem, there are ongoing misunderstandings between the two individuals, creating a sense of renewal and familiarity between the speaker and the person on the other end of the phone.
Throughout the poem, Frost metaphorically links the phone to natural elements and personifies the object itself. By comparing the phone to a flower, he suggests that it is beautiful and fragrant. This analogy implies that the person on the other end of the line is very close to the speaker, likely a significant other. Frost further connects the flower to a bee, emphasizing its relationship with nature. The bee’s melodious humming sound parallels the sound of the person’s voice on the phone. Frost employs various metaphors in the poem to strengthen his connection between the telephone and the natural world.
Frost employs a first person singular perspective in the poem, allowing for a deeper understanding of the speaker’s true thoughts. By using the word “…you…” in a symbolic manner, the reader is also drawn into the conversation. This approach enhances the authenticity and truthfulness of the poem. Through the use of “…I…” and “…you…”, Frost creates a sense of realism that offers insight into the speaker’s thoughts, ultimately giving the poem a personal touch.
The structure of the poem is unorthodox as Frost employs different stanza lengths. Initially, he begins with a nine-line stanza, then transitions to a single line. This deliberate choice serves to slow down the poem’s flow and allows for contemplation. Subsequently, Frost switches to a seven-line stanza followed by two more single lines. This erratic structure mirrors the speaker’s recollection of a previous encounter with the same person, resulting in haphazard memories of their conversation. The poet also captures this randomness through the speaker’s inquiries and attempts to jog the other person’s memory: “…Do you remember what it was you said?” By embracing such an irregular formation, Frost liberates himself from traditional rhyme and rhythm constraints while still incorporating some elements of rhyme within the poem.
Throughout the poem, there is an abundance of juxtaposition as Frost employs words such as “was”, “still”, and “did” to contrast with words representing the present, such as “today”. This presents a unique perspective on what the speaker is grappling with; the constraints of time that only accelerate the passage of life. Additionally, this juxtaposition offers insight into the speaker’s mindset. By employing this technique, Frost can establish a stronger connection with the reader and add relevance to the poem by incorporating elements of history.
“The Telephone” by Robert Frost is a poem that showcases the speaker’s telephone call and its association with nature and natural elements. By incorporating the first person perspective, the poem becomes more intimate, while the use of juxtaposition adds relevance to the audience’s experience.
Appearance Vs Reality In Macbeth Analysis
Porter, still impacted by a night of heavy drinking, assumes the role of the gatekeeper of hell. In his portrayal, he welcomes sinners into hell, including an individual who possesses the ability to deceive and take either side when weighing arguments. This part of the text is often interpreted as a allusion to Henry Garnet, a Jesuit during Shakespeare’s era who authored “A Treasures of Equivocation”. In this work, Garnet aimed to educate fellow Catholics on handling challenging inquiries from Protestant inquisitors.
The Catholics would face severe consequences from the Protestants if they openly admitted their Catholicism. However, it was considered a sinful act against God to lie under oath. Garnet proposed equivocation as the solution to this dilemma. By equivocating, a Catholic could deceive the Protestants by telling them what they wanted to hear, yet God would acknowledge that the Catholic’s words held a different truth. In a later scene of the play, the Witches, who served the devil, employed equivocation when interacting with Macbeth. For instance, they assured him that he had nothing to fear until Blanchard wood reached his castle.
It seems like they mean that he will never have a reason to be afraid, because trees cannot move, but it turns out that men can carry branches they have cut, so that the “wood” comes to the castle in that sense. Later in the same scene, the Porter jokes with Macadam that alcohol is an equivocator because it arouses a man’s desires but prevents him from acting on them. In the Porter’s words, drink “provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance: therefore, much drink may be said to be an equivocator with lechery” (2. 3. 30-32).
When Macbeth seeks the witches to discover his destiny, they summon apparitions that speak ambiguously. The initial apparition is an “armed Head” (4. 1. 67, s. D.) that warns Macbeth to be cautious of Macadam. Initially, the literal meaning of the armed head is apparent: Macadam, dressed in armor, will lead an army to fight against Macbeth. However, the deeper significance of the armed head becomes clear only towards the end of the play. After defeating Macbeth in hand-to-hand combat, Macadam beheads him and presents it to his soldiers. “OFF bloody, bold, and resolute; laugh to scorn / The power of man, for none of woman born / Shall harm Macbeth” (4. 1. 81). This seems to imply that no man can harm Macbeth since every man is born of a woman, except for Macadam. Eventually, during his final battle, Macbeth discovers that “Macadam was from his mother’s womb / Untimely ripped” (5. .15-16). A cesarean section doesn’t meet the criteria of being “born.” In terms of the third apparition, it appears as a “Child crowned, with a tree in his hand” (4. 1. 86, s. D.).
The apparition tells Macbeth that he will never be defeated until the Great Birdman brings wood to a high Adenosine hill (4. 1. 92-94). Macbeth interprets this as a guarantee of his invincibility, but the meaning behind the apparition is different. Macbeth himself realizes that the crowned child represents a king’s son, commonly believed to be Malcolm, who is the son of Duncan. Ultimately, Macbeth dies and Malcolm is set to become the new king.
The child carries a tree in his hand to demonstrate how Birdman wood will be brought to Machete’s castle. Soldiers will use branches and saplings as camouflage during the transportation. In a scene summary, the Son of Macadam learns that his father might be considered a traitor. He asks his mother for the definition of a traitor and she responds, “Why, one that swears and lies” (4. 2. 47). “One that swears” refers to someone who takes an oath to tell the truth or pledges allegiance to his king. A person who “swears and lies” is someone who makes a false oath without intending to keep it.
The passage is often interpreted as a reference to Henry Garnet’s doctrine of equivocation. However, Macadam’s son jokes that almost everyone “swears and lies” at some point. [Scene Summary] Macadam is in England seeking Malcolm’s support for a war against Macbeth. Ross enters and reports on the terrible things Macbeth has done in Scotland. Macadam inquires about his wife and children, to which Ross responds that they are “well.” Macadam reiterates the question, asking if the tyrant has caused them harm. (4.3.178)
Ross responds evasively, stating that the people Macbeth killed were peaceful when he left them (4. 3. 179). It is clear that Macbeth did more than disturb their peace, he actually killed them and they are now at peace in heaven. Ross has good intentions and wants to spare Macbeth’s feelings, at least for now. [Scene Summary] A messenger informs Macbeth that the forces led by Malcolm are advancing towards Adenosine, and claims to have observed movement in Birnam woods. Macbeth becomes fearful and suspects that the devil is using deception to deceive him.