Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Neonomos's avatar

Gun control cannot act as accomplice liability for the government. Being an accomplice, as understood by our legal system, requires the agent to act with the purpose or intent to aid or abet the principal. There may be a case for this if gun legislation was explicitly intended to reduce the ability of a group to defend itself (imagine prohibitions on arms for Jews in Nazi Germany).

However, if a legislator is fulfilling its duty to the public by advocating for gun control for self-defense (not so that there can be more vulnerable victims, but fewer armed criminals) then even though the legislator may be a but-for cause in example 2, the legislator cannot be liable as an accomplice if the legislation is made in good faith and with the intent to protect life. Would you say that the legislator may also be praiseworthy for the lives saved by the gun laws? In that case, we can only judge policy through a utilitarian lens by weighing the cost and benefits, including the sum of lives saved and lost, of gun control.

In my thinking, there should be a different level of scrutiny for gun laws that are applied in one's own home (where protection is important and risks to the public are minimal) than ones that are applied when being armed in public, like open carry, where they may be a higher risk of public harm and less of a justification for personal defense.

Expand full comment
P. Morse's avatar

Far more the issue many would agree is there a right to own an assault rifle? if so, is there a right to own a larger gun, say an howitzer, though few would probably shoot others with it?

Expand full comment
15 more comments...

No posts