This topic interests because I have always been interested in guns and why the government tries to limit the rights of the American people to purchase and own firearms. I also find discussions on why the government is not responding to mass shootings correctly interesting. The research question I chose affects my beliefs and values on gun control because I believe more guns will decrease the likely-hood of mass shootings and this question is directly related to that. It asks if decreasing the restrictions on obtaining a firearm could help prevent mass shootings. I have a fairly small amount of personal experience with firearms and gun control but I find researching and learning about it very interesting. My father owns a rifle and handgun which I have shot multiple times, but I currently do not own a concealed carry permit or my own personal firearm. However I lived in Connecticut for 18 years of my life and experienced the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting and the gun laws put in place following the tragedy. I am qualified to write about this topic because I have experienced the increase on gun control laws and the effects it can have on the owners and distributers. I have also researched numerous article about increasing and decreasing gun control laws and how people respond to the new actions put in place.

The first source I used is a CNN article "Are mass shootings preventable? These countries have tried". It talks about the actions that have taken place in various countries after tragic shootings. It also shows comparatively how the US has done very little to prevent mass shootings, while other countries have almost banned guns completely. Although banning guns completely sounds like an easy way to prevent mass shootings, the fact that the 2nd Amendment contains the right to bear arms means there is no way it would ever be put in place in the US. However, in countries like Australia there is no formal document stating that the people should be allowed to own guns, therefore the government can pretty much do what they want to prevent shootings. The article was published by CNN and two authors that work for the company. The facts and information contained in the article seem to be general statistics but the main focus of the article is to show how more gun control laws can prevent mass shootings. The article is trying to show people how America could be if we had tighter gun laws, therefore it is bias. 

The second article was published on www.slate.com titled "How Many Shootings Will It Take for America to Control Its Guns?" This article focuses on how Australian Prime Minister John Howard enacted many gun control laws after a shooting that killed 35 on April 28, 1996. It states that he bought back nearly 600,000 semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, nearly 1/5 of all guns in circulation, required that all firearms must be purchased through a legal firearm store and registered, and he required a reason to purchase a firearm. With all these new laws in place Australia saw its homicides by firearm drop nearly 60% in 10 years and suicides by firearm drop 65%. The reason why these new laws are allowed to be put in place is because Australia does not have a Bill of Rights with one of its amendments stating that all citizens should bear arms. This may be helpful for a country like Australia that has seen an impressive drop in shootings and death by firearms in the past 20 years, but unfortunately for America something like this would cause riots outside the White House. The article appears to be fairly non-biased and contains a lot of facts and statistics instead of opinions and questions. However, its title indicates that the author may want people to link Australia's stricter gun laws and how it could have the same impact if implemented in the US.

The final article I chose was published by The Washington Post titled "San Bernardino shooting: 11 essential facts about guns and mass shootings in America". This article contains 11 facts about mass shootings in the US along with other additional information regarding how America compares to the rest of the world. Some of the facts include how more mass shootings have happened in the past eight years than in previous years, less people own guns today than they did thirty years ago, and America is a pretty violent country compared to the rest of the world. This article is helpful because it allows people to compare the increase in mass shootings over the past years with the decrease in people who own guns. The Washington Post is an established newspaper company and is known by nearly every US citizen. This ensure that the facts presented in the article are truthful and accurate because people would probably give the company a lot of heat if they weren't. The article doesn't seem like it would be very bias due to the number of statistics presented, but the graph that compares the US to the rest of the world could be meant to question how the government has handles guns and violence. 

The research question I chose is a fairly easy topic to debate about. On one hand you have countries like Australia, England, and Norway who believe by increasing the restrictions on guns, the number of deaths by guns will decrease. On the other hand, you have people in the US that believe owning a gun is a right promised by the government and that you cannot take that right away from the people. Also gun control not only in the US but around the world, is a highly debated topic that has sparked countless rallies and protests to occur. The only fact each side of this argument could agree on, would be that you will never be able to completely ban guns. However on the disagreement side, there are many things that come in to factor such as guns cause mass shootings, people deserve the right to buy guns when they want, more restrictions equals a safer country, and it's the right of an American citizen to own a gun. The different perspectives about this topic somewhat affect my own. The "gun ban" in Australia definitely showed me how decreasing the amount of guns affects the violence in that country, but other than that there weren't too many other significant facts that stood out. The question I chose is fairly strong but could also be tweaked to improve upon the different sides that can be taken on this issue. Although the topic has a lot of potential, a few changes here and there could make it great.

