Is Selling Assault Weapons Parts
Ethical?
Jarrod Rosen
Introduction
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. Although there is debate over whether guns
of any kind should be legal in the United States, they currently are protected
under the second amendment and for the purposes of this paper we will assume
that it is ethical to sell guns as long as they abide by all legal regulations.
There are guns however, that
are not legal to manufacture or import in the United States of America. Although it is unconstitutional,
assault weapons primarily, are banned for manufacture and import into the
United States, and all guns are banned for convicted felons. However, it is
legal to sell the parts needed to assemble these assault weapons. 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.
The question then arises, is it the ethical responsibility of gun companies,
dealers, and manufacturers to close up gaps left open by congress and tightly
regulate who they sell gun parts to and what parts they sell even though it
would be infringing upon a constitutional right and a basic freedom guaranteed
to all citizens in the Declaration of Independence? Yes, according to Kantian
Deontology, Edward Freeman, Alan Goldberg, and Milton Freidman. Although it may
be unconstitutional to ban the manufacture and importation of assault weapons,
it is unethical for gun companies and manufacturers to circumvent the law and
undermine the government by making assault weapons accessible, and making any
gun accessible to a convicted felon.
The background of this
article will contain the formal and spiritual definitions of an assault weapon,
as well as a brief argument as to why banning Assault Weapons is unconstitutional.
Following the background, the analysis section will contain an ethical analysis
of the sale of weapon parts as well as the behaviors of gun companies based on
the works of Emanuel Kant, Edward Freeman, Alan Goldberg, and Milton Freidman.
The last part of this article will conclude that although banning assault
weapons is unconstitutional, it is still unethical to sell weapons parts indiscriminately.
Background
Assault weapons,
formally defined in The Assault Weapons Limitaion Act of 1989 , include
nineteen specific makes and models[1]
any shotgun with a revolving cylinder or a fixed magazine or drum capacity of
more than six rounds, or any semiautomatic firearm with a fixed magazine
capacity exceeding 10 rounds. The act
also allows the Secretary and Attorney General to modify the list of firearms
considered assault weapons at any time they deem necessary. (U.S Congress
Assault Weapons 5)A 1994 bill passed also considers any weapon which contains
two features characteristic of a military weapon to be an assault weapon such
as a bayonet mount, exchangeable magazines,…etc.(Million Mom March) 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. 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. This means in short: they can be used to
kill a lot of people in a short amount of time. Why then do assault weapons have any place in society? The second
amendment as everyone knows explicitly grants the public the right to bear arms
and act as a militia when necessary.
This means that citizens do not posses the right to bear arms simply for
sport or hunting, but because it guarantees their freedoms. Throughout history, tyrannical leaders have
known this and disarmed the public before their rule. “ But in the best constitution that ever was, as to all other
parts of the government, if the militia be not upon right foot, the liberty of
the people must perish” (Fletcher 139) Thomas Jefferson noted in the
Declaration of independence that when a government becomes oppressive or
tyrannical the citizens have the right and the responsibility to overthrow the
government. Since assault weapons are
not banned for military or law enforcement (U.S Congress Assault Weapons 4) how
can citizens and militia carry out their duty if they are not allowed to
maintain the similar weaponry as the government? Although common sense does
dictate that the citizenry will never posses weapons on the same level as the
armed forces such as tanks, bombers, or missiles, small arms serve as a
philosophical safeguard to civil liberties.
It is very hard to oppress armed citizens, even if they can’t
realistically overthrow the government. Since the right to bear arms is such a
crucial right granted to the citizenry in founding documents is it ethical for
gun companies to do everything in their power to circumvent assault weapons
bans and supply small arms to the public?
Analysis
Emanuel
Kant
Emanuel Kant focused on a
“categorical imperative” when making ethical decisions. This “categorical imperative” states that
any ethical decision needs to be evaluated in terms of a universal maxim, could
this policy set a precedent as a universal law for society? (Bowie 63) In this case the immediate answer is that it
would be ethical for gun companies to try to circumvent the unjust law and sell
assault weapon kits as they have the duty to uphold human rights. One could easily adopt a universal maxim
that states “One should always act as to the best interests of human rights”.
Upon further evaluation
however, the decision becomes less clear.
A corporation undermining the government and making a profit from doing
so is endangering the general public by weakening the government’s authority
and encouraging others to undermine the government in different ways because it
is profitable to do so. Reducing the governments ability to enforce laws
endangers the safety and well being of all citizens of the country and could
lead to chaos. Thus one could not adopt a maxim that states “It is ethical to
make a profit by undermining the authority of the government”.
Furthermore this would allow
the corporation itself to make the decision about which laws were just and
which ones were not. Since the corporation is obviously biased in these
decisions, it would also not be appropriate to construct a universal law
stating “A company can choose which laws it finds just only and follow those
particular laws.” If this law were
enacted corporations would almost never follow laws if they were unprofitable
for them and business would be completely unregulated.
Although initially it would
seem that Kantian Deontology defends the gun companies’ actions, in reality
Emanuel Kant’s theory would deem the gun companies’ decisions unethical.
Milton
Friedman
“There is one and only one social
responsibility of business- to use its resources to engage in activities designed
to increase its profits so long as…[it] engages in open and free competition
without deception or fraud” (Friedman 38)
The previous is Milton Friedman’s thesis for his article “The social
responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits”.
Again
at first glance Friedman would seem to support the gun companies’ activities
which include selling gun part kits indiscriminately. Gun kits would be
extremely profitable to sell because the labor cost is greatly reduced, and
shipping could be made easier because the parts could be spread out in a box
making it cheaper to ship.
Also, the very fact that
these weapons have been banned makes them desirable for many purchasers of
weapons. This of course increases the
demand of the gun kits allowing the companies to sell more of the weapon parts
at a greater profit, and of course completely stopping the sale of a profitable
item completely would result in a huge loss for the company. Freidman’s thesis seems to support the gun
companies’ actions.
Once again however,
Friedman’s article in actuality does not support selling the gun kits. 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. Selling
the parts to assemble an assault weapon or an assembly kit is clearly fraud,
and by extension unethical according to Friedman.
Edward
Freeman
Edward Freeman argues in “Stakeholder theory
of the Modern Corporation” that a firm must operate in the best interests of
all its stakeholders, a stakeholder being anyone that is directly affected by
the actions of the firm. In the case of gun companies selling assault weapon
parts, the officers are acting against the interests of everyone involved in
the firm with the exception of the offers themselves.
The first
group of stakeholders that are affected by the firm are the stockholders of the
gun companies themselves. By selling a product clearly intended to circumvent
the law the officers open the firm to huge liability. This is good for the officers of the company because in the short
run the firm is making a huge profit.
While the firm is turning such a huge profit the officers can demand
high salaries and large compensation packages.
However, once a lawsuit is successful and the stock plummets, the
officers can resign but the stockholders will be stuck with the huge loss.
The next
stakeholder in the firm is the government.
The government is affected by the gun companies because the sale of
assault weapons parts undermines the ability of the government to enforce its
own laws. When this happens the
government becomes less powerful, and its ability to regulate deadly weapons is
diminished allowing less control over such deadly instruments.
The
government’s weakened ability to enforce its laws has an adverse effect on the
final group of stakeholders of the gun companies; the general public. The general public’s safety is greatly
jeopardized by the government’s lack of ability to enforce its laws, as well as
the obvious dangers posed by allowing convicted felons to have possible access
to guns. Because of all the physical
dangers posed to the general public, the government’s loss of control, and the
financial risk to the stockholders, the majority of stakeholders interests lie
in the firm refusing to sell assault weapons parts or any gun parts to
convicted felons.
Alan
Goldman
Alan
Goldman’s article “Business Ethics: Profits, Utilities, and Moral Rights”
Goldman argue that business leaders cannot have different sets of values for
their professional and personal lives with a few limited exceptions. (Goldman
268) With Goldman as well as many previous ethics authors, his position is
ambiguous as to the right course of action for the gun companies. As individuals, the officers certainly must
value their freedoms and human rights.
Since they are not allowed to have different values for their business
as they do for themselves how can they not do their best to allow citizens to acquire
the weapons they have a right to posses. However, as individuals they also must
value safety and respect the government.
Goldman
mentions in his article that a major reason officers of a company must abide by
their ethical guidelines is because if they don’t the company will have a bad
reputation and consumers won’t trust it with their money. (Goldman 65) If reputation is such an important factor
for business to maintain then they must not sell weapons parts because each
death that results from an assembled assault weapon will ruin the reputation of
the gun companies and make consumers less likely to trust them.
More
importantly the individual respect for law and order outweighs the respect for
the right to bear arms because without law and order society would be
chaotic. Therefore the individual
should act as to preserve law and order and in turn the corporation should act
to preserve law and order.
Although
on the surface one might think Goldman would support gun companies selling
assault weapons parts, in actuality his theory does not. The personal values of both freedom and
safety balance each other out, but the risk of poor image makes it clear that
Goldman would not support the firm selling assault weapons parts.
Conclusion
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. One can arrive at this
conclusion by examining the works of Emanuel Kant, Milton Freidman, Edward
Freeman, and Alan Goldberg, which all clearly show that it is unethical to
behave in such a way. Kant’s
categorical imperative shows that it would not be okay to create laws
undermining the government and allowing companies to choose, while Friedman
shows that a business cannot engage in deception or Fraud. Freeman shows that it is in the best
interests of most stakeholders to not sell the assault weapons parts and Goldberg
shows how you cannot do so without using a different set of roles
professionally and individually. This
ethical dilemma shows that when evaluating a decision to follow a just law or
void it as much as possible that it is important to consider all of the
ramifications of your actions and all the stakeholders affected. Although
sometimes it may seem like one is not defending civil liberties hard enough if
he chooses to follow the laws strictly, in actuality he is preserving far more
than he realizes.
Works Cited
Bowie, Norman. "A
Kantian Approach to Business Ethics"Ethical Issues in Business. Donaldson,
Thomas, Werhane, Patricia, Cording Margaret.
New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2002.
Fletcher, Andrew. "A
Discourse of Government with Relation to Militias"Gun Control and
Rights. JMcClurg, Andrew New York
City: New York University Press, 2002.
Freeman, Edward. "Stakeholder
Theory of Modern Corporation"Ethical Issues in Business. Donaldson,
Thomas, Werhane, Patricia, Cording Margaret.
New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2002.
Friedman, Milton. "The
social responsibility is to increase its profits"Ethical Issues in
Business. Donaldson, Thomas, Werhane, Patricia, Cording Margaret. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2002.
Goldman, Allan. " Business
Ethics: Profits, Utilities, and Moral Rights " JStore.com. Spring 1980 <http://f3.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/8N_gP4lCW7Ts2KziHRG9RQQA3czhXcZZVVFzTubuFcCZVANa5MNFiNYzuEsMCqeVA4aBFFWFEFslS61YXr0vd09W-l3MPsifUQk/Business%20Ethics%20Profit%20Motive.pdf>
Million Mom March. <http://www.millionmommarch.org/facts/gunlaws/awb.asp>.
Date Accessed 12/18/03
United States Congress. Assault
Weapons Subcommittee on the
Constitution of the Committee of the Judiciary of the Senate. Washington 1990