AI Does NOT want more US Gun Control

Birddog6424

Birddog6424

Sergeant
Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
    • Apr 25, 2014
    3,932
    4,119
    Boise, Idaho
    #1
    To help those coming in from FB

    https://www.standard.co.uk/business/...-a3707436.html

    Sniper’s Hide took the time on Friday to reach out to Tom Irwin of Accuracy International Regarding the Article in “The Evening Standard”. Tom called me that evening from a Hockey Game to set the record straight for everyone.

    Within the Accuracy International Financial Disclosure were comments regarding the US election. How the election of Trump was seen as a positive for Accuracy International and the fact there was always a risk, had she been elected Hillary could have harmed the business. The quote from Tom was included

    "There was always a risk that she would… ban gun imports"

    The document is public and a reporter on seeing the comments regarding the US election contacted AI to say he was writing an article about it. Everything Trump is news and the fact AI mentioned support for his election makes it news.

    Prior to publication, Tom spoke to the reporter and the question of Bump stocks came up. This is the majority of the article and delivered two quotes from Tom.

    "Ridiculous"
    "Personally, I don’t think so. I cant see the benefit."

    Clearly, these were taken out of context and help create the headline that the "US needs greater gun controls, says rifle boss".

    Meanwhile, gun control was never mentioned, nor was the topic. These two comments were about bump stocks. Not semi-auto rifles, or anything else, bump stocks.

    Clearly out of context, clearly meant to incite a reaction among their US market. Remember, the reporter had access to their financial documents, hurting their US sales could hurt a company that showed growth. Because they supported the outcome of the election you get a political hit job.

    Tom explained Accuracy International and Tom Irwin are not calling for more gun control in the US. And does agree with the way the article frames any of Tom's statements. The conversation was reduced to three quotes:

    "Ridiculous"
    "Personally, I don’t think so. I cant see the benefit."
    "There was always a risk that she would… ban gun imports"

    With the last one about Hillary. So really you have one word and a sentence, out of a much longer discussion.

    Take it from the source, Tom has spoken to me directly and can tell you this is the true definition of fake news dressed in click bait.
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    #4
    Frank just handed Orkan his ass in the Pit, then deleted the thread. A thread just like this. I'm picking up what you're putting down but the truth behind this may not be what you're led to believe. I'd be careful where ya go with this.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: CUBUFF89
    #6
    I am on the phone with Tom Irwin RIght now,

    This is completely false ... standby

    Sniper’s Hide took the time on Friday to reach out to Tom Irwin of Accuracy International Regarding the Article in “The Evening Standard”. Tom called me that evening from a Hockey Game to set the record straight for everyone.

    Within the Accuracy International Financial Disclosure were comments regarding the US election. How the election of Trump was seen as a positive for Accuracy International and the fact there was always a risk, had she been elected Hillary could have harmed the business. The quote from Tom was included

    "There was always a risk that she would… ban gun imports"

    The document is public and a reporter on seeing the comments regarding the US election contacted AI to say he was writing an article about it. Everything Trump is news and the fact AI mentioned support for his election makes it news.

    Prior to publication, Tom spoke to the reporter and the question of Bump stocks came up. This is the majority of the article, and delivered two quotes from Tom.

    "Ridiculous"
    "Personally, I don’t think so. I can’t see the benefit."

    Clearly these were taken out of context and help create the headline that the "US needs greater gun controls, says rifle boss".

    Meanwhile gun control was never mentioned, nor was the topic. These two comments were about bump stocks. Not semi auto rifles, or anything else, bump stocks.

    Clearly out of context, clearly meant to incite a reaction among their US market. Remember, the reporter had access to their financial documents, hurting their US sales could hurt a company that showed growth. Because they supported the outcome of the election you get a political hit job.

    Tom explained, Accuracy International and Tom Irwin are not calling for more gun control in the US. And does agree with the way the article frames any of Tom's statements. The conversation was reduced to three quotes:

    "Ridiculous"
    "Personally, I don’t think so. I can’t see the benefit."
    "There was always a risk that she would… ban gun imports"

    With the last one about Hillary. So really you have one word and a sentence , out of a much longer discussion.

    Take it from the source, Tom has spoken to me directly and can tell you this is the true definition of fake news dressed in click bait.
     
    Last edited:
    #7
    I’m disappointed to own an AI and know that I supported a company that doesn’t support us. Maybe one of the AI representatives on this site could explain how Tom was misquoted or something? I can’t believe that someone so involved in the firearms industry could be so ignorant of firearms operations and US laws.
     
    #10
    chill-honey-bunny-were-on-it.jpg
     
    #12
    If true, they had better look to what happened to S&W when they sold out to Clinton back in the 1990s. S&W still hasn't won back all gun owners for their betrayel. And that's an American company. I'll wait to here back from Frank before I tell AI where to stick their British rifles.
     
    #13
    This has to be a setup/misquote/out of context/hit job. There's no way the president of Accuracy International can be this stupid and tone deaf.

    We shall see.

    ETA: I was right.

    Believe nothing you read and only half of what you see.......
     
    Last edited:
    #14
    Some of you Drama Queens have a real problem, like relishing the idea this might have happened like it did, which is false. Instead of supporting the companies that support us, you went to boycott and screw you without any facts. Who is wrong here for that ....

    I spoke to Tom tonight who called me from a Hockey Game, in order to set the record straight,

    AI is required to submit a financial document as most companies of this type do. The reporter had access to this document, and in it, Tom stated that the election was good for business as part of projections for the future. So the reporter, being that everything Trump is news, contacted them saying they are printing a story about what was in the document.

    Tom, prior to the article reached out to reporter to make sure it was put in context, cause clearly this is the issue.

    The actual conversation that is quoted, out of context and severely edited, was regarding bump stocks.

    Again, this was in regards to bump stocks.

    Being asked about them directly, he said, that bump stocks, were the issue, nothing to do with semi auto fire, or semi auto rifles in the US. What he did say was, it's bad business to have a product that can cross in to "gray area" being that full auto fire is illegal in the US, and "He" did not find them useful products, in the context of what they do. The conversation was not about semi autos, it was about one thing, bump stocks.

    The fact one word, "ridiculous" was quoted tells you how much of the conversation was take out of context, as well that he personally saw no use for the product is not the same as saying semi auto rifles should be controlled or outlawed. In fact there was nothing said about "gun control" especially regarding semi auto fire.

    If I was asked about a bump stock would say the same thing, it's a stupid product used by prepper dweebs more than anyone serious about this sport or industry.

    You're asking a precision rifle guy about a product designed for shooting off the hip. Context !

    Accuracy International does not advocate for gun control and categorically denies the way this article represents their position.

    I went to the source, I spoke to Tom and he explained this entire thing. It was taken out of context and the fact the words "Bump Stock" are not mentioned should tell you something. They were looking to make a political statement to start keying off the election comment in the disclosure, and then during the course of the interview the question was about the bump stock. All of that context is missing.

    Now if you feel he was wrong, I want to hear it, but for the rest of you now crying foul, you owe him an apology.

    1, for taking the side of an anti gun reporter first
    2. Not asking for clarity

    I await your responses
     
    Last edited:
    #19
    Appreciate it, Frank.

    Completely agree on how we need to note what exactly was quoted.

    "Ridiculous"
    "Personally, I don’t think so. I can’t see the benefit."
    "There was always a risk that she would… ban gun imports"

    They're obviously snippets of a larger conversation that, personally, I don't trust many reporters to independently/honestly convey without bias.

    ​​​Almost all news now is to drive a narrative (left or right). We in this community and as consumers of online news in general need to be skeptical, question, and research before jumping to conclusions and wrongfully indicting others on partial facts.
     
    #21
    Holding on the pitch fork till we see a response from Irwin. They've contributed and sponsored a lot of stuff in our world over here.....so I benefit of the doubt that he's not a total fucktard is being given.
     
    #24
    I’ll just say that Mr. Irwin showed a lack of situational awareness in talking to the reporter- period. The American gun enthusiast crowd is quick to offense and has a long memory. The mere perception of a suggestion that someone might think that looking into the possibility of considering additional firearms restrictions is enough to turn the stomachs, open the mouths, and close the wallets of a large portion of the vocal audience. While I consider a bump stock to be a bad way to turn good money into loud noise, the ATF says they fall within the letter of the law and are, therefore, legal. While I don’t think Mr. Irwin deserves to be roasted on an open bed of coals, singed hair and missing eyebrows should serve as reminder of the dangerously volatile market he is dealing with here in America.
     
    #26
    I'm glad that the report isn't true and I agree that people need to get better at waiting for the facts to come out. Reactionary politics has consumed our country to the point where everyone feels like they have to react immediately to this sort of thing. That's usually not the best idea.
     
    #28
    Thanks for checking into it Frank. He should most certainly sue the paper in my opinion as the article clearly reconfigured his statements to mean another thing.

    I said the word “I” to my boss when talking about a report, “fuck” when I dropped my phone and broke it, and “children” when talking about how damn stupid the kids were who ran across the highway.

    to have a reporter stick those words together as having quoted me as saying “I fuck children” is definitely beyond any line you might need to cross to run afoul of a lawsuit.
     
    #29
    Breathe, breathe in the air
    Don't be afraid to care
    Leave but don't leave me
    Look around and choose your own ground

    For long you live and high you fly
    And smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
    And all you touch and all you see
    Is all your life will ever be

    Run, rabbit, run
    Dig that hole, forget the sun,
    And when at last the work is done
    Don't sit down, it's time to dig another one

    For long you live and high you fly
    But only if you ride the tide
    And balanced on the biggest wave
    You race toward an early grave.
     
    #31
    they were creating a narrative based off the financial report ... without any input from AI, so Tom responded based off that. Look at the quotes, the parts that were actually quoted if you cannot see the edits and the lack of context you're not paying any attention at all. This is super evident by the small amount of information which does not tie the conversation together.

    It's pretty evident how much of this was taken out of context. Gun Control was never part of the conversation. He never even brought that part up. The headline is meant as click bait.

    Saying a bump stock is a shitty product is not the same as saying semi autos or guns should be banned. He never said that or even implied it.

    I agree with everything he said to me and have said the same thing when asked about bump stocks. Regardless of the fact the ATF let it go, if the product has the potential to cause a political compromise for everything else, it should be looked at in a different way. I say it all the time about guns and politics when idiots go too far trying to be cute, "don't be on my side" I have no interest in fighting bullshit battles because some jerk off wants to play in the gray area.
     
    Last edited:
    #33
    I'm not sure why answering baited questions about bump stocks was germane to discussing the company's financials. He should have just ignored the question and moved on or at the very most just said "I have no comment/opinion on the matter" and moved on.

    Doesn't matter how one feels about bump stocks. Just don't say a fucking word about them to any reporter.
     
    Last edited:
    #35
    308pirate said:
    I'm not sure why answering baited questions about bump stocks was germane to discussing the company's financials. He should have just ignored the question and moved on or at the very most just said "I have no comment/opinion on the matter" and moved on.

    Doesn't matter how one feels about bump stocks. Just don't say a fucking word about them to any reporter.
    Click to expand...

    The financials had political observations in them, which what he was keying on to begin with, they supported Trump in the financials and said that Hillary threatened the business. Part of the projections for the future included the political implications of doing business in the US regarding guns. How changes in the political climate can effect your business.

    These things effect business and your bottom line
     
    #36
    Lowlight said:
    The financials had political observations in them, which what he was keying on to begin with, they supported Trump in the financials and said that Hillary threatened the business. Part of the projections for the future included the political implications of doing business in the US regarding guns. How changes in the political climate can effect your business.

    These things effect business and your bottom line
    Click to expand...

    Don't disagree and totally understand discussing your business climate as part of fwd looking projections. However the derail into bump stocks was something that should have been avoided completely as it has absolutely nothing to do with AI's products or business model. That's it. That one specific issue.
     
    #39
    Well, imho, pro-gun, pro-2nd Amendment people shouldn't be supporting any gun control, period. And that includes "bump stocks". Does any one in the pro-gun community really believe that anti-gunners are gonna be satisfied with banning "bump-stocks"? Fuck no. These piece of shit, waste of oxygen, maggots will go for hi-cap mags next, then "assault weapons" then 50 bmg, then "sniper rifles", etc, etc. I've been shocked at the naivete of so called "pro gun people" regarding bump stocks and appeasing these anti-gun scumbags. After Vegas, suddenly it became ok for pro gun people to be fine with some gun control. So long as the product being banned (bump stocks) won't affect me personally, or my gun business. If you are in the gun business, it seems to me that coming out in favor of ANY gun control is a bad business decision. Ask Bill Ruger and S&W how appeasing anti-gun leftists 20 years ago worked out for them.
     
    #40
    Glad to see Frank getting hold of Tom quickly.

    As a point for my American friends-

    ANY UK MEDIA ARTICLE MENTIONING FIREARMS IS LIKELY 80% BULLCR#P

    and yes, I meant to shout.

    the U.K. Home Office are currently having a ‘Consultation’ on the future of 50 Cal Firearms and ‘rapid firing’ firearms (specifically any lever release/ trigger release firearm designed to get around the spirit of the law banning semi-auto centre fires)

    what this means in reality is that you will see plenty of UK articles demonising guns and gun owners in preparation for the banning of said firearms.
     
    #41
    You know, I’ll back up the others a tiny bit on the outrage. We do have a pretty long history of American gun companies actually having exactly the opinions that the Standard attributed to AI’s CEO.

    Combine that with the frequent treatment we get from Euro gun makers, and it isn’t total insanity to think that these statements could have had some truth to them.

    I will I’ll also say that the article is extremely and bluntly attributing the statements it makes to Tom Irwin. In writing. Such an article would probably not be legal in the US, or really even within shouting distance of what was written. I for One forgot I was reading a British rag.
     
    #42
    Sniper’s Hide took the time on Friday to reach out to Tom Irwin of Accuracy International Regarding the Article in “The Evening Standard”. Tom called me that evening from a Hockey Game to set the record straight for everyone.

    Within the Accuracy International Financial Disclosure were comments regarding the US election. How the election of Trump was seen as a positive for Accuracy International and the fact there was always a risk, had she been elected Hillary could have harmed the business. The quote from Tom was included

    "There was always a risk that she would… ban gun imports"

    The document is public and a reporter on seeing the comments regarding the US election contacted AI to say he was writing an article about it. Everything Trump is news and the fact AI mentioned support for his election makes it news.

    Prior to publication, Tom spoke to the reporter and the question of Bump stocks came up. This is the majority of the article and delivered two quotes from Tom.

    "Ridiculous"
    "Personally, I don’t think so. I can’t see the benefit."

    Clearly, these were taken out of context and help create the headline that the "US needs greater gun controls, says rifle boss".

    Meanwhile, gun control was never mentioned, nor was the topic. These two comments were about bump stocks. Not semi-auto rifles, or anything else, bump stocks.

    Clearly out of context, clearly meant to incite a reaction among their US market. Remember, the reporter had access to their financial documents, hurting their US sales could hurt a company that showed growth. Because they supported the outcome of the election you get a political hit job.

    Tom explained Accuracy International and Tom Irwin are not calling for more gun control in the US. And does agree with the way the article frames any of Tom's statements. The conversation was reduced to three quotes:

    "Ridiculous"
    "Personally, I don’t think so. I can’t see the benefit."
    "There was always a risk that she would… ban gun imports"

    With the last one about Hillary. So really you have one word and a sentence, out of a much longer discussion.

    Take it from the source, Tom has spoken to me directly and can tell you this is the true definition of fake news dressed in click bait.
     
    #43
    The big issue brought to the forefront this evening, highlighted by both threads is that the Lynch Mob mentality is out of control now a days. Apparently our side of the coin, and people on this very site are not above it and that is truly a shame. That's not what our side is about and certainly not what Americans are about. Sure, if a gun company pulled a stunt like that or aided in restrictions of any kind, by all means fry them...but Jesus Christ at least determine what the truth is first. Being guilty in the court of opinion is a severe punishment, sometime capital in severity, the bar for a conviction should at least be based in fact, not circumstantial evidence and questionable representations. Holy fuck, hold yourselves to a higher standard....
     
    #44
    Basically spending my evening on FB groups defending AI. Even owners of popular pages are being total dipshits.

    Told them about this thread and Franks comments. They want an official statement from AI. Wtf when there wasn't one to start with. They eat their own for some clicks.
     
    #45
    sixfivesavage said:
    the big issue brought to the forefront this evening, highlighted by both threads is that the lynch mob mentality is out of control now a days. Apparently our side of the coin, and people on this very site are not above it and that is truly a shame. That's not what our side is about and certainly not what americans are about. Sure, if a gun company pulled a stunt like that or aided in restrictions of any kind, by all means fry them...but jesus christ at least determine what the truth is first. Being guilty in the court of opinion is a severe punishment, sometime capital in severity, the bar for a conviction should at least be based in fact, not circumstantial evidence and questionable representations. Holy fuck, hold yourselves to a higher standard....
    Click to expand...

    could not of said it better!!!!!!!! Agree 100%
     
    #47
    Arc Light said:
    Well, imho, pro-gun, pro-2nd Amendment people shouldn't be supporting any gun control, period. And that includes "bump stocks". Does any one in the pro-gun community really believe that anti-gunners are gonna be satisfied with banning "bump-stocks"? Fuck no. These piece of shit, waste of oxygen, maggots will go for hi-cap mags next, then "assault weapons" then 50 bmg, then "sniper rifles", etc, etc. I've been shocked at the naivete of so called "pro gun people" regarding bump stocks and appeasing these anti-gun scumbags. After Vegas, suddenly it became ok for pro gun people to be fine with some gun control. So long as the product being banned (bump stocks) won't affect me personally, or my gun business. If you are in the gun business, it seems to me that coming out in favor of ANY gun control is a bad business decision. Ask Bill Ruger and S&W how appeasing anti-gun leftists 20 years ago worked out for them.
    Click to expand...

    This guy gets it! I still stand by my comment on the first page and damn sure won't be apologizing for shit.
     
    #49
    Eh....It's a touchy subject in general, good to see some clarification on the matter.

    Maybe the broader lesson is that folks should remind themselves that the media is lying to you at all times and preying upon reactionary impulses. Encourage everyone around you to think and read critically prior to acting (voting).
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Similar threads

    PatMiles
    California: No. 1 in Gun Control, No. 1 in ‘Active Shooter Incidents’ in 2023
    Replies
    41
    Views
    1K
    bulletbluesky
    B
    PatMiles
    Ban on Guns in Post Offices Is Unconstitutional, US Judge Rules
    Replies
    20
    Views
    1K
    Gunfighter14e2
    Gunfighter14e2
    PatMiles
    Georgia Bill Makes Property Owners Liable for Injuries in Gun-Free Zones
    Replies
    22
    Views
    1K
    Aftermath
    Aftermath
    Krugermeier
    US halts exports of most civilian firearms for 90 days
    Replies
    26
    Views
    2K
    Ronws
    Ronws
    Blue Sky Country
    2A ALERT: Biden to announce creation of executive level gun control office on Friday Sep. 22, 2023.
    Replies
    24
    Views
    2K
    The D
    The D
    Top Bottom
    Back
    Home
    Forums
    Merch
    Alerts