I am interested in this topic because it is something that affects me and my family. I have been around firearms my whole life and have learned how to appreciate and above all respect them. My family owns a good amount of firearms and most of them have been passed down in my family over the generations. We use them for recreational purposes and some of the best moments with my dad have been during some activity that involves guns. Firearms are a large part of my life and something that I care deeply about.  I have concentrated on the political debates over gun control that is ever so prevalent in the daily news. Gun laws would affect me because of the fact that I own firearms and plan on purchasing more in the future. These new laws that are constantly debated could restrict me from purchasing a firearm that I would like to own or give rights to the government to take some of my firearms. I do believe though that changes to some laws are needed in order to keep our country safe from mass shootings that happen too often. Taking away firearms from lawful gun owners is not the answer to stop violence from people who are unlawful. I am qualified to write about this topic because it is something I am truly passionate about and want to research more than I already have. 

The first article describes how Martin O'Malley gave a speech about stricter gun control laws outside of a gun show in Iowa. The writer of the article explains how it was a bad location and audience to speak about this subject because the people at the gun show would most likely not agree with stricter laws on firearms. The article touches on the interests of people wanting to purchase firearms at a gun show. The writer explained how the people in the gun show were not interested in what Martin O'Malley had to say about gun control laws because they did not agree with what he had to say. This author has written several article on political topics for the Wall Street Journal and some of them have been about gun control laws, so this gives him credibility on the topic. He does seem to be bias against Martin O'Malley in this article, but the Wall Street Journal as a whole seems to not be too bias of a source. 

The next article goes into some of the details of what the government is looking at to create gun control laws. The government is currently reviewing how our country used to interpret the second amendment and if we can interpret that the same way now. The author also writes about the different laws in different states for acquiring a license to carry a concealed weapon. This article would interest someone who wants to learn more about what lawmakers look at in order to create their laws in accordance with the correct interpretation of the constitution. It could also interest someone who is researching information on concealed firearm permits in the United States. This author, Ashby Jones, has written other articles on the topic of gun control, so it shows that he has done a lot of research on the topic. In this article he does not seem to be bias on the topic because he gave a good explanation of his point of the article without getting too political to either side of the debate. He does a good job of showing both sides of the article to give the reader a better understanding of the topic. 

The third article explains how laws should be made to take guns away from abusers. The author explains that people with a history of domestic violence should be flagged during background checks and restricted from purchasing firearms. Allowing them to purchase a firearm puts the rest of society at an increased risk of danger. This article would interest someone who wants to research background checks and what actually would flag someone and restrict them from purchasing a firearm. This could also interest someone who themselves, their friends, or their family was affected by domestic violence. It brings up an interesting point about who would actually be restricted from purchasing a gun. The article was written by the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal. This group of writers work together on certain pieces to use each others knowledge to create a better article. The article seems bias in helping the people who are affected by abusers. The editorial board show in the article that they do not think that abusers should have access to firearms at any time. 

This research question is arguable because there are many people who have strong opinions on both sides of the gun control debate. This highly debated issue in the current presidential race and is constantly on the news. Two of the articles disagreed about whether there should be more gun control laws or should there be less. The other article was neutral on the issues and gave a good description of both sides of the debate on gun control. The different opinions on the topic of gun control gave me a better understanding of more issues that play into gun control laws as a whole. I should make my question have more room for a longer answer so that I can cover more issues related to gun control laws. 
