Smith & Wesson NEARLY did the right thing

In the late ’90s, Smith & Wesson was facing a major lawsuit filed by cities and states that blamed the company for rampant gun violence. The company stood to lose millions.

So in 2000, under pressure from the Clinton administration, Smith & Wesson’s chief executive, Ed Schultz, made a fateful decision — and raised the ire of the powerful National Rifle Association and its supporters. …

Click PLAY or see what happened next on YouTube.

 

On 11 May 2001, Saf-T-Hammer Corporation acquired Smith & Wesson Corp. from Tomkins plc for US$15 million, a fraction of the US$112 million originally paid by Tomkins. Saf-T-Hammer assumed US$30 million in debt, bringing the total purchase price to US$45 million

In December 2014, Smith & Wesson Holding announced it was paying $130.5 million for Battenfeld Technologies, a Columbia, Missouri-based designer and distributor of hunting and shooting accessories. The company made the acquisition with the eventual intent to merge all its existing Smith & Wesson, M&P and Thompson Center Arms accessories into a single division

wikipedia

Advertisements

Published by

Rick Mc

Career gymnastics coach who loves the outdoors, and the internet.

One thought on “Smith & Wesson NEARLY did the right thing”

  1. This is from the Center for Disease Control —

    First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws
    Summary
    During 2000–2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, “shall issue” concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.

    Given that statement and the research behind it; how would have implementing any of the proposals pushed by the Clinton administration have made a bit of difference?

    In the late ’90s, Smith & Wesson was facing a major lawsuit filed by cities and states that blamed the company for rampant gun violence.

    of course it was S&W that was responsible for the ‘rampant gun violence’ — I mean it couldn’t have been the drug cartels using a wide variety of weapons and wholesale violence, right?
    It couldn’t have been the gangs fighting for turf, fighting to control the drug trade, right?

    Nope – like auto companies should have been sued because criminals used cars to do drive bys or transport drugs.
    Hey can we sue winter wear manufacturers because they make masks that criminals use to rob banks, stores, etc?

    Bob S.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s