Evaluation of General Sources

Mizunoryu. "Silhouette Gun". 12/18/2006 via Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain.

Here I'll be evaluating the sources I've found that pertain to the social debate I've chosen, whether mental illness plays a more important role in the recent rise in mass shootings than the laws (or lack thereof) that currently surround possession of guns. My sources can be found here and here. 

Both of the URLs of my sources end in .com, which technically signifies a commercial intent but over time has diminished in meaning. Additionally, both websites are news sources.

I can identify authors of both of my sources. The author of my first source has a Ph.D. in Philosophy and has written for many online news sources as well as edited and co-edited several books in the field of Philosophy.
The author of my second source is a third year law student, who serves as editor in chief of Harvard Law Record.

Both of my sources were last updated in February of 2013, well after the epidemic of mass shootings began (including Sandy Hook) but still without the information of the past few years. They contain working links to sources that back up their claims on statistics.

My first source seems to promote a philosophy, the author almost argues with himself as he weighs both sides of the debate. He considers both sides carefully before deciding that "people kill people" is a fallacy. My second source however seems opinionated- he does back his argument up with valid sources and statistics, but he has a definite stance from the beginning.

Neither of these sources contain graphics.

These sources are biased I feel, the second more so than the first, but they both contain links to websites with facts and statistics that verify the claims and references to past events that they make.

As I've mentioned before, both sources contain links to verify references they make. I've clicked the links and they all lead to valid and reliable sources.

In conclusion, these sources will obviously not be the only ones that I use because of their bias, but the authors seem credible enough to openly think on the topic with validity.