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?

Demand a fair trade cell phone

Demand a fair trade cell phone

Tantalum,from tablets to touchscreens  its inside them all.This precious mineral is mined,used and is the reason why technology is sleek, slender and shiny.The story of how it is obtained it a murky one.It involves mining as nonthreatening as that word seems it is the cause of countless deaths and injuries. Bandi argues in his speech that we don't need to stop using phone but procure the materials in a way that is morally sound and does not violate human rights of citizens.This is understood when he states the following  "Why should we allow such a wonderful brilliant and necessary product to be the cause of unnecessary suffering for human beings?" The usage of these minerals should never come to a halt for they are beneficial by connecting the world together.However Bandi asserts his belief  that "If we demand fair trade food and fair trade clothes,it is time to demand fair trade phones."

Truth

The cold hard truth we must accept is that so far every electronic device we use has some percent of tantalum in its foundation and this was procured by forcing African workers in hazardous working conditions to make the phones we use today.

Thoughts

I was shocked to find out the horrible conditions in which the Africans toiled under for hours together with unfair pay.What was really disgusting is that they breathe in such toxic fumes by going deep beneath the earth.I believe that this is highly deplorable and it further makes me realize that the device I'm using to post this blog had been the product of a African miners blood and sweat.This is an in-just practice which probably payed him in pennies.

Questions

1. What can we do to procure this material without harming the African people?
2. We still have to go in mines to get the metal,how do we do this in a safe financially sound manner?
3. If this is the result of years of Imperialism,are the imperialist countries responsible for taking care, fair pay,and safety precautions of the African people.(As they use tantalum Africa exports)