We have the upper hand with manufacturers

Brian, you bring up an excellent point! It would be most interesting to see if these companies making these stands, enforce it to other countries they do business with as well. Otherwise, well, they are not actually taking a stand, are they?
 
You see, despite the fact that we have the numbers, buying power, and American spirit to do just about anything, as a group we are completely disorganized, not goal oriented, not disciplined, and so do not do a good job of accomplishing group goals. As such, we do not have the upper hand with manufacturers. We have the potential to have the upper hand with them, but that potential will remain unrealized until we actually organize and work in a unified, concerted, and consistent manner toward accomplishing specific goals.
Click to expand...
As the OP here, I agree with that clarification.

One might wonder how many of these companies are still selling firearms and components to entire COUNTRIES who do not recognize their citizens rights to arm themselves...

Are we concerned about violating some law or legal principle that exists because it happens to be written down, or are we (and they) concerned about Rights?
Click to expand...
Few countries have our history, liberty, and the codification of gun rights that we have. I feel that protecting our own rights should come first. We can't lead anyone to the the light if we, ourselves are in the dark.

If there is great doubt that Glock USA would get on board here, then there is no hope for an international campaign. The same business interests that give us leverage here, would preclude such an effort abroad. The US stands alone in its civilian market for firearms.
 
maestro pistolero said:
Few countries have our history, liberty, and the codification of gun rights that we have. I feel that protecting our own rights should come first. We can't lead anyone to the the light if we, ourselves are in the dark.
Click to expand...

Perhaps so, but I'm pointing out that the decisions made are based on marketing assumptions and not on moral impetus.

Fact is, any number of laws as bad as, or worse, than the current crop have already been in effect, within our own borders, sometimes for decades, and few if any individuals and no company that I am aware of has ever bothered with such a "boycott".

This tells me that the companies are (still) making decisions based on the predicted response of their customer base and not on moral resolve.
 
Just my opinion the manufactures will do what ever helps their profit margins. If people are waiting for arms manufacturers to get concerned about peoples rights they will have a long wait. Arms manufacturers sell to countries with questionable human rights records and governments. If one stops supplying others will be queuing up to take their places. At the end of the day it all comes down to money like it or not.
 
Very informative post Fishing_Cabin,

knowing full well, that law enforcement and military are the only source of sales he could have in the USA for the select fire versions, since they are post '86 rifles. I would have more respect for Barrett's position if he was completely one way, or the other.
Click to expand...

In defense of Barrett, they sell to our military and those of quite a few other nations. I don't see a problem with the military having stuff I can't, they're not exactly campaigning against us either last time I checked.
 
Just my opinion the manufactures will do what ever helps their profit margins


That's the only possible rational business decision.

Companies that are "reverse boycotting" places like NY LEO sales are doing so because they believe that the upside of the advertising will more than make up for the downside of lost sales (if in fact they ever did *any* sales to the places they are now boycotting, which in the case of firms like CTD is a pretty long stretch of the imagination). So for the main, it's a public relations gesture without any downside.

Even Olympic very likely had VERY small numbers going into official NY LEO sales, and as they can sell their entire production *with ease* elsewhere, a "reverse boycott" means nothing economically insofar as sales figures are concerned, and is huge free advertising to their primary consumer group.

if a reverse boycott means a total loss of revenue for a firm like Glock... it's not going to happen.


Here's the probability of a company taking part, rated from high to low:


Small manufacturer, individually owned by an entrepreneur, who can sell 100% of the production elsewhere.

Larger private US Owned Corporation, owned by a small group, with primary sales in the USA.

Larger publically owned US Corporation, with both a strong USA and strong International civil market, publically traded stock, and answerable to stockholders, IE: no longer purely answerable to an individual or small group of individuals.

International foreign-based corporation with strong sales in the LEO and/or military market both within the USA and overseas.


Bottom line is that individual decision makers not answerable to anyone but themselves can make decisions that are radical compared to a USA corporation than needs to answer to stockholders, with foreign owned corporations not having any dog in the fight except cash flow being at the bottom of the liklihood-tree.

So with Daniel Defense, Olympic, and Barrett at the top, Ruger third from bottom, and Glock and Beretta at the bottom... well... you're not gonna see Glock stop selling to NYC. Beretta is talking softly about Maryland, but that's for cost of business and liability reasons, not any loyalty to the RKBA political statement agenda.





Willie


.
 
I ma on the side of look at what sales the companies in this boycott are actually making. Most of them aren't doing any LEO sales. DOD is moving away from Beretta, although that will take some time, and otherwise I don't think they are used much at all by public agencies. I have never seen an officer carrying a Beretta.
Same with most of the AR manufacturers. THey never sold anything in a government contract to begin.

Even if they boycott directly, their distributors may not and there are other ways to get around it.

There are exceptions. Magpull probably sells a lot of accessories to LEAs, and refusing service to LAPD is pretty ballsy on Barrett's part.
 
Tickling said:
In defense of Barrett, they sell to our military and those of quite a few other nations. I don't see a problem with the military having stuff I can't, they're not exactly campaigning against us either last time I checked.
Click to expand...

I dont have a problem with the military having what they need. Nor do I have a problem with Barrett. I just find the difference in marketing between their select-fire firearms and others ironic is all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top