 | | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
| (...) The gun manufacturer designed it to appeal to people with some cash. So that they would give the cash to the manufacturer. Whether or not the gun kills people, looks pretty, fires blanks only, or can be used as a hammer in a pinch doesn't (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
| (...) May be a matter of semantics, I guess. When GM designs a car, do they design it to be a good car, or to sell the units needed to hit the IRR? Er, bad example. Who knows what moves GM these days, it's embarrassing that they're HQed in the state (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
| (...) As I've argued many a time. We are not served well by bowing down to the holy brick and no other. Frank (23 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
| (...) free (...) But look at the little Korean companies and compare those to Toyota. Hyundai's sell. They are made at significantly lower quality levels, but still they sell. Why? Because the niche that they market to wants Toyotas but can only (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
| (...) I don't think we are disagreeing. I posted this example in order to address the (semantic?) issue of motive for doing things... not to claim that there aren't different niches, different price points and different needs. GM's problem is that (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
| (...) In this particular case, I CAN'T agree. There really is no reason for a crappy gun (that's just as liable to injure the user as the target) to exist. If you're going to buy a gun, you should buy a GOOD one, even if it's used and rebuilt. -- | (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
| (...) crappy gun (...) My personal recommendation would be to purchase the gun that is closest to your ideal and still within your price range. But I think it's better to have a $50 .32 revolver than nothing. And a gun has to be pretty screwed up to (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
| I would count a $50 revolver as just as dangerous to the user as the target! There's NO WAY a company can sell a gun at a profit at $50 retail without massively cutting corners on alloys and machining tolerances. (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
