Assault on the Small Arms Industrial Base

Josey1

Assault on the Small Arms Industrial Base by Lawrence P. Farrell Jr. The U.S. defense industrial base-which our military services depend on to get their weapons and equipment-is composed of hundreds of industrial sectors. Some industries are healthier and wealthier than others, but all are equally important to the national security of the United States. Today, the vast majority of U.S. military weaponry is produced by private companies, because the United States made a decision decades ago to rely on contractors to make equipment, rather than (owing primarily to cost) have government-owned arsenals produce weapons. This arrangement has proved quite effective. For it to work, however, an industry that makes military equipment needs a robust market to support R&D and a warm production capability. If the market is small, or the requirements episodic, there is a danger that the United States may lose unique manufacturing capabilities that are no longer available in the public sector. A case in point is the small-arms industry. The small-arms sector is a critical component of the defense industrial base. These firms make products that are essential to our military. This industry is small and somewhat fragile. To maintain its robustness, it sells products both to the government and to commercial customers, such as sportsmen and gun enthusiasts. To survive, the industry needs to make commercial sales, which provide a cushion between military orders. This brings me to my key point. The small-arms industry has endured a series of unfair accusations from interest groups and politicians. In one case, incorrect assertions have been advanced, and false conclusions have been drawn based on shallow analysis. A recent example involves the .50 caliber sniper rifle. The manufacturer has been accused by the Violence Policy Center of providing these weapons to the Taliban. The accusations were endorsed by prominent congressmen and a U.S. Senator. I should point out that the .50 sniper rifle originally was a sporting rifle, and only later was it adapted for military use. Many of these rifles, which were purchased by the U.S. military, made their way to Afghanistan in the early 1980s to help the local mujahedeen fight the Soviet invaders. Some of those fighters later joined the Taliban regime and kept those weapons. Such turn of events can hardly be blamed on the manufacturer of the weapon. Certainly, the company never sold these rifles to the Taliban. The subject of this controversy was covered recently in the National Review online magazine by Dave Kopel, research director, Independence Institute, and Timothy Wheeler, from the Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership. "Gun banners are now rushing to demonize the latest politically incorrect sporting gun-the .50-caliber target rifle," said the article. The Violence Policy Center published a study saying that there is evidence that al Qaeda bought 25 Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifles in the late 1980s. But not mentioned is the fact that the United States was supporting Afghanistan's mujahedeen against the Soviets. The mujahedeen were America's allies then. The VPC made accusations without any basis in fact. The president of the company explained in the article that those rifles "were picked up by U.S. government trucks, shipped to U.S. government bases, and shipped to those Afghan freedom fighters." Kopel and Wheeler offer an interesting observation: "Imagine if, in 1951, at the height of the Korean War, a pressure group claimed that The Jones Corporation sold rifles to the Soviet Communists, while omitting the fact that the sale was actually to the United States government, which then shipped the guns to the Soviet army-in 1943, when the U.S. and U.S.S.R. were allies against Hitler." In a report, the General Accounting Office stated that the .50 caliber rifle has been used in criminal activity. This is untrue. A careful reading of the report reveals that certain groups have been documented to possess them, but no proof has been advanced to show evidence of use in a crime. As a result of the VPC report and a misuse of the GAO documents, several members of Congress have sponsored the "Military Sniper Weapon Regulation Act." Needless to say, while this action may well be part of another agenda, it is not supported by facts. John Burtt, spokesman for the Fifty Caliber Shooters Policy Institute, told National Review: "Knowledge developed through the civilian sport of .50-caliber long-range target shooting has played an important role in the development of .50-caliber rifles for military use. ... This is part of the broader pattern of the historical development of American firearms, in which the civilians and military users of firearms have worked together constructively, with important benefits to both the military and sport shooting." Gun-banning advocates such as the VPC have a right to fight for their cause, but they should not do so by making unsubstantiated claims against the companies that make the weapons. NDIA, to be sure, represents all sectors of industry-the small arms segment being just one of them. This sector particularly has had a tough time in recent years, as a result of declining sales and increasing number of lawsuits. The purpose of this column is not to take a position on gun control. Our goal is just to make sure that the industry remains viable so it can supply our military forces with the needed weapons. The industry's ability to make sales to commercial customers is critical for its survival. The type of smear campaign seen against the .50 caliber rifle is not only unfair, but it also opens the door for further attacks to other weapon manufacturers. We must not let that happen. We must learn the facts before we believe any accusations. http://nationaldefense.ndia.org/article.cfm?Id=712