Post your letter to S&W

[frye]

Here's mine, sent by e-mail and snail mail. Would like to read other's.

--------------------
March 20, 2000


Smith & Wesson
Ed Schultz, CEO & President
2100 Roosevelt Ave.
Springfield, MA 01102


Dear Mr. Schultz:

I am very distressed to hear about the deal struck between Smith & Wesson and the federal government.In your news release, you acknowledge that many people may not favor your decision in this case but that you had the interests of the employees and customers of Smith & Wesson at heart when making this
agreement. Without it, you say, your company was faced with financial ruin.

I can understand those concerns. However, it is immediately apparent upon reading the agreement that Smith & Wesson in the process seems to have acknowledged that its previous business practices were unethical. The provision entitled "Weapons Attractive to Criminals" simply further codifies a requirement to refrain from selling high capacity magazines, but the clear implication is that before Brady, Smith &
Wesson sold pistols with high capacity magazines that were "Weapons Attractive to Criminals".

It is impossible to escape the conclusion that Smith & Wesson has done itself more harm than good in the long run. You may have saved yourselves from the immediate costs of real and threatened lawsuit, but in doing so you have taken action that seems to vindicate the lawsuits' claims. Therefore, Smith & Wesson has made a de facto admission of unethical business practices, unsafe manufacturing and negligent distribution policy. If not, how do you justify or explain the necessity for changing those
practices? Do you truly believe that these acts will in the long run protect you from litigation?

You have asked the people to try and understand that Smith & Wesson has made a difficult decision necessary to protect its future financial viability. I now ask you to understand that I, and many customers like me, have made the difficult decision not to do business with your company any more. I cannot in good conscience do business with a company that succumbs to litigation blackmail that in turn serves to
threaten every other firearm manufacturer simply because your capitulation has lent credence to those blackmailers' claims.

I understand that Smith & Wesson will receive preferential treatment when being considered for government contracts. That is good. You may find that their business constitutes the bulk of you sales in the future. You must protect your interests, but we must protect ours.


Respectfully yours,

frye
--------------------

[This message has been edited by frye (edited March 20, 2000).]

 

[glockguy45]

Need to start on Glock, I posted a article under "say it aint so" Lets make their minds up for them.

 

[Futo Inu]

Let's see here. Another new catch phrase: "weapons attractive to criminals". I must file this in the "So what's it got to do with anything?" file, right along with a similar fraudulent catch phrase "sporting purpose". They are similar in that at first blush they sound good (i.e. firearms ought to have a "sporting purpose" and ought not be "attractive to criminals", right?), but upon closer inspection are meaningless shams that do nothing but cause us to take that first blindfolded giant leap down the slippery slope to usurpation of liberty. The second amendment has nothing to do with whether the arm in question has a "sporting purpose", and the same features which make a gun "attractive to criminals" are going to make them "attractive" to police and citizens as well. A gun that is built well for a particular purpose is going to serve that purpose well regardless who is using it. It so happens that the general purpose for which a firearm is built is to harm living things, regarding of whether the user is an LEO or citizen using the tool for a good purpose, by stopping a life-threatening attack by harming a living thing, or used by a criminal for an evil purpose, as a tool to facilitate the commission of any of numerous numerous crimes by harming or threatening to harm living things (in the case of criminals, always human - never heard of a crimanal robbing an animal). The same features that criminals want, police want (and in fact get), and citizens want as well, and this includes well-made, reliable, stealthy, durable, high-capacity, rapid-fire (yes, even full auto), powerful, etc. It's a sham argument to use a test such as "attractive to criminals", and whenever you hear it, I suggest that it should raise a red flag of "latent gun-banning agenda" as the real deal and ultimate consequence of using the test. This kind of rhetoric must be nipped in the bud before it becomes as accepted as "sporting purpose".

[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited March 20, 2000).]

 

[FNG]

Sir:
I wish to express my dissapointment and confusion concerning the recent response of S&W the HUD lawsuit. Many people in this nation, including myself, and most importantly my wife, depend upon quality S&W firearms to defend our very lives in these dangerous times. I am dissappointed that you have chosen to forfeit the civilian market in favor of the other agencies served by S&W. I'm confused that you would forfeit the reputation of dependability in the gravest extreme for the inevitable failure of the promises of "smart-gun" technology. We consider quality firearms manufacturers, like S&W, as essential partners in the defense of our lives and our liberties in this nation. Please reconsider this new policy direction and allow the nations firearms owners to rally in your defense against these spurios attacks. However; we will no longer support those companies that, by policy, equate the necessities of personal defense with the prevalence of criminal activity.
Sincerely, FNG
(just kidding)