I am interested in this research question because it is a topic of hot debate.  I thought it would be a good problem to develop an opinion on and look at the benefits and drawback of both sides. I am also interested in what will happen with gun control in the upcoming future. This research question does not affect my values. I support regulations on assault rifles. This may stem from my parents belief, which supports the ban on these types of guns. My personal experience regarding this is having a grandfather, who owned multiple guns and the opinions of my parents. However, I do not hold much experience relating directly to guns, such as the handling of them, which would come with hunting. Although that is something I wanted to do. I'm not sure if video game gun experience is experience, but I do have that. A high school diploma, and enrollment in college qualify me to write about this topic. To be clear, I do not support banning all guns to be purchased, but only assault, and automatic weapons. Automatic weapons also don't possess a purpose for civilian use as no one needs that kind of firepower for protection or hunting.

This article by prosandcons.org documents arguments for both sides of gun control, and is an informative source, stating facts and research. One important fact they point out, in support of restrictions, is that the second amendment is not an unlimited right meaning that there can be restrictions on guns (Pros and Cons).  Gun regulations are not new as there were firearm regulations since the time of the founding fathers. Multiple studies also found that gun restrictions would reduce gun related death. Another study showed an increase in killings when high capacity magazines were used, in other words, that deaths would decrease if high capacity magazines were banned (Pros and Cons).  Gun companies and those backed by them hold the most at stake with gun laws. Gun companies are a major industry and they could lose enormous profit if restriction of a major kind were passed. This goes for politicians they control through their money and guns salesman and workers. America as a whole also owns stake in gun control, as it could prevent mass shootings, like Sandy Hook Elementary. The interpretation of amendment rights could also be at stake, with the interpretation of second amendment, and could set a precedent. For pros and cons.org, an author is not given. However, the website is a credible source because they received recognition for their information, from the president, Library of Congress and the governments of Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Bias does not have much effect on this article as it is informative and mainly research with statistics and quotations presented. 

An article by Reuters explains why and how President Obama is an investor in the gun industry. He is an investor, even though he wants gun regulation, because he possesses money in pension funds of stock in gun companies. President Obama holds money in these gun stocks because they are doing very well and pension funds choose these stocks to go into. Obama's stake symbolizes the resurgence of investment in guns. Millions buy into gun companies not knowing. These people don't know they own mutual funds, which have increasing holdings in gun stocks because gun sales have risen. The stocks and sales of guns has risen rapidly as the threat of gun laws and mass shootings have fueled people's fears, making them go out and buy guns. This scare is really good for business and President Obama is jokingly praised by guns salesman for creating this gun buying frenzy.  Major values and interests at stake in this article are weapons companies, and President Obama. Weapons companies interests are at stake because guns make up a major part of these companies and if they were banned would hurt their revenue. President Obama's interest at stake in this piece is for him a small amount of his pension fund, as he mentioned as having stocks in guns although he is for regulation. The public's stake in this article is that a large portion of mutual funds holders own stocks in guns. The credentials the authors possess are that they write for Reuters and are long time reporters. Reuters is a large news agency known for trying to be neutral, gives the authors credibility as its ethos is transferred. This transfer of ethos matters because if readers trust Reuters, it will trust the authors. The article looks neutral and no language whether gun control should not be allowed. Although it can be seen as a con for gun control as it would make people lose their money because it is a big and profitable industry.

President has ethos

The central claim and main evidence of this article, by Congressional Digest, is that congress is preventing research on the effects of guns. Congress is preventing research because they fear the evidence it may provide, like one 1993 study showed an increase in likelihood of death with a gun in the home. The major interests and values at stake for this article are the same as listed above, including congress, gun companies and the president. However, one new interest is the CDC and how public health is defined. In this article, the Speaker of the House is quoted as defining the CDC and public health's definition as a responsibility as disease only. As a student in the school of public health, I recently learned that the CDC and public health possesses a much broader definition that includes gun control. The credibility and bias of the author is just that she is a writer for Congressional Digest. A respected website and magazine that is known for years for unbiased reviews of issues. This allows the ethos of congressional digest to be transferred to the author.

Why should there be or not be firearm regulations and if there were, and how would regulation be worth it? The research question could be made arguable to say "Why should there be firearm regulations and how would it be worth it? Another research question could be" Why should purchasing of assault rifles or automatic weapons not be allowed?  It is arguable because you could form a good argument in opposition, that firearms should not be regulated and that it would not be worth it. Some agreements and disagreement found among the sources are, that guns are large part of American investments, restrictions will reduce gun related deaths. The perspective of the sources swayed my opinion in favor of gun regulations. Partly because of the dodging associated with counter arguments and real life proposals for gun control, and that a majority of studies showing regulation would be better.
