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.

Are there economic advantages to the decision? Small ones sure, but I don't think that was why.

Hard to find a US shooter anymore that hasn't either served, or has friends/relatives that did. Wouldn't be surprised if the company had veterans on the payroll, or people who have familes and friends that are .mil, and it would not surprise me at all that an approach from Pakistan would be turned down regardless of how much money was involved on that basis alone.

I just don't see the money advantage to turning down the offer large enough to be the motivating force behind it. They'd have to sell us gun nuts several thousand of their rifles in the short term to equal the money they would've made from the contract, and frankly we are too busy buying cheap-o AR15s and AKs to buy 3000+ dollar precision rifles. Maybe as a CYA move to keep down bad PR should a bad guy turn up with their guns in hand? Well, ok. Possible...but I don't think so. You don't see many people jumping up and down on Barrett over the Pakistani army using his guns.

Relapse wrote:

 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.

Agreed, it's amazing how the breakdown actually looks. I'd be willing to wager that most gun grabbers don't know that a majority of gun deaths are suicides.

@Silver

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 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.

Agreed, it's amazing how the breakdown actually looks. I'd be willing to wager that most gun grabbers don't know that a majority of gun deaths are suicides.

@Silver

That's not even going into the other negative factors included in the statsics I provided that can go with alcohol usage.

From the CDC link:

Unintentional injuries, including traffic injuries, falls, drownings, burns, and unintentional firearm injuries.6
Violence, including intimate partner violence and child maltreatment.

About 35% of victims report that offenders are under the influence of alcohol.7 Alcohol use is also associated with 2 out of 3 incidents of intimate partner violence.7

Studies have also shown that alcohol is a leading factor in child maltreatment and neglect cases, and is the most frequent substance abused among these parents.8
Risky sexual behaviors, including unprotected sex, sex with multiple partners, and increased risk of sexual assault. These behaviors can result in unintended pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases.9, 10

Miscarriage and stillbirth among pregnant women, and a combination of physical and mental birth defects among children that last throughout life.11, 12

Alcohol poisoning, a medical emergency that results from high blood alcohol levels that suppress the central nervous system and can cause loss of consciousness, low blood pressure and body temperature, coma, respiratory depression, or death.13

Over time, excessive alcohol use can lead to the development of chronic diseases, neurological impairments and social problems. These include but are not limited to—
Neurological problems, including dementia, stroke and neuropathy.14, 15
Cardiovascular problems, including myocardial infarction, cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation and hypertension.16
Psychiatric problems, including depression, anxiety, and suicide.17
Social problems, including unemployment, lost productivity, and family problems.18, 19
Cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, liver, colon, and breast.20 In general, the risk of cancer increases with increasing amounts of alcohol.
Liver diseases, including—
Alcoholic hepatitis.
Cirrhosis, which is among the 15 leading causes of all deaths in the United States.21
Among persons with Hepatitis C virus, worsening of liver function and interference with medications used to treat this condition.22
Other gastrointestinal problems, including pancreatitis and gastritis.23, 24


If people are scared of guns because they think they're dangerous, they should be more scared of alcohol.

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.

When is a gun "in use?" Only when you are actually shooting it? What about when you are carrying it? Or when it is loaded in your house for home defense? When is alcohol in use? Only when you are drinking it? What if it is in your refrigerator, ready to be drank? What if you are cooking with it?

Why do we care about how they are weighted? If alcohol kills more people than firearms, shouldn't that draw our attention?

BrotherOfBone wrote: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.

Do you think it's going to boost their sales by more than $15 million?

Amusingly being European, I find the idea of making and selling guns to be perfectly fine, given sensible restrictions (like, don't sell to this guy who just got out of a mental asylum).

I think this is a nice little story that probably shows a company with some slight ethical bent to its policies, which is nice.

 Hordini wrote:
When is a gun "in use?" Only when you are actually shooting it? What about when you are carrying it? Or when it is loaded in your house for home defense? When is alcohol in use? Only when you are drinking it? What if it is in your refrigerator, ready to be drank? What if you are cooking with it?

"In use" suggests that the thing being considered is being actively used for its intended purpose, or its effects are still active. For alcohol I would suggest this would mean time spent drinking or with alcohol in your blood. For weapons, I would suggest it is time spent shooting or using weapons (such as cleaning, loading, etc) but not with the weapon stored in a safe/nightstand/etc. I would suggest it probably not include time spent being stored in a holster but I've not really considered the issue to sufficient depth to give you more than my own suggestion.

Why do we care about how they are weighted? If alcohol kills more people than firearms, shouldn't that draw our attention?

Because when you consider contact and usage time you get to see how dangerous things actually are. For example if thing A kills 10 people and is "used" 100 times, and thing B kills 10 people and is "used" 100,000 times, it is clear that thing A is more dangerous than thing B, even though they both kill exactly the same number of people.

Edit: Fixed quotes

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
When is a gun "in use?" Only when you are actually shooting it? What about when you are carrying it? Or when it is loaded in your house for home defense? When is alcohol in use? Only when you are drinking it? What if it is in your refrigerator, ready to be drank? What if you are cooking with it?

"In use" suggests that the thing being considered is being actively used for its intended purpose, or its effects are still active. For alcohol I would suggest this would mean time spent drinking or with alcohol in your blood. For weapons, I would suggest it is time spent shooting or using weapons (such as cleaning, loading, etc) but not with the weapon stored in a safe/nightstand/etc. I would suggest it probably not include time spent being stored in a holster but I've not really considered the issue to sufficient depth to give you more than my own suggestion.

Why do we care about how they are weighted? If alcohol kills more people than firearms, shouldn't that draw our attention?

Because when you consider contact and usage time you get to see how dangerous things actually are. For example if thing A kills 10 people and is "used" 100 times, and thing B kills 10 people and is "used" 100,000 times, it is clear that thing A is more dangerous than thing B, even though they both kill exactly the same number of people.

Edit: Fixed quotes

Yet in the end, when all is said and done, by almost a 3 to 1 margin, more people die from alcohol than guns. It goes to more than an 8 to 1 margin if you count out the suicides and only tally murders. Add to that the other ill effects I listed coming from alcohol and it's pretty clear cut which causes more harm on a yearly basis.

Relapse wrote:
Yet in the end, when all is said and done, by almost a 3 to 1 margin, more people die from alcohol than guns. It goes to more than an 8 to 1 margin if you count out the suicides and only tally murders. Add to that the other ill effects I listed coming from alcohol and it's pretty clear cut which causes more harm on a yearly basis.

And I have no issue with attempting to make alcohol less of a danger to individuals and society as a whole, just as I have no issue with attempting to make firearms less of a danger to society. Nor does all activity in making one thing safer have to end when you look at making something else safer

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Yet in the end, when all is said and done, by almost a 3 to 1 margin, more people die from alcohol than guns. It goes to more than an 8 to 1 margin if you count out the suicides and only tally murders. Add to that the other ill effects I listed coming from alcohol and it's pretty clear cut which causes more harm on a yearly basis.

And I have no issue with attempting to make alcohol less of a danger to individuals and society as a whole, just as I have no issue with attempting to make firearms less of a danger to society. Nor does all activity in making one thing safer have to end when you look at making something else safer

I've never seen you come out against alcohol, ever, yet you miss no opportunity to rail against guns.

Relapse wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Yet in the end, when all is said and done, by almost a 3 to 1 margin, more people die from alcohol than guns. It goes to more than an 8 to 1 margin if you count out the suicides and only tally murders. Add to that the other ill effects I listed coming from alcohol and it's pretty clear cut which causes more harm on a yearly basis.

And I have no issue with attempting to make alcohol less of a danger to individuals and society as a whole, just as I have no issue with attempting to make firearms less of a danger to society. Nor does all activity in making one thing safer have to end when you look at making something else safer

I've never seen you come out against alcohol, ever, yet you miss no opportunity to rail against guns.

Start a thread about alcohol and I will post on it. Nor do I particularly consider my posts railing against guns - at least my posts that go beyond "if only X had a gun, then it would have been magically safe from all harm" anyway

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Yet in the end, when all is said and done, by almost a 3 to 1 margin, more people die from alcohol than guns. It goes to more than an 8 to 1 margin if you count out the suicides and only tally murders. Add to that the other ill effects I listed coming from alcohol and it's pretty clear cut which causes more harm on a yearly basis.

And I have no issue with attempting to make alcohol less of a danger to individuals and society as a whole, just as I have no issue with attempting to make firearms less of a danger to society. Nor does all activity in making one thing safer have to end when you look at making something else safer

I've never seen you come out against alcohol, ever, yet you miss no opportunity to rail against guns.

Start a thread about alcohol and I will post on it.

There have been a few threads recently on booze and favorite drinks, you did not poo poo on their parade. Not that you should, people enjoying booze in a responsible matter is a great thing, just like people enjoying guns in a responsible manner is.

 Alfndrate wrote:
There have been a few threads recently on booze and favorite drinks, you did not poo poo on their parade. Not that you should, people enjoying booze in a responsible matter is a great thing, just like people enjoying guns in a responsible manner is.

I've been limited in my forum time for the last few months so probably missed them. Though if you note I generally post in gun threads talking about issues with guns - I don't recall posting in the several "what kind of gun do you have" or "what gun should I buy" etc threads. That would not be appropriate.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Yet in the end, when all is said and done, by almost a 3 to 1 margin, more people die from alcohol than guns. It goes to more than an 8 to 1 margin if you count out the suicides and only tally murders. Add to that the other ill effects I listed coming from alcohol and it's pretty clear cut which causes more harm on a yearly basis.

And I have no issue with attempting to make alcohol less of a danger to individuals and society as a whole, just as I have no issue with attempting to make firearms less of a danger to society. Nor does all activity in making one thing safer have to end when you look at making something else safer

I've never seen you come out against alcohol, ever, yet you miss no opportunity to rail against guns.

Start a thread about alcohol and I will post on it. Nor do I particularly consider my posts railing against guns - at least my posts that go beyond "if only X had a gun, then it would have been magically safe from all harm" anyway

There have been threads about booze that you did not appear on against alcohol, yet you come out against guns on other threads.

Edit: just saw your previous post but I have noticed you around quite a bit from your history.

Have there actually been any threads where issues regarding alcohol have been discussed? As I said - I've not been on too much in the last few months (mostly sticking to a couple of threads while doing work and the odd refresh of the most recent and P&M list).

Hmmm.. How about anybody convicted of an alcohol related offense is no longer eligible to purchase alcohol?

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Have there actually been any threads where issues regarding alcohol have been discussed? As I said - I've not been on too much in the last few months (mostly sticking to a couple of threads while doing work and the odd refresh of the most recent and P&M list).

It already seems, though from your previous comments on this thread that you were blowing off alcohol as a threat.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Hmmm.. How about anybody convicted of an alcohol related offense is no longer eligible to purchase alcohol?

Sounds good to me. Perhaps on a sliding scale for length of ban depending on the kind of offense - similar to driving bans.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Hmmm.. How about anybody convicted of an alcohol related offense is no longer eligible to purchase alcohol?

How about limiting the number of ounces someone can buy in a month?

Relapse wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Have there actually been any threads where issues regarding alcohol have been discussed? As I said - I've not been on too much in the last few months (mostly sticking to a couple of threads while doing work and the odd refresh of the most recent and P&M list).

It already seems, though from your previous comments on this thread that you were blowing off alcohol as a threat.

No, just pointing out the false equivalence you were trying to draw between alcohol and firearms deaths.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Hmmm.. How about anybody convicted of an alcohol related offense is no longer eligible to purchase alcohol?

How about limiting the number of ounces someone can buy in a month?

Difficult to enforce. Banning people from buying is slightly easier as you can pass their details on to local stores to alert shopkeepers not to sell to certain people for a certain length of time.


Edit: Although drifting even further from the topic

Relapse wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Hmmm.. How about anybody convicted of an alcohol related offense is no longer eligible to purchase alcohol?

How about limiting the number of ounces someone can buy in a month?

How about a background check before purchasing a bottle?
Strict regulation on glass size. Only silver goblets may be used with special mouths. Bottles that can pour liquor into any container other these special goblets are banned.
You will need to keep all booze and goblets under lock and key.
All booze comes with said lock and key.

Only beer is permitted. Scotch requires special licensing.

 Frazzled wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Hmmm.. How about anybody convicted of an alcohol related offense is no longer eligible to purchase alcohol?

How about limiting the number of ounces someone can buy in a month?

How about a background check before purchasing a bottle?
Strict regulation on glass size. Only silver goblets may be used with special mouths. Bottles that can pour liquor into any container other these special goblets are banned.
You will need to keep all booze and goblets under lock and key.
All booze comes with said lock and key.

Only beer is permitted. Scotch requires special licensing.

And ban assault glasses?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Hmmm.. How about anybody convicted of an alcohol related offense is no longer eligible to purchase alcohol?

How about limiting the number of ounces someone can buy in a month?

Difficult to enforce. Banning people from buying is slightly easier as you can pass their details on to local stores to alert shopkeepers not to sell to certain people for a certain length of time.

Nah, mark the license itself and require all places to ID for all alcohol purchases Also background checks and a waiting period.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Hmmm.. How about anybody convicted of an alcohol related offense is no longer eligible to purchase alcohol?

How about limiting the number of ounces someone can buy in a month?

How about a background check before purchasing a bottle?
Strict regulation on glass size. Only silver goblets may be used with special mouths. Bottles that can pour liquor into any container other these special goblets are banned.
You will need to keep all booze and goblets under lock and key.
All booze comes with said lock and key.

Only beer is permitted. Scotch requires special licensing.

Finally someone is thinking about the children!

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Hmmm.. How about anybbody convicted of an alcohol related offense is no longer eligible to purchase alcohol?

How about limiting the number of ounces someone can buy in a month?

How about a background check before purchasing a bottle?
Strict regulation on glass size. Only silver goblets may be used with special mouths. Bottles that can pour liquor into any container other these special goblets are banned.
You will need to keep all booze and goblets under lock and key.
All booze comes with said lock and key.

Only beer is permitted. Scotch requires special licensing.

And ban assault glasses?

Goodun. There's many a barroom brawler clocked up the side of the headthat would go with that.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Nah, mark the license itself and require all places to ID for all alcohol purchases Also background checks and a waiting period.

I'm not sure that awaiting period is justified for alcohol purchases.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Nah, mark the license itself and require all places to ID for all alcohol purchases Also background checks and a waiting period.

I'm not sure that awaiting period is justified for alcohol purchases.

I saw "Justified" on a signpost about 100 miles back, was I supposed to turn?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Nah, mark the license itself and require all places to ID for all alcohol purchases Also background checks and a waiting period.

I'm not sure that awaiting period is justified for alcohol purchases.

If a drunk is going to get hammered, a waiting period won't stop him from getting hooch! Now if there was a waiting period on booze, some disillusioned kid/early 20-something might not walk into his school bottles flowing!

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
I saw "Justified" on a signpost about 100 miles back, was I supposed to turn?

Yep. Now you are driving down Silly Street

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Hmmm.. How about anybody convicted of an alcohol related offense is no longer eligible to purchase alcohol?

I'm for it, especially if you've had a DUI, but how do you implement it? Have an Alcohol database? Check everyone's Legal to Buy Alcohol cards? What?

 kronk wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Hmmm.. How about anybody convicted of an alcohol related offense is no longer eligible to purchase alcohol?

I'm for it, especially if you've had a DUI, but how do you implement it? Have an Alcohol database? Check everyone's Legal to Buy Alcohol cards? What?

A nice thought, but distillers and brewers would never let that law pass and it would be like prohibition all over again if it did pass by some miracle.

I'd be okay with it but only if you had to take a 12 hour class on safe alcohol use in order to get a license to carry concealed alcohol.