The issue of gun control seems to be in the news every day. Since the exposure to this topic is so frequent I wanted to take a closer look. I wanted to learn more about what each side of the debate had to offer and what the decision gun control would do to the United States. As a citizen of the United States, any laws that are passed directly affect me. Coming from Pennsylvania, hunting and the outdoors are a big part of life and what people grow up on. To take such a big part of someone's life away, or heavily restrict what they have been doing all their lives, does not sound like freedom which the United States was built on. Growing up around guns gives me the first-hand experience on this topic.  Gun control laws affect my values because owning a gun is not so much a hobby, but a way of life.

I started to do research on my thesis by browsing the internet. I chose three articles to analyze. Two of the articles agree with my stance of stricter gun laws will not create a safer US. While the other disagrees and argues for more legislation.  

The first article is titled "Zero Correlation Between State Homicide Rate and State Gun Laws" written by Eugene Volokh which supports my stance on gun control. Even though the article is posted on what I would call not a credible website, the author makes up for it. Eugene Volokh is a professor at UCLA School of Law. Volokh does not come across as bias in his writing, by relying mostly on facts and statistics.

In his article, Volokh, points out the zero correlation between strict gun laws and homicide rates of states. Using tables and graphs he shows states which have the strictest gun laws have some of the highest murder rates while some states with the weakness gun laws have the lowest murder rate. He also claims murders will use other means if they are unable to acquire a gun. This claim draws more on logic than actual statistics. 

Like the first article, the next article I looked at supports my claim. The second article I looked at is called "The Facts That Neither Side Wants To Admit About Gun Control" written by Jason King. Kings is a political journalist. The author is not bias in his article by presenting both sides of the gun control agrument. He points out what each side of the gun debate wants you believe and then turns to facts to support his claim of leaving the gun control the way it is now. 

His main claim is gun control will not change violent crime rates. He uses other countries such as the UK, Ireland, and Australia to show, even with gun bans, violent crime rate stayed the same. Violent crime rates have even gone up in some of the countries since their bans on guns. The last article I examined was the opposite view of my stance. 

The title of my third article is "Refuting Anti-Gun Control Arguments" written by Josh Sager. Sager, like King, is also a political journalist. In this article he takes pro-gun statements and debunks them. Some of his claims are supported by facts while other are not backed up with any factual information. I would say the author is a little bit bias, it is easily seen in his writing that he is against guns. He does present pro-gun arguments but he does not go in-depth with them. He simply presents the pro-gun argument and then writes about how ridiculous it is. 

The question of gun control is a big debate in the United States. Some people support the complete banning of guns while others want the liberty to own guns. By the research I have done the United States public seems to be split fifty-fifty about what should be done. Taking the three articles I found two agree with each other but the third does not agree. The first two agree that more gun laws will not change the safety of society. Both articles point out the zero correlation between gun law and crime rates. One compared state to state, the other compared crime rates before and after in other countries with gun bans. The third article is completely against what the first two articles mention. The last article wants have complete gun regulation.

After reviewing these articles my view on my thesis has not changed. I believe the first two articles were based my on facts compared to the third which to me played to extremes. My thesis is not going to change it will stay as gun control will not create a safer environment in the United States. 
