REI places "HOLD" on brands owned by gun manufacturer Vista

[TTX1]

But yeah, if we could clone Swayze, we'd have an invincible military with mad dance skills.

Wait, don't we pretty much have this already?

My $0.02...

I've done business with Bushnell, which also has a history of innovation, and a much broader interest than just rifle scopes.

I've always admired Giro. Forward thinking and design/innovation oriented. I have three pairs of Empires.

I've used Bolle products forever. Bolle made the original frames for Vuarnet. A lot of wintersports history there.

All of the above are Vista companies.

I don't like to see these businesses and the people who work for them caught in political crossfire, and I'm not going to stop using their products.

As firearms companies go, Vista's gun properties are primarily hunting oriented - like Bushnell scopes - they are not a source for bump stocks or assault weapons AFAIK.

And as we've noted here before - hunters are typically strong advocates for public land and land conservation, and often well aligned with the interests of other outdoor sportspeople. In fact, Vista is based in UT and is/was on the right side of recent legislation in that state to protect public lands...

The current attacks on Vista may be poorly aimed - REI is targeting a vendor and ally in land conservation instead of focusing elsewhere.

I loved REI's #optoutside campaign to stay closed on Thanksgiving and Black Friday - they do some good things - but this latest move can't possibly help the cause, if the goal is to regulate assault weapons or institute stronger permitting processes.

If the gun trade truly focused on edumacating the general population on proper trigger discipline as noted here by Bill - I mean really making education the centerpiece of their agenda (vs a zero flexibility stance on 2A issues) - then some modest regulation / certification standards might fit the agenda - and go a long way toward promoting safety on many, many levels. Such a s platform could even be good for business.

[xjoex]

According to the Washington Post :

Outdoor retailer REI says it’s halting future orders of some popular brands
— including CamelBak water carriers, Giro helmets and Camp Chef stoves
— whose parent company also makes ammunition and assault-style rifles.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.e3a6d411601e

I applaud them, change has to start somewhere. I don't think average citizen needs an assault rifle.

Cheers,
-Joe

[sonicw]

Wait, don't we pretty much have this already?

My $0.02...

As firearms companies go, Vista's gun properties are primarily hunting oriented - like Bushnell scopes - they are not a source for bump stocks or assault weapons AFAIK.

And as we've noted here before - hunters are typically strong advocates for public land and land conservation, and often well aligned with the interests of other outdoor sportspeople. In fact, Vista is based in UT and is/was on the right side of recent legislation in that state to protect public lands...

The current attacks on Vista may be poorly aimed - REI is targeting a vendor and ally in land conservation instead of focusing elsewhere.

I don't know how effective the boycott will be. There are many employed with some great brands who would be hurt by a boycott making me pretty ambivalent on the matter (ie. if I want a Giro/Camelbak etc. product I'm still going to purchase it). That said, two things that may or may not better inform you on your opinion--

- Savage Arms is one of Vista's properties and although their product line is largely hunting rifles (bolt-action and shotguns), they do market an AR-15 pattern rifle (as do beloved hunting rifle companies Ruger and Remington, the waters are very muddied)
- Vista Outdoor is a supporter of the NRA, which actually contributed funds to the Utah pols who were in favor of reducing Bears Ears Monument for better oil access. Would you say this was on the "right" side or the "wrong" side?

Vista, through it's cycling/outdoor recreation brands, contributes a lot to cycling advocacy, bike commuting, and conservation (Giro has a list here: Advocacy). While I don't have any objection to ammunition or rifle sales (plenty use these fine, like tobacco or alcohol), any gun access conversation on what type/how many/who is going to be stifled immediately by gun industry groups, which I have issues with.

[colker]

I'd guess that Netflix's aversion to Red Dawn is its crappiness....

I just browsed netflix and i believe any crap movie would feel right at home there.

[XR2]

The truth is an "assault rifle" is not necessary to kill in numbers. We are talking about a trapped unarmed group. I could do the same amount of carnage with old cap and ball black powder revolvers.

The anti-gun agenda is clear and concise. First things first. The removal of social acceptance of firearms-period. And that is untenable to a large portion of the populace. There is no compromise on the table..........unfortunately from either side of the table. It is consistent with our divided nation. We see only black and white-no middle ground. It has made people angry and anti-social. It is a deeply rooted condition that will take generations to remove as social change naturally moves at a glacial pace. We......everyone regardless of stand must accept this will be taken care of only with slow deliberate action from all parties. No one wants to admit it but the guns are a symptom of a much deeper societal malaise. We've got a big problem and the first step is to sit down and calmly discuss what we will do about it.

For such a contentious subject this has been a civil discussion here. We must spread that with actions outside of this forum. Sadly this will not be the last disaster before some change occurs. We the public must fix this not the government. Look at everything else that they stuck there hands in. We (US Government) have armed forces on the majority of the planet. Can we truly depend on them to perform differently with this? Don't think so. So contact your representatives and let them know of your wishes.

[StR]

and sorry, if some people of VISTA owned companies will loose their jobs, my money does not anymore to them.

and SAD, that in 2018 a whole country (""greatest country on earth""they say ....) still has to discuss about their armed society...... its 2018, not 1787!

[xjoex]

This is a very interesting story about how Australia handled gun violence after a mass shooting in 1997. Lessons From Australia On Curbing Mass Shootings | Here & Now

I mean come on, the whole country is made of criminals :)

-Joe

[BBB]

This is a very interesting story about how Australia handled gun violence after a mass shooting in 1997. Lessons From Australia On Curbing Mass Shootings | Here & Now

I mean come on, the whole country is made of criminals :)

-Joe

Ha!

I think the reason the whole country is made up of criminals is that after the war of independence, the British had to find another place to ship their unwanted! Australia, or what would become Australia, was that place.

The shooting in Pt Arthur ticked a lot of boxes; person with mental illness, armed with a rifle, killed and injured a large number of unarmed people (and related back to the criminal point, it happened at Pt Arthur, which is a former prison colony, and it attracts a lot of tourists). The community reaction was swift and a conservative Prime Minister introduced sweeping gun control laws and faced a lot of opposition in doing so, generally conservative voting rural electorates. But, we haven't had a mass shooting since (which is not to say we don't have gun problems as we do with guns getting in the hands of gangs etc).

Having said that, Australia generally did not have a large number of gun deaths prior to 1996 and gun ownership, then and now, is not common. We also do not have a constitutional provision providing for the right to bear arms.

[Gummee]

Why does it sadden you? If our founding fathers didn't question their government we would be a British colony. This country has a long history of progress being made when people question the government. It's not just our right as Americans to question the government. It's our responsibility.

The same goes for the constitution, it's a document and framework that has evolved over time. The bill of rights wasn't a part of the original constitution and since their addition to the constitution there have been 17 other amendments that reflect necessary changes to our governing framework. We even have gems like the prohibition of alcohol (18) and then subsequent repeal of prohibition (21) that highlight the nature of the document's evolution.



Is this the typical "back in the good ol' days" argument for solving the problems of today? It's worth noting that crime, and violent crime in particular, is generally decreasing over the last 25-30 years. Here's some data: 5 facts about crime in the U.S. | Pew Research Center

While mass shootings tug at the heartstrings and create fervor with the sheer shocking nature of the crime, most people with a bone to pick with the NRA (back on topic to this thread) take issue with their power and agenda, which prioritizes firearm sales over the health and well being of the populace. They are a hyper-politicized "club" that whips its members into an angry fury over the second amendment (they're coming for your guns!!) while funding politicians so well that even people who get shot don't think anything needs to change (hi Rep. Scalise). No lobbying organization should have so much power over politicians that they cease to represent the will of their constituents (note how I didn't say their base, supporters, or voters).

Also, this isn't about what you call inclusion for those with mental illness. Here is an article (from an admittedly left leaning organization) that includes stats and links to sources and shows the role of mental illness in gun violence: Stop blaming mental illness for mass shootings - Vox. Hard as it may be to fathom, crimes aren't being overwhelmingly perpetrated by people who would be classified as mentally ill prior to the transgression (or even after).

Please point to the NRA in the top 20 spending lobby groups

Last I checked, the NRA spent a paltry $5mil in 2017. The top spender on the list in the link? $82mil. Who? US Chamber of Commerce. Followed by the Natl Assoc of Realtors at $55mil So tell me again how big and bad the NRA is. G'head. How does spending $5mil make them the baddest thing on the block when the Real Estate lobby outspent them 10x

M

[Gummee]

According to the Washington Post :

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.e3a6d411601e

I applaud them, change has to start somewhere. I don't think average citizen needs an assault rifle.

Cheers,
-Joe

So if you don't want one. Don't buy one. Why is it OK to say 'you can't have [insert thing here] 'because you don't need it' when it comes to firearms, but not say high powered cars? After all, no one NEEDS a 800hp Dodge to get to the shopping mall. Or in our case: no one needs more than 5 gears because with more gears, you'll go too fast, risking injury and death from speed.

Having said that, I'd much rather see Dick's and other companies not selling AR-type rifles voluntarily than have another set of ineffective at best laws that don't address the real problem: people are willing to kill another person to make a point, to settle a score, etc Human nature being what it is, if people don't have access to 'assault rifles' they'll kill one another with bombs, pistols, planes, cars/trucks, knives, bats, bare hands, etc.

M

[guido]

So if you don't want one. Don't buy one. Why is it OK to say 'you can't have [insert thing here] 'because you don't need it' when it comes to firearms, but not say high powered cars? After all, no one NEEDS a 800hp Dodge to get to the shopping mall. Or in our case: no one needs more than 5 gears because with more gears, you'll go too fast, risking injury and death from speed.

Having said that, I'd much rather see Dick's and other companies not selling AR-type rifles voluntarily than have another set of ineffective at best laws that don't address the real problem: people are willing to kill another person to make a point, to settle a score, etc Human nature being what it is, if people don't have access to 'assault rifles' they'll kill one another with bombs, pistols, planes, cars/trucks, knives, bats, bare hands, etc.

M

Because your so called "right" to play with deadly toys is causing a lot of innocent people to loose their lives. Be a mensch and take up fishing...

[Matthew Strongin]

Please point to the NRA in the top 20 spending lobby groups

Last I checked, the NRA spent a paltry $5mil in 2017. The top spender on the list in the link? $82mil. Who? US Chamber of Commerce. Followed by the Natl Assoc of Realtors at $55mil So tell me again how big and bad the NRA is. G'head. How does spending $5mil make them the baddest thing on the block when the Real Estate lobby outspent them 10x

M

Stop misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say they were the largest lobbying group or even necessarily the worst. But this is a thread about the NRA, so that's why I'm talking about the NRA lobby, and they have power that leads to political misrepresentation of the majority's wishes. There are some poll numbers in this article that show just how many Americans want stricter gun laws and tighter restrictions (https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/npripsos...us-individuals), yet politicians won't even engage in a reasonable discussion about it.

If you'd like to have a discussion about lobbying groups in general, feel free to start a thread. I think they're all problematic. Particularly the Pharma lobby that has somehow convinced everyone that the solution to every medical problem is a pill. But this thread isn't about that.

[Matthew Strongin]

So if you don't want one. Don't buy one. Why is it OK to say 'you can't have [insert thing here] 'because you don't need it' when it comes to firearms, but not say high powered cars? After all, no one NEEDS a 800hp Dodge to get to the shopping mall. Or in our case: no one needs more than 5 gears because with more gears, you'll go too fast, risking injury and death from speed.

Having said that, I'd much rather see Dick's and other companies not selling AR-type rifles voluntarily than have another set of ineffective at best laws that don't address the real problem: people are willing to kill another person to make a point, to settle a score, etc Human nature being what it is, if people don't have access to 'assault rifles' they'll kill one another with bombs, pistols, planes, cars/trucks, knives, bats, bare hands, etc.

M

When you figure out a way to kill 17 people in a school with an over geared 11speed bicycle, I'll gladly give mine up.

[BBB]

So if you don't want one. Don't buy one. Why is it OK to say 'you can't have [insert thing here] 'because you don't need it' when it comes to firearms, but not say high powered cars? After all, no one NEEDS a 800hp Dodge to get to the shopping mall. Or in our case: no one needs more than 5 gears because with more gears, you'll go too fast, risking injury and death from speed.

Because it is (in my view) Government's role to legislate for the best interests of all people. So, in the car example you cite, yes you can drive a powerful car to the shops, but the Government will limit how fast you can drive that car for your own and other people's safety and it will have all sorts of laws dealing with what happens to you if you decide to break those laws (fines, loss of licence, criminal proceedings in the worst case). Likewise, with guns, the Government can (and subject to the constitutional issue) ban particular types of firearms if it decides that it is no longer in the community's interest to have access to such weapons. Governments have been making rules and regulations that limit what can and cannot be done in most areas of human affairs for many a long year. That's their job; to govern.

[TTX1]

That said, two things that may or may not better inform you on your opinion--

- Savage Arms is one of Vista's properties and although their product line is largely hunting rifles (bolt-action and shotguns), they do market an AR-15 pattern rifle (as do beloved hunting rifle companies Ruger and Remington, the waters are very muddied)
- Vista Outdoor is a supporter of the NRA, which actually contributed funds to the Utah pols who were in favor of reducing Bears Ears Monument for better oil access. Would you say this was on the "right" side or the "wrong" side?

Vista, through it's cycling/outdoor recreation brands, contributes a lot to cycling advocacy, bike commuting, and conservation (Giro has a list here: Advocacy). While I don't have any objection to ammunition or rifle sales (plenty use these fine, like tobacco or alcohol), any gun access conversation on what type/how many/who is going to be stifled immediately by gun industry groups, which I have issues with.

On the first point, didn't know - thanks.

On the second point, I'm not the least bit surprised that VO supports both sides of the aisle - many corporations do. Conveniently, the guy who said "corporations are people too, my friend" is about to be Utah's next senator...

[rwsaunders]

The NRA's 2017 lobbying costs were low because it wasn't an election year. Take a look at 2016 and other key years and it'll make you step back for a moment...I can't even imagine what the costs will be in 2020.

NRA Spending Approached Half A Billion Dollars In 216 | HuffPost

The NRA Has Broken Its Record for Campaign Spending

[Matthew Strongin]

The NRA's 2017 lobbying costs were low because it wasn't an election year. Take a look at 2016 and other key years and it'll make you step back for a moment...I can't even imagine what the costs will be in 2020.

NRA Spending Approached Half A Billion Dollars In 216 | HuffPost

The NRA Has Broken Its Record for Campaign Spending

Interestingly, the HuffPost article links to piece at the same source Gummee posted above for lobbying spend. There must be some distinctions between what they consider lobbying vs. other political spending, because the database of lobbying spend reflects a mere fraction of what their own article/audit shares.

Audit shows NRA spending surged $1 million amidst pro-Trump push in 216

[CJones]

Keep in mind during this discussion that REI is a co-op. Some of the articles mention this and others do not.

REI did this because of pressure from their members including a petition that apparently included 24,175 signatures.

I'm not saying that it is right or wrong. Just pointing it out.

[xjoex]

So if you don't want one. Don't buy one. Why is it OK to say 'you can't have [insert thing here] 'because you don't need it' when it comes to firearms, but not say high powered cars? After all, no one NEEDS a 800hp Dodge to get to the shopping mall. Or in our case: no one needs more than 5 gears because with more gears, you'll go too fast, risking injury and death from speed.

Having said that, I'd much rather see Dick's and other companies not selling AR-type rifles voluntarily than have another set of ineffective at best laws that don't address the real problem: people are willing to kill another person to make a point, to settle a score, etc Human nature being what it is, if people don't have access to 'assault rifles' they'll kill one another with bombs, pistols, planes, cars/trucks, knives, bats, bare hands, etc.

M

I don't want cigarettes, I don't buy them. They are detriment to those who don't want one but are around them. So the government has effectively legislated them to be known as harmful and taxed the hell out of them.

I mean we used to smoke on airplanes! Smoke in the office, etc. I think the same approach could be taken for assault rifles. I am not saying take away hunting weapons, etc, just assault rifles.

Now that all said, it's my opinion and we are both welcome to our own.

Cheers,
-Joe

[colker]

I don't want cigarettes, I don't buy them. They are detriment to those who don't want one but are around them. So the government has effectively legislated them to be known as harmful and taxed the hell out of them.

I mean we used to smoke on airplanes! Smoke in the office, etc. I think the same approach could be taken for assault rifles. I am not saying take away hunting weapons, etc, just assault rifles.

Now that all said, it's my opinion and we are both welcome to our own.

Cheers,
-Joe

Cigarettes won´t kill a lot of people very fast. I can´t see why anyone but the military should be allowed to own military weapons which are made specifically for combat. Why stop at an ar15? Why not sell nuclear bombs? I am sure a lot of people would buy, including terrorists but hey... the second amendment. Unless a civilian militia has access to a nuke i can´t see how to win a tyranical government.