Moral Dilemmas and Theories

    Violent crimes in our societies have greatly increased and thus raising concerns all over. Reducing violent crimes therefore is a good thing and gun advocates are acknowledging that guns are the driving force to the increased rates of high crimes in our societies. This therefore forms the basis for the gun control movement as advocates are arguing that gun ownership has increased and hence causing commission of crimes and guns are inherently becoming dangerous due to their primary role of being destruction to the targeted audience. Following this concern, guns should be therefore controlled and outlawed.

 Gun control is basically put in place so as to limit the number of gun ownership in the society and this can only be supported by the utilitarian moral theory.  Through this restriction bestowed upon gun ownership, the likelihood of people becoming injured or losing their lives is reduced. The argument on gun control is basically founded on the modern utilitarian thought by Bentham who asserts that morality of action is determined by its efforts to the overall happiness. Therefore any act should therefore be taken if it is produces the greatest amount of happiness. Applying this theory therefore indicates that guns produce more harm than happiness as well as social utility and therefore it is morally not right to use guns (DeGrazia et al, 2016). Guns cost the lives of people as most of the cases in homicide and robberies are committed by people who have guns. This means that a high percent of taxpayer money is often used in healthcare bills for the injured people while this money could have been used in investments and in more socially benefited causes that would bring an ultimate happiness for the overall majority. Utilitarian therefore are in great support to push the government to put more restrictions in gun ownership and hence this will result to gun control. The government is highly using the social utilitarianism to take apart the individual rights in owning guns (Lott et al, 2010).

Gun advocates argues that guns availability helps criminals to use the guns and hence due this high rate and easiness to access guns, criminals will continue to use guns in all of the ways that they want. Thus the advocates are claiming the government should forge forward with their efforts to ensure that there are strict regulations on guns ownership as this will minimize the sale and possession of these guns and ultimately causing minimal criminal cases. It is true that guns are important for protection but this notion was highly applicable in America during the uncivilized era when the nation was at a wilderness state. In the present day that we are all living, there are numerous police departments that have been established so as to ensure that security is equally offered to all the citizens. Therefore, there is no need for people to own guns. This therefore gives the government the right to make gun acquisition difficult as this will considerably reduce violent crime cases. Guns are weapons in nature and thus their use is fatal and dangerous (Lott et al, 2010). Therefore having a strong gun control regulations will make it hard for people and especially criminals to acquire guns easily and for those who will be caught possessing guns, it will be a serious case to answer. It is therefore important for all people to be good citizens and to adhere to the regulations as it will be of a common good.

Many people and advocates has however countered this argument by arguing that owning guns is not a bad thing as law abiding citizens use them for the protection of self and that of their loved ones. Some has used statistics that prove that the rising crimes are not as a result of the high rate of gun ownership as the statistics indicate that there is no connection between the rising gun ownership and the decline in crime rates. Gun control however coincides with Kant’s theory which is used by oppositions who want to have gun regulations reduced. The opposition’s supports Kant’s theory as it argues that morality is an act that highly depends on an individual’s intention whether it is that of good will and not the outcome of that same act (Weisberg, 2004). The problem however in this case is the results of the action of controlling a person’s rights to own arms which is basically not in the interest of all people. Therefore most of the conclusions made by the oppositions argue that illegalizing the use of guns is not solely the solution to solving the criminal cases across states as gun control would not end violence in our societies (Harr et al 2016). There is a strong argument asserting that owning guns is not entirely the problem but rather a part of the problem as the major part of the problem lies in the attitude of the people who own these guns. Thus to effectively reduce the gun and crime problems, the government ought to implement strict rules on those who will be convicted for using guns.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Lott, John R. (2010).More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Top of Form

DeGrazia, David, and Lester H. Hunt. (2016). Debating Gun Control: How Much Regulation Do We Need?, Print.

Harr S, Hess K, Orthmann & Kingsbury. (2016).Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System. Cengage Learning.

 

Weisberg, R. (2004). The Utilitarian and Deontological Entanglement of Debating Guns, Crime, and Punishment in America.