Quantcast

How Long to Hold Grudge

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by nhcruffler, Jun 24, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    Oh, certainly. Maybe someone will build a system that you can bolt on to any gun you own, if YOU want one.

    (Then, if it's raining or snowing and your hunting rifle won't go off when you want to shoot at the buck of a lifetime -- or if someone stabs you and your hands are bloody and the system won't release so you can fire -- you won't have anyone to blame but you.)


    And hopefully no gun maker will start putting it on their guns as a standard thing.
     
  2. taliv

    taliv Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    25,967
    keep in mind once you put an electronic lock on the gun, the rest of their plan is super easy. adding a remote control for the lock is cheap and easy technically. so police or hackers could send a signal and disable all guns in an area. heck cities would just lock all guns by default, so as you're driving through memphis on the interstate your gun would lock itself and then unlock on the other side.

    of course, adding features to the electronics to do things like limit the rate of fire to a less scary number is also super easy. nobody needs to fire more than 1 round per second, or more than 10 rounds in 10 minutes. right?

    fortunately, making an electronic lock that is usable and enforceable is hard and expensive. i'm glad the NRA and everyone with any common sense is fighting against it.
     
  3. ljnowell

    ljnowell Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    6,201
    Location:
    The Peoples Republic of IL

    You seriously don't get it. It's not even worth attempting to explain.
     
  4. kkayser

    kkayser Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2012
    Messages:
    132
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    People generally obey laws that they agree with.
     
  5. Grumulkin

    Grumulkin Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Messages:
    2,879
    Location:
    Central Ohio
    I'm still holding a grudge against Smith & Wesson. The problem is that they now own Thompson/Center and I had many Thompson/Center products before their acquisition.

    You may also not be aware that Ruger did a similar betrayel years before Smith & Wesson did.

    Also, the owner of Cooper Firearms donated to Obama's campaign. Supposedly he then relinquished control of the company if you can believe that (I don't). Smith & Wesson, after their act of treason also claimed that the parties involved were no longer with the company.
     
  6. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,483
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Because that's the ONLY obvious conclusion.

    Anyone who's given the matter more than two seconds of serious consideration can see that a fingerprint reader on a self-defense firearm, which MUST work whether smeared with mud or blood, is a STUPID (if not outright MALICIOUS) "idea". Anybody who supports such inanity CLEARLY doesn't give a damn whether it costs somebody their life.
     
  7. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,483
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    I don't agree with the law against me shooting Tony Abbate, but I still obey it.
     
  8. kkayser

    kkayser Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2012
    Messages:
    132
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    I would like to buy a gun that only I could fire. What right am I compromising?

    I agree with Miranda. I despise jailing suspected terrorists without a trial. I think taking suspected terrorists out with drones is murder. I'm pro-choice. I agree with eliminating the waiting period. I agree with the exclusion rule. I do not think seizing property without conviction of a crime should be legal. I do not think that emptying a 17 round mag into the occupants of a car, after they have ceased to be a threat, should be legal. I think that everyone has a right to basic medical care. I collect social security. I use Medicare. I do not like it that LEO's can trample on our rights with almost total impunity, whenever they feel like it. I believe that giving up rights for "safety", is foolish and ineffective. I do not believe in torture for any reason. I believe that gun deaths are a problem, but the problem is not guns; it is drugs. Mass murders have been with us for a long time. Mass murders are not increasing; the reporting of mass murders is increasing.

    I don't think you will find much in the above that abridges anyone's rights.

    A while back I tried to exercise a constitutional right before an LEO. Owwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! I'll never do that again.
     
  9. aka108

    aka108 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,988
    Location:
    Tallahassee, FL
    I don't remember exactly when but it seemed that Ruger sort of rolled over a few times in the past also. I don't hold any grudges against the gun companies or GM and Chrysler for accepting govt bailouts. When survival is the main objective, cannibalism is acceptable.

    Now, so far as grudges go, when I was about 10 they was a guy who I damn well hated and the feelings were mutual. Today, 70 years later, if I ran across him I still take a swing and kick his ass.
     
  10. Tirod

    Tirod Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,839
    Location:
    SW MO
    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.
     
  11. Robert

    Robert Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Messages:
    12,199
    Location:
    Texan by birth, in Colorado cause I hate humidity
    This has wandered too far afield and really has nothing to do with the original premise of the thread.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice