From: irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu (Josh Smith)
Subject: Re: Discussion control in California
Originator: irilyth@fenris
Organization: HMC Academic Computing Services
Distribution: ca
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 06:20:50 GMT

In a prior article, Ian Novack (ian@gomez.jpl.nasa.gov) writes:
> Let's bend the subject a bit: what about the issue of firearm accidents in
> the home? 

Argument from liberty: the government should not prohibit my ownership of a
gun based on the results of allowing gun ownership by stupid people, or even
by a computed average of people. Owning a gun is a risk, and I should be
permitted to assess the risk relative to the benefit I derive from owning a
gun. If I have small, curious children in the house, and simply think that
it's too risky to have a gun around (I would rather have my gun in my desk
drawer than locked in a box, say, but doing so opens the possibility that my
curious child will find it and kill herself), then I should not go out and
buy a gun--but this is a decision I should make, based on the particular
circumstances of my particular living situation. The fact that some other
schmoe, when given the same option with the same risks, chooses to buy a
gun, and ends up with a dead child, should not have an effect on my
_ability_ to buy a gun. It should, perhaps, have an effect on my _desire_ to
own a gun--seeing the story in the news, I might say "Gosh, those things
really are risky, I'd better not get one after all, to make sure my kids
don't get hurt."

Concise generalized version of the above: Owning a gun does not harm others;
it does bring the risk of doing harm to oneself (or making it easir for
others to harm themselves). Governmental attempts to prevent informed
citizens from taking risks which might result in harm to themselves
contradict principles of freedom and individualism. The government should
not prevent you from owning a gun on the grounds that you might hurt
yourself, for the same reason that the government should not prevent you
from owning a car on the grounds that you might hurt yourself: you should
bear the responsibility for deciding whether the risk is worth the benefit,
and (corollary) you should bear the costs of your decision if you are wrong.
This argument can be extended to oppose a wide variety of paternalistic (no
negative connotations intended, though I would tend to view them with
disfavor) governmental regulations; I would probably support most such
extensions (i.e. oppose the regulations).

Liberty suggests that the government should not interfere in our lives
unless we are putting others unwillingly at risk. If you don't buy into the
value of liberty, then you will probably not buy this argument. Whether or
not you think liberty is particularly valuable is a more difficult
philosophical discussion than one regarding the consequences of accepting
liberty as a value (which is what the above attempts to do).

Real concise summary: Paternalism is inconsistent with liberty, so to the
extent that gun control legislation is motivated by paternalism, it is
inconsistent with liberty. Depending on how much you value liberty, that may
or may not influence your views on gun control.

Gun control may also have motivations other than paternalism, but Ian
happened to raise the question paternalistic motivation in his original post.

Disclaimers: I do not own a gun. I do not have children. I could safely be
labeled a "libertarian", but doing so may or may not serve a constructive
purpose. Standard disclaimers about my employer are automatically included
by my signature.
-- 
original text by Josh Smith    ::   Comments, questions, etc. welcomed
irilyth@fenris.claremont.edu   ::   #include <std.disclaimer>
"If you ever fall off the Sears Tower, just go real limp, because maybe you'll
look like a dummy and people will try to catch you because, hey, free dummy."
Xref: sparky ca.news:108 talk.politics.guns:19754