Fresno State students reacted to the gun-control debate that made its way to California with the passage of multiple gun-control bills from the state legislature.
In California, there are 14 bills awaiting Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature into law or veto.
The bills would affect everything from how many handguns you can sell in a year to how many days a person has to report a gun stolen before it’s a crime.
“This senate bill package is a step towards less gun violence and safer communities,” said Sean Kiernan, the political director of the California College Democrats. “It respects law-abiding gun owner’s rights while shifting focus to keeping guns out of the hands of repeat drug and alcohol offenders who we know pose a much higher risk of engaging in gun violence. It helps keep guns registered and in the hands of responsible owners, and responsible owners only.”
Fresno State student Nathan Chang, the vice president of the university’s gun club, said there are already enough checks in place to control the sale and purchase of guns.
“I don’t understand why you would limit me selling my guns,” Chang said. “If someone were to die””if my dad were to die and I wasn’t a hunter and I didn’t know what to do with those guns””you would naturally sell them. This would make it so they can’t even sell all their guns in one year to cover the estate.”
Chang said that guns are inanimate objects and are tools that responsible people use for hunting, sport and other legal practices. To focus on the gun, he said, is to lose sight of the problem.
“They’re focusing more on the guns than mental health in this country,” Chang said. “What I don’t understand is why they’re trying to make gun legislation in California rather than mental health legislation to help people and identify people with mental illnesses.”
The bills are a reaction, in Shai Van Gelder’s opinion, to the recent mass-shooting tragedies in the United States.
“Due to what’s been happening there is a national perception that guns are, for lack of a better term, the enemy that propagates everything we’re seeing in the United States,” said Van Gelder, a veteran of the Israel Defense Forces and member of the gun club. “The real focus should be on the mental health of these people in these situations. It’s easy to point the finger at the weapon instead of the person behind the weapon.”
For these two gun-rights advocates, a gun is a tool that becomes deadly depending on who is using it.
“I am a firm believer that good guys with guns deter bad guys with guns,” Van Gelder said. “What seems to be a recurring issue is having people to deter crimes. You have people saying that these citizens aren’t trained police officers. They’re not sharpshooters.
“I would much rather limit any kind of body count. Somebody who was an upstanding citizen, who had concealed carry license, training and ability to act, could be a deterrent. “
Chang said the governor needs to ask these questions for each bill before signing:
ӢWill this bill reduce crime in California?
ӢWill this bill reduce Californians second amendment rights?
ӢHow much will this bill cost to implement versus the benefit, if any, of reducing crime?
ӢWill there be legal action against this bill if it is signed and will the benefits outweigh the legal costs?
ӢWhat is the economic impact of this bill on the state and gun industry?
Of the gun-control bills under consideration, Chang said that only Senate bill 683, which requires gun buyers to take a firearm safety class and earn a safety certificate, is acceptable.
This is Part One of a two-part series on the California gun-control debate. Part Two will be published in The Collegian’s Sept. 27 edition.
