Gun control: pros and cons of the issue - Research Paper Example

The general economic maxim law of diminishing marginal utility applied, directly and indirectly, to diversified real life aspects. The law states that the level of utility that is derived from a commodity is not constant and may vary to zero depending on quantity of supply.Such is the case with gun ownership that benefits members of the society and may at the same time be a threat. Debate has been ongoing on whether gun ownership should be controlled or not and this paper adds to the debate by supporting the position against gun control.

The debate on gun control should be done within existing laws and from a moral perspective. Deontology ethics argues for actions and decisions that respect established laws and therefore defends constitutional provisions on gun control and other existing laws on the same. The constitution is also clear on its supremacy and states that no law shall contravene its provisions. The Second Amendment recognizes necessity of organized armament to people’s security and establishes people’s rights to own guns and other arms.

The Second Amendment further provides that the rights to ownership of arms shall not be infringed. This, interpreted with other sections of the constitution on fundamental rights, means that no law shall be enacted to infringe people’s rights to ownership and possession of guns. Arguments for gun control are therefore unethical, from deontological perspective, and are unconstitutional. This means that such arguments should be discouraged (Viewcaps n.p.). Pertinent to the spirit of the Second Amendment is need for self-defense and for preventing or countering crimes.

Criminals own guns, legally or illegally, and are ready to use the weapons without mercy. Restricting gun ownership therefore makes citizens more vulnerable to criminals who attack using guns. Gun ownership among citizens can however scare criminals and discourage them from using their weapons to commit crimes or could stop the criminals in their criminal processes. A good example is the case of Aurora shooting in which a suspect targeted a mass in shooting. More than 10 people died and scores more were wounded before authorities intervened.

Is a citizen had possession of a gun within the scene then the suspect could have been scared to stop the act or could have been gunned down before the death and injury of the many victims. Gun control will however increase vulnerability in such cases and in other cases. Though the philosophy may appear irrational, it is true that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” (Viewcaps n.p.). Proponents of gun control argue that gun owners use the guns to attack or threaten people but other weapons exist in public domain that can threaten and harm people.

Household equipments can substitute guns in cases of homicides and crimes and the basic principle is that violence is in the mind of the attacker and not in guns. Statistics that many of the gun murder cases involve mentally ill suspects supports this and means that an alternative measure, a psychological perspective, is necessary (Viewcaps n.p.). The fact that incidences of violence are higher in areas with stricter gun laws also justifies the current state of gun control and suggests that enforcing more strict laws may increase cases and consequences of violence in the nation.

This also supports the position that gun ownership is not the root cause of reported violence, including gun-based violence (Viewcaps n.p.). It is also important to note that laws already exist that regulate licensing and use of guns and existence of gun based violence means ineffectiveness of existing laws. A better solution would be to enforce the laws to the letter before proposing other laws that authorities will