Let the Teachers Teach

         On February 22, 2018, The New York Times published an editorial called, "Let the Teachers Teach". This article encompassed Trump's proposal towards minimizing mass shootings; Trump suggested, "arming 20 percent" of teachers. This would result in potential shooters deterring away from schools as their next target. Chris Magnus, a police chief in Tucson, was asked his perspective on the situation at hand, as well as his solution to it. Magnus responded to Trump's idea, "It's hard to begin to count the number of ways this is a bad idea." However, there are many people in society who would refute Magnus' opinion. Magnus supported his answer by stating how teachers are only human, and even highly trained officers miss at least two-thirds of the time. The percentage decreases to roughly 13 percent when officers are placed in adrenaline rushed gunfights. Personally, I agree with Magnus and wouldn't feel safer knowing teachers were armed. Teachers are human; anyone can have a bad day.  

         The author, The Editorial Board, probably intended to reach out to pro-gun audiences, in hopes of exposing them to the opposing views. Pro Gun-Control does not mean ban all guns. The Editorial Board is credible, due to providing information from an experienced official, whose occupation involves guns. I believe that The Editorial Board is arguing against the ideal of arming teachers, and instead is calling for, "banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines," as well as, "tightening background checks." 

          I agree with the author completely, and also believe a mental health assessment should be included in the process of obtaining a gun. If someone isn't willing to go through more requirements to acquire a gun, then maybe they don't want/need one as much as they think. Teachers have a sole purpose to educate their students, and adding the responsibility of a gun to their classroom would only add to the possible ideal of a shooting happening any day. Schools already take precaution to prevent shootings with lockdown drills, why add a gun? Seems like the reason for these implementations are solely due to guns themselves.        

  

According to USA Today on February 1, 2018, China has been supposedly hacking into our wireless systems and listening in on phone calls. Now, don't worry, I'm pretty sure China has no interest in your phone calls with your grandma. With that said, there of course is still conflict with another country eavesdropping.
Trump has been pondering whether or not to nationalize the United States' 5G wireless network. Nationalizing the wireless network would hopefully limit the Chinese's influence, while minimizing the cyber threats. Sure, that sounds like a plan, but there's still realistic problems. For one, 5G phones and their cell towers won't be around until a few more years. Secondly, with the threat from China being diminished, would we have a safe network that protects us from our own government legally snooping?
Another major issue with this suggestion of nationalizing Federal 5G, is it potentially being monitored in Washington. This information wasn't announced, until a report exposed the leaked presentation made by a SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL MEMBER. If the government is incompetent to secure and protect their own officials, as stated above, how do they plan to organize and run a complete network for an entire nation?
Officials from the White House have denied the accusations for the plans of federal 5G as of now.
Classmates, this link intrigued me at a first glance because I had no knowledge of what federal 5G was. The government potentially having the capability to listen to our calls reminded me of people suddenly covering their webcams more now. How do we know our privacy isn't being violated already? Reading more into the article, I thought it was ironic how a member of national security got hacked and his information for federal 5G got leaked.