UKC

REI have just stopped selling Camelbak products in their stores due to the companies links with the NRA.

Should retailers in this country take a similar step or do you think profiting of the deaths of children is more acceptable because they are not English children.

In reply to Brown:

That is a stupid question in itself, however how has Camelbak profited from the deaths of children?

In reply to EddInaBox:

Camelbak is owned by Vista, vista have strong association with the NRA and support it.

Support for the NRA is support for easy access to guns which leads to school shootings.

 

Buy camelbak. Support school shootings.

If I was a retailer I'd not be happy profiting from those sales.

In reply to Brown:

If you follow that line of logic through with almost every brand, I suspect you won't have a great deal of stock to sell.

In reply to Oceanrower:

I think there are plenty of brands that don't support the NRA.

Do you think that REI and Mountain warehouse are wrong?

In reply to Brown:  Another view?

http://redkiteprayer.com/2018/03/camelbak-responds-to-the-vista-boycott/

Also interesting top read the comments in response if you scroll down

Also

https://www.outsideonline.com/2284921/consumers-ask-retailers-cut-ties-vist...

 

Quote:

Another petition by Aaron Naparstek, a journalist, urban-planning specialist, and MIT visiting scholar, has 625 signatures. For Naparstek, the issue goes beyond gun sales: Specifically, Vista Outdoor has a history of supporting anti–public land politicians. Indeed, Vista Outdoor has a PAC that, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit dedicated to tracking money in U.S. politics, has donated thousands of dollars to the campaigns of congressmen who have historically opposed public land protection. Over the past two election cycles, the Vista Outdoor PAC donated a combined total of more than $31,000 to Utah representatives Rob Bishop and Chris Stewart, both of whom have supported legislation that threatened the creation and continued protection of federal public lands.

Other notable donations include $2,000 to then-Montana Representative Ryan Zinke in 2016 and $14,400 to Utah Senator Mike Lee over the past two election cycles. In 2016, Lee (along with fellow Utah Senator Orrin Hatch) introduced legislation that would have required an act of Congress to expand or designate new national monuments in Utah. Lee has also proven to be an anti–gun control advocate. Two days ago, Lee told Fox News, “How will the banning of [AR-15-style rifles] make us safer?…I don’t believe most Utahns would think that was necessarily the answer.”

In reply to Brown:

Vesta still going?

I stopped buying and using Camelbak, because:

A: bad experience with Camelbak customer service (what do you mean it didn't come with a Camelbak even though it was advertised with and I now suddenly have to pay extra?)

B: I'm really not that impressed with Camelbak bladders. I prefer Source, which is a company in Israel, so some people may boycott them. I just prefer their design.

In reply to kevin stephens:

It's not really an alternative view, it just says profits from Camelback don't go directly to the NRA but it's a pointless distinction as the profitability of the parent company depends on all brands so if Vista loses money as a result of its association with the NRA then it might be forced to act .

In reply to Oceanrower:

Maybe not but I doubt it. Brands generally don't like being public enemies. I think it's great that people on the ground are motivating retailers to think hard about this.

I hadn't made the connection, thanks for flagging Brown. Interesting article here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/02/gun-boycott-r...

In reply to Tyler:

I'd agree that due to the opaque nature of corporate structures its not possible to determine exactly who's pounds go to support the NRA lobbying efforts.

It is clear that Camelbak is owned by a company that spends its profits lobbying against gun purchase controls and checks. Even if your pound does not go directly into this you are supporting a company that is lobbying for easy access to military grade weapons.

In reply to Brown:

That may well be, you still haven't proved your original assertion that Camelbak are profiting from school shootings

That is a ridiculous statement, neither Camelbak or indeed the NRA support school shootings.  The NRA's members, supporters and very effective lobbying strategies have repeatedly frustrated attempts to control access to firearms, and a strong case can be made that more children have been killed as a result.  That is not the same as supporting school shootings.

In reply to EddInaBox:

I was actually suggesting that anyone selling camelbak was profiting from school shootings. Camelbak is facilitating school shootings.

I feel that by buying camelbak then you are supporting school shootings.

In reply to EddInaBox:

Making money from a product that has led to the deaths of shooting victims.

In reply to Brown:

How is anyone involved in the retail of Camelbak products profiting from school shootings?

Facilitating, directly or indirectly, is not the same as supporting.

In reply to Brown:

Had a very interesting conversation with an American friend who actually runs an NGO in Africa supporting and empowering school children and orphans ironically. She is a strong advocate of the right to carry arms and not in any way a republican either. I do agree that companies, especially outdoors companies should act as responsibly as possible on as many levels as possible. Having said that it's an incredibly complex and hideously murky world out there. Not only would we not buy Camelback, I doubt we would wear many of the clothes we do, pay the low prices we do, bank where we do and live the lives we do. I guess we all have to make the decisions we feel comfortable with, our moral, compassionate, faith reasons etc. Good question to ask and be challenged with generally though!

In reply to Brown:

But you have not established that any Camelbak products were sold, or profit made, as either a direct or indirect consequence of those deaths.

In reply to EddInaBox:

I'm not sure why you are making such a thing of this, it was an obvious rhetorical device to make people think about the winners and losers (no matter if the chain of causation is convoluted) of their buying decisions and how changing them could possibly lead to behavioural changes by corporations for the betterment of society. 

If you thought the OP was saying Camelback got a dollar or so for every school kid shot dead in the US then you are mistaken. If you feel misled then you are probably owed an apology.

In reply to Brown:

I’m assuming you’ve already boycotted Black Diamond then ?

In reply to galpinos:

As far as I can see Black Diamond are owned by Clarus Corp who also flog bullets.

As far as I can see they are not linked to the NRA or the spending of hundreds of thousands of dollars on lobbying government for relaxed concealed carry laws and reduced restrictions on toxic substances like Vista are.

In reply to Tyler:

It was a clickbait thread title followed by patronising emotional manipulation.  There's little point preaching to the converted, if the OP wants to persuade people to boycott Camelbak then the ones who need persuading are those who want to buy the products, quite possibly people who already own something made by Camelbak already.  Alienating such people by accusing them of supporting school shootings would seem to be counterproductive.

If the OP has a case but his arguments cannot stand up to challenge then perhaps he should use better, more persuasive arguments.  I simply thought the initial argument was poor and the debating tactics reminiscent of the tactics employed by those typically on the other side of the debate.  I feel that to raise the standard of debate from the gutter such tactics should not go unchallenged.

I am glad the OP is bringing the matter to people's attention, just disappointed with the way he chose to do it.

In reply to Brown:. I was very much under the impression that Black Diamonds owners are active contributors to the NRA and that's one of the reasons I won't buy their products anymore

 

In reply to wbo:

It's not highlighted anywhere I can see. It is for Vista. 

BD are on record lobbying against the republican parties actions with regards to national parks.

In reply to Brown:Clarus Corporation is what you're looking for

 

In reply to wbo:

That's what I was looking at. I'm just saying I've looked and not seen, I'm not saying they don't.

 

In reply to Brown:

So is that as yes you are boycotting Black Diamond as well? After all, without bullets the guns are next to useless

 

In reply to CasWebb:

I don't object to selling guns. I object to supporting the NRA and lobbying for reducing restrictions, opposing background checks etc

In reply to Brown:

I  think a lot of posters are missing the point.  it's less about Camelbak's stance and independence.  More about a groundswell of opinion having an influence (however indirect) on the parent company which does support the NRA and other causes most of us would disagree with. This groundswell is becoming wide ranging and will ultimately effect the parent company where it most hurts: share price and therefore persuade it to change its position.  

For example http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43268446