I think that overall your analysis is very good. I like that you have many different visuals and tables. I think that you could do a better job of making it more cohesive and tie together, each section is very seperate and does not directly tie back to each other.

When I read this I am kind of unsure of where you stand in your argument, are you being very ambigious when you say "Incorporating a variety of circumstances may also give resolution to the issue of cost and how it may play a major role in the innovation of securitymeasures" is your agrument on security measures or on GSU security? I think you should be more clear as to how it ties back to GSU and the built enviorment of Atlanta.

I think to tie your sections together you can also add this in the next section about the library and the effect of having campus police at the entrance of buildings.

I think that you do a very good job here, your claim here is that extremist should not be allowed to protest within an eductaion enviroment. I also think that maybe you can add that the male protestor is not a student at the university. Then as a counter example, I don't know if you were aware of the student at GSU who is a white extremist going around questioning people about their beliefs but I think that this would be a good way to show both sides of the argument.

Ross is claiming that college campuses should have better securty and one way this should be done is through metal detectors and searches, but you claim that this can give off a bad impression of a place like a prison. Maybe you can find some examples of how increased security can possibye have an adverse effect and be more detremetal than beneficial.