Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats nonsensical. If its a US rifle maker and it doesn't want to sell to a country that might give those rifles to guys shooting at US troops, its natural that the rifle maker might be hesitant. Good call.

Frazz, if you look at the amount of friendly fire incidents US troops haver suffered the last ten years, it's clear that the biggest danger facing US troops is other US troops!

Surly you're smoking something good...eh?

Over the past four years, 17 soldiers have died in friendly fire incidents...

The 17 soldiers felled by friendly fire incidents are about 1 percent of the 1,575 soldiers who have died overall. More than 2,500 troops from all services have died in the two conflicts.

O.o

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If you're selling something designed to kill, it's silly to start fretting about the details of who might be killed. If you don't want people killed by your guns, don't sell them!

I don't see how that's silly at all. To not be concerned about where your weapons end up would be pretty irresponsible. Plenty of firearms manufacturers make weapons for the police and the military, and they wouldn't want their weapons going to their enemies, or criminals.

 Hordini wrote:
I don't see how that's silly at all. To not be concerned about where your weapons end up would be pretty irresponsible. Plenty of firearms manufacturers make weapons for the police and the military, and they wouldn't want their weapons going to their enemies, or criminals.

And they would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling kids.




Or Eric Holder

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats nonsensical. If its a US rifle maker and it doesn't want to sell to a country that might give those rifles to guys shooting at US troops, its natural that the rifle maker might be hesitant. Good call.

Frazz, if you look at the amount of friendly fire incidents US troops haver suffered the last ten years, it's clear that the biggest danger facing US troops is other US troops!

Surly you're smoking something good...eh?

Over the past four years, 17 soldiers have died in friendly fire incidents...

The 17 soldiers felled by friendly fire incidents are about 1 percent of the 1,575 soldiers who have died overall. More than 2,500 troops from all services have died in the two conflicts.

O.o

I'm trying to give up the cigs

Your stat shows how low the chance of being killed by FF is, but what are the chances that these weapons will fall into the wrong hands? It's not as if Pakistan/Iraq/Afghanistan doesn't have thousands of cheap AK47s circulating about.
This guy is showboating for some sympathy custom from people fooled by the whole patriot angle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If you're selling something designed to kill, it's silly to start fretting about the details of who might be killed. If you don't want people killed by your guns, don't sell them!

I don't see how that's silly at all. To not be concerned about where your weapons end up would be pretty irresponsible. Plenty of firearms manufacturers make weapons for the police and the military, and they wouldn't want their weapons going to their enemies, or criminals.

Thank God there aren't millions of weapons already in circulation in the USA and thank God that thousand of weapons don't go missing or are stolen in the USA every year!

 d-usa wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
So, they do something right and still get criticized for it. Gotcha.

Well, it's the same basic end result independent of motivation: They don't want a dead US soldier that got killed by one of their guns.

They say it is because they thought it would be unethical if they sold their guns to somebody and they killed an American with it.

Other say it is because it would be bad PR if they sold their guns to somebody and they killed an American with it.

Either way, American doesn't get killed by their guns = everybody wins.

That said, there won't be any Taleban or Al Qaeda killed by one of their guns either.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
So, they do something right and still get criticized for it. Gotcha.

Well, it's the same basic end result independent of motivation: They don't want a dead US soldier that got killed by one of their guns.

They say it is because they thought it would be unethical if they sold their guns to somebody and they killed an American with it.

Other say it is because it would be bad PR if they sold their guns to somebody and they killed an American with it.

Either way, American doesn't get killed by their guns = everybody wins.

That said, there won't be any Taleban or Al Qaeda killed by one of their guns either.

Incorrect. He didn't say there wouldn't be any sold to the US...

Manufacturer: I will sell to X but not to Y

X: I will buy from manufacturer and sell to whomever I like.

Simplistic, but the whole idea that he'll able to control where those guns go after they've been sold is a total nonsense.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Manufacturer: I will sell to X but not to Y

X: I will buy from manufacturer and sell to whomever I like.

Simplistic, but the whole idea that he'll able to control where those guns go after they've been sold is a total nonsense.

This is correct unless X agrees under contract never to sell them. Your argument is somewhat specious however, as you're just arguing that he should be forced to sell them directly to Al Qaeda. After all, its theoretically possible one could get to them. I mean Holder could authorize Gunrunner III and force a sale to a cartel which could in turn sell it to a gunsmuggler who in turn sells it to Al Qaeda.

As the immortal bard once said: I don't have to kill you. I just don't have to help you.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Manufacturer: I will sell to X but not to Y

X: I will buy from manufacturer and sell to whomever I like.

Simplistic, but the whole idea that he'll able to control where those guns go after they've been sold is a total nonsense.

This is correct unless X agrees under contract never to sell them. Your argument is somewhat specious however, as you're just arguing that he should be forced to sell them directly to Al Qaeda. After all, its theoretically possible one could get to them. I mean Holder could authorize Gunrunner III and force a sale to a cartel which could in turn sell it to a gunsmuggler who in turn sells it to Al Qaeda.

As the immortal bard once said: I don't have to kill you. I just don't have to help you.

Point is, Frazz, that if Al Q want guns, they'll get them, with or without this guy's help. By playing the 'patriot' card, he's looking to lure some gullible fools into buying stuff under the false impression they're helping American troops stay safe.

Anyway, it's 1730hrs here - that's beer o clock for me! I'm off!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats nonsensical. If its a US rifle maker and it doesn't want to sell to a country that might give those rifles to guys shooting at US troops, its natural that the rifle maker might be hesitant. Good call.

Frazz, if you look at the amount of friendly fire incidents US troops haver suffered the last ten years, it's clear that the biggest danger facing US troops is other US troops!

Sure, the amount of "friendly fire" incidents would show we love to shoot anything that moves, then ask questions. But I think if we look at the severity of FF incidents, we'll see quite a few of the more serious incidents involved us within local national units that we're embedded with (so, iraqi/afghani forces shooting US/coalition troops)

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Manufacturer: I will sell to X but not to Y

X: I will buy from manufacturer and sell to whomever I like.

Simplistic, but the whole idea that he'll able to control where those guns go after they've been sold is a total nonsense.

This is correct unless X agrees under contract never to sell them. Your argument is somewhat specious however, as you're just arguing that he should be forced to sell them directly to Al Qaeda. After all, its theoretically possible one could get to them. I mean Holder could authorize Gunrunner III and force a sale to a cartel which could in turn sell it to a gunsmuggler who in turn sells it to Al Qaeda.

As the immortal bard once said: I don't have to kill you. I just don't have to help you.

Point is, Frazz, that if Al Q want guns, they'll get them, with or without this guy's help. By playing the 'patriot' card, he's looking to lure some gullible fools into buying stuff under the false impression they're helping American troops stay safe.

Anyway, it's 1730hrs here - that's beer o clock for me! I'm off!

NO
The point is, if AQ wants guns, they'll get them, but not his.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
This guy is showboating for some sympathy custom from people fooled by the whole patriot angle.

Or he might actually have a genuine belief in what he says. A lot of US firearm manufacturers have close ties with the military. Knowing that you are selling equipment to a country who have close connections with people involved in a shooting war with your troops probably does not sit well with a lot of US firearm manufacturers.

From their about page;

Our Mission
Desert Tactical Arms was founded in May of 2007, the company was created to protect the freedom of the United States of America, our allies and people by providing the most compact, accurate, and reliable precision weapon systems in the world. Desert Tactical Arms strongly supports civil rights, especially the right of every individual to own firearms to protect themself, their family, and their property and the use of firearms in defense, hunting, and shooting sports. We recognize that to preserve the right of gun ownership there must be a strong network of firearms dealers and we strive to support our dealer network with attractive sales programs, training, timely delivery schedules, and unrivaled customer service.

Unless of course you want to keep inferring the worst possible motives and think that Desert Tech is trying to generate cheap PR that will net them more than the $15 million Pakistan contract.

Considering their cheapest firearm runs for more then $3,000, I doubt the good will, will mean that much since most folks won't be able to afford such a thing on a whim anyways.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats nonsensical. If its a US rifle maker and it doesn't want to sell to a country that might give those rifles to guys shooting at US troops, its natural that the rifle maker might be hesitant. Good call.

Frazz, if you look at the amount of friendly fire incidents US troops haver suffered the last ten years, it's clear that the biggest danger facing US troops is other US troops!

Not really, no.

Pakistan is one of the USA's important allies, especially in the GWoT.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Pakistan is one of the USA's important allies, especially in the GWoT.

And their also one of our worst most potential enemies.

 djones520 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Pakistan is one of the USA's important allies, especially in the GWoT.

And their also one of our worst enemies.

Corrected your typo.

 djones520 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Pakistan is one of the USA's important allies, especially in the GWoT.

And their also one of our worst most potential enemies.

Another triumph of foreign policy, then.

Good, now they can go about making things to kill people other then soldiers

 Soladrin wrote:
They are still making guns though.

What's wrong with that?

Jimsolo wrote:I'm interested to see how someone is going to twist this into being some conspiracy of evil, with Mike Davis twirling his moustache and maniacally destroying the fabric of civilization.

Sturmtruppen wrote:Oh, well slap me silly and call me Sally! This eye-opening show of heavenly intention from a gun-manufacturer has convinced me that all my pinko-liberal convictions were misplaced, so now I'm a proud second-amendment supporting American... and I'm not even from America!

Please, give me a break. It's hardly 'ethical', it's a marketing strategy to get more proud true Americans to buy their guns.

Ah, there you are, Internet.

Relapse wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
They are still making guns though.

What's wrong with that?

He's European, even fireworks are too scary to be legal there

 Sturmtruppen wrote:
Oh, well slap me silly and call me Sally! This eye-opening show of heavenly intention from a gun-manufacturer has convinced me that all my pinko-liberal convictions were misplaced, so now I'm a proud second-amendment supporting American... and I'm not even from America!

Please, give me a break. It's hardly 'ethical', it's a marketing strategy to get more proud true Americans to buy their guns.

Why are you so against guns?

 Captain Fantastic wrote:
I hate this multi-caliber craze going on. It's a solution to a problem that just does not exist. Any sniper who needs the capabilities of two different calibers will more than likely make that decision before actually going outside the wire. Carrying an extra barrel and magazines loaded with a different type of ammunition is just more complicated for the shooter. Besides that, I doubt the armory would ever let them actually take advantage of the capability in the first place.

I'm not talking about ARs, just precision rifles in general. Multi-caliber ARs are a great idea, since the only thing you have to do is pop two pins.

I think the idea behind it is so that you could convert your gun in the field if you run out of X ammo but there's a ton of Y available.

You've got an M-16 that you can swap between 5.56 and 7.62

Say you for whatever reason are really low on 5.56 rounds out in the field and there isn't a resupply coming in for a while. But there's an abundance of 7.62 rounds available because of where you are deployed.


I highly doubt anybody will be carrying ammo of both types. they'll carry the standard issue ammo normally with the ability to switch over to the other type if needed.

And IIRC from something I saw on this very weapon the mags were able to carry both types of ammo.

 Grey Templar wrote:


And IIRC from something I saw on this very weapon the mags were able to carry both types of ammo.

I have my doubts about that, and would have to see it working to believe it... But, it would be an interesting set up for sure. A greater engineering feat, I think, would be to make a magazine well that could take the standard M-4/M-16 mag AND the standard AK mag... This way, you can just field strip those commie terrorist types at a moments notice and keep rolling

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
They are still making guns though.

What's wrong with that?

He's European, even fireworks are too scary to be legal there

This might have changed since I moved, but the fireworks in Germany we used to buy were way cooler than the stuff I can buy here

Lol, I was stationed in Germany... it was a bit of a joke

 d-usa wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
They are still making guns though.

What's wrong with that?

He's European, even fireworks are too scary to be legal there

This might have changed since I moved, but the fireworks in Germany we used to buy were way cooler than the stuff I can buy here

Not really my point. I don't think I can see weapons manufacture as an ethical thing, ever.

Do you live in some variety of commune?

Lots of Israelis live in communes.