This positive reference 10 points based on a variety of points with a bias of wanting to show that regardless of Gun Control Laws there is still a constitutional amendment that states that we are allowed o posses weapons. The next main point of the website is that if a criminal wants to inflict harm or commit a crime then they will. Laws don't apply to criminals. The most interesting fact of this article that wasn't explicitly stated was that death and violence still occur even without guns and aren't the largest killers in societies. The UK and their murder rate has increased even though they have some of the toughest gun control laws. A key point of many of the articles was that if someone wants to do harm with a gun they will find a way so it is futile to try and convince people otherwise.

This article has a clear bias towards not banning guns and for the protection of the right t own a gun. The main points that affirmed the right to own guns and that showed the bias were the language of the 2nd amendment and saying how the right shouldn't be taken away, how outlawing guns has been proven to cause crime rates to increase, how police almost always arrive after a crime has been committed which provides no protection during the crime, takes guns out of law abiding citizens hands and allows criminals to keep their guns, and how banning guns in certain areas prevents law abiding citizens from protecting themselves where as criminals aren't likely to start obeying laws when they see a sign in a park telling them they can't have their gun there. This article makes some good point that are logical and the bias is well represented by flaws in the oppositions arguements.

I, personally, like where you are headed with this. Your point about the fact that there will be violence without guns is very true. I saw a quote a while ago, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." But, why not at least try to make an EFFORT to prevent the taking of innocent lives? That is why these gun control lives are in effect. You had a lot of good points, but these laws are not in effect to limit the rights of the people. They are in effect to protect us from those in the nation who seek to do us harm. But, you did have quite a few good points. I do believe that the government should have less control over the people, but what cost does that come at, you know?

This article details how many murders that occur aren't by criminals but by more normal people than you would think. The bias in the article is apparent due to how when the situations are analyzed there is no thought going into the other side and the author fails to realize that violence would have occurred regardless and that yes guns didn't make it easier but people still would have committed a crime.

This article list all of the mass shootings in the U.S. In the past two years. This article has clear bias because it doesn't even address the opposite side and searched for facts that purely supported their argument. This article didn't look to how many crimes were deterred by the use of a gun. Also at the end of their argument they said that this can't be talked about politically because people have near religious embrace of this right. The funny part there is that the freedom to religion is a right and gun ownership is too so why is it okay to wholey accept and embrace one right but the other shouldn't be?

"Nothing puts the dignity in personal dignity (or the freedom in personal freedom) like the self in self-rule."
- John Longenecker

"No law ever prevented a crime."
- Anonymous

Part of our assignment was to find a quote and be able to give an author but in this case this quote just stood out to me as the best one even though it didn't meet the criteria. As much as we like to think we live in a good world be don't and in the US we pass all these laws for many things especially crime but they rarely work. When it comes to crime the laws that were passed were passed knowing people were going to break them. This is a very reactionary method and it shows that this whole idea on relying on the police to protect us is overrated. The police aren't always there and most of the time arrive after the completion of a crime, which is yet another reactionary implementation in our society. The supreme court has also ruled that it is not the responsibility of the police to protect us.

The celebration is more American than Mexican and is largely uncelebrated in Mexico.

The main reason the holiday came about was due to Mexican-American laborors using it as a way to garner support for their cause.