Vista Outdoor Sells Off Firearms Brands for $170 Million

Jul 9, 2019 at 8:20
by Daniel Sapp  
Vista Outdoor has announced that it has completed the sale of its firearm brands, Savage Arms and Stevens for $170 million.

Vista Outdoor Inc. announced today that it has completed the sale of the legal entity operating its Savage Arms and Stevens firearms brands to a financial buyer for a total purchase price of $170 million, comprised of $158 million paid at closing and $12 million to be paid upon maturity of a five-year seller note issued by the buyer to Vista Outdoor in connection with the transaction.

The sale is part of Vista Outdoor's previously announced transformation plan, which outlined the intent to reshape the company's portfolio by cutting costs, consolidating leadership, paying down debt, and divesting certain brands, including both its eyewear brands and firearms brands, in order to pursue growth in product categories where the company believes it can be market leaders. As the company now looks forward, the focus is on ammunition, hunting and shooting accessories, hydration bottles and packs, outdoor cooking products, and cycling/ski helmets and accessories.

"Divesting our Savage brand was a key aspect of our transformation plan," said Chris Metz, Chief Executive Officer of Vista Outdoor.

"While it was a difficult decision to sell such an iconic brand, I remain confident that this was the correct choice to help Vista Outdoor grow in those categories where we can have leadership positions. Savage is a fantastic business, and it deserves to continue to evolve into other firearms categories. At this time, however, we simply do not have the resources to transform Savage into the full-service firearms company that it deserves to be and, therefore, we determined the brand would be better off with a different owner. We're excited to see Savage reach its full potential under new ownership."


Giro Montaro helmet

Blackburn Toomanator 16 review
Camelbak s updated Mule LR

Bell Super DH Photo Bell Paris Gore


Shortly thereafter, REI announced that they will resume business and orders with Vista Outdoor brands Giro, Bell, CamelBak, Blackburn and Camp Chef.


REI: "Today, we notified our merchants that we will resume orders with Giro, Bell, CamelBak, Blackburn and Camp Chef on the news that their parent company, Vista Outdoor, has secured a buyer for Savage Arms.

REI orders of Vista-owned brands have been on hold since March 2018. At that time, Vista Outdoor chose not to engage in the national conversation about common-sense gun safety solutions that followed the tragic mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

REI does not sell guns or ammunition and does not oppose hunting or the Second Amendment, but we believe companies that profit directly from the sale of guns have a civic responsibility to engage in the national discussion about gun safety, as Dick’s Sporting Goods, Walmart, and others have done.

We understand and respect that our members and employees enjoy life outside in many ways—including hunting."


Vista Outdoor

We previously reported that Vista Outdoor was looking to sell off the Bell, Giro, and Blackburn brands. It now seems that may be much less of a priority as they are reportedly investing more into the brands and are looking to retain them for at least the near future.


395 Comments

  • + 64
 A bike can't crash without the big bald monkey riding it..... Same goes for guns. It's not a gun problem, it's a society problem, and no amount of virtue signalling business politics will fix that. These gang-bangers and lunatics run wild, and the police can't touch them, yet ordinary folk pay the price.
"Gun Control" It's like cutting your balls off because your neighbor has too many kids.
Truly, to each their own. I like my firearms, but I don't expect everyone to feel that way, just quit bugging me about 'gun control' my gun is under control thanks. How about some degenerate control? Peace out, and send it!
  • - 84
flag Angu58 (Jul 9, 2019 at 11:00) (Below Threshold)
 Stop with the politics dude. I come to Pinkbike to read about bikes, not gun control.
  • + 87
 @Angu58: this is a politcal gun related story dude, and you don't have to read the comments!

Guns are just tools, powerful tools but they can't kill without an operator! People are the problem.
  • - 25
flag freestyIAM (Jul 9, 2019 at 11:45) (Below Threshold)
 @ta4645:
You're way more likely to blow your own face off because you flopped into bed and set off the hand gun under your pillow that has one in the chamber with the safety off, modded for a hair trigger so you could be ready to deal with those imagined "gang-bangers and lunatics run[ning] wild", than you are actually encountering those imagined baddies.

Your physical harm mitigation strategy (owning a firearm) is based on bad information and you have come to the incorrect conclusion as to what will actually make you safer.
  • + 34
 I personally don't own any guns myself, I have a service weapon only, and I 100% agree with this.
The problem is cultural.
  • + 16
 @freestyIAM: sleeping with a gun under your pillow is dumb, and an unnecessary risk. You've optimized your argument by positing that someone would do something stupid like sleeping on a pistol with a competition trigger.

You can safely carry a loaded pistol, leave it on your night stand, keep it locked up so your kids can't touch it, etc, and still be able to protect yourself in the event that you need it.
  • + 133
 What does degenerate control look like? How has the prison system in the USA worked out- because that was a "degenerate control" system right? Who is a "degenerate"? Someone who speeds? Punches someone? Searches porn? Who is to determine what a degenerate is?
I believe it is a complex debate and one that is not as simple as saying yes or no to guns- because there are now so many in circulation. We control who drinks alcohol, who drives cars, who crosses borders etc. but are emotionally attached to not controlling who gets a device designed exclusively to kill? Gun control can be a lot of things and isn't always "they are taking my guns away!"
As someone who works in the mental health field I also grow tired of the "we need more mental health support and less gun control" or "keep the guns from the crazies." What would that look like? Anyone who has endorsed a major depressive episode or mood disorder as defined by the DSM V no longer could have access? Because that would a) stop people from endorsing illness and receiving treatment for fears of losing freedom and b) exclude most of the population as "mental health", like physical health, is fluid and most people throughout their life times have moments where they have concerns but don't characterize their global presentation over time.
More guns increase the likelihood of improper gun use but determining how guns are controlled or how to solve the concern of so many firearms currently in the hands of all sorts of people (moral, amoral, or the 99.999999 that live in-between) is no easy task- especially with everyone so sensitive to talk about it. Biking is fun but losing people we care about is the worst. Gun control is a powerful topic because people die by guns, and could easily die by guns, and depending on the political party that energy is spun over a particular moral slider to help their outcomes and continue to stop meaningful discussion. We all want the opportunity to live a happy life without the fear of a bullet in our heads.
  • + 11
 @Mntneer: Weird that all these people keep accidentally shooting themselves and their loved ones since my scenario is so outlandish, right?


Or maybe some gun owners are stupid (the same way some people are stupid when you look at any sub-population) and do stupid things and we can't rely on them to make smart/responsible decisions.

Now if only there were some mechanism of incentivizing people to engage/disengage from behaviors that would reduce the harm they do to themselves and society at large. Oh well, guess we should do nothing.
  • + 0
 @freestyIAM: We don't get to do that in Canada though, we have safe storage requirements....
  • + 1
 @freestyIAM: so, because people are dumb, that effects my right to carry a firearm?
  • + 35
 Gun prevalence increases violent crime. This is a simple fact, backed by many studies. Granting people easy access to tools specifically designed to kill is no longer necessary. The Messiah Complex from gun owners is laughable. You aren't going to save anyone with your tactical semi-auto rifle, people. Your guns are a hobby that puts millions of people at risk. Give them up.
  • + 47
 @Mntneer: Yes, because you live in a world where there are other people and data shows that enough of them will do X that leads to Y harm, we place limits on your rights. I drive responsibly but for some reason the tyranical government keeps limiting my rights to free movement with their speed limits because some stupid people drive too fast and cause accidents. Its awful, I know. Hopefully you can find a way to carry on with life.
  • - 10
flag Mntneer (Jul 9, 2019 at 12:12) (Below Threshold)
 @freestyIAM: with that logic, we should impose more control an pharmaceuticals, alcohol, tobacco, dangerous recreational activities, and driving cars above 40mph. Sounds like a good start.
  • + 1
 @ta4645: Oh in that case, it sounds like you have a sensible gun control policy in Canada with regards to gun storage. Mind advocating for that for your poor neighbors to the south? Thx
  • - 2
 @snl1200: But guns didn't change, people changed. Society changed. You're right, this is a complex problem, there is no single application to fix this, but on the other side of that things like bill C75 are giving criminals a slap on the wrist and turning them loose. Mandatory minimum sentences are now declared "cruel and unusual punishment' and overturned. We're going soft on the worst of society, the repeat and prolific offenders. Just look how many shootings in Toronto already this year, those are not licensed, law abiding citizens, nor are they mentally ill. They are degenerate gang bangers and tweakers engaged in a full on turf war. I am a veteran, I have friends with PTSD diagnoses, who own firearms of all classes, and yet I would not deem them a threat because they are highly trained, but that is entirely subjective on a case by case basis. Mental health has been made a scapegoat for the most part. Don't get me wrong, anyone who can walk down danforth and blast away is pretty disturbed, but the gangbangers know what they're doing.
And like you said, painting it as an entirely mental health issue is just increasing the incidence of people shying away from getting the help they need. I don't have a fix, but I sure as hell would start with cleaning up the streets.
  • + 9
 @Mntneer: Maybe those industries need more control, not sure, but it seems pretty clear that guns need more control. Idk how you got from, we should regulate guns more, to we should regulate other stuff more. I'm just advocating that we could just apply a the same sensible level of control to guns the that we do pharmaceuticals, alcohol, tobacco, driving etc.
  • - 2
 @freestyIAM: Dude you're on your own there.... I got a lot of friends and family south of the line, and I gotta say - sometimes Darwin's theory has to be allowed to thin the herd. It's common sense, I understand the apprehension of threat entirely, but you have to balance that with safety. Everyone of my kids has their firearms safety course done, my guns are locked, and ammo is stored locked too. Now, if someone breaks in - I'm not getting to any of those in a hurry, and the police are 45 minutes out. So that poor son of a bitch is alone with me and my louisville slugger until the cops arrive to rescue him.
  • + 6
 @freestyIAM:.....and they better not touch my damn bikes!!
  • + 30
 "with that logic, we should impose more control an pharmaceuticals, alcohol, tobacco, dangerous recreational activities, and driving cars above 40mph"
@Mntneer : but these areas are already heavily regulated, and for a good reason.
  • + 1
 @freestyIAM: So you assume that someone who wants to defends themselves, is also automatically dumb enough to file their action down and sleep with a loaded weapon under the pillow? That's the stupidest argument ever.
  • + 6
 @zaalrottunda: That's why we try not to let Boulder make the rules in CO. Wink
  • + 5
 @zaalrottunda: Wrong. I assumed that SOME people who want to defend themselves will do so irresponsibly.
You don't need everyone to do the dumb thing to make a law to stop people doing the dumb thing.
  • - 1
 The ATF has tens of thousands of pages of regulations on firearms. I have fully automatic and suppressed weapons, and can assure you that they are heavily regulated by the federal government.

Just because a minute percentage of the gun owners in America do terrible or dumb things doesn't mean that we need excessive control.

If you don't wish for a broad ban on guns, then go ahead and expound upon your point. What sort of gun control would prevent someone from accidentally shooting themselves or someone else? Do you think that a lack of gun would prevent someone from committing suicide? What is your opinion on the state of knife control in the UK?
  • + 9
 @ta4645: Guns have changed and continue to do so. Guns have become more powerful, more rapid, more easily carried, more convenient, more affordable... guns have changed. @mntneer Who is dumb? Or who is too stupid to carry a gun and how are we going to measure that? Is that an IQ score thing? @ta4645 Who is a criminal and how do we weed them out? Anyone who has committed any crime? Lots of the biggest massacres in modern years with firearms were completed by those without previous criminal records- not the "gang bangers". Again- I haven't even really said where I stand in regards to a a for or against stance- just that this is a far more complex problem than current political rhetoric reports it as being.
  • - 14
flag hamncheez (Jul 9, 2019 at 13:14) (Below Threshold)
 ??? Homicide is far, far higher in countries with strict gun control. Look at China, the former USSR, former Nazi Germany, Vietnam, etc. Government homicide counts as much as private homicide.

You can't have gun control without someone monopolizing violence to enforce gun control. For those that say "what are you going to do against a government army with your small arms", look at the Afghanistan and Vietnam wars.
  • + 17
 @Mntneer:

Tens of thousands of pages! oh my gosh, that is a big number. Big numbers mean a lot. QED there already is a lot of regulation. Nothing to do here, we already have a lot of regulation because the number of pages is large.

What you characterized as a minute percentage of gun owners doing dumb things means 40,000 gun deaths in the US annually. Its the second leading cause of death for children. So please stop trying to minimize this.

I don't advocate for a broad ban on guns thanks for asking. I am advocating for some sensible gun control. Things like, safe storage laws, waiting periods, universal background checks. Here is a link to help you find some other stuff i'm talking about. lmgtfy.com/?q=sensible+gun+control.
  • - 13
flag hamncheez (Jul 9, 2019 at 13:19) (Below Threshold)
 @freestyIAM: The point he is making is that government regulation is almost never effective. The TSA is a great example. Whenever there is a societal problem, the political solution is to pass more laws that generate more regulation, until its a complex web of nonsense, and its never repealed if its ineffective (which is pretty much every time).
  • + 11
 @hamncheez: so whats the point of laws then? They are almost always ineffective right? Anarchic Utopianism.
  • - 12
flag hamncheez (Jul 9, 2019 at 13:31) (Below Threshold)
 @freestyIAM: Here is a good way to predict if a law is going to be effective: If you abolish it, how often will people in that society follow the moral principle the law was trying to enforce? its shown in history that the removal of a police force usually doesn't raise the homicide rate. If it was legal to kill someone tomorrow in the US, most places won't see an increase in homicide. The same goes for theft. Look at grocery store self checkouts. Its trivial to steal, but most people don't.

Another way is what is called the non-aggression principle. If someone is doing something you don't like, but you don't incur any actual damages, then its not a great idea to try and make a law against it. Don't like homosexuality? Fine, but trying to make it illegal isn't going to be successful. Don't like someone dumping trash+waste in a river? Well it hurts people when you do pollute like that, so passing a law is probably going to be more successful and easier to write without the bill being 10,000 pages long. Me owning a shaped piece of metal harms no one. If someone else owns a similarly shaped piece of metal and uses it to commit violence, then THAT person is guilty and laws can deal with him, not me. Trying to regulate my behavior, which has harmed no one, based on the actions of others, is going to fail. Look at the automatic weapon buy-back program New Zealand is trying. Its had less than a 2% compliance rate, despite being law.
  • + 59
 @hamncheez: This is so factually incorrect that it hurts. The NZ gun laws have only been in place for a couple of months! Also, there are many examples of gun control laws decreasing gun-related crimes, look at Australia, UK, etc. And often these have followed tragic massacres.

The basis of your argument is "I am a good person therefore laws should not exist" that's what it is if you strip it back and take it to it's logical conclusions. Read Steven Pinker, the reason people are safe and violence is decreasing is because laws exist. The US is married to guns for some reason, and it's so deeply entrenched in the culture that people espouse these insane arguments like "Me owning a shaped piece of metal harms no one", "it's just a tool for a job" and "if it was legal to kill someone then most places wont see an increase". My friend, people would put a bullet in your head for minor road rage that scenario... Imagine pairing that with the US laws on firing someone without cause.. "You're fired" bang, dead. Especially if your livelihood depends on it.

I also find it funny that using an argument like 'non-aggression principle' for an item that was literally only designed to kill things aggressively, is insane. Being gay is not the same as owning a gun and I can't believe I have to type that.
  • - 3
 @ta4645 Thank you
  • - 13
flag won-sean-animal-chin (Jul 9, 2019 at 14:47) (Below Threshold)
 Man, gun fags are stunned
  • - 5
flag Extra300L (Jul 9, 2019 at 14:53) (Below Threshold)
 @snl1200: Wow!! Where do you live? Do you actually live in fear of a bullet in your head? You need to arm yourself.
  • + 4
 @spankthewan: If guns are made illegal, responsible citizens would give them up. Criminals would not! During prohibition alcohol was smuggled, guns would be as well, and even worse, would fought over. The people who commit horrible violence with guns are the ones who will always manage to have them.
  • + 2
 Good luck 3-D printing your gun powder, though.@DPfilms:
  • + 6
 @Extra300L: No- I do not live in fear of a bullet in my head and wish the same for others. I live in semi rural BC Canada where a small percentage of the population owns firearms and those that do tend to use hunting rifles rather than firearms for "protection" from other people with firearms who may or may not also have them for "protection." I have my PAL (Possession and Acquisition License) for owning a firearm and have done some training in how to safely handle a firearm. I do not own any firearms at the moment though- and still feel quite safe. Here is some boring reading on the thought that I may need to arm myself as a matter of safety: annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic ; www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows ; www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/19/guns-in-america-for-every-criminal-killed-in-self-defense-34-innocent-people-die/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ad1692c8449d
  • + 0
 @freestyIAM: @freestyIAM: In this context, yes. The major distinction between firearm law and most other regulations is who they apply to... People generally obey laws because their own compromise benefits society as whole. Firearm regulations are not made for law-abiding citizens, theyre a response to criminality (not negligence/stupidity). To go off the example of TSA (above), most dont care about body scanning if it means a safe airplane; but if a random neighbor knocked on your door and asked to see the same images, I doubt youd comply with the same ease.

Similar but more egregious for firearm regulations- laws like safe storage, waiting periods, and govt recorded background checks are great for the books yet horrible for policy. The psycho that spends months planning a mass murder while not deterred by life in prison, is not going to drop all plans by deterrence of 1-5 years in prison. Ask california, we have the craziest regulations and still see San Bern/Youtube/Thousand Oaks/Norcal Rampage... on top of the large growth of black market/govt corruption (selling illegal arms). Or as Hamilton put it in the fed papers, "[possession] will be a more certain method of preventing its[evil] existence than a thousand prohibitions on paper."

Tbh came here cause the newsletter sounded more like a business decision than political; or a win-win, vista gets political applause while Savage gets the background thats more focused on their goals... But the article didn't come off as pro or anti firearm politics...
  • + 1
 @DPfilms: Go look up the origins of NFA passage hahaha
  • + 5
 @won-sean-animal-chin: It gets fiesty when your govt life support service has an average 9-12 minute response time, and politics is attempting to force someone who never relied on that service to now give them all trust.
  • + 0
 It’s good that people can’t , but it would still be smuggled / black market @Lugers:
  • + 1
 Registering legal firearms is good. Gang members won’t register their guns smuggled from another country. Take Mexico for example; guns are pretty much illegal but there is tons of gun violence. The NFA can’t work for those who don’t care unfortunately @andybeck:
  • - 8
flag hamncheez (Jul 9, 2019 at 15:47) (Below Threshold)
 @bentown: 50 million plus Chinese died in China in the 20th century from the hands of their government. That alone shows the need to defend oneself. Without going down the rabbit hole of anarcho-capitalism, lets look at laws now in the US, or any major western country. The average US citizen commits several felonies (higher grade crimes, for non-Americans) a day, since there are thousands of laws considered felonies. Look at cannabis consumption- 100% illegal in the USA, yet its use is extremely widespread. Homicide, which is also illegal, is not widespread. Making things illegal that the majority of people think is acceptable is not effective.

Lets also look at your example of places like Britan- homicide & violent crimes are on the rise, specifically knife violence. Politicians are calling for knife bans, and some parts of London are banning knives. In that country, where banning guns was actually feasible, criminals just substituted one weapon/tool for another. Banning guns has done nothing to the overal homicide rate.

Finally, tell me- how is it moral to incarcerate me for owning a shaped piece of metal when I have harmed no other person justifiable? I used the gay anaology because 30 years ago people wanted (and did) lock up homosexuals because they "harmed society", just like you think me owning a shaped piece of metal "harms society".
  • - 5
flag nurseben (Jul 9, 2019 at 15:52) (Below Threshold)
 As long as people continue to excuse the actions of others, guns will continue to be a problem, gun deaths will continue to rise, and round and round it goes.

There is no legitimate reason to use guns other than to kill, practice to kill, or plan for killing.

I commend REI and others for making this tough financial and very political choice.

... and if you cut off your balz, at least you won't make any more who think like you. I'm only part jokiing.

Oddly, I just had a conversation with a Canadiam about American's and their worship of guns, his take was "American's are nutz for having guns cuz guns are only good for one thing: killing". Are you really Canadian?
  • + 4
 @nurseben: Your very first sentence has problems- gun deaths are not rising. In the US they are at a 20 year low.
  • + 5
 @Mntneer: Yes. It's not about you. The chance of suicide, homicide, and accidental death increases massively for homes that have guns. Children under the age of 14 are 11 times more likely to be killed by a gun in America than in other developed countries. If you hunt and have guns locked up for that occasional use I can't fault you, but if you have them for "protection" you're kidding yourself- you're doing the opposite.
  • - 2
 @freestyIAM: Oh you're one of those "common sense" gun law people lol. ok. Anyone who does what you described, is an idiot, and you are never going to successfully outlaw idiocy, nor are you going to be able to prevent all of it. Hence guns are sold with a variety of safety measures, by law. So you're proposing new laws for what exactly?
  • - 7
flag zaalrottunda (Jul 9, 2019 at 16:15) (Below Threshold)
 @ta4645: I love how you put a detailed, intellectual response and people just downvote without any sort of logical rebuttals. These comment sections are borderline Reddit worthy
  • - 1
 @snl1200: I do not believe everything I read, even if it supports my position. Enjoy where you live. Sounds awesome.
  • + 3
 @spankthewan: How about you give up driving? How many millions must die, globally, before we realize that cars are 4000lb bullets, especially in the wrong hands? And the carbon dioxide, the horror! You’re killing us all! Any dope can get a drivers license in the US, you don’t even need to read English or understand road signs or alerts. I have a great idea though, let’s legalize ALL drugs, so more people can drive f*cked up, increase that body count even more.
  • + 2
 @DPfilms: yeah people smuggled alcohol but we never talk about the fact that alcoholism and it's ill health-related diseases actually dropped during that period...
  • + 3
 @Angu58: I agree man, I like guns, but I come to PB to read about bikes!
  • - 4
flag Patsplit (Jul 9, 2019 at 16:37) (Below Threshold)
 @SlodownU: Soon we'll have self-driving cars and that will remove the need for your stupid argument.
  • + 1
 @joelsman:
Couldnt agree more but without gun control how do u keep said people from obtaining guns?
  • + 1
 @Nicksand5: you know, make them illegal. Like we did with marijuana and heroin Big Grin but also we're gonna keep open borders and keep allowing our pharmaceutical politicians to create a new era of lower class
  • - 1
 @Patsplit: Soon we’ll have self driving cars? Please define “soon”, and how exactly it will happen, from a technical and infrastructure perspective. Those last 2 were big words, you may need to Google them.
  • + 1
 @nurseben: Auto related deaths are on the rise in the USA.......Drunk driving deaths and other auto related deaths are a problem. So are we going to ban cars because a car can be a weapon.
  • + 9
 @ta4645: Guns vs bikes hey... What a topic for discussion on Pinkbike. Rolleyes

You can kill someone with a bike if you try hard enough, but that's not what it's designed for.

@rivercitycycles: You can kill someone with a car, but that's not what it's designed for.

I won't go on any further.
  • - 3
 Surprised and stoked a comment like this is (for now) top comment.
  • - 2
 @ta4645: thank you! Very well said. Honestly I think the states could learn something from Canada as far as licensing for guns and applications for said licenses. Like having to attend a class as well as the waiting period in order to process and get your license. Like blend Canada’s procurement and background check with our restrictions on firearms....
  • - 4
flag scotttherider (Jul 9, 2019 at 18:07) (Below Threshold)
 @Mntneer: arguing with these gun control tards is futile. Wait till the day comes that they’re looking to us “gun nuts” for protection or better yet in a war trying to verbally take our guns....
  • + 6
 Their proposing new laws because America has a gun violence problem. I’m pretty sick of hearing about the shootings of kindergarten, elementary, middle school, high school kids, festival goers, bystanders, and all the other shootings we hear about, and watching the lack progress there’s been to try and address it. From outside looking in it’s pretty pathetic in my opinion. Some of the things he suggest like safe storage requirements, background checks, wait periods, make a lot of sense. These are similar to what we have in Canada and I think they help. I even like our restrictions on weapon types, magazine sizes etc and think they help reduce gun violence problems. I’m an avid hunter who enjoys target shooting and have lived in Canada and the US as a bit of my background. Seeing and living in both countries I feel much safer here. I’m still amazed at how many people I worked with in the US had handguns in their glove boxes and night stands. The building I worked in did have a “No Firearms Allowed” sign on it and we never had a shootings when I was there so maybe a bunch of signs is another option..... @zaalrottunda:
  • + 9
 @hamncheez: First off, don't quote me as saying "harms society" when I didn't say that.

Secondly, show me the data because what you are saying does not compute. The per 100,000 people intentional homicide rate (total, not gun) in the UK is 1.2, in the US it is 5.35, over 4 times that of the UK. Riddle me that Mr "criminals just substituted one weapon/tool for another". And guns account for a large proportion of those US homicides.

You are taking all of this gun control way out of context. It is about an effective control of guns and firearm ownership for the safety of others. It's not about making all guns illegal.

I'm not sure what you want me to say about China mate, many countries have committed atrocities against their own people and having a rifle in the house isn't going to stop that happening, but I get that it might feel better that you tried to stand up against it. I could flip it around and say that the constant massacres of innocent children by insane gun owners alone is enough to show the need for effective gun regulation, and low and behold if guns are regulated, then you can still own one to defend yourself from the government.
  • - 4
flag rdrage73 (Jul 9, 2019 at 18:25) (Below Threshold)
 @nurseben: you just keep eating that up the liberalism. Have you stopped to ask yourself why are the dems so focused on gun laws and gun violence? Every other form of violence and deaths not caused, directly or indirectly by guns gets zero thought. It would be interesting if the liberals could ever actually come up with a solution that would actually work instead of grandstanding with meaningless junk legislation for show. All politicians are liars and frauds. Please start thinking for yourself.
  • + 0
 @ta4645: awws hit. Here we go with bat violence. They're going to introduce legislation to ban all bat bump grips, extra long high capacity bats, bat silencers and assault style bats.
  • + 4
 well if our society "problem" has created a world where mass shootings happen more than once a day on average, and you (like me) don't have any idea how to reverse this society problem then maybe we should start with some common sense laws like making sure people with documented mental health issues can't purchase handguns and not letting those guns hold dozens of bullets.

Also " As the company now looks forward, the focus is on ammunition" f*ck this company
  • - 2
 @freestyIAM: speed limit logic, why are cars made to be able to drive faster then the speed limit?
  • + 1
 @spankthewan: I would gladly give up my pistol if you can guarantee me that every illegal firearm has been removed from the streets. While your trying to make the world a safer place why don't we outlaw cars since more people die on the road than are killed by firearms.
  • + 0
 Very well said mate! Cheers.
  • + 0
 @freestyIAM: who said the bike riding brother has a hair-triggered handgun chambered under his pillow?!?
You know, just like biking, shooting is a sport and has competitions and enthusiasts also...
  • - 1
 You sound like an American. If you look out your Moms basement you’ll see you live in Canada.
  • + 7
 @Mntneer: Yes

Same as you guys are not allowed to drink before 21. Because some people are to dumb to behave well. Or you are not allowed to drive 100mph. Because not all drivers are capable of deciding when it is safe to do so.

In many places we accept the fact that our freedoms are curtailed because of general safety. Only when it comes to guns people go up in arms about them (in the USA, here in Australia and now NZ we do pretty fine)

A lot of Americans have never lived outside a gun savvy country and do not get the fact that if no-one has guns you don't need guns for protection, there is nothing to protect against. The other guy doesn't have gun either.

You can have a gun for sport shooting or hunting... with the right papers and not semi automatic assault rifles. Because it only takes one small caliber bullit/hail to kill a duck Wink
  • + 1
 @snl1200: more people die by alcohol related car crashes than guns....just saying. Don't think were all going to stop drinking. Guns are a easy target for folks not into them...
  • - 4
flag hamncheez (Jul 9, 2019 at 20:55) (Below Threshold)
 @bentown: www.cnn.com/2019/02/09/uk/knife-crime-violence-stabbings-hospital-admissions-gbr-intl/index.html

www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/09/london-mayor-knife-control/500328002

Tell Afganistan & Vietnam that individually owned firearms can't stand up to large governments. Also ask the colonials living in New England in 1776.

" It is about an effective control of guns and firearm ownership for the safety of others" So, where you do draw the line? At what point is my piece of metal no longer shaped for your standards, and must be confiscated? How are you going to confiscate weapons without using weapons? What agents will you use to take my property? In my state, Utah, the #1 cause of homicide is being killed by an intimate partner. The #2 is being shot by a police officer. If you're a young black kid in a major city anywhere in the USA its just as bad. I should surrender my ability to defend myself to appease your misguided beliefs, and trust police?
  • - 4
flag hamncheez (Jul 9, 2019 at 20:57) (Below Threshold)
 @CDNINAK: Mass shootings, no matter how you define them, are at a 30 year low in the US, as are all gun-related homicides (except for homicide by police)
  • - 4
flag hamncheez (Jul 9, 2019 at 20:58) (Below Threshold)
 @kusanagi72: “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?”
  • + 6
 @enger: and we have laws that take away your car if you are caught driving under the influence, check stops, minumum drinking ages etc. to stop people from dying that way. Agreed- we should also discuss ways to make the road safer. However, it is a basic argumentative fallacy to propose that because something is "worse" then what we are talking about isn't bad or warranting discussion. Just by listing more prolific ways people die doesn't change the fact that guns have a singular purpose in their design- to kill. An increase in firearms increases risk for everyone according to stats on gun violence and accidental gun death. Again, I didn't say get rid of all guns- my primary argument was that it was more complex than get rid of all guns or arm the s$%t out of everyone. This is a complex discussion reduced to equilly emotional and flawed binaries by political forces that care more about short term votes than long term solutions- all the while nearly 40,000 Americans died by guns last year- and not just gang bangers etc. but children, fathers, mothers... people with families and futures. It sucks and I don't discredit the desire to protect your family, or protect your libertries, or, to be able to do what the hell you want or find fun as long as you don't hurt others. I mean, biking isn't exactly safe so if the argument is that there should never be harm than bikes are off the table also. However, sadly when you look at other developed first world countries, the numbers of deaths by guns don't even come close to apporaching those in America so the way it is going is not working.
  • + 1
 @kusanagi72: having served in special operations in the Army, and lived as a civilian in Iraq and all over South America, I've carried automatic and semi automatic weapons for protection and recreation. I go elk and moose hunting in the back country, where grizzlies are also hunting. I just bought a house in a city that has one of the highest rates of violent crime in America.

Unfortunately, this is far from a perfect society that we live in, and I do make conscious choices to put myself in places where having a sufficient weapon is a practically necessary.

If people proposed more stringent vetting processes and longer wait periods, that would be fine with me. If people propose that certain types of weapons and accessories are banned based on a small percentage of incidents that aren't representative of the majority of the sample population, I will of course reject those broad bans.
  • + 2
 @hamncheez: I said I think you have a gun violence problem. Mass shooting are part of this but not the only part. Gun deaths in America are at a 40 year high. Majority of Americans want to do something about it. I think you should make some reasonable compromises on it. When things stay at one extreme at some point they overcompensate to the other extreme. Need to find a balance.
  • - 5
flag CaliCol (Jul 9, 2019 at 21:44) (Below Threshold)
 @freestyIAM: did you repost that to AOCs twitter feed to show her how much you love her?
  • - 9
flag CaliCol (Jul 9, 2019 at 21:46) (Below Threshold)
 @freestyIAM: by far I think you’re the biggest moron I have came across in the pinkbike moron infested comments section
  • + 4
 @hamncheez:

I thought you were serious but seeing as you brought up US independence with a straight face I now see you're a pro-league troll. I'm lucky I could type this because my eyes rolled so far into the back of my head.

Good night.
  • + 0
 @Mntneer: I think you meant affects, not effects. If the discussion is centered around dumb people and the way they negatively affect the rest of the population, you could at least use the right word.
  • + 1
 @zaalrottunda: i didnt say make any gun illegal and that isnt my thought. Cheers.
  • + 5
 @joelsman: "Guns are just tools, powerful tools but they can't kill without an operator! People are the problem."

Guns are tools. Tools designed to kill whatever they are fired at. Some of these "military style" tools fire at a rate of over 600 rounds per minute - vastly beyond what a person would need to hunt with. They are designed only for violence and have no safe place in society.
  • + 3
 @bentown: "I also find it funny that using an argument like 'non-aggression principle' for an item that was literally only designed to kill things aggressively, is insane. Being gay is not the same as owning a gun and I can't believe I have to type that."

You've said it best
  • + 2
 @freestyIAM: Generally we already do. While the laws vary state-to-state, current laws generally regulate the ownership and use of guns in a very similar way to other things like alcohol, tobacco, and driving. Many if not most /all states have age requirements and licensing requirements for owning guns. They also have laws about how and where you are allowed to use them, such as prohibiting them from government buildings or firing them in close proximity to other people's residences. Just as it's already illegal for an unlicensed driver to take your car keys off your nightstand and start driving your car at 100mph down the road, it's also illegal for that person to take your gun off your nightstand and start shooting it around town. The laws for that sensible level of control you talk about already exist. As for why those laws seem to be broken in a destructive way more often then laws for other things is a troubling problem that we clearly don't have a grasp on as a society yet. Also, I'm not even sure if gun laws being broken is actully more destructive than the laws which are broken regarding other things. As I think about my own life, I personally have known many more people who have died as victims of drunk driving accidents, reckless driving accidents, and drug overdoses than from gun shot wounds. Maybe this is just true for me, but having less drunk drivers would have saved more of my friends lives than stricter gun control.
  • - 5
flag jorgeposada (Jul 10, 2019 at 4:02) (Below Threshold)
 Screw Gyro, Savage Arms better maintain their quality offerings.
  • + 3
 Like kids yelling at their mom putting their toy away, you all complain but deep inside you all know you're wrong.
  • - 1
 So is your drinking. Actually much more so. Alcohol kills many many more people nation wide than guns do. At best it’s a social lubricant. At worst it causes domestic violence, addiction, and drunk driving accidents. But alcohol never did any good in the world. Guns freed America. And according to the cdc they are used self defensively in between 400 thousand and one million cases every year in the United States. So all you out there crying for gun control in the name of saving lives you are hypocrites. If you wanted to save lives you’d purge the US of about 20 things before guns. Let start with alcohol and go from there. @spankthewan:
  • - 4
flag brncr6 (Jul 10, 2019 at 5:41) (Below Threshold)
 @hondabw: the NRA is not backing the Democrats so guns must go.
True story.
  • - 2
 Too late we already stock piled.
  • + 0
 @Funboy69: my guns haven’t killed anyone. No family members, no strangers, no criminals robbing me... just a bunch of critters.... there’s two sides to every argument. I enjoy shooting 3 guns as well and quiet frankly a bolt action hunting rifle will not be an effective tool in that application.
  • + 0
 agree 100%
  • + 0
 Well stated sir. Thank you
  • - 4
flag jarrod801 (Jul 10, 2019 at 7:24) (Below Threshold)
 @spankthewan: you drank the Colorado kool-aid. I don't think you could be more wrong unless your name was nancy pelosi
  • + 0
 @CaliCol: I thought your username looked familiar. Still butt hurt from when i wrecked your ass on the 4 Hours Left - Free Shipping on Everything in the Pinkbike Store Today article

I'll give you my responses from then because they are exactly as relevant now as then

@CaliCol: lol. I went to bed. Get a life dude.

and for your inevitable follow up

@CaliCol: lol, GFY
  • + 0
 @CDNINAK: Your source, I'm guessing, is weforum.org. It is wrong. Gun homicides and gun violence is at a 30 year low. This is from the Pew research center:

www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2013/05/SDT-2013-05-gun-crime-2-1.png

It doesn't go all the way to 2019, but its true in the past two years (ish) there has been a slight rise against a lowering trend. However, this is almost entirely explained by suicide, no violent crime.
  • - 2
 @bentown: “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
  • + 3
 @freestyIAM: and despite those tyrannical laws we still kill more people with cars. I've known people with 3 DUIs still driving. Most motorists seem to think driving is a right. Ive been hit by more cars than bullets.
  • + 2
 @bentown: You're comparing apples to oranges. Comparing the homicide rate without taking into account geographical boundaries re exploitable borders, population density, socioeconomic disparities, and a laundry list of other factors is just bad data. There is already a great deal of gun control laws in effect, and if you look at the majority of our past few mass shootings or even higher crime rates, they're almost always in "gun free" zones, which says a lot about the efficacy of legislation on guns when there are underlying issues driving the violence.
At the end of the day, more restrictive gun laws are going to mean there needs to be more security provided by the government, which is never going to happen when the same political faction pushing for tighter gun restrictions for law abiding citizens also believes in open borders.
  • - 2
 People keep bringing up cars and drivers licenses as an analogy to gun ownership. It is false that I need any sort of license to own a car or drive it on private land. I need a license, or permission, to drive it on government roads. Since government owns the roads, its morally justifiable that they get to determine the safety requirements for their use, just as I can have a barber shop that is a gun free zone, if I wish. It would be morally repugnant (and ineffective) if government came onto my property and took my truck because I didn't have a drivers license, unless I had been using it illegally on government roads. If its just sitting there then they have no right.
  • + 0
 @hamncheez: In some states, including CT where I live, you have to pay property tax on a vehicle every year even if you no longer register it and it never leaves your property, and if you fail to pay those taxes they might come and take it one day. Additionally, many of the towns have laws about how many unregistered vehicles you are allowed to own (usually it's 1) and if you exceed that number they also might come and take that unregistered truck that never leaves your property and isn't hurting anyone. So maybe that's not exactly a license to own a vehicle for your own property but pretty close with the same consequences.
  • - 1
 @robw515: While true, it doesn't make it morally justifiable. I can't find it right now, but there was a lawsuit about this near where I live In SLC thats still on appeal, I believe.
  • + 1
 @hamncheez: I agree with you; some of those laws already seem to really push the limits of what is moral or constitutional, but they do exist. And if they exist for something like owning cars which is very supported in this country, then it's easy to imagine them being more extreme for something as controversial as guns... It's good that there is a lawsuit going on, pushing back and questioning laws (legally) when you don't think they are moral is the right thing to do, it's one of the checks that keeps a democracy a democracy.
  • + 2
 @DPfilms: It's not a quick and easy process, so your solution is to do nothing?
  • + 2
 @robw515: that’s why we have the 2nd amendment to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. I think that’s what everyone that’s so gung-ho about banning guns forgets. We surrender our means to overthrow a corrupt system what keeps it from happening?
  • + 1
 @SlodownU: Apparently reading comprehension is not one of your strong suits. I said "Granting people easy access to tools specifically designed to kill is no longer necessary." Are cars specifically designed to kill, or do they have another purpose?
  • + 2
 @scotttherider: If there was ever a time to overthrow a corrupt goverment, you 2nd amendment people are missing your cue. Instead, we have Republican militias forming to protect politicians who are derelict of their duties to serve the electorate. We have politicians who refuse to protect our election system from foreign manipulation, for their own benefit. Democracy is gone, and the Republicans and single-issue 2nd amendment voters are the culprits.
  • + 3
 @hamncheez: Sorry but gun deaths are actually not at "a 30 year low." There were actually more gun deaths in the USA last year than in any year over the past three decades. When you adjust that number based on population it was slightly lower than the abysmal rate at the height of gang culture in the early 90's but not ridiculously so. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/27/facts-about-guns-in-united-states I think you may have been looking at old trends when stating that as there was a rise in murders in about 2015-2016. You are right that murder rates, along with all crime, declined till about 2015-2016 based on the stats. But even that doesn't tell the full story. Most gun deaths are suicides but stricter gun regulations and decreased access to firearms significantly decreases suicide rates- a stat that is counter to NRA's assumption that people will just find other ways to kill themselves (this is also refuted by findings of suicide netting on bridges significantly decreasing the risk of suicide and keeping people alive longer). Accidental death by firearms and injury by firearm is also not decreasing. Mass shootings are increasing. In 2018 548 children were killed by firearms and 2321 teenagers were killed. Despite a misstated estimation from a 1995 criminologists report lingering and being cited regularly, actual stats of gun use in self protection are hard to come by and largely believed to be very low. Further a 2015 study by Harvard researchers found that guns were not significantly more likely to reduce your risk of injury or property loss when used in self defense compared to other means (www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009174351500118Cool
  • + 3
 I don’t know enough to be able to come up with a good solution, but making guns totally illegal isn’t one. @spankthewan:
  • - 1
 @joelsman: that’s like saying “nukes are ok , it’s the buttons that are the problem“ !
  • + 0
 @DPfilms: At first, I was agreeing with your initial post...because NFA was created in response to Saint Valentine's/Gang Violence of Prohibition Era. I don't understand how registration is good if criminals avoid it; I get the "prosecute those that aren't" argument, but usually just ends up being a criminal hunt for "bad" applications, which criminals wouldnt begin to fill or print.

Again, didnt come here for politics tho haha but dont mind the convo ha
  • + 1
 @hamncheez: I did a search a search for “US gun deaths per year graph”. Suicides involving guns are also gun violence. @snl1200 gave you some good info to look at. I like my guns and I’m saying I like our laws here where they need to be locked up, ammo locked up separate, if I want to buy a new one that they do a check on me to at least vet me out and have some limits on things like magazine capacities and weapon types. I don’t find these laws excessive or hindering me and am just suggesting you look at and consider them.

In one of your previous posts you say that in your state of Utah that:
“#1cause of homicide is being killed by an intimate partner.
#2 is being shot by a police officer.”
Some of the controls I mention above would help with these. Not having guns readily accessible in places like night stands and glove boxes as I mentioned in my original post would decrease these instances. With my luck if I had left a loaded gun in a nightstand I would have blower a finger off reaching for a rubber. Fortunately now I’m married with young kids in the house and want my guns in safe unless I’m going to range or hunting. If you think you need a 40 round magazine to protect yourself from your intimate partner you need to stop typing in the PinkBike comments sections and get out of that relationship as fast as possible.
  • + 1
 Let’s all just agree that at 0:47 of this video m.youtube.com/watch?v=AqHZJe6306k&t=35s
is a good use of a gun.
Thanks IFHT!
  • - 1
 @Matt115lamb: Not True, it's like saying "nukes are ok, it’s the people who launch them with the intention of mass murder who are the problem“ Which is in part very true. Nuclear weapons research and development has resulted in huge technological gains which have benefited nuclear energy production, air travel, and space travel among other things. And nuclear weapons testing has taught us a lot about nuclear radiation fallout and nuclear technology safety. So yes it pretty much always comes back to the malicious or misguided intent of bad or unwell people when looking for the root cause as to why a technology is ending so many lives.
  • + 0
 @spankthewan: dude it’s been time to overthrow the government for the last 20 years. All politicians are corrupt crooked turd bags. At least trump calls shit how he sees it. If he was breaking laws etc he’d have been impeached by now and the retarded liberals are going to get all the tin foil hat people out in force yet again. Had their super delegates stayed out of the last election and let Bernie run against trump y’all have nothing to complain about. You surrender your guns, I’ll keep mine stashed and when shit hits the fan I’ll be just fine.
  • + 0
 Hey! Scott the rider. I'm done with pink bike. Should never have gone to the comments section in the first place. There's a lot of riding to do out there. Libtard sounds like retard, by the way. @scotttherider:
  • + 1
 @Matt115lamb: the button has nothing to do with it really, it would be the person pushing the button. Is the button going to push itself? Just like a trigger on a gun, can it pull itself?
Has to be a person to push or pull.
  • + 0
 @Lugers: there’s not much riding where I’m at (lac du bonnet, Manitoba) and I’m sitting around board. Going to get my bike out to my next job though! I’ll be next door to whitefish and plan to ride every chance I get.
  • + 1
 @snl1200: some things for you to research for yourself. The CDC is the more appropriate non-biased source for gun deaths. As the CDC will show you just homocides because you should not include people inflicting their own issues like suicide. There are less then 30,000 homicides for a country of 330 million ( give or take)....

also, you need to look up the definition of mass shootings. CNN and other mass media try to give bad labels and exploit shooting and cop shootings, ect... Without using the google most people can't even name on two hands the names of the mass shootings.

And if it hasn't been said. guns SAVE way more lives then they take. Every day people protect themselves that you never hear about. And finally, it is a natual right to protect yourself and no one can take that right away. If I chose a gun (doesnt matter the type) to protect myself no one can take that away
  • - 1
 @snl1200: Gun homicides are at a 30 year low, with a slight uptick in the last two years. If you use politically motivated sources you can find different numbers. However, lets look at the FBI's numbers:

www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/q_-mrGmyXalyMgMpa1ciUlHQGfc=/1484x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/RYTW636C3BEE5AF3AQOEVXKTBQ.jpg

And again if you want to control for population:

www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/1M_mx787cdCYfR6kjSaHyT-T0ao=/1484x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/3XXFPJ6PTFCRXEKRFLB2F37ZSM.jpg

In fact, globally, homicide and violent crime is trending downwards, and despite the recent wars in the mideast Homicide as a percentage of population might the the lowest its been ever in human history:

humanprogress.org/article.php?p=334
  • + 1
 @snl1200: Two thumbs up! Ride on!
  • - 2
 @rdrage73: A bat can't mow down 10s of people in seconds, f*ckwit. And automatic weapons are designed to do just that. All of you gun-loving trumptards would fail freshman logic, oh wait, most of you don't have a degree.
  • + 4
 @GeoMurph5: Wow, that's really intelligent of you. Your degree must make you feel so much better when trash talking people. SMH.
  • + 4
 @GeoMurph5: my lack of degree with technical skills makes me over $150,000 a year average... tell me again how much difference a degree makes? I can machine a 33’ diameter hole within .002” of round and level to the world and can tear down and rebuild a hydroelectric turbine in my sleep.... I could be an engineer but what fun is that? Go take your degree and f*ck yourself with it!
  • - 2
 @scotttherider: "All politicians are corrupt crooked turd bags. At least trump calls shit how he sees it."
Sigh. This is the argument I hear endlessly from people who have no valid defense of the bullshit they support. Trump is an unhinged grandpa without a clue how to perform his job.

"If he was breaking laws etc he’d have been impeached by now"
It was not the job of the special counsel to initiate impeachment. It is the job of Congress, and Mitch would block it in a heartbeat. All Republicans are complicit. Mueller said, "“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so." He is leaving it to Congress here. He provided all of the evidence, and the Republicans just want to watch it burn to the ground.
  • + 0
 @spankthewan: if you can honestly tell me that you think Hillary was a better option I’m terrified for the future of this country. Had Bernie been running last election I wouldn’t have voted. Depending on who the Democrats put in as their front runner I may not vote. If they select yet another crooked career politician I will vote to re-elect trump. At least trump can’t be bought. He’s already filthy rich. Clinton’s wealth went from above standard to filthy after bill was in office. Same with Obama and every other president in my lifetime.
  • - 5
flag freestyIAM (Jul 11, 2019 at 10:56) (Below Threshold)
 @scotttherider: genuinely terrified that you think Trump was a better option than Hillary. Fox news did its job well.
  • - 1
 @scotttherider: "At least trump can’t be bought. He’s already filthy rich."
Lol! Trump is a narcissist who thrives off of shallow, inauthentic praise. You can buy the man with a simple compliment, and there are plenty of examples to go around. As soon as you critique him, his fragile ego explodes all over twitter. Here are more examples: www.vox.com/2019/7/10/20688825/trump-china-trade-saudi-arabia-qatar-sale
  • + 0
 @freestyIAM: I don’t watch the news. I basically live in a pit traveling the country from dam to dam so we have green energy with no emissions. I base my fact off of how I see things and personal research. The media is terribly biased. I could look at cnn and see the complete opposite of Fox. I look at the facts and come to my own conclusion. By trump forcing higher tariffs on foreign goods from China etc what do you think that’s going to do? Drive up costs? Maybe...or maybe it will spark some manufacturer here in the states to go hey I could make that shitty product from China for cheaper and make it better? Closing our borders... increases my chances at landing a job at home vs someone that came here and is willing to work for cash under the table.... there are things he’s done that could benefit us here at home. I call it how I see it. I see more industrial jobs and more new manufacturing jobs opening up left and right. Stock market keeps climbing... unemployment rate keeps dropping.... libtards still can’t admit that maybe this narcissistic a*shole is onto something here..... even being a conservative person the only thing I didn’t agree with when Obama was president was Obamacare as it drove my personally out of pocket Healthcare from $400/month for my family of 4 with reasonable out of pocket maximums to subpar major medical disaster for 4 at over $800/month with the same insurer. Other than that the dude did pretty good. He even came to Roseburg(small redneck town) when our local community college got shot up. He didn’t get a very good welcome party but was extremely respectful to the families there. I may not have cared so much for him but I respected him as he was the president of the United States of America. When the liberals get another president in office you know what...again I most likely won’t care for them....but I will respect the position of president. I’ll even give an honest answer come the end of their term if I feel they did a good job. I don’t understand why it’s so difficult for people to do such things.
  • - 1
 @spankthewan: yes he may be a narcissistic person but so was Hillary.... the last election was well painted by South Park.... it was a Giant Douchebag vs a Turd Sandwich. Every 4 years we find ourselves at the same juncture. I didn’t want trump or Clinton last election. I wanted the brain surgeon(can’t remember his name off the top of my head). Like I previously stated as well. Had it been Bernie instead of Clinton I wouldn’t have voted.
  • - 3
 @scotttherider: No, and what is your obsession with Hillary Clinton? We are talking about our incompetent president here. These two candidates were diametrically opposed, and I'm tired of this BS talking point that all politicians are the same. You know what? More of the same would have been welcomed with open arms, compared to what we're seeing with Trump's shit-show of an inner circle.

The fact that you wanted to vote for Ben freaking Carson - the guy can't string together a coherent thought, much like Trump - shows how ill-informed you are as a voter. Carson has no place in politics.
  • + 0
 @spankthewan: When this country goes to shit I’ll do me you do you. Im not going to debate with a wall. I’ve learned this with engineers in my line of work. You nod your head at their suggestions and arguments then simply do it the right way. When they return you praise their godsend of a solution you didn’t use. ???? have a good one buddy!
  • + 0
 @scotttherider: If Trump is your shining example of a successful businessman, intelligent politician, bastion of human rights, then your "right way" is going to leave you legally liable when you inevitably cause multi-million dollars of destruction and/or injury or death. Your judgement is questionable.
  • + 2
 @spankthewan: Why is it so hard to realize that both candidates were terrible? They weren't diametrically opposed, they are actually pretty close in politics. Most of what happens in government is from the Judiciary and Congress anyways.
  • + 0
 @spankthewan: I’ll be the first to let you know when that happens. I mess up once it’s millions buddy. In 8 years I’ve made no mistakes. I’ve had no recordables on any of my job sites. We work 3000-3500 hours a year. I’ll eclipse 2000 man hours by the end of July. You wouldn’t begin to be able to wrap your head around what I do for work so leave my job out of this you moron. I’m guessing you’re an engineer. I’m going to get my welding engineer certificate this November. What do you do for work?
  • + 0
 @spankthewan: my work is done measuring in arc-seconds when I say I make judgement calls on things I’m making judgement calls on processes. I write our procedures for doing the work entailed. I work with variances that are less than the diameter of a human hair at distances of 30’. I can put down 900# of welding wire in 12 hours. I’m a registered AWS CWI. I’m not an unintelligent person. I average $150-160k a year doing what I do...
  • + 2
 @scotttherider: In my line of work as an engineer, I've learned this about machinists, welders, carpenters, construction foremen, etc.: the good ones will ask questions or provide suggestions if a design seems strange or overcomplicated but will listen to why the design is the way it is and help to make the best solution, the bad ones will take it upon themselves to build it the way they think makes sense and at the end of the day you get a high strength, high precision, beautifully polished spoon when all the engineer really needed was a fork. You're obviously one of the bad ones, and if the engineer accepts you're dumb solution it's probably because it's just easier to work around your errors than to try to argue with an a**hole like you, especially if you're in a bullsh!t workers union. And stop bragging about how much money you make, no one cares a**hole, not to mention it's hard to believe that someone who makes 150k a year would need to sell a $2500 bike for financial issues.
  • + 0
 @robw515: that was do to shattering my hand and being in limbo waiting for my disability to kick in. Gotta do what you gotta do. Rather sell the bike then my guns. (Upgraded replacement) When I’m dealing with language barriers because my engineers are mostly non-English speaking engineers it’s often hard to convey a message or idea to them. We have maybe 4 engineers that English is their first language. They are non-issues and generally across the country from the project. Also I don’t always have 4 days to wait for a solution from engineering in order to keep my schedule to avoid anywhere from $30,000+ in liquidated damages for the unit being off line for longer than my outage window(number at coulees third power house is $250,000/day) you being an engineers would love to see what I get to do and what I do it with. It’s truly an engineers wet dream. If you look through my old videos I have one of my bars.
  • + 2
 @robw515: my experience working with engineers is that most of them have never, like 99% never worked in the field.
Most of the time it looks good on paper
but in reality that's a different story. Think it should be required to have to work in the field for a few years.
  • + 2
 @brncr6: this is why I like getting engineering interns on projects. Can show them what the engineers are doing wrong and how they can be better at their jobs. I do mostly in place Machining. All the parts in the power house above my work have adjustability built into them. I’ll have engineers try to get me to make a quick adjustment to my machine(.002-.004”=4-6 hour adjustment) because our centerline is .002” to .004” out. The blade clearances are .200” gaps. The wear bands have a .040” gap. Tell me how .004” is going to affect performance when the machine ran for 20 years while striking the wall in places previous to me fixing it?
  • + 1
 @hamncheez: "they are actually pretty close in politics"
Um, no. You can't just make wild bullshit claims like this; you sound like Trump. For evidence, see:
www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/donald-trump-vs-hillary-clinton
  • + 2
 @brncr6: also to go further on what brncr6 said. You run into good and bad engineers. My group is non-union but we typically have to work alongside union members as well and you get good groups and bad. Politicians are the same you get good and bad ones. People as a collective have good and bad spread amongst us. Guns in the hand of the good do no harm but in the hands of bad people they’re used for heinous things. Simple as that.
  • + 2
 @spankthewan: What major domestic policies would be different had Hillary been elected? They both want to increase government spending, they just differ on the exact details. The main differences are working with Congress (which depends which party has the majority) , and their foreign policy with China. Isidewith is not a rigorous political/historical analysis.
  • - 1
 @hamncheez: Healthcare, immigration, asylum seekers, education, environmental issues, taxes, social policies, etc.
These would all have been different. Jesus, man, you seem like you can read, but you're just not putting in the effort here.
Note: I'm a Bernie supporter, but claiming Hillary is the same as Trump on domestic policy is god damn disingenuous.
  • + 1
 @spankthewan: maybe the dems will get it right and leave their superdelegates out of the next election. I’d bet sanders would have won the last election had he been running against trump....I know I wouldn’t have voted last election......
  • + 1
 @scotttherider: It sounds like your engineers on the west coast are seriously lacking supervision or a good review process. Where I work, when you're a newbie engineer right out of college every bit of work you do and every decision you make has to be reviewed through a circuit of more experienced engineers and subject area experts; as your experience increases that review process lessens and eventually when you've got 10-20 years experience and have proven yourself then you're trusted to make the final decisions and you help review the young guys work. That keeps the new guys from specifying 0.001" tolerances when 0.1" will do... All that aside, nice Highland vids, that's my home turf, I don't have the balls to hit the Nestyle drop on a windy day.
  • + 1
 @robw515: that’s where it gets worse...they're based in York, PA.... Your group sounds like a pretty good group by what you’re saying. My project manager who recently got his PE for mechanical is who I run my plans by most of the time when I don’t agree with what I’m told from York. Most of the time I’m simply told...Why are you wasting my and your time just get it done....lol.

That drop in the wind was sketchy! I was on my intense 6.6 at that time. I hope to get my darkside out there. Hopefully I get to go to Whitefish this next month. For cavitation repair.
  • + 0
 For real can't we all just get along. Or do I have to make with the boomstick'sss? Trying at least.
  • + 0
 @jorgeposada: that’s a tall order buddy...
  • + 1
 @Mntneer: How was it living as a civilian in Iraq, let alone as a civilian from the US and where in Iraq were you? I visited Erbil in the Kurdish region a few years ago. Safe AF and amazingly friendly hospitable people.
  • + 1
 @robw515: ok , “the button” is a euphemism for the madman in change of pressing it !
  • + 0
 @Matt115lamb: I think many “buttons” were pressed in this thread....
  • + 1
 @scotttherider: it’s the button under your crazy leaders finger that worries me , when his misdoings catch up with him ! Lol ........not
  • - 1
 @Matt115lamb: he’s harmless he may make a lot of noise but harmless.
  • - 2
 @scotttherider: If you're a privileged white male republican, he's harmless. That is, unless you care about the environment and the well-being of others.
  • + 2
 @spankthewan: yup I’m a white privileged male that pays way to much in taxes, works to many hours, and pays for all the liberal handouts.
  • + 1
 @spankthewan: oh yeah and I drive diesel cars with no emissions crap and kill the environment with my absence of CO emissions but high NOx emissions. I also support loggers to control our sustainable forest management.
  • - 2
 @scotttherider: You understand that "liberal handouts" keep people from starving and dying in the streets, right? Would you rather see that? Every point in history where the wealth disparity has been that high, we have seen violent revolt. Furthermore, most of your tax money supports red states, but Dems are still down to give, even to Republican voters who vote against their own self-interest in the name of racism and "sticking it to the libz."
  • - 1
 @scotttherider: Typical conservative...flaunting your ignorance in an attempt to trigger someone who cares about the environment. It's really pathetic you all do this; we're not triggered by your lame trolling attempts.
  • - 2
 @spankthewan: well said. It's very transparent, terrible trolling.
  • + 0
 @spankthewan: If you think "your" side is flawless you're as dumb as the other side. Both parties are so pathetic it isn't even funny. The world isn't black and white, but you sure seem to describe it as such. The US in 2019 is 100% if you aren't with us, you're against us. Again -> pathetic.
  • - 3
 @spankthewan: I’d rather see the lazy people living off of the system get up and do something to change their circumstances. I learned a trade to change my circumstance. I was told that I wouldn’t amount to anything. I made positive change to prove others wrong. Let the people revolt. That’s what this country needs. This country needs change on that level. Im by no means racist so don’t pin bull like that on me. I have friends of all colors and creed. I also have liberal friends as well. We all have very good political discussions as well. Even some of them concede that the economy is in better shape then it’s been for a while and the president isn’t as bad as they thought he would be. I will admit my diesel joke was trolling 100%. No denial on that one. My commentary on the logging was how I feel. This renewable sustainable crop is a great way to scrub CO out of the atmosphere. It’s a proven scientific fact.
  • + 0
 @WhatToBuy: thank you and very well said.
  • + 0
 I'm tired of getting dashboard alerts that you are all still having this pissing contest. The tread is dead. Move on.
  • - 1
 @freestyIAM: but it’s so much fun....
  • - 1
 @WhatToBuy: "If you think "your" side is flawless"
Misrepresenting my argument... Cool strawman.
" Both parties are so pathetic it isn't even funny"
Both parties may be pathetic in your eyes, but there's only one side fighting for equality, healthcare, education, and any other common sense goal.
"The US in 2019 is 100% if you aren't with us, you're against us"
You may want to look at the party platforms, and pay more attention to your senate majority leader and republican senators. They're stonewalling everything from Dems, just because. They won't even protect our elections, because it implicates them. The parties are diametrically opposed. Dems want the best for everyone, and Republicans want to screw over liberals, the poor, the sick, etc..
  • + 2
 @spankthewan: Since when do the dems want the best for everyone???

In order to get elected, you have to appeal to special interests. Thats the way it is. Most every elected or highly appointed figure in government is a narcissistic psychopath. Its all about disperse costs and concentrated benefits. Pretending like Dems or Repubs actually have your best interest at heart is extremely short sighted.
  • + 2
 @spankthewan: the dems give out free health care to any illegal border crosser under the age of 25 in California and that helps the American people how?
Health care for my wife, son and my self takes 1/3 of my wife's weekly income. Now our taxes dollars are going to pay for an illegals health care.
That's really looking out for us.
And that's only health care, we can also talk about the rest of the "free" stuff they receive that the American tax pays give to them for "free".
  • + 1
 @brncr6: Anyone who down voted your statement is a fool. Everything you stated was the Truth. Demoncrats will destroy this country if given the chance.
  • + 1
 @BeerGuzlinFool: Not if the Republicans beat them to it.
  • + 5
 @BeerGuzlinFool: username checks out.
  • + 1
 @brncr6: The money you pay in taxes would be less than what you're currently paying for mediocre, high-deductible healthcare. Cut out the drug companies and health insurance companies, who really offer no service or product. This isn't a hard concept to grasp; everyone just hears the word "tax" and loses their shit.

Nobody should be forced into a lifetime of debt over an illness or injury, and nobody, resident or not, should be forced to die in the streets after care is denied. We put astronomical amounts of money into the military in the name of "defense," and we just gave corporations and billionaires enough tax cuts to pay off every student loan with $400,000,000 left over. I think America, the richest country in the world, can afford to care for the sick and suffering. We can figure this out, even without your support.
  • + 0
 @brncr6: healthcare should be free for all nationals and non nationals like in our country , for now anyway. Paid for from our taxes ! It’s the civilised thing to do .
I wonder what you would do in the same situation as a poor Central American with a family looking for a better life (just like your ancestors) ?
  • + 0
 @BeerGuzlinFool: well Obama did a pretty good job , your economy has risen steadily from his policies. However trumps tax cuts economy boom can’t last !
  • + 1
 @freestyIAM: One of the best comments this late in the thread!
  • + 1
 @spankthewan: so what percentage are you talking about here. I can look at my YTD ADP pay and I’ve paid over $24.5k in taxes so far this year. So far I’ve only paid out $3k in health for dental, vision, disability and health. It works out to 32% taxes and 4% health. I get killed in taxes being in the very bottom of the highest tax bracket. So yes I really would rather not see my taxes increases further.
  • + 1
 @spankthewan: don’t get me wrong if it was the same increase in taxes that would offset my benefits I’m more open to it. But my only question is will I have the freedom I currently have to visit the doctors I want to see? I’ve had the same orthopedic group since 06. They’ve always been a participating provider to all my different insurance coverages over the years as well.
  • + 2
 @spankthewan: I'm talking about illegal people coming to this country and getting what some people call free health care, I live in California and already pay some of the highest taxes rates in this country. Dems want and do keep increasing those taxes. My health coverage is just fine the way it is now.
About a month ago we were standing in line at the supermarket and the lady in line in front of us was buying about 10 steaks, the cashier ask here if she was having a barbecue and the lady said no and that she feeds her dog steaks because she can no longer buy dog food with ebt card (tax payer funded) so here dog eats steaks for dinner.
Sure you will say that we also need to feed all the dogs as well with our tax money. Point being is taxes cant keep going up to pay for everybody because 1. I work hard for money and should be able to spent most of it as I see fit.
2. They take state taxes out of my check before I ever get paid then I go to the store and pay taxes on what I am buying with money that has already been taxed once.
3. I'm all for helping but people need to try and help themselves as well. It is a proven fact most people that are getting government assistance could go out and get a job.
4. My mom has worked her whole life and gets less from the government then and illegal persons.
5. Try talking with police officers in any major city and find out the real conditions, few of my friends are San Francisco police and they are quite shocking. S.F. has been run by dems for a long time and it is turning into an even bigger shit hole. Chigaco New York and so on.
6. California governor Newsom abolished the death penalty in our state even thought the majority of California voted to keep the death penalty and to speed up the process, thats really not working for the people that him working for his self.

Could go on and on but I doubt you would ever see my side and why I think like I do.
  • + 0
 @brncr6: you just needed to end that with a mic drop. I hate being in California more than a month as then they start taking taxes and my check takes a 36% ding right off the bat.... better yet I don’t live there.... also to even get them to release my refund(if I get one) I have to call or they won’t send it to me because I filed out of state.....
  • + 2
 @Matt115lamb: first off "like our country" is wrong because we are not like your country. If I go to Mexico will they feed me give me free health care?
No because if I am there illegally I would go to jail, whether I had my child with me or not. So I can come to your country illegaly and get free medical, housing free food and a free education?
If so I'm on the way and bringing my bike and ride all your trails while you pay for me to live and ride for free. Why should Americans taken in all these people from other countrys? Why because people see America as the land of opportunity and freedom. You seem to know alot about what is happening here so you know our freedoms are slowing disappearing little by little because of the massive cultural changes going on here.
  • + 1
 @Matt115lamb: economy rising because of obama, after reading you saying that I now truly understand that you have no clue as to what is happening here.
  • - 1
 @Matt115lamb: economy is growing because of increased cost to import goods. Sparks more manufacturing jobs here at home.
  • + 1
 "It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it." -Thomas Sowell, award winning Economist

It is absolutely false that government can provide products and services cheaper than the free market. In the USA, everyone has TOO much health insurance because Federal law mandates it. It makes no sense to pay for non-risk costs with insurance. It would be like paying gas for your car at the end of the month on your car insurance; every gas station would jack up their prices and no one would ever shop around.

The two most regulated, government controlled, subsidized, taxed, and socialized parts of the US economy are the Financial Services Sector (Wall Street) and the Healthcare sector. If these were opened up to the free market we would see dramatically better results.
  • + 0
 The government can’t offer cheaper services than the free market!? Tell that to my city, which offers the fastest internet in the country for $50 a month. Our taxes subsidized the infrastructure for the private sector too, so why is their gig offering over double the price? Quoting one man does not negate all of the positive we’ve seen from other countries taking the same action on healthcare for all. Try again.
  • + 2
 @scotttherider: the pitch is all will be in network. No more of this “out of network, sorry” bull.
  • + 0
 @brncr6: step 1: don’t believe a word that comes out of Trump’s mouth or appears on his Twitter feed; it makes you less informed. Step 2: here are the facts regarding illegals receiving government benefits: www.google.com/amp/s/beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/28/trump-retweeted-false-claim-about-government-benefits-received-by-undocumented-immigrants/%3foutputType=amp
  • - 1
 @hamncheez: governments don’t need to make huge profits to satisfy shareholders !
@brncr6: the graphs can’t lie buddy !
Ps if trump didn’t like it when Obama was pres’ he could just go back to where he came from ( Germany and Scotland) , except they wouldn’t have him !!
  • + 1
 @brncr6: did the lady like rump of fillet steak ? What a load of xxxx !
  • - 1
 @spankthewan: 1. Dont care if you believe what comes out of trump's mouth or his Twitter feed. Part of the problem is that your on Twitter to begin with?
2. Do your research and dont allways belive the 1st news article you can find using Google.
  • + 0
 @Matt115lamb: feel sorry for ya! Your mind is set in stone. The real sad part is you live in England and people that actually live here try and tell you how it is and what we see and what happens to us 1st hand but you will still believe the news media above us. Real sad.
  • + 1
 @spankthewan: then will it be like the Canadian system where you have to wait 6-12 months for procedures that aren’t in a medical emergency?
  • + 0
 @spankthewan: back to your #2
How do you think illegals survive in one of the highest real estate markets and highest taxes state? San fransisco is a Sanctuary City but illegals thrive there when the normal working person barely can. You think when they go to a hospital it is just free????
There are way around every system.
  • + 1
 @scotttherider:
"In 1966, Canada implemented a single-payer health care system, which is also known as Medicare. Since then, as a country, Canadians have made a conscious decision to hold down costs. One of the ways they do that is by limiting supply, mostly for elective things, which can create wait times. Their outcomes are otherwise comparable to ours.

Please understand, the wait times could be overcome. Canadians could spend more. They don’t want to. We can choose to dislike wait times in principle, but they are a byproduct of Canada’s choice to be fiscally conservative.

Yes, they chose this. In a rational world, those who are concerned about health care costs and what they mean to the economy might respect that course of action. But instead, they attack the system."
  • + 0
 @brncr6: Did you just share a Fox News (state media) link?! Fox has defended its lies in court by claiming they are entertainment. They are not real news.
  • - 1
 @spankthewan: If the information is inaccurate then it should be easy for you to refute the data instead of attacking the source. Be smarter than that.
  • - 1
 @spankthewan: what "real news" do you watch and quote? There is no real news anymore and most people see that. If a news agency backs a political party with campaign donations to a certain political party then who do you think they represent in their news reports? The American people?
  • + 1
 @zaalrottunda @brncr6: I'm saying to find a different source, because I refuse to give clicks to Fox News, state media. Most news networks attempt to be fair and balanced, and they apologize when they misinform. Fox, on the other hand, is intentionally misleading (lies) propaganda. www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox

Don't even come at me with the "There is no real news" baloney. There are facts, and there are lies. There are no "alternative facts," and "fake news" just means it's critical of Trump but true. A bias does not make something a lie, and it's easy to seemingly have a liberal bias when reporting facts. All of the facts incriminate the Republicans.
  • + 1
 @spankthewan: I will only say this to your news remark.... the only channel that was getting the election coverage right in 2016 was fox..... it was kind of funny watching abc, cbs, cnn all fumbling and well this state will go blue....only to go red....
  • + 1
 @brncr6: that link is for “The Fox News Entertainment Show” , that’s not real news ! Lol
  • + 1
 @scotttherider: That's a vague, meaningless statement. If you're talking about polls, the Fox News poll had roughly the same spread between Clinton and Trump.
www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html
  • + 1
 @scotttherider: to predict an election isn’t news , news is to report what is factual ! You might have an opinion but a fact is a fact ! Trump however spews out so many lies now ,over 11000 since day 1 and fox love it . Hannity even tells trump what’s going down with the hate mob so he can start tweeting , outrageous behaviour ! Lol
  • + 2
 @Matt115lamb: lie or fake news, the Covington news scandal? The news outlets showed us one small part of the video to cause rage and hate. Once the full video came out we saw the real truth to the story. Happens everyday almost.
  • + 0
 @spankthewan: So you got nothing? It's easy to say one side is all lies, if you think that you're being balanced or rational then that's a laugh
  • + 0
 @spankthewan: ya I shared a fox news report. Do you think that it is the only one out there reporting on illegals getting government assistance? Google it and you will find many different agencies reporting on how this Is happening!
You must watch cnn.
  • + 1
 @freestyIAM: funny thing about those is they all use the term immigrant.
An immigrant is a person that went though the proper channels to get here, one of which I am working with today.
The word missing is illegal, that missing word is a good sign on who wrote the article in the first place.
You do know we have immigration laws here right?
I dont know how to do clickable links but there is plenty out of there that showthe last 2 presidents talking about how we need to stop illegal border crossings.
Immigration laws were put in to effect way before Trump was elected and all that is happening now is that the law is being enforced, just like our last to presidents did.
  • + 2
 @freestyIAM: what do you think it costs to operate the border patrol and ins?
What do you think it costs when illegal commit crimes? What dose it cost for an illegals vist to the hospital? You go through the immigration process and come here the legal way and need help, then I'm all for helping out but when you break the law and come here they should get zero free help!!!! I break the law I go to jail I dont get handed a free ebt card and free health care.
  • - 1
 @brncr6: doesn't know how to paste in URL paths. Thinks he is internet literate enough to evaluate the merits of news sites.
  • + 0
 @spankthewan: "all of the facts incriminate the republicans"
Ya not like Democrats were caught manipulating the last election or leftist news sources purposefully editing media content. How's that glass trailer you're living in?
  • + 0
 @brncr6: You only read the urls?!?! (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Look, if you can't even take the time to read the articles, which clarified with "illegal" and "undocumented," then you're not worth our time. We, of course, knew that already, because nearly no Trump-supporters, conservatives, or libertarians ever debate in good faith or with the intention of learning. You're basing your whole argument off of an invalid assumption, and it makes you look ignorant as all hell.
  • + 0
 @zaalrottunda: You never back anything up with facts, just bullshit that was sprayed on Trump's Twitter wall, most likely.
Here are some facts for you: www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/meet-the-republican-who-blocked-the-election-interference-bill
  • + 1
 @spankthewan: Lol so you're against election interference? Like the DNC colluding to get rid of Bernie? you're too cute
  • + 1
 @freestyIAM: now that is just a dumbass comment! Come on we all know your not that big of a dumbass to judge someones intelligents on weather or not they know how to copy and paste. Show some self pride in your responses.
  • + 2
 @spankthewan: dude if you don't think that both sides of the media are biased, or they don't edit the news to suit their narrative, or that there is as much corruption on the left as there is on the right, then what's the point in talking to you? you're going to disregard any fact I say and discredit the source even if the data is true, you're seated in your ways and likely just as much of a hindrance to the environment and society as everyone on the opposite side of the ideological aisle as you.
  • + 0
 @spankthewan: did you read the articles? They use the term illegal a few time yes but basically only when the are referring to Donald Trump.
The authors use every term except illegal.
Illegal is still illegal.
  • + 0
 @spankthewan: and I dont remember mentioning my political party preference. Have talked quite alot about illegal immigration so in your eyes I must be a Republican Trump supporter.
You do know a Democrat can be against illegal immigration. Guess that would make me a bad Democrat.
  • - 1
 @brncr6: what?! You’re a democrat against illegals?! Sorry to troll but couldn’t resist here.
Back at @spankthewan: even the dems in house and senate are divided on many views and some of the more radical left are scrutinized by their own party over these policies that include immigration. I’m all for people living and achieving the American dream but they need to go about it the right way.
  • - 1
 @freestyIAM: I can drink a case of beer and still have more common sense than any libtard.
  • + 0
 @spankthewan: the state company didn't lay down the cable lines that your local company uses att/Comcast likely did perhaps with some gov subs but with a profit motive in place to do so. Without that the government couldn't come up with the funds to run all those lines themselves likely local governments used the fact that the lines were put in by Comcast with gov subs to argue they should share them. Same thing happened in Tacoma with click the price difference here I think is probably 50 click 70comcast for same level service one operates on gov buracracy we as tax payers subsidize this if we use it or not. The service level is advertised as just as good on the same network but it is throttled and customer service is much different as well as physical install. If you have little to no incentive to improve you don't have to. I would say our tagro potting soil program here in Tacoma is a better example of government doing something cheaper and better not saying it never happens but this was not a good example.
  • + 1
 @spankthewan: fox is no good and not without bias but if your watching any of the other major networks and have any semblance that they are not bias than you haven't found any true unbiased news sources both sides are picking and choosing stories with an agenda you have just been drinking The cool aid flavor you like the best and you appear to not research any of your own news sources you assume your getting the whole story. Both political sides are telling lies you just believe the ones you like.
  • + 1
 @loganflores: a completely false equivocation. There are degrees to bias. Like there are degrees to, idk, speeding. Doing 5 over isnt the same as doing 60 over. Fox's bias != other cable news channels bias.
  • + 0
 @brncr6: Contrary to conservative new sources and the Liar in Chief, Dems do not want open borders. We want compassion and humane treatment of those who are here illegally and those who are fleeing oppressive regimes. There needs to be proper vetting if immigrants, and we should absolutely not target them based on their skin color. I merely assumed you're not a Democrat because of your ignorance, not because you're concerned with illegal immigration.
  • + 1
 @loganflores: "the state company didn't lay down the cable lines that your local company uses att/Comcast likely did perhaps with some gov subs but with a profit motive in place to do so."

Ok, so you don't have a point, and you're wrong. My city paid for the infrastructure through bonds, which will be repaid by the city's utility fees. We are not subject to throttling, and the Net Neutrality fiasco doesn't affect us.
  • + 0
 @loganflores: Jesus Christ, man. Here you come with more incorrect assumptions.

"Both political sides are telling lies you just believe the ones you like."

You know what I like? I like offering health insurance to all Americans - education, the ability to attend college or trade school for the benefit of our economy - less wealth disparity and higher taxes on the uber rich - protecting our environment from corporate greed - investing in green energies - an easier path to citizenship for those who want to come here and those who are already contributing members of our society - equality for all - reducing our military budget - stopping the war on drugs - condemnation of racism and cruel dictatorships...
Now, you tell me where the Republicans stand on these matters, and I'll tell you why they can go pound sand.

"fox is no good and not without bias but if your watching any of the other major networks and have any semblance that they are not bias than you haven't found any true unbiased news sources"

First off, your grammar is horrendous. I already explained that bias is different than fact/fiction. Fox is clearly extremely biased and intentionally misleading (lies) political propaganda. Most other networks, which you would claim are liberal networks, report facts with some bias. When they report false information, they apologize on air. I don't watch any tv news; I get my news online, research the information, and discuss it with others in a political forum, where they provide sources for their arguments. I honestly can't wait to return to some sort of semblance, where this is no longer necessary on my part.

"you appear to not research any of your own news sources you assume your getting the whole story."

Give me one example of where I was wrong so far because of lack of research. Just one!
  • + 1
 @spankthewan: if dems didn't want open borders we would have a much more secure boarder. Got to bring up skin color? Security at the boarders have nothing to do with skin color.
  • + 0
 @brncr6: I never said it does, and building Trump's ignorant, medieval monument to his ego will not stop illegal immigration. Most illegals come here legally and just overstay their welcome. This is basic knowledge for any informed individual who is concerned about the security of this nation. knowledge you lack.
  • + 1
 @spankthewan: we have some of the least secure boarders in the world. All those people being held in detention centers did not over stay welcome they crossed illegally. Watch boarder patrol videos of people crossing the boarder.
A wall is just another deterrent to slow the illegal boarder crossing and to slow drugs coming across the boarder.

Do you lock your door on your house?
99% of the people in this country do so why not lock down our boarders?
A free for all of boarder crossing is good in your opinion? The wall/fence is medieval, yeh they are old tech but they are everywheres because they work.

www.cnn.com/2019/06/05/politics/southern-border-migrants/index.html

144,000 encountered or arrested at the boarder in the month of may.
That is one month. If it wasn't so easy they would not risk there lives to get here. They would mostly likely try and do it the legal way. Open boarders will equal more deaths, walking across deserts and swimming the river.
I bet the chances of surviving the legal process is so much high then the illegal way.
  • - 1
 @brncr6: The solution isn't to build a wall and say, "America f*cked you via our support of coups, climate change, and our war on drugs has led to the rise of cartels. Good f*cking luck, and I bid you farewell." We have existing walls in many areas, and I support satellite and manned monitoring of the border. We, however, need a quicker path to citizenship for vetted immigrants. This is only going to get worse as time goes on; a wall isn't going to improve anything south of the border; it's a temporary band-aid, stuck to the wrong part of the body.
  • + 1
 Hey look at that! People have different political views! Who would have thought?

Can we end this thread now?
  • + 0
 @hamncheez: probably not.... I think we should all go for a ride and drink a beer.
  • + 1
 UNSUBSCRIBE
  • + 41
 We should boycott REI for their outrageous prices on a t-shirt and pair of pants, for crying out loud!
  • + 13
 you should be boycotting REI because they support a lot of groups that want to see access limited in areas on foot or on bikes.
  • + 7
 @mobil1syn: sources?
  • + 0
 This is the real issue not the gun control debate above!
  • + 1
 @mobil1syn: Protecting certain lands from people is necessary. Despite all the radiation, Chernobyl is one of Russia's most biologically thriving areas because there are absolutely no people. Just learned that from the Netflix "Our Planet" series!
  • + 20
 Love my Savage rifle, love my Camelbak bottles. Make a good product and I don't care...
  • + 11
 lots of us do, though. i ended up skipping on buying some giro terraduros because of the original story. bought another brand instead, but maybe i'll look at them again next time i need some shoes
  • + 65
 I enjoy shooting too. I'm proud of my marksmanship, guns have brought me closer with friends, and I think they have a lot of value to a lot of people.


BUT, we can't deny that gun control in the USA is very different from the rest of the developed world. Maybe we should be self-reflective and ask why the rest of the world decided to go one way while we decided to go another? Why are there weekly mass shootings in the USA and almost no mass shootings anywhere in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Japan, etc? Why are so many more people killed here by police officers with guns and people aren't killed in other countries by police officers?


And from my understanding, REI didn't drop Vista because they owned Savage, they dropped Vista because Savage supported the NRA. And to me that's just common sense.
  • + 9
 @HamsterPants: Agree with your perspective here...and if the NRA bit is the case then it changes this scenario completely.

Issue IMO is that we are talking about different things. One side is talking about self-protection, the other side is talking about stopping mass shootings. And we are just yelling over each other. I wold hope any sensible American can agree that some regulation with guns is good; I'm just not sure that they can agree on the problem they are trying to solve.
  • - 16
flag zaalrottunda (Jul 9, 2019 at 12:25) (Below Threshold)
 @HamsterPants: Look at population size, geographical boundaries with regards to illegal immigration and smuggling, and pharmaceutical prescription rate of mood altering drugs.

Blaming shootings on the guns is a pretty knee-jerk, low level way of analyzing such a complex situation. You named about 4 islands in that post, 2 of which have pretty strict immigration laws.
  • - 12
flag hamncheez (Jul 9, 2019 at 13:10) (Below Threshold)
 "hey, its getting dangerous out there. Better disarm myself and my family"
  • + 7
 @zaalrottunda: Blaming it in illegal immigration is also pretty knee-jerk. I think what most people fail to realize is that this is not a right or wrong issue. Laws are not made to represent what we think of as morally correct but rather they are legislated to keep a society somewhat stable. When asking about gun control, the question is more about whether we think a government is competent enough to enforce such laws and whether its even worth the effort to try. I'm from Mexico so I know prohibiting guns altogether doesn't work. There is much to be worked on to stop shootings and some of it is very difficult. However, the easy part is to at least put some controls to keep it off the hands of clearly unstable people. Similar to how people need a license to drive, you should go through some sort of process to get a gun. Once we get that out of the way we can focus on the bigger issues. Regardless, these corporations are not to blame. They are obliged by their shareholders to do as best as they can by operating within the legal framework. Still, I support anyone's right to choose not to support whatever corporation for whatever reason.
  • - 3
 @HamsterPants: many of the utopian governments people like to point as models, do not have freedom of speech which is a very integral part of what makes America what it is. Just as free speech should not be limited, neither should firearm ownership. they go hand in a hand, you need the weapons to keep the speech. The 'mass' shootings are a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the gun violence we experience and depending on how tight your foil hat is one would argue that this is someone agenda to dearm the populous, allowing them to take control.
  • + 2
 @HamsterPants: because American business profits from selling guns, so they hype the image, create a culture, and here we are. It's pretty sad, literally makes me want to move away from this wonderful but truly f'd up country.
  • + 0
 @thrice: @thrice: I didn't blame illegal immigration, I said it's a culmination of population size, geographic boundaries, and border security. People can try and lay the blame at the feet of one political party or issue over another, but all I was trying to do was say you can't compare a bunch of countries that are much smaller than the US with drastically different geopolitical and socioeconomic factors, as blanket comparisons.

Well, you can't intelligently do it.

People want to have an easy answer for a complex problem, and get mad when you tell them it's more complex than it is. hence the downvotes lol.
"Why are there weekly mass shootings in the USA and almost no mass shootings anywhere in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Japan, etc". I just told you.
  • - 5
flag mobil1syn (Jul 9, 2019 at 16:26) (Below Threshold)
 @zaalrottunda: but there isnt weekly mass shootings in America, unless you consider murders in the inner city mass shootings.
  • + 0
 @mobil1syn: I agree, but I was quoting another comment Smile
  • + 2
 wouldn't say that if a loved one died to gun violence...
  • + 2
 @RentalBike: my college professor was shot in a mass shooting and my opinion isn’t that guns caused the violence. It was a mentally unstable individual that brought a gun into the community college and killed 9 people. Personally I do think we need to adopt gun licensing and procurement processes like that of Canada’s but with the current freedoms of guns that we have.
  • - 1
 @zaalrottunda: Nobody, not even liberals, who studies gun violence professionally thinks that gun control does jack shit for violence rates. Anyone who does is a low information person....which is pretty much half the readership on this bro site.
  • - 1
 @scotttherider: licensing is registration which leads to confiscation. This has been learned over and over. The bad guys don't follow gun laws, so why make it hard on good people to arm themselves? I know it makes you feel really good when you proclaim your "reasonable" position but it's devoid of any truth.
  • + 1
 @nurseben: there is a international air not far from you in Reno, just buy a ticket and pack a bag. Dont think we would miss you. You can still make comments on PB from a foreign country.
  • + 1
 @RentalBike: sure would, as @scotttherider being able to reason and understand an inanimate object does hurt or kill people, the operator does.id argue more people in America know someone who has died in a drunk driving accident opposed to gun violence, but arent fighting to outlaw cars or alcohol, but instead pushing to legalize other mental altering drugs like marijuana. gun violence is the symptom of a larger problem that is generations in the making and will take many more to undo, but it has to be intentional.
  • + 1
 @JohanG: I spend lots of time up here in Canada. Once they go through the background check and waiting period for their gun licenses they can take that card walk into a gun shop and buy a weapon with no further questions(Faster than in the states) I’m very much a gun advocate and have several 80% guns I’ve built the last few years that don’t exist. They are perfectly legal for me to own.(Just can’t sell them) You can also look at what the Canadians did trying to put a gun registry into affect. Most didn’t comply. Someone comes to my property looking for guns they won’t easily find them. Oregon is currently trying to make legislation to ban all semi automatic weapons with more than 10 round capacity. They say all weapons in possession are under a grandfather clause but need to all be registered. I’ll simply move from the state if they pass that law. I’m simply saying that waiting periods with more stringent reoccurring background checks wouldn’t bother me any. I’ve got nothing to hide.
  • + 0
 @scotttherider: You didn't talk about New York and charging regular people with felonies for possessing magazines that can hold over 7 rounds. With your attitude, there won't be anywhere left to move to in 20 years. Good job bro.
  • - 2
 @JohanG: the unfortunate thing about the state I live in is the libtards in Eugene and Portland. They run the state. Look back to the lenowsky article if I remember right you had someone shoot at a thief trying to steal crap in your neighborhood. I’m simply saying I have no objections to making it slightly more selective as to who can buy a gun dude. I own many guns. I will never register said guns. But by what you’re saying you’d be adamant against someone having to sit through a six hour class, then having to submit an application, then wait 6 months to purchase a firearm? Once you have your background check and license you can go buy as many guns as you please....
  • + 15
 I couldn’t care if a bike company and firearms company were relaxed. I hunt and shoot targets on my days off when I’m not biking
  • + 11
 Great, I'm glad to hear that. Its not that Vista has firearms companies, it is that soldiers are being outfitted with Camelback gear because Vista realized that they too could profit from wars by selling their wares to the military. That is called war profiteering and for a business like REI that encourages citizens (not consumers), albeit at a very stuff driven level, to enjoy and experience nature in the spirit of John Muir, doing business with companies who also engaged in war profiteering is not compatible with REI's ethos.
  • + 15
 Welcome to America...But just so we are clear: 'A war profiteer is any person or organization that makes UNREASONABLE profits from warfare or by selling weapons and other goods to parties at war.'

If the military put out an RFP for hydration packs, Vista went through all the diligence to apply and won said RFP there is no issue here. None of us have visibility into that; so we can assume it was done by the book.
  • + 15
 How do you think Camelback came to be??? Hydrating soldiers. Oakley, Smith Optics, Arc'tyrex to name but a few, all have massive military supply contracts with the pentagon.
  • + 12
 @Golden-G: Patagonia loves to hide the fact they make some of the gucci-est military issue gear imaginable. Same with North Face.
  • - 1
 But ripping off the consumer is part of REI's ethos.
  • - 1
 @Golden-G:

"It's 1989.

Bicycle enthusiast Michael Eidson, is competing in the "Hotter'N Hell 100." And that's exactly what it is: a 100-mile road race in the grueling summer heat of Wichita Falls, Texas. Water is vital to surviving the race, and there are few places to refill a water bottle. Eidson, an emergency medical technician by trade, decides to fill an IV bag with water and slip it into a white tube sock. Yes, a tube sock. Then he stuffs the contraption into the back of his bike jersey, throws the thin hose over his shoulder and clamps it with a clothespin.

Hands-free hydration is born. And Eidson is able to drink as he pedals...while the other racers laugh and fiddle with their water bottles."

Yeah, so there's that idea gone bust. Nice revisioning of the world.
  • + 3
 @nurseben: that story is likely where the idea came from, but CamelBak definitely became what it is by supplying equipment for the US mili
  • + 8
 I'm just glad that I don't have to worry about my helmet being a gun anymore
  • + 2
 @A-HIGHLY-EDUCATED-PROFESSIONAL: best comment in this thread!
  • + 2
 @nurseben: your cut and paste is 100% correct concerning the origin of the design yes, but the viability of the business came via supplying the military.
  • + 0
 Camelbak outfitting US military brothers you, but our government outfits foreign countries with firearms and ammo with your tax dollars . Boycott Camelbak!!!!!!!! Hell ya!!!!!!!
  • + 9
 REI stops orders of Vista brands, continues to sell at full price... Profits > Beliefs
  • + 7
 Every country should melt all their weapons down and make bike parts with them. Wars will be won by the countries with the fastest riders. There, I solved all the problems in the world.
  • + 5
 REI and other retailers did not stop selling Vista products because they were associated with Savage. They stopped selling their products because Vista/Savage where not engaging the issue of gun violence while producing and profiting off a gun design that is often the choice of violent offenders.

The far side of Guns Nuts don't want any type of gun control and the far side of Snowflakers want to take every last gun away. This is ridiculous and polarizing. We need to compromise and find a reasonable solution that involves EVERYONE and find MIDDLE-GROUND. Not everyone is going to get everything they want, but everyone has to contribute to the solution. Including the manufacturers.

Savage (which produces AR's) was dangerously silent while innocent folks where dying at the hands of similar style weapons made by a variety companies (not just Savage). So REI forced Vista (the one corporation that they deal with who also sells firearms) to make a decision... engage in reform or get the hell out. They quite didn't draw a line in the sand, but rather said "you have to come to the table". And looky here... it worked.

Kudos to the retailers, Kudos to Vista (who still sell firearm products) and kudos to the folks casting there votes with their dollars. Now lets get some vaca time and ride, camp, shoot, fish then head back to the lodge for whiskey, weed, and filthy people sex.
  • - 1
 What a load of bullshit.

There is no “middle ground”. Just communists continuously eroding our freedoms.

Not an inch.
  • - 1
 @Axxe: All the public school educated readers are like, "isn't communism where we hold hands and share everything?" lol
  • + 0
 @Axxe: 1965 called. They want their bigotry back.
  • + 0
 @BsampSy: Did you mean 1984?

Cause that’s where you silly gits live.
  • + 4
 Hey everyone,
quit trashing each other! If we all had the same beliefs and principles life would be pretty boring and shitty. It's ok to think differently, but don't disrespect others because they don't think the way you do. See how one tiny little thing can cause division so easy? Maybe if we all figured out what common ground we had(!?), and identified what we're FOR instead of AGAINST the world would be a less shitty place.
I see some good healthy debate here, but I also see a lot of disrespectful people just trash talking because they cannot accept anyone who sees things differently. Come on y'all, we all ride bikes, we all bleed red at the end of the day.
  • + 2
 You really are Canadian...
  • + 1
 @BsampSy: no shit bro lol. Big Grin
  • + 6
 I’m just here for my comment to get below the threshold. Die
  • + 2
 when the G word is mentioned freak out. bold and interesting moves made by Vista. Sad how people give backlash to companies who are choosing to step back from that market based off of the current situations and viewpoints in the USA.


props for feeding more funds into the outdoor sports part of Vista. Maybe they will be able to create new bike products that will help mountain bikers (people seem to miss this point).

people will squeal at any chance they can to prove one side is better then the other. (always easier behind a keyboard)
  • + 3
 Excited for Savage. Hopefully the brand can be expanded properly now. Wonder if Vista is gonna ditch the military contracts and LEO contracts sine they carry firearms as well.
  • + 1
 Ive just spent the last 15 minutes reading the guns debate and with that there isn't a debate.People with guns want to keep them and taking them away is against there freedoms, that's a fine argument but when guns are harm bringers to many and thats there sole intent then logically there isnt a debate. Deep down inside we all know they are bad and for many reasons so i dont get why theirs so much backlash. Guns just arent needed, they just express anxiety and danger.
  • + 2
 I’m surprised you’ve lasted 4 hrs lol
  • + 1
 Logic has nothing to do with it. Reason doesn't matter when its about "heritage" and "freedom". That's why this isn't a social issue, its a moral one that's been politicized by each side.
  • + 1
 @BsampSy: and we used to drown witches !
  • + 1
 I'm a law abiding citizen and have never been arrested. I've got a great career, do community volunteer work, socially liberal, support equal rights and gay marriage and could care less if your hair is purple. As long as you're a good person to other and the planet, you're good with me. Washington just enacted some more strict gun laws as of July 1st. Thus a month before, I purchased 5 lowers to build my first AR's. Never owned an AR, Just bolt and lever rifles for hunting. But the thought of people taking away my constitutional rights to own a gun is going to make me stock up. Beds don't make people pregnant, it's a person choice. Stop making law abiding gun owners out to be the bad guy.
  • + 2
 You prove a point with your AR. The AR-15 is only popular because it is controversial. Its like Four Loco. "They're banning it so I want it!" Except instead of getting college students drunk, your tool is designed to murder. It makes weaklings feel powerful through fear and intimidation. Its revoking the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of others because you want to prove the government can't control you.

If the AR was never legal to purchase, nobody's life would be irreparably harmed. Yet, because it is, many have lost their lives and countless more live on with irreparable damage. Your interpretation of an amendment that LITERALLY requires regulation in the same sentence as the "right to bear arms" does not legitimize the sale, possession, and use of a tool designed for ONLY murder. I agree that there's a larger debate regarding your hunting rifles, but an AR-15 is made to give humans the ability to kill other humans. How about you can have your AR, but the only ammunition available is blanks?

A gun owner is law abiding until they use a tool, designed for the sole purpose of murder, in an unlawful way.

Now I accept that I have a point of view that is not the majority. Its extreme to demand any weapon designed to kill be outlawed, and any such measure would never pass bi-partisan scrutiny. An AR could be used for hunting or target shooting, though that was not the original intent. I'm ready to look at common sense gun control (limit ammunition, require safe storage, universal background checks, revoking rights of violent offenders). I want to find a middle ground.
  • + 6
 We live in a society
  • + 1
 America’s right carry firearms stems from the war of independence 1776, no need for Minutemen now. Isn’t it about time for change? If you are a law abiding citizen why are you afraid of gun control? By adopting this rule it would eventually make your position stronger.
  • + 1
 No, America's right to bear arms stems from the desire to make sure that, should we ever need to repeat the war of independence, the weapons to do so would be available to all citizens rather than banned or confiscated by a tyrannical government. Nobody is afraid of gun control... it has nothing to do with fear. It's basic logic, criminals don't follow laws period. So the idea that gun control will stop criminally minded individuals from committing crimes is pure fantasy. Murder is illegal, drugs are illegal, rape is illegal... doesn't stop them from being daily issues. Guns would be the same, gun control only ensures that criminals have even greater leverage over and above unarmed citizens. That's why mass shootings happen almost exclusively in gun free zones.
  • + 0
 I like mountain bikes. I also like my right to keep and bear arms. I am a responsible adult, and public servant. Every time I see an "AR Life" sticker by a non- military type, I want to punch them in the throat. But I really come here for the bike reviews that aren't really reviews at all.
  • + 0
 Savage makes a decent product so its good they will be under better leadership that is doing what's best for their interest, vs leadership that catered to people who weren't ever customers to begin with, but rather making the most noise. REIs stance is comical at best. Nobody at REI has a clue about what they even sell let alone a social political issue.
  • + 3
 But vista is still holding on to cci and federal? And that’s fine with REI?
What’s so bad about savage?
  • - 2
 Nothing bad with Savage. This is just virtue signaling for REI libtard target audience. CCI and Federal is good ammo.
  • + 0
 @Mntneer: "so, because people are dumb, that effects my right to carry a firearm?"

Currently no, but frankly it should.

The stance that its "other people" who are the problem so "why are you punishing me???" is a fragile way of saying "I don't want to be part of society".

Here comes my soap-box...

Just as its our responsibility to inform other mtbers of trail etiquette/laws or risk losing access, it should be gun owners' responsibility to promote safe use and reduce risk of catastrophes or risk losing access.

Common sense control infringes on a very specific interpretation of a very vague amendment written when it took 10-20 seconds to reload a single musket round. This interpretation is popularized by a lobbying group that only took a stance in the last 30 years to overturn existing supreme court rulings and REMOVE existing controls. "The right to bear arms" is just a clause, preceded by being as part of a "well-regulated militia". Regulation means control. Regulation means rules. We've had rules in the past, but money doesn't like rules.

The fact is that guns are expensive, but people like them (kind of like bikes?) so companies will throw money into campaigns, lobbies, and lawsuits to make sure they protect the market potential. Today the "Right to bear arms" is just a marketing slogan helping gun manufacturers get rich. That's fine, that's just capitalist America, but the side-effect of that profit is dead citizens. Not fine.

Now the community of gun owners dissociates itself with anyone who does something "bad". "They weren't safe gun owners", "they never should have owned a gun!", "I would never do something like that with my gun". But yet common sense rules are met with a brick wall of lawsuits and lobbying money. According to the NRA, its "all or nothing". In that fictional world, any regulation will lead to no guns at all, so we accept the risk of mass-murder because its a societal problem.

It all just sounds like "every gun owner is good, until they aren't". Its riding a bike without a helmet, with your eyes closed, and you know there's a cliff nearby.
  • + 2
 Agreed.
  • - 1
 @freestyIAM: If people are keeping guns under there pillow and shooting there heads off, have at it, its called natural selection. I could give a shit if these people kill themselves. I have gun, I like my guns and it is always in control. There was no bad information he gave you. Other then what every other responsible gun owners says. Pretty much deal with it. Seems like you are pussy hurt on this topic, maybe you should put a loaded gun under your pillow too.
  • - 1
 I have mixed feeling about this. I saw something similar with Salesforce saying they will no longer support 'gun companies' with their product...effectively holding people hostage because they don't agree with the businesses' 'politics' - after those companies already paid Salesforce millions.

Wish these companies would keep the political views out of the conversation and simply sell what consumers want. Were any of you boycotting these products because the same parent company also sold guns as a totally separate business to totally separate consumers?
  • + 34
 Yes, I was. It didn't sit right on my moral compass. Each to their own.
  • - 3
 To put a finer point on it - mixed feelings about REI deciding to no longer carry the products and holding this company 'hostage' in a way. You can buy whatever you want and support whatever brands you like - thats not the issue (for me). I don't like corporations deciding what is moral and what is not..
  • - 17
flag peterman1234 (Jul 9, 2019 at 10:47) (Below Threshold)
 @MikeyMT: Thank you for your uploading your opinion on corporations to the website of Pinkbike. You truly make a difference.
  • + 13
 @MikeyMT: "I don't like corporations deciding what is moral and what is not"

This mis-characterizes what is happening. Every day corporations are doing things where they had to decide what is moral or not (even if implicitly because they didn't formally think about it.)

When REI carried products from Vista, it was making a moral decision that carrying products from a company that makes firearms was morally acceptable.

When they decided to stop carrying them, they made a moral decision that carrying those products a company that makes fire arms is not morally acceptable.
  • + 2
 @peterman1234: I'm proud of the contributions I'm making in my corner of the world (on this comment section and beyond Wink ) . Are you?
  • + 2
 @freestyIAM: I can live with and agree with that framing. I guess my mixed feelings are that before a particular incident noted above they had no moral issues selling these products. So do they really have a moral issue or are they just virtue signaling? We'll never know...ether way I'll shop there and make my own decisions on products I feel are worth supporting vs. not as i think we all should do.
  • + 1
 @MikeyMT: Well, to be fair REI is a privately held company. A public company couldn't get away with it.
  • + 6
 @MikeyMT: Why not? Religion's been doing it for a while...

But really, these corporations are run by people. They decide what they want to do with their (the company's) money, whether or not it meets with your standard of business practice or morality or whatever. They didn't run up and down your street throwing rocks because you have guns from that company or sew a giant red A on your clothes.

Anyway, what real difference does it make to you? If you don't like it, just buy something else, shop somewhere else. No one is holding anyone hostage. They removed a supplier from their list, because they didn't like what said supplier is doing. It's simply values, a customer base and a little bit of sack to stand up for something you believe in.
  • + 2
 @ssteve: So corporations are the new religion...? I guess thats always been the case in America Smile

I don't disagree with you and it makes no difference to me...hence my mixed feelings on the issue. I can see the outrage both ways; neither of which seems to align with what really matters to me, the ability to make my own choices.
  • + 2
 "I don't like corporations deciding what is moral and what is not.."
@MikeyMT: but everyone decides what's moral by our everyday choices. Why should corporations be any different? When a corporation does something blatantly immoral, people would protest. When a corporation does something it considers moral, people protest again. Many human actions have an ethical component, and selling tools that can kill inherently entails some ethics related choices.
  • - 2
 @Slabrung: Its a slippery slope of mixing politics with 'morality'.

If its legal can it be immoral? And if its illegal can it be moral? Also, who gets to set the moral standard..perhaps you and I feel different about things and the morality associated with them?

Let the consumer decide on their own...soon as you become a censor (they have now censored these products), you've taken a side and lost all credibility. Thats what is happening with Facebook and Twitter and why I applaud PB for posting stuff like this...this is worthy news and it gets posted regardless of how PB feels politically and presented as such. P.S. I think we agree Smile
  • + 0
 @ssteve: wake up. it's always about money. REI shoppers are mostly granola eating tree huggers. I stopped buying from REI years ago and I would never buy a gun from them anyway so it really doesn't matter to me at all. But even those who hate firearms should be incredibly insulted by any company that purports to care about you and your opinion. If Savage Guns were REIs best seller, do you think they would have taken the same stance? F NO.
  • + 1
 @freestyIAM: interesting take. I honestly do not think any company that big uses morals as it's compass. If their core demographic were gun owners do you really think they would make the same decision?
  • + 1
 @rdrage73: Was awake when I commented, maybe not when you did...

Well, yeah, it is about money. I never said it wasn't. I mean, they actually do care about your opinion, but not directly. They care about your money (maybe not yours, specifically, but you know what I mean) and your opinion about them influences whether or not you, your family, your friends, your community/user group spend your/their money there, which influences their bottom line. Perhaps I should have worded my first post a little differently (but hey, beer); Company "Values" mirror the customer base, see above. Sack: because it does take grit to make such a decision in your country.

You said it yourself, the customer base is "mostly granola eating tree huggers" (I like granola, honey flavoured, never hugged any trees tho... this is also one of those quotes that tends to show your age, no offense). So it makes sense for a company that serves that customer base to cater to said base.

Whether or not they "purport" to care about what you think, at the end of the day it's (as you would likely agree) business. Probably the same reason why gun manufacturers sponsor pro-gun rallies. It gives you a sense that they really care about what you believe in, when in reality they want more of your money, and you're more likely to think about the brand that supports your ideology when you go to purchase your next bike, gun, truck, toaster. At the end of the day, we're all just decimal points in an Excel spreadsheet.
  • + 0
 @ssteve: wtf does age have to do with anything? And those granola eating tree huggers can't afford REI which is where I think they really misplaced their allegiance all in the name of millenials. Good luck with that REI, they're gamers and "activists", not outdoorsmen and women. Decimal points indeed.
  • + 1
 @rdrage73: I didn't say age had anything to do with the topic at hand, hence the (). The rest, well I can't help you there.
  • + 2
 A lot of scary comments and people out here... Jesus.
  • + 1
 I still don’t know what I like better. My A17 with the Boyd laminate stock, or my 110 desert tactical in 6mm creedmoor.
  • + 3
 Kudos to REI and Vista.
  • + 1
 Dear Pinkbike, here is another comment. Thought I would put another one on here so you can delete it.
  • + 2
 Shock Pump Multi Tool ?!? Mmmmkayy
  • + 3
 What you can't do 50 push ups on your finger tips?
  • + 1
 I just love guns. I don't see the problem with guns. Guns make the community safe. #MAKEAMERICAGREATAGAIN #FAKENEWS
  • + 2
 I hope Vista tells REI to piss off.
  • + 1
 I buy shit at real bike shops anyway. Don't really care about snowflake REI.
  • + 16
 You buy shit?
  • - 1
 Not long ago a PB article...a mt.biker got shot by a hunter in a hunting zone, during hunting season! So, do we support the brands the hunter was using or support the mt.biker brand was using?
  • + 1
 Savage arms, top quality stuff. Not sure how this is at all relevant...
  • + 2
 Fuck REI commies.
  • + 2
 WTF is REI?
  • + 1
 Big chain of outdoor equipment retail stores.
  • - 2
 That's pretty shitty of REI, IMO. Thankfully, I imagine very few people lost their jobs as these other companies due to decrease in demand as no legit cyclist I know takes REI's cycling offerings seriously.
  • + 0
 Ya, still not buying any of those products or shopping at REI. I cant stand this oversensitive BS from companies.
  • - 2
 So it's acceptable, even commendable, to bully someone into financial hardship because of political beliefs and agenda? Just another reason to get furious every time I walk into an REI store.
  • + 7
 I can't be certain, but I don't think that there's many companies in your country who are experiencing financial hardship because the goods that they're pushing are firearms.

Also the last time I checked a business decision didn't fall under the "bullying" category.
  • + 3
 @ssteve: it's a neo-marxist cultural push. Every single authoritarian regime disarms its citizens. Our "new authoritarianism" is just more Brave New World than Stalinism. Y'all know in Europe. And if you don't open your eyes so it doesn't get ya by surprise!
  • - 2
 @trialsracer: i give this post 5/5 tin foil hats
  • + 2
 @freestyIAM: I despise the "tin foil hat" putdowns. It just shows your own lack of logic and poor argument so you resort to name calling. Sad.
  • + 2
 @trialsracer: I don't know what that means. But if it makes you feel better, I'm not from here.
  • - 3
 Goodbye REI! Dumping you along with Starbucks and Nike, good thing we have so many options as consumers nowadays!! This stuff always astounds me, I own a business and would NEVER inject my politics into my business, as strong as my opinions are that is just bad business. People come to you for your product, they could care less what you "feel".
  • + 3
 Lolololololol
  • - 3
 Cars and Trucks, firearms, cigarettes, alchohol, power tools, bottle rockets, texting /facebooking while driving, ..all are potentially lethal and capable of killing, yet all require a human to make it happen. Who is Vista again?
  • + 0
 maybe we should outlaw mountain biking because people are hurting themselves as well /sarcasm
  • - 1
 How about only selling to gun club members or those with a hunting license? The constitution was written in different times..
  • + 1
 Because they did not put our right to bear arms in the Constitution for hunting, and to use the "different times" argument shows some true ignorance of how and why this country was founded.
  • + 2
 Correct. Maybe we should do away with Freedom of Speech now that anyone can go online and spread false BS ruining peoples careers or causing such a depression they commit suicide. It's a slippery slope. You can't please everyone and those that displeased are welcome to relocate to a place that better suites their personal beliefs. This world would be better if the few would stop trying to change everything around them for everyone instead of changing themselves. If you can't respect everyone's rights, then leave or just stfu.
  • + 2
 GUNS
  • + 0
 So much Savage bashing ;-)
  • - 1
 This is disappointing. The way they are giving up on Savage just doesn't sit right with my moral compass.
  • + 10
 Gun sales are way down. Republican president and all. Every guy store owner wants a Democrat president as it's always good for business.
  • + 0
 @yzedf: SHHHH! dont give away the secret!!

Also I love how no one thinks about how Trump has backed and passed more gun control than Obama did.
  • + 5
 @hamncheez: Really? Please explain.
  • + 1
 @hamncheez: I think about that shit every damn day. f*ckin MAGA crowd doesn't get that.
  • + 1
 @johnbalz: Under Obama, no actual firearm restrictions were passed by congress and signed by him. His executive administration issued no special orders to restrict firearms in any way. He talked a big game, but for whatever reason didn't actually do anything.

The Trump administration has actually banned bump stocks, and will soon try and ban certain suppressors (silencers), or he might have already, I'm not 100% up to speed on it.
  • + 6
 @hamncheez: There has been talk from the current administration about creating stricter gun laws and the DOJ has banned bump stocks under a recent memorandum, however there hasn't been any significant legislation passed about gun control under the current administration.

"Congress most recently addressed firearms-related legislation on February 27, 2019. The House passed a bill that proposed requiring federal criminal background checks on all firearms sales by a vote of 240-190, mostly along party lines."

"The bill now heads to the Senate. President Donald Trump said that he would veto the bill if it was sent to him."

Huh, that's weird considering he has vocally supported not only background checks but very strict background checks:

- On February 19, 2018, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said that President Donald Trump “is supportive of efforts to improve the federal background check system.”

- Trump said, “We’re going to be very strong on background checks. We’re going to be doing very strong background checks. Very strong emphasis on the mental health of somebody. And we are going to do plenty of other things. Again, next week, the governors are coming in from most of the states, and we’re going to have a very serious talk about what’s going on with school safety. … There are many ideas that I have. There are many ideas that other people have. And we’re going to pick out the strongest ideas, the most important ideas, the ideas that are going to work. And we’re going to get them done. It’s not going to be talk like it has been in the past. It’s been going on too long; too many instances. And we’re going to get it done.” (man what a quote)

So why would Trump choose to veto this?

Quote from the current administration:
"By overly extending the minimum time that a licensed entity is required to wait for background check results, H.R. 1112 would unduly impose burdensome delays on individuals seeking to purchase a firearm."

So essentially because more thorough background checks take a longer time to complete (who would have thought!) we must veto this legislation. I NEED MY GUNS NOW!!!!!!

There's no such thing as bipartisan support on this shit it's only the people getting paid by lobbyists and the NRA and the people who aren't. You think these clowns care about the citizens they represent? you are mistaken.

here ya go (fake news):
ballotpedia.org/Federal_policy_on_laws_governing_guns_and_firearms,_2017-2020
www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/01/16/here-are-the-23-executive-orders-on-gun-safety-signed-today-by-the-president/#4d035b192312
www.ajc.com/news/national/senators-house-members-who-offered-condolences-after-shooting-called-out-for-donations-from-nra/tpitHXUY9jDH3pr4f7f7cM
  • + 1
 @strider114: Hey, I wasn't taking political sides. Its simply ironic that Obama didn't pass anything that can be called gun control, while the DOJ, under the Trump administration, has. Nothing you've posted here disagrees with what I said.
  • + 2
 @johnbalz: It's true. Trump and the Rs have done nothing but harm to gun owners. It will probably cost him re-election due to bitterness or apathy. He's incredibly dumb to ignore his base.

As for Obama, despite commissioning studies that he hoped would find support for gun control policies (they did the opposite actually) and running guns to Mexico to demonize legal gun owners, he was completely ineffective on the gun control front.
  • + 2
 @hamncheez: I don't know why you're getting downvoted. Maybe bitter Canadians are disappointed they can't hate Trump over his gun policies? lol
  • + 0
 "take the guns early, due process later"
  • + 3
 @hamncheez

"
Obama didn't pass anything that can be called gun control
"

Come on dude...please.... get real.

It's true the obama admin faced lots of criticism for not being able to pass as many gun control laws in congress as they wanted to, mostly because of the failure for the bills to receive enough bi-partisan support. To say he didn't do anything (or suggest the trump admin is doing more -- they haven't passed any laws yet) is just ignorant.

The GOP has never been in support of stricter laws regarding gun-control, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

It's just different now because trump says alot of things to perpetuate the belief that he's doing anything outside the norm of the republican party.

He's been revoking obama era gun control regulations since he was in office (again.. not surprising).

www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-signs-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221

www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/the-trump-administration-has-already-been-rolling-back-gun-regulations/2017/10/04/5eaad7d6-a86b-11e7-8ed2-c7114e6ac460_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.55eace1f9e60

You can go view the bills and even read about all of the executive actions and memoranda that was enacted under the obama administration.

www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-laws-passed-by-congress-3367595
  • - 3
 @PB keep the posts about bikes there's enough political B's everywhere else
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



You must login to Pinkbike.
Don't have an account? Sign up

Join Pinkbike  Login
Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.088517
Mobile Version of Website