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.

 Soladrin wrote:

 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.

Why? Whats unethical about making weapons? What is unethical about making guns for the UN peace keeping, hunting, pest control, target shooting, anti terrorist police, kidnap rescue? Or making bows, or fencing swords, or sonic weapons used by ships to stop pirates?

Saying weapons manufacture is never ethical is a very broad, and silly, statement.

For what it is worth, this company has not done what people think. They tendered for a contract and withdrew when Pakistanis situation changed. From what they are saying I think they decided not to sell guns to a country that might use them on civil protests and are spinning it as US troops, as I honestly don't see that the US is likely to go to war with Pakistan any time soon (With them being a nuclear power and an, all be it unstable, ally).

Oh, and also, I would say there are many ethical gun manufacturers. Any many unethical ones to, like any business.

 Steve steveson wrote:
For what it is worth, this company has not done what people think. They tendered for a contract and withdrew when Pakistanis situation changed. From what they are saying I think they decided not to sell guns to a country that might use them on civil protests and are spinning it as US troops, as I honestly don't see that the US is likely to go to war with Pakistan any time soon (With them being a nuclear power and an, all be it unstable, ally).

I don't think people are worried with the US going to war with Pakistan. More likely people are worried that the firearms Desert Tech would have provided may have found their way into US hostile hands courtesy of Pakistan's ISI

Relapse wrote:

 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?

Don't get me wrong, I'm an instructor in my country's Army Cadet Force. I train kids as young as 12 how to use a .22 rifle, but strictly in a controlled and safe environment with the rules and drills on weapons safety of absolute importance.

What I'm against is short-sightedness. Here in the UK, we have a problem of people believing what they're told too easily. The fascist BNP and the separatist UKIP gain their support on mistruths and half-truths, usually by praying on notions of national identity - BNP want to kick immigrants out because they're not British! UKIP want out of the European Union because it makes us European and not British! It's the same tactic here, praying on patriotism to make everyone conclude that your intentions are good without considering any alternatives. I offered the alternative - it's a marketing strategy. And let me remind everyone that we're on a forum which is for discussing things. Yet from the outset, this thread and the people posting in it seem to have already concluded that gun-maker good, anyone who tries to dispute their intentions baaad!

 Sturmtruppen wrote:
Yet from the outset, this thread and the people posting in it seem to have already concluded that gun-maker good, anyone who tries to dispute their intentions baaad!

Unfortunately always the way with anything to do with guns. Both sides have very vocal extremes, and both have shown themselves here. From "Guns are good! You will never take them away" to "all guns are bad!".

The two sides to often drown out reasoned debate.

 Seaward wrote:
Do you live in some variety of commune?

Actually one could make that statement based on Christian moral strictures, or like a physician - do no harm. So its ok.

Ethical? The only ethical gun manufacturer is one who makes only water guns.
This company has made one good decision. That does not suddenly make them ethical. This company still makes weapons,
And giving people more means to kill each other can never be ethical.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Ethical? The only ethical gun manufacturer is one who makes only water guns.
This company has made one good decision. That does not suddenly make them ethical. This company still makes weapons,
And giving people more means to kill each other can never be ethical.

It could be said that water guns desensitize children to the idea and danger of guns.

It could be said, but it probably hasn't been said.

Much as it pains me to agree with Seaward, that's a bit of a simplistic view on things. There are lots of uses for guns beyond "killing people".
Killing verminous animals for example, can be seen as ethically the right thing to do. Similarly, many could argue that use of a firearm in self defense or to protect the defenseless is perfectly moral.

There are many other arguments as to why weapons manufacture may be considered ethical.

 Da Boss wrote:
Much as it pains me to agree with Seaward, that's a bit of a simplistic view on things. There are lots of uses for guns beyond "killing people".
Killing verminous animals for example, can be seen as ethically the right thing to do. Similarly, many could argue that use of a firearm in self defense or to protect the defenseless is perfectly moral.

There are many other arguments as to why weapons manufacture may be considered ethical.

Verminous animals do not have to killed by guns. There are many more ways to get rid of them.
And if gun makers did not sell so many guns, than you would never even have need for a gun in self-defense.
We do not need guns for our self-defense here in the Netherlands. Neither do you in Germany. Than why do Americans need guns?
Protecting the defenseless is a noble thing, but why would you need a gun for that?
Selling guns to the civillian population only leads to increased violence. There is a reason the US is one of the most violent countries on Earth.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Verminous animals do not have to killed by guns. There are many more ways to get rid of them.

Such as traps, poisons, tranqs, calling animal control, etc... Sometimes it's just easier to pop a cap in a pesky groundhog than it is to call animal control. To be fair, no one in the city limits are firing their guns at vermin like that, because in most places, it's against the law to do so.

And if gun makers did not sell so many guns, than you would never even have need for a gun in self-defense.

Wait lolwut? The gun for self defense is not so I can bring a gun to a gun fight, it's so I can defend my tubby arse from some guy with a knife trying to rob me, or do severe physical harm to me or my family. I wish to tilt the playing field in my favor, if he has a gun then I've made it an even playing field (which is almost as good as a field in my favor). I also don't conceal or open carry, so my gun is in my house for home defense.

We do not need guns for our self-defense here in the Netherlands. Neither do you in Germany. Than why do Americans need guns?

Because the average response time for police is about 10 minutes. I'd rather not sit there bleeding out waiting for local law enforcement to arrive.

Protecting the defenseless is a noble thing, but why would you need a gun for that?

See tubby arse response above. If I'm helping the defenseless, I don't want to become a victim myself. It's part of the reason why all emergency response training tells you to make sure the scene of the emergency is safe for you before you go in, because it's better to recover 1 body than 2 in such situations.

Selling guns to the civillian population only leads to increased violence. There is a reason the US is one of the most violent countries on Earth.

Ah, welcome to the OT, would you please provide statistics showing my country is one of the most violent countries on Earth? Be sure you take into account what is considered a violent crime in my country as compared to violent crime in the countries you compare it against.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Much as it pains me to agree with Seaward, that's a bit of a simplistic view on things. There are lots of uses for guns beyond "killing people".
Killing verminous animals for example, can be seen as ethically the right thing to do. Similarly, many could argue that use of a firearm in self defense or to protect the defenseless is perfectly moral.

There are many other arguments as to why weapons manufacture may be considered ethical.

Verminous animals do not have to killed by guns. There are many more ways to get rid of them.
And if gun makers did not sell so many guns, than you would never even have need for a gun in self-defense.
We do not need guns for our self-defense here in the Netherlands. Neither do you in Germany. Than why do Americans need guns?
Protecting the defenseless is a noble thing, but why would you need a gun for that?
Selling guns to the civillian population only leads to increased violence. There is a reason the US is one of the most violent countries on Earth.

Please do tell how you kill deer humanly without guns?

And how would UN peace keeping work without guns? Ask rebel insurgents nicely not to shoot refugees?

Civilian gun ownership in and of itself dose not increase violence.

The US is far from one of the most violent places on earth. It dose, however, have one of the highest rates of gun deaths of any "western" country. However, it also has major problems with drugs, poverty and wealth distribution. Easy access to guns probably dose play some part, but there are far more nuanced arguments of what part easy access to firearms, or the effect of "Gun Culture" has, but broad statements like that are nonsense.

There are also arguments that in some places in the US you need to be able to protect yourself much more than in central Europe. Some places in the US are a Lllllooooonnnngggg way from the police. I don't agree with many of the people saying they carry a gun for protection, and think they are helping a climate of fear and persecution. If I lived in a US city or urban area, would I have a gun? No. If I lived in the arse end of South Carolina I would.

 Sturmtruppen wrote:
. I offered the alternative - it's a marketing strategy. And let me remind everyone that we're on a forum which is for discussing things. Yet from the outset, this thread and the people posting in it seem to have already concluded that gun-maker good, anyone who tries to dispute their intentions baaad!

On the contrary, some of us don't see it as a credible point. The argument that by turning down a $15 million offer (excluding future contracts if the deal goes well, consultation fees, maintenance, upgrades, etc.) the gun manufacturer is going to benefit substantially more from domestic sales. Which given the cost of the firearms produced by Desert Tech, and the market, is wholly unrealistic.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Ethical? The only ethical gun manufacturer is one who makes only water guns.
This company has made one good decision. That does not suddenly make them ethical. This company still makes weapons,
And giving people more means to kill each other can never be ethical.

I take it then, you have an extremely huge bone to pick with distillars and brewers and call them unethical since, at least over here, alcohol kills far more people than guns.

Let me run some statistics by you from the CDC(center for disease control) comparing the two:

First, the number of people in the U.S. who die yearly from alcohol related causes:

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

88,000 dead



Number of people in the U.S. who are killed yearly from gun related causes:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

31,672 dead



Alcohol already has almost a 3 to 1 margin as a cause of death just going by those statistics, but lets break it down just a tad more on the gun side to see what kind of death by gun is talked about.


Number of people in the U.S. who are murdered yearly through the use of guns:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

11, 708 murdered



Number of people in the U.S. yearly who use guns as a means of suicide:


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

19,392 suicides. If these people wanted to die badly enough to eat a bullet, most would probably have found a way to do it through other means if a gun was not available.


Put the rest killed by guns down as accidental.

Let's put this into perspective, you are calling gun makers unethical because 31, 672 people, about 60% of whom are suicides, get killed yearly with guns, yet I don't recall seeing any tirades against those who make a product that kills 88,000 people a year, not even going into jobs lost, families destroyed, or other impacts healthwise that it causes. Interesting.

And doctors.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Some places in the US are a Lllllooooonnnngggg way from the police. I don't agree with many of the people saying they carry a gun for protection, and think they are helping a climate of fear and persecution. If I lived in a US city or urban area, would I have a gun? No. If I lived in the arse end of South Carolina I would.

It really depends on how you carry your firearm for protection. Many people that conceal carry wouldn't give any indication that they are doing so until they draw. In those cases, out of sight, out of mind is a pretty good way to look at it. There are some of course that are itching to use their gun in a defensive way, but those are few and far between the regular gun owners. Like I had stated earlier my gun is for home protection. Do I bring it with me to the door when I'm seeing who is knocking? No, but I have it near my bed in case something happens and I'd like to be prepared for it (as my scout leaders always taught me ). And depending on the city or urban area, you're better off with a gun than with a cell phone with which to call the cops. Like I said, average police response time is 10 minutes across the country. That's about 9 minutes too long for my tastes.

But again, gun ownership is up to the individual person.

I'm curious if our anti-weaponry Dutch friends think the Netherlands should still be under Spanish rule.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Some places in the US are a Lllllooooonnnngggg way from the police. I don't agree with many of the people saying they carry a gun for protection, and think they are helping a climate of fear and persecution. If I lived in a US city or urban area, would I have a gun? No. If I lived in the arse end of South Carolina I would.

Which is funny cause your more likely to need one for self protection in the inner-city/urban area.

 Seaward wrote:
I'm curious if our anti-weaponry Dutch friends think the Netherlands should still be under Spanish rule.

It might in part explain the massacre at Srebrenica

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Sturmtruppen wrote:
. I offered the alternative - it's a marketing strategy. And let me remind everyone that we're on a forum which is for discussing things. Yet from the outset, this thread and the people posting in it seem to have already concluded that gun-maker good, anyone who tries to dispute their intentions baaad!

On the contrary, some of us don't see it as a credible point. The argument that by turning down a $15 million offer (excluding future contracts if the deal goes well, consultation fees, maintenance, upgrades, etc.) the gun manufacturer is going to benefit substantially more from domestic sales. Which given the cost of the firearms produced by Desert Tech, and the market, is wholly unrealistic.

Okay, maybe I'm wrong about the guns being sold to Americans. However, the point still stands that as proven in this very thread, the move has given the company a positive light to shine under - and a good reputation means plenty of contracts with other nations, or maybe even a pitch to the American government for contracts. What I'm not partial to is people blindly accepting that this company can do no wrong. What I'm suggesting, as few others have, is that this is a PR strategy. As with the first few people to post in this thread, they've closed their minds to the idea that there could be anything to taint this move, and used it to rub it in the faces of any critics of weapon profiteering. The very fact that this is in the news is cause for suspicion. It's ammo for a lot of people - for the company, for the American economy, for pro-gun Americans.

Just so the stats I provided don't get buried, I'd like to direct the attention of those who are anti gun or think they should be more controlled to the facts I obtained from the CDC a few posts up. It's a bit of an eye opener.

Who blindly accepted it? You, and others, have done what others have and jumped to your own conclusions based on cynicism. There is sufficient evidence to counter the 'it is only PR' claim. Look at their site, the firearms are niche products and have the price to match. Very few people will be rushing out to purchase one because of Desert Tech's announcement. Read their about page. Desert Tech (like many other US firearm manufacturers) have close ties to the military. They do not want their firearms used to kill US Service Personnel. Pakistan's ISI is known to funnel arms etc. to the Taliban, who then go on to use them to target Coalition forces in Afghanistan.

Relapse wrote:
Just so the stats I provided don't get buried, I'd like to direct the attention of those who are anti gun or think they should be more controlled to the facts I obtained from the CDC a few posts up. It's a bit of an eye opener.

And then compare the number of alcoholic units consumed and time spent drinking to the number of guns being used and the time spent shooting and see that just because one number is bigger on the face of it, it doesn't mean they are weighted equally when you look at contact time and usage... it is exactly the same as the strawman car comparison.

 Seaward wrote:
Do you live in some variety of commune?

Who me?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Just so the stats I provided don't get buried, I'd like to direct the attention of those who are anti gun or think they should be more controlled to the facts I obtained from the CDC a few posts up. It's a bit of an eye opener.

And then compare the number of alcoholic units consumed and time spent drinking to the number of guns being used and the time spent shooting and see that just because one number is bigger on the face of it, it doesn't mean they are weighted equally when you look at contact time and usage... it is exactly the same as the strawman car comparison.

Not really. The fact of the matter is that far more people are killed yearly by alcohol than guns, and about 60% of those gun deaths are suicides.

If anything I imagine this would probably boost the sales. The news coverage would grant them a lot better advertising and public provenience, and it would also make people trust the gun company more and make Americans favour their company when considering buying weapons.

Relapse wrote:
Just so the stats I provided don't get buried, I'd like to direct the attention of those who are anti gun or think they should be more controlled to the facts I obtained from the CDC a few posts up. It's a bit of an eye opener.

But... but.. Scary guns!

Relapse wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Just so the stats I provided don't get buried, I'd like to direct the attention of those who are anti gun or think they should be more controlled to the facts I obtained from the CDC a few posts up. It's a bit of an eye opener.

And then compare the number of alcoholic units consumed and time spent drinking to the number of guns being used and the time spent shooting and see that just because one number is bigger on the face of it, it doesn't mean they are weighted equally when you look at contact time and usage... it is exactly the same as the strawman car comparison.

Not really, the fact of the matter is that yearly, more people are killed by alcohol than guns.

I'm not going to bother wasting time arguing this with you again. I just needed to contest your point of equivalence.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Just so the stats I provided don't get buried, I'd like to direct the attention of those who are anti gun or think they should be more controlled to the facts I obtained from the CDC a few posts up. It's a bit of an eye opener.

And then compare the number of alcoholic units consumed and time spent drinking to the number of guns being used and the time spent shooting and see that just because one number is bigger on the face of it, it doesn't mean they are weighted equally when you look at contact time and usage... it is exactly the same as the strawman car comparison.

Not really, the fact of the matter is that yearly, more people are killed by alcohol than guns.

I'm not going to bother wasting time arguing this with you again. I just needed to contest your point of equivalence.

Alcohol can't even be used in self-defense, either!

Guns 1, Alcohol 0

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Guns 1, Alcohol 0

Self defence: Guns 1, Alcohol 1

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Just so the stats I provided don't get buried, I'd like to direct the attention of those who are anti gun or think they should be more controlled to the facts I obtained from the CDC a few posts up. It's a bit of an eye opener.

But... but.. Scary guns!

It does makes anti gun people's sentiment about hating guns because they are used to kill seem pretty hollow if they are drinkers since they support an industry more dangerous than the firearm one.