Maybe now that the NRA is probably close to being indicted as Russian agents their influence will be dead. Or was the rejection the ordinary type of bigotry toward an indigenous people Americans tried to destroy?
If dropping popular consumer products and shifting focus to government contracts was the Navajo nation's plan, it was rightly rejected. This is a proven plan for failure. Smith and Wesson almost failed that way, and most recently, Colt did fail with that exact same strategy.
The end result would have been nothing more than the Navajo nation needlessly wasting half a billion dollars they desperately need.
A reckless and foolish idea from the start.
1
I am firmly in favor of allowing the “fool and his money” model of economics to teach the same lesson it has always taught. It not only teaches important lessons, it lessens the ability of the fool to try to cause damage again elsewhere.
To all who immediately dismiss the Navajo idea of partly focusing on smart gun technology, please stop pushing the NRA party line. While more guns continue to be sold, the numbers of individuals is not growing the same. There are many people who become parents and don’t want the risk of a gun in the house falling into little hands. Or being stolen and used against “a good guy”. Or a momentarily depressed teen making a bad choice with dads gun. Or any of numerous personal reasons. Instead of doing everything to block safer guns let’s let someone like the Navajo Nation offer a product to the free market. There are plenty of people who could become gun owners, but probably not NRA supporters, if they felt more secure with their choice of a safer gun. Obviously no gun will be 100% safe, just as no car or really anything is 100% safe. The point is, let’s offer people a choice.
The Navajo plan, while perhaps a lowball offer, has lots of other benefits. Perhaps if more groups such as towns where the factory closed or unions in a company facing bankruptcy got together and formed a co-op we could rebuild communities and prevent job losses to multinational investors that don’t care about anything except the next quarterly profit.
7
@Doctor Dave and perhaps the gun is useless when your hands are wet, or oily, or dirty, or sweaty, or you have on gloves, or your 17 year old daughter needs to protect her life. Let's just say that the technology only fails once in a thousand uses. Not bad, right? Would you buy a car if the brakes completely failed in your car when needed to save your life it it would fail once in a thousand brake applications. Not bad, right?
Mr. Sorkin wrote: "curtailing the sale of the AR-15-style weapons frequently used in mass shootings"
This is just not true, according to the FBI only 3% of mass shooting in 2016 were committed by someone using a rifle of any type, and an even smaller number used AR-15's.
Also, smart gun tech is by far dead, no Govt or LEO agency is even considering the wide use of smart guns. Those contracts are what fuel research and development into potential future gun tech. The Navajo Nation would eventually realize this and revert to a more profitable business model which would most likely include modern sporting firearms.
2
@Frank Q But the mass shootings on muh teeeveee all involve AR-15s and such.
The only "enormous opportunity" being offered was the chance to sell Remington for a third of what it was worth for the stated purpose of destroying the brand.
Rewind back to 2000. Smith & Wesson was close to crashing and burning because they effectively sold out to the firearm prohibitionist crowd. This was back before the self-defense rights groups were as well organized and hard line as they are today.
If that had happened today, Smith & Wesson would have been out of business so fast that their name would become a synonym for an incredibly bad business decision.
If the Navajo Nation had successfully bought Remington and implemented this plan, the result would be the same: Remington going under lightning fast, and their competition filling the gap equally fast.
1
This is refreshing that someone is trying to solve America's gun problems in a way that is beneficial to all. Well, I suppose those who like owning assault rifles would not be happy, but hunters would have nothing to fear by this. In any event, as is often said, everything is for sale if the price is right. I am sure if the offer were increased that Remington would listen.
6
@Scott Werden We don't have a "gun problem," we have a violence problem. Even if you subtract all of the violence committed with guns, we still have a disproportionate amount of violent crime. Where gun ownership is commonplace in this country, crime is low and where gun ownership is uncommon, crime is high. I'm not saying gun control causes crime or that guns reduce it, because the problem is nowhere near as simple as the prevalence or lack of guns.
The reality is that neither of the things the Navajo Nation want to do with Remington would have even the slightest impact on violent crime. All it would do is guarantee that Remington failed as a company, and their competition would quickly fill the gap, assuming someone else didn't buy the rights to the trademarks and restart the brand.
I will agree with you, however, that had the Navajo Nation made a serious offer, the people who own the trademarks would have sold. This was always just a publicity stunt.
2
Why with a $3.3 billion investment trust is there 70% unemployment? Is a bankrupt gun manufacturer the only path to gainful employment for the Navajo Nation?
8
@Peter Daniel The Navajo Nation is located in a high desert, so agriculture is out. There is no real manufacturing, per se, just handcrafted items. Most income is in services within the nation, other than coal mining and a coal power station which sells power both within and outside the reservation. Things don't look very promising for coal in the future, necessitating thinking outside of the box. Purchasing Remington would be a great start.
21
Wow, talk about not understanding your market. I can't think of a faster way to put Remington out of business than to move its product offerings to "smart" guns. The NRA would bury Remington in a storm of negative press about pandering to anti-gun forces and the movement to boycott Remington would be epic.
3
@Alan It wouldn't matter much if they were to concentrate on government contracts.
11
@WillyD how many government contracts would it be likely to get given nra opposition? i think it's a good acquisition but mixing business and politics is not good. also, with fingerprint recognition systems, how would guns be sold to new owners? somebody would need to retrofit the gun for the new owner; who and for how much?
@dwight billingsly Could be millions of dollars in contracts. This would have been a great investment for the Navajo Tribe that would have helped in many ways.