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.
This is a fair point; however, the worry is that guns also pose a risk to non-attackers (of course, the risk is not as great as the risk posed by the bomb), so the case for an all-things-considered right to own a gun will depend on what the social science tells us about the outcomes of gun ownership.
I think it's a severe understatement, Chris, to say guns and atomic bombs both carry a RISK of harming non-attackers. Atomic bombs cannot realistically be used without harming non-attackers. So I agree with Aeon regarding the disanalogy. I mean, if risk (independent of quantification) of harming others is sufficient to negate tools of self-defense, one cannot even use one's body. There's always a risk of an innocent third party being hit when you throw a punch and the attacker ducks.
I agree that it can't be the case that *any* risk of harm to non-attackers is sufficient to override the right to own an instrument of self-defense. Rather, a sufficiently high risk of harm to non-attackers can override the right to own an instrument of self-defense. Figuring out what counts as a sufficiently high risk of harm is a philosophical problem (although I'm not convinced we've got a great account of this); figuring out whether guns pose a sufficiently high risk of harm (as specified by whatever the correct philosophical account is) is going to be a social scientific problem. My point in the post is simply that considerations of self-defense/private property/resistance to state tyranny aren't enough to establish an all-things-considered right to own a gun--the social science is going to play an indispensable role.
This issue could be resolved by modifying the example: instead of an atomic bomb, perhaps the weapon of choice is a massively powerful weapon that could in principle be used against one aggressor but is often used against many. Eg, a massive turret.
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.
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.
This is a fair point; however, the worry is that guns also pose a risk to non-attackers (of course, the risk is not as great as the risk posed by the bomb), so the case for an all-things-considered right to own a gun will depend on what the social science tells us about the outcomes of gun ownership.
I think it's a severe understatement, Chris, to say guns and atomic bombs both carry a RISK of harming non-attackers. Atomic bombs cannot realistically be used without harming non-attackers. So I agree with Aeon regarding the disanalogy. I mean, if risk (independent of quantification) of harming others is sufficient to negate tools of self-defense, one cannot even use one's body. There's always a risk of an innocent third party being hit when you throw a punch and the attacker ducks.
I agree that it can't be the case that *any* risk of harm to non-attackers is sufficient to override the right to own an instrument of self-defense. Rather, a sufficiently high risk of harm to non-attackers can override the right to own an instrument of self-defense. Figuring out what counts as a sufficiently high risk of harm is a philosophical problem (although I'm not convinced we've got a great account of this); figuring out whether guns pose a sufficiently high risk of harm (as specified by whatever the correct philosophical account is) is going to be a social scientific problem. My point in the post is simply that considerations of self-defense/private property/resistance to state tyranny aren't enough to establish an all-things-considered right to own a gun--the social science is going to play an indispensable role.
This issue could be resolved by modifying the example: instead of an atomic bomb, perhaps the weapon of choice is a massively powerful weapon that could in principle be used against one aggressor but is often used against many. Eg, a massive turret.
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.