Okay, don’t get me wrong, I think the boycotters are doing a great thing, but let’s look at the numbers. How many of the boycotters are sacrificing significant sales? Basically none. Take New York, for example. The NYPD alone has about 35,000 officers. Figure that means in the realm of 40,000-50,000 sidearms and thousands more ARs and shotguns. Now, those guns are there, so the annual turnover is probably in the neighborhood of 3,000-10,000 guns.
If you are a gun manufacturer, two things stand out about that figure, whatever it is. First, that’s a lot of money–money to pay workers, hire more people, invest in new machinery, etc. Second, and just as important, if you boycott, someone else will take that business in a heartbeat, so ultimately the NY government won’t suffer at all while your company will be out millions.
I’m not saying I agree with not boycotting, just that it isn’t quite as cut-and-dry as some people believe. Moreover, if the gun manufacturers agree as a group not to sell, that is called collusion and it is grossly illegal. I’m willing to cut the big guys some slack on this one, particularly the publically traded companies that simply cannot ignore their shareholders to make a money-losing statement, however correct that statement might be.
And it would be money losing, because for each LE contract lost in NY, you’d need to find at least a few dozen consumers who would boycott the non-boycotter as a result. That is much harder to do. It is far more likely that those of us who are hardcore gun rights supporters would care, but a guy who wants a, say, Glock, will still buy it, no matter whom Glock sells to.
Again, I’m not criticizing anyone here, just trying to look at all sides regarding whether or not the big guys could boycott and not suffer tremendous losses. Should they? Absolutely, but only if they all do, and again, that would trigger an anti-trust investigation in about 5 seconds.
First, privately owned companies can decide to boycott with fewer repercussions. For a publicly traded company to willingly exclude a portion of the market, the share holders would have to vote for it. Otherwise investors could mount actions against company managers for enacting policies that are detrimental to the bottom line. That is why larger companies are unlikely to join the NY boycott. Secondly, why do so we readily eat our own? The gun manufacturers are not the enemy.