Guardiola urges City players to be clinical

first_imgPep Guardiola was far from impressed with Manchester City’s inability to convert their chances against Tottenham Hotspur in their narrow 1-0 win.Riyad Mahrez’s early goal was the difference at Wembley Stadium as City missed clear-cut chances in both halves to increase their lead. And Guardiola bemoaned the poor finishing touches.He went on to reveal to Sky Sports: “We played today one of the most physical teams I’ve faced in my life because of Sissoko, Kane, Dier, Alderweireld, Sanchez, and Dembele. It’s incredible physicality and this pitch was so complicated. We missed some goals and we let them run.norwich city, manchester city, premier leagueReport: City are stunned by Norwich George Patchias – September 14, 2019 Manchester City was stunned by Norwich City in todays Premier League clash.Much has been made in recent days of the potential impact of Aymeric…“But we controlled quite good in terms of the difficulty to play on this pitch, especially in the first 15 to 20 minutes. In the second half, we should have the game over and that is the problem we have.“In the big events, especially in the Champions League, we need to be more clinical in this situation because sooner or later we are not going to win.”He then said in his post-match press conference: “I still feel we have a lot to improve.”last_img read more

STATE REP RACE QA Pina Prinzivalli Offers Thoughts On Massachusetts Democratic Republican

first_imgWILMINGTON, MA — Wilmington Apple is asking weekly questions to the three candidates running for the Wilmington/Tewksbury State Representative seat (19th Middlesex).Below, in her own words, is the response to one of this week’s questions from candidate Pina Prinzivalli (R-Tewksbury).#2) Can you point to two things in your own party’s state platform that you DISAGREE with and explain why? Can you point to two things in your opponent’s party’s state platform that you AGREE with and explain why? (Background: Democratic Platform; Republican Platform) As your next State Representative, there’s only one platform for me to work from and that’s the platform of the 19th Middlesex District.  I’ve been on the campaign trail for a year now, and have spoken with thousands of taxpayers, Democrats, Republicans and Independents.  That platform includes holding the line on taxes and making sure our tax dollars are being put to good use with what I like to call “responsible spending.”  Responsible spending is about prioritizing local aid for education, public safety, and infrastructure; prioritizing programs to battle the opioid crisis, from education and prevention to treatment and recovery; prioritizing benefits and housing for our seniors and veterans.I may be running as a Republican, but I’m running to work on behalf of the people, not a party.  If there’s proposed legislation from a Republican administration that is bad for the district, I’m not going to be afraid to say no.  And vice versa.  I look forward to the opportunity of working across the aisle to get things done for Tewksbury and Wilmington.  I’ve spoken with Democratic legislators and candidates who have expressed to me their interest in working with someone who will bring a fresh perspective to Beacon Hill.  That tells me we can work together.  If a good idea comes from the Democratic side of the aisle, lets explore it.  If it comes from the Republican side, lets explore it.  And that’s what matters to the people, that good ideas are being explored to improve our district.An idea on the Democratic platform that I support is reworking the public education formula.  Education is a priority for the taxpayers and as someone who is preparing to start a family of my own, I want the best education possible for my children.An idea on the Democratic platform that I strongly oppose is making Massachusetts a Sanctuary State for illegal immigrants.  I want local police to have the ability to work with federal agencies, including ICE.  In July, my opponent Dave Robertson said “ICE is disgraceful” and believes they “spend too much time concentrating on those who are already here.”  I couldn’t disagree more.  They’re taking dangerous criminals off of our streets and are risking their lives to do so.  We’ve seen a number of arrests of illegal immigrants over the summer in Tewksbury for drug trafficking.  When the Sanctuary State bill is refiled in January, and I’m serving as your next Representative, I will be voting “NO.”  And I’m the only candidate who has committed to do so.(NOTE: Do you have a question for the candidates? Email wilmingtonapple@gmail.com and it may be asked in a future Q&A or in a debate.)Like Wilmington Apple on Facebook. Follow Wilmington Apple on Twitter. Follow Wilmington Apple on Instagram. Subscribe to Wilmington Apple’s daily email newsletter HERE. Got a comment, question, photo, press release, or news tip? Email wilmingtonapple@gmail.com.Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:Like Loading… RelatedSTATE REP RACE: Prinzivalli Pledges To Opt Out Of Pension SystemIn “Government”STATE REP RACE: Voting Records Show Prinzivalli Voted Only Once Before Launching Candidacy; Campaign DisputesIn “Government”STATE REP RACE: Pina Prinzivalli Stands With Dandi-LyonsIn “Government”last_img read more

Waiting periods reduce deaths from guns study suggests

first_img Citation: Waiting periods reduce deaths from guns, study suggests (2017, October 17) retrieved 18 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2017-10-periods-deaths-guns.html Explore further (Phys.org)—A trio of researchers with Harvard Business School has found evidence that they claim shows gun deaths decline when states enact waiting period laws. In their paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Michael Luca, Deepak Malhotra and Christopher Poliquin describe their study and discuss their results. More information: Michael Luca et al. Handgun waiting periods reduce gun deaths, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2017). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1619896114AbstractHandgun waiting periods are laws that impose a delay between the initiation of a purchase and final acquisition of a firearm. We show that waiting periods, which create a “cooling off” period among buyers, significantly reduce the incidence of gun violence. We estimate the impact of waiting periods on gun deaths, exploiting all changes to state-level policies in the Unites States since 1970. We find that waiting periods reduce gun homicides by roughly 17%. We provide further support for the causal impact of waiting periods on homicides by exploiting a natural experiment resulting from a federal law in 1994 that imposed a temporary waiting period on a subset of states. Gun laws requiring domestic abusers to surrender firearms could save lives There is no debate regarding the numbers of people that are killed each year in the United States from bullet wounds—good records exist. The average is now up to 33,000 each year. What remains up for debate is what to do about it. Some individuals and groups have proposed enacting laws restricting gun sales, while others vehemently object to any such restrictions, citing their right to bear arms as spelled out in the Constitution. Somewhere in the middle, there are possible ways to reduce gun violence by enacting less restrictive laws. One such approach is to mandate that anyone buying a gun must wait a specified number of days after the purchase before taking possession of it. The idea is that a waiting period reduces murders and suicides because it gives those gun buyers time to cool off and think a little bit more about their plans before obtaining a gun. Unfortunately, evidence of whether this actually happens has been scant because the U.S. government has enacted laws disallowing the government from funding studies seeking answers to such questions. In this new effort, the researchers circumvented that problem by asking for and receiving funding directly through their own institution.The study consisted of two parts: The first looked at differences in gun death rates between states that had waiting periods and those that did not over the period between 1970 and 2014. The second part consisted of looking at changes in gun death rates in states that enacted waiting periods after passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act in 1994, which essentially forced all states to enact waiting periods.Results from the first part of the study showed on average 17 percent fewer gun-related deaths for states with a waiting period (and approximately 10 percent fewer gun-related suicides). Results from the second part of the study nearly mirrored the first—the trio found that gun-related homicide deaths following passage of the Brady Bill dropped on average 17 percent while gun-related suicides dropped approximately 6 percent.The researchers suggest their findings indicate that if the U.S. were to implement a nationwide waiting period for gun purchases, the country as a whole could reduce annual gun deaths by approximately 1,700 a year.center_img Journal information: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences © 2017 Phys.org Credit: CC0 Public Domain This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.last_img read more