That’ll happen
Just mentioned how anti-gun people were desperate and went to Europe to ask their gun makers to support policies that negatively affect their sales. Yeah, I know, right? Well, Jersey is trying the same thing:
That’s why Jersey City will help start to transform the thinking about guns. Police departments are huge buyers of guns and ammunition but have not taken advantage of their power in the marketplace to demand change from gun manufacturers. This has been a missed opportunity that must be — and will be — reversed.
The Jersey City Department of Public Safety is issuing a bid specification to purchase new weaponry. It will also be what we believe is a first-of-its-kind policy statement for our expectations of what gun manufacturers owe the American people when it comes to their safety and the safety of their loved ones.
Jersey City will be asking all bidders the following six socially responsible questions:
– What do you do to combat illegal gun trafficking and illegal gun crime?
– Do you manufacturer and sell assault weapons for civilian use?
– Do you agree not to sell certain models of firearms for civilian use?
– Are you requiring your dealers to conduct background checks?
– Do you fund research related to gun violence and smart gun technology?
– Will you commit to prohibiting your brand name from being used in violent video games?
Police buy lots of guns. But that is minuscule compared to civilian sales.
Any gun company that answers those questions in the affirmative will probably lose more in PR, if not actual sales, for doing so.
December 12th, 2013 at 7:38 pm
Applying that to ammo sellers, I feel sorry for the departments. They are pretty much in the same boat as the rest of us when it comes to finding supply, and bearing the cost. I can just see them rolling threir eyes at the suggestion that they play commie hardball hard-to-get with the suppliers who sell ammo that really is hard to get.
December 12th, 2013 at 8:03 pm
Jersey city and their survey can go pound sand.
December 12th, 2013 at 8:07 pm
The NRA ought to demand gun and ammo manufactures NOT sell to police.
If they don’t, citizens will not buy their guns or ammo.
December 12th, 2013 at 10:53 pm
I’ve got an answer for each question.
Go fuck yourself.
December 12th, 2013 at 10:57 pm
That strategy seemed to work out well for Smith & Wesson when they made their deal with the Clinton administration……..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/smith-wesson-clinton-bush-nra_n_2348503.html
http://www.davekopel.com/NRO/2000/Smith-and-Wesson%27s-Faustian-Bargain.htm
S&W got a boycott, and according the Huffpo link above, a 40% decrease in sales.
December 13th, 2013 at 12:59 am
My answers:
– We sell guns to police and individuals that pass the NICS background check.
– Categorically NO. There is no objective definition of ‘assault weapon’, and we only manufacture and sell actual things.
– We sell to civilians only those arms that meet the US vs Miller standard.
– Yes, in accordance with federal law.
– We have funded research into research on gun violence and smart gun technology. Results so far: blithering idiocy.
– Partially: we will license our brand name only for use by the protagonists.
December 13th, 2013 at 10:44 am
I still boycott Smith & Wesson because of their suck-up to Slick Willie Clinton.
I’ll never buy a Smith & Wesson product.
December 13th, 2013 at 12:10 pm
I still boycott Smith & Wesson because of their suck-up to Slick Willie Clinton.
I’ll never buy a Smith & Wesson product.
“Me too”. I did trade an RIA 1911 for a little M&P-22 and a little cash just after the Newtonn madness made handguns and .22 lr hard to find. I did this mainly as a favor to a co-worker who suddenly thought he really needed a handgun. I do like it (and my kids love it), so far, but won’t be buying any more S&W stuff.
December 13th, 2013 at 12:18 pm
I was thinking the same thing. Whoever accepts that contract will jack the prices up 10x to make up for the lost business.
December 13th, 2013 at 12:19 pm
Another thing — whenever they use “civilian”, the answer needs to INCLUDE POLICE IN THAT CATEGORY.
You are NOT A FUCKING SOLDIER. You are citizen, just like everyone else not in a warzone.
YOU ARE NOT AN OCCUPYING FORCE. You’re “just another civilian” like every other citizen.
December 13th, 2013 at 2:50 pm
“Are you requiring your dealers to conduct background checks?”
Do they really not know that Federal law already mandates that?
Are they going to demand gun makers require their dealers to not commit fraud, next? Because that’s just as already-illegal and just as much not the manufacturer’s responsibility.
And what manufacturer does more than trifling side-business – if any – with dealers rather than wholesalers?
(This just enforces my heuristic that “socially responsible” is both meaningless in itself and an almost-sure sign of an agenda I do not agree with.)
December 13th, 2013 at 5:26 pm
Smith and Wesson was owned by the British company Bangor Punta when it became the only firearm manufacturer to sign on to Clinton’s agreement. It would be fair to say that the management had no idea what the public response would be. The outcome was, of course, that their sales plummeted. When Smith changed hands, and G.W.B. became President, they had an opportunity to repudiate their agreement and to seek release from it, from a sympathetic White House. They did no such thing, and could have their feet held to the fire by Obama or any other hostile President. I don’t buy many guns nor swap or trade. I decide I want a certain weapon from time to time and I buy it. I still have every gun I have ever bought I own one S&W revolver, bought in 1964. I won’t consider another weapon from them until they publicly repudiate this agreement, ask forgiveness from the American People and seek release from a sitting President of the United States.
December 13th, 2013 at 7:21 pm
I was under the impression that the nature of the sale to their new owners rendered the agreement moot anyway, as, legally, the Smith & Wesson that was a party to the agreement no longer exists.
December 13th, 2013 at 8:49 pm
@Phelps
Most of the cops I know/see came directly from the armed forces, so yeah… they *are* soldiers. They just shouldn’t be cops.
Military service should be an instant disqualification for LE service. We don’t need army thinking in everyday life.
December 13th, 2013 at 11:29 pm
A lot of cops see themselves as an occupying force.
December 16th, 2013 at 9:46 pm
I’m sure Hi Point would sign those… 😀