Low-Sci
Member
Taliv:
"a) there's no evidence that they wouldn't have used some other gun to kill US soldiers
b) don't fall into the anti-mindset of blaming the gun instead of the shooter (those $10,000 guns sure are scary!)
c) they wouldn't have the guns in the first place if our government was doing its job"
I agree on two points and object that you are attempting to apply the the last one to me, as I clearly explained that the rifles themselves aren't the big deal here. I am not reacting as b) might suggest.
My agreement with a) is immaterial. It doesn't matter if they would have used another gun. If they would, then make them use another gun and don't give them any. Its very simple. Ethical businesses do not support terrorism or terrorism-supporting states. I realize that ethical businesses are few and far between, but that doesn't change the fact that this is the crux of my problem with the situation.
My agreement with c) is also immaterial, as I said essentially the same thing in the very post you were responding to. Of course we should have stopped that shipment or stopped the sale from occurring. That we should have but didn't doesn't mean that Steyr shouldn't have sold them to begin with. They're guilty of an unethical business deal, even if we should have stopped them.
For those who think I'm just a knee-jerker, let me explain why I'll never buy a Steyr weapon. Its for the same reason I didn't buy Nike shoes. The sale of those weapons to that regime and the use of sweatshop child labor are both predatory practices and, while legal, they are unethical. They are not things that good people do. For businesses, "ethics" has traditionally meant "the study of how to stay out of prison." To me, ethical standards are far above legal standards. Just because you've stayed out of prison doesn't mean you're conducting business ethically. The law is a minimum standard of behavior to me, even if few people will agree with me.
In this particular unethical business transaction, Steyr has proven that their only interest is money. While this is true of any corporation, there's also no need to pursue profit in such a predatory way. That is my objection. Steyr's greed has gotten someone killed and I refuse to think that's ok, even if some other people would call me a salivating dog as a result.
"a) there's no evidence that they wouldn't have used some other gun to kill US soldiers
b) don't fall into the anti-mindset of blaming the gun instead of the shooter (those $10,000 guns sure are scary!)
c) they wouldn't have the guns in the first place if our government was doing its job"
I agree on two points and object that you are attempting to apply the the last one to me, as I clearly explained that the rifles themselves aren't the big deal here. I am not reacting as b) might suggest.
My agreement with a) is immaterial. It doesn't matter if they would have used another gun. If they would, then make them use another gun and don't give them any. Its very simple. Ethical businesses do not support terrorism or terrorism-supporting states. I realize that ethical businesses are few and far between, but that doesn't change the fact that this is the crux of my problem with the situation.
My agreement with c) is also immaterial, as I said essentially the same thing in the very post you were responding to. Of course we should have stopped that shipment or stopped the sale from occurring. That we should have but didn't doesn't mean that Steyr shouldn't have sold them to begin with. They're guilty of an unethical business deal, even if we should have stopped them.
For those who think I'm just a knee-jerker, let me explain why I'll never buy a Steyr weapon. Its for the same reason I didn't buy Nike shoes. The sale of those weapons to that regime and the use of sweatshop child labor are both predatory practices and, while legal, they are unethical. They are not things that good people do. For businesses, "ethics" has traditionally meant "the study of how to stay out of prison." To me, ethical standards are far above legal standards. Just because you've stayed out of prison doesn't mean you're conducting business ethically. The law is a minimum standard of behavior to me, even if few people will agree with me.
In this particular unethical business transaction, Steyr has proven that their only interest is money. While this is true of any corporation, there's also no need to pursue profit in such a predatory way. That is my objection. Steyr's greed has gotten someone killed and I refuse to think that's ok, even if some other people would call me a salivating dog as a result.