NEW OWNER OF A S&W 952 9mm ! help ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wallew said it better then I could. Let's alienate other gun owners because they buy or own something that YOU don't approve of. Maybe they've got good reasons for making the purchases that they make. Even if they are bad reasons, they should be given the freedom to make those choices without the fear of being alienated by other gun owners.

Wallew, what was it that you said about 'divide & conquer'? Can you repeat it again for those that didn't hear it the first time?
 
feathers - If S&W supporters feel alienated, it's because the majority of the gun community sees the sanity in the boycott, and we just can't see eye to eye. The S&W supporters are clinging desperately to a once-loyal friend that unfortunately sold us out. I can understand their dismay because I'd hate it if my favorite gun company was about to go under, but I'd stand behind a boycott on Glock or Sig if they betrayed us the way S&W did. Pardon my audacity, but I think anyone that would buy a new S&W is selfish, and is only thinking of ONE person. Maybe S&W and their supporters deserve each other because they both seem to have an uncanny capacity for only thinking of themselves in their dealings. Sorry for the rant.
 
One last comment (by me) on this thread before Mal sends to the "locked thread abyss" where it probably rightfully belongs, since we are really accomplishing nothing with regards to the original intent. To critque of the relative merits of the 952.
To suggest that members with hold their comments regarding their out rage at Smith & Wesson on threads of this nature is misplaced at best. It would be no different than if a member were to endorce Al Gores candidacy in one of the gun specific forums and then demand the members confine their displeasure with that decision only in Legal & Political. We obviously cannot post in General that we are up set that chaho just bought a new Smith. Nor should we.
Please bear in mind that the members here all feel extremely passionate about our right to keep and bear arms. That is not to suggest that you, feathers and chaho do not hold those same feelings equally. However, many here, myself included (obviously) as well as those on other forums feel that the purchase of a new Smith under mines those rights. To ask that those persons simply remain quiet is naive to say the least. Gun owners, thankfully, are not prone to remaining quiet and demure when they feel their rights are threatened. It is the majority that feels that purchasing Smiths are a threat to those constitutional freedoms.
The fact is I am happy that chaho has found a gun that he is happy with and will be used to protect himself and his family. I, nor I dare say anyone here, would ever begrudge anyone that. But it is inescapbalbe that many of us feel it does under mine the RKBA. I did inventory two weeks ago and currently have 52 Smith & Wesson's in my current collection. Few here, if any, lement the demise of Smith any more than I. However, as ether stated the purchase of a new Smith would be, in my shared opinion, selfish.
This is simply one of those points in which we will all have to agree to disagree. But do not for one moment demand the members keep their opinions to themselves or take them else where. That is not the way RKBA folks act. Thank God.

------------------
Gunslinger

I was promised a Shortycicle and I want a Shortycicle!
 
S&W owners feel alienated because YOU are making them feel alienated. Threads about gays are quickly closed because "we don't want to alienated other gun owners" yet there doesn't seem to be a problem with alienating someone because they purchased a new S&W product.

A vote is a vote no matter where it comes from.

Wouldn't it be funny, in an ironic sort of way, if Bush lost by one state and he lost that state because new purchasers of S&W products felt alienated by the pro-gun community and decided to vote the other way?

As someone else already said, if Gore is elected, this S&W deal may look like a Sunday walk in the park.
 
And FUD - HCI started cheering before the ink in Ed Shultz's signature dried. They won this one - there ain't no two ways about it. S&W will either go under or will be forced to find new ways to eek out a living. Frankly, I don't think they'll survive once the terms of their agreement take effect. Either way though, HCI and every other anti scored their victory as soon as the agreement was made. You can throw all the money at S&W you want, but that won't undo S&W's defeat. As gun owners, we have to decide what we're going to do now. Are we going to try (in vain) to sustain S&W and show every other manufacturer that we'll support them too if they make the same deal? Or are we going to boycott S&W, let them go under, and solidify the gun industry and entire gun community as a result? Maybe some of you will begin to understand exactly what the agreement entails once it finally takes effect. Maybe only then you'll appreciate the need to stop a deal-making trend before it even starts. One can only hope....
 
feathers - If you want to vote for Gore in protest of the unfair treatment of S&W supporters, you go right ahead. Personally, I think you're reaching...
 
Feathers I have been called a hypocrite, a communist, and now selfish. You know what, I am going to cheer myself up and purchase a NEW 945. What do you think !
[Bandwidth robbing image removed by Staff]
NOW THATS SELFISH !

[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited October 17, 2000).]
 
ether, I understand very well what the agreement entails. I understand that new pistols will not accept pre-ban hi-cap mags and not to mention a whole host of "safety" features which will make their product very undesirable to me. As I said earlier, once the agreement fully kicks in, my favorite products will not longer be made :( This whole thing is sickening.
 
chaho - I think you'll do anything for some attention. I noticed you registered at the S&W forum. I think it's strange how you did not ask the same question there that you asked here and at GlockTalk. Why not? I'd think they'd be the ones to ask. Or is the topic not controversial enough over there?
 
ether, as a co-moderator in the S&W forum, I can tell you that the membership there is VERY upset about this agreement and what the future holds ... anger, confusion, disbelief, feelings of betrayal, etc.; are running high. To sum up my feelings ... love the product but not the company that makes them. FUD.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ether:
feathers - If S&W supporters feel alienated, it's because the majority of the gun community sees the sanity in the boycott, and we just can't see eye to eye. [/quote]

I doubt that the MAJORITY of gun owners in the US are even aware of the S&W agreement. Its just a relatively small part of gun owners -- enthusiasts -- who are concerned.

As for me: if S&W sells guns that have all kinds of weird safety features, that makes they hard to use, hard to conceal or hard to keep functioning, I won't buy them. If they have features and capabilities that are consistent with what I need or want,I'll buy them. Nobody's forcing me to buy something I don't need. And nobody's going to force me to NOT buy something I can afford and think is appropriate.

There's an awful lot of "My Way or Highway" thinking when the S&W agreement comes up...


As an aside: what would you have done, as a S&W senior exec faced with lawsuits, etc.?

Remember, as with any business, your obligation is NOT to American shooters, but to owners of your company, which includes hundreds of thousands of stockholders. (Now, I'll agree that you can really hurt yourself if you alienate your customer base...)

And I haven't met too many S&W supporters who have turned their back on S&W. Most of the vocal critics I've encountered don't own a S&W weapon. How many of you guys REALLY would've considered buying a S&W had this deal not come up? Damned near everybody I know -- except for a few revolver types -- shoot other brands.

I don't agree with what S&W did. They've taken a big gamble. They may have done something smart -- in terms of improving the company's chances to survive, or they may have stepped on their johnson. We'll see.
And if a Republican gets elected to office, we may see them backing away from that agreement.

In the meantime, if somebody else builds better guns than S&W,and you're in the market, buy them. Let the MARKET determine where S&W goes. Boycotts hurt the buyer as well as the seller.
 
Sorry, but I don't buy the LET THE MARKET DECIDE mentality. S&W betrayed its civilian market and the very 2nd amendment with it's dirty deal. At every gun store I go to, the S&W betrayal is hot conversation. I don't believe that its just a few "gun rights nuts" out there that's shutting down the market. It's everyone. You cannot make a deal to betray your customers and not expect to pay the ultimate penalty. Smith and Wesson must die. And they will.

------------------
NRA Life Member
GOA
GSSF
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Westtexas:
Sorry, but I don't buy the LET THE MARKET DECIDE mentality. S&W betrayed its civilian market and the very 2nd amendment with it's dirty deal. At every gun store I go to, the S&W betrayal is hot conversation. I don't believe that its just a few "gun rights nuts" out there that's shutting down the market. It's everyone. You cannot make a deal to betray your customers and not expect to pay the ultimate penalty. Smith and Wesson must die. And they will.

[/quote]

Most gun owners don't hang out in gun shops. Millions of Americans own guns; a relative (special) few hang out in gun shops
and argue about the S&W agreement.

While you say you disagree with letting the Market decide, that is, in effect, what you are advocating with a boycott. You're just going about it in a different way...
 
Okay Walt, I'll bite.

I had intended to buy a 642, a Tactical .45, and a 3913 prior to the agreement. I'd also planned on having the Peformance Center build a 3" M-66. So, there are four weapons right there that I didn't buy solely because of the ageement. My borther-in-law also intended to get a 642 and, possibly, a 3913, and didn't solely because of the agreement. Other people that I know (including a major *&* fan) have refused to purchase products based solely on the agreement. So, your attempt to paint us as ignorant of the virtues of great *&* is groundless.

As for what I would have done as a business exec, I sure as he!! wouldn't have alienated my customer base with a patently illegal agreement. I certainly would not have decided to give away the farm before the expensive portion of litigation (discovery) began. I certainly wouldn't have agreed to essentially admit that "safety gun" technology was not only feasible, but also capable of being developed in a relatively short-period of time and economical to produce and market. By the way, this will constitute an admission when the inevitable private lawsuits concerning defective design start flooding in, guaranteeing recoveries by plaintiffs. I certainly wouldn't have signed an agreement with the full knowledge of what the public reaction was going to be. I certainly wouldn't have signed an agreement where the other signatories had already indicated in public that they were unhappy with it and might not abide by it.

Is it any wonder that *&*'s own attorneys dropped them like a hot potato?

It's funny, but I gave up a career in federal law enforcement because I couldn't stand what it was doing to individual liberty. Yet so many gunowners could seemingly care less about liberty because they can't stand to be deprived of one brand. Amazing. Maybe we deserve to lose.
 
Walt and feathers have a very valid points. It was our government, our elected officials that came up with this agreement and presented it to S&W under the terms of ... if you don't sign, we will sue you out of business but if you do sign, we'll try to throw some additional business your way.

The goal of a company is to turn a profit for it's owners and not to defend our rights. If we weren't sleeping, the current administration would have never gotten into office and we wouldn't even be talking about this (or the ten round limit on magazines).

We can point fingers at S&W and say that they betrayed us and they can turn around and point fingers back at the American gun owners and say that we betrayed them by allowing the current administration to come into power and threaten to sue them out of business.

After all, our's is a government for the people by the people ... ultimately we have no one to blame but ourselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top