I've no idea if any of you good folks will care for this, and if it's not the sort of thing BB gets into then prune it, but it seems that Giro, Bell and Camelback are owned by a parent company that sees over 40% of it's sales from guns and ammunition in the US.

It lobbies in support of the gun industry pretty hard, and directly sponsors NRATV, a media channel currently directly involved in stirring a frenzy in US 2nd amendment fans.

https://www.bikebiz.com/news/anti-gun-b ... nd-boycott

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/02/21/ ... gun-lobby/

Do they flog a bullet-proof bike helmet? Could be handy in some of the places on my bivi bucket-list.

RIP wrote:Do they flog a bullet-proof bike helmet? Could be handy in some of the places on my bivi bucket-list.

Don't think so, they're more into the killy ammo'n'gunz rather than that fluffy protecty stuff.

https://www.outsideonline.com/2282941/s ... -purchases

This was linked on the Bikebiz article and tries to analyse if boycotting Camelbak etc makes any sense. I found it interesting but then I'm sad like that.

Thanks Oli.

I wondered if I shouldstay out of this as I work for a company selling these products, and used to work for their UK distributor before Vista owned them. I knew of Vista's other brands when the sale happened - I think it was publicised in the bike trade then.

From that Outside article -

That same year, the Vista Outdoor PAC also donated $5,372 to Utah congressman Rob Bishop, who introduced a bill that would have gutted the president's ability to designate national monuments under the Antiquities Act. It gave $1,266 to Oklahoma senator John Inhofe, who once brought a snowball to the Senate floor in an attempt to prove that climate change isn’t real.

Not large sums, but you may question the ethics of the parent company - as well as whether those donations were related to the caused Outside links to the recipients. But it's the NRA support that makes me see my Giro kit quite differently, which is a shame as it's great kit and Giro, Bell, Blackburn and other cycle Vista brands employ lots of good, bike loving outdoors people.

Sarah-Vaughan Brakman, a professor of philosophy and ethics at Villanova University, says folks who buy gear from other Vista Outdoor brands need not feel morally at fault for the actions of Vista Outdoor. “Mary’s purchase of a cool CamelBak bladder is not necessary to either the creation or selling of assault rifles,” she says. “The sale of assault rifles will happen whether she buys the bladder or not.”

It will. But I'd rather not buy gear from an NRA supporting company. From Singletrack's report -

Vista spent over $500,000 on lobbying in 2017

Why doesn't Outside mention that, or even the NRA at all? It's huge compared to the donations they list. I guess Outside is read by a lot of hunters and NRA supporters. If so it's a subtly biased or down-played article.

I was fairly detached from US gun nut attitudes. But they have a president that now says teachers should become trained in the use of assault weapons to defend school children, rather than any significant actions that could change the shocking regularity of children being shot while in school -
here's JUST the last 7 years - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... ates#2010s - It's insane. How can a country get to that stage?
That Trump brainfart is the same as a the NRA's tagline that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Rather than stop either having a gun.

Trump is an obvious NRA supporter and many riders can do without Vista brands in support of a child's right to safety. Maybe an extreme extrapolation but they need all the help they can get with a leadership as fked up as that. On this topic, the US's problem might be something we all care about and I'm sure other companies with NRA links will see similar call-outs soon.

We pay our taxes to a government that is happy to sell arms to some of the most unsavoury regimes in the world.

You can sadly add Black Diamond to that list as well.

If you start getting in to who owns who then you can pretty quickly end up your own behind. I could probably find an ethical reason to not buy anything from anyone ever again.

If the US majority want a change in gun laws they need to vote for someone who will give it to them. Personally I don't think they really do.

This whole debate does stir some national pride in me (not much does). I remember Dunblane and I remember Hungerford especially as Michael Ryan was a good friend of mine (we live 14 miles away), it turns out the killer was another Michael Ryan.

As a result our country went out of its way to make gun ownership nigh on impossible. The results are evident. The Americans are a f**king bunch of idiots there is no excuse for their idiocy in sticking with an outdated second amendment that has NEVER delivered any benefit. They have killed or repressed all the native Americans and seen off the brits so no need any more.

We have a certain degree of idiocy over here on many things. But where life is concerned we are mostly sane and act properly in terms of legislation. It's something to be slightly proud of.

Personally, instead of not buying from a lobbying company. I would rather buy from one that had the guts to make a stand on the second amendment. One that would align their brand with peace and a world where we don't need guns, which we don't. It will be a cold day in hell before any American based brand had the guts to do that, unless I am mistaken.

Personally I don't think they really do.

Or certainly not enough of them do ... looking from the outside in obviously.

It struck me how times change and we must change what we do and how we behave alongside. When the constitution was written a gun looked like the one in the top picture, now it looks like the one at the bottom. It's like showing a man with a stone axe a JCB.

One of the reasons that some gun advocates trot out is "I need firearms in case the government turns against the people". So they arm themselves with



On the other side (the government) they have a lot of these:



And some of these



And a lot of these



They don't need many of these

There are so many guns out in the public domain in America now that even if they introduced tough gun legislation tomorrow it would be decades before it had any effect.Gun owners would also sue for the cost of arms taken from them, how much do you think that would cost the country never mind what effect it would have on court system, it would be drowned in compensation claims. Also, there are many other countries that have high levels of gun ownership (admittedly not quite as high as the USA) but they don't suffer the levels of mass shootings that the USA does. Why would that be I wonder?

Ray Young wrote: it would be decades before it had any effect.

But the people of decades later would be thankful and safe. As we are now decades after Hungerford/Dunblane.

Dave Barter wrote:

Ray Young wrote: it would be decades before it had any effect.

But the people of decades later would be thankful and safe. As we are now decades after Hungerford/Dunblane.

Not saying they shouldn't do it, just saying it will take a long time to take effect.

restlessnative wrote:If you start getting in to who owns who then you can pretty quickly end up your own behind. I could probably find an ethical reason to not buy anything from anyone ever again.

ScotRoutes wrote:We pay our taxes to a government that is happy to sell arms to some of the most unsavoury regimes in the world.

This is undoubtedly true, but we all make choiices about what we care about, and to what extent. I'd prefer my tax £ not to support repressive regimes, but I don't have a choice about that and voting for the other buggers wont give me that choice either. But I do care enough to choose which companies I give my money to where I can, and I know that small amounts of energy spent in the right places can have great effects.

Anyone remember the financial boycot of South African goods that brought about the end of Apartheid in South Africa? That worked.
I don't see the situation in the US as very different - apart from the fact that the US has a big enough internal market that it wont care quite as much - still, money talks. If the US sees the market share of targeted companies dwindling over this, then it may decide that it's 2nd amendment needs a further amendment. And that can only be a good thing. Anyone that chooses to write to *Zyro-Fisher, talk to their local bike shop owner, or anything else they might choose to do - it will only help.

*edited. Bell, Gyro, Camelback and Blackburn are distributed in the uk by Zyro Fisher, and not Madison.

While I think a boycot is perhaps morally right, any real change needs to come from within. It's very difficult to help those who won't help themselves ... especially if they don't appear to believe they need any help.

In the US at the end of 1999, I witnessed a level of paranoia I've never seen anywhere else. While most of the world were preparing for the year 2000 and a technilogical melt-down by checking their computer systems and buying a couple of extra tins of baked beans, many Americans I saw were stocking up on weapons, ammunition and cammo baseball caps. 'Twas quite a scary spectacle.

We pay our taxes to a government that is happy to sell arms to some of the most unsavoury regimes in the world.

I don't have a choice whether I pay taxes or not. I can choose where I spend what's left of my income though and I can vote (edit, posting same time as Oli who's already said that)

Politicising consumerism? Some say that's wrong, Stop Funding Hate are meddlers etc yet when brand owners donate to highly political groups or the media become partisan and divisional, we're on that path already. Our 'capitalist vote' may be as (more?) effective as a democratic vote.

On the 'even if, how long it would take' point - I've not got the insight to say what could or couldn't speed that up, but as a sole reason not to start a job it's always poor. If it takes a long time, start sooner.

Dave's point on more positive bias toward the good companies vs negative bias toward the 'bad' - I like that, looking for the positive first is a better way to see the world. A directly related example here gets people thinking about all this but a Positive 1st angle is a better way to be overall.

Also, there are many other countries that have high levels of gun ownership (admittedly not quite as high as the USA) but they don't suffer the levels of mass shootings that the USA does. Why would that be I wonder?

Promise of The Dream vs the reality of world economics in the 21st Century? Definition of that dream and patriotism vs need for cultural and social diversity? I don't know but things seem pretty messed up over there, perhaps they need leadership that doesn't polarise anymore. It's been an either-or, 2-party system since the Civil War.

whitestone wrote:One of the reasons that some gun advocates trot out is "I need firearms in case the government turns against the people". So they arm themselves with



On the other side (the government) they have a lot of these:



And some of these



And a lot of these



They don't need many of these

This is an often ‘forgotten point’ in the gun debate over there. Mentioned in this from a veteran which sums it up well - https://t.co/fl5oib2fL5

A couple of other things that occur to me in all this are: amendment - means a change ffs. Prohibition was enacted via an amendment, which was changed. Also the ‘well organised militia’ part. Strong argument that neither parts of that are happening!

just to balance the conflict a little.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2jc1TzlqLo

just to balance the conflict a little.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2jc1TzlqLo

Aye and that's the problem with statistics. I enjoyed the bit where he said, "knives kill 5 times more Americans than firearms do" ... No, you'll find, Americans with knives kill 5 times more Americans than those with guns. Maybe the Americans with knives also have guns?

This page https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm would indicate that out of 15,000 homicides in 2014, 11,000 were due to firearms. By my maths that leaves just 4,000 for other means. Now I've only got A-level Maths but even if all those 4,000 were by knife then that means that Americans are 2.75 times more likely to die from firearms than from knives.

I wouldn't imagine that the relative proportions would change significantly from year to year.

Then again, don't let facts get in the way of a great polemic rant.

Lawmanmx wrote:just to balance the conflict a little.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2jc1TzlqLo

That's the 'best 7 mins'? Weak logic from that guy, and he's probably talking to an audience that is there for bias confirmation. He starts out on the violence is inherent and we need self-defence angle. Then that knives kill more, and more crimes are prevented by guns than assisted by - certainly not in the case of school shootings though (and he gets onto using the Nazis as a comparison, the full house).

- Violence is no more inherent to a human in India or Nepal or a human in America. The culture and availability or weapons influences different levels of violence though. Link US history and culture that includes guns throughout with guns and deaths by shooting. People need to stop separating all that based on their biases.

- Let's all take a simple poll... you can have a fight with a man with a knife or the same man with a gun. Take your pick.

Edit to add, bringing myself back to the bikes stuff... I'm saying 'yes, I do care'. A simple no-buy or communication with the brands and using the discussion for positives, each to their own decision there. I'd take the latter at first as I'm relating this to a different topic but similar point in my own work, I'm sure many of us can.

Ideally, there would be NO guns/bombs or Any weapons of war Anywhere, Ideally! but we all know that's never gonna happen, Unfortunately.