IS
PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF HAND GUNS MORALLY PERMISSIBLE? Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
                                                                    Introduction
           The Supreme Court recently stuck down the ban on
ownership of handguns in a 5-4 decision that was both hailed and condemned by
the pro and anti gun proponents. The reasoning behind their decision was that
the second amendment allowed for the same and to uphold the ban would be to
infringe on the rights of individuals enshrined in the constitution. President
Bush praised the ruling claiming it was a victory for the rights of people. The
question begs why should allowing people to own a gun is a constitutional right
when there is no right to kill another individual? Handguns are primarily used
in self defense or to kill another person. Unlike hunting rifles their explicit
use is for murder. The law stipulates that one will face trial for killing
another person. Consequently anyone who buys and owns a handgun will most
likely use it to kill another human being (Ellis & Walsh, 2005, p. 125).
Thus such killings may be in self defense but with the law enforcement officers
paid to do the job of enforcing the law and apprehending criminals, it makes no
sense to allow the development of a quasi militia of citizens armed some with
no good reason. This paper posits that the ownership of handguns by the
citizenry is morally abhorrent as it encourages the criminal slaughter of
individuals by gun wielding people who may have twisted minds or ill motives in
possessing a gun.
