

Section 1: This question is one of the more controversial topics currently in the United States. With the influx of mass shootings and other tragedies, people are asking the question if implementing harsher gun laws or banning them all together is the direction this country should move in. The University of South Carolina itself witnessed its own shooting tragedy just last year, making the matter even closer to home. This topic lies close to home seeing as everyone in my family is a hunter and all of us own guns for nothing other than pure sport and deer meat. This problem affects my beliefs in the fact that I do not believe the constitution is as flexible as the liberal party in America may believe it is. As Americans we are entitled to basic human rights and the right to bear arms has been deemed one those basic liberties. I am a strong believer that creating stricter gun laws and taking peoples' guns away will only be taking them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. I have read over numerous articles addressing both side of the argument and have no found any that really change my mind on the matter.



The author's main claim is that there is almost no way that stricter gun laws are going to be passed in the United States, largely due to the looming power of the NRA. Obama speaks highly of implementing these tougher laws but during his time in office, gun sales have actually increased in the country. Organizations like the NRA distrust these laws knowing that they may not be all they seem on paper and could end up taking guns away from the people of America. The main value at stake here is the one frequently referenced by anti-gun control activists, the 2nd Amendment. Making these weapons harder to access, in a way, violates the 2nd Amendment and go against the values that is country was built upon. The Author does not show an inherent bias towards one side or the other he just states why the NRA does not trust the laws that have proposed. All of the laws that the government have attempted to pass on this matter have hit a wall in congress and have not passed


The author's main claim is that gun control is not the answer to stopping the amounts of mass shootings that occur in this country. He uses the evidence that all of the guns that were used in recent mass shootings were either bought legally or stolen from parents that bought the weapon legally. They all passed multiple background and psychological checks and making them stricter would not have prohibited them purchasing that weapon. Once again the main stake in this argument is the second amendment and Americans' right to bear arms. Creating stricter gun laws could possibly restrict those fit to own a gun from purchasing one. The author has a very clear bias that gun control is not a good thing for the United States and will not solve anything. He has substantial credibility considering he is using quotes from a criminologist professor at NYU who has written a book on the concept of gun control.



The author's central claim is that if Americans do not fight gun control and allow the government to put these laws into place, the changes will not be modest. He uses the examples of California, whose laws have gradually grown stricter, and New Jersey, whose laws go as far as requiring home inspections before the sale of a gun. The laws of New Jersey in a way violate someone's personal rights by requiring that someone comes and inspects their home. This article explains how some government representatives want to explicitly violate the second amendment saying they want a bill that is going to "confiscate, confiscate, confiscate". The author has a clear bias against gun control citing government officials that want to expand gun laws beyond a modest change. The author is an attorney in Arizona who has written 21 articles on the concept of gun laws, two of which have been cited by the Supreme Court in a documentary.


The way my research question is currently worded does not make it very arguable. The question itself already sets up my argument that I believe that stricter gun control laws do not need to be implemented in the United States. It could be revised by taking out "why" in the beginning and making it a more opened ended question asking if stricter gun controls were a bad idea. The main discrepancy in article against and in favor of gun control is that pro-gun control argues that non-criminals commit these mass shootings and that stricter laws would keep guns out of their hands. Anti-gun control argues even with stricter laws, these people would still be able to get access to these guns.
