A Defense of Guns | A British Libertarian’s Perspective
Tags: Britain, Self Defense, Guns

I believe myself to be in the minority opinion compared to my fellow British countrymen. As such, one must tread lightly. For the issue at hand draws a heavy emotional toll on all involved.

I hold an extremely liberal position when it comes to the possession and use of firearms. I believe that the state should not be able to restrict what firearms a person of legal age with no violent convictions should be able to own. This would extend from handguns to black powder weapons, all the way up to fully automatic rifles of any caliber.

This position is vary rare. I have not met a single person offline, (which is what counts), who holds this position. Indeed whenever I have broached the topic, cautiously I will add, I am met with a profound disdain for guns or for any suggestion of the liberalisation of gun legislation. This is primarily expressed as a sneer at the state of gun violence in the United States. “Something should be done.”, “I am glad we are not like that.” These are statements that I have heard when talking about gun violence in the United States.

An increase in the consumption of American news media, a very British culture of not rocking the boat and the slow, but nonetheless inevitable, accumulation of state power have all conspired to degrade a persons freedom with respect to gun rights.

So what are the policy positions that I am advocating for?

First is the repeal of the prohibition on all pistols, semi-automatic rifles above .22 rim fire cartridges, all automatic rifles and all less than lethal self defense weapons such as stun guns and pepper spray. The second policy position I am advocating for is the repeal of the restriction on owning a firearm for personal protection.

I advocate for these positions on the grounds that every individual holds intrinsic moral value and contains within their person natural rights to life, liberty and property. If an individual is threatened with harm or death they have the right to meet that threat with justified lethal force.

The issue of self defense is a polarising one. The law with regards to self defense rests on the incredibly subjective term “reasonable force”. What is reasonable to one person is not to another. This is pernicious as it holds the victim to the capricious whims of public opinion. A person must never chose between not defending themselves with the potential of being murdered, maimed or exploited and defending themselves and being victimized by the mob and media.

Even in cases where there is no polarisation. Where it is clear cut that a person was acting in self defense and lethal force is justified. What is the justification that a person is not allowed to use a firearm but they are allowed to use a kitchen knife or a blunt object from around their home. In both cases the use of lethal force is justified so why would should there be a distinction?

People who oppose the ownership of firearms might suggest that firearms, because of their efficiency, would make the victim more likely to use lethal force. This on the surface might sound reasonable but it excludes a natural counter balance. Due to a firearms efficiency, while being more deadly for a perpetrator, it makes it safer for the victim. It allows a victim to meet the threat they are confronted with. Firearms are the great equalizer. It doesn’t matter how big you are or strong you are, if you have a firearm you have the ability to meet the threat.

Self defense is an intrinsic right to all humans. It is a right that exudes a love of life and a declaration of the defense of life. To tell a victim that they may only protect themselves in certain ways is to say to them that their life is less valuable than their moral dictates.

Victims of violent crime, who are predominantly poor, are denied access to a method of self defense that is open to the elites of society. The rich and well connected have the ability to prevent violence against themselves with high walls and armed security. While the poor must make do with a handicapped ability to defend themselves and a police force that will pick up the pieces after the violence has occurred.

Another common claim that is made by people who oppose the liberalisation of firearm legislation is that the more firearms a population has access to the more that those firearms will be used.

We can see that even though the prohibition against pistols occurred in 1997, there was a spike in the number of homicides around 2003 followed by a lull in 2015 before returning to pre pistol prohibition levels in 2019. Even though firearms have been severely restricted, the number of homicides has not been affected by this restriction. If the goal of these laws is to decrease the amount of death in the world then it appears to not have worked.

A reply to this could be that the number of homicides would have been even more if not for the ban, but this has been masked by some other factor.

This however does not look like the case.

As we can see there is a downward trend in all violent crimes. This includes rape, robbery, arson, assault, and all threats of violence since 1995. This downward trend predates the prohibition of pistols and the tightening of firearm legislation.

I am not saying that firearms are not dangerous. They obviously are. Firearms need to be treated with respect as one would with any piece of dangerous machinery. But banning something because it might be used maliciously or used poorly is not in the best interest of the people. For even if it was true that prohibiting firearms did decrease the amount of homicides, the legislation would still fail on moral grounds. For it subjects a persons natural rights, their human rights, to be sacrificed as a scapegoat in place of the criminals personal responsibility.

If a man drives his car into a crowd of people. Would it be legitimate for the government to legislate the prohibition of all cars? Obviously not. I would argue the same should hold with respect to firearms. Now one could retort that a car is very different from a firearm, that the car has a purpose beyond its use as a killing tool. I would argue that the distinction is not as clear as some would like. Yes, cars may be used to run down crowds of people, but they may also be used for transport. Firearms may be used for homicides, but they may also be used as a tool of self defense. Anyone who would equivocate the defensive use of a firearm and the malicious use of a firearm, I would argue, does not believe that a person has the moral right to self defense. I believe that the defensive use of a firearm should be considered a legitimate use of a firearm.

While I do not expect my policy positions to be broadly accepted, I do hope that we can at least push the conversation in the direction of liberty and to viewing a person as an independent individual with the right to their own life.