Blog stage 4

The Huffington Post posted an article titled "Gold Star Father Khizr Khan On Trump: ‘He Has Embarrassed The Nation’". I thought it was a decent article, the author used multiple different examples of Donald Trump disrespecting military and their families.  He also got a personal word from the gold star father himself saying "he doesn't have hope the 71 year old president will change. Although he did not have any counter arguments making him appear even more bias. Even though there is not a whole lot to be bias about, it was a relative short article consisting of mostly facts. Still it has the same style the majority of the media has, which is to only say the things that push their specific agenda instead of giving all the facts. This specific article may be a bad example of that because I am not aware of how many other sides to the story there can be. All I know is we were only given facts that hurt Donald Trump's image. Its intended audience is anyone who dislikes trump or wants to see more negative things about him, and active military members and veterans. The author is as credible as the website he posted on and the sources he used, and he is on the front page of the Huffington Post, which is a fairly large news organization.   However, I am aware of every example he used and they are all accurate to my knowledge.  

This Tuesday on October 3rd  Leah Libresco published an article titled "I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise." In this piece she attempts to give us a solid argument of why gun control is not the answer. I believe her intended audience is anyone interested in the gun control matter. She starts off not too terribly, she introduces herself as a member of fivethirtyeight and speaks of the three months that her and her colleagues have been doing research for all of America's past shootings over the years.
 However she begins to talk about Britain and Australia and how their gun regulation would not be effective in the United states; saying " Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans". Which is extremely cherry picked or just flat out false. So far the most extensive studies by the most groups in the most countries come down to a simple conclusion; "The less number of firearms in a country the less number of gun-related deaths according to Epidemiologic Reviews. Hard to get your mind around right? although in her example of Australia, it is harder to calculate, because their homicide rate was already fairly low. This is greatly contributed to several previously existing, strict gun control regulations. Another reason Australia is difficult to study according to Jerry Ratcliffe, is around the same time that the gun laws were passed, non gun-related deaths dropped even more quickly than gun-related incidents. I believe she did not represent the research properly.
 She then goes to point out that mass shootings are not the number one cause for gun-related deaths, saying that suicides are the predominant cause; asking how banning assault weapons will prevent her neighbor from killing himself. Next, she states how teenagers and other young adults mixed in with gang disputes are killed; and finally she brings up abusive relationships and how we should further help those people than worry about mass shootings. The issues she brings up are all despicable and should be exterminated. I Just do not see how any of those things are a justifiable reason to NOT do anything about the inconceivable amounts of gun-related homicides. Simply because a certain problem isn't the biggest does NOT mean that we should hold off on a solution. The number one cause of death heart-related disease so should we not do anything at all about related to gun-related deaths? I see her point about other issues and to be honest I was unaware of those statistics but I can not for the life of me get around the idea that because it is not the dominating issue so we should do nothing about it.