Howthe Proposition 63 will minimize Gun Violence
The gun violence has been a problem in the recent past, and peoplehave lost their lives as a result of the mass shootings. Most of thekillings have even occurred in schools where young people have beenmurdered. However, the scenario has been much worse because thecurrent laws are unable to prevent the guns from reaching the wronghands. More importantly, the Proposition 63 has various clauses thatwill facilitate the safety of the society since it will prevent otherpeople from owning the deadly weapons. In this case, the provisionshows how the gun dealers will be forced to coordinate with theDepartment of Justice in ensuring that they assess the background ofthe buyers. In fact, most of the mass killings have been associatedwith people that were mentally ill and some of them even had a pastcriminal record yet, they were able to buy the guns. The scenarioreveals the loopholes in the laws and the need to prevent them.Hence, the Proposition 63 will be a perfect choice that will help thesociety in dealing with the high number of the mass shootings. Itsimplementation will ensure that everyone has to pass the check-up toavoid any serious cases in the future again. For instance, thementally ill people that are under medication tend to experiencehallucinations or even their bodies will suffer from the sideeffects. This paper will prove that Proposition 63 is the bettersolution for the gun violence since it will prevent the people thatare mentally ill, criminals or even the violent ones from purchasingthe deadly weapons.
The Proposition 63 will help in regulating the gun acquisition thatis clearly out of hand. More specifically, the gun acquisitionlegislations have led to multiple people owning guns legally. Besidesthat, the current laws have resulted in the mentally ill and violentindividuals acquiring the guns. The scenario has placed the publicunder the risk of attack since they are exposed to dangerous peoplethat possess deadly weapons legally. Hence, the Proposition 63 is theone important way that will protect the society from the harm thatthey are facing. For instance, it asserts that the seller will beexpected to work with the Department of Justice in checking thebackground of the buyers to ensure that they meet all therequirements specified (Lopez, 2016). In the process, the state willmake sure that the guns do not reach the wrong hands and make thesocieties more insecure instead. More importantly, the propositionpresents multiple benefits to the entire state since it will lead tothe community being safer and free from the occasional massshootings. In fact, various politicians have focused on urging thevoters to support the Proposition since it wants to improve theirlives in the community where they will stay without the fear of beingattacked (McGreevy, 2016). Previously, the killings have been morecommon since the sellers did not assess the buyers’ informationbefore they bought the guns. If the law is passed, it will be mucheasier to control the ownership and ensure that everyone qualifiesfor such requirements. It will still retain the right of gunownership, and anyone in need of the guns will have to qualify sincethe seriousness of the law will determine the level of security inthe state. The schools have even turned to be insecure places sincethe students have been exposed to a wide range of people that haveweapons while they are mentally unstable. At times, their mentalissues blind them as they attack others and kill them.
Some of the mass shooters had a historyof mental illness, and some were even still taking their medication.For instance, society has a number of vulnerable people that haveguns, which is clearly dangerous. Multiple examples of the massshooters reveal that they were mentally ill and took variousprescriptions with the same problem. Jeff Weise, who was a student,aged 16, ended up killing his grandfather and his peers at theschool. At that time, he was under a Prozac dosage, which helps inreducing the depressive disorders (Berkowitz et al., 2016). In fact,he killed ten individuals, wounded twelve before shooting himselftoo. Kip Kinkel, another mass shooter that was only 15 murdered hisparents, two fellow students, and even injured twenty others(Berkowitz et al., 2016). Doctors reported that he was using Prozacand another drug known as Ritalin that is a stimulant. The stimulantis reported to have severe side effects that include thehallucinations, paranoia, and hostility that might have led to theshooting. Another case involves Steven Kazmierczak that murdered fivepeople and other twenty-one others in the Northern IllinoisUniversity hall were also injured. Later, it was revealed that he wasunder the influence of Prozac, Ambien, and Xanax, which are drugsused in treating various mental illnesses (Berkowitz et al., 2016).The examples reveal how the mentally ill individuals are not supposedto own the weapons since they often experience hallucinations thatpush them into attacking others. More importantly, the Proposition 63will help in curbing such cases since it will ensure that oneprovides proper background history before owning a gun. In theprocess, the Californian state will be reducing the cases of the massshooting since it will reject the application of any person that hasa mental illness. In fact, it will secure the state, and the schoolswill be free from the fear that a student might attack them.
The Proposition 63 will still protect the right to possess guns thatthe law abiding citizens might use in self-defense or even otherrecreation activities. More importantly, some of the people thatoppose the proposition have insisted that it aims at eradicating thegun laws. However, such assumptions are inappropriate since theProposition only wants to prevent wrong people from owning the deadlyweapons. In fact, the mass shooting is one of the aspects that haveincreased the opposition towards their ownership. The increasedviolence has been a result of the guns being in the wrong hands. Theprovision will focus on the abusive people, the ones with criminalhistories and the mentally ill ones (Jacobs & Jones, 2011).Hence, the Proposition 63 will help in ensuring that such people nolonger have a chance of owning the deadly weapons since they are aproblem to the society. In this case, the provision will provide athorough background check-up that will ensure every applicant is theright person to own a gun (Metzl & MacLeish, 2015). Inparticular, it will be protecting the right that each law-abidingcitizen has to own a weapon for the protection purposes. Forinstance, the increased violence and the burglary cases call for theself-defense measures. As a result, the gun ownership will be a boldstep in ensuring that the society is safe and free from thecontinuous attacks that they were experiencing previously. A closerlook at the provision shows how it plans to safeguard the entiresociety from the violence that was more common at first. After it hasinitiated peace in the community, everyone will readily support theprovision and believe that it was clearly right and protected thecivilians against any attacks.
Some of the mass shooters had a history of criminal records yet,they were even able to own the deadly weapons legally. The scenariocreated room for the shooting since some of these people are used tothe violent tendencies. For instance, John Houser that murdered twopeople in the Lafayette’s movie theater and wounded other nine oneswas accused of domestic violence and arson in 2008 (Buchanan et al.,2016). In fact, the judge suggested that he should serve time in thepsychiatric hospital yet, he was still allowed to own a gun legally.The fact that a criminal and a violent person had a gun placed thecommunity at a risk of being attacked. One of the killers known asDylann Roof that shot and killed nine people at a black church had apast misdemeanor where he was accused of buying Suboxone, whichis an illegal drug (Buchanan et al., 2016).Instead, the authorities did not eve prohibit him from purchasing adeadly weapon that he used during the attacks. The two examplesreveal the loophole in the laws that have led to the people withcriminal histories owning the guns. In this case, the government andthe gun dealers would have worked together in preventing them fromowning any deadly weapon. The different cases would have beenprevented if the state had prohibited them from having the guns. Moreimportantly, Proposition 63 reveals that the dealers will worktogether with the Department of Justice in conducting a check on thebuyers (Lopez, 2016).Any slight indication of mental illness, the history of violence orcrime will amount to disqualification. In the process, even anyonethat acquire a gun illegally yet, he or she had failed to meet therequirements will be sued. The strictness will be critical inpreventing the weapons from falling into the wrong hands andprioritizing the safety in the society instead.
The Proposition will also act as a moderator between the supportersand those that oppose the gun laws. The two sides have engaged inheated debates over the years with each group presenting thearguments that support their ideologies. In the process, theprovision will also help in reducing the disagreement between the twogroups that has existed for a longer time now. Instead, it willsomehow address the concerns of the two sides to make sure that theyhave a common ground. More importantly, the people in opposition tothe gun laws have often revealed why the increased violence androbbery cases are the reason they are against the issue. Forinstance, they have even highlighted how the guns are in the hands ofpeople with past criminal records (Bangalore&Messerli, 2013).Besides that, they have even argued that the mentally unstablemembers of the society have been able to access weapons legally. Theconcerns reveal the reality in the nation and the way that people areinsecure since the cases of mass shooting have been more common inthe recent past. Hence, the Proposition 63 will be an important wayof addressing their concerns since it has incorporated each issuethat undermines their safety. On the other hand, the supporters ofgun laws have often insisted that they should retain the rights ofself-defense (Bangalore&Messerli, 2013). In particular, they haveshown that the deadly weapon ownership legislations would make surethey protect themselves from the frequent attacks. Clearly, it isdifficult to find common ground between the two sides since they allbelieve that their courses of action are the best ones. In summary,Proposition 63 will help in making both parties agree on the bestsolution that will end the gun violence and still ensure thateveryone has the right to own one. The approach will also reduce thedisagreement between the two sides and make sure that they havevarious issues in common.
The fact that Proposition 63 suggests that a person should get afour-year permit shows how it will prevent the domestic abusers,criminals as well as the mentally unstable people from purchasing theguns. Currently, the Californian state does not have a way in whichthey can prevent the violent people or even the ones on mentalmedication from buying the deadly weapons at any store (McGreevy,2016). Most of these loopholes have threatened the existence andsafety of the people in the community. Some of them are even afraidof the insecurity since they are unable to undertake variousactivities in the society. The high number of the mass shootings hasreally been a problem that needs to be addressed to ensure thateveryone is safe and free from the intimidation and the dangerouspeople. More importantly, the Department of Justice will worktogether with the dealers to make sure that they provide a criticallook at the background of the buyer (McGreevy, 2016). In fact, theywill check their crime history, their health status to identify anymental issues. The results will determine if the person qualifies toget a gun or not. In the process, the prohibition will prevent thementally ill people and the criminals from accessing the deadlyweapons, and that will help in protecting the societies. With thehigh number of the gun violence, the Provision will be more effectivesince it will prioritize the safety of the entire community. Theunbiased approach shows that it will have a better way of looking atthe whole scenario and ensuring that the society no longer suffersfrom the mass shootings. Besides that, people will be safe from thekillings since most of the violent people and the ones that arementally unstable will be unable to access the deadly weapons.
In conclusion, the Proposition 63 will be a perfect opportunity wherethe society will be able to prevent the violent individuals frompurchasing deadly weapons. Most of the mass shootings have beenassociated with the mentally ill and the violent people. The oneswith the criminal records have also been accused of killing others oreven using the guns in burglary and other serious cases. In thiscase, it will help in securing people and ensuring that they are freefrom the fear that they will be attacked by individuals that are notsupposed to own the guns. The mass shootings have seen variouskillers being persons that were under medication for the mentalproblems that they were experiencing. For instance, some of them wereeven under the influence of the Prozac, Ritalin, Ambien and Xanaxthat often have some severe side effects. In fact, they were unableto control their emotions and anger during such periods. As a result,the mental illnesses are a huge problem that has led to the increasednumber of mass shootings in the society. Besides that, other shootershave been people with past criminal records that were still allowedto own guns legally. In the process, they made the society moreinsecure since they have led to a high number of killings. Thevictims are just innocent individuals that did not commit any crimeyet, they have to suffer because of the way that the government haslet the guns fall into the wrong hands. More importantly, theProposition 63 will be a major role of securing the society andensuring that people are free from the frequent attacks instead. Theimplementation of the various clauses will also consider the right toself-defense that everyone has and wants to implement.
Bangalore, S., & Messerli, F. H. (2013). Gun ownership andfirearm-related deaths. The American journal of medicine,126(10), 873-876.
Berkowitz, B., Gamio, L., Lu. D., Uhrmacher, K., Linderman, T.(2016). The Math of Mass Shootings. Retrieved on 1stNov, 2016, from:https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/
Buchanan, L., Keller, J., Oppel, R., Victor, D., (2016). How theygot their Guns. Retrieved on 1st Nov, 2016, from:http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=1
Jacobs, J., & Jones, J. (2011). Keeping Firearms Out of the Handsof the Dangerously Mentally Ill. Criminal Law Bulletin, 47(3),11-42.
Lopez, T. (2016). Prop. 63 Tightens Rules on Guns, Ammo, increasesPenalty for Gun Theft. Retrieved on 1st Nov, 2016,from:http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2016/10/26/prop-63-tightens-rules-on-guns-ammo-increases-penalty-for-gun-theft/
McGreevy, P. (2016). California Senate Leader endorses Gun ControlInitiative despite differences with its author, Lt. Gov. GavinNewsom. Retrieved on 1st Nov, 2016, from:http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-sac-essential-politics-updates-senate-leader-de-leon-endorses-gun-1476984164-htmlstory.html
Metzl, J. M., & MacLeish, K. T. (2015). Mental illness, massshootings, and the politics of American firearms. American journalof public health, 105(2), 240-249.