3 ms·

This was tried back in the days of the Clinton administration with Smith and Wesson. http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000317_2.html http://clinton4.nara.

This was tried back in the days of the Clinton administration with Smith and Wesson. http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000317_2.html http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000317_2.html The rest of the gun-buying public declared a "S&W Death Penalty" and stopped buying anything from S&W. Smith and Wesson nearly went bankrupt and the British company that owned S&W sold it off for a pittance to a small American gunmaker.

randallsquared 17y ago
For more on this, google "smith and wesson must die", which turns up some very specific articles and interviews about it.
Kadin 17y ago
Yeah that's what I was thinking about as I was reading the article, too. Maybe Spitzer should have spent a little less time with his mistresses and a little more actually understanding the firearms industry in the U.S. First, there are a lot of companies that sell exclusively or almost-exclusively to the civilian market, or are kept alive in between periods of major government purchasing by the civilian market. E.g.: Bushmaster, who is almost certainly one of those companies that Spitzer would like to punish, doesn't shy away from military/LEO orders but is primarily a civilian arms company. Given the choice between relatively consistent sales on the civilian market or feast-and-famine by selling to the government (who can inundate you with orders one year and leave you with nothing the next), it wouldn't surprise me if some manufacturers just turned down government orders if they came with too much red tape. The net result of Spitzer's plan might be a decrease in the number of suppliers willing to deal with the government, rather than the civilian market; it might also cause companies to split off rough parts production and have the finish work done by separate companies -- one for the government and one for the civilian market. Of course, if such a scheme keeps people like Spitzer occupied and from making a real mess, more power to it. Gun control isn't a vote-getter because, for a great many people anyway, it really isn't a significant or pressing problem.
- defen 17y ago
  You really would think he would know, especially considering his previous (totally failed and backfired) attempts at gun-control. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/30/us/gun-maker-s-accord-on-curbs-brings-pressure-from-industry.html http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/30/us/gun-maker-s-accord-on-c...

randallsquared 17y ago

For more on this, google "smith and wesson must die", which turns up some very specific articles and interviews about it.

Kadin 17y ago

Yeah that's what I was thinking about as I was reading the article, too. Maybe Spitzer should have spent a little less time with his mistresses and a little more actually understanding the firearms industry in the U.S. First, there are a lot of companies that sell exclusively or almost-exclusively to the civilian market, or are kept alive in between periods of major government purchasing by the civilian market. E.g.: Bushmaster, who is almost certainly one of those companies that Spitzer would like to punish, doesn't shy away from military/LEO orders but is primarily a civilian arms company. Given the choice between relatively consistent sales on the civilian market or feast-and-famine by selling to the government (who can inundate you with orders one year and leave you with nothing the next), it wouldn't surprise me if some manufacturers just turned down government orders if they came with too much red tape. The net result of Spitzer's plan might be a decrease in the number of suppliers willing to deal with the government, rather than the civilian market; it might also cause companies to split off rough parts production and have the finish work done by separate companies -- one for the government and one for the civilian market. Of course, if such a scheme keeps people like Spitzer occupied and from making a real mess, more power to it. Gun control isn't a vote-getter because, for a great many people anyway, it really isn't a significant or pressing problem.

defen 17y ago
You really would think he would know, especially considering his previous (totally failed and backfired) attempts at gun-control. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/30/us/gun-maker-s-accord-on-curbs-brings-pressure-from-industry.html http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/30/us/gun-maker-s-accord-on-c...