Did Ruger buy their way out of being banned?

[Radagast]

TimSr:
Nah, he suffocated while swimming in his money bin when another trailer load of $100s were thrown in, landing on top of him.

Denis:
Have you considered that it really was Paul, but from the mirror universe, just like evil-Spock? He came over to deliberately break up the Beatles and succeeded.

dogtown tom:
You are correct, I was going from memory, which was obviously faulty. NSSF dropped Reed as managers of the SHOT Show as a result of their EBR ban at the ESOS.

NSSF Statement on Management of the SHOT Show
By: National Shooting Sports Foundation +
Posted: 5/10/13

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms industry, today announced that it has reached an agreement with Reed Exhibitions to terminate the agreement the parties had for the management of the SHOT Show. Accordingly, effective immediately, Reed Exhibitions will no longer be manager and producer of the SHOT Show.

Reed Exhibitions provided excellent service to NSSF and the customers of the SHOT Show for more than three decades, however, the company’s decision to restrict the sale of certain types of firearms this year at its consumer hunting and fishing show–an event unrelated to NSSF and the SHOT Show–was in conflict with NSSF’s mission to serve the shooting sports industry. As a result, both organizations decided it was in the best interest of the SHOT Show to end their relationship.

NSSF is actively engaged in the process of identifying a new show management company to manage and produce the SHOT Show beginning with the 2014 SHOT Show.

The SHOT Show–the Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade Show–is owned and sponsored by NSSF. It is the largest and most comprehensive trade show for all professionals involved with the shooting sports, hunting and law enforcement industries. The 2014 SHOT Show will be held Jan. 14-17 at the Sands Expo and Convention Center in Las Vegas

 

[Radagast]

FWIW the boycott of ESOS by vendors, which included the much maligned S&W as well as Ruger, killed the show. It was replaced by an NRA run show, the Great American Outdoors Show.
https://www.greatamericanoutdoorshow.org/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankmi...est-gun-show-says-about-america/#7f1bca616ec7

The original S&W boycott was strictly retail buyers refusing to purchase their products and was driven by sites such as THR. This boycott was vendor driven. The industry refused to go along with a restriction on their products.

 

[DPris]

Tim,
Very common misconception you share.
When you buy a new gun, you are not giving money to its maker.
Ruger got its money before the gun ever showed up at your friendly neighborhood gunshop.

Ruger sold it to a distributor, who then sold it to your dealer.

When you refuse to buy a new Ruger (the company) product because of Ruger (the man), you're hurting your local guy.
Ruger already has their money out of it.

Rad,
That's one of the more obscure theories, but certainly one to be considered.
It's generally discounted, however, by the assertion that Yoko was sent by extraterrestrial overlords to fulfill the mission of breaking up the Beatles, and we all know how well she succeeded.
Denis

 

[TimSr]

Tim,
Very common misconception you share.
When you buy a new gun, you are not giving money to its maker.
Ruger got its money before the gun ever showed up at your friendly neighborhood gunshop.

Ruger sold it to a distributor, who then sold it to your dealer.

When you refuse to buy a new Ruger (the company) product because of Ruger (the man), you're hurting your local guy.
Ruger already has their money out of it.

I don't think I share in any misconception unless you took my last post #50 as a serious statement of fact rather than the absurdity with which it was intended. I completely agree with your overview of how the marking works and that boycotting a gun mfg because of what company officer once stated makes about as much sense as boycotting Bob's Corner BP Gas Station because a company owned rig had a spill in the Gulf.

 

[DPris]

Then you have my apologies.
I apparently did misconstrue the misperception.

Not usually up this early.
Denis

 

[tipoc]

Very common misconception you share.
When you buy a new gun, you are not giving money to its maker.
Ruger got its money before the gun ever showed up at your friendly neighborhood gunshop.

Ruger sold it to a distributor, who then sold it to your dealer.

When you refuse to buy a new Ruger (the company) product because of Ruger (the man), you're hurting your local guy.
Ruger already has their money out of it.

Thus forcing the local guy to order fewer/or none of that targeted companies guns and eventually the distributor to follow suit. That tends to get the companies attention. It's in this way that consumer driven boycotts work. Successful ones leave a bad taste in the mouth and effect a companies bottom line for years. That was the case with the boycotts of Colt (over the "smart gun" and "gun nuts" comment) and Smith and Wesson (over the Clinton agreement). I don't recall there being a boycott of Ruger back then, don't think there ever has been. Bill Ruger was a leader of the NRA and substancial contributor to it for many decades.

tipoc

 

[DPris]

Yes, that's the way it works, but ONLY in volume.
The occasional "I ain't gonna buy cause they done pissed me off" doesn't hurt the maker in the slightest, affects the local dealer more, and shorts the non-buyer of a good product.

I was addressing the misconception of "giving" money to Ruger.
Denis

 

[shafter]

I don't know what Bill Ruger was up to way back when, but right now Ruger turns out a really decent AR at a good price. That tells me how they feel about AR-15's.