https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/11/marc-j-victor/live-and-let-live-applied-to-guns/

By Marc J. Victor

Congratulations!  If you are fortunate enough to be reading this article, you won the lottery of birth.  You were born at the best time, so far, to be alive.  You are also likely to have been born in one of the best places on the planet.  Like me, you are spectacularly lucky.  Considering our circumstances, most of which we had very little or nothing to do with, we are indeed hugely fortunate.  I urge you to pause, take a deep breath, and reflect on this observation for a moment before you read on.

Let’s Not Fight the Facts

There are many things I wish were different about the world.  I’d love to live in a world where all adults were competent and peaceful.  I don’t worship guns, nor do I demonize them.  I’d be happy to live in a utopian world where nobody owned guns for self-defense reasons because it was unnecessary.  As we know, such a world is pure fantasy.

When I served in the United States Marine Corps, I had the opportunity to fire many different weapons; several were high powered automatic ones.  I respect them as tools.  I also respect that some people enjoy spending their time safely and responsibly practicing their marksmanship with weapons.  While I prefer to spend my time doing other things, I respect the rights of competent adults to peacefully do what they prefer.

While we may wish the facts of reality were otherwise, reasonable people who are committed to truth ought to generally agree with the following statements:

1. There are more than 350 million civilian owned guns currently in the United States.  As such, guns will continue to exist in the United States forever;
2. Gunsby themselves don’t hurt or assault anyone.  They are simply tools.  Guns are often used by people for good and peaceful purposes like self-defense, deterrence or sporting events.  Guns have saved and protected countless lives.  Guns are also often used by people for bad purposes like initiating violence against others;
3. Like all other dangerous tools, horrible accidents with guns will occur due to both negligence and recklessness. Although we should endeavor to reduce such accidents, there is no way to prevent all accidents with guns;
4. Most people who want a gun either currently have one, can easily obtain one or will soon be able to print or otherwise manufacture one.  As such, although some policies could make it more difficult for “bad guys” to get a gun, such people will always be able to obtain guns regardless of whatever policy or law applies;
5. Some people arewilling to initiate violence against others.  Further, they cannot be reasoned out of their position.  As such, we will always have a need to repel aggressors armed with guns;
6. No policy on guns will eliminate all gun violence;
7. Police officers cannot protect everyone at all times;
8. Peaceful people have afundamental legal and moral right to self-defense;
9. A properly used gunis generally effective protection against bad guys with knives, fists and other weapons; and
10. Although other theoretical ways are possible, the only reliable way to stop a “bad guy” with a gun is a “good guy” with a gun.

A Principled Approach

Although we live in the best of times, we don’t live in perfect times.  This is one of the most polarized times in recent history.  At the time of this writing, Donald Trump is the President of the United States.  Most likely, you either love him or hate him.  You are either “with us” or “against us.”  There are generally two positions on almost all issues today, you are either “pro” or you are “con.”  The more nuanced and sophisticated positions are generally drowned out by the reckless fervor and loud clamoring of the hostile masses on either side of any particular issue.  The gun issue is certainly no exception.

Indeed, I can think of no issue more polarized than the question of gun policy.  It has become like a religious cult on both sides.  One side worships guns while the other side demonizes them.  Both sides are mostly wrong because neither emanates from the correct principle.  There is a way to analyze and solve this issue on a principled basis that is entirely compatible with a reasonably safe and free society.  As always, the key is recognizing the important basic principle from which all laws ought to be based in order to have a civilized, reasonably safe, and free society.

Civilized people ought to agree with the principle that competent adults are entitled to both define and pursue their happiness.  Said another way, competent adults should to be in charge of their own lives and property.  They have the right to be left alone or to peacefully and fairly contract with other competent adults regarding their property.  A free society requires the proper balance between the rights of one person to do whatever they want with their property with the equally important rights of others not to be disturbed in their affairs by the activities of other people.  This is the essence of a free society.

As such, people desiring a peaceful and free society ought to agree that the initiation of either force, fraud, or coercion is wrong in all cases.  Further, it remains wrong even if the use of force, fraud, or coercion is employed to accomplish desirable results.  As an illustration of this point, imagine a thief stealing money from a person then donating the stolen money to a truly worthy charity.  The donation to charity doesn’t justify the theft.

Moreover, it isn’t only the actual initiation of either force, fraud, or coercion that violates the rights of others.  It is also the substantial threat of such an initiation that violates another’s rights.  It is for this same reason that we recognize a justified act of self-defense even before an actual use of unjustified force.  That we don’t always agree on exactly which particular circumstances allow a justified act of self-defense doesn’t mean we fail to recognize the principle that one need not wait until another’s fist hits their face before such person can legally and properly act to prevent the trespass.

As with self-defense, reasonable people sometimes disagree on what particular circumstances constitute a substantial threat of force, fraud, or coercion such that preventative action is legally allowed.  Nonetheless, the principle remains valid.  Arriving at the proper principle is the first step towards moving in the direction of a free and virtuous society.

We need to recognize that a virtuous society can’t effectively be mandated or legislated.  We must persuade our fellow brothers and sisters to be virtuous.  Indeed, parents, and not the government, must be on the front lines of this effort.  We urgently need to help each other to be better and more effective parents.  I can think of no more important task to move us closer to a virtuous society.

The fundamental principle that I have been describing, and is at the base of the legal analysis we ought to employ, can be referred to as “The Live and Let Live Principle” (hereinafter the “LLLP”).  Because the LLLP is a principle, no particular set of words can fully capture its entire meaning for all circumstances.  As such, it must be reasonably interpreted and applied to the various and countless unique factual situations that life presents.  Additionally, like any principle, reasonable minds can and do disagree with the proper implementation of the LLLP.  This fact does not negate the importance of the basic idea underlying the LLLP.

Many people already subscribe to a “live and let live” attitude.  It requires respect for the rights and sovereignty of others to both define and pursue their happiness.  This is especially important in cases where we strongly disagree with how people choose to define or peacefully pursue their happiness.  To the extent societies have adopted the LLLP, freedom and prosperity have thrived.  I have heard the LLLP often expressed, but less often implemented, throughout different cultures and groups.

People who espouse the LLLP come from all walks of life, racial backgrounds, socio-economic groups, and live in different places around the world.  They are a varied group.  Many are members of different political parties or are entirely non-political.

The LLLP recognizes and respects the sovereignty of our fellow human beings.  We should recognize we don’t all agree on moral issues.  However, the LLLP is the least common denominator of moral issues upon which civilized people generally agree.  If you think about it, most people don’t argue for the morality of initiating force against non-aggressors…

Conclusion

I recognize that, while you may have accepted my humble suggestion at the beginning and carefully read this entire article, you may yet still disagree with me about some or all of it.  I certainly respect your right to disagree with me, and I thank you for carefully considering my thoughts.  As you may have gleaned, what I’m truly most interested in is the LLLP.

If you at least truly accept the LLLP, I’ve accomplished my mission.  We are on the same team.  That we disagree on exactly how to define or how to apply the LLLP is not a big issue to me.  I’d love a world where we all at least agreed that either the substantial threat of or the actual initiation of either force, fraud, or coercion is wrong in all cases.  Stated more generally, I’d love a world where we each respected the equal rights of our fellow humans to both define and peacefully pursue their happiness using their bodies, property, money and time.

If you still haven’t been convinced about the wisdom of crafting our laws to be consistent with the LLLP, you are therefore taking the position that our laws ought to permit either the substantial threat of or the actual initiation of force, fraud or coercion at least in some cases.  Said another way, you support aggression against your fellow peaceful brothers and sisters to accomplish things you find important.  I sincerely hope you reconsider your position.

We can never achieve a civilized, reasonably safe, free, and peaceful society so long as the law permits some humans to substantially threaten or to initiate aggression against others who are peaceful.  In the final analysis, the LLLP is the real issue upon which good people need to focus their best efforts.  We each entered existence, and we will each exit at some point.  We have indeed been spectacularly lucky.  What you do with your time here is what matters.  I urge you to aim high and use your time to advocate for freedom and peace.

Be seeing you