My topic I am going to do research on is smart guns. I am interested in this topic because, here in the not too distant future, smart gun technologies are going to arise and come into the political spotlight, at least to some degree so I want to learn a little bit more. I also am a gun rights advocate and enthusiast so this also happens to be about a major interest/hobby of mine. It does not necessarily affect my values because I am not against the development and marketing of such firearms but, I am against laws requiring making such technologies mandatory on firearms. I think that would lead to more problems than they would, supposedly, solve. I am qualified to write on this subject because I am doing research on it for my college English class.

In, "Personalized Guns Are an Ineffective Solution to Gun Violence", the article includes a lot of questions about smart guns. Questions ranging from "What is a Smart gun?" to "What effect would personalized guns have on fatal unintentional injuries?" The author then answers these questions about how smart gun technologies would fail or not prevent the things that they are supposed to prevent such as a child getting a hold of the gun and using it. The author states that smart guns cannot meet up with the benefits proponents claim that they would have. The author of this article, Laura K. Egendorf, would be considered a credible author because upon researching her name, I found many other books and opposing viewpoint writings she has done over a wide variety of major contemporary topics. This article in particular comes from one of her works titled, "How Can Gun Violence Be Reduced?" and in writing this she used and cited a plethora of other references where she got her information. 

The article, "Make Guns Smart", is as pro-smart gun as one could find. It goes to talk about multiple technologies that could go into firearms that would make them safer and prevent all types of shootings. They argue technology is the way to go. Technologies such as GPS to track the gun if it is stolen and sensory tools that could recognize what the gun is being pointed at, or whom, are examples the author uses in his argument. The author of this article wrote this for CNN, of course a major news network so it's safe to say that he is probably credible to a degree. As I just mentioned, this is a news report from CNN, a news network that tends to like to lean to the left side in the political spectrum. With that being said, of course there is bias towards the pro-smart gun side as the political left is more for gun control and other related issues involving guns.

The last source is, "California Store's sale of Smart Guns Prompts Backlash". This whole article is about how one gun store in California had decided to promote and sell a smart gun and the reactions of it from both sides. This article really came to show the acceptance of smart guns, which was fairly low and this is a prime example. This is an article from the Washington Post, another big news magazine. I do not see there being any bias in the article. It seems to just be a neutral new report. It just informs the reader of the events that occurred and adds various quotes from those interviewed about it. 

Again, the question I want to try to answer is can smart guns solve, or at least reduce, the problems proponents claim they can? I believe this is a fairly feasible topic to do research on. At first I was not too sure at first but after looking a little bit into it, I found a good bit of information pretty easily. Information I had not read about before. So that somewhat helped peak my interest at continuing to look into this topic. Not only information relating just on smart guns but also businesses that have or would be affected and the role government has in it or could be involved. As I continue researching and reading more, I know I will find more to write on in the future as well. 
