Another gun company to relocate from Colorado

[Peter cotton]

http://www.9news.com/rss/story.aspx?storyid=327854



KUSA - Citing recent gun control legislation, HiViz Shooting Systems announced Monday that it is relocating operations out of Colorado. "We cannot in clear conscience support with our taxes a state that has proven through recent legislation a willingness to infringe upon the constitutional rights of our consumer base," HiViz President and CEO Phillip Howe said in a news release.

The move will start with the company's corporate headquarters. Other operations will move over an extended period of time. A majority of employees will move with the corporate office, according to the release. More details about the relocation will be announced as they are finalized.

Gov. John Hickenlooper signed legislation in March that expanded background checks for firearms and set limits on ammunition magazines. "I think it will make it more difficult for people to get guns who shouldn't have them, and that's really the goal," State Rep. Beth McCann (D-Denver) said.

Ammunition magazine maker Magpul said it will leave Colorado by the end of the year as a response to the new legislation.

HiViz, which is based out of Fort Collins, manufactures light-gathering lights, recoil pads and accessories.

[marmar]

1. ........

[CanonRay]

6. Bye bye, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. I'm really thinking of moving from Fayetteville, AR to Boulder, CO!!

[ellie]

60. Boulder is awesome!

I am hoping to move there next year when my lease is up.

[randome]

3. The only thing this will prove will be fewer deaths in states with better gun control.

[99Forever]

4. I've got a better idea.

How's about you assholes move to Somalia and take all of your customers with you?

[Peter cotton]

8. What's wrong with their customers?

Isn't it a good thing to shoot more accurately in low-light conditions?

[99Forever]

10. It's better not to shoot at all.

[Peter cotton]

13. A Brotherhood of Man is extraordinarily unlikely, violence being endemic to the human condition.

That being the case, I'll keep my options open, my powder dry, and my sights radioactive and glowey.

[99Forever]

14. I am not surprised.

Last edited Tue Apr 2, 2013, 03:48 PM - Edit history (1)

Given the choice between being part of the problem or part of the solution, it's pretty clear where with those with your mentality fall.

[Peter cotton]

18. Some problems don't have solutions, only mitigations.

And those mitigations are often ineffectual at best, this being a case in point.

[Lizzie Poppet]

30. False dichotomy.

If only human conflict were that un-nuanced, that black-and-white. But it isn't...

[99Forever]

33. No mam.

There is nothing "false" about it. You are either a violent person, or you are not. Those are the options, sorry if that isn't "nuanced" enough to suit your agenda.

[Lizzie Poppet]

35. Sure...most any matter can be vastly over-simplified to the point of dichotomy.

That doesn't make it a valid argument. The fact is that violence comes in many flavors in terms of its ethical justification. Absolute pacifism can be surprisingly difficult to ethically justify with any sort of rigor.

[99Forever]

38. You justify violence if that pleases you.

It's still wrong.

[Lizzie Poppet]

42. It doesn't particularly please me, but it's the way it is.

But if you want to take a crack at justifying your blanket statement ("it's still wrong&quot , by all means knock yourself out. If you can pull it off, you'll instantly become a household name in ethical philosophy circles.

[99Forever]

46. Proceed, mam.

Because everyone knows that justifying violence is all the rage in "ethical philosophy circles."

[Lizzie Poppet]

48. What an altogether odd reply.

I rather suspect this conversation is going precisely nowhere, but if you're not aware that the ethics of violent human behavior has been one of the primary topics of discussion in the field of ethical philosophy for about as long as the field has existed, then may I respectfully suggest your familiarity is inadequate. By a lot.

[99Forever]

51. Only odd to someone who believes there is such a thing as...

... justifiable violence.

[Peter cotton]

54. That would be roughly 99.9% of all the humans who have ever lived.

Which means it's odd by definition.

[99Forever]

55. You've talked this over with...

.. "roughly 99.9% of all the humans who have ever lived" and this is the answer they gave? Documentation please.

[Peter cotton]

93. I have no way to document it. It was simply my estimate. But consider this:

In World War 2 in the United States there were roughly 25,000 conscientious objectors who avoided military service when drafted. This is out of a pool of 10 million men, which means that 99.75% served in the military when called to duty Surely not all of the 25,000 who avoided service eschewed violence under any and all circumstances...so my figure of 99.9% doesn't look too bad!

If you disagree, then please tell me: what do you think the percentage of people is who ever lived that do not believe that violence is ever justified? No need to document it...I'm just curious what you think it is.

[Lizzie Poppet]

62. I suppose that's right.

I wouldn't expect it to seem odd to a hardcore pacifist. But given that I consider that approach to be ethically indefensible, I can't say that this bothers me much.

[99Forever]

64. Then we are on even footing.

I think proponents of violence are ethically indefensible.

[Lizzie Poppet]

65. Well, there you have it.

I very much appreciate the civility, though. It's refreshing to have what amounts to diametrical opposition NOT degenerate into a flame-fest.

Regards,

[99Forever]

66. On that we can agree.

Most assuredly.

[DonCoquixote]

104. It is one thing to be a proponent of violence

But another to deny that it can sometimes happen, and not because you sought it. If a KKK member wants to kill you, talking may help, and on the other hand you may not get the chance before his weapon kills you (be it a bullet, or a fist.)

If we want to stopviolence, we have to admit it happens, or else get accused of denying facts. What makes the Gun situation in this country is a lot more than just owning guns, even though the idea of owning military grade weapons is attackable in itself. What makes things lethalis that people want the power, but then shriek when you ask them to take responsibility for that power.

It is the fact that someone like Adam Lanza, who, based on descriptions of his mental illness never,ever,should have been given access to guns,was bought them by his mother, that makes the American problem of violence so bad. America does not even see Violence as a necessary evil, but a virtue, and therefore they get defensive when they are asked to think about violence. That is why they want to sell guns to whoever wants them, for whatever reason. Never mind the fact that everything else from food to car seats is regulated, taxed, and observed. Never mind the fact that we license certfiactes in everything from Microsoft to Massage Therapy, each having it's own sets of "do this, do not do THAT" that someone can be held accountable to to keep their license.

Lest you think I jump on you, I do agree that "it's the guns stupid" I also think the key to whittling down bad behavior is niot to ban it outright. We know how that worked for alcohol, and how well that is working for pot. Yes, I think a war on guns would mirror the war on drugs, because it does not deny that people want them, and it totally destroys any incentive to have responsible users and providers. The ideal is to control the SALE of the stuff..so that the blackmarket is a lot weaker, and you can hold people accountable for what they do. You then focus your efforts on making the product UNDESIRABLE instead of illigeal. That is what worked for Smoking. Even though every teen idol and actress from Justin Beiber to Natalie Portman smokes, tenn smoking,which is the guage for long term smoking, has gone down, why? because we focus on making smoking uncool in PSAs, and yes, we made it expensive through Tax. Sometimes carrots and sticks are not enough, sometimes you just have to make people desire things less.

[Arugula Latte]

23. OOOOooooh!

Are you out of a bad Sylvester Stallone action movie? (Wait, that was redundant...)

[Squinch]

29. (I'm imagining a leather forehead strap. But like Olivia Newton John in Xanadu.)

[Peter cotton]

37. I prefer bad Arnold Schwarzenegger movies, all things being equal.

Or better yet, a (rare) good Arnold Schwarzenegger movie such as Terminator 1 or 2.

Are you out of a bad Sylvester Stallone action movie? (Wait, that was redundant...)

Not in the slightest...which is why, in the unlikely but distinctly possible chance that I find myself being violently assaulted, I want every advantage I can get, which in this case includes something similar to the product at hand. I have TruGlo combination fiber optic / tritium night sights installed on my Glock 22.

[Paladin]

70. Your comments on violent assault sound like wishful thinking. (nt)

[Peter cotton]

94. Feel free to psychoanalyze me from the comfort of your armchair.

[Paladin]

109. As if you're the first Gun Enthusiast to reveal more than they intended.... (nt)

[Hoyt]

105. At what distance do you think you might have to shoot someone?

[Peter cotton]

114. In the event of a home invasion, ten yards or less. Far enough to require proper aiming, surely.

I've practiced enough with my Glock that I'm confident of my ability to consistently hit center mass of a man-sized target at that range; in point of fact, I can consistently hit such a target out to 25 yards, not that that's particularly outstanding shooting.

Of course, that's at the range...I've never had to fire a gun in a life-or-death situation, and hope never to have to, but it's best to be prepared.

[Iggo]

115. Aw...my Glock...aw...center mass...aw...

Boi-oi-oi-oing!

[Hoyt]

116. The only time I can see shooting someone at 10 yards or more is if they are running away.

Sorry, I am not one of those who thinks it is justifiable to shoot someone in the back when they are no longer a threat to you.

In any event, you -- and most of the toters I've known -- spend too much time worrying about something that is unlikely to occur.

I thinks society will be better off when we view those steeped in guns and such as a detriment to civilization.

[premium]

118. If someone is running at you and they are a clear threat,

you don't want them to get any closer than 21 ft..
Shooting someone who is running away is illegal in all states, if they're running away, then they are no longer a threat to you, on that, we are in 100% agreement.

Did you know that police are exempt from that, if they are in pursuit off an armed and dangerous felon and present a clear danger to the public, they can shoot the person in the back to stop them.

[Peter cotton]

119. There are places in my house that are 10 yards apart.

In any event, you -- and most of the toters I've known -- spend too much time worrying about something that is unlikely to occur.

A house fire is unlikely to occur, and yet I have a fire extenguisher. I'm unlikely to be in an auto accident, and yet I have insurance.

I thinks society will be better off when we view those steeped in guns and such as a detriment to civilization.

You can think anything you like.

[Hoyt]

120. Hopefully, you'll return to rationality or mature at some point in your life. Good luck.

[Peter cotton]

121. Choosing to be responsible for one's own safety *is* rational and mature.

Remember, when your life is on the line and every second counts, the police are only 15 minutes away.

[Hoyt]

122. Thanks, I think I heard Wayne LaPierre and Teddy Nugent say the the same junk.

[jmg257]

73. Ha - you really enjoyed that "Best 7 Minutes on Gun Control..." video didn't you?!

I could't make it through more then a few minutes without puking in my mouth.


"violence being endemic to the human condition"

Summarize for us all how because violence is endemic to the human condition, it is wonderful justification to give people even more access to deadly weapons.


Next, you'll share the wisdom about how gun control won't help remove leopards' claws, only the gazels' horns.

[snooper2]

24. I thought it's only bad to shoot blanks

LOL

[NickB79]

84. Hi-Viz is very popular on shotguns for hunting

They make it possible to fire more accurately, reducing the chance of wounding a duck or pheasant while in the field.

[Laurian]

5. Won't relocating be an expensive proposition for them?

I guess their profit margin is large enough for them to be able to do so. That says something about that industry......

[Robb]

9. +1. nt

[Sheepshank]

16. yup...and as each state changes their laws (and they will), so will their location?

blowing wind up everyone's asses.

[TeamPooka]

20. good the money spent is a stimulus for others

[NickB79]

85. The current fear of gun laws has been a boom to gun companies

Shelves are empty of guns and ammo, as people are buying and stockpiling a year's worth of production in a matter of months.

Ironically, the threat of new gun laws has the gun companies raking in money hand over fist.

[aikoaiko]

7. More symbolic than financially impacting, but there you go.

The real test will come if and when gun companies stop providing to government agencies.

[bluedigger]

69. That will just leave the field open to Freedom Arms.

Which will suit them just fine.

[Pisces]

11. Makes me think I should move to Colorado!

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Sooner or later these laws will be national

So where are they going to move to then?

[Common Sense Party]

27. Doubtful.

I don't see Utah or Wyoming allowing laws like that. Ever.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. I do, when polls are at 85-90 in favor of background checks

It will take a few more massacres, in fact in those two states, but we are moving to that...if they are not careful the expansion of the National Firearms Act of 1933...which incidentally is constitutional and would be good.

[Common Sense Party]

47. Perhaps in 200 years.

The culture is NOT changing in some parts of the country, as much as we may wish it would.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. Ten years ago none of us could expect LGBT youth

To be able to marry and have equality before the State...no way, no how.

I would not make those bets.

[Common Sense Party]

81. You would not, perhaps.

But then I would guess you've not spent much time in Utah or Wyoming.

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. They are one mass shooting

From this only happens in other places...going down in flames.

The odds are good.

[Lizzie Poppet]

32. I very much doubt that.

At most, a (slim) majority of states may eventually (as in over the next 20-30 years) enact restrictive gun laws, but no more. But that would be a component of a larger movement, and that trend will include increasing state-to-state political polarization. Those states not enacting such laws will very likely move to loosen their gun laws as their "red" status becomes further entrenched. This division, occurring over a host of issues and not just guns, will eventually make it clear that the nation as currently constituted is no longer viable.

[librechik]

15. good--more room for pot farms and dealers!

Hippie wars LOST by THE GREASERS

and WON by the FREAKS,

so get the hell over it, short hairs!!!

lol

[ellie]

17. Sayonara!

[frylock]

19. bbye

don't forget to write.

[Erose999]

21. I suggest they relocate their new facility straight up a horse's ass.

[Arugula Latte]

22. Dey got dere feewings huwted!

[Arcanetrance]

25. I would think as an industry that's taking a beating in the public eye

These companies would welcome a chance to work with the state government and set up these regulations and show they truly support "safe gun ownership" as they say. Oh well just goes to show how these gun lovers feel about things

[Puzzledtraveller]

39. but their bottomlines arent taking a beating at all

it is likely the majority of those polled arent going to purchase arms and components anyway.

[hack89]

26. I can understand Magpul leaving

the hypocrisy of the the Colorado legislators would be galling.

But these guys should stay - no need to jerk around their employees.

[Hoyt]

40. CEO Phillip Howe and his management team are just a bunch of right wingers, looking for an

excuse to move to some dark red, bigoted state that will kiss their ass because they produce and market lethal weapon accessories.

[hack89]

44. Colorado had no problem with them making "lethal weapon accessories"

as long as they were sold to residents of other states. Don't you find that somewhat hypocritical - if large mags are such a danger to society, why not completely ban their manufacture in Colorado? Perhaps the lives of people in other states are not worth as much?

[Hoyt]

59. We've coddled gun cultists and their suppliers too long. Some states are starting to recognize that.

[hack89]

67. So why didn't CO ban the making of those mags

if they are such a danger? They wanted the best of both worlds - can't sell them in CO but we will take your tax money while you sell them in other states. Rank hypocrisy - don't try to sugar coat it.

[Hoyt]

31. Like we give a damn what these purveyors of lethal weapon accessories do.

They mostly make special light sights -- so fuckers steeped in guns can be prepared to clear a room like they are in a militia or something.

Tell CEO Phillip Howe, to go screw himself.

[Lizzie Poppet]

34. BZZZZT!

"They mostly make special light sights -- so fuckers steeped in guns can be prepared to clear a room like they are in a militia or something."

If all you were looking to do was "clear a room," you wouldn't need high-visibility night sights. Precision targeting wouldn't be an issue.

But hey, don't let me impede the flow of hate. It's what you do.

[Hoyt]

36. You Gungeoneers crack me up.

Sorry, before I was banned from posting to your club, your gun buddies told me red dot sights and such were a necessity because they might have to "clear a room." I really don't care, because I can't imagine needing to clear a room.

[Lizzie Poppet]

41. Happy to be of service.

Whoever told you that put it badly (at best). Hi-visibility sights would, if anything, be used to make sure you didn't "clear the room" but instead were able to shoot more precisely and hit only the intended target. They're useful, but more for people who don't really practice a lot (which I consider irresponsible). Well-trained pistol shooters generally use "point of aim" instinct shooting at close ranges (like an indoor scenario...). It takes too long to use the sights in a rapidly-developing close quarters defensive situation, and you're not aiming at a tiny little bullseye.

Personally, I can't imagine having to "clear a room," either. I'm not a combat soldier. I can imagine using a handgun to defend myself in a low-light situation, but fortunately, that's not a very likely scenario, either.

[Hoyt]

43. Unfortunately, too many gun nuts think -- or act like -- this country is a war zone.

[Lizzie Poppet]

45. I can't disagree with that.

I suspect we'd probably disagree on the percentage of gun owners who go over the top with that sort of thing, but I certainly agree they're out there. It's mostly just harmless fantasizing, but I have no doubt that a portion are entirely too close to acting on these fantasies (not necessarily with any good justification).

[alcibiades_mystery]

58. Lesson: Gun nuts are assholes

[HangOnKids]

61. Post of the day!

[otohara]

50. Happy Happy Joy Joy

leave and take your weapons of mass destruction with you.

[Peter cotton]

56. "Weapons of mass destruction"?

[HangOnKids]

63. What Are They Then Peter?

Hmmm?

[Peter cotton]

68. NBC weapons. An AR-15 doesn't qualify.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#section_2

Coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives, it has come to distinguish large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear.

[HangOnKids]

78. Sorry Pete

It is a weapon and it causes mass destruction. Hence, it is a fucking weapon of mass destruction. Aren't you glad I cleared that up for you?

[derby378]

87. Ahhhh, the old "it is what is is bebcause I say it is" defense

Kinda like the teabagger who called Obama a socialist and a fascist, and then, when asked to explain his utter lack of political understanding, he replied, "That's what he is because I said so." Or something like that.

Aren't you glad I set you straight?

[HangOnKids]

99. "bebcause"

Okey dokey there hoss.

[Lizzie Poppet]

111. Pointing out a typo...what a superb refutation!

Right up there with "I know you are, but what am I?"

[derby378]

113. Hey, that's what I get for working a 50-hour week

The fingers get a little wonky at times. There's three typos that you'll never see in this message that I corrected before it was too late.

[Lizzie Poppet]

90. It's easy to be "right" when you just make shit up as you go along, huh?

Clue: you don't get to have your very own conveniently-defined lexicon. Not if you want people to have a clue what you're talking about...

In the real world of actual usage, "weapon of mass destruction" never, ever means a rifle (or any other firearm).

[HangOnKids]

100. Clue Poppet

Ask the parents, family, and friends of Newtown victims about that. I'm sure they care a great deal about your opinion.

[Lizzie Poppet]

110. Sure...because that would be a rational approach.

You really are just making this shit up as you go along, aren't you?

[Peter cotton]

95. Sorry, HOK...you don't get to redefine terms just because you find it convenient to do so.

Small arms do not cause mass destruction as used in the term, "weapon of mass destruction". The term only applies to biological, chemical, radiological, and nuclear weapons.

Honestly, why is this so hard to understand?

[HangOnKids]

98. How quaint

You are real cute Pete.

[Phillip McCleod]

108. sure they can.. especially if enough of us jump on the bandwagon to make it so.

yep. guns are weapons of mass destruction.

handguns most of all.

[Lizzie Poppet]

112. Good luck with that.

Yes, languages evolve largely via common usage. But re-purposing a term with a very different current meaning for the purpose of committing a rather clumsy and transparent appeal-to-emotion fallacy is probably not going to work very well. But hey, knock yourself out...

I do concur that handguns are (by far) the biggest problem in terms of gun-related violence. the statistics are utterly clear about that. Makes me wonder why so many people are getting their panties in a wad about "assault weapons," when hundreds of times more murders are committed with handguns.

[Kingofalldems]

72. They never quit do they?

Fetishists who just can't stand anyone saying something bad about their precious weapons.

Oh, and arch republicans too.

[HangOnKids]

79. Do A Quick Search

You'll LOL because you and I are good at history!

[NickB79]

86. They're bits of plastic and fiber-optic

If you'd read the link, you'd know they don't make guns. They mostly make sights that are easy to see in low light.

[HangOnKids]

101. If you read this thread you might be able to follow the conversation

Thanks!

[otohara]

71. Maybe You Forgot Or Are Unaware

in Aurora, not only did 12 people die, 58 others were shot and lived.
That's mass destruction, wouldn't you agree?

Hey, you don't even have to shoot a bullet to get what you want if you have a gun.
Rape, robbery - comes to mind.

GUNS are fucked up and are not making for a polite society here in Murika

[Peter cotton]

76. I did not forget, I am aware, and I disagree.

in Aurora, not only did 12 people die, 58 others were shot and lived.
That's mass destruction, wouldn't you agree?

The weapons used in that crime do not fit the definition of WMDs any more than does a machine gun or an anti-tank missile.

WMDs are chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons. Small arms don't qualify.

[GreenStormCloud]

91. Look at Hiroshima for an example of a WMD.

Against that, 12 people isn't many.

[otohara]

92. Here's What I Found

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml

Do you remember Yoko Ono's tweet with John Lennon's glasses?
Something about one million people in the US being killed by guns since 1980?

More people have died from guns here than did in Hiroshima or Nagasaki combined since 1980.

[Peter cotton]

96. More people have been killed by edged weapons than by every nuclear bomb ever used.

Does that make a sword a weapon of mass destruction?

[HangOnKids]

102. Jesus Hide The Cutlery!

Cute Pete.

[GreenStormCloud]

97. Not from one single gun.

If you want to use that kind of criteria, then you could call a sword a WMD, and look to the huge number of people that Genghis Khan's armies killed.

If you can't tell the difference between a nuke and guns, then you are beyond all logic.

[HangOnKids]

103. Sweet now Genghis Khan is part of the discussion

[jmg257]

74. How about "Weapons of MassAcre" then?

WMA for short.

"Massacre definition, the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge."


Yep - the definition sure fits a few recent uses of ARs.

(could also be 'Weapons of Many Asses' - the abbreviation fits there too)

[4 t 4]

52. Nice!! nt

[Squinch]

53. Everyone who has an event or conference should plan it in Colorado.

We should make business boom as the gun companies leave.

[alcibiades_mystery]

57. Good riddance

[Initech]

75. Leave assholes. And don't come back.

[Logical]

77. Maybe a pot store can move into their offices! n-t

[Kingofalldems]

80. After reading this thread it looks like you agree with the NRA, a republican ally.

[HangOnKids]

83. Isn't That Odd?

Downright confounding!

[moondust]

88. Need a bus ticket?

Happy to help.

[backscatter712]

89. Buh-bye, death-profiteers! Don't let my boots hit you in the ass on the way out of my state!

Good riddance to the micropenis club!

[SoCalDem]

106. Here's hoping the employees who will lose jobs, are compensated

If there are jobs for these people, the loss of the gun company will be less of an "issue"..

Colorado is getting safer..that's a great thing..

[quaker bill]

107. Using their logic, if we could only take it nationwide

They would need to leave or just fold up shop. After all, if the entire country was "infringing on second amendment rights" - - - then I guess the "We cannot in clear conscience support with our taxes" would apply to any portion of the country.

I would not want them to violate the dictates of their conscience. I never thought it would be this easy, but it sounds workable to me.

[cherokeeprogressive]

117. Wondering out loud... Do their customers vote? n/t