Nick Kraynyk

Philosophy and Gun Control

In the United States of America our laws and government are dictated by the Constitution and
Bill of Rights, we follow it to the letter and expect our society to function efficiently, fairly and
morally. Some may argue though that these pieces of paper written long before anyone alive was born
should not apply anymore and need to be re written to apply to todays society. Well if we look at the
second amendment we can see a rather vague statement in todays society and it has become one of the
main arguments in the Democrat Vs. Republican war our society is plagued with. In this essay I will
review the morality of gun ownership, the rights we as American citizens have or do not have and if
society warrants a change in our constitution.
First lets read the actual text the second amendment gives us, it says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
At face value we this statement pertains to militias and small armies that will protect society
from the crown or corrupt governments and their right to defend themselves and whatever else they
would defend. This makes sense in the context of the time this was written when a strong central
government did not exist and the states were almost their own separate countries. They wanted to be
able to protect themselves from the formation of a corrupt central government like the monarchy in
England. This was obviously a very important concept for the founding fathers as it was the second
amendment written right after free speech and freedom of religion. This portion of the text is black and
white the confusion we face in society today comes after the comma with ...The right of the people to
keep and bear Arms... Republicans in todays society would say that applies to everyone and we should
have quick easy and government free access to guns and ammunition, while democrats would argue

that regulation is necessary and some weapons should not be bought by civilians. With the mass
murders and criminal element we need to come to a decision weather or not we want to allow gun
ownership or not and allow both sides to voice an opinion on the topic.
The question this essay is trying to address asks if Americans should alter their right to
purchase guns. That is a very general term when pertaining to government policies and constitutional
rights as many different solutions can be valid. As I stated above there are major differences in regards
to gun rights for the two political parties and this creates conflict as republicans quote the second
amendment but democrats point out the mass murders and crime in urban areas as the result. What sort
of alteration would work when talking about this subject if we decided today to take everyones guns
away then only criminals would have guns and if we do nothing then some people state these murder
trends will continue and get worse as bigger and better weapons are released onto the market. What we
will do now is exam a few different approaches governments have taken in relation to this subject and
see the true outcomes.
Background checks are extremely important when buying a deadly weapon. Some may argue
against it but knowing who is buying guns and what kind is extremely important form society. This
method of gun control is aimed at preventing mentally ill or criminals from purchasing guns and
allowing healthy law abiding citizens the ability to purchase guns for whatever purpose they need it for.
The limitation of this method is its inability to stop normal individuals who go on these rampages we
see on the news. Rarely are the people who shoot people in McDonalds or schools classified as
mentally ill before their rampage it is only after that we understand the mental problems they did not
show before. Although in reality that is not quite the point of background checks as they main goal is to
prevent mentally ill and convicts from having access to such dangerous weapons. In terms of altering
Americans rights I believe and most of society would agree that filling out a piece of paper when
purchasing something that could kill many people is an acceptable thing to do. Background checks do
not affect the rights of law abiding citizens and is a great example of solutions to this problem that do

not deal in absolutes.

Another solution we could have is Gun-Free zones such as malls, schools or movie theaters.
The idea behind this zone is that everyone in there needs to be unarmed or they will face criminal
prosecution. Gun-Free zones are an example of trying to deal with an absolute and it is not as simple
as that. There would be nothing stopping a criminal from breaking just one more law when on a killing
spree but what it does do is limit and prevent a challenge to the gunman by a law abiding citizen with a
weapon. What these Gun-Free zones do is alter the rights of law abiding citizens and remove
protection from them. This is something that many people would argue is a bad idea and something that
goes against the logic of preventing gun crime. A common argument against this is Well no one has
brought a gun and started shooting people at a gun-show. That is dealing with the problem to an
extreme but the fact is taking away the right to bear arms in certain areas even sensitive ones such as
schools can take away our rights and protection.
Limiting the size of ammunition clips and limiting the types of guns you can purchase is an
interesting part of the argument. This is because it would make sense that letting someone buy a 30
round magazine for their AK-47 over just being able to buy a 10 round magazine would mean those
mass murders are that much more deadly. As well as not being able to buy a .50 BMG anti tank rifle
can help police officers and citizens feel that much safer. If you understand how gun magazines work
and you have seen a 30 round magazine converted into a 10 round you will notice it is just a simple
piece of plastic preventing you from fitting 30 rounds in there. Now removing that plastic is illegal so a
normal law abiding citizen would not dare as the punishment can be harsh but there is nothing stopping
a criminal from doing so. Once again the gun laws set out to protect us are altering our rights to
weapons in a negative way. Limiting what kinds of guns you can buy and if they shoot fully automatic
or semi automatic is another issue with the same problem as magazines have. To make a full automatic
gun semi automatic and legal for sale in America is taking out a single piece of metal. Now obviously a
criminal can reattach that piece of metal and now have a fully automatic gun and more firepower than a

legal gun owner could ever have.

These forms on gun control can be argued about and replaced and put back into place for as
long as our society exists but we also can face another question, is owning a gun ethical? When you
walk into Big 5 or a gun shop and buy a shotgun or a rifle you are buying something can do major
amounts of harm to people and end peoples lives. You have bought the ability to cause harm and danger
to people. Of course if you are a responsible gun owner it can be argued that you are buying just as
much safety for you and your family but even so if you have a gun it could be used for harm for
anybody who gets a hold of it. You could make the argument that cars kill more people than guns by
magnitudes but the difference between arguments like this is that a gun was built to be dangerous and
built to cause harm and death to humans while something like a car or a bicycle has a utility function
and is not inherently dangerous. Even organizations like the NRA advocate gun safes and ways to
prevent misfires and unwanted people getting a hold of the gun because the only purpose of a gun is to
cause harm or threaten. So is it ethical to buy, sell and use something designed to harm and threaten
people, some people including me would say owning a weapon that has suppressed billions of people
robbed people of their lives and dignity and causes heartbreak to millions everyday is a very unethical
thing. You are supporting the gun industry by giving them money and you are essentially voting in
favor of increased militarization and increased gun manufacturing. That is not a society I personally
would like to live in and I am there are a lot of gun fanatics that would be insulted by what I have just
talked about but I believe buying,selling or using a gun in inherently dangerous and supports causing
harm and suppression to society therefor I believe it is unethical to do these things.
With the brief overview of a few policies of gun control and some ethics involved in
buying,selling or using guns we can start to think back to the constitutional right we might have to bear
arms. In events such as Columbine or Sandy Hook the lasting effects almost always have to do with
gun control and violent media. Experts always say if guns were harder to get this never would of
happened, or if they took the proper background check we never would of let them buy that gun. But

the policies that grow from these events and the lasting effects do not hurt the criminal, the mass
murder they hurt the average citizen who has a CCW who has to protect his house when armed robbers
break in or protect his gas station and that is why altering the constitutional right we have derived from
that one sentence should not happen. If we as a society, and probably the world would take a universal
approach to saying there will be no guns in the world then altering the constitution would not be an
issue as it would not advocate gun crime because the guns on both sides of the law have been
abolished. We can not ignore the fact that criminals will obtain guns no matter what the Bill of Rights
says and that is a major argument from the NRA and gun owners alike. Some people like the ability to
protect their family more than the idea they are supporting an industry built around harm and
oppression and that is a perfectly normal thing. When someone breaks into your home with a gun and
your have to make the decision to protect your family the arguments in this essay disappear because
your life is on the line but the reality is this rarely ever happens and with violent crime on a downward
trend I believe its time that we reassess our desire to own guns. Instead of lobbying and setting laws in
place we as a society should decide guns are an unnecessary evil.
In conclusion there is no simple answer to a question like this and in this essay I have tried to
explore at least a few different problems we face when talking about gun ownership and talking about
our constitutional rights. Policies and laws regarding gun control for the most part only limit normal
citizens from obtaining guns and allow criminals to gain increased firepower. Gun-Free zones such
as schools and movie theaters reduce the risk a mass murderer faces and is the reason why most
shooting occur in Gun-Free zones. Limitations on guns and magazines for the most part as easy to
manipulate illegally and again increases the firepower of criminals instead of protecting the citizen. It
could be argued that instead of putting more law on guns or harsher sentences for gun related crimes
we should increase treatment and the ability for people to receive help without punishment before they
commit these mass murders. While not pertaining to the law and altering our rights we as a society
could also agree that owing and using guns supports the war machine and supports these massive

companies such as Barrett or H&K or whomever else to create a larger volume and deadlier guns, a
very unethical policy. Although this will not happen anytime soon so altering the constitutional right of
Americans because of crime or because of mass shootings is wrong and would only affect the law
abiding citizens.