An Ethical Gun Manufacturer? Say it isn't so!

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.

**Breotan**

This is for all the haters of gun makers who lurk or post, either way.

Associated Press wrote:Utah gun maker turns down $15M deal with Pakistan

Utah gun maker turns down $15M deal with Pakistan, cites concerns guns could be used vs. US

WEST VALLEY CITY, Utah (AP) -- A Utah-based gun manufacturer has turned down a $15 million deal to supply Pakistan with precision rifles, citing concerns they could eventually be used against U.S. troops.

Mike Davis, sales manager at Desert Tech, said the company was on a short list for a contract with Pakistan, but spurned the opportunity because of unrest in Pakistan and ethical concerns.

It was a difficult decision because of the amount of money involved, he said, and the sale of rifles to Pakistan would have been legal.

"We don't know that those guns would've went somewhere bad, but with the unrest we just ended up not feeling right about it," Davis told KTVX-TV.

The company, based in the Salt Lake City suburb of West Valley City, was founded in 2007 on the principle of keeping America and its allies safe, he added.

"As a business owner you always want to be successful, but I think ethically and morally you want to go about it the right way and stick behind your founding principles," Davis told KSL.

Weapons sales to allies such as Pakistan are nothing new but they can be complicated, especially in a country with an al-Qaida presence. The U.S. often targets al-Qaida, Taliban and their Pakistani supporters in the country's tribal regions.

"I've got to admire Desert Tech for potentially turning down what could have been a very lucrative contract in the interest of protecting American service members," said Col. Steven R. Watt of the Utah National Guard.

The rifles can change caliber within minutes and have the capacity to shoot as far as 3,000 yards.

Desert Tech, formerly known as Desert Tactical Arms, has had military contracts with other countries but declined to reveal specifics.

If only a few of the gun shops on the US/Mexican border had been this ethical when Eric Holder ramped up his Fast and Furious redux.

**Hordini**

Nice to see a business that has higher standards than just making as much money as quickly as possible, even more so when that business is a weapons manufacturer.

**Jimsolo**

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.

**Hordini**

If only Pakistan had had a gun, they would have been able to defend themselves against ethical business practices.

**d-usa**

Hordini wrote:
If only Pakistan had had a gun, they would have been able to defend themselves against ethical business practices.

Do they sell Skittles there?

On-Topic:

Nice decision by the company. What's their usual annual profit?

**Relapse**

I think I'll see if anyone where I work knows this company or the people running it since it's close by.

**d-usa**

Looking through the internets all I found were stories that valued the deal anywhere from $10 million to $15 million and a couple sites that estimated their revenue at $750,000 to $1.5 million.

**notprop**

Ethical or good marketing/PR?

The way elements of the media in the US rails at "unAmerikan" practices it would take a pretty daft (or desperate) business to sell something so dangerous to a country that is so often painted in such an unfavourable light there.

The first picture of some Jihadi brandishing your latest hardware would I imagine seriously dent sales.

I would call this the right decision comercially but not an ethical one.

**reds8n**

EVERYTHING IS FINE. NOTHING IS IN THE WRONG PLACE.

WAR IS PEACE BLAH BLAH.

Sorry about that folks, do carry on !

**Soladrin**

They are still making guns though.

**Captain Fantastic**

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.

**MWHistorian**

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.

^^^^^^^Either its a fad and will go away or it'll be refined and become something useful. I lean toward the fad side.

I worked for a gun maker in Utah and he was one of the best people I've ever known. I even assisted in some fire arm training classes they put on. Pistol, shotgun, carbine. Teachers got the class for free. To assume someone is less than ethical because they make guns is to completely (and probably willfully) misunderstand them.

**Frazzled**

Breotan wrote:
This is for all the haters of gun makers who lurk or post, either way.

Associated Press wrote:Utah gun maker turns down $15M deal with Pakistan

Utah gun maker turns down $15M deal with Pakistan, cites concerns guns could be used vs. US

WEST VALLEY CITY, Utah (AP) -- A Utah-based gun manufacturer has turned down a $15 million deal to supply Pakistan with precision rifles, citing concerns they could eventually be used against U.S. troops.

Mike Davis, sales manager at Desert Tech, said the company was on a short list for a contract with Pakistan, but spurned the opportunity because of unrest in Pakistan and ethical concerns.

It was a difficult decision because of the amount of money involved, he said, and the sale of rifles to Pakistan would have been legal.

"We don't know that those guns would've went somewhere bad, but with the unrest we just ended up not feeling right about it," Davis told KTVX-TV.

The company, based in the Salt Lake City suburb of West Valley City, was founded in 2007 on the principle of keeping America and its allies safe, he added.

"As a business owner you always want to be successful, but I think ethically and morally you want to go about it the right way and stick behind your founding principles," Davis told KSL.

Weapons sales to allies such as Pakistan are nothing new but they can be complicated, especially in a country with an al-Qaida presence. The U.S. often targets al-Qaida, Taliban and their Pakistani supporters in the country's tribal regions.

"I've got to admire Desert Tech for potentially turning down what could have been a very lucrative contract in the interest of protecting American service members," said Col. Steven R. Watt of the Utah National Guard.

The rifles can change caliber within minutes and have the capacity to shoot as far as 3,000 yards.

Desert Tech, formerly known as Desert Tactical Arms, has had military contracts with other countries but declined to reveal specifics.

If only a few of the gun shops on the US/Mexican border had been this ethical when Eric Holder ramped up his Fast and Furious redux.

Good deal
If I recollect correctly at least one dealer, after he repeatedly reported bad buyers was threatened that if he didn't go through with the sales, the ATF would charge him with interfering with investigation etc.

Also Magpul just proved its promise and announced its leaving Colorado for some other state and...TEXAS! hah!

**Ensis Ferrae**

Frazzled wrote:

Good deal
If I recollect correctly at least one dealer, after he repeatedly reported bad buyers was threatened that if he didn't go through with the sales, the ATF would charge him with interfering with investigation etc.

Also Magpul just proved its promise and announced its leaving Colorado for some other state and...TEXAS! hah!

Sounds like something the Feds would do in our more current era of governance.

And as to the OP, yeah, I probably wouldn't be making weapons/arms contracts with Pakistan, or India, or just about anyone, short of the well known, "peaceful" countries (Aus, NZ, Japan, UK, etc)

**motyak**

Who do they have contracts with? The article declines to say, and it would rob the gesture of significance if they do deal with other dodgy places and just not Pakistan. But hopefully they don't and it's a nice company

**Sturmtruppen**

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.

**MWHistorian**

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

**d-usa**

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.

**Minx**

MWHistorian wrote:
So, they do something right

We don't even know that. The true reasons might have a technical or financial origin and they just sell it as something ethical.

**Tibbsy**

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

This is Dakka; they're just getting the same treatment as GW usually would!

**notprop**

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

This is Dakka; they're just getting the same treatment as GW usually would!

It's hard to know who to blame when there's no clear victim.

**chaos0xomega**

link please?

**Hordini**

Soladrin wrote:
They are still making guns though.

Thank goodness for that.

In regards to good ethics vs. a financial-driven decision, sometimes doing the right thing can have positive results. I don't think this necessarily means that by doing the right thing, a person or a business must have had some ulterior motive other than doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do.

**Minx**

Hordini wrote:
In regards to good ethics vs. a financial-driven decision, sometimes doing the right thing can have positive results. I don't think this necessarily means that by doing the right thing, a person or a business must have had some ulterior motive other than doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do.

Indeed, and in this case their decision might even have cost them money. But whether it was the right thing to do, i am not sure yet. The Pakistanis do need guns to defend themselves against the bad guys after all.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Nothing ethical about this - total smokescreen. presumably, he'd be happy if somebody else was getting a lead sandwich, not US troops.

I'm neither pro or anti gun, but I'm under no illusion what guns are designed for - this guy wants to have his cake and eat it...then ask for another slice!

**Frazzled**

Minx wrote:
Hordini wrote:
In regards to good ethics vs. a financial-driven decision, sometimes doing the right thing can have positive results. I don't think this necessarily means that by doing the right thing, a person or a business must have had some ulterior motive other than doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do.

Indeed, and in this case their decision might even have cost them money. But whether it was the right thing to do, i am not sure yet. The Pakistanis do need guns to defend themselves against the bad guys after all.

Wait youy're saying they aren't the bad guys themselves?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Minx wrote:
Hordini wrote:
In regards to good ethics vs. a financial-driven decision, sometimes doing the right thing can have positive results. I don't think this necessarily means that by doing the right thing, a person or a business must have had some ulterior motive other than doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do.

Indeed, and in this case their decision might even have cost them money. But whether it was the right thing to do, i am not sure yet. The Pakistanis do need guns to defend themselves against the bad guys after all.

Yeah, they need some form of anti-aircraft gun to defend themselves against those drones flying around.

I wonder if Pakistan still has their surplus stock of Bren guns from the British Empire days? From what I've read, they were pretty against low flying aircraft.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Minx wrote:
Hordini wrote:
In regards to good ethics vs. a financial-driven decision, sometimes doing the right thing can have positive results. I don't think this necessarily means that by doing the right thing, a person or a business must have had some ulterior motive other than doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do.

Indeed, and in this case their decision might even have cost them money. But whether it was the right thing to do, i am not sure yet. The Pakistanis do need guns to defend themselves against the bad guys after all.

Wait youy're saying they aren't the bad guys themselves?

He's saying IMO, that instead of a blatant attempt to take the moral high ground, he should sell them to anybody who has the cash. 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!

**Frazzled**

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.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

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!

**Dreadclaw69**

Good on the manufacturer to turn down the deal. I'm impressed that a small business would not put profit first.

Frazzled wrote:
Also Magpul just proved its promise and announced its leaving Colorado for some other state and...TEXAS! hah!

I seen that, and I may have chuckled a little