Weapons

• Live and Let Live’s Position on Weapons

  The Live and Let Live Global Peace Movement’s position on weapons, consistent with every topic, is derived from the Two Principles – ‘don’t aggress’ and ‘be an excellent human’. Specifically:

  • Live and Let Live requires that no-one initiate aggression against anyone else.
    • This ‘Legal Principle’ is mandatory, applying equally to all individuals, groups and governments. The right not to be aggressed against naturally includes the right to defend yourself against aggression by reasonable and appropriate means. Live and Let Live is pro peace.
  • 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 merely owning a chain-saw, a firearm, a hammer or any tool is not an act of aggression, so long as it doesn’t put anyone at substantial risk of harm (as per the Legal Principle’s definition of aggression).
  • Ultimately, whether one is anti or pro gun is irrelevant to the application of a principle-based legal system protecting freedom and securing peace.
    • Competent adults, including those who safely & peacefully posses firearms, i.e. those who do not use firearms to violate the Legal Principle, should not have their rights violated. Preventing such peaceful behavior is a violation of the Legal Principle. Those who are not competent to posses a firearm must be subject to the responsible supervision of a competent adult.
    • Conversely, it should always be illegal for anyone to use firearms to violate the Legal Principle, including the police and military personnel.
    • Any individual or voluntary community should be allowed to prohibit anything on their premises they consensually choose, including banning weapons.
    • Those who choose to live in weapon-free areas should be free to do so, defining the prohibitions or restrictions however that community chooses. Live and Let Live is pro freedom.
  • Calibrating and enforcing the law according to the Live and Let Live Legal Principle is the best way to minimize the initiation of aggression with weapons at both the local and international level.
  • As a public charity, Live and Let Live is against aggression. We support peace, freedom and their by-products.
  • For more information about Live and Let Live’s Two Principles apply to every pertinent topic regarding peaceful coexistence, or to get in touch, visit www.liveandletlive.org.

Accoring to ‘the sovereign individual’ book, feudalism’s end was brought about by guns and the printing press. A peasant with a gun was more powerful than a knight that was previously dominant. The proliferation of free speech that stemmed from the printing press allowed for subversion of the church’s monopoly on knowledge, which empowered the people.

The Live and Let Live Global Peace Movement’s position on weapons, like every topic, is consistent with the Two Principles – ‘don’t aggress’ and ‘be an excellent human’. Specifically:

• 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 initiate aggression, 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
• 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 merely owning a chain-saw, a gun, a hammer or any tool is not an act of aggression, 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 should be prohibited from possessing firearms, specifically those with: a) a history or stated intention of violating the LP with violence, b) mental incompetence, c) 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 matters 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 profA 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 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.
  • Weapons with more significant harm to greater numbers of people at further distances (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 and 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 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.’
• 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.
• 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.