S&W preemptively capitulated to the anti-gun jihadists' bullying tactics, and was indeed made an example of. The lesson was well learned, by not only the rest of the industry, but S&W itself. Learning that lesson has served S&W very well.
Well Mike, the next question is, has Smith and Wesson stuck to its side of the bargain? Lets look at what the bargain entailed,
Locking devices. Safety locking devices will be required for handguns and pistols, external locking devices within 60 days and internal locking devices within 24 months.
•Smart guns. Two percent of annual firearms revenues will be dedicated to the development of authorized user technology that can limit a gun's use to its proper owner. Authorized user technology will be included in all new firearm models within 36 months.
•Large capacity magazines. New firearms will not be able to accept ammunition magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds. The manufacture of such magazines has been prohibited since 1994.
•Safety testing and standards. All firearms are to be tested by ATF to ensure that they meet performance and safety standards such as drop tests.
•Other safety devices. Within one year, all pistols will have chamber load indictors to show that a pistol is loaded to prevent accidents, and magazine disconnectors will be available to customers within 12 months.
Cutting off dealers with disproportionate crime guns. Under the agreement, manufacturers will take action against dealers or distributors who sell disproportionate numbers of guns that turn up in crimes within three years of sale, including termination or suspension against the dealer or distributor.
•Gun shows. Authorized dealers cannot sell at gun shows unless every seller at the gun show conducts background checks.
•Ballistics testing. To help law enforcement trace guns used in crime when only the bullet or casing is recovered, ballistics fingerprints will be provided for all new firearms to ATF/FBI National Integrated Ballistics Identification Network within 6 months if technologically feasible.
•Safety training for purchasers. No sales will be made to dealers who do not require gun purchasers to demonstrate that they can safety handle and store firearms.
•Theft prevention. No sales will be made to dealers who do not implement a security plan to prevent gun theft.
•Weapons attractive to criminals. Authorized dealers and distributors will not sell large capacity ammunition magazines or semiautomatic assault weapons.
•Restrictions on multiple handgun sales. To deter illegal gun trafficking, dealers must agree to new limits on multiple handgun sales. All purchasers of multiple handguns can only take one handgun from the day of sale, the remainder 14 days later.
It's a perversion when a company is penalized for trying to save lives. Naturally, you support it.
What the company tried (very ineffectually) to save was it's bottom line, mistakenly believing that preemptive surrender was the way to do it. Naturally, I support their having received remedial instruction on the subject, which seems to have taken root quite well.
You don't believe that, Kurt. How in the world would adhering to that list provided by ssgmarkcr make them more money. No, as you well know, they "ineffectually" tried to implement some safety features that would save lives.
But, we're used to you pretending to believe one thing when it's obvious you couldn't possible.
I fear I must inform you, Mikeb, that your mindreading skills continue to suck. I do indeed believe that, and I am quite right in that belief.
With all the predatory lawsuits against the gun industry (this was long before the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act), and the climate of aggressive anti-gun legislation, the more cowardly in the industry bet on the wrong horse--believing that the "gun control" advocates would triumph over decency. They hoped to appease the enemy (the fanatically anti-gun Clinton regime), rather then even attempt to defeat them. Preemptive surrender was seen as the only hope of prosperity, perhaps even survival. Keep in mind that at the time of S&W's moral dissolution, the company was a subsidiary of the British-owned Tomkins PLC, so perhaps it's understandable that they so woefully underestimated the strength of will of America's gun culture
Remember also that as SSG has noted, S&W was counting on its thirty pieces of silver from Big Brother.
You characterize their intent as an attempt to "save lives." If, by that, you meant their corporate survival, you were right. Otherwise, not so much.
"On March 17, 2000, Smith & Wesson made an agreement with US President Bill Clinton under which it would implement changes in the design and distribution of its firearms in return for "preferred buying program" to offset the loss of revenue as a result of anticipated boycott."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson
So, S&W went into this back room deal with the government with their eyes wide open and received promises from the government that they wouldn't suffer financially from the expected boycott. And, as often happens when the government promises something, things didn't fare so well. The worth off the company plummeted, a wonderful example of a successful boycott. For an example of an unsuccessful boycott, one has but to look at the boycott of Kroger by the MOMs. Kroger's profits rose 22%.
To be clear, if this is "despicable bully tactics", then what does that mean for Moms Demand Action, given that their primary game plan thus far has been organizing boycotts against corporations?
Sandra, TS is pointing out the hypocrisy of this post by showing that MDA is using the same boycott tactic against businesses that don't agree to their demands to restrict lawful carry. The only real difference between the two is the boycott against Smith and Wesson was effective and successful as opposed to the MOMs boycott of Kroger being a dismal failure.
Some protests/boycotts succeed, some don't; and usually has nothing to do with the popularity, or not, of their cause. But it is free speech and should be protected, not called bullying. With all the BS that flies around (any issue) to say one group is more hypocritical than another is usually BS. There are hypocrites on both sides of the gun (any) issue.
So you contend that Moms Demand Action would be leaving these businesses alone if not for the Smith and Wesson boycott 15 years ago. Really? Has Shannon Watts ever mentioned this being payback for S&W?
No, what they do has nothing to do with S&W. You asked about bully tactics, which are the patented policy of gun rights fanaticism. The Moms are just giving them a taste of their own medicine.
TS, what the Moms do is called giving the gun rights fanatics a taste of their own medicine.
By bullying businesses that have no interest in the gun rights/"gun control" debate? Isn't that kinda like invading Iraq, because of a heinous act by (mostly) Saudis, staging out of Afghanistan? Yeah--that showed 'em.
I suppose you could say businesses that allow guns on their premises "have no interest in the gun rights/"gun control" debate," but I wouldn't put it like that. Businesses whose customers are on different sides of this issue are, whether they like it or not, involved.
Businesses whose customers are on different sides of this issue are, whether they like it or not, involved.
These businesses have customers on opposite sides of a great many issues, but no one is trying to conscript them as cannon fodder for those culture wars.
S&W preemptively capitulated to the anti-gun jihadists' bullying tactics, and was indeed made an example of. The lesson was well learned, by not only the rest of the industry, but S&W itself. Learning that lesson has served S&W very well.
ReplyDeleteIt's a perversion when a company is penalized for trying to save lives. Naturally, you support it.
DeleteWell Mike, the next question is, has Smith and Wesson stuck to its side of the bargain? Lets look at what the bargain entailed,
DeleteLocking devices. Safety locking devices will be required for handguns and pistols, external locking devices within 60 days and internal locking devices within 24 months.
•Smart guns. Two percent of annual firearms revenues will be dedicated to the development of authorized user technology that can limit a gun's use to its proper owner. Authorized user technology will be included in all new firearm models within 36 months.
•Large capacity magazines. New firearms will not be able to accept ammunition magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds. The manufacture of such magazines has been prohibited since 1994.
•Safety testing and standards. All firearms are to be tested by ATF to ensure that they meet performance and safety standards such as drop tests.
•Other safety devices. Within one year, all pistols will have chamber load indictors to show that a pistol is loaded to prevent accidents, and magazine disconnectors will be available to customers within 12 months.
Cutting off dealers with disproportionate crime guns. Under the agreement, manufacturers will take action against dealers or distributors who sell disproportionate numbers of guns that turn up in crimes within three years of sale, including termination or suspension against the dealer or distributor.
•Gun shows. Authorized dealers cannot sell at gun shows unless every seller at the gun show conducts background checks.
•Ballistics testing. To help law enforcement trace guns used in crime when only the bullet or casing is recovered, ballistics fingerprints will be provided for all new firearms to ATF/FBI National Integrated Ballistics Identification Network within 6 months if technologically feasible.
•Safety training for purchasers. No sales will be made to dealers who do not require gun purchasers to demonstrate that they can safety handle and store firearms.
•Theft prevention. No sales will be made to dealers who do not implement a security plan to prevent gun theft.
•Weapons attractive to criminals. Authorized dealers and distributors will not sell large capacity ammunition magazines or semiautomatic assault weapons.
•Restrictions on multiple handgun sales. To deter illegal gun trafficking, dealers must agree to new limits on multiple handgun sales. All purchasers of multiple handguns can only take one handgun from the day of sale, the remainder 14 days later.
http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000317_2.html
Shell we see if they kept to the agreement?
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Category4_750001_750051_757785_-1_757784_757784_image
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_783001_-1_757954_757781_757781_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y
So, the short answer is no. But then the government likely cut their losses first.
It's a perversion when a company is penalized for trying to save lives. Naturally, you support it.
DeleteWhat the company tried (very ineffectually) to save was it's bottom line, mistakenly believing that preemptive surrender was the way to do it. Naturally, I support their having received remedial instruction on the subject, which seems to have taken root quite well.
You don't believe that, Kurt. How in the world would adhering to that list provided by ssgmarkcr make them more money. No, as you well know, they "ineffectually" tried to implement some safety features that would save lives.
DeleteBut, we're used to you pretending to believe one thing when it's obvious you couldn't possible.
You don't believe that, Kurt.
DeleteI fear I must inform you, Mikeb, that your mindreading skills continue to suck. I do indeed believe that, and I am quite right in that belief.
With all the predatory lawsuits against the gun industry (this was long before the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act), and the climate of aggressive anti-gun legislation, the more cowardly in the industry bet on the wrong horse--believing that the "gun control" advocates would triumph over decency. They hoped to appease the enemy (the fanatically anti-gun Clinton regime), rather then even attempt to defeat them. Preemptive surrender was seen as the only hope of prosperity, perhaps even survival. Keep in mind that at the time of S&W's moral dissolution, the company was a subsidiary of the British-owned Tomkins PLC, so perhaps it's understandable that they so woefully underestimated the strength of will of America's gun culture
Remember also that as SSG has noted, S&W was counting on its thirty pieces of silver from Big Brother.
You characterize their intent as an attempt to "save lives." If, by that, you meant their corporate survival, you were right. Otherwise, not so much.
I apologize for questioning your sincerity. I'm convinced you really do believe what you said, as bizarre as it is.
DeleteI think S&W made a fleeting attempt to do the right thing and paid heavily for it.
I apologize for questioning your sincerity. I'm convinced you really do believe what you said . . .
DeleteWho are you,, and what have you done with the real Mikeb?
. . . as bizarre as it is.
I think S&W made a fleeting attempt to do the right thing and paid heavily for it.
Ah--there you are. Welcome back, Mikeb!
The NRA is a political organization. It stopped being a gun safety group decades ago.
ReplyDelete"On March 17, 2000, Smith & Wesson made an agreement with US President Bill Clinton under which it would implement changes in the design and distribution of its firearms in return for "preferred buying program" to offset the loss of revenue as a result of anticipated boycott."
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson
So, S&W went into this back room deal with the government with their eyes wide open and received promises from the government that they wouldn't suffer financially from the expected boycott.
And, as often happens when the government promises something, things didn't fare so well. The worth off the company plummeted, a wonderful example of a successful boycott.
For an example of an unsuccessful boycott, one has but to look at the boycott of Kroger by the MOMs. Kroger's profits rose 22%.
You should be ashamed of this.
DeleteYeah, SSG--this (whatever "this" is) is your fault ;-)!
DeleteTo be clear, if this is "despicable bully tactics", then what does that mean for Moms Demand Action, given that their primary game plan thus far has been organizing boycotts against corporations?
ReplyDeleteProtesting and/or boycotting a company is a bully tactic?
DeleteI guess the only right you want to defend is your right to own a gun.
Sandra, TS is pointing out the hypocrisy of this post by showing that MDA is using the same boycott tactic against businesses that don't agree to their demands to restrict lawful carry.
DeleteThe only real difference between the two is the boycott against Smith and Wesson was effective and successful as opposed to the MOMs boycott of Kroger being a dismal failure.
TS, what the Moms do is called giving the gun rights fanatics a taste of their own medicine.
DeleteSome protests/boycotts succeed, some don't; and usually has nothing to do with the popularity, or not, of their cause. But it is free speech and should be protected, not called bullying. With all the BS that flies around (any issue) to say one group is more hypocritical than another is usually BS. There are hypocrites on both sides of the gun (any) issue.
DeleteSo you contend that Moms Demand Action would be leaving these businesses alone if not for the Smith and Wesson boycott 15 years ago. Really? Has Shannon Watts ever mentioned this being payback for S&W?
DeleteNo, what they do has nothing to do with S&W. You asked about bully tactics, which are the patented policy of gun rights fanaticism. The Moms are just giving them a taste of their own medicine.
DeleteTS, what the Moms do is called giving the gun rights fanatics a taste of their own medicine.
DeleteBy bullying businesses that have no interest in the gun rights/"gun control" debate? Isn't that kinda like invading Iraq, because of a heinous act by (mostly) Saudis, staging out of Afghanistan? Yeah--that showed 'em.
I suppose you could say businesses that allow guns on their premises "have no interest in the gun rights/"gun control" debate," but I wouldn't put it like that. Businesses whose customers are on different sides of this issue are, whether they like it or not, involved.
DeleteBusinesses whose customers are on different sides of this issue are, whether they like it or not, involved.
DeleteThese businesses have customers on opposite sides of a great many issues, but no one is trying to conscript them as cannon fodder for those culture wars.