To begin with, we should review this situation in terms of the two opposite

positions, two opposite schools of jurisprudence. According to legal positivism,

there is not necessarily a connection between law and morality. Instead, it holds
that law comes from various sources, usually the government. If the government
enacts a law, then it should be followed. What is more, positivists do not make
decisions from a subjective approach and do not let feelings and emotions obscure
his judgment. This is obvious advantage, because we could be assured of a fair
decision.
According to legal realism, this theory supposes that law is a reflection of
the personal views of those people who in charge of enacting, applying, and
enforcing statutes. Therefore, law should be used as a tool to achieve social
purposes and to balance competing societal interests. That is why, position of legal
realism is more flexible and can easily adapt to the any conditions .
Furthermore, we should not forget that these positions have their own
drawbacks as well. Positivism believes that objective inferences and conclusions
can be reached as long as the person is completely objective and disregards
emotions. However, human behavior naturally comes with emotional responses.
Although, positivism encourages to disregard emotions and behavior. Besides, I
consider that positivists tend to be inflexible.
As for legal realism, Jerome Frank , American legal philosopher, is
famously credited with the idea that a judicial decision might be determined by
what the judge had for breakfast. So, the main problem of the legal realism is that
decisions could depend on predilections, prejudgment and mood of decision
makers.
Turning back to our case, I consider that doubling the punishment would be
justified based on position of legal positivism as it is not defined in the WCE the
weapon should either shoot or any way used against someone during the crime. On
the other hand, if we take into account the meaning of the word use, we could
say that that within the context of this crime weapon was not use. Also, Drug did
not have the intention to make use of the weapons and use it against the Seller.
That is why, court has no reason to double the usual penalty.
Nevertheless, I think Drug`s gun must be verified and should be found out
whether gun has not been used in any other crimes.