Ethics of weapon use.

Imagine a child playing in a backyard sandbox. The child's parent observes a viper about to bite the child. Acting quickly, he picks up the snake and tosses it gently into the distant bushes. No harm done to the snake or the child. Was that action ethical?

Now consider the speed with which the man would have had to act to safeguard the kid and to avoid getting bitten in turn. The snake probably landed roughly and was injured or killed by the impact. The man used his hands as a weapon to stop the snake from biting and, as a side effect of stopping it, caused it harm. Was that action ethical?

Would your answer change if the man throws a rock, or uses a stick? What about a hoe or a shovel, both gardening tools but used as weapons? The outcome to the child would be the same, as would be the outcome to the snake. Still ethical?

Now imagine that the father was too far from the snake to keep it from biting his child by throwing a rock. Maybe the father is old or infirm and not very good at throwing stones accurately. Could he ethically use a crossbow or a rifle to stop the snake from harming his kid?


Now, let's back up to the first hypothetical. The viper is only half-way to the sandbox, it gets picked up and tossed gently...into the sandbox with the child. Angry, it strikes and bites at once. The same human hands were used as a weapons, but was the use ethical? Would the use of a stick to goad the snake towards the sandbox have been any better?

Tools don't matter. Actions with them do.


Let's imagine another situation, the kind quite common in many restrictive jurisdictions. The same man sees the same snake in readiness to strike. He is too far to reach with his hands, or with a stick or a rock. A rifle would have saved the day, but it is forbidden to him...or locked up in a safe according to the legal requirements. The delay is fatal. Who bears the legal responsibility for the delay? No one. But what of the ethical responsibility?



Would the ethics of the situation change if the threat to the child is not a snake but a rabid, feral dog? How about a rogue human? Unlike animals, humans are presumed to be capable of ethical behavior -- those who are not are termed sociopaths. So a human who knows better than preying on other humans decided to do so anyway and attacks the kid: must the parent be limited to his bare hands in stopping the aggression? For a martial artist in his prime, that may be possible, though perilous. The attacker would still suffer physical harm. Would that be ethical?

Would a stick be allowed for the defender? A rock? A piece of pipe? A sword? A crossbow? A pistol? So long as the intent is ethical, in this case prevention of harm to an innocent, what does it matter if the attacker is hit with a two-pound rock or a quarter-ounce bullet?

Tools don't matter. Actions with them do.



"But we don't mean to disarm the law-abiding!" say those who disagree with my conclusions. Whatever they meant to do is less important than what they actually do. They can only disarm the law-abiding, as the rest wouldn't play along. Moreover, "law-abiding" is not a compliment when the laws are harmful to decent humans and thus not worthy of obedience. Laws that disarm force decent, peaceful humans to choose between putting themselves and their families at additional risk of victimization by freelance criminals for lack of defensive tools (including, in some times and places, even sticks) or retaining arms and risking imprisonment or death at the hands of the law enforcers. Forcing people into such a dilemma is hardly ethical.

Punishment of needlessly violent behavior is ethical. However, capability for violent behavior cannot be prosecuted. Even a man stripped naked, deprived of all tools or weapons, has the capability for violence. He can punch, kick or bite. He kick pick up another person and drop him. Except for infants, people in straight-jackets or quadripalegics, all others are capable of physical violence. The use or, more frequently, abstinence from violence are governed by the upbringing and the personality of each individual.

So how can we ethically justify employing threats of violence (in the form of law enforcement) to disarm peaceful individuals? We frown on armed robbery by individuals, why condone the same when done by groups operating under the color of the law?

Another consideration is the reduction of law enforcement effectiveness in disarmed countries. A person made less secure by legal disarmament would naturally view law enforcement agencies as enemies and withhold cooperation. Without widespread cooperation, police would be much less effective than in areas where it has popular support. Even those who view police favorably are still deprived of effective protection. Of course, legally "police protection" is a misnomer. There's no legal duty to protect individuals, only to uphold the laws for the society at large. Which brings us back to the ethics of depriving individuals of the means of self-protection while providing no bodyguards to compensate.

Providing bodyguards to everyone is a logical impossibility. Who guards the family of the bodyguard assigned to yours? Even assuming some magical source of bodyguards, what of the loss of privacy from having a stranger next to you at all times? In the old days, slaves were used for such purpose -- no one minded the loss of privacy to slaves, as they were hardly more than beasts or pets to the owners. Is that an ethical alternative to simply letting everyone take care of their own security?


"But I don't want to live like that!" Many people prefer to go unarmed. To them, the slight reduction of risk is not worth the effort or they find the armed lifestyle distasteful. That's a perfectly ethical position. Forcing others to do likewise would not be.