OP started the thread about holding a grudge against a commercial enterprise. I still don't see where it's firearms based, it's an emotional argument about how we perceive business ethics.
Colt, S&W, Ruger? They do what they do to stay in business, it's been discussed in the past. When various states pass laws to restrict sales of various firearms or accessories there is usually call to boycott makers who still sell to LEO's - and in most cases, the makers line up to bid contracts regardless. In that light I think it would take some serious research to find a company that didn't "cross a line" - much less agree what it is.
I have no issue with closing a thread on a study on racial bias in shootings - sure, it's not firearms based to THR standards. I am perplexed why this one has gone 5 pages and been allowed to wander off in the rose garden from it's original intent - "how long to hold a grudge?"
How is that High Road in it's simplest thought?
Approaching the firearms industry with that pattern of thinking will eventually net you limited ownership of ANY firearm, or a lot of reconsideration why a business would make the decision in the first place. Seems a waste of time. Give it a few years and you find that a lot of companies reverse course - or offer the best product given the new circumstances. What do you do then if you need it, take second place and suffer from it's inherent flaws and unreliability? In firearms that's not a good decision when we hold to the absolute standard that it may mean life - or death.
If I found a Smith at a bargain price and I had the cash - or a high shelf Colt with two pin diameters - or a Ruger capable of only holding an 8 round mag - I suspect I would be trampled by the number of shooters climbing over me to buy it before I did.
There's the reality. All three companies are doing fine. Walmart is still getting my sporting goods money. I bought a IWB holster from Academy just the other day. Their actions don't determine my actions, I spend my money as best I see fit and try to disregard whether they made a political decision. I can't determine that from my vantage point, I wasn't in the conference room during the discussion and I will never know what was said by whom. What I do know is that my money is my "vote" on purchasing decisions and when a company decides it doesn't want my money, I go to somebody who does.
Hence the boring Brick and Mortar stores getting beat up carrying the same products thru national distribution chains who think they can control what we buy. Nope, not working. The internet has truly changed the playing field, not only with consumer buying power, but with access to information and news.
I really don't have much concern with what one company appears to have done - are we playing the same game as certain groups did with George Zimmerman and simply spinning a negative bias campaign? Unless you were in the room when the decision was made, you cannot know with any certainty why something happened. If you weren't at the scene of the shooting - sorry for the participants, but testimony is a peculiar thing, it has to be PROVEN and CORROBORATED by other witnesses. Often they don't even agree. There is NO instant answer or complete understanding of all the factors that contribute until a lot of investigation is done.
As far as I'm concerned S&W is doing fine. So is Colt or Ruger. Even Remington is getting it turned around. The decision makers are paid to think it thru and not run the company into the ground or they risk killing off the cash cows for short term greed. If they make a decision to get by and it slaps them in the face - they at least made a decision instead of doing nothing. They got slapped, they made a new decision, they moved on.
We need to do the same. It's called life.
