I find this an interesting topic because firearms have been apart of America and its culture since the Constitution was drafted and to me, taking them away is negating American citizens' freedom, which is the biggest ideal this country was based on. I value the freedom to own firearms and the ability to use them to defend my own property as well as keep me and my family safe from any dangers that may come by. If guns are banned from America, I am using the ability to do so. Currently, I live on a college campus, so I am unable to keep firearms with me. However, I come from a family who have owned firearms for many generations and I personally feel that it is a freedom that Americans have and that should be allowed to express. Personally, I do not own any firearms, but like I said, I come from a family who have owned and used firearms for several generations. I have followed many debates and news article surrounding the topic as well as researched many articles and papers pertaining to the debate of gun control.

The "Educators Guide: The Battle Over Gun Control" is an informative article that states that Gun control in America is a controversial topic. While some states with strict gun regulations have seen a decrease in gun-related homicides, others states with less regulations have similar trends. The argument is based around the opinion of whether gun ownership is a right or a privilege. The article does not take sides on the topic, but rather explores both sides of the debate and illustrates the pros and cons of the arguments on each side. Because of this, the article does not have stakes or an interest to support one side of the debate over the other. The article was written by two teachers who researched the debate to give the basic information and opinions of each side of the argument. Because of this, there is very little or no bias within the article.

"A List of the Reasons Cited Against Gun Control and an Effort to Think Them Through" is an article that claims that issue with gun control is the fact that the target is guns when in reality, guns don't kill people, people kill people. If guns are taken away, people will use some other form of weapon to inflict hurt on other people. The target shouldn't be the weapons, but the possible emotional and mental abnormalities of the people using those weapons. The writer of this article clearly supports gun freedom, so therefore, she has stakes and interests in the debate. She values the freedom to own firearms and would not be able to exercise it if firearms were banned. The article is fairly biased towards gun freedom due to the fact that the writer supports that side. Not only this, the writer rarely recognizes the opposition as well as provide a counter argument to it.

Finally, the article "Gun-Control Dishonesty" claims that requiring background checks on private firearms transactions will not reduce the number of gun-related crimes. The writer lists several mass shootings in which the majority of shooters purchased their firearms legally and passed all background checks. They also claim that a shooter is either going to follow the law to the letter, or break it completely, so it is irrelevant to have background checks on those individuals because they will get a gun one way or another. The writer does not seem to have any interests or stakes in the debate, but is merely pointing out flaws in certain protocols to reduce gun-related crimes and violence. The author points out several mass shootings with specific dates and details as well as quotes several public government speeches, so he seems well informed on the topic. Not only this, there is very little bias in the article as the author is not supporting either side of the argument, he is just stating that the solutions people are trying to come up with now will not work.

This whole debate is arguable due to people's different opinions on how much they value gun freedom. Is it a right, is it a privilege, will banning them reduce crimes, etc. There are not any disagreements between these articles, but the last two do seem to support gun freedom. The different perspectives on the articles have not changed my perspective on the topic, but I am now more informed about the side I support as well as the arguments made by those on the opposing side. Since gun control is such a broad topic to cover for the entire US, I have decided to focus specifically on gun control in the south since this is where I was raised and where I am more familiar with the culture and opinions of the people who live there.
