I'm interested in this research question because in my opinion guns are not the issue in America. I feel that people put the blame on guns and try to say that guns are the reason why people are murdered in America. This to me is just absurd because a gun whether it be a pistol, a rifle, or a shotgun is just that. They require someone to be operated and that operator decides what that weapon is used for. If someone uses a gun for murder, it's not the gun that is the issue, it's the operator that is choosing to use that weapon to harm and potentially kill others. My personal experience is that I was taught gun safety as a child and teen and have grown up around guns. Not only did I just grow up with them, but for two years now I have been a US Infantryman in the army and I specialize in automatic rifles and pistols. Safety is an important factor when it comes to handling these weapons because they can be used to kill and knowing that should be treated with absolute care. 

The first article is does a great job explaining just what gun control is and how it started. It serves mainly as evidence and a place to go to find unbiased answers if there are any questions. It is informative and gives the reader several facts and a historical timeline to follow. This article does a good job of staying unbiased and also at being strictly historical information. Since this information comes from a reputable source and is unbiased the reader is fully able to understand what gun control is, what policies have been enacted in the past, what current policies have been enacted, and why it is an issue today's society.

The second article is for people who are pro-gun control. It gives an abundance of information for why a person should be pro-gun control and common arguments that often faced by the believers of this ideal. It also states that "the standard pro-gun tactic when arguing against gun laws is to change the subject." This is within the first sentence of the article and is a clear statement of what spectrum the writer falls under. It also doesn't second guess to simply claim that some arguments are completely false. There are a couple examples that are given when the writer attempts to help the reader but doesn't give enough information. Also the examples are vague and almost repetitive. It is easy to keep current views on the issue since there isn't much that helps persuade to be pro-gun control. It is more focused on the misinformed believers that already claim to be against guns and I believe that was the writers intended audience.

The third article is mainly concerned with how it would only take one more Supreme Court Justice to repeal the Second Amendment. He states that the justices are more powerful and in some cases work more efficiently than Congress does. It also talks about how getting rid of the Second Amendment is a near impossible task because there are so many gun activists in the US and that repealing the Second Amendment would be political suicide for the Left. He briefly describes what could be if the Amendment is repealed and provides a few minor examples. Lastly he stresses the importance of the 2016 election since whoever wins will have a huge effect on what will happen in regards to the Second Amendment. The author is his military and political background and seems to be biased to pro-gun activism.

This research question is arguable because there are many people in the US that seem to believe that there is no need for people to own guns but there is also a daunting number of people that believe guns are necessary and that they can't be taken away in the first place because of the Second Amendment. Due to my background I am pro-gun. I know the consequences of mishandling a weapon and I have morals. There are very few reasons why someone should be shot and it is usually along the lines of self-defense or the defense of another. Other than that if people would abide by laws that are already in place and were taught the consequences of mishandling a weapon we wouldn't have as many deaths. More than enough of mass killings aren't caused by law abiding citizens anyways so to restrict law abiding citizens is preposterous since its criminals and non-law abiding citizens that make up a large amount of gun crime and murders. I personally wouldn't feel safe to be a law abiding citizen without a weapon while there are non-law abiding citizens in the US with weapons. If they don't have the morals to follow the law what is stopping them from doing anything else immoral?

