Vista Outdoor has announced that it has completed the sale of its firearm brands, Savage Arms and Stevens for $170 million.
Vista Outdoor Inc. announced today that it has completed the sale of the legal entity operating its Savage Arms and Stevens firearms brands to a financial buyer for a total purchase price of $170 million, comprised of $158 million paid at closing and $12 million to be paid upon maturity of a five-year seller note issued by the buyer to Vista Outdoor in connection with the transaction.
The sale is part of Vista Outdoor's previously announced transformation plan, which outlined the intent to reshape the company's portfolio by cutting costs, consolidating leadership, paying down debt, and divesting certain brands, including both its eyewear brands and firearms brands, in order to pursue growth in product categories where the company believes it can be market leaders. As the company now looks forward, the focus is on ammunition, hunting and shooting accessories, hydration bottles and packs, outdoor cooking products, and cycling/ski helmets and accessories.
"Divesting our Savage brand was a key aspect of our transformation plan," said Chris Metz, Chief Executive Officer of Vista Outdoor.
"While it was a difficult decision to sell such an iconic brand, I remain confident that this was the correct choice to help Vista Outdoor grow in those categories where we can have leadership positions. Savage is a fantastic business, and it deserves to continue to evolve into other firearms categories. At this time, however, we simply do not have the resources to transform Savage into the full-service firearms company that it deserves to be and, therefore, we determined the brand would be better off with a different owner. We're excited to see Savage reach its full potential under new ownership."
Shortly thereafter, REI announced that they will resume business and orders with Vista Outdoor brands Giro, Bell, CamelBak, Blackburn and Camp Chef.
REI: "Today, we notified our merchants that we will resume orders with Giro, Bell, CamelBak, Blackburn and Camp Chef on the news that their parent company, Vista Outdoor, has secured a buyer for Savage Arms.
REI orders of Vista-owned brands have been on hold since March 2018. At that time, Vista Outdoor chose not to engage in the national conversation about common-sense gun safety solutions that followed the tragic mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
REI does not sell guns or ammunition and does not oppose hunting or the Second Amendment, but we believe companies that profit directly from the sale of guns have a civic responsibility to engage in the national discussion about gun safety, as Dick’s Sporting Goods, Walmart, and others have done.
We understand and respect that our members and employees enjoy life outside in many ways—including hunting."
We previously reported that
Vista Outdoor was looking to sell off the Bell, Giro, and Blackburn brands. It now seems that may be much less of a priority as they are reportedly investing more into the brands and are looking to retain them for at least the near future.
"Gun Control" It's like cutting your balls off because your neighbor has too many kids.
Truly, to each their own. I like my firearms, but I don't expect everyone to feel that way, just quit bugging me about 'gun control' my gun is under control thanks. How about some degenerate control? Peace out, and send it!
Guns are just tools, powerful tools but they can't kill without an operator! People are the problem.
You're way more likely to blow your own face off because you flopped into bed and set off the hand gun under your pillow that has one in the chamber with the safety off, modded for a hair trigger so you could be ready to deal with those imagined "gang-bangers and lunatics run[ning] wild", than you are actually encountering those imagined baddies.
Your physical harm mitigation strategy (owning a firearm) is based on bad information and you have come to the incorrect conclusion as to what will actually make you safer.
The problem is cultural.
You can safely carry a loaded pistol, leave it on your night stand, keep it locked up so your kids can't touch it, etc, and still be able to protect yourself in the event that you need it.
I believe it is a complex debate and one that is not as simple as saying yes or no to guns- because there are now so many in circulation. We control who drinks alcohol, who drives cars, who crosses borders etc. but are emotionally attached to not controlling who gets a device designed exclusively to kill? Gun control can be a lot of things and isn't always "they are taking my guns away!"
As someone who works in the mental health field I also grow tired of the "we need more mental health support and less gun control" or "keep the guns from the crazies." What would that look like? Anyone who has endorsed a major depressive episode or mood disorder as defined by the DSM V no longer could have access? Because that would a) stop people from endorsing illness and receiving treatment for fears of losing freedom and b) exclude most of the population as "mental health", like physical health, is fluid and most people throughout their life times have moments where they have concerns but don't characterize their global presentation over time.
More guns increase the likelihood of improper gun use but determining how guns are controlled or how to solve the concern of so many firearms currently in the hands of all sorts of people (moral, amoral, or the 99.999999 that live in-between) is no easy task- especially with everyone so sensitive to talk about it. Biking is fun but losing people we care about is the worst. Gun control is a powerful topic because people die by guns, and could easily die by guns, and depending on the political party that energy is spun over a particular moral slider to help their outcomes and continue to stop meaningful discussion. We all want the opportunity to live a happy life without the fear of a bullet in our heads.
Or maybe some gun owners are stupid (the same way some people are stupid when you look at any sub-population) and do stupid things and we can't rely on them to make smart/responsible decisions.
Now if only there were some mechanism of incentivizing people to engage/disengage from behaviors that would reduce the harm they do to themselves and society at large. Oh well, guess we should do nothing.
And like you said, painting it as an entirely mental health issue is just increasing the incidence of people shying away from getting the help they need. I don't have a fix, but I sure as hell would start with cleaning up the streets.
@Mntneer : but these areas are already heavily regulated, and for a good reason.
You don't need everyone to do the dumb thing to make a law to stop people doing the dumb thing.
Just because a minute percentage of the gun owners in America do terrible or dumb things doesn't mean that we need excessive control.
If you don't wish for a broad ban on guns, then go ahead and expound upon your point. What sort of gun control would prevent someone from accidentally shooting themselves or someone else? Do you think that a lack of gun would prevent someone from committing suicide? What is your opinion on the state of knife control in the UK?
You can't have gun control without someone monopolizing violence to enforce gun control. For those that say "what are you going to do against a government army with your small arms", look at the Afghanistan and Vietnam wars.
Tens of thousands of pages! oh my gosh, that is a big number. Big numbers mean a lot. QED there already is a lot of regulation. Nothing to do here, we already have a lot of regulation because the number of pages is large.
What you characterized as a minute percentage of gun owners doing dumb things means 40,000 gun deaths in the US annually. Its the second leading cause of death for children. So please stop trying to minimize this.
I don't advocate for a broad ban on guns thanks for asking. I am advocating for some sensible gun control. Things like, safe storage laws, waiting periods, universal background checks. Here is a link to help you find some other stuff i'm talking about. lmgtfy.com/?q=sensible+gun+control.
Another way is what is called the non-aggression principle. If someone is doing something you don't like, but you don't incur any actual damages, then its not a great idea to try and make a law against it. Don't like homosexuality? Fine, but trying to make it illegal isn't going to be successful. Don't like someone dumping trash+waste in a river? Well it hurts people when you do pollute like that, so passing a law is probably going to be more successful and easier to write without the bill being 10,000 pages long. Me owning a shaped piece of metal harms no one. If someone else owns a similarly shaped piece of metal and uses it to commit violence, then THAT person is guilty and laws can deal with him, not me. Trying to regulate my behavior, which has harmed no one, based on the actions of others, is going to fail. Look at the automatic weapon buy-back program New Zealand is trying. Its had less than a 2% compliance rate, despite being law.
The basis of your argument is "I am a good person therefore laws should not exist" that's what it is if you strip it back and take it to it's logical conclusions. Read Steven Pinker, the reason people are safe and violence is decreasing is because laws exist. The US is married to guns for some reason, and it's so deeply entrenched in the culture that people espouse these insane arguments like "Me owning a shaped piece of metal harms no one", "it's just a tool for a job" and "if it was legal to kill someone then most places wont see an increase". My friend, people would put a bullet in your head for minor road rage that scenario... Imagine pairing that with the US laws on firing someone without cause.. "You're fired" bang, dead. Especially if your livelihood depends on it.
I also find it funny that using an argument like 'non-aggression principle' for an item that was literally only designed to kill things aggressively, is insane. Being gay is not the same as owning a gun and I can't believe I have to type that.
Similar but more egregious for firearm regulations- laws like safe storage, waiting periods, and govt recorded background checks are great for the books yet horrible for policy. The psycho that spends months planning a mass murder while not deterred by life in prison, is not going to drop all plans by deterrence of 1-5 years in prison. Ask california, we have the craziest regulations and still see San Bern/Youtube/Thousand Oaks/Norcal Rampage... on top of the large growth of black market/govt corruption (selling illegal arms). Or as Hamilton put it in the fed papers, "[possession] will be a more certain method of preventing its[evil] existence than a thousand prohibitions on paper."
Tbh came here cause the newsletter sounded more like a business decision than political; or a win-win, vista gets political applause while Savage gets the background thats more focused on their goals... But the article didn't come off as pro or anti firearm politics...
Lets also look at your example of places like Britan- homicide & violent crimes are on the rise, specifically knife violence. Politicians are calling for knife bans, and some parts of London are banning knives. In that country, where banning guns was actually feasible, criminals just substituted one weapon/tool for another. Banning guns has done nothing to the overal homicide rate.
Finally, tell me- how is it moral to incarcerate me for owning a shaped piece of metal when I have harmed no other person justifiable? I used the gay anaology because 30 years ago people wanted (and did) lock up homosexuals because they "harmed society", just like you think me owning a shaped piece of metal "harms society".
There is no legitimate reason to use guns other than to kill, practice to kill, or plan for killing.
I commend REI and others for making this tough financial and very political choice.
... and if you cut off your balz, at least you won't make any more who think like you. I'm only part jokiing.
Oddly, I just had a conversation with a Canadiam about American's and their worship of guns, his take was "American's are nutz for having guns cuz guns are only good for one thing: killing". Are you really Canadian?
Couldnt agree more but without gun control how do u keep said people from obtaining guns?
You can kill someone with a bike if you try hard enough, but that's not what it's designed for.
@rivercitycycles: You can kill someone with a car, but that's not what it's designed for.
I won't go on any further.
Secondly, show me the data because what you are saying does not compute. The per 100,000 people intentional homicide rate (total, not gun) in the UK is 1.2, in the US it is 5.35, over 4 times that of the UK. Riddle me that Mr "criminals just substituted one weapon/tool for another". And guns account for a large proportion of those US homicides.
You are taking all of this gun control way out of context. It is about an effective control of guns and firearm ownership for the safety of others. It's not about making all guns illegal.
I'm not sure what you want me to say about China mate, many countries have committed atrocities against their own people and having a rifle in the house isn't going to stop that happening, but I get that it might feel better that you tried to stand up against it. I could flip it around and say that the constant massacres of innocent children by insane gun owners alone is enough to show the need for effective gun regulation, and low and behold if guns are regulated, then you can still own one to defend yourself from the government.
Also " As the company now looks forward, the focus is on ammunition" f*ck this company
You know, just like biking, shooting is a sport and has competitions and enthusiasts also...
Same as you guys are not allowed to drink before 21. Because some people are to dumb to behave well. Or you are not allowed to drive 100mph. Because not all drivers are capable of deciding when it is safe to do so.
In many places we accept the fact that our freedoms are curtailed because of general safety. Only when it comes to guns people go up in arms about them (in the USA, here in Australia and now NZ we do pretty fine)
A lot of Americans have never lived outside a gun savvy country and do not get the fact that if no-one has guns you don't need guns for protection, there is nothing to protect against. The other guy doesn't have gun either.
You can have a gun for sport shooting or hunting... with the right papers and not semi automatic assault rifles. Because it only takes one small caliber bullit/hail to kill a duck
www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/09/london-mayor-knife-control/500328002
Tell Afganistan & Vietnam that individually owned firearms can't stand up to large governments. Also ask the colonials living in New England in 1776.
" It is about an effective control of guns and firearm ownership for the safety of others" So, where you do draw the line? At what point is my piece of metal no longer shaped for your standards, and must be confiscated? How are you going to confiscate weapons without using weapons? What agents will you use to take my property? In my state, Utah, the #1 cause of homicide is being killed by an intimate partner. The #2 is being shot by a police officer. If you're a young black kid in a major city anywhere in the USA its just as bad. I should surrender my ability to defend myself to appease your misguided beliefs, and trust police?
Unfortunately, this is far from a perfect society that we live in, and I do make conscious choices to put myself in places where having a sufficient weapon is a practically necessary.
If people proposed more stringent vetting processes and longer wait periods, that would be fine with me. If people propose that certain types of weapons and accessories are banned based on a small percentage of incidents that aren't representative of the majority of the sample population, I will of course reject those broad bans.
I thought you were serious but seeing as you brought up US independence with a straight face I now see you're a pro-league troll. I'm lucky I could type this because my eyes rolled so far into the back of my head.
Good night.
Guns are tools. Tools designed to kill whatever they are fired at. Some of these "military style" tools fire at a rate of over 600 rounds per minute - vastly beyond what a person would need to hunt with. They are designed only for violence and have no safe place in society.
You've said it best
True story.
I'll give you my responses from then because they are exactly as relevant now as then
@CaliCol: lol. I went to bed. Get a life dude.
and for your inevitable follow up
@CaliCol: lol, GFY
www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2013/05/SDT-2013-05-gun-crime-2-1.png
It doesn't go all the way to 2019, but its true in the past two years (ish) there has been a slight rise against a lowering trend. However, this is almost entirely explained by suicide, no violent crime.
At the end of the day, more restrictive gun laws are going to mean there needs to be more security provided by the government, which is never going to happen when the same political faction pushing for tighter gun restrictions for law abiding citizens also believes in open borders.
Again, didnt come here for politics tho haha but dont mind the convo ha
In one of your previous posts you say that in your state of Utah that:
“#1cause of homicide is being killed by an intimate partner.
#2 is being shot by a police officer.”
Some of the controls I mention above would help with these. Not having guns readily accessible in places like night stands and glove boxes as I mentioned in my original post would decrease these instances. With my luck if I had left a loaded gun in a nightstand I would have blower a finger off reaching for a rubber. Fortunately now I’m married with young kids in the house and want my guns in safe unless I’m going to range or hunting. If you think you need a 40 round magazine to protect yourself from your intimate partner you need to stop typing in the PinkBike comments sections and get out of that relationship as fast as possible.
is a good use of a gun.
Thanks IFHT!
Has to be a person to push or pull.
also, you need to look up the definition of mass shootings. CNN and other mass media try to give bad labels and exploit shooting and cop shootings, ect... Without using the google most people can't even name on two hands the names of the mass shootings.
And if it hasn't been said. guns SAVE way more lives then they take. Every day people protect themselves that you never hear about. And finally, it is a natual right to protect yourself and no one can take that right away. If I chose a gun (doesnt matter the type) to protect myself no one can take that away
www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/q_-mrGmyXalyMgMpa1ciUlHQGfc=/1484x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/RYTW636C3BEE5AF3AQOEVXKTBQ.jpg
And again if you want to control for population:
www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/1M_mx787cdCYfR6kjSaHyT-T0ao=/1484x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/3XXFPJ6PTFCRXEKRFLB2F37ZSM.jpg
In fact, globally, homicide and violent crime is trending downwards, and despite the recent wars in the mideast Homicide as a percentage of population might the the lowest its been ever in human history:
humanprogress.org/article.php?p=334
Sigh. This is the argument I hear endlessly from people who have no valid defense of the bullshit they support. Trump is an unhinged grandpa without a clue how to perform his job.
"If he was breaking laws etc he’d have been impeached by now"
It was not the job of the special counsel to initiate impeachment. It is the job of Congress, and Mitch would block it in a heartbeat. All Republicans are complicit. Mueller said, "“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so." He is leaving it to Congress here. He provided all of the evidence, and the Republicans just want to watch it burn to the ground.
Lol! Trump is a narcissist who thrives off of shallow, inauthentic praise. You can buy the man with a simple compliment, and there are plenty of examples to go around. As soon as you critique him, his fragile ego explodes all over twitter. Here are more examples: www.vox.com/2019/7/10/20688825/trump-china-trade-saudi-arabia-qatar-sale
The fact that you wanted to vote for Ben freaking Carson - the guy can't string together a coherent thought, much like Trump - shows how ill-informed you are as a voter. Carson has no place in politics.
Most of the time it looks good on paper
but in reality that's a different story. Think it should be required to have to work in the field for a few years.
Um, no. You can't just make wild bullshit claims like this; you sound like Trump. For evidence, see:
www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/donald-trump-vs-hillary-clinton
These would all have been different. Jesus, man, you seem like you can read, but you're just not putting in the effort here.
Note: I'm a Bernie supporter, but claiming Hillary is the same as Trump on domestic policy is god damn disingenuous.
That drop in the wind was sketchy! I was on my intense 6.6 at that time. I hope to get my darkside out there. Hopefully I get to go to Whitefish this next month. For cavitation repair.
Misrepresenting my argument... Cool strawman.
" Both parties are so pathetic it isn't even funny"
Both parties may be pathetic in your eyes, but there's only one side fighting for equality, healthcare, education, and any other common sense goal.
"The US in 2019 is 100% if you aren't with us, you're against us"
You may want to look at the party platforms, and pay more attention to your senate majority leader and republican senators. They're stonewalling everything from Dems, just because. They won't even protect our elections, because it implicates them. The parties are diametrically opposed. Dems want the best for everyone, and Republicans want to screw over liberals, the poor, the sick, etc..
In order to get elected, you have to appeal to special interests. Thats the way it is. Most every elected or highly appointed figure in government is a narcissistic psychopath. Its all about disperse costs and concentrated benefits. Pretending like Dems or Repubs actually have your best interest at heart is extremely short sighted.
Health care for my wife, son and my self takes 1/3 of my wife's weekly income. Now our taxes dollars are going to pay for an illegals health care.
That's really looking out for us.
And that's only health care, we can also talk about the rest of the "free" stuff they receive that the American tax pays give to them for "free".
Nobody should be forced into a lifetime of debt over an illness or injury, and nobody, resident or not, should be forced to die in the streets after care is denied. We put astronomical amounts of money into the military in the name of "defense," and we just gave corporations and billionaires enough tax cuts to pay off every student loan with $400,000,000 left over. I think America, the richest country in the world, can afford to care for the sick and suffering. We can figure this out, even without your support.
I wonder what you would do in the same situation as a poor Central American with a family looking for a better life (just like your ancestors) ?
About a month ago we were standing in line at the supermarket and the lady in line in front of us was buying about 10 steaks, the cashier ask here if she was having a barbecue and the lady said no and that she feeds her dog steaks because she can no longer buy dog food with ebt card (tax payer funded) so here dog eats steaks for dinner.
Sure you will say that we also need to feed all the dogs as well with our tax money. Point being is taxes cant keep going up to pay for everybody because 1. I work hard for money and should be able to spent most of it as I see fit.
2. They take state taxes out of my check before I ever get paid then I go to the store and pay taxes on what I am buying with money that has already been taxed once.
3. I'm all for helping but people need to try and help themselves as well. It is a proven fact most people that are getting government assistance could go out and get a job.
4. My mom has worked her whole life and gets less from the government then and illegal persons.
5. Try talking with police officers in any major city and find out the real conditions, few of my friends are San Francisco police and they are quite shocking. S.F. has been run by dems for a long time and it is turning into an even bigger shit hole. Chigaco New York and so on.
6. California governor Newsom abolished the death penalty in our state even thought the majority of California voted to keep the death penalty and to speed up the process, thats really not working for the people that him working for his self.
Could go on and on but I doubt you would ever see my side and why I think like I do.
No because if I am there illegally I would go to jail, whether I had my child with me or not. So I can come to your country illegaly and get free medical, housing free food and a free education?
If so I'm on the way and bringing my bike and ride all your trails while you pay for me to live and ride for free. Why should Americans taken in all these people from other countrys? Why because people see America as the land of opportunity and freedom. You seem to know alot about what is happening here so you know our freedoms are slowing disappearing little by little because of the massive cultural changes going on here.
It is absolutely false that government can provide products and services cheaper than the free market. In the USA, everyone has TOO much health insurance because Federal law mandates it. It makes no sense to pay for non-risk costs with insurance. It would be like paying gas for your car at the end of the month on your car insurance; every gas station would jack up their prices and no one would ever shop around.
The two most regulated, government controlled, subsidized, taxed, and socialized parts of the US economy are the Financial Services Sector (Wall Street) and the Healthcare sector. If these were opened up to the free market we would see dramatically better results.
@brncr6: the graphs can’t lie buddy !
Ps if trump didn’t like it when Obama was pres’ he could just go back to where he came from ( Germany and Scotland) , except they wouldn’t have him !!
2. Do your research and dont allways belive the 1st news article you can find using Google.
How do you think illegals survive in one of the highest real estate markets and highest taxes state? San fransisco is a Sanctuary City but illegals thrive there when the normal working person barely can. You think when they go to a hospital it is just free????
There are way around every system.
"In 1966, Canada implemented a single-payer health care system, which is also known as Medicare. Since then, as a country, Canadians have made a conscious decision to hold down costs. One of the ways they do that is by limiting supply, mostly for elective things, which can create wait times. Their outcomes are otherwise comparable to ours.
Please understand, the wait times could be overcome. Canadians could spend more. They don’t want to. We can choose to dislike wait times in principle, but they are a byproduct of Canada’s choice to be fiscally conservative.
Yes, they chose this. In a rational world, those who are concerned about health care costs and what they mean to the economy might respect that course of action. But instead, they attack the system."
Don't even come at me with the "There is no real news" baloney. There are facts, and there are lies. There are no "alternative facts," and "fake news" just means it's critical of Trump but true. A bias does not make something a lie, and it's easy to seemingly have a liberal bias when reporting facts. All of the facts incriminate the Republicans.
www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html
You must watch cnn.
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/dec/05/donald-trump/donald-trumps-false-claim-about-cost-illegal-immig
www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/4-myths-about-how-immigrants-affect-the-u-s-economy
www.seiu.org/cards/the-8-worst-myths-about-immigration/myth-immigrants-are-freeloaders-who-drain-federal-and-state-coffers/p3
An immigrant is a person that went though the proper channels to get here, one of which I am working with today.
The word missing is illegal, that missing word is a good sign on who wrote the article in the first place.
You do know we have immigration laws here right?
I dont know how to do clickable links but there is plenty out of there that showthe last 2 presidents talking about how we need to stop illegal border crossings.
Immigration laws were put in to effect way before Trump was elected and all that is happening now is that the law is being enforced, just like our last to presidents did.
What do you think it costs when illegal commit crimes? What dose it cost for an illegals vist to the hospital? You go through the immigration process and come here the legal way and need help, then I'm all for helping out but when you break the law and come here they should get zero free help!!!! I break the law I go to jail I dont get handed a free ebt card and free health care.
Ya not like Democrats were caught manipulating the last election or leftist news sources purposefully editing media content. How's that glass trailer you're living in?
Here are some facts for you: www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/meet-the-republican-who-blocked-the-election-interference-bill
The authors use every term except illegal.
Illegal is still illegal.
You do know a Democrat can be against illegal immigration. Guess that would make me a bad Democrat.
Back at @spankthewan: even the dems in house and senate are divided on many views and some of the more radical left are scrutinized by their own party over these policies that include immigration. I’m all for people living and achieving the American dream but they need to go about it the right way.
Ok, so you don't have a point, and you're wrong. My city paid for the infrastructure through bonds, which will be repaid by the city's utility fees. We are not subject to throttling, and the Net Neutrality fiasco doesn't affect us.
"Both political sides are telling lies you just believe the ones you like."
You know what I like? I like offering health insurance to all Americans - education, the ability to attend college or trade school for the benefit of our economy - less wealth disparity and higher taxes on the uber rich - protecting our environment from corporate greed - investing in green energies - an easier path to citizenship for those who want to come here and those who are already contributing members of our society - equality for all - reducing our military budget - stopping the war on drugs - condemnation of racism and cruel dictatorships...
Now, you tell me where the Republicans stand on these matters, and I'll tell you why they can go pound sand.
"fox is no good and not without bias but if your watching any of the other major networks and have any semblance that they are not bias than you haven't found any true unbiased news sources"
First off, your grammar is horrendous. I already explained that bias is different than fact/fiction. Fox is clearly extremely biased and intentionally misleading (lies) political propaganda. Most other networks, which you would claim are liberal networks, report facts with some bias. When they report false information, they apologize on air. I don't watch any tv news; I get my news online, research the information, and discuss it with others in a political forum, where they provide sources for their arguments. I honestly can't wait to return to some sort of semblance, where this is no longer necessary on my part.
"you appear to not research any of your own news sources you assume your getting the whole story."
Give me one example of where I was wrong so far because of lack of research. Just one!
A wall is just another deterrent to slow the illegal boarder crossing and to slow drugs coming across the boarder.
Do you lock your door on your house?
99% of the people in this country do so why not lock down our boarders?
A free for all of boarder crossing is good in your opinion? The wall/fence is medieval, yeh they are old tech but they are everywheres because they work.
www.cnn.com/2019/06/05/politics/southern-border-migrants/index.html
144,000 encountered or arrested at the boarder in the month of may.
That is one month. If it wasn't so easy they would not risk there lives to get here. They would mostly likely try and do it the legal way. Open boarders will equal more deaths, walking across deserts and swimming the river.
I bet the chances of surviving the legal process is so much high then the illegal way.
Can we end this thread now?
BUT, we can't deny that gun control in the USA is very different from the rest of the developed world. Maybe we should be self-reflective and ask why the rest of the world decided to go one way while we decided to go another? Why are there weekly mass shootings in the USA and almost no mass shootings anywhere in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Japan, etc? Why are so many more people killed here by police officers with guns and people aren't killed in other countries by police officers?
And from my understanding, REI didn't drop Vista because they owned Savage, they dropped Vista because Savage supported the NRA. And to me that's just common sense.
Issue IMO is that we are talking about different things. One side is talking about self-protection, the other side is talking about stopping mass shootings. And we are just yelling over each other. I wold hope any sensible American can agree that some regulation with guns is good; I'm just not sure that they can agree on the problem they are trying to solve.
Blaming shootings on the guns is a pretty knee-jerk, low level way of analyzing such a complex situation. You named about 4 islands in that post, 2 of which have pretty strict immigration laws.
Well, you can't intelligently do it.
People want to have an easy answer for a complex problem, and get mad when you tell them it's more complex than it is. hence the downvotes lol.
"Why are there weekly mass shootings in the USA and almost no mass shootings anywhere in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Japan, etc". I just told you.
If the military put out an RFP for hydration packs, Vista went through all the diligence to apply and won said RFP there is no issue here. None of us have visibility into that; so we can assume it was done by the book.
"It's 1989.
Bicycle enthusiast Michael Eidson, is competing in the "Hotter'N Hell 100." And that's exactly what it is: a 100-mile road race in the grueling summer heat of Wichita Falls, Texas. Water is vital to surviving the race, and there are few places to refill a water bottle. Eidson, an emergency medical technician by trade, decides to fill an IV bag with water and slip it into a white tube sock. Yes, a tube sock. Then he stuffs the contraption into the back of his bike jersey, throws the thin hose over his shoulder and clamps it with a clothespin.
Hands-free hydration is born. And Eidson is able to drink as he pedals...while the other racers laugh and fiddle with their water bottles."
Yeah, so there's that idea gone bust. Nice revisioning of the world.
The far side of Guns Nuts don't want any type of gun control and the far side of Snowflakers want to take every last gun away. This is ridiculous and polarizing. We need to compromise and find a reasonable solution that involves EVERYONE and find MIDDLE-GROUND. Not everyone is going to get everything they want, but everyone has to contribute to the solution. Including the manufacturers.
Savage (which produces AR's) was dangerously silent while innocent folks where dying at the hands of similar style weapons made by a variety companies (not just Savage). So REI forced Vista (the one corporation that they deal with who also sells firearms) to make a decision... engage in reform or get the hell out. They quite didn't draw a line in the sand, but rather said "you have to come to the table". And looky here... it worked.
Kudos to the retailers, Kudos to Vista (who still sell firearm products) and kudos to the folks casting there votes with their dollars. Now lets get some vaca time and ride, camp, shoot, fish then head back to the lodge for whiskey, weed, and filthy people sex.
There is no “middle ground”. Just communists continuously eroding our freedoms.
Not an inch.
Cause that’s where you silly gits live.
quit trashing each other! If we all had the same beliefs and principles life would be pretty boring and shitty. It's ok to think differently, but don't disrespect others because they don't think the way you do. See how one tiny little thing can cause division so easy? Maybe if we all figured out what common ground we had(!?), and identified what we're FOR instead of AGAINST the world would be a less shitty place.
I see some good healthy debate here, but I also see a lot of disrespectful people just trash talking because they cannot accept anyone who sees things differently. Come on y'all, we all ride bikes, we all bleed red at the end of the day.
props for feeding more funds into the outdoor sports part of Vista. Maybe they will be able to create new bike products that will help mountain bikers (people seem to miss this point).
people will squeal at any chance they can to prove one side is better then the other. (always easier behind a keyboard)
If the AR was never legal to purchase, nobody's life would be irreparably harmed. Yet, because it is, many have lost their lives and countless more live on with irreparable damage. Your interpretation of an amendment that LITERALLY requires regulation in the same sentence as the "right to bear arms" does not legitimize the sale, possession, and use of a tool designed for ONLY murder. I agree that there's a larger debate regarding your hunting rifles, but an AR-15 is made to give humans the ability to kill other humans. How about you can have your AR, but the only ammunition available is blanks?
A gun owner is law abiding until they use a tool, designed for the sole purpose of murder, in an unlawful way.
Now I accept that I have a point of view that is not the majority. Its extreme to demand any weapon designed to kill be outlawed, and any such measure would never pass bi-partisan scrutiny. An AR could be used for hunting or target shooting, though that was not the original intent. I'm ready to look at common sense gun control (limit ammunition, require safe storage, universal background checks, revoking rights of violent offenders). I want to find a middle ground.
Currently no, but frankly it should.
The stance that its "other people" who are the problem so "why are you punishing me???" is a fragile way of saying "I don't want to be part of society".
Here comes my soap-box...
Just as its our responsibility to inform other mtbers of trail etiquette/laws or risk losing access, it should be gun owners' responsibility to promote safe use and reduce risk of catastrophes or risk losing access.
Common sense control infringes on a very specific interpretation of a very vague amendment written when it took 10-20 seconds to reload a single musket round. This interpretation is popularized by a lobbying group that only took a stance in the last 30 years to overturn existing supreme court rulings and REMOVE existing controls. "The right to bear arms" is just a clause, preceded by being as part of a "well-regulated militia". Regulation means control. Regulation means rules. We've had rules in the past, but money doesn't like rules.
The fact is that guns are expensive, but people like them (kind of like bikes?) so companies will throw money into campaigns, lobbies, and lawsuits to make sure they protect the market potential. Today the "Right to bear arms" is just a marketing slogan helping gun manufacturers get rich. That's fine, that's just capitalist America, but the side-effect of that profit is dead citizens. Not fine.
Now the community of gun owners dissociates itself with anyone who does something "bad". "They weren't safe gun owners", "they never should have owned a gun!", "I would never do something like that with my gun". But yet common sense rules are met with a brick wall of lawsuits and lobbying money. According to the NRA, its "all or nothing". In that fictional world, any regulation will lead to no guns at all, so we accept the risk of mass-murder because its a societal problem.
It all just sounds like "every gun owner is good, until they aren't". Its riding a bike without a helmet, with your eyes closed, and you know there's a cliff nearby.
What’s so bad about savage?
Wish these companies would keep the political views out of the conversation and simply sell what consumers want. Were any of you boycotting these products because the same parent company also sold guns as a totally separate business to totally separate consumers?
This mis-characterizes what is happening. Every day corporations are doing things where they had to decide what is moral or not (even if implicitly because they didn't formally think about it.)
When REI carried products from Vista, it was making a moral decision that carrying products from a company that makes firearms was morally acceptable.
When they decided to stop carrying them, they made a moral decision that carrying those products a company that makes fire arms is not morally acceptable.
But really, these corporations are run by people. They decide what they want to do with their (the company's) money, whether or not it meets with your standard of business practice or morality or whatever. They didn't run up and down your street throwing rocks because you have guns from that company or sew a giant red A on your clothes.
Anyway, what real difference does it make to you? If you don't like it, just buy something else, shop somewhere else. No one is holding anyone hostage. They removed a supplier from their list, because they didn't like what said supplier is doing. It's simply values, a customer base and a little bit of sack to stand up for something you believe in.
I don't disagree with you and it makes no difference to me...hence my mixed feelings on the issue. I can see the outrage both ways; neither of which seems to align with what really matters to me, the ability to make my own choices.
@MikeyMT: but everyone decides what's moral by our everyday choices. Why should corporations be any different? When a corporation does something blatantly immoral, people would protest. When a corporation does something it considers moral, people protest again. Many human actions have an ethical component, and selling tools that can kill inherently entails some ethics related choices.
If its legal can it be immoral? And if its illegal can it be moral? Also, who gets to set the moral standard..perhaps you and I feel different about things and the morality associated with them?
Let the consumer decide on their own...soon as you become a censor (they have now censored these products), you've taken a side and lost all credibility. Thats what is happening with Facebook and Twitter and why I applaud PB for posting stuff like this...this is worthy news and it gets posted regardless of how PB feels politically and presented as such. P.S. I think we agree
Well, yeah, it is about money. I never said it wasn't. I mean, they actually do care about your opinion, but not directly. They care about your money (maybe not yours, specifically, but you know what I mean) and your opinion about them influences whether or not you, your family, your friends, your community/user group spend your/their money there, which influences their bottom line. Perhaps I should have worded my first post a little differently (but hey, beer); Company "Values" mirror the customer base, see above. Sack: because it does take grit to make such a decision in your country.
You said it yourself, the customer base is "mostly granola eating tree huggers" (I like granola, honey flavoured, never hugged any trees tho... this is also one of those quotes that tends to show your age, no offense). So it makes sense for a company that serves that customer base to cater to said base.
Whether or not they "purport" to care about what you think, at the end of the day it's (as you would likely agree) business. Probably the same reason why gun manufacturers sponsor pro-gun rallies. It gives you a sense that they really care about what you believe in, when in reality they want more of your money, and you're more likely to think about the brand that supports your ideology when you go to purchase your next bike, gun, truck, toaster. At the end of the day, we're all just decimal points in an Excel spreadsheet.
Also the last time I checked a business decision didn't fall under the "bullying" category.
I challenge you to spend eight hours with MY kids while packing and not use it! Just saying.
Good job REI!
Also I love how no one thinks about how Trump has backed and passed more gun control than Obama did.
The Trump administration has actually banned bump stocks, and will soon try and ban certain suppressors (silencers), or he might have already, I'm not 100% up to speed on it.
"Congress most recently addressed firearms-related legislation on February 27, 2019. The House passed a bill that proposed requiring federal criminal background checks on all firearms sales by a vote of 240-190, mostly along party lines."
"The bill now heads to the Senate. President Donald Trump said that he would veto the bill if it was sent to him."
Huh, that's weird considering he has vocally supported not only background checks but very strict background checks:
- On February 19, 2018, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said that President Donald Trump “is supportive of efforts to improve the federal background check system.”
- Trump said, “We’re going to be very strong on background checks. We’re going to be doing very strong background checks. Very strong emphasis on the mental health of somebody. And we are going to do plenty of other things. Again, next week, the governors are coming in from most of the states, and we’re going to have a very serious talk about what’s going on with school safety. … There are many ideas that I have. There are many ideas that other people have. And we’re going to pick out the strongest ideas, the most important ideas, the ideas that are going to work. And we’re going to get them done. It’s not going to be talk like it has been in the past. It’s been going on too long; too many instances. And we’re going to get it done.” (man what a quote)
So why would Trump choose to veto this?
Quote from the current administration:
"By overly extending the minimum time that a licensed entity is required to wait for background check results, H.R. 1112 would unduly impose burdensome delays on individuals seeking to purchase a firearm."
So essentially because more thorough background checks take a longer time to complete (who would have thought!) we must veto this legislation. I NEED MY GUNS NOW!!!!!!
There's no such thing as bipartisan support on this shit it's only the people getting paid by lobbyists and the NRA and the people who aren't. You think these clowns care about the citizens they represent? you are mistaken.
here ya go (fake news):
ballotpedia.org/Federal_policy_on_laws_governing_guns_and_firearms,_2017-2020
www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/01/16/here-are-the-23-executive-orders-on-gun-safety-signed-today-by-the-president/#4d035b192312
www.ajc.com/news/national/senators-house-members-who-offered-condolences-after-shooting-called-out-for-donations-from-nra/tpitHXUY9jDH3pr4f7f7cM
As for Obama, despite commissioning studies that he hoped would find support for gun control policies (they did the opposite actually) and running guns to Mexico to demonize legal gun owners, he was completely ineffective on the gun control front.
"
Obama didn't pass anything that can be called gun control
"
Come on dude...please.... get real.
It's true the obama admin faced lots of criticism for not being able to pass as many gun control laws in congress as they wanted to, mostly because of the failure for the bills to receive enough bi-partisan support. To say he didn't do anything (or suggest the trump admin is doing more -- they haven't passed any laws yet) is just ignorant.
The GOP has never been in support of stricter laws regarding gun-control, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
It's just different now because trump says alot of things to perpetuate the belief that he's doing anything outside the norm of the republican party.
He's been revoking obama era gun control regulations since he was in office (again.. not surprising).
www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-signs-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221
www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/the-trump-administration-has-already-been-rolling-back-gun-regulations/2017/10/04/5eaad7d6-a86b-11e7-8ed2-c7114e6ac460_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.55eace1f9e60
You can go view the bills and even read about all of the executive actions and memoranda that was enacted under the obama administration.
www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-laws-passed-by-congress-3367595
So many morons want to live in a new Soviet Union.
REI has a total lack of common sense, both in hardlining GC and then again on not doing a very good job at it.
This makes NO sense; Either way I will still buy Giro but never from REI.
in case its not evident im pro2a
Seems relevant to me.
It's not about the guns, it's about being resistant, and even prohibitive, to change. Just as its is up to mountain bikers and mtb communities to guard trails and and ensure that they are used appropriately, including reducing access to certain groups, so it is that literally anyone needs to step up and do the same for guns. In my mind this includes gun owners, producers, and rights groups doing all they can to help keep those who would damage or jeopardize everyone's privilege from doing so.
I have several rifles and enjoy being able to shoot them, and because I want to keep that I also want to keep people who would abuse them from having them. While clearly not on the same scale, I also enjoy my bike and having good trails so I support limiting 4x4 and ATVs access to mtb trails.
I suspect that most people here fall into the category of "Liberal Fascist" if the definition is support of REI policies. I also suspect that most people support life, peace, and generally prefer those to rooms of dead children.
As a final thought, the NRA needs death and violence so they can continue to thwart challenges to gun laws and thus continue to have a reason to exist. If death and violence did not happen because we made common sense laws, the NRA would go out of business. But the point of a business is never to put itself out of business.
And if you wonder - I am far more educated than you.