New Orleans ends hypocritical gun swap - rips off Glock
- Thread starter Morgan
- Start date
Interesting business tactic, eh? Take delivery and then suspend/cancel the contract in order to investigate if maybe there were contractual violations.
And, if the city does indeed investigate, they spend more tax monies....they like doing that anyway.
Bottomline...Morial got caught with his pants down, and its a tiny one
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
And, if the city does indeed investigate, they spend more tax monies....they like doing that anyway.
Bottomline...Morial got caught with his pants down, and its a tiny one
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
If the folks at Glock are as smart as I think they are, Their lawsuit is in the works already. Glock will no doubt win, New Orleans won't be able to send payment in the form of confiscated weopons and the taxpayers will end up paying the bill.
I think Morial better start looking for a new line of work, job security doesn't look so good in his present position.
I think Morial better start looking for a new line of work, job security doesn't look so good in his present position.
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
One thing puzzles me about all of this. If I had control of a gun company and was being sued by several cities, I would refuse to do any business with the agencies of those cities. Let them use what they already have. I think it is rather idiotic of Glock to be doing business with New Orleans in the first place.
Rob Pincus
New member
Let's think about that, SPartacus. Why should Glock not accept money from New Orleans? Under those rules of engagement, Atlanta should've refused to host the SHOT Show. But, of course, they accepted all the money that SHOT had to offer. Some of that money will be used int he law suit. Similarly, Glock (and other manufacturers) should take eveyr dime they can from the cities that are suing them.. not only to increase their resources to fight the suits, but also to build on the hypocriticalness of engaging in suits against the gun companies in the first place.
Stopping business would be a foolish act. On the slim chance that it stirred a few would-be Glock owners on the Police Department to action, they would be vastly outnumbered by the apathetic masses that would accept whatever gun they were handed and leave it embedded into their holsters after they qualified with it.
------------------
-Essayons
Stopping business would be a foolish act. On the slim chance that it stirred a few would-be Glock owners on the Police Department to action, they would be vastly outnumbered by the apathetic masses that would accept whatever gun they were handed and leave it embedded into their holsters after they qualified with it.
------------------
-Essayons
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
Rob, perhaps you are right in this. I have always had some difficulty with diplomacy and tact. But once, when my company was being sued, I informed opposing counsel that I was quite prepared to spend every dime I had on my lawyers. He found some excuse to withdraw as plaintiff's counsel. Win, lose, or draw...he was not getting a penny from me. Your mileage may vary
Ed Brunner
New member
There is ALWAYS a principle involved.
Does Glock continue to do business with New Orleans because it is "Money at all costs" or is it because they want the residents to have the best protection that money can buy?
Or is it some other principle altogether?
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed
Does Glock continue to do business with New Orleans because it is "Money at all costs" or is it because they want the residents to have the best protection that money can buy?
Or is it some other principle altogether?
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed