For years, Republicans have warned voters Democrats will take their guns. The Democrats have never done this. But back in 2019 Beto O’Rourke spoke the words long prophesized by Republicans: “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.” This, obviously enough, never came to pass. But as gun violence is an ongoing problem, the issue of taking away guns remains. While there is the legal question, that is best left to the lawyers. My focus will be on the ethics of the matter. While “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” are not well defined, I’ll rely on the imprecise intuitive understanding of these terms. Fine distinctions of definition can matter but should not impact the broader moral issue.

As this is a matter of ethics on a national scale, it is reasonable to take a utilitarian approach: would taking away assault weapons create more good than bad? On the positive side, proponents of taking away guns note they are the favored weapon for mass shootings. Their high-capacity magazines make them ideal for rapidly killing people, which is what they were designed to do. As such, if assault weapons were taken away, mass shootings would probably have fewer casualties as potential killers would need to rely on other firearms. While one could work out rate-of-fire calculations for all weapons to determine the likely impact of an absence of assault weapons, it makes sense that the body count would be lower. This is the strongest moral argument in favor of taking guns: it would reduce the number of people killed. But not as much as people might think. While assault weapons get special attention, handguns are used the most in killings. So, while an assault weapon ban could reduce the number of deaths, it would not impact the leading types of gun deaths.

While it might seem cold, it must be said that we (collectively) tolerate deaths that could be prevented by banning dangerous things. One obvious example is banning private vehicles in favor of public transportation.  That would save thousands of lives. Banning swimming pools would also save lives, mostly those of children. But we do not ban these things because when we weigh the deaths against other factors, the other factors win. We thus tolerate thousands of deaths for economic reasons, convenience and enjoyment. As such, the same consideration should be given to assault weapons.

On the positive side, assault weapons do have economic value since they are manufactured and sold. People enjoy owning, modifying and using them. They do have some use as hunting and defense weapons. On the face of it, saying these positive aspects outweigh human lives seems heartless. But as noted above, this same reasoning is applied to many other dangerous things. If, for example, you drive a car, then you find the risk of killing or injuring people acceptable.

So, moral consistency requires people who support taking away guns to apply the same principle to all dangerous things, which would morally require us to ban cars and many other things. Some people will see this as reasonable as there are those who would prefer a world free of automobiles.

The negatives of taking away guns must also be considered. There are people in the “cold dead fingers” camp who say they will fight to the death for their guns. As such, efforts to take guns would result in some deaths and these must be included in the moral calculation. On the pragmatic side, there is also the cost to take weapons. Even if the state steals them without financial compensation, it will still be expensive to take guns. If the state compensates the owners, there could be a significant financial cost, and this would also need to be factored into the calculation.