r/gunpolitics • u/Sesemebun • Sep 12 '24
Why are firearms companies seemingly uninvolved in politics? Question
It is possible that I am wrong, but most gun companies seem to be not very involved in politics. The easy answer is that corporations don't really care about us, which is true to a degree. However from a business perspective, I feel there is a lot to be gained. First off, the restrictions cut off a lot of the market, or require work arounds that cost money.
Before the Solus, Aero pretty much lost their entire local clientele. People here liked supporting Aero since it was pretty much the only (large) gun company here. CA has been the way it is for a while now, and so companies have adjusted to it by offering models with fin grips, fixed mags etc. These require separate tooling and packaging. It's a product nearly identical to what they already make but with extra work.
Additionally, since the standard is pretty much indifference, companies that started investing in it would get really good PR. People like PSA just for being down to earth, doing stuff like what they've done with Paul Harrel. If we had a company actually use their size to stand up for their rights, people would support them. Consumers like customer service.
And even just money wise, Remington went bankrupt because of Sandy Hook, Bushmaster had to pay 500K in a settlement for some other thing. Lawyer fees to actually clear the market and help defend themselves could save them a lot of money in the long run.
Why is the closest thing to politics that modern gun companies seem to align themselves with, just being associated with the NRA? (which if anything gives worse press than if they did stuff with SAF,GOA,FPC, or even just doing it themselves)
27
16
u/alkatori Sep 12 '24
Because it doesn't really matter to the big guys. If things get banned they will run their factories 24/7 cranking out the items prior to the ban and sell for a markup.
Then they will sell ban compliant items for a markup.
12
u/Glass_Protection_254 Sep 12 '24
Gun company's want to sell guns to everyone. Politics is bad business.
59
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF Sep 12 '24
Politics gets in the way of profit.
If I go too hard one way I alienate a large section of my customer base. Now yes Democrats hate the 2A and want to repeal it, but at the same time a lot of customers may be Democrat.
As a business I have to be pro-2A but avoid being partisan, or I risk alienating significant marketshare.
26
u/hybridtheory1331 Sep 12 '24
PSA made a "fuck Joe Biden" lower and they're doing just fine. It's not about the image or politics or alienating anyone. They just don't want to put money into a "maybe".
7
u/BarryHalls Sep 12 '24
Man BINGO. They don't want to be "cancelled" in 10 years for a horse they back today.
Shareholders, boards, CEOs and all of that garbage.
PSA is our 2A friend though, for sure.
6
u/Dorzack Sep 12 '24
Yes, and PSA has stored in a gun friendly state relatively speaking. They don’t have a physical presence in multiple states or rely on a network of retailers. Manufacturers contribute to NSSF which does some lobbying.
-12
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF Sep 12 '24
PSA make a lot of cheap ass meme shit
21
u/hybridtheory1331 Sep 12 '24
And it hasn't hurt them in the slightest.
-16
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF Sep 12 '24
Because they're a meme company for poors. They dont have public contracts, they jsut pump out cheap ass meme shit.
I love PSA, but let's not pretend they're a company with a multinational presence putting out anything more than optimal profit vs. optimal quality.
3
u/TaterTot_005 Sep 12 '24
Calling a company a meme company isn’t necessarily a bad thing and being a meme company doesn’t mean you can’t be a positive influence on the industry, so idk why folks are downvoting you. You just condensed an entire PSA shareholder conference into one reply & translated businesspeak into English
The fact of the matter is that PSA is a staple of the community because they’re active in the social sphere and they put out a good-enough-for-your-average-shooter product at a cheap-enough-to-remain-competitive price. I
6
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF Sep 12 '24 edited Sep 12 '24
Because this is the Internet, if you're not sucking the company's dick it means you hate them and if you say something I don't like it means you're wrong.
Like I said I love PSA and what they're doing, but they're not bidding on government contracts. They're not multinational distributor. They don't have facilities in multiple states.
They're putting out cheap products that are "good enough" and putting them out en masse because they're cheap. They can be political, someone like HK and FN bidding on military contracts can't. Those contracts are worth more than the civilian market.
0
u/loki301 Sep 15 '24
Why do you think PSA is selling Trump guns instead of weapons to the military? Lol. Democrats are anti gun, but they’ll give the military an infinite budget as long as the manufacturers aren’t doing corny shit
11
u/Sesemebun Sep 12 '24
I'm not saying they don't exist, but I feel the number of customers of these companies who support restricting their products is probably smaller than the number of customers who would be more loyal to the brand if they supported gun rights. I can't imagine Aero has many people who bought a lower but applauded HB 1240
-2
2
u/TaterTot_005 Sep 12 '24
There are a plethora of tactics available to an organization with lots of money to affect political change, and they don’t all look like “MAGA” or “Never Trump”.
I am genuinely curious why these companies don’t capitalize on voter fatigue and engage in some sort of unity politics and shift the narrative away from the vitriol of contemporary politics and push the focus (and more importantly, the funding) towards sharing stories and data on gun ownership, grassroots firearms safety courses, and youth participation in action shooting sports. Sure, putting trump’s face on a 1911 or a funny slogan on a lower will bring in some income but how does that further the cause of arming and training Americans?
The firearms industry has been on the back foot for almost a decade now, playing on the defensive while recording record profits. Now is the time to dip into those (if you’ll forgive the expression) war chests and remind Americans what the wholesome side of firearms ownership looks like
1
u/loki301 Sep 15 '24
In most countries, the military is nominally separate and “apolitical.” Gun makers will cook up a bunch of corny ads about self defense and some gruff voice yapping about Roman soldiers with truck rock background music for the civilian market, but when it comes to the government they’re pretty dry and sterile because people in charge of the government change frequently, and they can’t afford to play sides. It’s why defense companies bribe both parties at an almost 50/50 rate.
9
8
22
u/DBDude Sep 12 '24
Remington didn’t go bankrupt because of Sandy Hook. Remington went bankrupt because of vulture capitalism saddling them with debt, leading to poor manufacturing. People started calling them Rustington because brand-new guns would have rust on them when unboxed at the store. People stopped buying Remington.
So they went bankrupt. Then during the bankruptcy they found buyers for all the parts of Remington, but the ongoing lawsuit prevented finalization. The bankruptcy trustees and the insurance companies decided to settle so the assets could be sold, the creditors paid off.
6
u/dano_911 Sep 12 '24
Democrats buy guns to. Getting political would alienate a HUGE number of customers.
5
5
u/gunny031680 Sep 12 '24
I will never buy an Areo precision product ever again after HB-1240 they abandoned their own people. Ya they joined a lawsuit that has 0 chance of overturning the law but they’ve done nothing to stand up for us. They 100% misinterpreted the law, They won’t even send a pistol grip to a Washington resident, they won’t sell any items period in Washington.
I’m somewhat mystified about how they’re still even doing business at all. They were all over the place on the run up to 1240 saying this would put them out of business and 600 people would loose their jobs if 1240 passed. Then 1240 passes and the law says you can’t buy sell or manufacture assault weapons in Washington state. So how is Areo precision still manufacturing “assault weapons” in Washington state and selling them in every other state than their own state. Did they get some kind of a hall pass from the attorney general that I’m unaware of. Screw Areo precision, they deserve to go out of business for misinterpreting the law and cutting off their own people. The people that helped make their company what it is.
4
u/Just_A_Little_ThRAWy Sep 12 '24
They won't even sell a buffer spring or a lpk parts kit thsts nothing but springs/detents. Yes I'm going build a deadly weapon out of a spring and some detents...fuck off
1
u/Gold-Succotash-9217 Sep 15 '24
They talked about exempting them but AFAIK, if they have anything, it's the same exemption any other FFL has to deal with LEOs.
Or they ignore state law because they're a manufacturer and operate primarily under federal restrictions.
3
u/gunny031680 Sep 15 '24
It’s bullshit to me, we all have to follow the draconian law but they can cut off their own state and then just continue to do business everywhere else. Now if they were like a lot of the other companies still selling most AR parts except lowers I’d be ok with Areo, but no they’ve totally cut us off and are 100% misinterpreting the law. They won’t even send out a pistol grip Or lower parts kits, nothing.
3
u/Vylnce Sep 12 '24
Perhaps you haven't heard if the NSSF. The NSSF is the political arm of ALL the gun manufacturers. The fact that you don't know that is a good thing. The NRA can keep taking hits and looking like the drunk, falling apart lead man on stage while the rest of the group (NSSF, FPC, GOA, SAF) quietly get the music made.
6
u/Dinkle-berg69 Sep 12 '24
If anything gun companies want anti gun politicians as they cause panic buying which massively spikes their profits
2
u/Matty-ice23231 Sep 12 '24
I’d say I’d prefer more involvement. I see some however, not enough. But I do understand the business side, being the Michael Jordan line…republicans buy sneakers too. Democrats and antigunners buy guns too…don’t want to piss off your customers. Even though the majority and ones that buy the most are very conservative.
2
u/chgruver Sep 12 '24
Not sure if it with the entire industry, but I have heard of a number of either CEOs or other higher ups at firearms companies that when they leave the firearm company they are with they go the route of being against 2A rights.
2
u/Phantasmidine Sep 12 '24
The individual companies don't have time or man power for lobbying.
That's why they pay industry groups like the NSSF to do it for them.
2
2
u/hybridtheory1331 Sep 12 '24
I've often thought the same. Why wouldn't Glock funnel a couple million into the fight per year to try to overturn the NFA? They would make hundreds of millions selling Glock brand switches and Glock 18s.
Some will say the companies don't want to get involved in politics and alienate part of their clientele, but PSA made a Fuck Joe Biden special lower and they're doing just fine. That's just an excuse.
3
u/kiakosan Sep 12 '24
Why wouldn't Glock funnel a couple million into the fight per year to try to overturn the NFA? They would make hundreds of millions selling Glock brand switches and Glock 18s.
No they wouldn't, NFA and specifically Hughes isn't going away anytime soon. Additionally, everyone and their felon mother can get the switches currently illegally.
Some will say the companies don't want to get involved in politics and alienate part of their clientele, but PSA made a Fuck Joe Biden special lower and they're doing just fine. That's just an excuse.
Difference is Glock has a ton of government customers and getting into politics could alienate them. PSA to my knowledge doesn't compete in anywhere near the level Glock does.
2
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF Sep 12 '24
Why wouldn't Glock funnel a couple million into the fight per year to try to overturn the NFA?
Because it's never going to happen. It'd be a waste of millions of dollars a year. The NPV is absolutely trash on something like that especially with a probability of return being basically zero.
The average American does not want machine guns to be legalized. We here in the gun subs are a minority. There is zero political appetite for legalizing machine guns outside of strongly pro-2A gun enthusiasts.
You're not getting 60 votes in the senate to repeal the NFA. Even if you had 60 republicans there would be several against it.
2
u/hybridtheory1331 Sep 12 '24
https://apnews.com/article/machine-guns-court-ruling-kansas-a15526435c94d896d308fc21571811ce
It's not likely, but it's also not impossible. We just have to shift the Overton window.
But fine, for sake of argument let's look smaller. They could help to get suppressors taken off the NFA. Then they can sell more models with threaded barrels.
1
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF Sep 12 '24 edited Sep 12 '24
Then they can sell more models with threaded barrels.
Again, the NPV is not worth it, especially weighed against the risk.
Let's completely ignore the risk that government contracts could be alienated and lost with this "investment" and let's assume they toss in $1,000,000 a year. Let's say it takes 5 years to affect the change they want, and if they weren't spending that $1,000,000 a year they'd just let it sit in their bank at oh, 3% interest. That's very low and they wouldn't do that, but let's assume they would because it favors your position. Let's also assume it's guaranteed this succeeds and doesn't just fail
That's an NPV of -$5,579,707.19.
Now, how much more money do you make selling threaded barrels? Maybe $50? You'd have to sell 111,595 units to make back that cost. Oh and remember that there's also dozens if not hundreds of aftermarket glock barrel makers you are competing with. Plus factor in the time frame it will take to sell all those units and the time value of money while you do it...
It is not a smart business move, politically or financially, for them to do this.
Now let's consider risk:
New York hates firearms, if glock pushes to repeal the NFA ban on suppressors maybe the NYPD and NYSP decide not to renew their glock contracts. How much are those contracts worth if glock pisses off the New York Socialist Republic? Keep in mind those sales contracts also have SERVICE contracts too.
And the risk that all that lobbying money doesn't actually work, and it's just pissed away.
1
u/TheAzureMage Sep 12 '24
Because, honestly, a couple million a year doesn't go that far in politics nowadays. That's maaaybe one congressional campaign now.
That ain't gonna get you an overturned NFA. Hell, most of the Republicans are too soft to really go for something like that. They might oppose new gun control, but a lot of them won't really go after old laws.
0
u/dealsledgang Sep 12 '24
Glock sells nothing the NFA impacts except for the Glock 18. The market for this in the US without the NFA is marginal.
Millions of dollars to something that wouldn’t meaningfully benefit them is money out of their business on a niche firearms issue.
1
u/hybridtheory1331 Sep 12 '24
You're out of your god damn mind if you think every single Glock fan not wouldn't immediately order an 18 if they became legal.
1
u/dealsledgang Sep 12 '24
It’s a small amount of people total versus volume. Spending huge money on a long shot to sell one niche product to a segment of the gun buying population.
1
u/general-noob Sep 12 '24
They are spending all their money fighting legal battles, so they want to keep their heads down
1
u/dealsledgang Sep 12 '24
What exact do you mean by get involved in politics from a gun companies perspective?
The trade group for firearms manufacturers is the NSSF which does advocacy work on their behalf. They also work with the NRA like you said.
This is normal for organizations to work through groups specifically setup for the task of lobbying and politics.
Many firearms companies are actually relatively small businesses compared to other industries. A company alone won’t have much pull or the resources to devote to it alone.
Also, Remington did not go bankrupt because of anything related to Sandy Hook.
1
u/Low_Wrongdoer_1107 Sep 12 '24
In one sense I think it makes sense for corporations to stay out of politics. If they back the wrong horse, they lose along with them. Also, companies recently that have adopted an agenda, or even just shown a glimpse of accepting the ‘wrong’ thing, have suffered the economic consequences. It’s even worse if the customer they lose is Uncle Sam. There also seems to be a trend toward companies either starting up, or creating a new product line, because of political pressure and then failing those products because they are not profitable; things like electric vehicles and ‘green’ energy products. In general it appears that companies do better if they don’t overtly involve in politics.
And, yet, guns might be different. You don’t need to elect a certain party candidate to sell a toaster or a can of beer, but if you don’t elect candidates from a certain party, you might not be able to sell as many guns- at least not on the civilian market.
While you’re figuring, don’t forget to factor in that BHO was one of the best gun salesmen this country has ever seen.
1
u/doublethink_1984 Sep 17 '24
One party pushes for more and more restrictions. The other praises their leader as God' chosen Emperor of America who said take the guns first ask questions later.
There is no party with power thay supports the 2nd amendment.
46
u/houinator Sep 12 '24
The biggest purchaser of firearms is the US givernment. Last thing you want to do is miss out on a potential DoD contract for hundreds of thousands of orders because you pissed off a key Senator on the relevant appropriations committee.