          I am interested in the topic of gun control because I enjoy shooting. I own guns and enjoy shooting so regulations on firearms directly affect me. I shoot recreationally and have been taught since a young age how to properly handle firearms. In my personal experience with guns they are harmless, although I understand their potential for danger. I have never been around to experience a gun accident or witnessed any unintentional injuries, and luckily I have never experienced any crimes involving firearms. I think that I am qualified to wright about this because my personal interest and investment drives me to deeply research the topic.

The main claim in this article is that there is some statistics that contradict those who say more regulatory gun laws would stop gun violence. One piece of evidence is that since 1993 the number of guns in America has increased by more than 50 percent, but the gun homicide rate sense then has decreased by half. Another piece of evidence is that the ban on assault weapons actually had no effect on shooting deaths. The right to carry a concealed firearm is something that some believe will increase citizens intervention in stopping crimes, but others believe that people having guns on them 24/7 can only result in more shootings. Many analyses suggest that neither party was right and that the increase in permits across the nation has had no effect on killings nor in a drop in crime. I think the article's main interest is in informing the public of the complexity of gun violence. I think one major value of the article is that more regulations on guns are not guaranteed to stop violence and killings. The author of this article is credible. Nicholas Kristof, graduated from Harvard, studied law at Oxford and has been a columnist at the new york times for 15 years. He has won many prestigious awards including two Pulitzer prizes

This article's main claim is that the new executive action that president Barrack Obama ordered on gun control could not have stopped the majority of the infamous mass shootings in America. The executive action mainly makes background checks required at nearly all gun-retailing venues, and makes the history database more accurate and updated. They prove that the executive action would have had no impact by identifying how these major shooters acquired their weapons. The shooters at sandy Hook and San Bernardino did not buy the guns they used. The shooters in Aurora Colorado, and at the Naval yard in D.C. bought there guns and were cleared by a background check. He also includes information on many other shootings. After hearing the presidents executive order many people were upset because they thought either he was out of place and overstepped his authority or they thought that they personally wouldn't be allowed to buy guns any more. The president played on the public's sympathy and fear of infamous mass shootings. Many people used this to rationalize the executive order. I think that the article's interest was in proving that this rationalization is false. The author of the second article has a bachelor's degree in journalism and has won many awards for his writing. The author's credentials and his citing of the primary source he got his information from makes him credible. The sources are used ethically as they are used to identify where he got the information he used. He did not use the opinion or ideas from the sources only information to backup his own claims.

The article from CNN.com "American sniper widow: Gun control wont protect us" was wrought by Taya Kyle. Taya Kyle was the wife of Chris Kyle, one of Americas most well known servicemen. Sadly after four tours in the Middle East, over 160 confirmed kills as a sniper, and earning a long list awards and metal he was shot and killed back home by his friend. The man who murdered him was suffering from PTSD and was not mentally stable. Taya's unfortunate history makes her very credible to speak on gun control and gun violence. The author states that she against gun control, but because she has experienced gun violence first hand I do not think that she is bias.

The article's main claim is that gun control cant save us and our problem is much deeper. The articles first points out that all unsuspecting humans are vulnerable, this combined with the fact that killers will use any means necessary to do what they want makes every situation potentially life threatening. If someone wishes to impose harm on another unarmed and innocent individual they will. Mass shooters in the past have targeted places that they knew were vulnerable like churches, schools, and movie theaters. Even the shooter at Fort Hood targeted the section of the army base where he knew the soldiers would not be armed. Weather they have a gun, a homemade pipe bomb, a knife or even a baseball bat when the targets are vulnerable the killer will still just as easily do what he sought to do. 

The research question is arguable because there are multiple views on what more regulations on guns would mean. Some people think that restrictions on gun ownership will only disarm the law-abiding citizens but wont stop the criminals from having guns that they could obtain illegal. The other side says that by making guns harder to obtain you limit the chances of the bad guys buying them. The two articles by the associated press and the New York times both agree that more restrictions on guns alone does not guarantee less violence or that it could stop the gunman in mass shootings. The article by the New York Times' perspective was informative but also critically argumentative of the gun policies of most liberals. The articles critical approach definitely made me call the validity of pro gun controls policy ideas into question. The perspective of the article by the Associated press was informative. This affected my perspective by solidifying my opinion that guns are not to blame for mass shootings. 
