Originally Posted by u-Bob

Given that most arguments used in this thread are of a utilitarian nature, I'll take the time to explain the deontological position.

Gandhi, as a lawyer, understood the concept of selfownership. This is the idea that every human being owns his own body. To have a property right in something means that you have the exclusive authority to determine how that resource is used. That means you have the right to use that resource and it also means you have the right to determine who else can or cannot use it. To have a property right means you have the right to enforce that property right. If that weren't the case, the law of the jungle where the strong can force their will on the weak would apply.

Example: a woman can refuse to have sex with a man because she owns her own body. She has the exclusive authority to determine how that resource, in this case her body, is used. If the man tries to rape her, she has the right to defend herself. She has the right to use violence to defend herself.

Gandhi understood that denying people the right to bear arms or in other words denying people the right to use their own property to enforce their property rights was essentially the same as denying people had the right to selfownership.