Thread: Benchmade knives

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

dead right about that.......they were assisting police to destroy siezed firearms because they had the machinery to do so. they were going to be destroyed one way or the other..no question about that..... thats about as dumb as saying we should all boycott makita because Cindy bought makita angle grinders to cut up our ones..... it is what it is.

That's not an excuse. The police clearly didn't have the equipment to destroy the firearms themselves, so if no one was willing to help them, the firearms may not have been destroyed.
That is a real possibility in areas with strong support for gun rights. Either way, it doesn't get Benchmade off the hook. They chose to be complicit in something that they knew and later admitted was wrong.
In many other US states, seized firearms are auctioned off to legal buyers, which is the way it should be.

The Makita comparison is a false equivalence. Makita did not volunteer to destroy firearms or provide tools for that purpose.
Their tools were bought by the government, likely through a third party distributor, and used by people in ways that were beyond Makita's control.
That is in no way comparable to the company advocating or willingly engaging in the destruction of firearms.
I'm not going to support companies that destroy serviceable firearms, and if you support gun ownership I'm sure you won't either.

Originally Posted by Sideshow

Bloody hell well Id better throw my lot in the bin then..........might need a bigger bin

Originally Posted by Kiwigunguy

That's not an excuse. The police clearly didn't have the equipment to destroy the firearms themselves, so if no one was willing to help them, the firearms may not have been destroyed.
That is a real possibility in areas with strong support for gun rights. Either way, it doesn't get Benchmade off the hook. They chose to be complicit in something that they knew and later admitted was wrong.
In many other US states, seized firearms are auctioned off to legal buyers, which is the way it should be.

The Makita comparison is a false equivalence. Makita did not volunteer to destroy firearms or provide tools for that purpose.
Their tools were bought by the government, likely through a third party distributor, and used by people in ways that were beyond Makita's control.
That is in no way comparable to the company advocating or willingly engaging in the destruction of firearms.
I'm not going to support companies that destroy serviceable firearms, and if you support gun ownership I'm sure you won't either.

and you have just PROVEN BEYOND ALL DOUBT that you dont fact check......

I deliberately put makita angle grinder up to see if you would.........the NZ firearms were crushed n bent,not cut up...but if yo uwish to get your frilly knickers in a bunch,dont let me stop you.
the article if you took time to read it clearly states the part of country where the guns were cut up does not allow for onsale of them.

and if you look back to the NZ gun grab...I suggested it would have been good thing if the ones taken back here were used for military purposes as it would give our army better firearms and the rest put into storage for emergencies...and I got slammed for saying so,so the idea they could be sent to Ukraine being flouted now is rather ironic....

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

and you have just PROVEN BEYOND ALL DOUBT that you dont fact check......

I deliberately put makita angle grinder up to see if you would.........the NZ firearms were crushed n bent,not cut up...but if yo uwish to get your frilly knickers in a bunch,dont let me stop you.
the article if you took time to read it clearly states the part of country where the guns were cut up does not allow for onsale of them.

and if you look back to the NZ gun grab...I suggested it would have been good thing if the ones taken back here were used for military purposes as it would give our army better firearms and the rest put into storage for emergencies...and I got slammed for saying so,so the idea they could be sent to Ukraine being flouted now is rather ironic....

It doesn't matter whether they were cut up or crushed(I knew about the crushers that were used here, by the way).
Either way, the company did not volunteer them or advocate for them to be used to destroy firearms.
They were bought by the government through a third-party distributor, and used in ways that the company had no control over.
Thus the Makita comparison was still a false equivalence.

Why are you defending that seized firearms are required to be destroyed in Oregon?
The people with the necessary machinery should be turning away the police, and they should be putting pressure on the right people until firearms are sold off instead of destroyed.
It isn't some inevitability that the firearms must be destroyed. That could be stopped with the stroke of a pen, so that should be the goal.