Applying the Legal Principle

Voluntarily prohibiting weapons on private property

• Any individual or local community’s may prohibit anything they consensually choose, including banning weapons on their property.
  • Those who choose to live in weapon-free areas should be free to do so, defining the rules however that community chooses. Live and Let Live is pro freedom.

No-one may aggress, with or without a weapon

• This Legal Principle is mandatory, applying to all individuals, groups, corporations and governments. The right not to be aggressed against naturally includes the right to self-defence. Such self-defence must not exceed ‘reasonable and appropriate’ force - you cannot shoot someone for a civil offence. The exact interpretation of what is reasonable must be determined by local communities.
• Like all tools, weapons are morally neutral - the issue is how they are used. If there is no victim, there is no crime.
  • All tools have the potential to harm, but owning a chain-saw, a gun, a hammer or any tool is not, by itself, aggressing, so long as it doesn’t put anyone at substantial risk of harm (as per the Legal Principle’s definition of aggression).
  • Pens, frying-pans, guitars and fire-extinguishers all feature in a long list of implements used to murder other people. We should not punish peaceful people for mere ownership of these tools.

Three categories of people that could present a ‘substantial risk of harm’ by merely possessing firearms

1. Those with a history or stated intention of violating the Legal Principle with violence,
2. Mental incompetence, or
3. Technical incompetence.

• Private background checks should be carried about to ensure any buyer of a weapon is not in one of these three categories.
• Not all convicted felons are violent - non-violent felons should not be prohibited from responsible weapons possession, because there is no evidence of them presenting a substantial risk in this way.
• Exactly what constitutes ‘a history of violence’ and ‘mental or technical incompetence’ are grey areas for local communities to define.
• It must be proven in court that an accused does indeed present a ‘substantial risk of harm’. The accused must have a prompt, fair and complete opportunity to defend the allegations, and the burden of proof remains with the accuser. If the accusation is not proven, we should immediately return the accused to their original status without cost to the accused.

Weapons with more significant harm to greater numbers of people at further distances

• Such weapons (including automatic weapons) require a higher level of technical competence and more stringent storage requirements are required to avoid creating substantial risks. The same is true for dangerous chemicals and explosives.
• Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons inherently present substantial risks - they are unable for use in targeted self-defence. Arguably they should all be banned entirely, although there is potential for nuclear bombs to play a peaceful role in defending the earth from an asteroid collision, or in deterrence.

Local community rules and safety

• Local communities will choose to adopt specific rules regarding firearms and other weapons. The rules that most effectively demonstrate the minimisation of violence over time will naturally prevail.
  • It should be expected that densely populated urban communities adopt lower tolerance rules regarding gun ownership than rural ones.
  • The 3 key gun safety rules help to illustrate why firearms are more complicated in cities:
    • ’Never point it at anything you don’t want to kill.’
    • ’Never put your finger on the trigger apart from the moment you actually want to shoot.’
    • ‘Always know what’s behind the target - you are shooting everything behind the target as well.’

Personal views

• Ultimately, whether one is anti or pro gun is irrelevant to the application of the Legal Principle.
  • All competent adults, including those who safely posses firearms, should be left in peace. A minor possessing a gun must be subject to the responsible supervision of a competent adult.
  • It should always be illegal for anyone to use guns or dangerous substances to violate the Legal Principle, including the police and military.

Conclusion

• Calibrating and enforcing the law according to the Live and Let Live Legal Principle is the best way to minimise the initiation of aggression with weapons at both the local and international level.
  • It is now possible to print guns, so prohibition is increasingly likely to be ineffective at preventing gun crime. The rapid evolution of AI and robotics likely means the weapons of the future will look nothing like those of the past anyway.