In the state of California, possession of automatic firearms, and short-barreled shotguns are prohibited. Some people argue that owning a handgun increases a person's risk of being killed. Others say that guns aren't the problem, the people are. Managing the type of people that are allowed access to guns, through background checks, can reduce gun violence without taking the right to self-defense.
Guns laws in California are much more restrictive compared to other states (ScienceNews). For example, in Alaska, as long as you are 21 years old you can carry a concealed firearm without any kind of carry permit. In order to purchase a firearm in California, one must complete a four hour firearm safety class that includes one hour of live fire …show more content…
For others, it is more about self defense (Goodson). Gun control advocates argue that if there are fewer guns around, fewer people will be hurt by guns. They point to crime data from all over the United States that this is true. When concealed handgun laws went into effect in 1992, murders decreased by eight percent, rapes fell by five percent, and assaults fell by seven percent (Lott 51). Pro gun-control people believe that stricter gun laws will make it harder for criminals to access them (ClearPictureOnline.com). The more accessible guns are, the higher chance of people using them out of a fit of rage. Background checks on buyers has been a huge part of gun control since the law was adopted in 1993, also known as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. There are articles about cases in which the gun dealer allows someone to purchase their gun before the background process was finished, and the person leaves and shoots innocent bystanders. Results from 2013 to 2014, concluded that states with background check laws had a positive effect on suicide rates; states with gun storage/ownership laws had less of an impact on those rates. PubMed suggests that maybe our focus should be on limiting the availability of guns, rather than trying to control the guns already in ones possession (Anestis et al.). An article surfaced the web not too long ago on a story about a man killing many random elderly people at a 50th birthday …show more content…
In a new study, it was concluded that in eight out of ten cases, the perpetrator was not using his own gun, but rather an illegal or stolen firearm (TheWashingtonPost). This means, stricter gun control laws would not prevent criminals from accessing firearms. There are guns everywhere on the black market that criminals have easy access to, it is very unlikely that they are going purchase one from a store. Therefore, they don’t care what gun control laws are in place. To them, it just means that their victims won't be able to defend themselves. According to The Washington Post, law abiding gun owners commit less than a fifth of gun related crimes. They believe we as citizens should have the right of self-protection, hence the second amendment. Most of the time, the police are not at the scene to be able to protect citizens; but essentially there after the fact to investigate further. Taking our gun rights is punishing the honest gun owners, and putting citizens at risk of gun-toting criminals
Guns laws in California are much more restrictive compared to other states (ScienceNews). For example, in Alaska, as long as you are 21 years old you can carry a concealed firearm without any kind of carry permit. In order to purchase a firearm in California, one must complete a four hour firearm safety class that includes one hour of live fire …show more content…
For others, it is more about self defense (Goodson). Gun control advocates argue that if there are fewer guns around, fewer people will be hurt by guns. They point to crime data from all over the United States that this is true. When concealed handgun laws went into effect in 1992, murders decreased by eight percent, rapes fell by five percent, and assaults fell by seven percent (Lott 51). Pro gun-control people believe that stricter gun laws will make it harder for criminals to access them (ClearPictureOnline.com). The more accessible guns are, the higher chance of people using them out of a fit of rage. Background checks on buyers has been a huge part of gun control since the law was adopted in 1993, also known as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. There are articles about cases in which the gun dealer allows someone to purchase their gun before the background process was finished, and the person leaves and shoots innocent bystanders. Results from 2013 to 2014, concluded that states with background check laws had a positive effect on suicide rates; states with gun storage/ownership laws had less of an impact on those rates. PubMed suggests that maybe our focus should be on limiting the availability of guns, rather than trying to control the guns already in ones possession (Anestis et al.). An article surfaced the web not too long ago on a story about a man killing many random elderly people at a 50th birthday …show more content…
In a new study, it was concluded that in eight out of ten cases, the perpetrator was not using his own gun, but rather an illegal or stolen firearm (TheWashingtonPost). This means, stricter gun control laws would not prevent criminals from accessing firearms. There are guns everywhere on the black market that criminals have easy access to, it is very unlikely that they are going purchase one from a store. Therefore, they don’t care what gun control laws are in place. To them, it just means that their victims won't be able to defend themselves. According to The Washington Post, law abiding gun owners commit less than a fifth of gun related crimes. They believe we as citizens should have the right of self-protection, hence the second amendment. Most of the time, the police are not at the scene to be able to protect citizens; but essentially there after the fact to investigate further. Taking our gun rights is punishing the honest gun owners, and putting citizens at risk of gun-toting criminals