In a society where guns are being used to commit mass murder, gun control is a big topic for conversation. I am interested in this argument because I believe that taking guns away from people will leave them less safe. I want to know that America is as safe as it possibly can be because I want my friends and family members to live in a safe world. The research exigence affects my values because I believe that people should be allowed to own guns to protect themselves. One of my values is that you should feel safe in your own home because that is the one place where you are able to relax. If you do not feel safe at your own home then the stress that causes in your household and other households can have a negative effect on society. In my personal experience I have never been in a situation where someone was killed by a gun and that is the reason I have a bias because I have never seen guns hurt people in person. I am qualified to write about this because I have grown up around guns and understand that when properly used they can be beneficial to provide a sense of safety for your family. 

In "A Familiar Tragedy Calls for unfamiliar solutions" the author wants legislators to make a law for stricter background checks for persons purchasing a gun. Recent tragedies of gun violence bring up questions about a change in the gun laws, but not much is being done. The author mentions how the 2013 vote on increasing background checks failed to pass the law after the horrific event of the Sandy Hook school shooting. Also, the author wants stricter gun laws on assault weapons. Many people who are against gun control would agree with the author on the issue of assault weapons because a handgun or shotgun is all that is necessary for self-defense and the assault weapons are showing up more and causing a ton of damage in these shootings. Josh Sanburn has some credibility because he is a writer for Time Inc. and he is used to gathering evidence to support his claims in articles, but that also creates bias for him because he is mostly trying to entertain readers. The article as a whole does a good job of giving some examples and some facts to support the author's opinion. 

In "Gun-grabbers Put Rights in Bullseye" Hoar claims that Obama is wrong in saying that "this just doesn't happen in other countries" because it does. His major evidence in the article are the mass shooting that have occurred in France recently. He goes on to list statistics and how the recent shootings in France have totaled up more injuries than all of the injuries that have occurred because of mass shootings in the U.S. in Obama's entire presidency. Gun owners use this as an argument to show that even in foreign Countries where gun laws are a lot stricter there are still mass shootings that injure/kill just as many people as in the U.S.. Also because of the discussion on getting rid of the sales of the assault rifles citizens buy more of these weapons in case they are gone which end up hurting the cause for removing the guns. William Hoar has a lot of credibility because he is a magazine columnist and a managing editor of Periscope, which is the U.S. Naval Institute military database. He has a lot of credibility because of his experience with guns and his positions, but it also creates bias because he loves guns and heavily supports his side in the argument.

In a Country where fear of ISIS and other terrorist groups are prevalent it is hard to determine what should be done about gun control. In "Guns and Terror" Davidson argues that republicans answer mass shootings with more guns. She mentions how even after mass shootings that the vote on increased background checks fails to pass any new laws. Davidson claims that republicans ignore passing laws on something that won't take away guns from responsible owners, but take them away from potential murderers and just bring up terrorism to support their claims. The interests at stake for the republican politicians are the voters and that determines how they talk and act on the issue of increased background checks. The interest of Davidson is to increase background checks to make it harder for terrorist and bad people to get ahold of guns. Amy Davidson is a journalist and magazine editor for The New Yorker and she attended Harvard. Her bias and the articles bias is that she does not try to counter argue her argument and she supports her claims heavily. 

My research exigence is arguable because many republicans and southerners would feel less safe if guns were prohibited, on the other side people against guns would feel safer because there are less guns in the hands of the public. I agree with "Gun-grabbers Put Rights in Bullseye" because the statistics in France show that even if a country has less strict gun laws then it does not mean they will be safer from mass shootings. I also agree with "Guns and Terror" because I am for background checks because then the people responsible with guns can still own them, but the people that are more likely to harm someone will not be able to purchase them. The different perspectives help me shape my own opinion and pick different views that I like to support what I think about the subject. I might change my issue to talk about gun control and terrorism instead of talking about multiple issues that come with gun control such as robberies, murders, and gang violence. 

