boycott Colt

"Funny, seemed like you had a very concrete interpretation of my post."

Yeah, I made a CHOICE about how to interpret your post.

God forbid anyone ever do that. :rolleyes:
 
Yorec,

Despite not being an economics professor, there is plenty of media, sales information and posts on this board to suggest that the S&W boycott did not work. The company is still in existance, the agreement still in place, and no one is talking about bankruptcy. The product line has actually expanded in that period.

The only people who "took it in the shorts" were probably the workers who were laid off. - That'll show those big wigs. ;)


So, I'll stick with my "boycotts don't work" theory, and you guys can continue to promote an ineffective campaign against a program that doesn't exist based on one television show, that was a repeat.


Mike - Nice try.
 
Now I'm European so I may understand it different to you guys, but I don't see anything wrong in a gun that will only fire when I hold it, instead of anyone else. I haven't seen the program so I don't know the whole story. But I really don't understand what the fuzz is all about
 
While I think smart gun technology isn't going to be something I think is useful, I see no reason in punishing a gun company from explorying that venue. Just because you don't like a particular aspect or product is not a reason to kiss off the whole company, even if it is Colt.

As Dfariswheel noted, the information is old. Maybe we should boycott people who are ignorant of what is or is not current and accurate information because they are just interested in effecting political changes they don't understand?
 
I've been boycotting Colt since 1970 when there piece of garbage M-16 almost cost me my life. There only product I have even touched in the last 30 + years is a friends antique Colt 45.
 
I've been boycotting Colt since 1970 when the piece of garbage must clean after five rounds jam "o" matic M-16 almost cost me my life. There only product I have even touched in the last 30 + years is a friends antique Colt 45.
 
The Colt Smart Gun was dead on arrival, and only a few prototypes were ever made.
Click to expand...
I wish my states legislature knew that. They still have legislation in effect to propose in the very near future a requirement that all hadguns sold in Md be a gun with smart technology.
Now I'm European so I may understand it different to you guys, but I don't see anything wrong in a gun that will only fire when I hold it, instead of anyone else. I haven't seen the program so I don't know the whole story. But I really don't understand what the fuzz is all about
Click to expand...
See what I mentioned above. If the federal government or a bunch of states require this techology on all handgus, then it would be just another step to abolishment of guns already owned, or a method of driving manufacturers out of buisiness.

I would personally like the smart gun if I ever carried (open or concealed), but I definetly do not like the political consequences of it. I like guns without safeties and internal gun locks for shooting at the range, but requiring all guns to be "smart guns" would limit my freedom of choice. (the requirement would be the next thing the government would do after the smart gun's inception because, they would claim that it was for our "safety". And then all guns may be banned because they will say that every gun is unsafe for us).
 
Now I'm European so I may understand it different to you guys, but I don't see anything wrong in a gun that will only fire when I hold it, instead of anyone else.
Click to expand...
Two problems:

First, the technology required to make it work is flawed at best, yet lawmakers want to mandate it as soon as there's a semi-working example.

Second, just because it's YOUR gun doesn't mean it will always be YOU firing it legitmately.

There may be more issues, but these are the two that get my attention.

Chris
 
Like a drop in the ocean, your "boycott" may make you feel better, but will affect nothing. If and when Colt comes out with a new model Python or other gun people like, there will be a backlog or orders, dispite all the whining on the forums about Colt, or the high prices they charge. Thats life. :p
 
I cannot reply to the political consequenses in the US as I don't live there.

That the technologi isn't working that well, well time can only make it better.

As it would be my gun, I really wouldn't like it that someone else would shoot it. Of course, now, sometimes, some friends shoot with it. But in reality you wouldn't like it if a stranger would shoot it. I always fear when I'm not home thjat someone would break in and takes my weapons away, even though there ae locked away safely.

I know I would feel bad knowing there is someone out there with my weapon.

Again, I live i Belgium, where rules are more strict
 
I know that folks are still getting grants to study the smart gun.

It is a complex issue and has been discussed previously. The issue breaks down as follows.

A. There is a felt need, independent of politics for smart guns. The reasons are that police shootings have a large proportion of shootings from being disarmed. Of course, one can argue that proper training prevents this but stuff happens. Quite near where we live, a SWAT officer was disarmed and killed and he was not a wussy by any means.

There is a small number of kids shooting themselves - although the number of actual occurrences is small.

Thus, a safe gun appeals to the cops.

Guns can be stolen also and it was thought that a safe gun would be useless or too much trouble for the average crook to disable.

B. Gun companies like Colt were stunned by the dominance of Glock in the police gun market. They were not competitive. The Colt 2000 was a big flop. Smith also had problems with the cop market - the Sigma was not a cop success. Given the disarming problem, it was thought that if a company could get a good safe gun out there, they could dominate the cop market.

Unfortunately, the guns didn't work or the base gun for the smart gun was crappy so no one wanted the gun period.

C. Some consumer research supposedly demonstrated that there were consumers that might buy a gun if it were a smart gun as they had fears about kids, being disarmed, thieves, etc. That would increase the market for guns. That is not a bad idea if the gun worked but interacts with my next point.

D. Antigunners saw the gun as a slippery slope attack on guns. They would mandate safety features that would make the gun too expensive for most, cast guns in a dangerous light and institute all kinds of controls on them. Thus the safe gun was just a move to make all guns evil and ban them.

Interestingly, some antis like the VPC didn't like safe guns because if they made the product safe, more people would buy them and that wasn't their agenda.

In any case, I know folks who have worked on it and moved on. The technology, ergonomics and tactical usage are so problematic that with current methods, it won't work. I think the Uncle Mike's finger print retention holster went nowhere fast.

In the abstract, a working safe gun is a reasonable consumer option. We buy guns and holster with varying degrees of safety features. The problem is the legislative process mandating that guns can only be safe guns and using such regulation as a slippery slope attack on all gun ownership.

Companies that made safe guns would be apriori evil if they used such a product to push to ban other options and mandate their usage.

Interestingly, bills mandating safe guns usually exempt the law as they don't want to go near that technology in its current form. They were the major selling point for the guns.
 
Boycott? Personal decision. You can always buy used, and get the same thing- if that's what you want. I'm kinda like Mike Irwin with my "passive boycott" of S&W... when they started putting handcuff locks, cap-gun gray cylinders, and Jimmy Neutron logos on their stuff- :barf:

I'd probably have bought a NRM Commander when they first came out- if I had only known the price was going up 40% in the next two years.
 
boycott

for the price colt charges for there handguns and rifles you think they are boycotting themselves.i looked at a lightweight defender 45 new the other day until i seen the price of 900 dollars while beside it a springfield compact for 550 dollars.look to be the same quality other than the name which makes colt higher but not necessary better.to sum them up they are a joke when it comes to price of there stuff but have good handguns.
 
I don't think a PR pee-on talking on TV is enough to make me boycott.
But they have done a few things that I don't really like.
 
Boycotting anything in today's world usually ends up not making a damn bit of difference to the maker or to public policy since too few people do it to amount to anything so I won't personally waste my time boycotting any manufacturer of any product.

However I certainly encourage those who do boycott because you are leaving a greater gun selection pool for me to choose from. Keep boycotting folks. :)
 
Nonetheless, the fact they enthusiastically embraced it, even if it is dead, is enough for me.
To me it's issues like this that gun owners get soft on that will one day indeed result in us losing our gun rights.
 
A> I'm not buying anything from them, but not because of any boycott. I just plain can't justify paying their prices. If they came down out of the stratosphere, I might consider them.

B> Smart Gun Technology: Too many holes in the technology for it to be viable anywhere in the near future. I don't mind them working on that, I do mind that taxpayer dollars are being spent on it -- meaning, you and I are footing the bill, like it or not. Even if they could get a reliable smart gun to work, there's still going to be issues: First, I am not interested in a gun that would necessarily require a battery in order to operate. I mean, PHOOEY on that idea. Next, the whole concept of smart gun technology is that a gun is tailored to 1 shooter and 1 shooter only. So, you are saying that my wife can't shoot my guns? What if I'm not there, and the house is invaded? Can I program it so that it would recognize a list of authorized people, like me and my wife? What if I wanted to lend my gun to somebody at the range, so that they could try it out? What about range rentals? What if I wanted to sell it? What if I wanted to buy one from a private party, or one that was used?

Nope, it just doesn't sound like a viable idea, once you get past the feel-good and down to practical reality.
 
Boss,

If I provided information showing that every gun company did some smart gun research, would you never buy a new gun again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top