Dangers of The Hook

If it took you an hour to make a connection between "guilt" and "clouds" then the connection is probably not an apt one.

http://shitmystudentswrite.tumblr.com/

TSA Body Scanner Controversy

Article/Picture Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/nov/26/air-transport-theairlineindustry

Background: The TSA stands for Transportation Security Administration, an organization created after the September 11th attacks in order to ensure the safety of the public by securely checking items that board planes. A recent issue with the the body scanners and pat-downs have created much controversy over what is the right form of searching that doesn't affect privacy.

Picture: In this picture, a man is standing with his arms up in front of a scanner while one of the security officers checks his picture in the online screen. The picture in the online screen displays the entire body of the man, which many people object to. Many types of these pictures have popped up on the internet recently in an attempt to criticize the TSA for the use of full body scanners.

Thoughts on the issue: I believe that this issue affects the privacy of travelers greatly and it cannot be ignored. Passengers feel that their rights are violated by going through these screenings and many are upset with how intrusive these checks are. However, it is also true that these scanners and pat-downs are the way of making sure no harmful items board planes. So passengers cannot opt of any security check because that causes problems with the safety of the rest of the passengers. I feel that the best way to solve this issue is to remove the full body scanners and pat-downs completely but install another security machine that doesn't invade privacy as much. There should be a machine that only detects certain dangerous items such as guns or bombs. This way the body is scanned for items but it does not produce an actual image of the body. It would only notify the security checkers of a suspicious item. This way, both sides win!

Questions: - Has there been any improvement in this issue?
                  - Will the TSA be able to create such a machine?
                 
Any thoughts?
 

George Zimmerman's

Any opinions on the George Zimmerman trial?

Gun Laws Controversy

 Article on NRA: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/01/nra-gun-control_n_3192671.html
 Background: The NRA stands for the National Rifle Association, an association which focuses solely on the right to bear arms. In the recent controversy over gun laws, the NRA has used their power and money to sway voters into voting for no more gun restrictions. They claim that the right to bear arms is a civil right as stated in the Constitution and that no one has the right to change it.
Picture/Cartoon: The cartoon criticizes the NRA. The cartoon suggests that any resolution to problems are guns. In the picture, many problems are suggested and the resolutions are different guns. The owner, part of the NRA, tells a man, with an evil look, who is looking for marriage counseling to go over there. The dialogue suggests that the guns for that problem are in that area. Also, all the problems shown represent real-life problems that caused people to buy guns and wreak havoc on people. In all, the picture gives readers a sense that the NRA believes guns are the solution to every problem.
Thoughts on Cartoon: The cartoon is very straightforward and represents the viewpoint of many people. There are people who get the feeling that the NRA thinks that guns are the key to every problem. That may just be how they view the organization. However, the cartoon does heavily criticize the NRA, accusing it of things they do not promote. This gives the NRA an even worse name in the community.
Thoughts on Issue: I, honestly, do not believe that this is truly what the NRA wants. No well-known organization would want people to solve their problems with the use of violence and guns. I believe the NRA just wants people to have their right to bear arms protected. In a way, they aren't wrong as guns are used for self-defense. However, just because the right is there, it doesn't mean that people should use guns for other purposes such as massacre. Although people have a right to guns, there definitely should be restrictions in light of recent events. So many deaths have been caused by gun massacres and one way it an be stopped is through proper background checks. This doesn't necessarily deprive a person's ability to own a gun but rather takes safety precautions to keep the people of America safe.   
Questions: Will there ever really be a solution to the issue of gun control in our nation?

Gun Control easier said than done.

Where guns have taken lives
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/nyregion/connecticut-legislators-agree-on-far-reaching-gun-control.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/28/us/connecticut-shooting-documents
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/us/shooting-at-colorado-theater-showing-batman-movie.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Where guns have saved them
https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm
My main argument lies in this one website above.
The question i hope to argue is do Guns save more than they kill?

And justify the fine line

between someone who can own a gun and who cannot.



But can these measures prevent killers from finding weapons?

I believe that we should have a tracking device on every gun ever issued in the world;Police included.If we could track every gun that was ever bought then we could stay safe and monitor all gun activity.

In the case of the Sandy Hook shooting i believe that the thugs should have never gotten a right to own the gun to begin with.Also i think that public schools need to reexamine their security measures.Schools cant just let anyone walk onto their campus.I agree that we are taught code red and blue but at the end of the day if the school was impossible to get into those innocent lives might not have been shed.

However some claim that "Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).They have saved more lives than they have taken"

I would be lying if i said guns don't protect people.I think the question we must ask ourselves it at what cost? Guns should be allowed but we must have a tight leash as to who gets them and track their movement.If the following methods are put into action i think all these shootings could have been avoided.

I think that we could sorta of debate off this blog instead of just posting one after the other i think it would be great to get the comments going in an argumentative direction what do you guys think?