[Oleg Volk]

http://www.spectacle.org/0104/rosen.html
Is Selling Assault Weapons Parts Ethical?

Real trash...but would be good to debunk it anyway.

[Marko Kloos]

Basing an ethics argument on Kant's Categorical Imperative is like building a beach condo on quicksand. Every do-gooder on the planet justifies his or her pet prohibition with the Categorical Imperative, or a version of it.

It would be interesting to turn the debate on him and make him defend his ethics.

How is it ethical to initiate force and arrest or kill an individual for the infraction of possession of a few pieces of tool steel?

[Sean Smith]

From the article:

Banning assault weapons violates the second amendment and jeopardizes all of our freedoms in society. However, it does not justify gun companies circumventing the law by selling gun parts indiscriminately allowing any criminal to assemble any type of gun they so desire.

Let me get this straight:

1. The law is unconstitutional (read: unethical in and of itself),
2. The gun companies are obeying the letter of the unconstitutional law,
3. But doing so is unethical on the part of the gun companies, because they aren't obeying the spirit of the illegal law?

Classic case of someone being highly literate, but not having an actual brain. His reasoning sounds straight out of the Nurenberg war crime trials... for the Nazi side.

"Your honor, my client was obeying the law. Granted, the law was illegal under the Weimar constitution and unethical. But it would have been unethical for him to merely obey the letter of the law and discriminate against Jews; he had an ethical obligation to obey the unethical law in spirit as well as letter, and so he had no choice but to round them up and gas them en masse. It was the only ethical thing for him to do."

[geekWithA.45]

Sorry guys, I couldn't get past the first paragraph.

Line 1: "Gun companies make a profit from death. They sell products that are used for killing and they make money every time a deadly weapon is put into the hands of a person, whatever the purchasers intentions are."

Anything that starts from a premise so badly flawed isn't going to go anywhere good.

If I had to rebut this, I'd throw the question back at him:

"Is prohibiting the sale of ANY gun parts ethical?"

He must first establish the case that it is, (he won't be able to) before addressing evile "AW" parts.

After skimming this, it seems that he accepts many false premises as foregone conclusions:

-The kits are to "intentionally circumvent the law" (What about repairing pre-bans? Hmmm???)
-People who buy these kits are criminals

-Failure to grasp the "repugnancy principle". He acknowledges that the law Violates 2A, but fails to grasp that in so doing, it is automatically null and void.

-He accepts without proof the proposition that the AWB actually saves lives, yada yada

-He asserts that AW kits enable felons to get hold of guns

-He accepts without proof that felons shouldn't have guns

-He accepts without proof the proposition that....

All in all, his arguments are confused, and built on infirm ground.

Probably, a Fisking format would be the way to go with this one, but I'm a tad short on time today....

The whole thing strikes me as an inarticulate essay he wrote for his BizEthics class, for which I'd hand him a solid D.


Edited to Add:
-------------------

There is nothing tougher than refuting an incoherent argument.

In order to do so, you must first re-assemble the argument so that it makes some sense, and then refute that.

After all that work, the person with whom you are arguing will assert that you didn't re-assemble the argument correctly, and therefore your refutation isn't valid.

He will then proceed to re-assert his original incoherency. After a few rounds of that sort of obstinacy, you'll be forced to either leave, or slap that person about the head and neck.

Either way, the person will smugly assert that they've won.

[Sean Smith]

Put another way, the guy is clearly talking out of both sides of his mouth. He either has MPD or is being transparently disingenuous.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Sent this:

==================================================
Interesting "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type of article but it is based on several assumptions of incorrect fact:

"Moreover there is no system to register or track gun parts (except the receiver), and so all gun parts can be sold to felons who can then assemble the guns themselves."

On the contrary, felons still cannot purchase a receiver. This part is registered and can only be shipped interstate from one FFL licensee to another. Sale from an FFL to another person in the same state requires the federal instant check to be completed. Without the receiver, the all of the other parts are useless.

"Essentially however, assault weapons can be thought of as firearms that are heavy, expensive, and loud which make them impractical for hunting and ideal for military use."

"Assault weapons" are no louder, heavier or expensive than any other firearm. Some are impractical for some hunting uses; but most have a niche in one form of hunting or another.

"They also contain features which allow them to discharge a large amount of rounds in a short amount of time such as pistol grips, exchangeable or large capacity magazines."

A pistol grip has no effect on the rate of fire that a weapon is capable of. By placing the stock inline with the recoil you reduce the effects of recoil. However, using a traditional stock, it becomes difficult and awkward to reach the trigger with the stock placed so high - thus the pistol grip.

"This is because to assemble the kit itself would be illegal, and selling a product which can only be used in an illegal manner is fraud. Since there is no legal use for these kits the company is aiding criminal activity which is fraudulent to the United States government because by operating in the United States a business agrees to uphold the laws of the country the same way a citizen agrees to abide by the laws of the country by residing in it."

On the contrary, assembling such kits is not illegal. in fact, I have used such a kit to change the pre-1994 version of this rifle (http://www.sarandpclub.org/images/Guns/Bushmaster_XM15_E2S_Target_Rifle.jpg) into this rifle (http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/AR15_4.jpg).

I've actually established a page to help explain the difference between banned pre-1994 "assault weapons" and legal to own post-1994 semi-automatic rifles. I think taking a look at this page might help you understand the issue better... http://www.ont.com/users/kolya

In any case, suffice it to say the two planks that your ethics argument rests on (felons can own weapons via part kits and there is no legal use for parts kits) are untrue and as a result your ethics argument is flawed.
===================================================

[Oleg Volk]

If you have time, please email comments to the editors of that site.

[Standing Wolf]

In my experience, trying to reason with anti-Second Amendment bigots is a lot like wrestling with pigs: you just get all muddy, and the creatures don't appreciate your efforts.

[Old Fuff]

Oleg:

The so-called “parts kits” conform to the present law, and if assembled into a complete firearm that arm will be of the kind called “post-ban.” In addition, to assemble such a firearm one has to first obtain a legal receiver, which the writer correctly notes is the only “controlled” part. However if one doesn’t have that particular part the rest of the pieces are meaningless.

Assuming that we are discussing a firearm of post-ban configuration, what difference does it make if an individual purchases a receiver (and in the process complies with all applicable federal, state and local statutes) and then assembles his own gun, of simply goes to a gun shop and buys a complete factory-assembled gun. In either case the net effect is the same.

If the purpose of the kits was to allow someone to construct an illegal (pre-ban) arm the writers arguments might have some merit, but as it is they don’t.

In addition the writer concludes, without presenting any evidence to substantiate the conclusion that criminals will purchase these part kits to assemble weapons they couldn’t otherwise obtain. Again he doesn’t explain how the criminals will obtain the receiver(s) to make such arms, nor does he notice that making such a receiver is in itself illegal.

Further, all available evidence shows that in fact and practice, criminals seldom make firearms, they steal them or purchase them using illegal methods or channels.

As he stipulates that individuals have Second Amendment rights to possess firearms that are not banned (Post-Ban semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and pistols) why is it reprehensible for manufacturers to offer part kits (less the receiver) that can only be used to make arms that when finished will meet the required standards. Of course someone might modify the parts to create an illegal Pre-Ban arm, but they could do the same with a completed factory-made gun.

[geekWithA.45]

The editors email is jw@bway.net .

At least, that's where the money goes if you try to contribute via paypal.

Like my daddy always said, follow the money.

Standing Wolf: While the author clearly hasn't examined his assumptions, the editor might (or might not) be amenable to reason.

[geekWithA.45]

Dear editor,

As a rational human being, I take exception to the article "Is Selling Assault Weapons Parts Ethical?", by Jarrod Rosen.

The article is filled with so many logical fallacies based on so many groundless assertions that I literally don't know where to begin, and I really don't have time to "Fisk" the article to correct all of it's many errors.

While it may pass muster among those uninformed of firearms issues, it has absolutely no credibility among those who are well informed and knowledgeable about such things.

I can only urge you to hold a higher editorial standard than this, and ensure that your writers have some in depth background knowledge concerning their topics.

Sincerely,

{me}

[twoblink]

I agree with the article. That's why I believe selling cars is unethical. I also believe selling plastic bags, swimming pools, piano wires etc.. are also unethical.

What about placing blame where blame is due; on the car salesman when a drunk driver kills someone?

What about the pool seller, when a child is drowned in one?

What about the plastic bag manufacturer, when a child sufficates in one?

The article makes perfect sense; we all should put on sackcloth, sit in the forest, and chat Kum-By-Ya...

:barf:

There's no rebuttal needed for a loaded premise from someone not interested in the truth...

[RightIsRight]

That "article" was written by a student at George Washington U.

God help our country if this inane and incongruent ranting reflects the quality of our higher education system.


Edited for bad edumaction spelling

[Nightfall]

There was so much wrong in that article that I'm not sure I can respond to it. It would take an even longer article just to address all the illogic, inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and outright lies in that article. Can't we really add it up to one thing though? Do 'assault features' make a weapon more deadly? Nope. They're benign and relatively pointless as far as the lethality of a firearm is concerned. So really, what else matters? If you establish that fact, you've pretty much won the argument, because then the other side is reduced to convincing people that we should be arresting folks over how something looks.

[mrapathy2000]

is restricting people god/alien or evolved abilities/rights/freedom ethical.

morals,rules and laws are good but various governments have basicly come to regulate everything or damn close to it.

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." Tacitus roman senator and historian (a.d. 56-115)

[horge]

“Gun companies make a profit from death. They sell products that are used for killing and they make money every time a deadly weapon is put into the hands of a person, whatever the purchasers intentions are.”

Thus, Jarrod Rosen's inflammatory and erroneous opening statements.
To correct his deceitful non-sequitur: gun companies profit from the sale of guns and gun parts, whether the consumer intends to apply the merchandise towards leisurely/competitive shooting sports, their natural right to self defense, or the noble defense of others (or has the author conveniently forgotten that the major consumer of gun merchandise is the military and law enforcement establishment?). The onus of ensuring that weapons do not fall into the wrong hands is not and has never been upon manufacturers engaging in legitimate business and service to the country. That burden is squarely upon the government, which then requires the retail sector to carry out the bulk of vigilance.

As a citizen of the Republic of the Philippines, I might suggest to Mr. Rosen that if someone wishes to resort to it, backyard manufacture of deadly firearms, from pistols to RPG’s, is entirely feasible in the absence of retail gun parts or kits. In my country, dependable firearms are illegally produced, literally in backyards, with some of the most rudimentary of tools. Shall we question the morality and legality of selling drills, grinders and lathes as well? Shall we now accuse Black & Decker or Stanley Tools of unethically abetting criminality?

Rosen attempts a lenghty description of what a restricted "assault weapon" is, and then attempts to recruit several authors (even Immanuel Kant!) to try to buttress a bias against gun manufacturers.

Freeman does indeed outline the responsibility of a corporation to its stakeholders, safeguarding them from loss of profits should a suit be brought against the company. However, Rosen illogically presumes there is probability of legal action against said manufacturer –the guns sold and the guns that the kits produce are all legal in format. Even if the manufacturer owes a quasi-social responsibility to the government, one cannot argue that the legal supply of legal guns to consumers increases the government’s burden. I am well-prepared to argue that providing firearms to law abiding citizens RELIEVES government of some workload toward protecting them from violent assault or home invasion.

So, if stockholders aren’t put at risk since there is no illegal practice inviting suit against the manufacturer; and if government is not further burdened in its effort to protect common citizens, where is the lack of ethics on the part of the manufacturer?

Goldman outlines a need for a business to adhere to its own code of ethics, and indicates the negative consequences with regard to consumer perception should a business run afoul of its own code. But, what of it? Gun manufacturers are naturally proud of what they make, and make no bones about the applications of their products. The public is already quite aware of the lethal nature of firearms. Again, where is the unethical behavior?

Friedman’s posit on honest business conduct cannot be used to ascribe a lack of ethics on the part of gun manufacturers, for it requires deceit or fraud on their part. The gun parts and kits are all intended for proper use towards legal firearms. Like fertilizer or box-cutters, gun kits and gun parts can be ABUSED, in this case towards the illegal manufacture of restricted firearms. If the abuse towards criminality rests with the consumer, where is the lack of ethics on the part of the manufacturer?

Kant's ‘categorical imperative’ can be used with ease to defend opposing intentions, so many and complex are the causalities involved in the real world. The fear of setting dangerous precedents is ill-founded, considering one such a precedent has already been woven into the very fibre of the United States. There is a “universal maxim” of sorts directly applicable to the issue of firearms manufacture, retail and use, called the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution... and yet this precedent has been repeatedly open to fiat repudiation! Perhaps the recent restrictions placed against full exercise of Second Amendment rights are, to Rosen, exempt from Kantian circumspection?

The burden of keeping dangerous weapons from falling into the wrong hands rests with the government, not the weapon manufacturers. Government may REQUIRE citizens to assist in bearing the burden, and indeed the retail and private sector currently keep bureaucrats busy with paper.


Hiding behind irrelevant reference to the work of others, Rosen might have us believe that he is only against the most dangerous weapons.

Rosen should realize the most dangerous weapon of all is a terrible idea,
and he wields his with embarrassing ineptitude.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well my reply bounced. Anyone else?

[horge]

Mine too.

[N3rday]

"Well, knife companies are responsible for 90% of crimes...are they being ethical to sell knives to known criminals?"

What about baseball bats? Used as much as assault rifles I would bet.

And how many criminals bother to assemble a rifle? They make it sound as if it were like building a lego castle.

I can see a criminal in his garage: "Ok, the sear, disconnector...Hmm, this stock needs to be checkered! And ooh this AK is dirty! Honey, wheres my CLP?"

I think people give most criminals too much credit. Most are fairly stupid. There are some exceptions, however. Some are just crazy. Most use .38 or .357 revolvers anyway, and most of those are stolen or otherwise illegally come by.