Does Owning a Weapon Cause Harm?

In the wake of yet another lethal shooting in an American school, survivors and activists are again calling for greater restrictions on gun ownership.   Groups have called for raising the legal age to purchase a gun to 21, create more thorough background checks for purchases and even banning assault rifles.  Yet gun owners and groups that represent them have resisted such restrictions claim that "guns don't kill people, people kill people."  Which position is correct?  Are restrictions on gun ownership -- and even the prohibition of some kinds of guns -- justified?  Does the ownership of a gun cause harm?  How does it compare to things like the possession of dangerous material such as poison, fertilizer and plutonium? Can the Harm to Others Principle justify restrictions and/or prohibitions on gun possession?

Chief Wahoo's Last Hurrah

The Cleveland Indians mascot Chief Wahoo is a crude caricature of a Native American that many people find offensive.  Recently, the team has agreed to no longer feature the mascot on its uniform or official publications.  A private school in the Cleveland area tolerated this offensive caricature when it was restricted to a once weekly dress down day.   However, when the school switched to a more relaxed dress that allowed sports wear on any day, the administration decided to ban any apparel that featured Chief Wahoo's likeness.  Several students are bothered by this policy because they revere Chief Wahoo as vital symbol of their team and see wearing it as an example of team spirit and civic pride.  Did the school administration make the right decision?  How might the offense principle apply in this circumstance?

Obesity and Paternalism

Rates of obesity in the United States are alarming -- and efforts to reverse the trend seem ineffective.  According the Center for Disease Control and Prevention 38 percent of U.S. adults are obese and 17 percent of teenagers are as well.  Another third or so of Americans are overweight. Obesity can lead to serious health condition such as heart disease and diabetes.   Some governments have attempted or considered paternalist interventions to stem the tide of obesity.  For example, New York City attempted to ban the sale of soda pop in sizes greater than 16 oz.   Other cities such as Berkeley and Philadelphia have passed a soda tax.  In Philadelphia distributors are taxed 1.5 cents per once on soda pop and other sweetened drinks: a 2 liter bottle of pop that used to cost $1.79 sells today for $2.79 because of an added dollar in tax.  These laws are intended to help consumers in these cities -- but have they gone too far?  Are these laws and taxes justified?  Why or why not?

One Man's Meat Is Another Man's Poison

On March 26. 1997 39 members of the Heaven's Gate cult committed suicide in an attempt to catch a ride with a spaceship hiding in the wake of the Hale-Bopp comet.  Had authorities known of these plans would they have been justified in arresting the cult members to prevent their deaths?  After all, police officers forcibly prevent suicides all the time?  What about a Jehovah Witness who refuses a blood transfusion for a life saving operation?  Should the state force him or her to have the operation to save her or his life?  What about a mountain climber who wants to ascend a dangerous Himalayan mountain peak in the middle of winter?  Would authorities be justified in arresting her or him to prevent such a foolhardy ascent?  Or do individuals have a right to engage in harmful behavior that is meaningful to them?

The Right to Hate?

A white supremacist wants to advocate his political views on a billboard in a majority African-American neighborhood.   A neo-Nazi group wants to march in a city with a large number of Holocaust survivors.  A conservative Christian passes out literature denouncing the legitimacy of gay marriage outside of a wedding chapel.  Are these actions examples of hate speech?  If so, should they be legally permitted according to Mill?  Is he correct?  What should the state do about speech that discriminates or preaches intolerance?

Highways and Protests

In On Liberty, Mill vigorously defends the right of citizens to assemble and express their views.  Yet how far does that right extend?   A bill in Iowa proposes making protesting on a highway a felony subject to as much as five years in prison.   Its proponent cites safety concerns around the obstruction of police and fire vehicles.   However, civil liberties claim it and similar laws have a chilling affect of free speech and the right to protest.  What would Mill say about all this?  Which side of the debate is correct (or is there some third or middle position that is correct)?  Is there a right to protest even if it prevents me from getting work on time?