Politics, American Companies, and Gun Purchases

L

Leif

New member
Hello all,

Listening to reports about demonstrations against Caterpillar for supplying the Israeli government with bulldozers used in the demolition of the houses of suspected Palestinian terrorists made me think of a gun-related question.

What political or social considerations, aside from 2nd Amendment issues, influence your decision to purchase or not purchase firearms from American companies? Do they factor into your decision at all, or is it simply a particular company's stand on RKBA issues, such as Ruger's position on the now-defunct AWB or S&W's position on internal gun locks? For example, I remember reading somewhere (long since forgotten where, though) that the Israeli and Guatamalan armed forces used suppressed Ruger 10/22's in their internal 'difficulties.' Do issues like this figure into individual gun purchases? (Note: I'm not getting rid of my 10/22 because of this).

This question is motivated strictly by sociological curiousity, not out of desire to start any flame war; I'm not trolling. Thanks for the input.

Leif
 
Leif:

Myself? Other than 2nd ammendment issues, I don't make any distinctions other than price/quality ones. I tend to ignore political situations like you cite -- the manufacturers make firearms, which are tools. How those tools are used is up to the users of the tools, not the manufacturers of the tools.
 
Since Ruger doesn't make a suppressed 10/22, I don't think they're the ones responsible for selling those modified guns. (But they are responsible for the mag ban).

I really don't think there is much awareness of ANY gun companies directly involved in sordid issues. Without knowing that such things are going on, no one has anything to boycott.


Mainly, people protest S&W - one of our oldest US manufacturers - because of the agreement they signed to avoid lawsuits that would have ruined them. I think those people forget that S&W was only available to get stuck like that because they are an American company, rather than being able to hide across international borders.


I guess the question is: What companies are supplying death squads factory direct? If there is no answer, then it can't factor into people's buying decisions.
 
Handy: About S&W and the Clintonian sell-out (and yes, it was a sell-out), I had a thought on that. It seems to me that there are quite a number of traditional American companies that have moved large portions of their operations overseas for one reason or another. What kept S&W from doing the same? Saying S&W had no option in the matter really isn't true, they could have moved instead. Yes, it would have been expensive to do the move, but it would also have defused the lawsuits and they would potentially have gotten cheaper labor costs as well.
 
i try to avoid buying new guns. too many 'safety' features. which of course are installed for political reasons. any gun that comes with a key will not be coming home with me.

i shop used at gunshops and gunshows. only consideration there is quality and availability.

american gun companies truly are caught between a rock and a hard place. if they don't follow the 'political' guidelines they will go out of business. and then they get boycotted when they follow those guidelines. it's lose-lose from where i sit.

the gbmnt may not be able to outright ban guns, but it will force manufacturers to produce 'sterile' weapons. for civilians at least.
 
I give zero weight to political and social considerations.
I'll buy what I think is the right gun for the job.
But, I do like to kid some of my more conservative gun club buddies about their AK-47's.
 
GB,

How could S&W have afforded to both move and be sued at the same time?


I think it funny that you question their sense in staying in the US and employing US workers.
 
I have yet to buy a new one. In fact, my first new one will be the AR build I am working on. So politics don't really matter to me, as no money goes to the company.
 
Interesting posts so far. I'm also curious about the international community's views on American gun makers, so it would be interesting to hear from those "across the pond", so to speak.
 
Handy: About S&W and the Clintonian sell-out (and yes, it was a sell-out), I had a thought on that. It seems to me that there are quite a number of traditional American companies that have moved large portions of their operations overseas for one reason or another. What kept S&W from doing the same? Saying S&W had no option in the matter really isn't true, they could have moved instead. Yes, it would have been expensive to do the move, but it would also have defused the lawsuits and they would potentially have gotten cheaper labor costs as well.
Click to expand...

Moving overseas wouldn't stop the suits. As long as they sold in the US and the states, there would be jurisdiction to sue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top