As if there needed to be more ammunition against the gun-rights movement, the Smith and Wesson chairman stepped down today due to the revelation that he served around 15 years in prison for armed robbery and attempted escape.
What was this guy thinking? It’s like Dr. Kevorkian serving as Surgeon General, or Dick Cheney serving as head of the EPA. The one type of guy you DON’T want as the face of a gun company is one who has used a gun in a crime.
This is just…perfect. How insanely stupid are these people? You need to really think hard to figure out a time a company has screwed up this badly. :rolleyes:
Bigger question: how does a convicted felon and back robber - imprisoned for 15 years - manage to get his way onto the board of a major corporation. It’s not like it’s easy for anyone to get on top of major corporations, much less people who’ve been imprisoned for many years.
But beyond that, I don’t see why I should care. He did his time and then made something of himself. If he didn’t break the law since then, I see no reason he needs to be dragged through the mud like this.
That’s too bad. Under his watch, S&W really turned around, and was doing a great job in R&D and quality. I love my Performance Center 627. But in the grand scheme of things, I don’t think this will hurt S&Ws bottom line too badly. After all, if you are in the market for a quality revolver, you really only have one other choice, Ruger. (Unless you count Rossi, Taurus, and the others as quality).
Still, you would think the board of a major firearms manufacturer, with initimate ties to the LEO community, would have done a bit better of a job.
I agree wholeheartedly with smiling bandit’s last paragraph. One of the biggest issues in rehabilitating convicts is the prejudice of society against them, the unwillingness to give them a second chance. Here is a man who turned his life around, made of himself a usefull and even valued member of society, and because of what happened so many years ago, something he has already paid the price for and suffered for, he is expected to continue to pay the price. Nonsense. In what way does this benefit anybody?
I’m not sure I see the problem here. The man did the crime, and did his time, all decades ago - since then (according to the article) he turned himself around and achieved many great things:
"Minder also told the paper that he turned his life around after finishing his prison sentence in 1969. He said he has spent his professional career trying to help kids after receiving a bachelor of science degree in mechanical engineering, a bachelor of arts in sociology and a master of arts in social work, all earned from the University of Michigan.
Minder, who served on Smith & Wesson’s board since 2001, had run a successful non-profit agency serving delinquent and disabled Michigan youths for 20 years before retiring to Scottsdale in 1997, the Republic said."
Is the implication that, once branded a criminal, a man ought not ever to be allowed to achieve again? Given that the fellow is now 74 years old, I doubt he is likely to repeat his armed robbery spree - which took place in the '50s and '60s.
In fact, if ever there was an example of prison working to rehabilitate a life, it seems like this is it - from being a dangerous armed crook, this fellow it seems has gone on to earn several academic degrees, run a successful charity, and eventually work his way up to head a major corporation. Kudos to him!
What a ridiculously stupid strawman this is, Airman. No convict should ever be allowed to redeem themselves, should never be allowed the opportunity to change their life, because as sure as god made little green apples, that will lead directly to child molesters teaching children. Honestly, that was just dumb.
I think the real question we should ask here is: Are prison convicts able to ever rejoin society?
If background checks are mandatory for all jobs, and all convicted persons are excluded form working for a living, then what are they supposed to do? Ask the Government for a handout? That means we’ll be paying for them. Return to a life of crime? That may be the easy way out for them, but it’s not acceptable to most people. Remain in prison? Is any prison sentence now a life sentence?
Yes, it’s hyperbole, but so is Airman’s child molester comment. If all criminals are equal, all criminals are as bad as child molesters. Do we really want a criminal conviction to automatically be branded on one for life? Is death for any criminal an option?
This guy may not have been the best spokesman for the job, but his past should not keep him from working in another related job. Guns aren’t illegal; crime is. If he served his sentence, get off his back.
This is an unfair comparison, as the general concensus is that child molesters can’t be rehabilitated, whereas this guy has obviously turned his life around. And these types of criminals do it all the time. Kee-rist! Some criminals can even become PRESIDENT!
That said, I’m in favor of much stricter gun laws, so if it helps our side, wa-fucking-HOO!
I would mind, because I don’t believe that child molesters can be rehabilitated - I would always worry that the molester would molest my kids, no matter what sentence he has served.
On the other hand, a guy who committed armed robbery in his 20s, but who has been a model citizen ever since - and is now in his middle 70s after many years of work and community service - I would not worry about, because I think the chances of him stepping out to knock over some liquor stores is pretty remote.
Anyone convicted of a particular sort of crime should not be able to get a job that would be able to allow them to associate with the instrument of that crime. Consider it an automatic disqualification.
Would you hand John Muhammad a rifle if he got out of jail? Would you give Michael Milken another stockbroker job? Would you ever hire Stacey Koon a billy club and a badge ever again? Would you ever make William Calley an officer and put him in combat again?
I would hope that the answer to all of those questions would be no, rehabilitated or not. This guy is an exceptionally terrible representative for the gun industry because of his history, and should never have been hired because of that.
How do I get to apply for jobs that don’t ask me to list my convictions on the application? Not that I have any convictions but I’d rather not be asked given the choice.
The point you are struggling for, but not IMHO articulating very well, is that because many people (perhaps quite wrongly, but that is besides the point) uncharitably don’t believe in rehabilitation; and because gun crimes is a hot-button issue for this industry; the Company ought to take that into account, and insure that none of its representatives have been involved with gun crime - no matter how long ago.
Well, that is a decision for the Company to make, and they have made it - apparently, to appease people who think as you do.
I for one think that the decision was cowardly, and I would have more respect for the company if they had stood by their man. But they know their target market best, I suppose.