All Debates
You are browsing through all debates. You can refine the results by using the drop-down boxes above. You can view more information about each debate by clicking Show Details at right.
Recently, many people were outraged by the institution of body scanners and pat-downs at airports. Many passengers felt that these security measures went too far and violated their privacy. Also, even before the institution of these devices, travels still had to go through many time-consuming, expensive measure to make sure that they were not carrying weapons on to an airplane. With the addition of body scans or pat-downs, many are beginning to think that the terrorist threat is becoming overblown and that perhaps we should divert the money to preventing other forms of terrorism like nuclear or biological attacks or simply divert the money elsewhere. Other, however, think that we should put all the resources necessary into preventing another 9/11 attack. What do you think?
The debate is raging in newsrooms across the nation. Would stricter gun control have prevented the Arizona shootings? The shooter used a semi-automatic Glock 19 pistol with an extended magazine. These items require a background check to purchase, so people with criminal records can't legally buy them. However, the shooter clearly slipped through the cracks. Anti-gunners believe that these items should be illegal just in case people like the shooter manage to slip through the cracks. Pro-gunners, however, claim that criminals can and do buy guns illegally anyways and that gun laws are ineffective. So what do you think? Would stricter gun laws have prevented this tradgedy?