Don’t shoot down prop. 63
In light of a September school shooting in Texas, the issue of gun control is brought up once again, with many people agreeing that guns control laws should be enforced and that parents should keep their guns away from their children at all times.
A 14-year-old freshman shot and injured a girl at Alpine High School in West Texas on Sept. 9, and then proceeded to shoot and kill herself.
Following the event, numerous law enforcers rushed to the school, and a U.S. Marshall accidentally shot a Homeland Security agent in the confusion. Both the student and the injured agent are in stable condition.
I personally agree that gun control laws should be stricter, and maybe even that the Second Amendment in our Constitution should apply to only our country’s law enforcement and military. But since this probably won’t happen, California’s Prop. 63 is a good alternative.
The purchase of guns needs to be limited and in-depth background checks need to be made for all gun license applicants. We should not allow children access to firearms.
Gun control has been a major issue ever since the creation of the United States. After all, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is in our Constitution. Does this mean that everyone is be allowed to have access to firearms? Children? Criminals? The mentally unstable?
In my opinion, guns sales should be limited to only those in law enforcement and in the military. That way, people that shouldn’t have guns will get their hands on fewer guns and this nation will become a much safer place.
Why would you even need a gun if you are not a law enforcement officer or in the military? So you could kill someone with it? So you can have a ridiculous collection of murderous tools? So you can one day watch your child grow up, only to use one of your murderous tools to kill someone, and then be sent to juvie or jail?
Prop. 63 would make it illegal to purchase ammunition without a proper background check. Even if we can’t restrict guns in America to only law enforcers and the military, we sure can make it hard as possible for people to purchase firearm ammunition. And without ammo, how will people be able to cause harm with firearms? And yes, this is only a small solution to a huge problem, but it’s a baby step towards a better America with stricter firearm laws.
Support and vote for Prop 63 today!
I have to say, I expected a bit more research to be done before writing an article as controversial as one about gun control. Primarily, your biggest claim seems to be that children (or minors- whichever term you prefer) shouldn’t be allowed with guns. And you’re right, they shouldn’t. But here’s the thing: they already aren’t. Without direct adult supervision, a minor is not allowed to handle a firearm. Secondly, you’re saying that we need background checks on people buying guns, as if we don’t already do that. In fact, when someone wants to buy a gun, the seller has the FBI check them, to make sure nothing is wrong or blocked. It’s not some shady job that’s only been half-done by the retailer, people are thorough. I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but thinking that one more gun control law is going to stop everything from happening (by this I mean shoot-outs, school shootings, common homicide, or suicide). There are already loads of laws specifically for firearms, to limit them, to control them, etc. But criminals and people who wish to do harm with guns still get them. It’s what they do, this won’t stop it. If no one should be allowed to have guns except for law enforcement and the military, then what happens? At the risk of sounding ungrateful (which I’m not, we wouldn’t be where we are today without the military or our police forces), allowing the government to have so much control over us as that would give is reckless. It opens up the perfect opportunity for more laws, more restriction, more everything. Which can lead to a dictatorship, to communism, to everything we scorn Hitler for.
But I digress, enjoy whichever oponions you have, and I’ll enjoy mine.
The idea of on law enforcement and the military is exactly opposite of the purpose of the second ammendment. The second ammendment says specifically the people’s right. Gun laws in the state are already too high. Throughout this article, you never specifically stated what this proposition would do. It will make people apply for a background check every time they try to buy any amount of ammunition. Even though Jerry Brown already signed a bill in July that makes a person get a license to buy ammunition starting 2019. If a person really wants ammunition they can literally just cross any of California’s borders. This laws do nothing to stop criminals, because criminals break laws… it’s what they do.
I disagree because guns don’t kill people. People kill people.
Listen I’m all for promoting the stop of gun violence but also I’m on the side of we are American, we have a constitutional right to bear arms. I think we should make restrictions on people arming themselves but I don’t think that they should completely take them away because it’s not for killing someone for most people, it’s protection. Plus, prop 63 doesn’t do much because they get less ammo in the gun because of smaller magazines. That isn’t going to stop someone from going out and shooting someone. The only way they aren’t going to kill is if there are no weapons, and that isn’t possible. I’ve shot a gun before, once I shot it for the first time I was scared but when I was done shooting four or five magazines later. I knew this causes some serious damage to everybody, but there is no way you are going to be able to take guns and the ammunition away from people.
While your opinion is understandable on the given topic of proposition 63, your reasoning and logic lacks maturity and elocution. In paragraph 7, limiting gun sales to government and law enforcement agencies place the people as a whole in danger. The lack citizen firearms allows for the possibility of oppression and radical policies to be enacted. There is an unofficial check and balance system with the people and those that govern said people kept by the possession of firearms in a majority of United States households. Your lackluster salvo of questions in paragraph 8 prove the point really that you haven’t quite researched your topic. I agree on the legislation at hand but your opinion on firearms as a whole lack maturity. An uninformed reader would easily be swayed by the emotional jargon you’ve evinced, consequently I must disagree with your reasoning behind voting yes.
I do not agree with your article, because a proposition could not stop a school shooting or any other types of shootings. The proposition would make it harder for people to obtain firearms, but it would not stop people from obtaining firearms or ammunition illegally. Even with a background check, it would not prevent a student from taking a gun away from his or her parents. Prop. 63 would make it harder for those who actually enjoy collecting or having guns as a hobby.
While I do believe that we need to have stricter gun control laws than we already have, I do not believe that we should as a country abolish the Second Amendment. There are millions and millions of guns alone in the United States, if we were to outlaw guns what would happen to those weapons we seize? Where would we put them? The best we can do is to have stricter gun laws so we can keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them.
I have to say that I disagree with your stance. If people want to go out and buy ammunition, for whatever reason that may be, they are going to get it. If someone is going ot have to wait ~2 weeks for a background check to get a box of ammo then guess what, they aren’t going to wait. They will find a way to acquire it illegally and they will still have the ammo. Instead of worrying over guns and ammo, which result in ~30,000 deaths annually in America alone (which is still a lot), why not start to help prevent smoking, or place bans on cigarettes? Smoking kills ~480,000 people every year in America (about 42,000 are from secondhand smoking alone). More people die every year from secondhand smoke then guns. We should probbaly start taking about that instead of guns.
Hello William I like your article ,but I disagree with what you are saying. Most people in the U.S. have guns for protection ,and not just because we are allowed to have them because of the 2nd Amendment. Also with how smart cops are and how they are killing people who are sometimes innocent all the time how can you say that the military and police force should be the only two with firearms when they are messing up.
In your 8th paragraph, you claim that being a pedestrian with a gun is pointless since guns should only be used when in a law enforcement job or when you’re in a military. I disagree with that claim because just obtaining or having a gun doesn’t automatically make you or those around you murderous or violent, but violent/abusive influence does. Guns aren’t only used for school shootings, people use guns to hunt, go to a shooting range and shoot as a hobby, or just to have a collection of guns. However, school shootings always happen when the attacker has an easy way of obtaining a gun which is why Prop 63 isn’t necessarily a bad thing but I believe that it isn’t the gun that influences violence but is those around them that influence violence in a shooter through bullying and such.