• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Smith & Wesson sales soar due to terrorism fear

i fear people who have never had a gun, being sacared and going out and getting one. i mean, how do they expect this to help them with terrorists? i've never heard of a suicide bomber hitting the burbs.


but if your like me and already own 3or4, its all good
 


<< i fear people who have never had a gun, being sacared and going out and getting one. i mean, how do they expect this to help them with terrorists? i've never heard of a suicide bomber hitting the burbs.


but if your like me and already own 3or4, its all good >>



No, I dont own any right now, but I was in the IDF (Israeli Defence forces [let's not make this a political thread now]), and I know how to work firearms. Its just that having a piece to defend myself if need be would be nice.
 
It's a good thing someone is buying S&W, they (S&W) alienated a large portion of gun buyers by agreeing to the Klinton Admin agreement S&W Sucks

I'm not slamming the product, but the company...
 
Firearms sales in general are up, not just those by Smith&Wesson. I remember them copping a deal, it hurt their sales quite a bit. Colt did not make a lot of people happy, either.
 


<< It's a good thing someone is buying S&W, they (S&W) alienated a large portion of gun buyers by agreeing to the Klinton Admin agreement S&W Sucks

I'm not slamming the product, but the company... >>



I checked the link you gave... Basically the law requires the gun-manufacturers to make the guns safer. And that is bad because....??? Honestly, I have no idea why some people see this as a bad thing.
 
The reason a lot of current gun owners decided against buying a S&W is because they (& I) don't like the concept of threatening legal action to leverage more rules & regs that Congress prob wouldn't pass, many folks thought the leveraged agreement was an end run around the political process, & it sets a precedent for further agreements to be leveraged that aren't so logical.

I don't like "smart gun" technology that I've seen, and one of the holdbacks to implementing the technology is that you've turned a dirt simple, fairly reliable tool into a battery dependent gadget.

I consider current pacemaker technology as state of the art in electronic device reliability, and I see at least 2-3 a week that have failed in my ER (not the ones that have been in place for 5 years either). I don't want my smart gun to fail, much less add a level of complexity to my home/personal defense weapon.
 
The SMART GUN technology is the only bit of the agreement that is bad. But they can withdraw from that agreement at any time. This was not a legally binding agreement.
 
they may be reconsidering the entire agreement, due to the fact of the company being sold and the agreement possibly being void. Agreed, the original "agreement" was a poor judgement, but the reaction by the pro-gun population nearly accomplished what the anti-gun movement wanted to achieve, which was the demise of any and all firearm producing companies. When the people stopped buying firearms made by S&W, the anti-gun folks were laughing until they cried; S&W was getting nailed by their own constituents. Fortunately things have settled down and we still have S&W around but for many firearms supporters, they nearly shot themselves in the foot!
 
All existing "smart gun" technology has been rejected by all law enforcement agencies it's been presented to because it's unreliable.
 


<<

<< It's a good thing someone is buying S&W, they (S&W) alienated a large portion of gun buyers by agreeing to the Klinton Admin agreement S&W Sucks

I'm not slamming the product, but the company... >>



I checked the link you gave... Basically the law requires the gun-manufacturers to make the guns safer. And that is bad because....??? Honestly, I have no idea why some people see this as a bad thing. >>



"SMART GUN?" Is that like "NON-Alcoholic Drink?" or a "Metal Wood?
Letting victims of violence sue a gun-manuf. is like you suing Hyundai for letting the idiot that just rear-ended you drive one of their cars.
SW sold out by agreeing to the ClintonDoctrine and it has cost them the loyalty of the American gun consumer.
I will NEVER own another SW.
 


<< I checked the link you gave... Basically the law requires the gun-manufacturers to make the guns safer. And that is bad because....??? Honestly, I have no idea why some people see this as a bad thing. >>

Because guns are not intended to be "safe". The danger of a gun is the intrinsic value of the product, it is the purpose of a gun to be dangerous. It would be like attemping to make ice not be "cold".

Guns are perfectly safe when they are handled properly and need no additional safety mechanisms, which have never posed any barrier to negligent users or people who deliberately misuse a firearm with injurious intent.

I remember one civil lawsuit against Beretta filed after one teenage boy accidentally shot his friend with his father's pistol. The plaintiff claimed that Beretta was negligent because it should have designed the gun with a safety mechanism such as a firing pin block and a load indicator so that users could tell whether a round was still in the chamber after the magazine was removed. Except, the gun used in the shooting DID have a firing pin block AND a load indicator to warn the user that a round was in the chamber! It always boils down to the competence of the user to understand these features, no matter the product in question.

No police agency will use these guns, they don't want to worry about fumbling with keys to unlock their gun, or desperately pressing their fingers onto a fingerprint ID panel, while some 250lb felon is trying to kill them.
 
My friend was telling me yesterday that S&W is a US company again. The British company sold it to an American interest.
 


<< I don't think a few Smith & Wesson is going to stop a plane hitting a building. >>


If the pilots were armed and trained to use their weapon, it damn sure could have made things go a different way.
 
I don't understand why people are for arming the pilots but against allowing passengers to carry arms on the plane.
I mean, look at this Egypt air incident, where the pilot crashed the plane. If the passengers had guns, they could take him out and take over the plane.
 


<< I don't understand why people are for arming the pilots but against allowing passengers to carry arms on the plane.
I mean, look at this Egypt air incident, where the pilot crashed the plane. If the passengers had guns, they could take him out and take over the plane. >>


Simple. If the passengers can carry guns, then any hijacker could simply carry right on to the plane. Wouldn't even have to smuggle it. Get a few hijackers that all pull their guns at the same time and you're screwed.

If only the pilots are armed, they have a clear advantage to maintain control of the plane.
 


<< I don't understand why people are for arming the pilots but against allowing passengers to carry arms on the plane.
I mean, look at this Egypt air incident, where the pilot crashed the plane. If the passengers had guns, they could take him out and take over the plane. >>



Because standard ammunition is not good on a plane. And I doubt the passangers could have done a damn thing on the Egypt Air flight. The pilot simply shoved the contols forward and dove into the ocean. If you've ever felt what it feels like on a plane taking a sudden dive, you'd know that no one could have been able to make their way to the front of the plane in any reasonable amount of time. How many civilians have the ability to get around in a zero-G environment?
 


<< Because standard ammunition is not good on a plane. >>


There's an article in this months American Handgunner about that very topic. The author says differently. He claims images of the cabin decompressing and people getting sucked out of the plane is all hollywood. The tiny holes made by a bullet are insignificant it seems. The oxygen masks would provide plenty of oxygen for passengers. I still don't want to be on board when the real-world experiment is done, though? 😉
 
<< I don't understand why people are for arming the pilots but against allowing passengers to carry arms on the plane.>>

Are you for real?
rolleye.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top