A Dissenting View on Guns: Why Rights-Based Arguments Against Gun Control Fail
Cross posted from Bleeding Heart Libertarians
Bobby is a brilliant scientist. So brilliant, in fact, that he builds a functional atomic bomb in his garage. Of course, Bobby strictly adheres to the non-aggression principle, so he has no plans to use his bomb to attack others. But he’s proud of his scientific accomplishment and hangs the bomb on his fireplace mantel as a trophy.
Should Bobby be permitted to possess this atomic bomb? Surely not. The reason is simple: the risk to others is simply too great.
So what’s the point of this parable? It offers a challenge to the typical rights-based arguments that libertarians make against gun control. The first such argument asserts that gun control deprives people of a means of self-defense. That’s certainly true. But bomb control—depriving Bobby of his bomb—deprives Bobby of a means of self-defense.
To see why, suppose Bobby posts a sign on his front lawn alerting potential intruders that he’ll bomb them should they enter his house. That’s a pretty effective way to defend himself. (You might be thinking that this is a bad way of defending himself, since he’ll die too. But just imagine that he can run into a bomb shelter before the bomb detonates.) Nevertheless, depriving Bobby of this means of self-defense is justified on the grounds that not depriving him of this means of self-defense would mean tolerating intolerably high risks to others.
Another libertarian objection to gun control is that it deprives individuals of their private property. But bomb control deprives Bobby of his private property. Bobby justly acquired all of his materials and produced the bomb. Nevertheless, depriving Bobby of this bit of private property is justified on the grounds that not depriving him of this bit of private property would mean tolerating intolerably high risks to others.
The final objection I’ll consider is that gun control opens the door to state tyranny. Gunless citizens are less equipped to resist abuses of state power. But an atomic bomb is at least as effective in deterring state tyranny as a handgun. Nevertheless, depriving Bobby of this means of deterring tyranny is justified on the grounds that not depriving him of this means of deterring tyranny would mean tolerating intolerably high risks to others.
To be clear: my argument is not that gun control is justified. I take no stand on the issue here. In fact, that’s pretty much my point: the case for or against gun control shouldn’t be made on the basis of philosophical arguments about rights. Instead, the issue should be decided on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis: e.g., does robust access to guns increase or decrease the general risk of violent crime, death, etc? That’s a social scientific question. What I do claim is that the kinds of rights-based arguments against gun restriction that libertarians often make are unsuccessful.
In reply, you might argue that nothing I’ve said rebuts the claim that people have a prima facie right to own a gun. Rather, I’ve simply pointed out some reasons why this prima facie right might be overridden. That’s a fair point, but even on this view, most, if not all, of the work is done by the social science. Think of it this way: the sorts of considerations that might ground a prima facie right to own a gun also appear to be the sorts of considerations that could ground a prima facie right to own an atomic bomb (a right to self-defense, private property, and so on). But of course, endorsing a prima facie right to own an atomic bomb doesn't get you very far in terms of justifying an all-things-considered right to own an atomic bomb for the reasons I explored above. My claim here is that the same point holds in the case of guns.
Not sure the analogy works. Although there's a right to self-defense, an atomic bomb would harm others besides your attacker, so you couldn't claim a right of self-defense in using it. Your right of self-defense only applies to your attackers, not to the other hundred thousand people living within several miles of where you're being attacked.
The rights argument still works. The default we mostly, as a species, want is that you have a right to your property. If a really strong case can be made to deprive someone of their property (the old pin prick vs asteroid type of scenario), it'll also be a rights-based argument. The question becomes one of what rights should supercede others.
And I don't accept that it's never ok for Bob to have a nuke. Like gun rights vs intervening rights, the question is under what conditions does Bob have a right to a nuke. Maybe Bob would be more responsible with the nukes than people who presently have them and we all want Bob to have the nuke.