Saf-T-Hammer = Nothing New = Same Old S&W
- Thread starter JohnKSa
- Start date
Boycott effect ?
In the audited financial statements included in the 8K filing, Smith & Wesson reported net sales of $70.7 million for the year ended April 28, 2001. This represents a $41.3 million reduction from the previous year. The decrease in sales is attributable to the adverse consumer reaction to the agreement signed with the federal government regarding firearms safety and distribution issues. For the year ended April 28, 2001, Smith & Wesson reported a net loss of $57.6 million versus a $200,000 loss in the previous year.
Fifty seven mil loss vs two tenths of a mil the year before.
Sam
In the audited financial statements included in the 8K filing, Smith & Wesson reported net sales of $70.7 million for the year ended April 28, 2001. This represents a $41.3 million reduction from the previous year. The decrease in sales is attributable to the adverse consumer reaction to the agreement signed with the federal government regarding firearms safety and distribution issues. For the year ended April 28, 2001, Smith & Wesson reported a net loss of $57.6 million versus a $200,000 loss in the previous year.
Fifty seven mil loss vs two tenths of a mil the year before.
Sam
JayCee,
Please re-read the post JohnKSa placed up the page. The points he makes are more relevant than all of your posts and mine put together.
The boycott is not passive. Look at the figures Sam listed.
We all have a choice. We can actively allow the agreement to flourish by purchasing from Smith, convincing them that they need not waste their money by going to court. Or we can actively protest their corporate position, refuse to give them our money, and e-mail them every time we buy a gun from a competitor.
I agree that active participation in government is necessary, but I will not ask my Congressman to let Smith off the hook until Smith asks to be let off the hook. They don't seem to give a fig about the agreement at this point.
Please re-read the post JohnKSa placed up the page. The points he makes are more relevant than all of your posts and mine put together.
The boycott is not passive. Look at the figures Sam listed.
We all have a choice. We can actively allow the agreement to flourish by purchasing from Smith, convincing them that they need not waste their money by going to court. Or we can actively protest their corporate position, refuse to give them our money, and e-mail them every time we buy a gun from a competitor.
I agree that active participation in government is necessary, but I will not ask my Congressman to let Smith off the hook until Smith asks to be let off the hook. They don't seem to give a fig about the agreement at this point.
So, we start with arguments that use the effectiveness of the boycott as a reason to stop the boycott.
When the flaw in the approach is pointed out, we move to questioning the effect of the boycott while still advocating the cessation of the boycott.
As if that weren't enough, we're given to believe that the REAL problem with the boycott is that it's TOO PASSIVE.
Give me a bloody break!
If it's having no effect and is too passive, what's the point of stopping?
Jaycee, your real name wouldn't happen to be Mitchell Saltz, Robert Scott, or Paul Cunningham, would it????
Feel free to respond, this is becoming humorous enough to be entertaining, for a change.
When the flaw in the approach is pointed out, we move to questioning the effect of the boycott while still advocating the cessation of the boycott.
As if that weren't enough, we're given to believe that the REAL problem with the boycott is that it's TOO PASSIVE.
Give me a bloody break!
If it's having no effect and is too passive, what's the point of stopping?
Jaycee, your real name wouldn't happen to be Mitchell Saltz, Robert Scott, or Paul Cunningham, would it????
Feel free to respond, this is becoming humorous enough to be entertaining, for a change.
Flawed reasoning, huh? I’ll show you an example of flawed reasoning.
THE GUN BUSINESS IS IN SERIOUS TROUBLE. Why? BECAUSE IT’S BECOMING SOCIALLY UNACCEPTABLE TO ENGAGE IN SHOOTING SPORTS! Gun owners are ostracized by the media. Hunting, which accounts for a large portion of the gun business, has declined significantly. The number of federally licensed firearms dealers has plummeted. Government regulation is increasing. Expect to see more bankruptcies in the gun trade as fewer and fewer people buy guns. And you want to put a gun manufacturer out of business????? That's flawed reasoning! Excuse me for not going along with your brilliant plan. As I said, I've got better things to do.
THE GUN BUSINESS IS IN SERIOUS TROUBLE. Why? BECAUSE IT’S BECOMING SOCIALLY UNACCEPTABLE TO ENGAGE IN SHOOTING SPORTS! Gun owners are ostracized by the media. Hunting, which accounts for a large portion of the gun business, has declined significantly. The number of federally licensed firearms dealers has plummeted. Government regulation is increasing. Expect to see more bankruptcies in the gun trade as fewer and fewer people buy guns. And you want to put a gun manufacturer out of business????? That's flawed reasoning! Excuse me for not going along with your brilliant plan. As I said, I've got better things to do.
At 09-02-2001 07:46 PM Jaycee wrote:
2 posts later, at 09-03-2001 12:22 AM, Jaycee wrote:
I like that! A man whose logic is as good as his word!
So, are we better off if all the gun manufacturers signed the agreement and stayed in business?
Or are we better off if S&W dies and no-one else signs?
Or is the 3rd alternative better? Safetyhammer gets the message, kills the agreement, and stays in business.
Questions, always questions!
2 posts later, at 09-03-2001 12:22 AM, Jaycee wrote:
I like that! A man whose logic is as good as his word!
So, are we better off if all the gun manufacturers signed the agreement and stayed in business?
Or are we better off if S&W dies and no-one else signs?
Or is the 3rd alternative better? Safetyhammer gets the message, kills the agreement, and stays in business.
Questions, always questions!
Originally posted by jaycee:
"Hunting has declined significantly." Wrong. Here are some facts:
Do you know why the # of FFL dealers has plummeted? It's not because of decreased demand- clinton was one of the best things to spark firearm sales in recent memory. FFL dealers dropped because of increased fees and zoning requirements. It became harder to be a firearms dealer, not harder to convince people to buy a gun.
Yes, sales were down in 2000 overall. Do you realize why this was? Hint: It had to do with a bunch of people buying weapons in 1999 for the Y2k scare. If you have a year where sales increase greatly due to a non-repeating event, when sales return to normal the next year, of course you're going to have a 'decline'.
Use the search function if you don't believe this. It was discussed when the stats came out.
And here's a few more thing to counter the chicken little attitude: We now have more activities than ever to get people into the shooting sports. IDPA, IPSC, Cowboy action shooting, Hi-power matches, the rise of the .50 bmg, Shall issue ccw in 34 states.
Every state that enacts shall-issue sees an increase in firearms business when people buy more concealable guns. Adults who never owned a gun but liked cowboy movies want to get into the act with SASS.
We have companies most people never heard of a few years ago making a big impact: Kel-tec, Kahr, Taurus with improved quality, CZ's being imported. And a little gun from croatia is giving glock something to think about. Plus more people are becomming C&R holders. Maybe S&W is selling fewer guns, but people are snapping up surplus makarovs left and right.
Who went bankrupt? Navegear, maker of the uber-junk tec pistol. As in any type of business, some companies will succeed while others fail. Bigger companies will buy smaller companies. Companies that make bad products will go under.
We have a diverse and strengthening firearms market. I see no need to sell out the entire marketplace and all gun owners just so we can help S&W stay in business.
Thanks for following through with flawed reasoning.
"Hunting has declined significantly." Wrong. Here are some facts:
According to dave watson's show on tnn, the number of hunters is actually on the rise again. More women are hunting. The attitude has gone from "we can't hurt the nice animals" to "we need to manage our wildlife properly" in the past decade. Despite PETA's best efforts, we're still winning this battle.
Do you know why the # of FFL dealers has plummeted? It's not because of decreased demand- clinton was one of the best things to spark firearm sales in recent memory. FFL dealers dropped because of increased fees and zoning requirements. It became harder to be a firearms dealer, not harder to convince people to buy a gun.
Yes, sales were down in 2000 overall. Do you realize why this was? Hint: It had to do with a bunch of people buying weapons in 1999 for the Y2k scare. If you have a year where sales increase greatly due to a non-repeating event, when sales return to normal the next year, of course you're going to have a 'decline'.
Use the search function if you don't believe this. It was discussed when the stats came out.
And here's a few more thing to counter the chicken little attitude: We now have more activities than ever to get people into the shooting sports. IDPA, IPSC, Cowboy action shooting, Hi-power matches, the rise of the .50 bmg, Shall issue ccw in 34 states.
Every state that enacts shall-issue sees an increase in firearms business when people buy more concealable guns. Adults who never owned a gun but liked cowboy movies want to get into the act with SASS.
We have companies most people never heard of a few years ago making a big impact: Kel-tec, Kahr, Taurus with improved quality, CZ's being imported. And a little gun from croatia is giving glock something to think about. Plus more people are becomming C&R holders. Maybe S&W is selling fewer guns, but people are snapping up surplus makarovs left and right.
Who went bankrupt? Navegear, maker of the uber-junk tec pistol. As in any type of business, some companies will succeed while others fail. Bigger companies will buy smaller companies. Companies that make bad products will go under.
We have a diverse and strengthening firearms market. I see no need to sell out the entire marketplace and all gun owners just so we can help S&W stay in business.
Uh-huh, and I’ve got a bridge in New York you might be interested in buying….
Your report comes from the year 1995. If you haven’t noticed, quite a lot has changed since then. Check out the following:
http://www.sixguns.com/bunkhouse/upto_us.htm
http://inq.philly.com/content/inquirer/2001/04/14/front_page/GUN14.htm
These are only two of many recent articles on the decline of the firearms business. If you don’t at least scratch your head thoughtfully after reading these articles, then allow me to make a few personal observations:
· I went to a small town school, and a recognized project for juniors and seniors in shop class was to refinish the stock on an old rifle or shotgun. Kids in the class would bring their .410s and .22s to school on the bus. Try doing this today! Students who are caught with even an inoffensive plastic table knife face expulsion.
· I grew up hunting and shooting. Today, when I ask my kids if they would like to go out to the ranch to do some target shooting or hunting, they usually have some excuse. They’re into mountain biking and kayaking. Shooting guns, much less killing some defenseless animal, just ain’t on their radar screen. Their friends feel the same way.
· Occasionally, before some parent will allow their child to visit my home, I am asked if I own any guns. What do I say? Even though my guns are in a safe and inaccessible to children, I generally answer in the negative, because these parents simply won’t permit their son or daughter to go to a house where guns are present, locked up or not. They even manage to mouth the word “gun” with distaste. Most of my gun owning friends don’t admit to gun ownership either. And we live in a state where gun ownership and hunting are still considered respectable pursuits.
· The Cub Scout pack to which my sons belong used to offer instruction for an activity pin in BB gun shooting. This has been discontinued because parents thought it sent the wrong message to the kids.
· My gun club has increased its dues twice in the last two years to counter the effects of declining membership. When I go shooting at the range, about all I see are white gentlemen in their fifties and sixties. I don’t remember the last time I saw a young person or a minority there. The only time I’ve seen a woman there in recent memory was when I took my wife. Even though the range has been in the same remote location for more than sixty years, newly-arrived residents in the vicinity would like to see it shut down for “safety” reasons.
What’s wrong with this picture? Have you had any similar experiences?
If alarm bells are not going off in your head by now, then, my friend, you’re in deep denial. You’re so convinced of the righteousness of your jihad against Smith & Wesson that you’ve tuned out anybody who has the audacity to advocate a contrary point of view. Like our British and Australian compatriots, you may wake up one day to discover that your rights, which you thought inviolable, mysteriously disappeared while you were distracted. Targeting a major gun manufacturer for ruin, without factoring in the larger forces at work here, is just plain irresponsible. This tactic might have worked fine in the ‘50’s, but we’re in a new century of political correctness now. Like cigarette smoking, gun ownership is becoming socially unacceptable. For the sake of your future as a gun owner, and for this nation’s right to keep and bear arms, you’d better learn to deal with that.
You insist that we should support a company that continues to spit on us because they might actually fold and no one will take their place.
That's like asking someone floating in a life raft in the middle of the Atlantic to drink salt water. I'll wait and see what tomorrow brings. It might be rain.
"Like cigarette smoking, gun ownership is becoming socially unacceptable. For the sake of your future as a gun owner, and for this nation’s right to keep and bear arms, you’d better learn to deal with that."
Sounds like you're making that problem worse.
Instead of lying to the parents of your chidren's friends, you should try setting them straight. Easy for me to say, my kids are grown. Still, owning guns is nothing to be ashamed of, and if they are that concerned about it, do you really want your kids being influenced by them?
I don't hide the fact that I own guns and have a carry permit. I have had interesting discussions with non-shooters on several ocasions. Sometimes I am pleasantly suprised at their attitudes, sometimes I am not. But I'm not in the closet, and I won't support a fascist attempt to regulate the market place.
That's like asking someone floating in a life raft in the middle of the Atlantic to drink salt water. I'll wait and see what tomorrow brings. It might be rain.
"Like cigarette smoking, gun ownership is becoming socially unacceptable. For the sake of your future as a gun owner, and for this nation’s right to keep and bear arms, you’d better learn to deal with that."
Sounds like you're making that problem worse.
Instead of lying to the parents of your chidren's friends, you should try setting them straight. Easy for me to say, my kids are grown. Still, owning guns is nothing to be ashamed of, and if they are that concerned about it, do you really want your kids being influenced by them?
I don't hide the fact that I own guns and have a carry permit. I have had interesting discussions with non-shooters on several ocasions. Sometimes I am pleasantly suprised at their attitudes, sometimes I am not. But I'm not in the closet, and I won't support a fascist attempt to regulate the market place.
NEWS FLASH!!!
True to his word and consistent in his logic, Jaycee asserts that folks who support boycotting S&W are asleep on the subject of the erosion of their 2A rights.
WOW!!!
Stay tuned, folks, more entertainment is sure to follow!
<exit right, laughing uproariously>
Well, it could be funny, if it weren't so serious. Words fail me.
True to his word and consistent in his logic, Jaycee asserts that folks who support boycotting S&W are asleep on the subject of the erosion of their 2A rights.
WOW!!!
Stay tuned, folks, more entertainment is sure to follow!
<exit right, laughing uproariously>
Well, it could be funny, if it weren't so serious. Words fail me.
Jaycee, after reading your last post (not the two posts you said would be your last, but the one after that), I can't see how any of those situations would be resolved by supporting a company that sells out gun owners and gun makers. A sellout that took place just because they were afraid of lawyers and the clinton administration.
What did the other gun makers do? They banded together to fight the lawsuits - and they've won them all - either the first time or on appeal. They lobbied state legislatures and had laws passed that protect them. What did S&W do? It cut a deal to cover their own butt, and solely their own butt. They didn't care about other gun makers or gun buyers. S&W could have used their position as a large employer and tax paying business in MA to lobby for a protection law in MA - but instead they signed an agreement that gave their guns 'special preference' with certain government agencies.
They took the 'easy' way out and left the others to fight and pay the price. Not only did they run from the battle, they gave aid and comfort to the enemy by providing a backdoor method to banning high-cap sales, 'assault weapon' sales, mandatory gun training, and more.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
-- Samuel Adams
What did the other gun makers do? They banded together to fight the lawsuits - and they've won them all - either the first time or on appeal. They lobbied state legislatures and had laws passed that protect them. What did S&W do? It cut a deal to cover their own butt, and solely their own butt. They didn't care about other gun makers or gun buyers. S&W could have used their position as a large employer and tax paying business in MA to lobby for a protection law in MA - but instead they signed an agreement that gave their guns 'special preference' with certain government agencies.
They took the 'easy' way out and left the others to fight and pay the price. Not only did they run from the battle, they gave aid and comfort to the enemy by providing a backdoor method to banning high-cap sales, 'assault weapon' sales, mandatory gun training, and more.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
-- Samuel Adams
Fight, along with the other parents of shooters, for the Boy Scouts shooting program.
Don't lie to your neighbors, give em little bits of truth; it might take on some of them.
So total sales are down....if SnW quits makin em that rewards the companies who had the guts to resist the government blackmail.
If Smith goes away, wasn't the grand ol company of yore anyway. Was the remains of an unprofitable division of a larger company bought up, with the help of an outside investor, by another company with no sales, no cash, nearly no stock value. A wedding of loosers. Meanwhile Taurus has surpassed SnW in quality and customer support and deserves to rise.
And High Standard is doin a good job of rising from the ashes of it's own downfall.
Sam
Don't lie to your neighbors, give em little bits of truth; it might take on some of them.
So total sales are down....if SnW quits makin em that rewards the companies who had the guts to resist the government blackmail.
If Smith goes away, wasn't the grand ol company of yore anyway. Was the remains of an unprofitable division of a larger company bought up, with the help of an outside investor, by another company with no sales, no cash, nearly no stock value. A wedding of loosers. Meanwhile Taurus has surpassed SnW in quality and customer support and deserves to rise.
And High Standard is doin a good job of rising from the ashes of it's own downfall.
Sam
Mike Irwin
Staff
Jaycee,
By the simple fact that ATF has a say into the operation of Smith & Wesson, through the oversight committe, DOES make S&W a direct extension of the Federal Gov't. Ergo, threat to our rights.
From the agreement regarding the oversight commission:
"d. One selected by ATF. First appointee to serve a five-year term."
A defacto agent of the United States government having direct say into how a privately held company conducts business in the United States.
For how that oversight committee can operate:
"The Oversight Commission, which will operate by majority vote, will be empowered to oversee the implementation of this Agreement. Its authorities will include but not be limited to the authority to (1) review the findings of ATF or the proofing entity that will oversee the design and safety requirements of Part I of this Agreement, (2) maintain records of firearms sold pursuant to the law enforcement exception, as set forth in Part I.B of this Agreement, (3) review the safety training materials and test set forth in Parts II.A. l .m-n of this Agreement, and (4) participate in the oversight of the distribution and sales provisions established in Part II of this Agreement as set forth in Parts II.A.2 and II.E.
Now, I'm not certain as to how you define the word "oversee," but would you care to take a guess as to how this oversight committe might define it? Are you willing to take the change that this oversight committe is going to be a paternal, non-reactionary group of individuals? Did you notice that the parties to the agreement that are ANTI-GUN far outnumber the parties who could be even remotely held to be pro gun?
You claim that the parties to this agreement can change it, and then you claim that boycotting S&W will do absolutely nothing.
If you'd have read the posts that I've been making on this subject, you'll see that the entire point of this boycott, from my point of view, is to GET SMITH & WESSON TO CHANGE THE AGREEMENT THROUGH ACTION ON THEIR PART.
As I have repeatedly stated, the primary role of a boycott is to effect change through financial force, whether it be in Ireland, Alabama, or India.
Sorry, Jaycee, your arguments just don't hold water.
By the simple fact that ATF has a say into the operation of Smith & Wesson, through the oversight committe, DOES make S&W a direct extension of the Federal Gov't. Ergo, threat to our rights.
From the agreement regarding the oversight commission:
"d. One selected by ATF. First appointee to serve a five-year term."
A defacto agent of the United States government having direct say into how a privately held company conducts business in the United States.
For how that oversight committee can operate:
"The Oversight Commission, which will operate by majority vote, will be empowered to oversee the implementation of this Agreement. Its authorities will include but not be limited to the authority to (1) review the findings of ATF or the proofing entity that will oversee the design and safety requirements of Part I of this Agreement, (2) maintain records of firearms sold pursuant to the law enforcement exception, as set forth in Part I.B of this Agreement, (3) review the safety training materials and test set forth in Parts II.A. l .m-n of this Agreement, and (4) participate in the oversight of the distribution and sales provisions established in Part II of this Agreement as set forth in Parts II.A.2 and II.E.
Now, I'm not certain as to how you define the word "oversee," but would you care to take a guess as to how this oversight committe might define it? Are you willing to take the change that this oversight committe is going to be a paternal, non-reactionary group of individuals? Did you notice that the parties to the agreement that are ANTI-GUN far outnumber the parties who could be even remotely held to be pro gun?
You claim that the parties to this agreement can change it, and then you claim that boycotting S&W will do absolutely nothing.
If you'd have read the posts that I've been making on this subject, you'll see that the entire point of this boycott, from my point of view, is to GET SMITH & WESSON TO CHANGE THE AGREEMENT THROUGH ACTION ON THEIR PART.
As I have repeatedly stated, the primary role of a boycott is to effect change through financial force, whether it be in Ireland, Alabama, or India.
Sorry, Jaycee, your arguments just don't hold water.
Mike Irwin
Staff
You're certainly not shooting at the right ranges, Jaycee.
Barring that, how about giving us some information on your range?
What area of the country is it located in?
What are the demographics of that area? Aging? Getting younger?
What has your club done to PROMOTE membership, or have, like many clubs, yours fallen into the "Cranky old boys club where no one but an old boy is made to feel welcome"?
What is the price structure for your club? Is it conducive for young people to join or, like many "Cranky old boys' clubs," is there an initiation fee, a joining fee, a membership fee, a range fee, a fee fee, adding up to thousands of dollars?
Quite frankly, many old clubs ARE dying. But does that mean that all clubs are dying, and that the sport is dying, as well? Not necessarily. I will admit that the shooting sports in general are in a decline.
But, quite a few other sports have also gone through declines, only to be rediscovered at later dates -- bicycling, motorcycling, and bowling come immediately to mind.
That said, let me recount my recent experience at the Bull Run Shooting Center from a few weeks back.
The vast majority of the people who were there were sub 35 y.o.a., and a considerable number of them were teenagers or younger, in the company of parents.
My experience is much the same at the NRA Range, and at Blue Ridge Arsenal (all three in Northern Virginia). A significant portion of the clientel is younger people.
While I recognize that the shooting sports are going through a period of decline right now, I also recognize that this is NOT necessarily the death knell that some believe it to be.
And, finally, I fail to see how agressively protecting our Second Amendment rights by attempting to force Smith & Wesson to change its participation in this agreeent is a danger to the overall viability of the shooting sports.
Active work to preserve a right is far better than hunkering down, crying that the sky is falling, and waiting for the perceived inevitable to come true.
Barring that, how about giving us some information on your range?
What area of the country is it located in?
What are the demographics of that area? Aging? Getting younger?
What has your club done to PROMOTE membership, or have, like many clubs, yours fallen into the "Cranky old boys club where no one but an old boy is made to feel welcome"?
What is the price structure for your club? Is it conducive for young people to join or, like many "Cranky old boys' clubs," is there an initiation fee, a joining fee, a membership fee, a range fee, a fee fee, adding up to thousands of dollars?
Quite frankly, many old clubs ARE dying. But does that mean that all clubs are dying, and that the sport is dying, as well? Not necessarily. I will admit that the shooting sports in general are in a decline.
But, quite a few other sports have also gone through declines, only to be rediscovered at later dates -- bicycling, motorcycling, and bowling come immediately to mind.
That said, let me recount my recent experience at the Bull Run Shooting Center from a few weeks back.
The vast majority of the people who were there were sub 35 y.o.a., and a considerable number of them were teenagers or younger, in the company of parents.
My experience is much the same at the NRA Range, and at Blue Ridge Arsenal (all three in Northern Virginia). A significant portion of the clientel is younger people.
While I recognize that the shooting sports are going through a period of decline right now, I also recognize that this is NOT necessarily the death knell that some believe it to be.
And, finally, I fail to see how agressively protecting our Second Amendment rights by attempting to force Smith & Wesson to change its participation in this agreeent is a danger to the overall viability of the shooting sports.
Active work to preserve a right is far better than hunkering down, crying that the sky is falling, and waiting for the perceived inevitable to come true.
You're right. However, my children's friendships would suffer if I get into it with their friends' ignorant parents, so right now, it's not worth it to me.
No, it's not, but it's nobody's business but my own.
Well, at least look at the links I noted. You might actually learn something.
Good point; I agree. They should have tried to hang in there longer than they did. However, from what I've read, the decision was 100% Ed Schultz's. Of course, he's gone now, and the company is still stuck with the results of his dubious conduct.
I did, but I was outvoted. No one else was in favor of continuing.
Well, I didn't really figure I would change anybody's mind, but at least I got to say what I think, and I thank y'all for listening. I'd been silent during this whole S&W debate, and finally just got tired of all the one-sidedness in the discussion. I hope the boycott accomplishes what you hope it will, but I hope you will also agree that it's not the only thing that needs to be done. I guess I'm passively boycotting S&W myself, since I haven't bought one of their products for quite some time. I'm now waiting on the first shipment of the new Sig P220ST in stainless steel.
Regards,
JayCee
What I hope the boycott will accomplish.
1. Gun makers will realize that American gun owners will not tolerate a manufacturer's participation in the erosion of gun owner's rights.
2. Gun makers will realize that American gun owners have a long memory.
3. Gun makers will realize that major mistakes in the area of gun owner's rights on their part will result in major and long lasting economic penalties.
If s&w can't figure that out before they go belly up, that's a shame. But, until someone publicly eats crow, my personal boycott isn't stopping.
I can and will go the rest of my life without ever purchasing another s&w product unless they recant.
However, my personal boycott will not adversely affect the gun industry as a whole. I still intend to spend the same amount of money as before--JUST NOT ON s&w products.
The money that s&w might have used to perpetuate its business will be used to strengthen other gun manufacturers who haven't tread on my rights. In fact, should s&w eventually go bankrupt, their tooling and manufacturing facilities and probably their skilled employees will be acquired at a bargain by one of the other gun makers in America.
So, to recap,
The boycott has weakened the agreement to the point that it is not performing as the signees had intended. This might make the agreement seem impotent, but if that is so, it is because of the boycott.
The boycott is not a passive action--it has definitely had an effect upon its intended target. To the point that certain un-named persons are in fear that it will go bankrupt.
The boycott is not injuring the gun industry as a whole because the money not going to s&w is not being directed OUT of the industry, just to other manufacturers WITHIN the industry.
1. Gun makers will realize that American gun owners will not tolerate a manufacturer's participation in the erosion of gun owner's rights.
2. Gun makers will realize that American gun owners have a long memory.
3. Gun makers will realize that major mistakes in the area of gun owner's rights on their part will result in major and long lasting economic penalties.
If s&w can't figure that out before they go belly up, that's a shame. But, until someone publicly eats crow, my personal boycott isn't stopping.
I can and will go the rest of my life without ever purchasing another s&w product unless they recant.
However, my personal boycott will not adversely affect the gun industry as a whole. I still intend to spend the same amount of money as before--JUST NOT ON s&w products.
The money that s&w might have used to perpetuate its business will be used to strengthen other gun manufacturers who haven't tread on my rights. In fact, should s&w eventually go bankrupt, their tooling and manufacturing facilities and probably their skilled employees will be acquired at a bargain by one of the other gun makers in America.
So, to recap,
The boycott has weakened the agreement to the point that it is not performing as the signees had intended. This might make the agreement seem impotent, but if that is so, it is because of the boycott.
The boycott is not a passive action--it has definitely had an effect upon its intended target. To the point that certain un-named persons are in fear that it will go bankrupt.
The boycott is not injuring the gun industry as a whole because the money not going to s&w is not being directed OUT of the industry, just to other manufacturers WITHIN the industry.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"I just got tired of the one-sidedness of the discussions."
Ye Gods, man, what posts have you been reading?
Go back through and do a search on "S&W" and "Agreement" and you'll have more sides to view than you can possibly handle.
Oh, and I'd still like to hear about your gun club, and why it's the poster child for the death of the firearms sports in this country.
You know, come to think of it, this "firearms sportsmanship is dying" has been played out once before in this country, and it led to the foundation of the Director of Civilian Marksmanship program.
Teddy Roosevelt was so appalled by the state of firearms knowledge & proficiency shown by new recruits who were answering the call for the Spanish American War that, when he became President, he instituted the program to stave off what he saw to be the loss of a cherished American birthright.
Ye Gods, man, what posts have you been reading?
Go back through and do a search on "S&W" and "Agreement" and you'll have more sides to view than you can possibly handle.
Oh, and I'd still like to hear about your gun club, and why it's the poster child for the death of the firearms sports in this country.
You know, come to think of it, this "firearms sportsmanship is dying" has been played out once before in this country, and it led to the foundation of the Director of Civilian Marksmanship program.
Teddy Roosevelt was so appalled by the state of firearms knowledge & proficiency shown by new recruits who were answering the call for the Spanish American War that, when he became President, he instituted the program to stave off what he saw to be the loss of a cherished American birthright.