Talk:Daniel Defense

Washington Post story on campaign contributions
Washington Post has a good story on political campaign contributions by Daniels. It quotes experts saying that a major purpose of those contributions is to maintain the immunity of gun manufacturers from lawsuits when their guns are used to commit crimes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/27/texas-shooting-gun-manufacturer-donations/ Maker of rifle in Texas massacre is deep-pocketed GOP donor; Political contributions by the owners of Georgia-based Daniel Defense show the financial clout of the gun industry, even as NRA spending declines By Isaac Stanley-Becker Washington Post May 27, 2022

The owners of Daniel Defense, the manufacturer of the rifle apparently used in the massacre of 21 people at an elementary school in Uvalde, Tex., are deep-pocketed Republican donors, giving to candidates and committees at the federal and state level aligned against limits on access to assault rifles and other semiautomatic weapons.,,,

The owners of the Georgia-based company have donated more than $70,000 directly to GOP candidates for federal office this election cycle, according to a review of filings with the Federal Election Commission. Daniel Defense itself gave $100,000 last year to a PAC backing incumbent Republican senators....

[Access to politicians is] especially important for manufacturers in light of efforts to overcome the immunity granted by Congress to gun companies, which have traditionally shielded them from litigation when their products are used to commit crimes, said Donald P. Haider-Markel, a professor of political science at the University of Kansas.

--Nbauman (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Vegas Shooting
DD's connection to the shooting is that 4 (out of two dozen!) of the weapons used by the shooter was made by them. That is notable enough for a mention in the article. However, we don't know how many of the victims were killed by these specific rifles (or even if any were), how many shots were fired from them (the part I removed implies all 1000 shots were, which is almost certainly false). Let's keep the sensationalism out of here, with a link to the Vegas shooting article. Izzy Borden (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @Izzy Borden It might as well be the case that all 1000 shots were from DD guns. Look there is no need to speculate. We are only reporting the facts about his arsenal and casualties. The reader is not stupid. Please self revert. Venkat TL (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It might, and it might not. We don't write articles based on what "might" have been. We write articles about their subject, based on what reliable sources report. The subject here is DD. That its weapons were used in some high profile mass shootings is notable, so we note that fact. But the details of casualties belong in the Vegas shooting artilce, not here. Izzy Borden (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Izzy Borden you are using strawman here. Nowhere in the text that you removed, have I claimed that *ALL* those casualties are from DD gun. We are only reporting what reliable source said. Now if there are any other reasons to remove this please let me know. If not I will restore the wrongly removed content.
 * I have restored the content. AS noted above the word *ALL* that you are objecting to has not been used. Facts included are reliably sourced. Content related to Uvalde was needlessly removed even though it was not objected to.Venkat TL (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I can see you've restored the comment, despite me objecting to it, and explaining why. You also did so with a false edit summary that says 'Content related to Uvalde was needlessly removed even though it was not objected to" - when you know I objected to it. Neither of these things are acceptable behavior. My issue is not with "all"- but with the fact that this is not relevant to this article. Note that in the Robb school shooting section we also do not mention the number of victims, for similar reasons. Izzy Borden (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Notice the quote from today's NY Times. Venkat TL (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding this . I think with that source, an abbreviated version of what you added, sourced to the NYT story can be added. Izzy Borden (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Reversed policy on gun control
This story from the Washington Post shows how the dynamics of the gun industry push it towards more aggressive opposition to gun control (a point that has been made in many WP:RSs).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/05/29/uvalde-rifle-gunmaker-morality/ After another massacre, one gunmaker maintains a familiar silence Weapons made by Georgia-based Daniel Defense have turned up repeatedly in the arsenals of the nation’s mass shooters By Todd C. Frankel Washington Post May 29, 2022

But four years ago, Daniel, 59, admitted he’d gone too far.

In the wake of a different mass shooting at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Tex., where 26 people died, Daniel had backed a federal bill to strengthen the nation’s firearms background check system. The gunman in that tragedy had a record of domestic violence, which should have stopped him from buying his guns, including a Ruger semiautomatic rifle. But the charges hadn’t been logged in the correct database, so Congress passed a bill to fix the problem and then-President Donald Trump signed it into law.

Customers of Daniel Defense were outraged. They saw the bill as a Trojan horse for gun control. So Daniel backed down. In a Facebook post, he wrote that he could “no longer in good conscience put my support behind” the bill. And he vowed not to give an inch in the future.

--Nbauman (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2022
Remove the part about how these weapons were used in shootings. Do we mention how Ford cars were used in murders when cars plow through crowds of people? Nope. Jasonconaway (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Venkat TL (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Second paragraph needs rewritten
the paragraph beginning with "The company's flagship gun…" is either a run-on sentence or just unclear. It's not really discernible what the second half means. Nicfromthethrift (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)