The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 23, 2013, 03:07 PM   #1
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,088
We have the upper hand with manufacturers

Approximate number of new firearms sold to Law Enforcement in 2012: 100,000 guns

Number of new guns sold to the civilian market in 2012: 11 MILLION!!

I know which market I would choose to sell to. If push comes to shove, publicly held firearms manufacturers will have to choose the civilian market which is about 110 times the size of the LE market.

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative...s-2572408.html

Quote:
During 2012, Americans purchased more than 18,500,000 new and used firearms. From all appearances, more than 11,000,000 (eleven million) of those guns were new.

The total number of guns sold to the police and the military is less certain, but some things can be inferred. To begin with, there are approximately 800,000 police officers. If their guns are replaced every ten years, that is a total of 80,000 guns a year. If you add other municipal employees who regularly carry, such as animal control officers and some inspectors, you have a potential market of 100,000 guns a year.

Civilian market 11,000,000 guns vs Police market 100,000 guns

For progressives and other numerically challenged individuals, the police market amounted to just 0.009 percent of the total market for guns. A total that is, in the greater scheme of things, a fraction of the monthly increase in gun sales under Obama.

At this time, almost anything that can be persuaded to shoot will sell, but good times do not last forever. Success in the tough times depends on customer loyalties carefully built during the flush times. A gun company that ignores individual gun buyers in order to sell to police and other State sponsored paramilitaries does so at its own peril.

While the public may well forgive a company that says “we will honor our contracts but that is all;” a company that essentially tells the buying public to go to perdition is likely to be very “lite” indeed. “Lite” of customers.
maestro pistolero is online now  
Old February 23, 2013, 04:11 PM   #2
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,150
We have the upper hand with manufacturers

Excellent find. Hopefully these numbers register with more of the manufacturers. Something for them to consider, especially among the enthusiasts who buy regularly.
NWPilgrim is offline  
Old February 23, 2013, 04:11 PM   #3
scrubcedar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 478
A very good point. I sure would love to see some real stats rather than supposition to back it up.
__________________
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado
scrubcedar is offline  
Old February 23, 2013, 09:58 PM   #4
SycoPath
Member
 
Join Date: June 29, 2012
Location: Emerald City
Posts: 26
It would also be interesting to see how many guns the federal government buys from these same companies and how much is spent for spare parts. Maybe these companies can tell the government that they will honor their contracts but due to shortages caused by the current administration the deliveries wil be delayed for, say, four years.........
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to be silent and only look stupid than to say something that proves it."
SycoPath is offline  
Old February 24, 2013, 10:42 PM   #5
Kimio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 895
Beretta USA apparently has joined the side of not selling to LEO and federal agencies that serve in states that prohibit the sale and ownership of legal firearms. Good to know, reinforces my desire to buy a 92FS when funds permit.
Kimio is offline  
Old February 24, 2013, 11:05 PM   #6
Texshooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 17, 2006
Posts: 261
An even bigger factor than that is the amount of profit / unit on civie sales vs gov't sales.

They make virtually nothing on gov't contracts, and add it to the price we pay.

WE CAN FORCE THIS ISSUE.

TREAT GOV'T ENTITIES THE SAME AS THE CITIZENS OF THAT STATE ARE TREATED.

Don't let anyone convince honest gun owners otherwise, because it is a fact.

Kimio - I hope you are correct about Beretta

I have, just now, sent another e-mail to Glock, S&W, and Beretta. I am telling them all we are watching. Tell them to stand with us or lose us - the ones they truly make their money off of.

Last edited by Texshooter; February 24, 2013 at 11:37 PM.
Texshooter is offline  
Old February 25, 2013, 12:43 AM   #7
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,088
Beretta getting on board is a coupe. Bravo.
maestro pistolero is online now  
Old February 25, 2013, 02:04 AM   #8
scrubcedar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 478
As of this point Beretta is even threatening to move out of Maryland if the Maryland law makers pass some of the bills presented to them. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...rol-proposals/
They already moved their warehouse a while back over this same sort of issue.
I love the quote from Ugo Beretta, “All I can tell you is, there always seems to be a problem with Maryland,”. Short and to the point, good man.
This is effective in my case in this way, within the next six months I hope to save up enough for a nice pistol, not the cheap ones I've been getting by on. I will now look twice at all of the Beretta line. 92fs for CCW anyone?
__________________
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado
scrubcedar is offline  
Old February 25, 2013, 11:42 AM   #9
I'vebeenduped
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Location: AZ
Posts: 200
Not the typical boycott

What about a list of weapons and accessories to boycott for manufacturers that refuse to take sides? It seems like a nice piece of leverage for the average, gun enthusiast, Joe to use. Thankfully Beretta will not be on that list. This list could be updated and posted on this site as it changes... Thought, anyone?

David
__________________
The natural state of man, the way G‑d created us, is to be happy.
Look at children and you will see
I'vebeenduped is offline  
Old February 25, 2013, 12:15 PM   #10
Texshooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 17, 2006
Posts: 261
Just got an e-mail back from Beretta

ISMW -

Decisions regarding Berettas sales policy are going to be made at the highest level, and at this time, they can not discuss what they might do.

CYA talk.
Texshooter is offline  
Old February 25, 2013, 12:19 PM   #11
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,444
Quote:
Approximate number of new firearms sold to Law Enforcement in 2012: 100,000 guns

Number of new guns sold to the civilian market in 2012: 11 MILLION!!

I know which market I would choose to sell to. If push comes to shove, publicly held firearms manufacturers will have to choose the civilian market which is about 110 times the size of the LE market.
Publicly held firearms companies are in the minority. Some are held by Cerberus Capital Management which is a private equity firm. Granted, they are rumored and proclaimed to sell off Freedom Group, but that hasn't happened.

So you can bully S&W and Ruger as fire as firearms manufacturers as publicly held companies, but that is about it. You won't find ticker symbols for too many of the others http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor..._United_States

Beretta really isn't getting on board, just getting out of Maryland. Notice they are not listed here...
http://www.thepoliceloophole.com/

Yes, they have threatened to move out of Maryland, but only because proposed Maryland laws will make a lot of guns they make there illegal, or their capacities illegal, plus add liability to the manufacturer at the state level for the transportation and selling of guns. To move out of the state isn't so much a protest as it is a shrewd financial move that would reduce significant financial risk. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...rol-proposals/

I have yet to see anything that says they won't sell to LE agencies, state, or federal agencies because of gun laws.

Also note on thepoliceloophole.com link at all the companies that are ONLY not selling in the state where they are located, New York. They are still selling to other anti-gun states when they can.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old February 25, 2013, 01:17 PM   #12
Fishing_Cabin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 716
I would doubt that Beretta, and other international firearm companies really pick a side in this fight... It would not be popular for, say Beretta, to support certain things in the USA, say, like take a stand against registration (or whatever idea you have) and then sell the same firearms in another country with stricter laws for registration, just an example. Just my thoughts... Now could Beretta move out of Md due to cost cutting and avoiding future liability due to laws being considered? Of course.

Also, the close the police loophole thing, may get some traction, but IMO should be targeted directly at the state and fed agencies, instead of from state down to local, since its typically the states or feds that initiate the new laws. Its also odd, that after all these years, it is gaining traction. There has been a law enforcement loophole for years in one way or another, going back to 1968. Perhaps longer...

_________________

What's being argued right now:
AWB

Mag restrictions

Background checks

What's included in the law enforcement loophole:
Generally an exception for duty use for "assault weapons."

Generally an exception for duty use for standard, or "High" capacity mags.

Difference in background checks for a duty use firearm.

Ability for law enforcement to purchase by mail on letterhead from a distributor or manufacturer, without a local FFL dealer or distributor being involved.

An exception for duty use on post 86 full auto and select fire firearms.

Also there is the exception for the import restrictions such as those on the Glock 380's which are why they are sold to law enforcement only instead of direct import.

________________

With the above said, (I didn't include every exception for law enforcement, just a few big ones) its doubtful that the larger companies will hold to closing the "law enforcement loophole" since they have been enjoying the sales from such for years.

What would stop a company from saying that they will cut-off sales of say AR-15's to law enforcement, but then say "(Cough, Cough) Let us sell you some M-16's or M-4's instead?" That company could say they upheld their pledge not to sell so-called "assault weapons" to law enforcement, but they back door'd the NFA stuff in private. If pushed on the issue all the company would have to say was, "we kept our pledge to not sell assault weapons if a new law is passed on them, but there is not a new law on NFA firearms, so we sold them that, so it didn't violate our pledge."

Also, for this to be effective it would have to include restricting sales to the military. No, I am not against the military at all, but... The military and the feds have a system already in place to either gift or loan firearms, such as M-16's, etc. to local law enforcement, which also includes other firearms as well. So instead of law enforcement purchasing directly from a company, it would instead be getting more equipment from the feds/military, since that would be their source if every company cut-off law enforcement.

edit to add:

I'm not trying to sound all doom and gloom as far as this topic goes. Just trying to be realistic about things. We can debate "who buys more" all day long, and there will still be a select few companies that keep going after government contracts. As I mentioned already about the military long-term loaning firearms to law enforcement, it would be silly for FNH to give up the contract it just got for M-4's, because at some point, some of them would be given a long term loan to law enforcement, just as M-16's are loaned out to law enforcement today.

(Side note. If you want to read an article about it the new M4 contract. Link is below)
http://kitup.military.com/2013/02/ar...ntract-fn.html

What I am getting at is, this will become mostly just an obstacle to overcome for law enforcement, instead of a major problem. While I am glad to see the strong sales for firearms/ammo to the general public, and I really hope it continues, in the past its always come back down to a more reasonable level. There will always be at least a small handful of firearm companies who will go after government contracts, military, fed, state, and local. Even for the smallest law enforcement agencies, they would still be able to piggy-back on to a larger order in the future, just as some do now for firearms/ammo.

What am I doing to try to keep any new restrictions from coming forth? I'm working with those in law enforcement I know, and trying to win those few over who are on the edge...It may surprise some folks, but the majority of law enforcement here are very pro-gun. The main issue are the dept heads, which we all know has a good bit of politics in it, and as such, it may/may not represent the rank and file. We are all in this together. I just don't see a need to divide folks in to different sides.

Last edited by Fishing_Cabin; February 25, 2013 at 03:28 PM.
Fishing_Cabin is offline  
Old February 25, 2013, 09:57 PM   #13
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
I think its really a question of market and what the bottom line says... It might or might not be that a given brand sells so much in the US that whatever looses it might take in another nation could be trivial.

Some companies certainly have the moral courage to stand regardless of the bottom line, others will see the wisdom of supporting the largest number of customers and some will try to not take sides... For myself my dollars will go to those who stand with us and I will long remember them...

Where is Glock on this thing they have a huge market share?
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old February 25, 2013, 10:45 PM   #14
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,444
Quote:
Where is Glock on this thing they have a huge market share?
Selling anything and everything to anybody who can legally buy it.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old February 25, 2013, 11:54 PM   #15
Fishing_Cabin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 716
Quote:
Where is Glock on this thing they have a huge market share?
I'm glad you asked that...As I mentioned previously, the so called "law enforcement loophole" covers more then just 'assault weapons' and 'standard capacity mags' and goes on to cover various other issues.

That's kind of simple. Just look at their website... When you look up the Glock 25, it mentions under technical data
Quote:
For US market: Law Enforcement and Goverment Agency sales only
http://www.glock.com/english/glock25_tech.htm

So, a Glock 25 is available to law enforcement and government agencies, but not to everyone else... (the reason why its law enforcement/government agency is that it doesn't meet the point count for the import restriction)

Heck, its just a .380!!! If Glock didn't support exempting law enforcement/government sales from the import restrictions, they wouldn't list it on their website for law enforcement/government sales only would they? You think they would not continue exempting law enforcement/government sales for various reasons in the future, as they already have done for a while now?

Last edited by Fishing_Cabin; February 26, 2013 at 12:14 AM.
Fishing_Cabin is offline  
Old February 26, 2013, 12:25 AM   #16
Tickling
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 17, 2011
Posts: 181
Quote:
Quote:
Where is Glock on this thing they have a huge market share?

DNA said:
Selling anything and everything to anybody who can legally buy it.
Now now, we know, Glock has contracts with virtually everyone. It's not like they can just tell their contractually-bound customers get lost...

But they may have the choice made for them if this catches on... http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...a6cod50beoJTiM
Tickling is offline  
Old February 26, 2013, 07:18 AM   #17
Willie Sutton
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
Where is Glock on this thing they have a huge market share?


Glock is a business selling a commodity, not a 2nd Amendment advocacy group. They (like any rationally managed large business) is going to sell their commodity to anyone who will buy it. Add to that the fact that they are a non-US corporation with absolutely no "Corporate Patriotism" (if such a thing exists) and you can rest assured that although they might pay some lip service to our side, they are not going to back it up with anything affecting their traditional bottom line.

While I appreciate small companies who have taken the opposite stand, let's remember that they are small specialty manufacturers who can sell their entire production capacity selectively, thus not impacting their bottom line. A major manufacturer with enormous production capacity is not in the same position. They need to keep their numbers up, and they will do that by selling to anyone who wil buy their goods.

There's a huge difference between managing a company the size of, say, Barrett, who no matter what is backordered, meaning that his production capacity is always smaller than his demand, and who sells, say... 1000 rifles a year, and Glock, to whom a 1000 pistol order is just another afternoon-shift of industrial production and who can make goods in any quantity, and make them as fast as the customer wants to receive them. One one hand you have essentially a small machine shop and on the other hand you have an industrial behemoth.

NYPD bought over 40 THOUSAND Glocks. You think that they are all of a sudden going to stop selling to these contracts? That's not a rational business analysis.




Willie

.
Willie Sutton is offline  
Old February 26, 2013, 09:10 AM   #18
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,444
Quote:
NYPD bought over 40 THOUSAND Glocks. You think that they are all of a sudden going to stop selling to these contracts? That's not a rational business analysis.
No, it is not, but the proclaimed arguments are that gun manufacturers don't make any money on such deals and that all their money is made from the public. They may not make a lot on the guns themselves, but such deals usually come with some lucrative service contracts as well that do make money. Sure enough, the lion's share is from the public. So the argument is that we can force the manufacturers to bend to our will be boycotting those that do not perform in the matter we so desire to the lengths we so desire, hence the claim, "We have the upper hand with manufacturers."

The problem, of course, is that gun owners are a staunchly independent group of individuals, a large group, but very individualistic. We have an abdominal history of forcing any business to comply with our desires. We have the traditional political memory of typical Americans which is quite short and we are apt to break down and readily cross boycott lines at the point we become inconvenienced.

I realize there are strong proclamations here of those who will hold fast to their values and never cross a boycott line under any circumstances, but the fact remains that for the vast majority of gun owners across America, they are just your non-super human average folks.

You see, despite the fact that we have the numbers, buying power, and American spirit to do just about anything, as a group we are completely disorganized, not goal oriented, not disciplined, and so do not do a good job of accomplishing group goals. As such, we do not have the upper hand with manufacturers. We have the potential to have the upper hand with them, but that potential will remain unrealized until we actually organize and work in a unified, concerted, and consistent manner toward accomplishing specific goals.

Cases and points...remember how we were all up in arms about how Dick's was not selling ARs or how Walmart is anti-gun or should being boycotted? How about all those gun shops that don't allow concealed carry that we refuse to do business with? How about all those anti-gun gun shows that don't allow concealed carry of loaded firearms? Somebody is buying all their ammo and I am certainly it isn't the anti-gun people. Somebody is buying all their high cap guns as well at an alarming rate. Again, it isn't the antis.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old February 26, 2013, 11:00 AM   #19
Fishing_Cabin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 716
Willie, you bring up a strong point about the small vs large companies. Its good you bring up Barrett. Mr Barrett has been making a stand on any restrictions on sales of his .50BMG rifles. That's all well and good, right? Since we are talking about the law enforcement loophole though, it would seem odd (at least it does to me) that he still list the REC7 on his website, under the specifications tab, as
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barrett.net
Operation:

Gas Piston System
Semi-Automatic
Select Fire
http://barrett.net/firearms/rec7

knowing full well, that law enforcement and military are the only source of sales he could have in the USA for the select fire versions, since they are post '86 rifles. I would have more respect for Barrett's position if he was completely one way, or the other. No disrespect to Barrett, or other similar manufacturers who make select fire carbines, and standard semi-auto versions either. But I would think if they felt so strongly about closing any "loophole" they would discontinue these post 86 sales too.

Also, the argument about how firearms companies don't make any, or at least very little money off of the firearms is not entirely true. Many folks see one company or another offering to "give" the agency in question new firearms, in exchange for their old ones. Pretty typical. One thing most people forget when they look at this is that the price is lower anyway, since most of the law enforcement agencies are exempt from FET, which drops the price. Second is the customer-company relationship due to liability concerns, which keeps the agency buying any need spare parts from the manufacturer or returning the firearm to the manufacturer for service.

So, lets just compare this "free" gun in a quick way.

Ed's sales Glocks (individual officer price, agency is typically lower)
http://www.edspublicsafety.com/glockindividual.html
for $398.20. the used Glocks that get turned in and resold usually bring $325-$350 in my experience. So your looking at a spread of $73.20 on the high end, and $48.20 on the low end. If purchased from a law enforcement distributor, add in some extras purchased at the time, or new holsters, belts, mag pouches, etc that are typically tossed in when firearms are traded and it drops that spread down even more. So the "free" firearms, really are not "free" are they?

As to the actual size of the law enforcement market, it would vary, but lets just go to Wikipedia since its quick for a number.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
2008, state and local law enforcement agencies employed more than 1.1 million persons on a full-time basis, including about 765,000 sworn personnel (defined as those with general arrest powers). Agencies also employed approximately 100,000 part-time employees, including 44,000 sworn officers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enf..._United_States

so, they list 765,000 for full time, and another 44,000 for part time, sworn officers. That's 809,000, lets round it to 800,000 for an easy number, shall we? Also, since Wikipedia didn't mention some folks who are not always included in the law enforcement sworn personnel numbers, such as detention officers, corrections, and armed probation officers, its good to figure that the number may actually be a good big higher then 800,000 for the total number.

So to figure out market share, we have an 800,000 number right? Ok, lets say on the high end they all have 4 duty firearms, pistol, back-up, shotgun, carbine. So 4 times 800k is 3.2 million firearms at the higher end for law enforcement. So we have the high number of 3.2m if every officer has 4 firearms for duty use, and the low number of 800k if they just have the 1 pistol. Also, how often are firearms replaced in law enforcement? For quick figures, lets just say either 5 or 10 years. Agencies around the country buy firearms at various times, so lets get a yearly number.

800k firearms replaced every 5 years, is 160k firearms a year.
3.2m firearms replaced every 5 years, is 640k firearms a year.

800k firearms replaced every 10 years is 80k firearms a year purchased
3.2m firearms replaced every 10 years is 320k firearms a year purchased

So, by looking at the above, the 100k firearms to the law enforcement market isn't totally off, but could be low, or just an off year for purchases due to other budget issues. Its a smaller amount then typical public sales, but the difference is, is that its a fairly steady volume for the most part, year after year after year.
Fishing_Cabin is offline  
Old February 26, 2013, 11:10 AM   #20
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
One might wonder how many of these companies are still selling firearms and components to entire COUNTRIES who do not recognize their citizens rights to arm themselves...

Are we concerned about violating some law or legal principle that exists because it happens to be written down, or are we (and they) concerned about Rights?
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old February 26, 2013, 11:32 AM   #21
Fishing_Cabin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 716
Brian, you bring up an excellent point! It would be most interesting to see if these companies making these stands, enforce it to other countries they do business with as well. Otherwise, well, they are not actually taking a stand, are they?
Fishing_Cabin is offline  
Old February 26, 2013, 02:20 PM   #22
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,088
Quote:
You see, despite the fact that we have the numbers, buying power, and American spirit to do just about anything, as a group we are completely disorganized, not goal oriented, not disciplined, and so do not do a good job of accomplishing group goals. As such, we do not have the upper hand with manufacturers. We have the potential to have the upper hand with them, but that potential will remain unrealized until we actually organize and work in a unified, concerted, and consistent manner toward accomplishing specific goals.
As the OP here, I agree with that clarification.

Quote:
One might wonder how many of these companies are still selling firearms and components to entire COUNTRIES who do not recognize their citizens rights to arm themselves...

Are we concerned about violating some law or legal principle that exists because it happens to be written down, or are we (and they) concerned about Rights?
Few countries have our history, liberty, and the codification of gun rights that we have. I feel that protecting our own rights should come first. We can't lead anyone to the the light if we, ourselves are in the dark.

If there is great doubt that Glock USA would get on board here, then there is no hope for an international campaign. The same business interests that give us leverage here, would preclude such an effort abroad. The US stands alone in its civilian market for firearms.
maestro pistolero is online now  
Old February 26, 2013, 02:26 PM   #23
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
Few countries have our history, liberty, and the codification of gun rights that we have. I feel that protecting our own rights should come first. We can't lead anyone to the the light if we, ourselves are in the dark.
Perhaps so, but I'm pointing out that the decisions made are based on marketing assumptions and not on moral impetus.

Fact is, any number of laws as bad as, or worse, than the current crop have already been in effect, within our own borders, sometimes for decades, and few if any individuals and no company that I am aware of has ever bothered with such a "boycott".

This tells me that the companies are (still) making decisions based on the predicted response of their customer base and not on moral resolve.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old February 26, 2013, 02:42 PM   #24
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,276
Just my opinion the manufactures will do what ever helps their profit margins. If people are waiting for arms manufacturers to get concerned about peoples rights they will have a long wait. Arms manufacturers sell to countries with questionable human rights records and governments. If one stops supplying others will be queuing up to take their places. At the end of the day it all comes down to money like it or not.
manta49 is offline  
Old February 26, 2013, 03:27 PM   #25
Tickling
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 17, 2011
Posts: 181
Very informative post Fishing_Cabin,

Quote:
knowing full well, that law enforcement and military are the only source of sales he could have in the USA for the select fire versions, since they are post '86 rifles. I would have more respect for Barrett's position if he was completely one way, or the other.
In defense of Barrett, they sell to our military and those of quite a few other nations. I don't see a problem with the military having stuff I can't, they're not exactly campaigning against us either last time I checked.
Tickling is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14817 seconds with 9 queries