Vista Outdoor To Sell Bell, Giro, Blackburn, & Other Brands

May 1, 2018
by Sarah Moore  
Giro 2017 Apparel amp Gear. Photo Colin Meagher
Blackburn Toomanator 16 review

Blackburn Chamber HV Pump
Bell Super DH Photo Bell Paris Gore

Earlier today, Vista Outdoor announced plans to sell Bell, Giro and Blackburn, as well as their other sports protection brands. They are also selling Jimmy Styks paddle boards, Savage Arms, and Stevens firearms, focusing their business on ammunition, hunting and shooting accessories, hydration bottles and packs, and outdoor cooking products.

"Our review identified product categories that are core to the company's long-term business strategy," said Vista Outdoor Chief Executive Officer Chris Metz. "We believe future investment should focus on categories where Vista Outdoor can achieve sustainable growth, maximize operational efficiencies, deliver leadership economics, and drive shareholder value.

Vista Outdoor

The company says the plan is a result of a comprehensive strategic review, which began in November 2017 when new CEO Chris Metz joined the company, and is not a result of recent boycotts of Bell, Giro, Blackburn, and Camelbak by consumers over Vista's involvement with the NRA. Following the boycotts, REI, MEC and other independent retailers stopped ordering Vista Outdoor owned cycling products, but Metz mentioned in today's earnings call that this was this boycott did not affect the bottom line of Vista Outdoors.

"This transformation plan is a significant first step toward creating a portfolio of brands that is laser-focused on our target consumer and leverages the strengths of our combined platform," said Metz. "This renewed focus will allow us to invest in these categories and their natural adjacencies. Coupled with our previously announced sales and marketing reorganization to drive a founder's mentality back into our brands, this strategic orientation will also allow us to accelerate our efforts to expand e-commerce capabilities and increase our emphasis on market-leading product innovation. The end result will be a Vista Outdoor that lives up to the potential envisioned three years ago when the company was formed."

The announcement comes a mere two years after Vista Outdoor bought Bell, Giro, Blackburn and C-Preme from BRG Sports in 2016 for $400 million, after becoming an independent public company one year earlier. Vista will begin reshaping their portfolio of brands immediately and anticipates all potential transactions to be made by the end of fiscal year 2020.

There is no buyer currently lined up and SVP of Communications & Government Relations at Vista Outdoor Inc. Amanda Covington says that Vista Outdoor will "take the time necessary to both realize an attractive value and to ensure the right partner." She added that, "For all of our employees, we continue to operate business as usual."

Camelbak is not currently on the list of brands that will be sold.

bigquotesSome of our brands serve our core consumers as well as those beyond our target consumer: the outdoor enthusiast. CamelBak, Camp Chef and Bushnell are three great examples and we believe there is opportunity to leverage these brands to further increase offerings and presence. CamelBak has a legacy of product offerings that perform in extreme environments, most notably hydration packs for military use. They also hold leadership positions in other hydration solutions such as bottles and packs for cycling and running applications.  We believe we can further expand CamelBak’s offerings to serve our identified target consumer by leveraging the strong history behind the brand.Amanda Covington, SVP of Communications & Government Relations at Vista Outdoor Inc.

The slides from the recent Vista Outdoor Earnings Conference Call are available here.


  • 121 10
 I wonder if they sell a mount I can use to carry my AR-15 on my eBike?
  • 13 1
 I'll build you one.
  • 16 2
 @rellinger: and thus a new business was made
  • 4 1
 I think Ellsworth has a Sales-Projection Formula you two can utilize when giving your investor presentation! Like on The Apprentice. You gotta start with some capital somewhere if you're going to build a huge multi-national corporation!
  • 39 8
 Long Low, Slack and 3 water bottles trend is a plot by NRA so it’s easier to carry AR15 in the front triangle of the frame. Pole Machine already takes one! At the moment you have to satisfy yourself with Desert Eagle in the SWAT compartment. The only Eagle thing worth having on your bike.
  • 13 2
 @WAKIdesigns: We're going to need a drawing to illustrate.
  • 2 0
 @Stinky-Dee preppers dream. hah
  • 1 0
 @hedmisten: Got my solar recharge kit all ready!
  • 10 0
 Lets get a mount on either side and decals that you can put on the AR-15's that say "WHAT PART OF STRAVA KOM DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?"
  • 8 14
flag NATE989PAL (May 2, 2018 at 9:18) (Below Threshold)
 and so great minds begin to think and liberal eyes begin to cry.
  • 2 1
 Fortunately mine fits in my backpack Wink
  • 3 0
 @raditude: second that request!
  • 91 41
 I have to say it;

Why do Americans fight so much about there right to have a weapon but nobody else can in the rest of the world?
North Korea? Iran? Why can’t they have Nukes? Oh wait. They are crazy. And Americans are not?
  • 106 150
flag Levelheadsteve (May 1, 2018 at 19:51) (Below Threshold)
 Which cultures support killing homosexuals for being homosexual, which cultures keep their people locked in and won’t let them travel out of the country, which cultures support throwing acid in the faces of women who try to get an education, which cultures support public executions of women who were raped thus dishonoring their families? I’ll give you a hint. For all of its faults, it isn’t the USA.

That’s right. Team America, back again to save the motherf*cking day.
  • 70 18
 @Levelheadsteve: where the f was team captain America world police when the Rwanda genocide happen or darfur more recently looks like poor nations with no resources are not worth saving?
  • 86 19
 @Levelheadsteve: come to Canada. We have actual civil liberties. Not fake ones
  • 38 12
 @Levelheadsteve: Remember the cold war, you guys really saved the world, hey? The US definitely didn't topple a bunch of democracies for their own interests.
  • 33 82
flag Levelheadsteve (May 1, 2018 at 21:20) (Below Threshold)
 @ybsurf: I’m sorry the USA has only saved 1/3 of the countries in the world. We’ll try to live up to Canada’s expectations in the future.
  • 25 71
flag Levelheadsteve (May 1, 2018 at 21:21) (Below Threshold)
 @mprosper: Well, considering the Cuban missile crisis, the USA saved Canada from becoming a colony of Russia.
  • 18 39
flag Levelheadsteve (May 1, 2018 at 21:22) (Below Threshold)
 @WayneParsons: Good one.
  • 44 9
 @Levelheadsteve: lol "saved". The US was definitely partially responsible for Cuban missile crisis.
  • 45 7
 @mprosper: Partially?

Khrushchev wouldn't have even tried to put missiles in Cuba if the US didn't insist on encircling the entire Soviet Union with missile bases.

Amazing how the US public sucked up the old Commie fear doctrine.
  • 41 31
 @mprosper: The US has interests we protect, like any other country. We have made missteps, like any other country. A statistic that may interest you is looking up the numbers on Global Humanitarian Aid and Charitable Contributions by country though. May give you some insight. SPOILER ALERT - USA! USA! USA!
  • 18 16
 @Levelheadsteve: I don't know if younger to world war 2 like most Americans think they saved the world when it was the allied that save it they just USA just showed up at the end and took credit while other country been battle for years setting up strategic battle all over Europe
  • 69 9
 @SCxXxMTB: Adjusted per capita the US is way down the list.

The UK gives two thirds what the US does and the US has 11 states that are bigger than the UK.

Missteps? The US has been at war with someone (usually poor, resource rich counties) for 93% of its existence.
  • 19 14
 @ybsurf: Not sure if you are familiar with world history or not, but WW2 was fought in multiple fronts. So that whole Pacific Theater, yea it happened.
  • 42 15
 @SCxXxMTB: Your country still punishes human beings with death. You needlessly kill billions of land and sea animals every year. You say you care about the environment but start crying when gas prices reach half of what they are in Europe.
Tell me more about your protected interests and values.
  • 26 17
USA: An industry nation with no healthcare system, an even worse education system and a country which only makes money by invading other countries and starting wars.

Nearly all big minds in the USA are imported from Asia as the American education system only shi*s out unreflected patriotic dumbasses.

How about saving the refugees lives and taking them instead of Europe- you’re the one responsible for all that.
  • 18 12
The Soviet Union lost 24,000,000 military and civilian personnel in the Second World War.
America lost 418,500.

Tell me again how you and ya yank buddies "save the motherf*cking day."
  • 65 10
 As an American, I don’t see how or why a 2nd Amendment, written during a revolution when arms were muskets, protects ones rights to have an AR-15.

It also blows my mind that people want to spend billions on a useless wall when we could use that money for education or healthcare.
  • 5 2
 There is plenty to critique on this subject, but your post utterly fails at doing so in a clear manner.
  • 3 12
flag atrokz (May 2, 2018 at 4:37) (Below Threshold)
 Are you vegan? Sit down.
  • 12 2
 @FinnWatts: don’t forget “you’d be speaking German if it wasn’t for the USA” they like that one.
  • 4 4
 @egourdin67: yes I am aware that mean use won a battle not a war and kinda shitty way to win by dropping 2 nukes killing thousands of innocent people. But wait no one else can have those mass destruction weapons.
  • 11 5
 @ybsurf: your understanding of history is nothing short of ignorant. Everyone bombed civilians back then. There weren't any countries at war that didnt engage the populace. The agreements and conventions came after. Using the two bombs as some high ground is asinine. All countries engaged in the same tactic of bombing civies. Has a nuclear bomb been dropped since then?
  • 8 5
 @atrokz: Dude, just because everyone else was doing it, doesn't make it right. And no, no one else was doing it. No other nation has dropped an atomic bomb on any target, let alone a civilian one.
  • 15 19
flag Tearsforgears (May 2, 2018 at 5:56) (Below Threshold)
 Um, first off it's "their." Secondly, guns won and kept America free. Thirdly, we are not ran by a dictator that tortures its own citizens, supports terrorists that behead infidels and wishes death to Israel and other countries (i.e., America). Good thing you're in Canada. Please, stay there. Dumb ass.
  • 9 2
 @ReformedRoadie: Counter point-1st Amendment rights were written during a time when you could write a letter, or a poster, or stand on a soap box to "protest". It didnt apply to social media, media, billboards, etc as they didnt exist.

Also, 90% positive NYS safe act has infringed on the 2nd Amendment more than you think, i cant even have a bayonet lug on a newer rifle!
  • 5 1
 @Kamba6: you missed the point kiddo. Fitting.....

Lets try it again. Back then, everyone bombed civilians. Do we also need to discuss the other options that may have happened at that time? Its straight up comical how poorly this generation understands history and context.
  • 15 0
 But but but WW2!! But but but the ABomb. But nothing. If people had a clue as to what atrocities existed during WW2 you would never use the ABomb as a soap box. Do you know what happened between chinese and Japanese soldiers? Nothing is justifiable according to our societies standards now. Using shit in the past as an excuse to shit on a country now is so ignorant and rooted in bigotry its fitting as to who is using it as an argument. And this is from a Canadian. We have come a long way. Dont use ww2 as an example.
  • 9 3
 @atrokz: What about dropping millions of litres of chemical weapons on peasant farmers and polluting 1000's of square kilometres of rain forest forever in the 1960's?
  • 14 1
 @jclnv: Does the US still use napalm? Pretty sure there has been massive changes on that front too. But I mean, we are seeing Russia carpet bomb in Syria indiscriminately while the US spends millions on a single bomb using JTAC at extremely high risk to limit collateral. So its pretty clear the US has come a long way. Im just saying we cant use the Abombs as any sort of argument to what happens now. Germany had millions of people in camps starving because of religion. We buy german cars and realize its not tje same anymore. Things change and while its critical to understand and accept the past (and learn from it, create rules laws etc) its important to form arguments today based on what happens now. The US isnt clean by any standard but they certainly arent the monsters people try to make it to be. Any other superpower that exists currently would be waaaay worse imo.
  • 5 2
 @ybsurf: @ybsurf: want magic to happen. One American fighter with a magic shield to jump in front of each individual person being hacked by a machete on a small patch of dirt in a back alley, then run down the street for the next batch.
If the US can't save every person on this teeny tiny globe, they must be worthless right? World welfare?
  • 5 0
 @colincolin: @colincolin: Your country? That's so stupid. You actually act holier than though. Like "your country" is the magic fairy dust farters who leave no trace on the landscape. Look in your country's closet. It's littered. Duh
  • 2 1
 @Pitcrew: not sure if that is a counter point, or more evidence that as wise as the founding fathers were, they could not foresee everything.

And why do you need a bayonet?
  • 8 0
 @NotNamed: The USA isn't responsible for famine and water shortages fella. Those refugees have lost a place to be for one resources and too many humans. No food or water.

Stay classy.
  • 2 8
flag ReformedRoadie (May 2, 2018 at 7:32) (Below Threshold)
 @Tearsforgears: so you correct the use of “their” but then use “ran” incorrectly instead of “run”...that’s rich
  • 8 2
 @FinnWatts: Why was that? Oh yeah...because they were next door. AND they thought it would smart to not sign the Geneva conventions. The German forces slaughtered them without mercy.
What the heck kind of screwed up logic are using in your skull? Yes, the US did tip the balance and yes it was because we were furthest from the conflict.

War is ugly FinnWatts. Those closest to the flames get consumed. The fireman who shows up with a hose still gets a hug.

My great uncle died in that war and my grandfather suffered horrors in Stalag 17 for over a year, watching his fellow human beings destroy his fellow soldiers. But he put his life on the line for millions and millions of strangers in a world he'd never seen.
I'm sure you had ties to that war too. Just shut the FUKK up and honor the sacrifices of all those who lost you twat!!!
  • 7 2
 @FinnWatts: Since you sound like an expert on WW2 history, so you should already know the reason the Soviets lost so many men. Oh maybe you don't...well I'll just tell you in case you don't know. The SU lost so many lives due to its tactics, poor supply chain, and ancient weaponry. It was common for soldiers to be sent into battle with a rifle every third man with the others just given ammo. They literally sent only 1/3 of their forces into battle armed...more than once. The Allies and the US in particular had much stronger military which was better supplied and used advanced weapons. And that is just the tip of the ice berg. This is the key difference, so be quiet you ignorant ape.
  • 6 1
 @Nathan6209: logic. It hurts when it makes their brain grow.
  • 5 2
 @ybsurf: Wow, have you ever ever ever opened a history text book and actually studied this war? The nukes were dropped because the Japanese refused to surrender and an invasion of the Japanese homeland would have cost hundreds of thousands of American lives. Don't forget the Japanese attacked first killing thousands and committed unspeakable atrocities and war crimes until they were defeated. It was backs against the wall kill or be killed and Canada, as always sat at the side and let others do the work.
  • 3 1
 @atrokz: thumbs up for actually knowing your facts.
  • 6 1
 @ReformedRoadie: Little bit of both.

For starters, how much more terrifying is it going to be for an intruder to come face to face with a naked man waving a 12gauge with a bayonet on it? It's also useful for cutting my steaks/grilled meats.
  • 1 2
 @Kamba6: You weren't there, you have not a single clue what the world was going through at that time. Until you have suited up and gone into battle to literally protect your family and loved ones, keep your mouth shut.
  • 17 5
 you're comparing a nuclear weapon to a fire arm ? not even close

look at history to see the future .

the Germans banned guns and took them away from their citizens right before WWii .

guns aren't the problem its people that are the problem .

guns were banned in England and now there mass homicides with knives .
everyone needs to educate themselves better . not form an opinion off other beliefs

I only buy giro bell and other items from the umbrella company vista outdoors . they put more money back into saving public land in one year than REI does in a decade . 2017 alone

the Pittman-Robertson Act taxes gun equipment higher which gets allocated to habitat conservation, wildlife research etc, to keep the wilderness here for our children and future generations

up vote to educate so people know the facts
  • 1 1
 Free Park Baker
  • 9 11
 @atrokz: Absolutely wrong. The aggression the US shows in foreign policy and war(s) is without equal. Imposing dictatorships, destabilizing the Middle East for decades, countless resource invasions, military bases in countries all over the world that provoke divisive tensions between many nations. The military industrial complex has huge influence over US foreign policy, the result of which is endless wars.

Read some Chomsky.
  • 11 6
 @driftmonster: Mass homicides by knives in the UK? You mean between gangs?

Stay away from Fox News.
  • 18 15
 Jesus, I would like to formally apologize for the right wing idiot Americans on here, from all educated, knowledgeable Americans. Please remember that these minority views do not represent the majority of the country and many of us are reasonable people that care about things like the environment, human life, and healthcare more than we care about the second amendment.
  • 10 3
 @bizutch I wish I could upvote you more on all of your comments. I had grandparents in WW1 and an uncle in WW2 that was shot down over the pacific and survived a Japanese prison camp and the Bataan death march. Good luck getting through to any of these millennial dumbshits though...
  • 5 0
 @jclnv: meaning people will find a way to kill even if that have to use a butter kinfe . #fakenews #maga
  • 5 1
 @tgent: It's more of a response to the extremely, uninformed comments from from what I guess you could call the "left". Lot's of room to grow on both sides of the aisle, less polarization, more moderation.
  • 3 1
 @FinnWatts: how is this getting up voted and actual facts are down voted?
  • 3 1
 @Nathan6209: This is the internet, we reject reality and substitute it with whatever sounds good.
  • 1 0
 @highcountrydh: Ha! So true, indeed.
  • 5 9
flag jclnv (May 2, 2018 at 8:53) (Below Threshold)

This is a staggeringly simple argument. It really worries me that the pro gun lot can't understand it.

A gun has zero use but to kill things, everything else that has a primary usage that isn't killing things IS not the same.

It's ridiculous to even argue from that point. It's no different to arguing for someone's right to stockpile chemical weapons.
  • 2 1
 @jclnv: you just suggested I read books from an author Thats been on my bookshelf for years. An author that has been proven wrong in many instances. I think its safe to say our discussion is over. Thanks for coming out but Ill bow out of a discussion where someone whi has little clue of history recommends a NC book.....
  • 1 1
 @atrokz: Please state where he's been wrong regarding US foreign policy?
  • 6 0
 @jclnv: in his book 'what uncle sam really wants' he basically makes up a series of lies (lies..) that accuse the US of being alies and having a pact of sorts with the Nazis. This has been proven wrong multiple times. He also denied the genocide by Pol Pot in Cambodia (I lived in Thailand for 7 years, been to Cambodia. Nobody believes it didnt happen) and when finally admits it he blames it on the US. Chomsky is a liar and merely a linguist. He has 0 credibility in his activism.
  • 2 0
 @jclnv: should state I dont feel Im left or right. I just can't stand Chomsky.
  • 8 4
 If one of you would like to adopt a 41 year old american and his trusty cattle dog, I would love to come live in your country. I am std and ar15-free, low maintenance and do not vote for crappy celebrities with fascist megalomaniac tendencies. I enjoy hockey, poutine, Trailer Park Boys, the Tragically Hip and I can play "House That Heaven Built" on the guitar. And I will help build trails! Thank you for your consideration.
  • 7 2
 @jclnv: Yesterday, here in the boonies of NC, a guy jumped out a moving car after a 2 county chase, disappeared into the woods and the police lost him less than a mile from my home. Everywhere here is thick green woods
My daughters had just got off the bus.

Do you know what a gun will do if that fugitive crosses our threshold?

I'll give you a hint. It will deploy faster than I can cook up a nuclear strike.

Or do you propose I hug him and let him have my daughters?
  • 2 3
 @DiveH: we have a lot of AR15s up here. We just dont use em like some do down there......
  • 4 2
 @highcountrydh: I have a very intelligent friend who is so benign in his thought process...and I think it's because he's always had great luck with people liking him and how affable he is...that he thinks war won't come from within.

He's so fixated on the world scale that he thinks that the country he lives in would never turn against it's citizens, despite all of history (again...he's smart and well read) having proven one inevitable truth. At some point, someone comes for what you have and at some point that someone is either your own government or a fractured piece of it.

I don't have a bomb shelter, month's rations, a bugout plan, etc. But I'm not dumb enough to believe we somehow have magically stopped history from repeating.
  • 7 0
 @bizutch: It's interesting how demonized supporting the second amendment has become. You're automatically characterized as a right wing extremist who wants to kill everyone you see. I'm a very peaceful person who is generally pretty liberal on a lot of social issues, that happens to like putting holes in cardboard. Not to say that I wouldn't use one of my guns in defense of my family. If someone tries to come into my house and harm my family, they're leaving in a bag. Something that I hope never happens. But just because you hope something never happens doesn't mean you shouldn't be prepared for it. Is it more virtuous to be murdered by a meth-head while waiting for the police to come, than to defend yourself? More virtuous for a woman to be raped than to put a hole in their would-be rapist? I just don't get it. Society seems to pity the criminals who commit violent crime more than the victims. Glad I got out of the city and live in a place where there's almost no violent crime except bar fights.
  • 1 6
flag Kamba6 (May 2, 2018 at 11:33) (Below Threshold)
 @atrokz: I'm not sure who you're talking about when you say this generation.

Now, please explain to me the context in which it is ok to use an atomic bomb on civilian targets. Yes, everyone was bombing civilian targets but using conventional explosives. What is this context in which mass extermination of civilians with a termo-nuclear device is acceptable? Please, enlighten me.
  • 2 3
 @Nathan6209: I happen to have lived through a war (obviously not WWII) and have an understanding of both what goes on and context in which it goes on. Now, please share your experiences.
  • 2 4
 @bizutch: I think, in more recent history the whole world would much prefer if Americans didn't try and save us and sell us their "freedom". We're fine the way we are. Thank you.
  • 1 0
 @bizutch: I have to question any politician(or others)that wants to strip 2A rights, as that was the main reason our forefathers wrote that into the constitution. Billionaires like Bloomberg and politicians that travel with armed guards but don't want the common folk to have access to firearms is the exact reason why the constitution needs to be protected, or else we'll all be serving our all knowing masters. And if I hear one more person talk about the forefather, second amendment and muskets I'm gonna puke. Do people think that during the revolutionary war that people would have rejected the AR 15 (which is not a weapon of war) as too technologically advanced? They would have dropped as many redcoats as fast as they could! And for sport shooting, they're fun as hell! Kinda like today's mountain bikes. Why do you need a carbon 170 travel enduro bike, or even a ten year old 26 in wheeled clapper, when a boneshaker does the same thing? I don't know why I even clicked on this article anyway, I really love bikes and really hate politics!
  • 2 1
 @Kamba6: clue me in as to what the heck I said about anything to do with shoving "freedom" down an Irishman's throat? You seem to be speaking directly to me about what I am uncertain.
  • 2 0
 @highcountrydh: Human beings can't think large scale enough to picture how massive industries used to brutalize people during the industrial revolution and throughout all time really. Only billionaires in seats of power making policies and rules and influencing government decisions are the ones who would fear the use of firearms.

Two dudes staring across a street at each other from their front yards aren't afraid of one another having them.

There was a guy earlier who said "the US is polluting all the oceans and killing all the animals". That's a corporation, mindless, nameless and faceless. Pollution, corruption, power..they're all tools of the masters of industry and they'd much prefer a helpless citizenry. That's a truth in any country.
  • 3 0
 @Nathan6209: I'm pretty sure Canada had troops in WW2 in 39, what year did the US finally get off their asses?
  • 2 2
 @bizutch: " want magic to happen. One American fighter with a magic shield to jump in front of each individual person being hacked by a machete on a small patch of dirt in a back alley, then run down the street for the next batch.
If the US can't save every person on this teeny tiny globe, they must be worthless right? World welfare?"

I was talking about the world in general rather than Ireland. We don't need you to save us. You've done enough of that and it hasn't worked out well.
  • 3 3
 @bizutch: Dude, it's the massive industry that made and sold you those guns and they are the only ones benefiting from you buying more. Do you even think about what you're writing or do the words just come out?
  • 1 0
 @Kamba6: you clearly can't grasp context. Now tell us what war you lived through....
  • 2 0
 @Kamba6: hes wrecking your points.
  • 4 0
 @bizutch: Right? During the most disgraceful period in our country's history, the days of slavery, firearms were a way for people who had no rights and no hope to fight for a better life and freedom. Harriet Tubman knew this. One of the great heroes of this time, abolishionist John Brown, knew this! He sought to arm the slaves, first with pikes, then as he could afford it, with rifles so they could fight for their own freedom. Led a raid on a confederate fort to steal weapons and gave his own life, as did one of his sons to help secure the freedom of people who were kept powerless by their slavemasters. People don't learn from history. After reading some of these posts today, I'm not sure it's even taught in school anymore. Funny sitting around thinking about how the young generation is completely effed by their lack of knowledge of history, and I'm only 41. Makes me feel like a grumpy old man!
  • 3 4
 @atrokz: So please do explain the context of WWII that justifies use of atomic weapons on civilian targets...twice? I am yet to read a solid argument from you supporting that point.
  • 2 0
 @Kamba6: thats your mistake. You think there's a difference between dropping millions of large bombs (litterally) vs one big bomb. Killing is killing. Using the ABomb we all know now isnt right. Thinking Im justifying it is another one of your many mistakes. I just, clearly, stated you can't use that as an example for todays actions. It changed the entire way things are done. Nobody is justifying it.

Now tell us what war you "lived" through.
  • 2 1
 @atrokz: Yes, there's a very real difference. It's called time. The only way those two things would be the same is if you dropped all of the conventional bombs at once.

Justifying or excusing. What's the difference. Yes, it did change the way things were done. US got away with it and changed their foreign policy to that of imperialism and occupation under the guise of threat from comunist invasion. The only difference between ther current domestic and foregn policy and that of 60 years ago is that the bad guy has changed. Do yes, alot of what's happening today can be linked to the events at the and and immediately after the end of WWII.

I lived through the war in Bosnia you gobshyte. All of it. From start to finish. Now how about you tell us how you're qualified to understand the context of war.
  • 3 1
 @bizutch: You really felt like you were in danger from that guy?

I think I'd be more worried about my daughters being shot at school.
  • 2 1
 @Honda750: Technically, Canada did not go to war as you would like to believe. As part of the quasi English Empire they were essentially still tied hand and foot to Britain. So there's your history lesson for ya. Canada also limited its involvement to 1.1 million troops mostly serving in support roles. The USA sent 16 Million Americans to war with nearly 500,000 casualties. Funny, so many Canadians hating on the US in this comments section, but Canada's contribution to stopping genocide was only double the amount of US soldiers killed in action. I think you see why it is a sensitive subject to us down here.
  • 2 0
 @Kamba6: It was kill or be killed at that point. Is that solid enough for you? Good grief.
  • 1 1
 @Nathan6209: Not solid at all. Exactly who were civilians from Hiroshima and Nagasaki going to kill? Japan had lost the war in the Pacific and were all but completely defeated at that point. If it was absolutely necessary to demonstrate power like that, why not choose a military target, do something to minimize civilian casualties?
  • 2 0
 you may want to study up on history. Germany walked in step with the Nazi’s because the allied powers who defeated them in WWI ruined the country, didn’t allow for means to properly rebuild, and in general killed morale. Shit was super tough for Germany, them along comes Hitler. Watch “Trimuph of the Will” sometime and you’ll even be moved to buy into it all. They nailed propganda like no otherr country had before.

They didn’t need to take away the guns. People gladly gave them up as the Nazi’s created some serious badass weapons. Serious shit like badass planes and tanks. Howitzers that had barrels two school-buses long that could shoot rounds halfway into another country. On goes the list. That made Germans feel safe from invasion. Safe from ever being beaten down ever again like they were in WWI. Truly impressive stuff really until you remember how many millions of their own people they killed in the camps.
  • 3 2
 Nice to see someone gets history, but we dropped the nukes even though the war was almost over. That actually came out a few years ago.

What dropping the nukes did was show off how big our dick was and we weren’t afraid to use it. It scared eveeyone, even us, and really ended the concept of world war ever happening again.
  • 1 1
 Nukes in the hands of unstable countries is as bad as giving that drunk skinny redneck a gun halfway threw a fist fight.
  • 3 0
 @Kamba6: So you would choose a society and empire that brutally murdered women and children, committed unspeakable atrocities against the Chinese and Pacific Islanders, and ambushed an unsuspecting Peal Harbor. You are telling me, without using hindsight, that if you were given the choice to save tens of thousands of your countrymen or send those men to their deaths that you would willingly send those men to their grave? To save what? A country that had vowed to fight to the death, that refused to reason and come to peace? Sir, with all due respect to you and what you have seen, you are taking something that happened there and then and you are trying to look at it with 21st century eyes, expecting those people in the past to have been different somehow. You also leave out that multiple nations were all about to come to the atomic level and very quickly. It was only a matter of time until unspeakable weapons of destruction were unleashed on the world, and it just as easily could have been the Japanese nuking us, or the Germans. But the Allies were stronger, luckier, and they got there first, so they to the only real choice left to them. To end the death once in for all with one final blow. It is easy to sit back, drink a beer, and judge history knowing what we know today. It is much harder to actually put yourself in the seat making the decisions knowing no choice in front of you is a good one. Man up and admit hard choices have to be made sometimes, and sometimes, there is no good option. War is war and it is never, ever pretty. You should know that given your experiences.
  • 1 1
 @Nathan6209: I never said I would choose such a society and empire. All I said it that dropping that kind of destructive power on civilian targets is wrong. It was wrong then, it is wrong now and it always will be. Yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing but it's not like the outcome couldn't have been predicted. Japan was on it's knees and if the demonstration of power was necessary, targets could have been chosen better and with more regard given for human life.

As for the other nations having those weapons, Germans were defeated, Japanese all but defeated and they didn't have a nuclear program and the Russians didn't start properly pursuing it until they got a demonstration in Hiroshima and Nagasaki meaning they were years away from it at the pace they were going.

It is exactly my experience that is making me think this way. "All's fair in love and war", they say. An excuse all too commonly used when men do horrible things during times of conflict. My countrymen used that excuse a lot and we all know what some of them did to civilians.
  • 3 4
 @atrokz: hey, that's fine. Truthfully, I am not against gun ownership at all. I'm against americans owning guns. Lots of us have poor, misguided social values and selfish, reactionary temperaments.
  • 5 3
 @tgent: you are a d!pshit snowflake
The 2nd amendment at its root is careing about life. You are not educated. Read a book, democrats split the USA over slavery, were on the wrong side of jim crow laws, etc. Don't put your self in the bucket of reasonable. You aint.
  • 3 3
 @DiveH: Worse than that I think is that the US culture is built on fear. Not the fault of the people but decades of conditioning by governments has had a very negative affect.
  • 3 1
 @DiveH: I hope you leave
  • 1 0
 @Kamba6: its been my wheelhouse for 13 years. So yea, sit down. Imperialism under the guise of fighting communism. No wonder you wankers needed us Canadians there to help.... Your understanding of it is a drop in the bucket.
  • 1 0
 @DiveH: Tbh America is a beautiful place. Its just 350m people living in a much smaller footprint than us. And its the states. Each state is individual in how it wants to rule. I find it hard to bash the states for that reason alone. Its so different from state to state.
  • 2 0
 @Kamba6: People like you don't fight wars; you just make them.
  • 1 0
 @atrokz: Just as I thought. You read a couple of books and you're an expert now. Ha... Well done.
  • 1 0
 @jarrod801 I rest my case.
  • 1 0
 @DiveH: you said you wanted to leave... so I hope you do
  • 2 0
 @atrokz: @Kamba6 needs to comprehend really simple things. Things that are so plain and simple and black and white but he has to look for larger, more complex wheels in motion for why something happens.

The atom bomb was a horror. But the black and white simple truth of it was it was a race of scientists to a nuclear finish line. Whichever country finished a bomb and got it in the air first was going to detonate it regardless of any concern for human life. It was viewed at the time as THE way to end the war. Small sighted. Simple. It was a competition, but on the field of war.

Why was it detonated where it was instead of metropolis? Again, very simple. Very black and white. Easy to get the plane over. You can't easily fly a US bomber over a major Japanese metropolis.

Simple. Black and white. Horrific and without a thought for what comes after. It was just a race.
  • 3 0
 @jclnv: Are you trying to make any sense or just trying to get a higher post count? Would you like to put forth a better option of protecting my children in the event a criminal on the run tried to come in my home since you obviously have all the answers but are keeping them tucked away under your saddle there keyboard jockey.
  • 2 2
 @bizutch: Stay in your house and lock the doors?

How will you protect them one of their classmates walks into school with a gun?

As I've said in other posts, many people in the US have fear as the driving force of many of their decisions. Fear of intruders, fear of the government (or a side of it), fear of those damn Commies, fear of going to hell etc.

It's impossible to have a rational argument with such people.
  • 2 0
 @jclnv: you sound misinformed. its ensuring no one takes away your liberties. You sound like you have no problem letting the government or your fellow man make decisions for you. It sounds like you are ok with letting liberty get slowly taken by an imperfect system ran by imperfect people. You sound like you should go ride your bike and believe everything is puppies and candy canes in the world.
  • 2 0
 @Kamba6: lol. No. My wheelhouse. My business. My work. My travel. Shit you know nothing about and dont have the clearance or capacity to understand. Clearly. Im done with defence now. I do my own thing. But dont kid yourself in thinking there arent actual dudes out here whos business is dealing death.
  • 1 0
 @bizutch: its pretty clear hes ignorant.
  • 1 0
 @jarrod801: Actually I've got some pretty controversial views about the state of human societies. Enough that I've been banned by many a Pinkbike contributor!

I also agree that governments don't always act in the best interest of the public but if you know the slightest thing about the frailty and susceptibility to in influence of the human mind it would be clear to you that have a country awash with firearms is pure insanity.

Here is the easily refutable logic of the pro gun side. Imagine the entire US populous condensed to 100 people in a school gym. What would be your chance of survival if nobody had guns in that gym if an altercation broke out? Now what would be your chances of survival if everyone was armed?

A 5 year old can work this stuff out.

And you really think an armed population is going to prevent you from loosing your "liberties" from a nefarious government? They're way smarter than that and they're already taking your "liberties" in small steps in a number of subtle ways. Many are even cheered in by one side of the population as they think they're only effecting the other side.
  • 2 1
 @jclnv: thanks for agreeing .
  • 2 0
 @jclnv: you are right that liberties are slowly getting taken in small steps, I completely agree. However, I fully disagree that armed people don't have a better chance. I will never give up mine. thank you for the debate. I am having a beer installing new renthal carbon bars now. cheers
  • 1 0
 Powerful rebuttal guys LOL!
  • 50 3
 Just waiting for the comments lol
  • 125 5
 It'd be real cool if we didn't have to ban anyone for horrible racist stuff this time around.
  • 14 5
 @brianpark: you guys know this is going to cause a shitstorm bit someone still hits submit anyway.......
  • 15 1
 Popcorn has popped, sugar caramelizing on the stove as we speak...
  • 168 3
 I guess Vista stuck to their guns.
  • 30 8
 @onemind123: because it's important news for the bike industry.
  • 19 0
 Same here, I noticed that whenever an article appears on PB about guns or Israel a bunch of accounts created in the past day with nothing on them come on here and comment their expert opinions. Better get a beer and a slice, sit back and watch the action.
  • 6 37
flag me2menow (May 1, 2018 at 18:10) (Below Threshold)
 @brianpark: no it's not. maybe if this was

good try though
  • 23 19
 @brianpark: more like all the views controversy generates is good for your advertising dollar income.
  • 19 1
 @onemind123: Bike reviewers gotta eat too man! If you're going to fling that stone, you could have just as easily "not clicked the link".
  • 8 16
flag ninjatarian (May 1, 2018 at 20:44) (Below Threshold)
 @brianpark: Actually, it’s really not. Mildly interesting, but hardly legitimately important to anyone.
  • 2 3
 @ninjatarian: you'd be surprised.
  • 35 9
 Who could give a sht about guns as a threat?! Bacon, beer and Cherios kill more people than guns in crimes and conflicts. I bet crossfit killed more people than terrorist attacks worldwide. Smoke weed, drink water, eat mushrooms, shag a lot, ride bikes.
  • 4 8
flag brappjuice (May 2, 2018 at 7:49) (Below Threshold)
 @brianpark: I'm not sure it is important to the industry. Speaking as someone in the industry, no one cares about these minor players being sold off. But hey, its hell of a click bait.
  • 5 0
 @WAKIdesigns: Please, do not talk bad about bacon, we are close friends.
  • 2 2
 yeah I agree with ya on the weed/water/pot/shrooms/shag/ride bikes bit 100%.
  • 40 1
 There way too many people here that seem to have their sense of identity wrapped up in being pro or anti-gun. Post something about a new wheel standard so everyone start responding to each other like decent human beings again.
  • 6 0
 I'm "pro-bottle".
  • 8 0
 @Spittingcat: WHAT?!?! I sire, am anti-bottle; therefore you are now my mortal enemy and we are subsequently now embroiled in a fued of almighty proportions.
  • 34 1
 Idk about you guys, but I typically shop for shotguns and floor pumps at the same time.
  • 25 1
 I know a good pump action when I see one
  • 7 3
 @adrennan: Sign me up for the semi-auto model! BLAM-pump, BLAM-I'm at 30 PSI... 'merica!
  • 1 2
  • 3 1
 @nuttypoolog: can we get bump stock floor pumps? tubeless made easy!
  • 23 2
 Profit from Camelbak sales to the military and law enforcement far exceed the profit from the consumer sports world, such that a few years ago, prior to being bought by Vista, Camelbak's board of directors debated getting out of the consumer market altogether. As to the other brands... they make far more money in ammunition sales alone than actually manufacturing and selling firearms. Its the ammunition profits that gave them the capital to buy out all the other brands.
  • 17 0
 Yep, looks like they've sold everything but those rich military contracts but, its nothing to do with the boycott.. Oh no.. Definitely not.....
  • 8 6
 @nojzilla: they probably realised that a customer base full of vapid hypocritical morons isnt good for business.
  • 20 4
 "We believe future investment should focus on categories where Vista Outdoor can achieve sustainable growth, maximize operational efficiencies, deliver leadership economics, and drive shareholder value.

So basically what he is saying, they don’t really care about ANY particular products or the consumers who buy them....they just want maximum dollars no matter what. Is that about right?
  • 57 3
 Like any corporation, they're in the business of making money, not warm fuzzy feelings.
  • 18 6
 @shydroxide: Some companies take other things into consideration, too. Just sayin’.
  • 13 5
 @scvkurt03: They only take other things into consideration if it improves their image, thus making them more money.
  • 8 1
 @Levelheadsteve: That's pretty damn cynical. Warm fuzzy feelings can be good for business, too.
  • 9 0
 My small company does warm fuzzy feelings..... ....which is why our metrics scare the accountants!! They don't get it no matter how much I explain we are happy with the way things have been working for 20 years.
  • 6 0
 @orientdave: Your small company is not publicly traded. Vista is, their entire purpose is to generate returns for shareholders. If these brands are underperforming, and Vista does nothing, that literally goes against their mandate.
  • 3 0
 @scvkurt03: Generally not publicly traded companies. If Vista was private, sure management can do whatever the hell it wants to. But Vista's exec team has to answer to the shareholders, and if they don't have a good reason for keeping on underperforming brands then the brands get the axe.
  • 1 1
  • 3 0
 @BullMooose: Umm, yes, we'd be aware of that at our board'll be telling me that rain is wet next.
  • 2 0
 @orientdave: if you don't get why Vista sold them as someone who sits on a board of execs.....
  • 2 0

Yep, and as with all things, the correct interpretations aren't always the simple ones. I sit on the board of a large, multi-national corporation which receives US government contracts. We have to pursue profits. If we don't, we lose operating capital and thus the ability to meet payroll. We also have to pursue op efficiencies, otherwise product sales end up losing us money, which equates to less jobs and less innovation. We also have to drive shareholder value, otherwise we lose shareholders which means we lose our treasury backing and ability to fund R&D and operating capital.

We're in the game, as with most corporations I run into, because we're passionate about our services/products. But passion isn't enough to keep you in the game.

This isn't a defense of Vista. I don't know their board. But anyone who wants to take a shot at them (yep, I said it) along these lines of thinking should probably first get to know their board and how it interacts with the c-suite of the sub corps in question.

Sigh. This is NOT going to get me good rep.
  • 21 3
 Lynard Skinard is a great band.
  • 3 3
 One time I hot tubbed with the remaining members + a few others in a C grade motel near Lake Nacimiento. If memory serves, one of them was drinking a Mike's Hard lemonade - but other than that they were all pretty cool.
  • 15 1
 @shredteds: Wait... are you trying to explain to us how you got HPV, Hep-C, a hangover, and bed bugs all in one night?
  • 2 3
 @shredteds: cool story, bro
  • 4 1
 @shredteds: I believe it. My parents got hammered with those guys at like 11am once in Spruce Pine, NC at a dive bar one of them was playing guitar with a buddy at.

It was so scary to me. I was 8. Mainly because my dad wanted to rip the bartenders throat out....and I was a 11am.
  • 2 0
 @ReformedRoadie: your contribution is so much better.
  • 1 0
 @bizutch: I just spit out my water, I laughed so hard. Thanks for this.
  • 3 2
 @Tearsforgears: Yeah. I had a fully immersed southern rock culture childhood, completely unwanted by me, including an airbrushed Lynyrd Skynyrd t-shirt with a skull wearing a rebel flag hat smoking a joint.
That shirt then led a second life on a girl who for some reason just had to borrow it to wear to a WCW wrestling even where Lex Luger proceeded to hug her drenched in sweat.
When she asked me if she could keep itn(ya know...cause Lex Luger sweat was so potent for her), I had an out to get rid of it.

Have to find a picture of that stupid thing. Big Grin
  • 17 4
 How can the generally intelligent readership of PB not levy one comment on the superlative example of corporate shit talk and doublespeak by Chris Metz -

" This transformation plan is a significant first step toward creating a portfolio of brands that is laser-focused on our target consumer and leverages the strengths of our combined platform," said Metz. "This renewed focus will allow us to invest in these categories and their natural adjacencies. Coupled with our previously announced sales and marketing reorganization to drive a founder's mentality back into our brands, this strategic orientation will also allow us to accelerate our efforts to expand e-commerce capabilities and increase our emphasis on market-leading product innovation. The end result will be a Vista Outdoor that lives up to the potential envisioned three years ago when the company was formed."

I'm all about Vista making money in whatever manner they chose. I'm less enamoured with having to read this over wrought verbal diarrhea from Chris Mezt, knowing full well that Warren Buffet ( or most 19 year olds with a GED) could have said the same with honesty and integrity in one short sentence that the majority of working people in this country could readily understand. This dick head should apply for a cabinet position. What is clear is that we are often supporting brands with our hard-earned money who,could give a shit less about us the end user.
  • 6 0
 why use 10 words when 400 will do?
  • 15 5
 'this boycott did not affect Vista Outdoors bottom line'
Hear that? You have no power, no influence in this world...
  • 4 3
 The people have spoken
  • 5 3
 @WayneParsons: and they went unheard
  • 6 0
 unless he's lying
  • 7 1
 Politician to America: "I am resigning to spend more time with my wife and kids."
Girl to boy: "It's not you, it's me."
Stripper to customer: "You're really cute."

Maybe, maybe not.
  • 2 0
 @YouHadMeAtDrugs: You actually believe that? Lol
  • 10 1
 “Laser focused”, “target consumer”, “strength of our platform”

Someone in the marketing Dept ate their NRA wheaties when this was written. Oy.
  • 13 3
 Canada one of America's best national parks
  • 2 1
 How have I not heard that joke before? Big Grin
  • 3 2
 LMAO! That pretty much sums up all this bitching coming from our Canadian basement tenants.
  • 2 0
 @utley06: I'd love to live in Canada...but they got that whole winter thing.
  • 7 2
 How did people not see this coming? Shooting sports far exceeds the bike inspdustry, so of course when people start boycotting the brand they’ll drop the cycling side before guns and ammo. I’ve had a lot of beer though, this could be drunk economics. f*ck.
  • 10 1
 Nope, your spot on buddy. I spend my money on ammo before bike parts! Drunk comments are sober thoughts!
  • 7 1
 Sounds a lot like they are focused on being more of a ‘defence contractor’ as opposed to a sports brand.
  • 3 0
 The company says the plan is a result of a comprehensive strategic review, which began in November 2017 when new CEO Chris Metz joined the company, and is not a result of recent boycotts of Bell, Giro, Blackburn, and Camelbak by consumers over Vista's involvement with the NRA.

so why bring the subject up if it's so irrelevant?
  • 2 2
 because thats an important thing to point out?
  • 2 0
 @Asmodai: but according to them, it isnt.
  • 4 2
they said it was not important in making decision about sales, but mentioning it is very important for current share holders and probably even more for potential buyers
  • 3 1
 They're not selling Camelbak.'s profitable. And people are trying to boycott Camelbak. So if they were dumping brands because of "boycott" they'd dump their whole company.
  • 2 0
 @bizutch: boycott LOL! Read between the lines. They are focusing their business of government or ‘defence’. Camelback was originally developed for/with the military.
  • 1 0
 @bizutch: Camelbak makes just a small margin of profit from its sales to the general public, the US military however...
  • 2 4
 Because emotional unstable liberals desperately need constant validation so, even when their actions are as ineffectual as usual, they like to reach for unrelated hooks that give them the false belief that they've accomplished something... then they slink off back to eating tide pods or whatever other retarded shit lefties do.
  • 3 0
 @badbadleroybrown: you're making yourself look real good.
  • 3 1
 only emotionally unstable men need to fight to own a weapon like an AR-15. Weak men who can’t take a punch or even throw one.
  • 1 2
 @juansevo: Right, because the government should be the only people with guns. How much did you pay in taxes last year?
  • 4 4
 @juansevo: I'm sure you're an authority on being an emotionally unstable man and not being able to take or throw punches but, in actuality... no one "needs" to own an AR15... just like Rosa Parks didn't "need" to sit in the front of the bus.

But... thankfully, our rights are not contingent upon what soyboy beta males like you think is necessary. The Bill of Rights isn't concerned with your opinion, nor your pathetic conceptualization of manhood.

@jtayabji: What's the matter cupcake, the truth sting?
  • 6 4
 @badbadleroybrown: I don't understand why so many "patriotic" Americans are so scared of their own government rising up against them, you live in the greatest democracy on Earth don't you? Or are you really that scared of the "emotionally unstable liberals"? Surely you can throw some granola at them and they'll curl up into the fetal position in the corner of the nearest vegan market, being the beta's that they are. Still, your country and some of it's inhabitants - including your president - are a great source of amusement for the rest of the world so keep it up.
On another note, if I lived in a place where I felt I needed an arsenal of weapons to defend myself and my family in my own home, I'd consider moving. perhaps to somewhere more peaceful, like Afghanistan or Syria.
  • 4 2
 @expat: maybe because we live in a world (and country) of conquerors. I live less than an hour from the Cherokee Indian Reservation (a nation within a nation, but not really). Humbled, humiliated yet still proud people forced to move into the deepest hole in the forest.

Stop using the word "patriotic" for people who realize this fact and simply refer to the mindset as what it is...rational. @badbadleroybrown is being witty and sarcastic and I get the tone. If you're not a US male tired of hearing "fear rhetoric" and weirdly structured arguments for pacifism that don't have much to do with leaving one another alone to live your life, then you might not catch his tone as humorous.

I relate what is happening in our country to that Passive Aggressive Person everyone knows down the street. You know...that one that does the wrong thing, something shitty, yet always says "oh, dear I didn't realize" and then turns to you "why are you so angry about it". And you're pissed because you know they're passive aggressive, manipulative and usually get their way because they subtly manipulate everything to get what they want in the end because they're great at staying calm and justifying things as ok and wind up winning when you absolulely LOSE YOUR COOL because they're so passive aggressive.

Big Grin
  • 2 1
 @bizutch: people are only manipulated if they allow themselves to be....
  • 3 0
 @badbadleroybrown: Can you expand on the Rosa Parks statement? I'm genuinely curious to get your take on that because you have a lot of enlightening things to say.
  • 1 1
 @expat: WRONG!
  • 2 1
 @badbadleroybrown: nothing's the matter, sweetie, you're just embarrassing yourself in front of the neighbors...
  • 2 0
 @Golden-G: wrong about what?
  • 1 2
 @expat: I don't understand why so many ostensible "men" are so deathly afraid of guns... why does my "arsenal" scare you so much? Are you really so delicate that guns in my closet terrify you? You should definitely move to Syria or Afghanistan... they've got a shortage of women and the goats can only do so much, they'd LOVE a "man" like you over there expat...
  • 1 0
 @badbadleroybrown: dude you're f*cking badass. you rule bro.

also i envy your reading comprehension skills.
  • 2 2
 @cuban-b: Simple... our rights are not dependent upon necessity. You don't "need" freedom of speech... you don't "need" to be protected from self incrimination... women don't "need" to vote"... slaves don't "need" to be freed. A person's rights aren't based upon some minimum level of need.

People misconstrue the constitution to be a document which defines the rights bestowed upon the people by the government when, in fact, it's a document which defines and limits the powers of the government as set forth by the people. The Bill of Rights in particular represents the minimum freedoms necessary to secure the people from the government... they were never meant to be negotiable at a later date, they were meant to be the last word. Never shall you go further than this... and with the 9th amendment, the founders explicitly declared that not only was this the minimum but that it could never be mistaken for excluding any rights not already set forth. In every way, it was meant to be the shield of the people against possible oppression not some pittance of individual necessity laid forth by the government.

The 2nd amendment wasn't an afterthought... it was a carefully considered safeguard implemented by people who had just escaped from oppression. In defining what a people needed to secure themselves from the government, they immediately determined you needed the ability to speak out... and then the ability to protect that right and those that would follow.

Just like the first amendment isn't about a "need" to speak, but rather ensuring the freedom to speak against your government... the second was never about a daily "need" to own a weapon, it was about the right of the people to defend their freedom should it become necessary. Also, just as the most important time to fight for the freedom to speak against your government would come if the government tried to suppress that right... the most important time to fight for the right to defend your freedom is when the government tried to suppress that right.
  • 1 2
 @jtayabji: The only embarrassing thing going on here is you thinking you sound witty... me laughing at the effeminate ignorance and guttural fear of you snowflakes is entertainment, not embarrassment.
  • 3 1
 @badbadleroybrown: Thanks for the response and thanks for your standard reply of questioning every mans virility based on whether or not they agree with your stance on guns, seems to be the go-to response for the pro-gun populace. I won't bother pointing out that's it's petty and inadequate because you already know that, which is why you do it. This alone makes me question your machismo as you seem to be angrily over compensating, but hey, that's none of my business really and I'm no Dr Phil. My advice would be to tell your parents sooner rather than later. Actually they probably already know.
Your guns don't scare me at all and at no time did I suggest they did. I own a gun, if you want to call it that, I use it primarily for popping pellets off of deer backsides when they try to get into my veggie patch. I don't need one for home protection either (maybe I could slightly wound an agressive sparrow) as I choose not to live among people who I see as a threat to me, If I chose to live in the same neighbourhood as you do where you obviously live in fear of the boogeyman coming in through your bedroom window or that nasty government turning up on your doorstep to take away your precious 2nd amendment rights I might feel different. Nor do I feel the need to keep them to increase my testosterone level or to fondle over when I'm feeling lonely like so many in your country (and to be fair, mine too) seem to enjoy. But hey, to each their own. Maybe by now you've drawn up a few assumptions about my character and you think I'm some libtard snowflake with a kombucha fixation who squeals like a 13 year old girl at a Bieber concert everytime someone mentions gun control. You'd be wrong. I am, however, someone who has seen firsthand the effects that bullets have when they enter a childs forehead and, indeed, exit the other side. I am also someone who has pointed a high powered weapon at another human being whilst having one pointed back at me. It's not a situation I wish to see anyone go through.
OK, bottom line. Guns have an unfortunate place in the world, they're a double edged sword, they can be used to gain freedom from oppresion or to deprive someone of their freedom or their life, They are also a very useful tool for recreation and hunting. That's all fine and dandy by me. What disgusts me is this BS macho attitude that some seem to develop when others say they don't like them. You think having a gun makes you a "man" and being anti-gun makes you less so? That's weakness.
  • 2 4
 @expat: That was a lot of words just to acknowledge you're a coward who has a limited vocabulary and a poor grasp upon the English language.

You're welcome to say you don't like my guns... but I'd suggest worry more about your own ignorance than my guns, it's certainly the more dangerous of the two.

PS - Nowhere have I questioned anyone's virility, let alone every man's. Nowhere have I said that having a gun makes me a man or being anti-gun makes you less so. You're welcome to be antigun... cry yourself to sleep every night with your delicate recollection of bullets whizzing by and swear to never touch one again, that's your right. Your right ends where your opinion and fears impact my freedom. When you let your fear infringe upon others freedoms, that's where you become a bitch. You're not the only one who's been shot at or seen what big bullets do to little heads, you're just one of the delicate ones who let that twist your psyche into blaming the tool instead the man. That, silly boy, is weakness... but you keep telling yourself you're the real hero while you play with your pellet gun and get angry that better men stand their ground over their freedom. Enjoy that next Bieber concert cupcake.
  • 2 1
 @badbadleroybrown: pretty mcuch the reponse.i expected. cheers
  • 2 2
 @badbadleroybrown: you’re a joke. no one is afraid of you.
  • 2 2
 @jtayabji @expat I'd just like to say you guys and @badbadleroybrown should all just relax.

And I'd also like to acknowledge that @badbadleroybrown demonstrated an excellent ability to clearly state logical information regarding the execution of the US Constitution and it's intents to empower it's citizens first and it's government 2nd.

Can we all just drop this? I keep getting post notifications on my Dashboard and I don't know too much about turning them off and really want to go back to bikes. Stop folks. Don't hit ENTER Big Grin
  • 2 1
 @badbadleroybrown: “Nowhere have I questioned anyone's virility, let alone every man's. Nowhere have I said that having a gun makes me a man or being anti-gun makes you less so.“

For posterity
  • 2 0
 @bizutch: 1) i don't think asking three people to relax works when you boost one of them. 2) i don't think i've said much here and i don't have a problem with guns. i've lived in baltimore, vermont, and colorado. tons of people love guns there regardless of their political beliefs. vermont is literally hippies with rifles, which i loved. 3) my main problem with badboyz is his use of terms in attempt to emasculate people he assumes are liberals. it's 2018, calling people words like snowflake and cupcake do nothing but show your maturity. i don't think one demonstrates an ability to state clear logic if one isn't clearheaded.

here's the big one for you though...4) you can go to your dashboard, hit the settings icon, and adjust what you get notifications for.
  • 2 1
 @jtayabji: I don't even notice words like snowflake or cupcake. They're freaking harmless. Just words.

The world just needs a little thicker skin. You got bent out of shape and just kept it going.
  • 1 1
 @bizutch: yeah you’re right, i got so bent out of shape about it. that's why i hardly said anything. thanks for straightening me out! also, thanks for not keeping it going. love you miss you.
  • 1 1
 @bizutch: yo i just looked at the comments you've been making. i'm definitely the one who is bent out of shape and offended. WITCH HUNT! VERY UNFAIR! JOBS!
  • 1 3
 @jtayabji: No... of course you're not afraid of me, you're a big bad internet tough guy who's only terrified of inanimate objects.

lol lol
  • 2 2
 @cuban-b: For posterity? Aren't you cute, trying so hard... if you kids put half as much energy into actually thinking and learning as you do trying to be witty online, I wouldn't have to make you all feel stupid as often.

Virility = energy, strength, sex drive...
Please quote where I questioned anyone's energy, strength, or sex drive.

Likewise, please quote where I claimed having a gun made someone more manly or that not having one diminished that.

...Or, were you just so caught up in your delicate feels that you don't understand the difference between being a man who doesn't like guns and moving on with your life versus being a bitch who fears guns and doesn't want anyone else to own them because he's a coward? Gun ownership isn't the determining factor in masculinity there, it's letting your fears infringe upon what freedoms you feel others deserve.

This is true of anything really... if you don't like alcohol, don't drink. There's nothing unmanly about that... But if you think alcohol is evil and no one should be allowed to drink simply because you don't like it, that's straight running bitch.

You can hate mountain biking... nothing unmanly about that... but if you start demanding mountain bikes be banned because you're a coward who gets frightened when someone else rides one, then you're a bitch...

See how that goes... a man is welcome to believe and act as he feels appropriate... but a man doesn't demand other men do or not do a thing based upon his fears.
  • 2 1
 @badbadleroybrown: i dont think they're convinced yet. can you elaborate some more about what it takes to be a man?
  • 2 1
 @bizutch: I've been relaxed the entire time, from the freedom of my comfy armchair, beer in hand. I can't speak for the other angry guy though, he seems scared of people.
  • 9 4
 So maybe buying up a bunch of unrealated companies is a bad idea.. who knew?
  • 9 2
 Not necessarily. Heard of diversification?
  • 5 1
 @dirch: heard of latteral and vertical integration? Bell and Stevens are neither.
  • 2 0
 In italy we are lucky... is the government that owned the big war contractors... missiles...bombs... war planes...guns.. navy...and other toys to mass killing... Same company built missiles and red cross rescue cars.. simple!!!
  • 2 1
 I'm just excited to see how cheap all the stuff goes on sale for! Giro clothes and shoes kick ass. I'm gonna keep my eyes peeled I bet it's a frenzy this summer. I bet other big helmet brands just doubled production to fill the void and swoop in and get market share. It will be interesting for sure!
  • 1 0
 Not how that scenario works at all, but ummm...everything goes on sale anyways.
  • 3 0
 I love all the garbage filler corporate lingo... I think the word “leveraged” was used 20 times... who pays these people?
  • 4 0
 I made it half way down this comment section, then remembered, they just posted a bike review.
  • 2 1
 So it seems they'll sell Giro, Blackburn and Bell but they are keeping Bollé and Cébé, two companies that are also "sport protection brands" (sunglasses, helmets etc). Some of these companies' products focus on cycling and they even sponsor pro cyclists such as Damien Oton from the EWS (Cébé) and Luca Cometti (Bollé, never heard of him tbh) and various road pro cycling teams.

Just good to know where you put your money when buying bike related products.

Also : any clue why they'll sell two of their firearms brands (Savage and Stevens) whilst willing to focus on "ammunition, hunting and shooting accessories" ?

Looks like one single buyer could eventually get the whole "pack" released by Vista Outdoor, keeping the ties between Bell, Giro, Blackburn and firearms manufacturing companies alive.

Sources :
  • 1 0
 Bollé produces protective glasses mostly for industrial and military use I suppose thats where most of their revenues come from. Their sports oriented portfolio was later addition, an afterthought if you will.
  • 1 0
 Ammunition profit margins ARE GREATER than any other for vista.
  • 8 4
 Eh, Vista , it's your loss...
  • 5 2
 Actually, it could become the mtb communities loss if they don't find a buyer that meets their minimum selling price. Then the products and all of the jobs associated with them disappear.
  • 3 2
 So you don't think someone will come in to buy Bell or Giro?? Oh yeah come to think of it you are right who would want to buy quality companies with a huge established name. Gotcha...
  • 2 1
 @vistacruiser: the company won't just cease to exist. When you want to sell a used bike, do you just bring it to the dump and junk it if no one bites at your first asking price? Lol

Valuation of the group of companies will be done, and they will get inquiries and they will negotiate. In the end they will sell, or they won't and continue the operation. But it would make zero sense from either perspective to close the doors and liquidate multiple profitable companies in my mind.
  • 19 17
 Can someone explain to me how this is a win for anti-gun nuts? They're focusing on ammo more now, which may mean cheaper ammo....score.
  • 12 10
 @Pitcrew: They've convinced themselves their boycott worked.
  • 14 6
 @Session603: I have this odd picture of Ralph from the Simpons with a crayon in his nose saying "Im helping" stuck in my head now.
  • 5 4
 @Pitcrew: Go Banana!
  • 5 7
 Stupid narrative. Who in here is saying “win” for anti-gun people?
  • 3 2
 @scvkurt03: there's a comment below saying exactly that. Actually the quote is, "Yesssss. Win."
  • 2 1
 @macross87: hahaha I thought I was the only one to think about ''Go Banana!'' when talking about Ralph!! lol
  • 2 0
 @Session603: One person in a comment thread of like 250? And here's further comment from said poster:

- I'm not anti-gun. But I'm also not pro-gun either. I'm ambivalent. But I would prefer to see the money I sent on helmets and shoes get cycles back into helmets and shoes and such, not funneled into the retained earnings of some fun corp only to be reinvested in bullets. It's just not in line with who I am. That my choice.

You wanna own a gun, by all means fill your boots with ammo. I'm not going to get in your way. That said, I don't feel like supporting it either. -
  • 1 0
 I thought things got heated up here when we debated hockey, the Prime Minister’s hair or the best place to get weed when it’s legal in 2 months. But sure, “Rights” and bang bang all the way...
  • 4 0
 I miss Protour’s comments...those were the days.
  • 5 2
 Cool. The sooner the better. I can go back to feeling good about owning and supporting Giro again
  • 3 3
 You boycotting plonkers should have bought MORE of bike products from Vista... and moved them into a profitable harm free industry, instead, they have just dumped a load of decent cycling brands and are now fully focused on producing weapons. Applause to you all.
  • 4 4
 What Metz basically said was the boycott by retailers and customers of those brands has opened our eyes to the shitheads that the biking category has as customers. So we are going to auction off those brands making all those bikers that work for them look for jobs when the new venture cap firm buys them and strips their assets and announce layoffs quietly after the sale is completed. Good work shitheads, you just got a bunch or your buddies fired.
  • 7 7
 What is unfortunate is that a bunch of bike nuts may have lost their jobs at BELL and Giro recently to their "granola, hippy, earth lover" ways with the VISTA ownership and their gun loving ways.
  • 6 3
 Who cares guns and bikes is a good combo.
  • 3 2
 This is about America because we are a global power Canada is not Canada is insignificant unless you're talking about muskrat pelts
  • 5 0
 The muskrat pelt market has been pretty soft since 2012, but there was a bit of a rebound starting in 2016 so don't count us out as a global power yet eh?
  • 4 2
 @brownpowbomber Carrying a gun doesn't make you free, it means you live in fear...
  • 1 0
 Damn right! If you need a gun you're not free!!!!!
  • 4 1
  • 12 10
  • 2 2
 Honestly im kinda bummed about this. Giro makes good helmets and who know who’s going to buy them and start putting out garbage.
  • 1 0
 "insert visual effect of giant hairy blob labeled MEGACORP floating around that bumps into shiny, tiny bubble labeled GIRO and simply absorbs it and moves on"
  • 3 0
 I got 6 bucks for bell.
  • 1 0
 more like taco bell
  • 2 1
 Wow this is getting to be like youtube where they remove shit they dont like.
  • 1 0
 Good news In the meantime I'd bought some 2FO cliplite instead of the Terraduros Cliplites are brilliant so it's all good
  • 1 1
 Yeah and just ever so much nicer. Me too.
  • 2 0
 It is cool to hate the the top dog when u aint in his posse
  • 2 0
 I only came for the "Below threshold threads are hidden".
  • 1 0
 well thats all and good but, only if there is someone with the right political intentions and views
  • 2 2
 Nice to see the pressure worked. Had my doubts and worried it would hurt the good people who worked at those brands. But it all worked out. Win.
  • 33 32
 I'll be buying a savage .308 now Smile
I love being an American with rights
  • 17 18
 Don't forget your American Eagle ammo! Love their XM855 rounds for my AR.
  • 17 15
 Savage makes a great rifle for the money.
  • 4 9
flag jarrod801 (May 1, 2018 at 18:28) (Below Threshold)
 @Pitcrew: yes sir
  • 45 42
 yeah, your children have the right to get gunned down in math class. congrats! if you think you have more freedom than all other countries because of your guns, you need to get out more.
  • 18 5
 @Pitcrew, @jarrod801: You guys are trolling so hard. The only thing you're missing is a MAGA.
  • 12 19
flag jarrod801 (May 1, 2018 at 18:41) (Below Threshold)
 @packfill: you need a history lesson
  • 7 11
flag Bushamster21 (May 1, 2018 at 18:42) (Below Threshold)
 Did any of you catch the crazy Academy deal last week? I got a ton of American Eagle to my door for 23 cpr.
  • 2 2
 @Bushamster21: I didn't. I prefer IMI.
  • 8 6
 @Session603: No trolling here, the XM855 ammo is a great 62gr FMJ steel core round. Super accurate at 200yards in my bushmaster. I can't say how it is farther out since the range only has a 200yd lane.
  • 5 3
 @Pitcrew: Haha fair enough. I'm personally not a fan of the 62gr stuff. My barrel is a 1:7, but it still prefers IMI 55gr as far as bulk FMJ stuff goes.
  • 1 3
 GGG is where it's at... those Lithuanians make some damn fine munitions.
  • 15 30
flag loganflores (May 1, 2018 at 18:59) (Below Threshold)
 @packfill: sorry but anyone’s children can be mowed down in math class you can buy illegal firearms in any country more importantly automatic ak-47s which are more dangerous than the guns villainized in the us. Secondly your an America do you understand that the USA is one of if not the only country with freedom of speech on the planet. You think other countries are more free which ones list them please. Do you know how hard it is to get a license in every other country cars kill more than guns in first world countries. A 16year old can drive a car that goes 160mph after passing a simple test that they can then forget about and never have to follow those rules (if not caught) or take another test ever again sounds stupidly free to me maybe we are just a bit to free. But taking your cars away would be too inconvient despite the 42000 car deaths vs the 13000 gun deaths 60% being suicide.
  • 2 4
 @Session603: I got a case of IMI M855 during the midway deals. I hope it comes back because I want more. But 230 for a case of AE was too cheap to pass up.
  • 3 2
 @Bushamster21: Cheers. Get it while it's cheap.
  • 18 16
 @loganflores: can't downvote this hard enough. Keep living the delusion bro.

Sincerely, a free Australian
  • 9 7
 @loganflores: right.... it just happens way more in America . The complete failure in your car analogy is that cars sole purposes isn’t killing. Try again. Plus, you need to pass a class, be registered and have insurance to drive in America.

Your freedom of speech argument is so far off base. You need to travel outside the US. Many, many countries have freedom of speech.
  • 7 8
 @caltife: nope, look up your own constitutional rights you don't have freedom of speech or bill of rights

"The Australian Constitution does not expressly guarantee many rights or freedoms, though it does guarantee a small handful (such as freedom of trade between the states in s 92). Freedom of speech is not one of them."
  • 9 1
 @packfill: But a car isn't event designed for killing (if anything they're designed to be as safe as possible) and they still manage to kill three times more people than ALL guns in the US each year.

For something that's "sole purpose is killing" they're kind of shitty at it, don't you think?
  • 5 1
 @jarrod801: the US ranks 17th in the human freedom index. You need to do a little research.
  • 6 6
 @caltife: LMAO... Silly Aussie who doesn't even realize their gun ban was ineffective for anything other than publicity.
  • 1 5
flag loganflores (May 1, 2018 at 19:55) (Below Threshold)
 @packfill: you have only needed to pass a class for about four or five years before that you could get a permit at 15 with a simple 10 to fifteen question quiz and you could take a drivers test at 18 without anything thing at all, so the majority of drivers on the road here have never taken any formal driving class. On your other points being registered is not expensive or difficult and insurance can be dirt cheap I never said that I didn’t support tighter background checks a test or or registration I would under certain conditions however I would love it if people had to pass a drivers test every five years. I would support mandatory speed regulators on cars or a breathalyzer. Everyone who drives could accidentally kill people not so with a responsible gun owner. And no I do understand most countries do not have the freedom of speech we have.
  • 1 1
 @Truer words were never spoken.
  • 7 6
 @caltife: Damn right. It's like the joke about the American talking with the Aussie about all the dangers of living in Australia & he asks 'Is there anywhere in Australia that you won't get killed?' To which the Aussie replies 'School.'
  • 4 4
 @caltife: I’m sorry you have 24 million people with an average income of 80000$ a year living on an enormous island maybe you don’t need firearms to protect your family maybe you’ve never had your door kicked down or a crackhead in your living room at 3am some of us aren’t livin that well. Anyway tell me about your luck with the buy back, statistics aren’t fairing so well maybe you just don’t live anywhere near a crime ridden area.
  • 5 2
 Per capita Australian firearms deaths:

1980: 4.8/100k
1995: 2.6/100k
2010: 1.0/100k

Rate of decline over the 15 years before confiscation: 0.147/100k rate of decline.
Rate of decline over the 15 years after confiscation: 0.106/100k rate of decline.

Yeah, silly Americans using facts to see confiscation did nothing but disarm you.
  • 5 4
 as an American, you have less freedom than anyone in the developed world. #policestate
  • 1 0
 @Session603: yes! IMI is great stuff and cheap.
  • 1 0
 So am I.
  • 1 0
 @packfill: false association narrative got you like
  • 1 1
 @WayneParsons: #freealfie in UK gets you investigated. try again big dawg
  • 2 0
 @WayneParsons: perhaps in some ways (wonder why we want to be armed)? But I would argue that almost everyone in the world is living in some sort of police state open or secret if you think your not than your ignorant.
  • 4 3
 @loganflores: so your problem is that intruders might have guns. Your solution is to buy more guns. In europe we do not solve a problem with another problem. We remove the original problem.

This is a good idea because it means I can go to school without being shot at.

Illegal weapons are much harder to obtain than legal weapons, furthermore, they are much more expensive. This means that the "anyone could still buy a gun and use it to commit the same crimes" argument is invalid. A gun that costs $1000 in America would cost $30000 on the black market.

The only valid argument for not making gun ownership illegal is: "go away, I like guns."

Please use your common sense.

If you disagree with me, then fair enough. Its not my children getting shot at school.
  • 3 2
 @piersgritten: Steady on with that common sense talk, remember this is pinkbike comments section.
  • 2 3
 @fatduke: Common sense... you mean like the reality that guns and schools happily coexisted for better than a century, most of which with guns in schools, without issues until the last 30 years... guns didn't change, schools didn't change... doesn't seem that common sense would indicate it to be a gun problem or a school problem... it's almost like shitty people do shitty things and shitty people are the problem, not the tools. Funny how common sense works.
  • 4 1
 @badbadleroybrown: interesting reading on the Internet

Also to say guns haven't changed in the last 30 years is daft. They are more effective at the job than 30years ago.
  • 2 1
 @packfill: you are delusional and take your rights for granted just like you have the right to say what you want here..... your source has a political agenda and is not a think tank... I am beyond blessed to live in a country where I can express my views that appear to be the opposite of yours. I hope you realize this is the greatest country with the most freedom. Guns have stopped 2 world wars, our own civil war standing up for basic human rights and individual freedom. If you want to use sources use an independent source like the cdc. and you will see that guns prevent alot more deaths then are caused. you can't blame an object like a gun that just sits there, its the person behind it
  • 1 2
 @piersgritten: you are already accepting your natural born right to defend yourself and are willing to not have guns.... YOU said its illegal weapons (anything YOUR government thinks you shouldn't have)... you made your own point. bad people will still do bad things illegal or not. maybe your country and the rest of Europe has already forgotten when Germany banned guns and the world war that followed. That is history 101. History has always repeated that where a disarmed people are the government soon is a tyrant. please use your common sense. any country that erodes your rights and disguises as its for the good of everyone is going to continue to take your rights. AND when they are not successful in whatever they took away, YOUR government will come back and say they didn't do enough to solve the problem and take more away. maybe one day you'll see the pattern
  • 1 2
 @fatduke: maybe use a source that defines violent crime and shootings. your rights are being eroded and your country is disguising it good for the whole population. when VIOLENT crime goes up your government will say enough wasn't done we have to take more way.... no government can protect you all the time. and you are willing to accept that?!?!? an armed people keep balance and the government in check. the link below will show all deaths. you are just trying to single out gun deaths to skew facts for your argument..... History has always repeated that where a disarmed people are the government soon is a tyrant. please use your common sense. any country that erodes your rights and disguises as its for the good of everyone is going to continue to take your rights. AND when they are not successful in whatever they took away, YOUR government will come back and say they didn't do enough to solve the problem and take more away. maybe one day you'll see the pattern
  • 3 1
 @packfill: oh, you're from Boulder. It all makes sense now!
  • 2 0
 @loganflores@badbadleroybrown: don't try to bring facts into this!
  • 1 2
 @fatduke: There's nothing on wikipedia that's interesting reading... unless you're an uneducated pleb who can't source actual facts.

And no, firearms today are no more lethal than they were 30 years ago, the infamous AR15 that everyone loves to cry about was developed in 1959... The thompson submachine gun, the famous gangster tommy gun, was developed in 1918. Not only have guns not changed significantly, but they were MORE readily available in the past.

Keep trying snowflake... it's a personal responsibility issue, not a gun issue.
  • 1 1
 @badbadleroybrown: Ok brightspark I never said they were less lethal. They are more effective much like most things they will get improved over time you know like more accurate or more rounds per minute.

Now bore off ya fck nut.
  • 1 0
 @piersgritten: I appreciate your polite reply however my argument has more merit than you might think your 1000$ analogy has some flaws though that is a fairly expensive price range most gun crimes are committed with hand guns which can be had for 100$ on the street you would think a gun would be very expensive on the black market but an illegal gun is hard to sell I.e nobody wants a 9mm with a body count so to legally buy a glock would cost 500-700 but maybe 150$ on the black market. All of this applies to rifles as well you could get a mossberg for pretty cheap on the black market or even an AK. I put this all out there because someday my daughter will be going to one of those schools you mention and I want this problem solved immediately kids should not be dying. I’m willing to make changes to gun practices but the one thing neither side is willing to do is make compromises with the other side. So what are your ideas to fix this? What would you like the pro gun side to give up? I’m very interested in solutions not emotions.
  • 1 0
 @highcountrydh: seriously I’ve made so many inflammatory comments about the bike industry over the last decade on here and I’ve never been censored can someone explain what below threshold means on pinkbike? Never had a comment put there until this.
  • 1 0
 @loganflores: It means you're speaking actual facts and not just regurgitating bullshit. I rarely comment on here except today and a couple times before defending LBS's (with almost 25 yrs of working in the industry) and my points got down voted to extinction. It's the "adult" internet equivalent of "la la la la I'm not listening"!!
  • 1 0
 @highcountrydh: I more meant how do they determine what comments get below threshold I see many comments with less support up there and I have had many more neg props on posts in the past and never had my comment down here. Seems pretty selective
  • 1 0
 @loganflores: Gotcha! Yeah, no clue on that one...
  • 1 2
 @fatduke: Wrong again you dumb f*ck... They still present the same cyclic rate as when they were conceived. In fact, they're still exactly the same weapon as when they were designed.

By all means... present your next fantasy for me to shoot down. This is fun.
  • 2 1
 @badbadleroybrown: So in the last 30 years there has been no improvements to guns at all in the slightest way what so ever in the tiniest bit, no newer models, no new types, no improvements on past models and no research and development ?
  • 1 2

What is it that you think has changed? As I said, the AR15 and the ammunition it uses has remained unchanged for nearly 7 decades... Why wasn't the AR15 shooting up schools in the 70's or 80's? Hell... prior to 1986 civilians could own actual assault weapons, fully automatic rifles... why weren't there devastating school shootings everywhere with automatic weapons prior to 1986?
  • 1 1
 @badbadleroybrown: ok you may have misunderstood I'm on about the development of firearms in general not just the AR15 which people over there seem to have a hard on for (not quite sure why anyone would need one anyway).

You can't deny that a little gun control would reduce the mass shootings.

Also I shoot so jog on with your snowflake comment bs.
  • 2 1
 @fatduke: Exactly what revolutionary firearm development is it that you think has occurred which is presently available to civilian that needs to be controlled through legislation?

Honestly, the fact that you seem to think guns today are radically different than they ever were only shows how clueless you are on the topic and how useless the entire debate is... this is the problem, you want legislation because a bad thing happened, you're scared, and you're not confident in your ability to defend your own life or willing to meet your maker. You don't have a reason, you don't have facts, you don't have logic or intelligence defining why or what or how this makes sense... you just feel like it would help... so, you're a f*cking snowflake regardless of what you do. You melt under the heat of emotion rather than staying coldly logical and reasonable when looking at the problem. Snowflake.

You're so worried about mass shootings... let's momentarily set aside that they actually represent either an insignificant statistical segment of the overall gun crime issue or a badly manipulated attempt at distorting the problem depending upon which data you at and just focus on mass shootings.

Let's talk gun control and results... since the inception of the "gun free zone" gun control legislation intended to secure delicate targets like schools from the danger of mass shootings, 98% of all mass shootings have occurred... wait for it... IN GUN FREE ZONES!!!

You know why..? Because the sick f*cks who commit these crimes aren't tactical geniuses using "military grade weaponry" like you hear on the news... they're sick f*cking cowards who want to make other people feel pain with as little danger to themselves as possible. The aurora colorado shooter drove PAST several theaters to his target because those theaters weren't gun free... Why didn't he listen to the gun control law? The Orlando nightclub shooting... gun free zone, in a state where more than 5% of citizens have concealed carry permits... there were 300 people in that gun free zone, that would've been roughly 15 people armed. Instead of being 1 sick f*ck shooting at 300 victims, it would've been one sick f*ck running away as 15 people returned fire.

Make your argument for gun control... and define your law... there's no basis to show it works, I can refute that all day.
  • 1 2
 @badbadleroybrown: You're a boring ass hat.
  • 3 0
 @fatduke: Pretty much what I figured... you're just a delicate snowflake without even a propaganda point to support you.
  • 1 2
 @badbadleroybrown: You're the kind of person that would read fake news until you believe it to be true.

I'm gonna go converse with a wall it may bring back the cells I have wasted on talking to a precious person like you.

Enjoy life
  • 1 1
 @fatduke: I do enjoy life... daily... so much so that I start every day thanking God for the myriad ways I've been blessed.

As for fake news... try again lefty, I don't watch liberal propaganda. I get the facts and decide for myself. That's what adults with functioning brains do, we leave it to the retards and immigrants to just blindly vote democrat and cry about shit like gun control on queue.

Nice to see that you're consistent though... consistently stupid and uninformed but hey, we can't all be intelligent, educated, patriotic, conservatives so I won't hold it against you. And, being a Brit... I suppose you're still stewing after that L we handed ya'll so no big surprise you're scared of our guns. Probably just instinctual for all the English after we served you up so, good luck with the wall.
  • 2 3
 @fatduke: Triggered by God much? Lemme guess, you're an atheist... the religion of the ignorant and lazy.
  • 1 0
 @piersgritten: okay Jim Jeffries
  • 9 12
 This is in response to functional mayhem; Because of a thing called the Constitution. Because we are FREE society of individuals who have the right to. What I dont understand is why an individual would not want that GOD given right to be FREE.
  • 7 6
 there is no god tho
  • 2 4
 Fun fact: The USA is actually one of the least free countries out there. We’re just sold that we’re more free than the rest, but in fact we are not. Nor have we been “the best” for a few decades, we rank high in deaths by guns and ratio of population incarcerated...even above 3rd world countries.

If you want to live in the best/most free countries loon at Japan & Switzerland. Norway, the Netherlands, and Malta aren’t bad either. Hell Argentina and Peru aren’t bad. Don’t wanna learn another language or travel far? Canada kicks some ass. Australia is lovely I’m told and the stats rank them higher than us by miles.
  • 2 2
 agreed. Our number one barrier in the US is the percentage who believe there is.
  • 3 1
 @juansevo: first of all how do you know how free all those countries are your an America did you get your facts from Michael Moore. Secondly why can’t anyone understand the difference between a small rich nation vs three hundred and twenty five million people that’s about six and a half times the population of England the number of people in a nation makes a huge difference. I would also add that the countries you mention have incredibly high taxes to pay for social benefits and do not want random lazy people moving to their country from America if you want to move to those places you had better be worth 100k plus or they likely won’t want or need you.
  • 2 1
 The comments section is full of gems today.
  • 2 1
 Sorry but what has Vista done
  • 2 1
 I think I will move to Canada!
  • 1 0
 Move to B.C., amazing riding and you don't even need to take a gun with you. Weight savings!
  • 2 1
 Maybe us as Pinkbike users should crowdfund and buy these companies.
  • 2 0
 I like doughnuts.
  • 2 0
 You strictly a Tim Hortons guy, or dont discriminate?
  • 3 0
 @Pitcrew: Don't matter. Bring 'em on.
  • 2 1
 100% due to the boycottlol
  • 16 15
 Yesssss. Win.
  • 12 2
 Are the keeping camelbak for leverage or as a hostage?
  • 5 1
 @onemind123: My guess is they're keeping Camelbak because they believe it will profitable going forward.
  • 12 2
 @Session603: and you figure their other bike brands won't be?

The relationship to the bikes brands hurt the bike brands.

Camelback on the other hand, has a large military and tactical market too - ties in well with guns and ammunition. That probably the bread and butter, and they will sacrifice a few sales to folks who don't want to contribute to the bottom line of a gun and ammunition holding company.

Perhaps this was in the works before, as Vista stock price took a dip before the Florida school shooting. They were having a good week before the shooting, and then dropped sharply 2 days after it. This probably isn't 100% because of the "boycott" but I call BS on it not being a contributing factor. Likely the push it needed.

I'm not anti-gun. But I'm also not pro-gun either. I'm ambivalent. But I would prefer to see the money I sent on helmets and shoes get cycles back into helmets and shoes and such, not funneled into the retained earnings of some fun corp only to be reinvested in bullets. It's just not in line with who I am. That my choice.

You wanna own a gun, by all means fill your boots with ammo. I'm not going to get in your way. That said, I don't feel like supporting it either.
  • 1 0
 @FLATLlNE: pick a side. It's a law or something
  • 1 0
 @onemind123: military and LE sales are the majorityof camelbak's business.
  • 1 0
 @deeeight: how about dakine? Do their packs support death and destruction?
  • 1 0

Dakine doesn't have a specific division to the military/LE sales as Camelbak does but they do make a large # of their backpack and a few hip pack models in various camo patterns favoured by hunters and military users, so they are obviously going after that market segment also of being products that chains like Cabella's, Bass Pro and SAIL would carry.
  • 2 0
 @bizutch: Do what you want. Just stay the f*ck off my lawn.
  • 1 0
 @FLATLlNE: I know right?

"You ain't the boys that stole my tractor are ya?"
  • 1 1
 LOL I need another bowl of chips and beer, this could go on for days
  • 2 2
 Now you just censor comments yuo don't like WTF?
  • 1 1
 Yus! My bike gear has no link to red necks again...
  • 1 0
 Ha! "target consumer"
  • 3 6
 Companies who get political, especially those who oppose American civil rights won't get a dime from me. Ever. Molon Labe, oppressive leftist animals!
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment

Copyright © 2000 - 2020. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.048927
Mobile Version of Website