Work is a very important part of life in the United States. When the early Protestant immigrants came to this country, they brought the idea that work was the way to God and heaven. This attitude, the Protestant Work Ethic, still influences America today. Work is not only important for economic benefits, the salary, but also for social and psychological needs, the feeling of doing something for the good of the society. Americans spend most of their lives working, being productive. For most Americans, their work defines them: they are what they do. What happens then, when a person can no longer work Almost all Americans stop working at the age of sixty-five or seventy and retire. Because work is such an important part of life in this culture, retirement can be very difficult. Retirees often feel that they are useless and unproductive. Of course, some people are happy to retire; but leaving one’s job, whatever it is, is a difficult change, even for those who look forward to retiring. Many retirees do not know how to use their time or they feel lost without their jobs. Retirements can also bring financial problems. Many people rely on Social Security checks every month. During their working years, employees contribute a certain percentage of their salaries to the government. Each employer also gives a certain percentage to the government. When people retire, they receive this money as income. These checks do not provide enough money to live on, however, because prices are increasing very rapidly. Senior citizens, those over sixty-five, have to have savings in the bank or other retirement plans to make ends meet. The rate of inflation is forcing prices higher each year; Social Security checks alone cannot cover these growing expenses. The government offers some assistance, Medicare(health care)and welfare (general assistance), but many senior citizens have to change their life styles after retirement. They have to spend carefully to be sure that they can afford to buy food, fuel and other necessities.
Of course, many senior citizens are happy with retirement. They have time to spend with their families or enjoy their hobbies. Some continue to work part time, others do volunteer work. Some, like those in the Retired Business Executives Association, even help young people to get started in new business. Many retired citizens also belong to "Golden Age" groups. These organizations plan trips and social events. There are many chances for retirees.
American society is only beginning to be concerned about the special physical and emotional needs of its senior citizens. The government is taking steps to ease the problem of limited income. They are building new housing, offering discounts in stores and museums and on buses, and providing other services such as free courses, food service, and help with housework. Retired citizens are a rapidly growing percentage of the population. This part of the population is very important and we must meet their needs. After all, every citizen will be a senior citizen some day.
When Americans stop work, it’s difficult for them to ______.

A:get Social Security checks B:feel productive C:enjoy themselves D:be religious

There’s nothing simple about gun control, a tangle of legal, political and public-health issues complicated by cultural preferences and regional biases. Passions run high on all sides. Lifelong hunters who
grew up with firearms, urban victims of gun violence, Second Amendment scholars, NRA lobbyists, chiefs of police—they’ve all got cases to make and they make them well, often contentiously.
For the past 15 years, much of the debate has centered on the effectiveness of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, the federal gun-control bill that was passed in 1993. Critics say the focus on law-abiding gun buyers doesn’t address the real issue—bad guys who acquire their weapons illegally. Supporters say that the bill stops thousands of illegal gun purchases and deters crime and violence. Now medical research has come to the rescue, sifting through the data to figure out which legal measures work best to reduce firearm suicides and homicides.
In a paper published in the May issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Steven Sumner, a third-year med student and Dr. Peter Layde, codirector of the Injury Research Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin, found that local background checks, which are optional and used by just a handful of states, were more effective than the federal background checks mandated by the Brady law. The report compared the homicide and suicide rates in states that perform only federal checks with states that do state-level checks and those that perform local-level checks. The local-level checks were associated with a 27 percent lower firearm suicide rate and a 22 percent lower homicide rate among adults 21 and older, the legal age to purchase a gun.
Why are local checks so much better "We hypothesize that it’s due to access to additional information that’s not available at the federal checks," says Layde, "particularly related to mental-health issues and domestic-violence issues." All 50 states use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the minimum required under Brady, while 17 states also perform state-level checks and 12 do additional local-level checks.
"This is the first study that’s looked at this issue," says Layde. "If the magnitude of impact we found were in fact to apply to all 50 states, you would expect a very substantial reduction in suicides and homicides linked to firearms, many thousands. " However, background checks can be both an administrative and a cost burden for strapped and stretched local authorities. There is another way to get the same results., improve the flow of local information to the NICS databases. "In an ideal world," says Layde, "you might not have to have the local agencies involved if you just reliably got all the data they had up to the federal level. /
Concerning the reduction of firearm suicides and homicides, Sumner and Layde’s study has found

A:local background checks are more effective than federal checks. B:state-level background checks are more effective than federal checks. C:people with mental-health problems are more likely to commit suicide. D:federal background checks are more effective than local background checks.

There’s nothing simple about gun control, a tangle of legal, political and public-health issues complicated by cultural preferences and regional biases. Passions run high on all sides. Lifelong hunters who
grew up with firearms, urban victims of gun violence, Second Amendment scholars, NRA lobbyists, chiefs of police—they’ve all got cases to make and they make them well, often contentiously.
For the past 15 years, much of the debate has centered on the effectiveness of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, the federal gun-control bill that was passed in 1993. Critics say the focus on law-abiding gun buyers doesn’t address the real issue—bad guys who acquire their weapons illegally. Supporters say that the bill stops thousands of illegal gun purchases and deters crime and violence. Now medical research has come to the rescue, sifting through the data to figure out which legal measures work best to reduce firearm suicides and homicides.
In a paper published in the May issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Steven Sumner, a third-year med student and Dr. Peter Layde, codirector of the Injury Research Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin, found that local background checks, which are optional and used by just a handful of states, were more effective than the federal background checks mandated by the Brady law. The report compared the homicide and suicide rates in states that perform only federal checks with states that do state-level checks and those that perform local-level checks. The local-level checks were associated with a 27 percent lower firearm suicide rate and a 22 percent lower homicide rate among adults 21 and older, the legal age to purchase a gun.
Why are local checks so much better "We hypothesize that it’s due to access to additional information that’s not available at the federal checks," says Layde, "particularly related to mental-health issues and domestic-violence issues." All 50 states use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the minimum required under Brady, while 17 states also perform state-level checks and 12 do additional local-level checks.
"This is the first study that’s looked at this issue," says Layde. "If the magnitude of impact we found were in fact to apply to all 50 states, you would expect a very substantial reduction in suicides and homicides linked to firearms, many thousands. " However, background checks can be both an administrative and a cost burden for strapped and stretched local authorities. There is another way to get the same results., improve the flow of local information to the NICS databases. "In an ideal world," says Layde, "you might not have to have the local agencies involved if you just reliably got all the data they had up to the federal level. /
The Brady Act requires that

A:background checks should be made at both state and federal levels. B:all cases of suicide and homicide should be reported to state authorities. C:local background checks should be reexamined at the federal level. D:the data from federal background checks should be used by all states.

There’s nothing simple about gun control, a tangle of legal, political and public-health issues complicated by cultural preferences and regional biases. Passions run high on all sides. Lifelong hunters who
grew up with firearms, urban victims of gun violence, Second Amendment scholars, NRA lobbyists, chiefs of police—they’ve all got cases to make and they make them well, often contentiously.
For the past 15 years, much of the debate has centered on the effectiveness of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, the federal gun-control bill that was passed in 1993. Critics say the focus on law-abiding gun buyers doesn’t address the real issue—bad guys who acquire their weapons illegally. Supporters say that the bill stops thousands of illegal gun purchases and deters crime and violence. Now medical research has come to the rescue, sifting through the data to figure out which legal measures work best to reduce firearm suicides and homicides.
In a paper published in the May issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Steven Sumner, a third-year med student and Dr. Peter Layde, codirector of the Injury Research Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin, found that local background checks, which are optional and used by just a handful of states, were more effective than the federal background checks mandated by the Brady law. The report compared the homicide and suicide rates in states that perform only federal checks with states that do state-level checks and those that perform local-level checks. The local-level checks were associated with a 27 percent lower firearm suicide rate and a 22 percent lower homicide rate among adults 21 and older, the legal age to purchase a gun.
Why are local checks so much better "We hypothesize that it’s due to access to additional information that’s not available at the federal checks," says Layde, "particularly related to mental-health issues and domestic-violence issues." All 50 states use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the minimum required under Brady, while 17 states also perform state-level checks and 12 do additional local-level checks.
"This is the first study that’s looked at this issue," says Layde. "If the magnitude of impact we found were in fact to apply to all 50 states, you would expect a very substantial reduction in suicides and homicides linked to firearms, many thousands. " However, background checks can be both an administrative and a cost burden for strapped and stretched local authorities. There is another way to get the same results., improve the flow of local information to the NICS databases. "In an ideal world," says Layde, "you might not have to have the local agencies involved if you just reliably got all the data they had up to the federal level. /
In light of their findings, Layde proposes that

A:all local authorities should make local background checks. B:further study should be made about the effect of the Brady Act. C:data from local background checks should be incorporated into NICS. D:local authorities should receive more funding for background checks.

There’s nothing simple about gun control, a tangle of legal, political and public-health issues complicated by cultural preferences and regional biases. Passions run high on all sides. Lifelong hunters who
grew up with firearms, urban victims of gun violence, Second Amendment scholars, NRA lobbyists, chiefs of police—they’ve all got cases to make and they make them well, often contentiously.
For the past 15 years, much of the debate has centered on the effectiveness of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, the federal gun-control bill that was passed in 1993. Critics say the focus on law-abiding gun buyers doesn’t address the real issue—bad guys who acquire their weapons illegally. Supporters say that the bill stops thousands of illegal gun purchases and deters crime and violence. Now medical research has come to the rescue, sifting through the data to figure out which legal measures work best to reduce firearm suicides and homicides.
In a paper published in the May issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Steven Sumner, a third-year med student and Dr. Peter Layde, codirector of the Injury Research Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin, found that local background checks, which are optional and used by just a handful of states, were more effective than the federal background checks mandated by the Brady law. The report compared the homicide and suicide rates in states that perform only federal checks with states that do state-level checks and those that perform local-level checks. The local-level checks were associated with a 27 percent lower firearm suicide rate and a 22 percent lower homicide rate among adults 21 and older, the legal age to purchase a gun.
Why are local checks so much better "We hypothesize that it’s due to access to additional information that’s not available at the federal checks," says Layde, "particularly related to mental-health issues and domestic-violence issues." All 50 states use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the minimum required under Brady, while 17 states also perform state-level checks and 12 do additional local-level checks.
"This is the first study that’s looked at this issue," says Layde. "If the magnitude of impact we found were in fact to apply to all 50 states, you would expect a very substantial reduction in suicides and homicides linked to firearms, many thousands. " However, background checks can be both an administrative and a cost burden for strapped and stretched local authorities. There is another way to get the same results., improve the flow of local information to the NICS databases. "In an ideal world," says Layde, "you might not have to have the local agencies involved if you just reliably got all the data they had up to the federal level.

A:local background checks are more effective than federal checks B:state-level background checks are more effective than federal checks C:people with mental-health problems are more likely to commit suicide D:federal background checks are more effective than local background checks

There’s nothing simple about gun control, a tangle of legal, political and public-health issues complicated by cultural preferences and regional biases. Passions run high on all sides. Lifelong hunters who
grew up with firearms, urban victims of gun violence, Second Amendment scholars, NRA lobbyists, chiefs of police—they’ve all got cases to make and they make them well, often contentiously.
For the past 15 years, much of the debate has centered on the effectiveness of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, the federal gun-control bill that was passed in 1993. Critics say the focus on law-abiding gun buyers doesn’t address the real issue—bad guys who acquire their weapons illegally. Supporters say that the bill stops thousands of illegal gun purchases and deters crime and violence. Now medical research has come to the rescue, sifting through the data to figure out which legal measures work best to reduce firearm suicides and homicides.
In a paper published in the May issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Steven Sumner, a third-year med student and Dr. Peter Layde, codirector of the Injury Research Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin, found that local background checks, which are optional and used by just a handful of states, were more effective than the federal background checks mandated by the Brady law. The report compared the homicide and suicide rates in states that perform only federal checks with states that do state-level checks and those that perform local-level checks. The local-level checks were associated with a 27 percent lower firearm suicide rate and a 22 percent lower homicide rate among adults 21 and older, the legal age to purchase a gun.
Why are local checks so much better "We hypothesize that it’s due to access to additional information that’s not available at the federal checks," says Layde, "particularly related to mental-health issues and domestic-violence issues." All 50 states use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the minimum required under Brady, while 17 states also perform state-level checks and 12 do additional local-level checks.
"This is the first study that’s looked at this issue," says Layde. "If the magnitude of impact we found were in fact to apply to all 50 states, you would expect a very substantial reduction in suicides and homicides linked to firearms, many thousands. " However, background checks can be both an administrative and a cost burden for strapped and stretched local authorities. There is another way to get the same results., improve the flow of local information to the NICS databases. "In an ideal world," says Layde, "you might not have to have the local agencies involved if you just reliably got all the data they had up to the federal level.

A:background checks should be made at both state and federal levels B:all cases of suicide and homicide should be reported to state authorities C:local background checks should be reexamined at the federal level D:the data from federal background checks should be used by all states

There’s nothing simple about gun control, a tangle of legal, political and public-health issues complicated by cultural preferences and regional biases. Passions run high on all sides. Lifelong hunters who
grew up with firearms, urban victims of gun violence, Second Amendment scholars, NRA lobbyists, chiefs of police—they’ve all got cases to make and they make them well, often contentiously.
For the past 15 years, much of the debate has centered on the effectiveness of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, the federal gun-control bill that was passed in 1993. Critics say the focus on law-abiding gun buyers doesn’t address the real issue—bad guys who acquire their weapons illegally. Supporters say that the bill stops thousands of illegal gun purchases and deters crime and violence. Now medical research has come to the rescue, sifting through the data to figure out which legal measures work best to reduce firearm suicides and homicides.
In a paper published in the May issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Steven Sumner, a third-year med student and Dr. Peter Layde, codirector of the Injury Research Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin, found that local background checks, which are optional and used by just a handful of states, were more effective than the federal background checks mandated by the Brady law. The report compared the homicide and suicide rates in states that perform only federal checks with states that do state-level checks and those that perform local-level checks. The local-level checks were associated with a 27 percent lower firearm suicide rate and a 22 percent lower homicide rate among adults 21 and older, the legal age to purchase a gun.
Why are local checks so much better "We hypothesize that it’s due to access to additional information that’s not available at the federal checks," says Layde, "particularly related to mental-health issues and domestic-violence issues." All 50 states use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the minimum required under Brady, while 17 states also perform state-level checks and 12 do additional local-level checks.
"This is the first study that’s looked at this issue," says Layde. "If the magnitude of impact we found were in fact to apply to all 50 states, you would expect a very substantial reduction in suicides and homicides linked to firearms, many thousands. " However, background checks can be both an administrative and a cost burden for strapped and stretched local authorities. There is another way to get the same results., improve the flow of local information to the NICS databases. "In an ideal world," says Layde, "you might not have to have the local agencies involved if you just reliably got all the data they had up to the federal level.

A:all local authorities should make local background checks B:further study should be made about the effect of the Brady Act C:data from local background checks should be incorporated into NICS D:local authorities should receive more funding for background checks

Work is a very important part of life in the United States. When the early Protestant immigrants came to this country, they brought the idea that work was the way to God and heaven. This attitude, the Protestant Work Ethic, still influences America today. Work is not only important for economic benefits, the salary, but also for social and psychological needs, the feeling of doing something for the good of the society. Americans spend most of their lives working, being productive. For most Americans, their work defines them: they are what they do. What happens then, when a person can no longer work Almost all Americans stop working at the age of sixty-five or seventy and retire. Because work is such an important part of life in this culture, retirement can be very difficult. Retirees often feel that they are useless and unproductive. Of course, some people are happy to retire; but leaving one’s job, whatever it is, is a difficult change, even for those who look forward to retiring. Many retirees do not know how to use their time or they feel lost without their jobs. Retirements can also bring financial problems. Many people rely on Social Security checks every month. During their working years, employees contribute a certain percentage of their salaries to the government. Each employer also gives a certain percentage to the government. When people retire, they receive this money as income. These checks do not provide enough money to live on, however, because prices are increasing very rapidly. Senior citizens, those over sixty-five, have to have savings in the bank or other retirement plans to make ends meet. The rate of inflation is forcing prices higher each year; Social Security checks alone cannot cover these growing expenses. The government offers some assistance, Medicare(health care)and welfare (general assistance), but many senior citizens have to change their life styles after retirement. They have to spend carefully to be sure that they can afford to buy food, fuel and other necessities.
Of course, many senior citizens are happy with retirement. They have time to spend with their families or enjoy their hobbies. Some continue to work part time, others do volunteer work. Some, like those in the Retired Business Executives Association, even help young people to get started in new business. Many retired citizens also belong to "Golden Age" groups. These organizations plan trips and social events. There are many chances for retirees.
American society is only beginning to be concerned about the special physical and emotional needs of its senior citizens. The government is taking steps to ease the problem of limited income. They are building new housing, offering discounts in stores and museums and on buses, and providing other services such as free courses, food service, and help with housework. Retired citizens are a rapidly growing percentage of the population. This part of the population is very important and we must meet their needs. After all, every citizen will be a senior citizen some day.
When Americans stop work, it’s difficult for them to ______.

A:get Social Security checks B:feel productive C:enjoy themselves D:be religious