Originally concieved as a christmas exchange called Toys for Guns, Goods for Guns is a non-profit idea that is promoted by many non-profit organizations to help rid our urban streets from guns and gun violence.

The idea is that any person can drop off a gun at a designated location (usually a non-profit via the local polce station) and recieve a $100 cash voucher. There is "no questions asked" about the wareabouts of the gun, what it was used for, or how it was attained.

These programs collect all sorts of guns, commonly uzi's, ak's, glocks and all sorts of items usually not related to (animal) hunting equipment.

Before I go any further, I must make the following caveat:

I am in no way attempting to create a philosophical theory here. I am not knowlegeable about philosophy, and I only want to see what sort of conversation sparks from level-headed thinkers. I have decided that this forum would serve the best for this purpose. If I ask any questions, do NOT take it as provocation; I am only going to attempt to clarify. I will not have heavy participation in this thread.

To start, I am taking a minimalist view here:

Ethical minimalism loosely defined as: If the person feels they are doing good, one has no need to quesiton his or her.

What of the following possiiblities:

Some of these are ran by ex-gang members, who are likely all too happy to take guns off the streets and give his buddies an easy out of a crime.

And then what about those that are truly for the removal of guns because they honestly believe that people are laying down arms through their efforts.

What if a do-gooder passes the operations off to a bad-doer?

Utilitarianism: The sum happiness is to be taken only


Situations for considerations:

Gangster never used the gun outside of shooting out tires, he feels he is doing good by wanting to leave the gang life. Next week, sis gets raped, he buys a gun.

Gang buys a gun and shoots a person, goes to the exchange the next day and turns in the gun and is now able to feed his starving children for a week

Sister knows that brother is going to use the gun for bad, but she attempts to divert him by turning in the gun. She does so. He finds out and beats her up.

--------

I once read that if a human was broken down into his chemical parts, s/he would be worth about tree-fitty.

---------

So, anyways, you have the details the best I can sum them up at the moment. More questions are definitely encouraged, but I am most happy as a passive observer and director here.

First, you may want to clean up the grammar in your post because it obscures or ambiguates a number of your sentences.

Second, I reject what you mean by "ethical minimalism" as somewhat incoherent. You make it out to be relativism. Then you introduce utilitarianism...make up your mind!

I'm having a lot of trouble trying to discern what you think the issues are.

What objections do you see with this sort of project?

I wonder how this $100 compares to the going rate in the market where these guns would otherwise be sold.

It's "almost" always considerably less. Generally, handguns might get more than (black)market value but bigger guns will fetch considerably less than (black)market value. One of the benefits is that it's a safe sale without fear of being arrested for making the sale as well.

Your right. Typoed a bit, but using a public computer and had to do this in 10 minutes. The mian objection to this project by critics is that it gives criminals any easy way to get away from crimes without leaving a trace. As for my own opinion, I don't know what to think. I am probably too close to this situation since I grew up in parts where this program would be available, and I have a very negative view of non-profits in general. For that, I am torn. I do not have a good assessment to understand the philosophical implications of gfg. And I want to come as close as I can to seeing an apolitical discussion as possible.

That objection is terrible, then. The whole idea is exactly that: to get criminals to get out of doing MORE crime by letting them off the hook in terms of how they acquired the gun. It's a cost-benefit analysis: is it better for them to be incentivized to give up the guns and lose our ability to catch them in possession of illegal guns? Or, is it better to not incentivize them to give them up, leave the guns probably in their possession, and probably not catch them anyway?

The idea is that it's better to have them just give in the guns since that will do less harm (even though they may not get caught on gun charges etc) than having them keep them and be more likely to use them in a crime.

These programs are always overseen by the police, so I don't see how your problem with non-profits is relevant. These programs work and reduce crime rates.

I only used the two as a foundation for discussion, and you are correct: I used the wrong term. I encourage using whatever theory you are comfortable with, whether it is Kantian, Rawls, or whoever else. I am attempting to see what mechanisms higher thinkers use to disect this problem.

Rawls isn't a system of ethics...it's distributive justice.

You mean deontology, utilitarianism, rights-based, etc. etc.

Ever since Toys for Guns started, the national trend of crime all across America went down at similar rates, so saying this program decreases crime isn't easily backed since all cities do not have such programs.

That is correct. My entire ethics knowlege comes from about 2 pages from a law book I have sitting here. I should've made it clear that I was understating my ignorance of philosophical etics in my OP.

Then the black market handgun sellers are suckers, selling for less when they could get $100/gun at cash for guns. If the going rate for a cheap handgun is less than $100, I imagine this program would push it up in a hurry. Jump on the arbitrage opportunity while you can I suppose.

Don't beg the question: the loss in $$ may be worth the rise in safety of sale and the decrease of the probability of getting caught.

LOL Guns


(My contribution to SMP for this year)
I read it every day though.

I don't see how I begged the question. All I did was point out a fairly obvious consequence of a cash for guns program. Maybe the program does wonderful things that justify the expense (I'm skeptical), but what it does for sure is it provides an automatic buyer for any guns that would ordinarily sell for less than $100. So that becomes the new price floor for guns in any city where this program is implemented. Hell, maybe that's one of the goals of the program. A low level thug won't be able to buy a gun for less than $100.

The program offers $100 per gun, no questions asked, so people are going to look for ways to exploit that. They'll start bringing in toy guns if they think they can pass them off as real. Or maybe an aspiring entrepreneur working in his garage will find a way to build his own guns very cheaply. They won't have to be reliable or well made, or useful for any purpose, but if they fit the definition of "gun" they're worth $100 a piece so he'd want to churn them out as fast as possible. He'd have a steady income stream up until the point when the program shuts down, and then he might be stuck with a garage full of poorly made unreliable guns to unload on the cheap.

If we're just looking at the good intentions of the people who run the cash for guns program, all this is irrelevant. But if you want a realistic analysis of any program like this, you have to look for the unintended consequences - good intentions become irrelevant.

are you saying the your attitude here is that if the goods for guns people think that they are doing good with their program then we shouldn't question the fact that they actually think that?

If so, that merely means that they are sincere.

Your point?

You begged the question because you only looked at one vector: money. But you didn't look at a better metric: expected utility. While someone may fetch less than black market value, the safe conditions for sale and freedom from being caught/convicted for the sale can more than make up for that loss in money.

Also a problematic assumption. Why would people definitely exploit it?

These programs are overseen by cops: people who can tell when a fake gun is being brought in. So, this is another problematic assertion.

This is a particularly american way to to think. Just because there IS a way to potentially exploit something you assume that it will be exploited. You make this inference both without evidence and without sensitivity to evidence to the contrary. You can easily look to past cases of these programs and determine if your worries are well-founded (hint: they're not).

I didn't look at it, and I also didn't dismiss it. I made an observation about one very likely economic impact of the program. I never claimed I was providing a complete analysis of every aspect of the program, nor did I claim that this one economic impact would be reason enough to dismiss the program. I just pointed out one factor in isolation, and one which I think is very relevant to any analysis of such a program, but it obviously doesn't count as a complete analysis. You're the one making assumptions about what I was trying to prove.

Really? I assume that people like to make easy money, and will seek out such opportunities when they arise. That's problematic?

"They'll start bringing in toy guns if they think they can pass them off as real. " That if-clause is important. I didn't say there was no way to prevent them from passing off toy guns as real. Just that some people would do it, if they thought they could do it without getting caught. I agree that the presence of cops overseeing the exchange would tend to discourage that practice.

You're right, I do assume that. The history of government programs being exploited does little to shake my confidence on that matter. Some people are going to game the system at every opportunity, and it would be extremely naive to overlook that fact.

Yeah, I think it's a ridiculous position. For all we know Hitler felt like he was doing good by having the Jews put to death in concentration camps. I'd still question his actions.

Is effectiveness of a program the main ethical consideration?

Right. I was just giving a short definition (as durkadurka pointed out: not a good one), and similar to what Evil Steve said about Hitler, this may face problems under moral scrutiny.

I was only attempted to plant a few seeds of thought, and hoped to point out a few situations wherein the volunteer may be corrupted, and ask if that corruption makes the organization bad, or just that chapter bad.

And there is plenty of strong evidence that the people who run these programs don't have completely honest means. So, if we look at the program as a whole, what threshold of well-intended to bad intended people sways the whole program as bad? 50/50 or some other ratio?

No, you can absolutely use any ethical consideration you wish.

There are some mis-represented numbers that can trick people though. For example, crime in the 90s dropped all across America, even though many cities did not have the program. And today, in Los Angeles, crime has increased over the past few years, and this program is quite popular.

I have a friend who grew up in a nice area that became seedy. She is now at home taking care of her mom. She is concerned because she sees flyers all around her area advertising the GfG program.

------------

I attempted to make my OP as vague and non-commitant to opinion as possible. I only added some considerations to open up more conversation. There is no intended limits to this conversation, or any attempt to figure out a "right" or "wrong" conclusion.

I only want to see how philosophical and higher-level thinkers go about in making a conclusion and how a debate may be performed.

You have to do this yourself through reason and moral restraint. Then, and only then, will you find what you need (because you actually have a good idea what you are looking for) and not merely want.

hey op

care to point a few sources that led you to believe that gun buybacks are not effective and an "ethical quagmire"?

... Can I buy a bunch of $50 handguns off the street and then turn them all in at one of these places?

If no questions are asked, you probably can. Do you suppose this causes more initiative to crime? Would you say that this person is essentially getting paid to do crime? Or do you think that simple entrepenourship is a higher initiative?

You people are thinking of the most implausible scenarios and treating them as though they're likely.