“Custom engrave”
Imagine your client has asked you to “custom engrave” the receiver of his rifle. You bid out the contract, and return to the customer with the estimates. He’s shocked to see how much more expensive the hand-engraving option is than acid etching. Explain to the customer, in detail, the difference between etching and engraving to help him understand the impact of each on the value of his gun.
Sample Solution
Generally speaking, there are two primary methods of custom engraving firearms – acid etching and hand engraving. While the difference between them may seem slight, each one has its own unique set of characteristics that makes it better suited for different applications.
Acid etching is a faster and less expensive way of adding designs to the surface of a gun. It involves using an acidic solution to “etch” into the metal which then creates an indentation which can be filled with paint or some other medium. This method is best used when only small amounts of detail are required; however it lacks the precision and intricate details that comes with hand engraving.
Hand engraving is a more time consuming process but produces higher quality results as well as offering much greater design flexibility when compared to acid etching. Here an artist uses specialized tools to “engrave” intricate designs directly onto firearm surfaces; this allows them create unique patterns & designs unlike anything achievable through any other means. As such – this type of custom engraving option holds significantly more value than etching in terms collectability & aesthetic appeal alike thus making it much sought after among enthusiasts (Stirling, 2020).
In conclusion – both techniques have their own advantages & disadvantages depending on application at hand - however due its superior quality & craftsmanship involved, hand engraving will always cost more than acid etching due labor intensive nature behind former. Therefore if the customer wishes to achieve the best possible outcome for his rifle then he should opt for latter option seeing as how price difference between both processes will not impact final result nearly as much either way.
such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportional, it will damage the whole population, an unintended consequence. More importantly, the soldiers must have the right intention in what they are going to achieve, sacrificing the costs to their actions. For example: if soldiers want to execute all prisoners of war, they must do it for the right intention and for a just cause, proportional to the harm done to them. This is supported by Vittola: ‘not always lawful to execute all combatants…we must take account… scale of the injury inflicted by the enemy.’ This is further supported by Frowe approach, which is a lot more moral than Vittola’s view but implies the same agendas: ‘can’t be punished simply for fighting.’ This means one cannot simply punish another because they have been a combatant. They must be treated as humanely as possible. However, the situation is escalated if killing them can lead to peace and security, within the interests of all parties.
Overall, jus in bello suggests in wars, harm can only be used against combatants, never against the innocent. But in the end, the aim is to establish peace and security within the commonwealth. As Vittola’s conclusion: ‘the pursuit of justice for which he fights and the defence of his homeland’ is what nations should be fighting for in wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332). Thus, although today’s world has developed, we can see not much different from the modernist accounts on warfare and the traditionists, giving another section of the theory of the just war. Nevertheless, we can still conclude that there cannot be o