Support BikePortland

Local bike shops come to terms with their industry’s ties to the NRA

Posted by on February 23rd, 2018 at 12:01 pm

(Photos by J. Maus/BikePortland)

“We will no longer purchase products from companies owned by Vista Outdoors. We will be donating proceeds from the remaining inventory we have of Giro helmets to Everytown for Gun Safety.”
— Leah Benson, Gladys Bikes

Revelations this week that several major bicycle brands are owned by Vista Outdoor — one of America’s largest sellers of assault weapon ammunition and accessories, and a staunch supporter of the National Rifle Association (NRA) — has sent shockwaves through the Portland bike scene.

We’ve heard from several readers who now plan to boycott products from Bell Sports, Giro, Blackburn Design, CamelBak, Raskullz, and Copilot. But for bike shop owners who sell helmets, racks, packs and child seats, the issue is much more complicated. Some say they’ll boycott the brands until ties to the NRA are severed, others say they’ll steer clear of them in the future, and one was in such a moral quandary, they asked to remain anonymous.

Immediately after our story posted we heard from several Portland shops who said they’ll boycott all Vista Outdoor brands.

Clever Cycles, who doesn’t currently sell any Vista Outdoor products, wrote on Twitter that it’s, “Terrible to hear that a company pedaling child seats and safety equipment is also supporting an industry of terror,” and, “We are proud to not carry any products that @VistaOutdoorInc distributes.” Go By Bike owner Kiel Johnson shared that, “We won’t sell those brands either!” Mel Birgé who owns Recumbent PDX says, “I would never knowingly sell products from a weapons manufacturer. We didn’t sell Bell, Giro or Blackburn and now we won’t start.”

Leah Benson owns Gladys Bikes.

Upon hearing the news of Vista Outdoor’s ties to the NRA, Gladys Bikes owner Leah Benson wrote on her shop’s Facebook page that, “This is frustrating and disappointing on a whole multitude of levels. Of Vista’s many brands, we currently only stock Giro helmets, and we had just placed a fairly sizable (for us) order with them. I’m not going to lie: This puts us in a tricky place financially. That said, there are a lot of things that are more important than money (for instance: human life); we’re committed to finding a way to not support them moving forward.”

Benson shared more with us in an email this morning:

“We will no longer purchase products from companies owned by Vista Outdoors. Additionally, we will be donating proceeds from the remaining inventory we have of Giro helmets to Everytown for Gun Safety… I know that some folks will disagree with my opinions or tactics here, and I respect that, and won’t deny that this is a relatively easy decision for me to make since Gladys is small and our pre-season investment in these brands was not nearly as large as other shops in the area. I respect that every shop has good reason for the choices they’re making with regards to Vista; we all have different ways of existing in business and in the world.”

All three of those shops are relatively small. And Clever Cycles doesn’t even carry the brands, so they don’t have much to lose by coming out strong against Vista Outdoor.

Cyclepath owner Bill Larson also doesn’t carry Vista Outdoor products, saying they just discontinued selling Giro and Bell last year, “Due to a dislike for Vista’s typical business practices.” (That’s a sentiment we heard several times over the past few days. Shop owners told us Vista Outdoor’s corporate culture, failure to protect the retail prices of their products, and selling to online discounters made them hard to work with.) Larson added that he didn’t know about Vista Outdoor’s NRA ties before this week. “I can honestly say that if I had learned about this topic while still carrying their brands, it would’ve shaped our buying decisions,” he shared with us via email. “There are many brands to choose from in the market now so theres no reason to stick with a brand if they don’t offer a compelling reason to be on our shelf. We truly believe in voting with our dollar.”

What about shops that do a significant amount of business with Vista Outdoor? Their responses revealed just how difficult it can be to extricate business dealings from moral stances in these days of corporate dominance in the bike industry.

Metropolis Cycles has been doing business on North Williams Avenue for nine years. Co-owner Nathan Roll said they currently sell products from Giro, Blackburn and Bell and have done so for several years, before the brands were acquired by Vista Outdoor.

Here’s his statement:

“We are deeply dismayed by this news, and are trying to determine how to proceed. We were previously unaware of Vista’s connection to and support of the NRA. I personally find the NRA’s rhetoric and actions reprehensible and disgusting, and would happily cut ties with anyone that supported them, but as the owner of a business, it’s not that easy, for several reasons.

The simplest is that we have thousands of dollars of their merchandise already in stock, and have committed to buying thousands more through the course of the coming year. In addition, we have a relationship with the brand(s) and their employees, none of whom had a say in who purchased their employer. Some of them are our friends and neighbors, and this clearly affects their livelihoods. We are currently re-evaluating our relationship with Vista Sports, but as I’m sure you are aware, the bicycle business is hardly lucrative, especially for small neighborhood shops like us, and we can’t afford to give away product, or even discount it deeply in an effort to unload it. The Giro/Bell duo is also by far the largest player in the domestic helmet market, and though there are alternatives, we will have to consider them carefully before making any decisions.”


Erik Tonkin outside his shop in Sellwood.

Sellwood Cycle Repair celebrated its 25th year in business in 2017. It’s a local institution and its influence goes well beyond Portland. Owner Erik Tonkin has helped design and influence several Kona Bicycle Company models over the years and he’s a force in the racing scene, having supported an all-women cyclocross racing team through international competition this past season.

Tonkin told me this morning he carries a large amount of products from Vista’s brands. Even so, he’ll support a boycott. Here’s his statement:

“Sellwood Cycle Repair will support a boycott of Vista Outdoor. This means we will not buy products from Bell, Giro, Blackburn, and CoPilot — and that we could even return existing inventory, which is substantial. I was sad to learn a few years back these companies had been acquired by Vista. At the time, I was most disappointed because — for the first time ever — we’d be doing regular business with a vague holding company rather than a focused or independent bike businesses, like Kona Bicycles, Giant Bicycles, Quality Bicycle Products, Cyclone Bicycle Supply, and the list goes on.

And then there was Vista’s substantial investment in shooting sports, not to mention its support of the National Rifle Association.

I need a specific, stated purpose to support a boycott — a goal or an outcome to pursue. For me, that goal is to ask Vista to drop its support of the NRA — or failing that, to sell off its brands Giro, Bell, Blackburn, and CoPilot.”

And then there was the bike shop owner who didn’t want to be identified:

“Well, this is an ethical dilemma I wasn’t expecting to confront this morning. My initial reaction is ‘fuck those guys’. We vote with our wallets. The idea of me giving money to a company that then gives it to the NRA is revolting. 

So I’ve been talking about this to the management and staff. The issues that are raised are matters of consistency. Are we going to hold all of our suppliers to a standard, and if so, what is the line? I’m afraid that if we dig deep enough into any of our suppliers, we’re going to find stuff that is undesirable. And in order to not be hypocritical, we would have to do so. 

I don’t know what to do at this point. Does the good (supplying well designed and produced bike stuff that help keep cyclists safe and comfortable) outweigh the bad?

I’m in a bind. I could take a stand and say we’re not buying products from those companies. It might make a bit of a difference at some point, and now that this is public, I’m sure more will consider if they will support the companies. We sure will. 

One thing I have to consider is that Bell-Giro is our #1 most profitable brand, percentage wise. If we drop them, our sales will drop and profits will drop. It is likely that we would have to lay someone off or otherwise cut payroll. How would that person feel about my decision?

It is already difficult to be a small business in this day. I don’t have the luxury to make a lot of decisions by how my heart feels. Sadly…but I do what I can do.” 

Given the #NRABoycott effort that’s sweeping the country, there are probably more shoes to drop in terms of what happens at Vista Outdoor. They purchased these bike brands very recently in an effort to diversify their holdings because the gun market is so vulnerable to political winds. If they don’t want to cut ties to the NRA, they might end up selling these non-gun brands. As the gun debate heats up, companies might have to choose: They can sell guns or bikes, but not both.

— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and

Never miss a story. Sign-up for the daily BP Headlines email.

BikePortland needs your support.

NOTE: We love your comments and work hard to ensure they are productive, considerate, and welcoming of all perspectives. Disagreements are encouraged, but only if done with tact and respect. If you see a mean or inappropriate comment, please contact us and we'll take a look at it right away. Also, if you comment frequently, please consider holding your thoughts so that others can step forward. Thank you — Jonathan

  • maxD February 23, 2018 at 12:20 pm

    What a predicament! I really feel for these small business owners. I would love to see Vista sell off their bike-related holdings. I will personally avoid these brands, but I will also continue to support the LBS that I have relationships with despite the choice they make. Great article.

    Recommended Thumb up 20

  • Kate February 23, 2018 at 12:34 pm

    Just dropping in to say that I don’t envy the local bikes shops having to wrestle with these decisions, but I’m super impressed they are giving it the deep and thoughtful consideration we read here. Thanks for being such thoughtful members of our community!

    Recommended Thumb up 39

  • Eric February 23, 2018 at 12:37 pm

    Good news for local Nutcase helmets in the long run I bet.

    Recommended Thumb up 8

    • Other Eric February 24, 2018 at 5:08 pm

      Nutcase Helmets and Smith Optics both have their HQs here in Portland and neither has an organizational affiliation with any firearms product manufacturers.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • BIKELEPTIC February 27, 2018 at 1:32 pm

        Smith Optics is owned by Safilo Group out of Italy.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

    • BIKELEPTIC February 25, 2018 at 3:01 pm

      Nutcase is owned by Transom Capital Group, a holding company out of LA. I don’t know their donations or funding. They own quite a variety of companies.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Todd Boulanger February 23, 2018 at 12:39 pm

    It will be interesting to see how this shakes out…what other bicyclist safety gear is owned / controlled by the automotive industry … since more bicyclists die by driver impact than by bullet impact.

    Recommended Thumb up 17

  • PDXBear February 23, 2018 at 12:47 pm

    Bravo! How about we just start with guns and the NRA? Draw the line there. Worry about the other issues later. How about the big shops? Where does the Bike Gallery, River City, and Western Bikeworks stand on this issue?

    Recommended Thumb up 6

    • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) February 23, 2018 at 12:50 pm


      We hope to hear from more shops soon. Watch for updates.

      I would also encourage you to contact them yourself and ask them.

      Recommended Thumb up 10

      • Steve Jones February 24, 2018 at 4:03 am

        No one cares. They sell legal products based on consumer need. Real smart, eliminate products so your customers will buy online. That way they won’t have to deal with your pollitical whining. Oh yeah, guns don’t kill people. People kill people.

        Recommended Thumb up 28

        • q February 24, 2018 at 10:50 am

          Did it occur to you that shops may be doing this boycott because they think it’s the right thing to do, and whether they gain or lose business isn’t their central motivation?

          Recommended Thumb up 12

        • Hello, Kitty
          Hello, Kitty February 24, 2018 at 12:21 pm

          The question I have is why do we allow the people who kill people to have guns?

          Recommended Thumb up 16

        • Tracey February 25, 2018 at 1:08 pm

          Actually people do care and your post shows that you do too, otherwise you would’ve said nothing.

          Recommended Thumb up 5

    • Brian February 23, 2018 at 12:53 pm


      Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Paul Atkinson February 23, 2018 at 4:10 pm

      Hoping to hear from REI as well.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

      • PDXBear February 23, 2018 at 9:11 pm

        REI is a co-op, so you can let the Board of Directors know directly.
        Email them:

        Recommended Thumb up 7

  • Brian February 23, 2018 at 12:49 pm

    I am proud to live in a city where this is happening. We have some other rather large bicycle retailers in Portland and I wonder what their stance is at this point.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

  • John February 23, 2018 at 1:07 pm

    The way a lot of people feel about the NRA is the way I feel about Bloomburg’s groups (including Everytown for Gun Safety) and they way they buy our politicians. I wouldn’t buy a helmet on clearance knowing the money was going to Bloomburg. Bloomburg’s groups already outspend the NRA 6 to 1 buying politicians here in oregon ( On the other hand Vista Ourdoors ammo brands are good quality products and I don’t see the sales of those dropping. If the LBS doesn’t want to carry the bike brands I buy there are always online stores. IMO, the NRA has nothing to do with the recent shooting and they provide good education courses on gun safety. Unfortunately they’re a little to unmovable about some reasonable gun laws. The real question is why was a person like the shooter, with all the red flags, allowed to buy and own a firearm? Thats up to our politicians and law enforcement, not the NRA. How many here conceal carry when on public transit late at night, or when riding on urban trails where your safety is questionable?

    Recommended Thumb up 36

    • q February 23, 2018 at 1:31 pm

      “Unfortunately they’re a little to unmovable about some reasonable gun laws” is quite an understatement. And yes, creating and enforcing restrictions is up to politicians and law enforcement, but the NRA consistently opposes restrictions.

      Recommended Thumb up 16

      • meh February 23, 2018 at 3:32 pm

        The NRA doesn’t even make the top 50 contributors to politicians. They spend their money on advertising and on building a voting bloc, but they don’t actually give all that much to the politicians.

        Recommended Thumb up 18

        • q February 23, 2018 at 3:39 pm

          So what? This is an article about bike gear companies whose owners contribute to the NRA. The fact that there are other organizations who donate more to politicians is irrelevant. So are the specifics of how the NRA spends its own money.

          Recommended Thumb up 6

          • meh February 24, 2018 at 8:19 am

            Because everyone says the NRA buys the politicians and the numbers prove they don’t. The unions own politicians more than the NRA. The NRA owns voters who agree with their position. They control a voting block, not the politicians, so they get who they want elected.

            If you don’t understand how the NRA works then you cannot combat them.

            Recommended Thumb up 7

            • q February 24, 2018 at 3:04 pm

              Again, so what? This article is about an issue involving the NRA. HOW the NRA spends its money or HOW it influences gun laws, and how other groups spend more or exert influence on other issues (or even this one) is interesting but not relevant.

              Recommended Thumb up 1

              • meh February 25, 2018 at 9:46 am

                You do understand that the NRA are kings of letter writing campaigns and threats of boycotts. That’s the power they wield, through the millions that support them. That they spend their money sending out mailers to their followers to get them to participate in these actions is exactly the issue. That they don’t have to buy the politicians or the companies because the have a faithful following that can and does mean millions in sales to these companies. This has everything to do with how the NRA operates and how they impact and influence companies whose stance they agree with or disagree with. An NRA backlash is or was something that companies and politicians feared.

                Recommended Thumb up 1

              • q February 25, 2018 at 4:11 pm

                Again, you keep talking about HOW the NRA spends its money, but that’s not relevant. I’ve never said a word about them “buying politicians” so I don’t understand why you keep arguing about that. I assume the NRA spends its money in whatever way it feels is most effective in accomplishing its goals.

                Similarly, per the article, people participating in the boycott are doing so because the gear companies are owned by a company that supports the NRA, and the boycotters opposes the NRA for its positions and actions it takes on issues such as gun control. HOW the NRA is working to oppose gun control isn’t what matters, it’s that the NRA is opposing gun control, period.

                Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Austin February 23, 2018 at 1:32 pm

      You mention this:
      “The way a lot of people feel about the NRA is the way …. they buy our politicians.”
      and then this:
      “The real question is why was a person like the shooter, with all the red flags, allowed to buy and own a firearm? Thats up to our politicians and law enforcement, not the NRA.”

      So, you say it is up to the politicians, not the NRA, but you also mention that you know the NRA buys the politicians, so in the end it kind of is up to the NRA, right?

      Recommended Thumb up 17

    • PDXBear February 23, 2018 at 10:09 pm

      In 2016, the NRA spent almost $60 million on political activities. Everytown For Gun Safety spent $1.8 million. Just sayin’.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Stephen Maus February 24, 2018 at 5:09 am

      Very reasonable response! Gets past all the hysteria on both sides of the debate. There is a middle ground.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Chris I February 24, 2018 at 8:26 am

      The local spending is essentially irrelevant in this debate. National policy drives gun ownership behavior, so that is where the spending matters. Porous state borders mean that state policy is ineffective without national action at the same time.

      I understand that you enjoy firearms, but you need to take ownership of the carnage that our freedoms enable. Children are dying on our streets because guns are so readily available in this country. They are dying at rates higher than any other developed country, and by a huge margin.

      I have training and knowledge of firearms, but I choose not to own any because I feel it is immoral to contribute to the gun-availability problem. I also care about the safety of my family (statistics are clear that a gun in the household is much more likely to be used to kill someone in that household, via suicide, domestic violence, etc than to be used against an intruder). Go ahead and take that gamble with your family. I won’t gamble with my loved one’s lives.

      Recommended Thumb up 8

    • Sol February 24, 2018 at 11:11 am

      It’s Bloomberg..

      Recommended Thumb up 3

  • CaptainKarma February 23, 2018 at 1:34 pm

    Where can we find listings of NRA backed companies if we do choose to live by our conscience going forward? I imagine changes will happen, corporation are adept at name-changing, rebranding, and splitting off. It would be good to know what causes one’s commerce is encouraging. Ingrained cultures take time to change.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • cgull February 23, 2018 at 1:44 pm

    Thanks for the heads up. I’ll be sure to make my next helmet purchase be a Giro and my next rack be a Blackburn Designs. Businesses participating in politics in this way is a little silly. It’s best to stay out of it. You’ll just end up needlessly alienating a demographic either way. If my bike shop stops carrying brands I like because they have distant financial ties to the NRA they might gain a customer, but they’ll certainly lose me – am existing customer.

    Recommended Thumb up 28

    • q February 23, 2018 at 2:07 pm

      If you’re buying gear specifically because it’s made by companies with ties to the NRA, as you said you will be, the shops you’re no longer shopping at may not miss your business.

      Recommended Thumb up 15

      • Kittens February 23, 2018 at 5:32 pm

        I won’t shop at places like that either, just because I am getting so sick of everything that has to do with politics. If an LBS can survive without my business, that is great. That is why they have competition, and there are many other LBSs to shop at.

        Recommended Thumb up 5

        • Hello, Kitty
          Hello, Kitty February 23, 2018 at 10:05 pm

          This is a little different than saying “I won’t go to his store because he is a Republican”. The NRA is pretty extreme in their views, and their actions are exactly why it is so easy for people who really should have them to get their hands on guns. Our country badly needs reasonable gun regulation (not a ban, not confiscation, just a better set of rules), and the NRA is one of the primary obstacles to that happening. I too am sick of politics, but this isn’t that.

          Recommended Thumb up 5

    • bikeninja February 23, 2018 at 2:18 pm

      Wow, I could not disagree with this no-politics in business more. As citizens we have seen our electoral democracy degraded to the point where a recent Princeton study shows no relation between the will of the people and the laws passed by congress. So at this point in time our actions as consumers is the only place we can realistically affect the world we live in ( besides local activism for local changes). The no-politics in business is an approach advocated by those who want to do bad and get rich at the same time.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Ian February 23, 2018 at 11:52 pm

      So you’re going to make specific politically-motivated purchases in order to show bike shops they’re wrong for making decisions based on politics? Seems like a sound strategy.

      Recommended Thumb up 9

  • bikeninja February 23, 2018 at 1:49 pm

    I respect the decisions of local bike shops to not purchase the Vista gear, and I also respect those that unwittingly purchased an inventory and must sell it before they can wash their hands of Vista, I certainly don’t want any more LBS to go out of business. And I believe that any bike shop that wants to carry these brands on purpose should be clear about why they are doing it, so we the customer can make our choice. I will lose respect for any store that attempts to ride the fence and pretend they can have their cake and eat it too.

    Recommended Thumb up 6

  • Jim Lee February 23, 2018 at 1:54 pm

    Just to be objective, only a very small fraction of all deaths inflicted by firearms in our country involve “assault” weapons. But the most horrific ones do. Past bans of these guns have had very little effect, precisely because there is so little to affect, other than natural human emotional response.

    On the other hand, my first job out of college was helping test submarine-launched nuclear ballistic missiles, which never have killed anyone. Then the job switched to figuring out how to kill more people in Vietnam with “conventional” weapons. At that point I resigned.

    Recommended Thumb up 5

    • Brian February 23, 2018 at 2:03 pm

      Maybe it was because those bans did not go far enough?

      Recommended Thumb up 4

      • Bay Area rider February 24, 2018 at 6:41 am

        So how well did the 18th amendment work? Or maybe the war on drugs? The history of banning things hasn’t really worked out well when people really want the things being banned. Working on solving the question of why people think killing others seems like a more effective way of reducing murders.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

        • Hello, Kitty
          Hello, Kitty February 24, 2018 at 12:29 pm

          Maybe a multi-pronged approach would yield the most results?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Brian February 24, 2018 at 1:21 pm

          Agreed. It is complex with many variables that must be addressed. Until then, I’d like less guns like AR-15s (and those more dangerous) readily available.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Chris I February 24, 2018 at 8:29 am

      This is a good point. This is why any guns that are not used for sport should be banned. Bolt action rifles and standard shotguns only.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

      • Kristina February 24, 2018 at 11:22 am

        As a preface I will say that I think arguing on the internet is not very productive and I am not trying to be argumentative BUT there are a multitude of shooting sports that utilize semi-auto “assault style” rifles. Some of the people who participate in these competitions choose/build their rifles specifically for accuracy and shooting speed to compete on a global scale and their firearms are virtually indistinguishable from those used by others to commit crimes. The line between rifles for sport and rifles for killing is defined by the end user not the manufacturing.

        Recommended Thumb up 7

      • rainbike February 27, 2018 at 9:09 am

        What about lever action and pump action rifles? Why do you want to ban them?

        Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Matthew in Portsmouth February 23, 2018 at 1:57 pm

    I have a few Bell products, mostly bought from Fred Meyer (gloves and cheap fenders), but will not buy these brands in the future (by and large the products I have are not great). My suspicion is that Vista sells most of its product through large chains and online, so unless they get on board, the boycott may not be effective. I can see Target signing up for a boycott given they don’t sell firearms or permit them to be carried into their stores, but Walmart, Dicks etc. are a different story.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • JeffS February 23, 2018 at 2:35 pm

      You could trace half of a Target store back to the gun and gun accessory industry. It’s foolish to think that a big box store would ever open up the door to such arbitrary morality.

      What am I thinking. Of course you’re aware of this. I’m sure you have fully researched every product you’re buying and not just jumping on a single company boycott because the internet tells you to.

      Recommended Thumb up 15

  • Redhippie February 23, 2018 at 2:13 pm

    Too bad. Boycotts cut both ways. I live near metropolis and have consigned a number of bikes at sellwood.. As a gun owner, nra member and 2a supporter I’m not welcome in their businesses and will take my households buisness elsewhere. Are you going to gain 4 more clients over this?

    Recommended Thumb up 31

    • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) February 23, 2018 at 2:25 pm

      thanks for the comment Redhippie. For what it’s worth, I don’t think this is about being anti-gun. At least that’s not how I personally see it. I think this is about saying “enough is enough” and that the accessibility of military assault weapons and the extremism espoused by the NRA has gone way too far. So far that people are looking to do anything they can to finally push for evolution in our gun culture. of course i say this as someone who isn’t interested in guns at all so I can’t pretend to know what this feels like to you. Thanks again for the comment.

      Recommended Thumb up 15

      • Redhippie February 23, 2018 at 2:39 pm

        Thanks for the feedback, As a person who “isn’t interested in guns at all” I would recommend that you learn more about the subject. What you and many of the pundits call a “military assault weapon” has the same definition as the trusty .22 that may people buy their kids. This isn’t about a small niche of firearms, but rather an attempt to criminalize a wide swath of gun ownership. Finally, fully automatic “military” firearms are actually illegal unless you get a NFA tax stamp and spends upwards of $5,000 to $10,000. This is very rare.

        In regards to “enough being enough”, I don’t hear you advocating that the laws that we already have on the books are actually enforced, or we limit access to violent video games and movies, limit the wholesale prescription of anti-depressants, install security guards and metal detectors at schools. If you really want to address the issue of mass shootings/stabbings/truck violence, you need to address all the issues and not just firearms.

        I didn’t really want to debate the issue because I figure that most have already made up their minds. I would just be aware that actions like this boycott directly affect the 39.1% of Oregonians that didn’t vote for Hillary.

        Recommended Thumb up 33

        • q February 23, 2018 at 3:09 pm

          I think it’s common knowledge that most people don’t know the exact definitions of gun types, so of course every person wanting restrictions on what they call “military assault weapon” is not meaning to ban every “trusty .22” or to “criminalize a wide swath of gun ownership”.

          And I think the reason you don’t hear people here–Jonathan and most commenters–advocating for all the other potential tools for reducing shootings is that the articles aren’t about the whole subject, they’re about the one narrow issue of buying or selling helmets and other gear with NRA ties. That doesn’t mean people think the NRA or gun restrictions are the only tools available.

          I’m not sure what you mean by, “I would just be aware that actions like this boycott directly affect the 39.1% of Oregonians that didn’t vote for Hillary”. If you’re complaining that the boycott makes it harder for those people to find a store that carries Bell helmets, why not blame Bell’s ownership for funding an organization that many of its customers dislike?

          Recommended Thumb up 10

        • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) February 23, 2018 at 3:14 pm

          Yes I should learn more about guns. I agree. But I don’t think I or anyone else needs to be an expert in order to have a valid opinion on this issue.

          I also disagree with your assessment that this is “an attempt to criminalize a wide swath of gun ownership”. Guns are out-of-control in the U.S. That’s a very obvious and basic fact backed up by dead people and NRA campaign funding.

          And I don’t buy the argument that, “Unless we fix everything we shouldn’t fix anything.” That’s exactly what entrenched powers want people to feel like.

          People have every reason to be sick and tired of the gun violence and lack of gun control/laws/enforcement in this country. The position of the NRA and Republicans is directly related to selling more firearms. It’s all about money… and they are willing to make people less safe and divide and gin up fear and hate… they only care about the money on this issue.

          That’s my opinion. And based on that, I personally won’t support anyone who supports the NRA or who makes more money as our country continues to drown in gun violence.

          Thanks for the comments. I appreciate your perspective and hope you’ll continue to share it — whether you agree with me and others here or not!

          Recommended Thumb up 21

          • antianti February 23, 2018 at 4:45 pm

            You need to have a more informed opinion on the topic that doesn’t fuel a narrative of full throttled gun repeal. I could care less about Vista outdoor and it’s affiliated companies. My grandfather was a nationally recognized gunsmith. I grew up with firearms. He fortold the nature of violence and knew the government would fail the public interest. That’s why he was a lifetime NRA member. The discussion around this always swells in a panic when disaster strikes. There are numerous options we could employ in regards to laws and civil action that would create a safer public without sacrificing our gun rights as they are now, but most people on the left have no interest in listening or voting for them. It’s either all or nothing. And remember, antifa likes their guns too…. I’ll be over here decidedly independent, reloading my spent shells. Peace.

            Recommended Thumb up 16

            • q February 23, 2018 at 5:01 pm

              But I haven’t seen a single comment here advocating an “all or nothing”…”full throttled gun repeal”, or anything even close to that.

              Recommended Thumb up 11

              • antianti February 23, 2018 at 5:49 pm

                I’m too mentally spent reply in kind. I love Eric Tonkin. I respect his business decision. I may not see it the same way, and that’s OK. I’m sure my personal political veiw on gun ownership is the polar opposite of the average reader these days. I have to dare my self to read it . it’s sadly become something I no longer find a happy addition to my day. This post is an example. Once again, I wish everyone a good day. Peace.

                Recommended Thumb up 9

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty February 23, 2018 at 10:18 pm

                I’ll bet your view on gun ownership is not the polar opposite of mine. You don’t need to be in favor of a repeal on guns to see that the NRA has become a lobbying organization for the gun industry, and pursues an agenda that is at odds with the good of the country. I do not support banning guns, but I do support those who choose not to provide indirect financial support to the NRA.

                If you support the NRA and their tactics and positions, sending them just $5 would more than offset buying a non-Gyro brand helmet from your local shop.

                Recommended Thumb up 11

            • Paul Cone February 23, 2018 at 5:57 pm

              The gun control throttle goes both ways — it’s been completely off for so long because of the NRA refusing any laws at all that you folks with the .22s are now getting caught in the gun control crossfire.

              Recommended Thumb up 1

      • TylerSorensen February 23, 2018 at 5:28 pm

        You should check your facts. AR-15S aren’t assault rifles and they’re not used by the military. There’s nothing wrong with guns. Our country doesn’t have a gun problem. Our country has a people problem

        Recommended Thumb up 19

        • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) February 23, 2018 at 5:34 pm

          Thanks Tyler. To me, the facts that matter are how many people die in America, how many guns we have easy access too, and how much money the NRA gives to our leaders to make sure the problem never gets fixed.

          Recommended Thumb up 3

          • Bay Area rider February 24, 2018 at 6:56 am

            Just pointing out that per the FBI stats in 2016 374 people were murdered with rifles, the category that includes the AR style guns. In 2016 1604 people were murdered with knives so maybe there needs to be more discussion of knife control?

            Recommended Thumb up 7

            • Dan A February 24, 2018 at 8:32 am

              Do you think a teenager could run through a high school for six minutes and kill 17 people and wound 14 more with a knife, and then drop the knife and walk out undetected? If so, then I agree with you.

              Recommended Thumb up 10

        • Paul Cone February 23, 2018 at 5:58 pm

          Our country has a car problem, too, but we’re not just going after all drivers to solve it.

          Recommended Thumb up 11

          • Hello, Kitty
            Hello, Kitty February 23, 2018 at 10:19 pm

            For the same reason, no one is proposing going after all gun owners.

            Recommended Thumb up 3

          • soren February 28, 2018 at 8:12 am

            Great analogy! I think ammunition taxes, excise fees, mandatory written and operating licensing exams, mandatory photo-id license, mandatory registration, mandatory insurance and mandatory fees for license/title/registration sound like a great idea for guns (each gun)!

            Recommended Thumb up 1

        • Chris I February 24, 2018 at 8:35 am

          AR is an abreviation for ArmaLite, the manufacturer who made the initial model that was then adapted to become the primary weapon of US forces in Vietnam. The AR-15 shares a common ancestor with today’s military assault weapons. AR-15s and all of the guns like it are weapons of war and should not be available to private citizens. We get that you like to play soldier on the weekends. Your hobby is placing the rest of us at risk.

          “Tired of repeated failures in the market, Fairchild licensed the AR-10 and AR-15 designs to Colt, and the AR-10 to a Dutch company. They sold their interest in Armalite in 1962. That year, Colt sold the AR-15 to the United States Air Force to arm base security troops. Commercial models were then sent to Special Forces in Vietnam, who reported great success[clarification needed] with the weapon. This led to its being adopted as the Army’s main combat rifle starting in 1964. It has remained the US’s primary combat rifle in one form or another to this day,[when?] and was adopted by many NATO countries in the 1980s.”

          Recommended Thumb up 7

        • Pete February 26, 2018 at 9:58 am

          What makes “AR-15 style” rifles not assault weapons? The term “assault rifle” generally refers to semi-automatic weapons with an interchangeable magazine and pistol grip. “Target rifles” generally do not fall under the definition of “assault rifles.”

          I’m genuinely curious, thanks. (And yes, I know “AR-15” is technically the Colt-patented version).

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Axess Denyd February 26, 2018 at 10:07 am

            An assault rifle is capable of fully automatic fire.

            Recommended Thumb up 2

        • soren February 28, 2018 at 8:03 am

          I agree that we have a people problem! A tiny minority of gun fanatics who oppose even the most reasonable regulation of firearms have undue influence over elected officials, in part, due to the actions of the NRA.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

    • JeffS February 23, 2018 at 2:30 pm

      I’m with you. I am not a gun owner or activist, but this virtue signalling is tiresome.

      Recommended Thumb up 18

      • q February 23, 2018 at 4:56 pm

        I’m not sure who or what you’re aiming your “virtue signalling” comment at–the boycott? the article? the commenters that support the boycott?

        In any case, it seems dismissive to…well, dismiss others’ motivations.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Al February 23, 2018 at 4:17 pm

      This isn’t about “gun lovers” vs “gun haters”. Reducing complex arguments to this is precisely why this situation has become intractable, to the benefit of the NRA incidentally. The NRA doesn’t even represent gun owners. They represent gun MANUFACTURERS. It’s an industry trade group.

      As a gun owner, I resent the NRA speaking for me. The NRA has proclaimed itself a representative of owners even when they are at odds with most gun owners. They do this to leverage their lobbying power. Even if we accept the NRA’s own membership count of 4 million, then that still only represents less than 6% of GUN OWNERS in America!

      I, and most gun owners I know, support solutions to this entirely preventable problem such as universal background checks, assault weapons ban, limited magazine capacities, etc. Let’s stop pretending like we don’t know what the solutions are and that all gun owners are in agreement with the NRA.

      As far as this boycott is concerned, I support it. I have a bunch of gear on the list but my hunch is that it was purchased prior to the Vista acquisition. Still, I have to admit that I was unaware of the connection until this current news cycle.

      Recommended Thumb up 21

      • Axess Denyd February 26, 2018 at 10:08 am

        The industry trade group is the NSSF. The NRA is the member-driven organization.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mike February 23, 2018 at 2:24 pm

    Bell, Giro, Blackburn are all good brands. I will continue to purchase these brands so if the local shops quit selling them, they will lose my business and likely many more bike riders.

    Recommended Thumb up 6

  • Ivan Boothe February 23, 2018 at 2:37 pm

    A Better Cycle on SE Division says “never have and never will carry these products” in this Facebook post (which also links to your earlier article):

    That’s my local shop so I thought I’d check.

    Recommended Thumb up 6

  • Brent February 23, 2018 at 2:56 pm

    Sellwood Cycle is my favorite bike shop. They are great. I stopped in the other day after reading about the Giro and Bell connection to the NRA and asked them if they planned to stop selling those products. They told me they weren’t sure yet, but were talking about it. So glad to hear they decided to stop selling those products!

    Recommended Thumb up 7

  • BarnOwl February 23, 2018 at 3:55 pm

    Thanks for the feedback, As a person who “isn’t interested in guns at all” I would recommend that you learn more about the subject. What you and many of the pundits call a “military assault weapon” has the same definition as the trusty .22 that may people buy their kids. This isn’t about a small niche of firearms, but rather an attempt to criminalize a wide swath of gun ownership. Finally, fully automatic “military” firearms are actually illegal unless you get a NFA tax stamp and spends upwards of $5,000 to $10,000. This is very rare.In regards to “enough being enough”, I don’t hear you advocating that the laws that we already have on the books are actually enforced, or we limit access to violent video games and movies, limit the wholesale prescription of anti-depressants, install security guards and metal detectors at schools. If you really want to address the issue of mass shootings/stabbings/truck violence, you need to address all the issues and not just firearms.I didn’t really want to debate the issue because I figure that most have already made up their minds. I would just be aware that actions like this boycott directly affect the 39.1% of Oregonians that didn’t vote for Hillary.Recommended 2

    what do antidepressant sales have to do with prevention of mass shootings exactly?

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • GlowBoy February 23, 2018 at 4:48 pm

      A lot, actually. A large proportion of mass shooters have had antidepressant prescriptions. This is not to say that I agree with red hippie generally.

      Recommended Thumb up 12

      • Chris I February 24, 2018 at 8:39 am

        last time I checked, a large proportion of average Americans have antidepressant prescriptions. Unless you can show me a study showing causality with that relationship, this just sounds like more obfuscation.

        “The federal government’s health statisticians figure that about one in every 10 Americans takes an antidepressant. And by their reckoning, antidepressants were the third most common prescription medication taken by Americans in 2005–2008, the latest period during which the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) collected data on prescription drug use.”

        Recommended Thumb up 3

        • GlowBoy February 25, 2018 at 4:04 pm

          Not surprising that 10% of Americans are on antidepressant drugs.

          Unfortunately, the proportion of mass shooters who’ve been on these drugs isn’t 10%. It’s 50%.

          Not trying to obfuscate or diminish efforts to reduce access to the weapons that tend to be used in these mass shootings. A lot of so-called “gun rights” sites love to trumpet the above findings. But a lot the deniers are people who have ties to the pharmaceutical industry, one of the handful that I consider on the same order of magnitude as the gun industry in terms of the harm they cause to humanity and the damage they do to democracy by throwing money at elected officials. Neither side can be trusted, but I find the claims believable. Even a story in Psychology Today – a publication that tends to take the industry position when it comes to psychoactive drugs – acknowledges that there is a link that requires more study.

          It’s a multifacted problem: we don’t do enough to support people with mental illnesses. We don’t do enough to track guns that are used in multiple incidents. We don’t do enough to limit access to guns by people with mental illness. We don’t do enough to limit access to the weapons most readily and commonly used in mass shootings. We don’t close the loopholes that allow people access to firearms who shouldn’t have them.

          And we don’t recognize (or sufficiently study) the contribution of pharmaceuticals to this problem.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

  • pdx2wheeler February 23, 2018 at 5:01 pm

    Lot of the same people who claim you have to be an expert on guns to have an opinion won’t listen to the experts on climate change, yet they tons of opinions on climate change…

    Recommended Thumb up 7

  • Shawn February 23, 2018 at 5:04 pm

    What about the coward officer who refused to go in and stop the shooter recently? What about the three other deputies that also didn’t go in? What about the FBI who failed to follow up on threats on social media? What about the DHS who knew about this childs propensity for cutting himself? What about the foster parents who knew he amassed a large collection of guns? What about the fact that the police had been contacted over 39 times for altercations with that young man? What about the fact that he shot others people animals and did nothing?


    Boycotting a brand because they support the NRA doesn’t do a damn thing to address or answer any of these questions I have asked. It’s a politically motivated publicity stunt designed to make ppl feel good about something and takes advantage of gullible people.

    Recommended Thumb up 20

    • Paul Cone February 23, 2018 at 5:59 pm

      A coward who didn’t have equal firepower because hey, school cops don’t carry AR-15s. At least not yet.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

    • q February 23, 2018 at 6:44 pm

      Yes, all those need to be addressed. Any one of those many things handled better could have stopped this shooting.

      On the other hand, despite all those dozens of opportunities to prevent this–including the presence of an armed professional at the school–it still happened. Gun regulations are one more tool that can come into play when other safeguards fail.

      It’s not a weird concept. With streets, you could say there’s no real reason infrastructure should be designed to provide safeguards against drunk drivers, brake failures, dirty windshields, or any of dozens of other reasons people get hurt, because all of those can be prevented very easily before anyone turns on an engine. But we know we’ll never achieve perfection in those areas, so we provide guardrails and all kinds of other expensive road design components to kick in when all the previous steps fail.

      Same with buildings. There should almost NEVER be a reason for a fire sprinkler system to kick in, because fires are started due to other factors that can always be easily prevented–maintaining the electrical system, not smoking in bed, etc. Yet we add the (very expensive) fire sprinklers because we know the other safeguards will occasionally fail. In fact, we have not just the sprinklers, but all kinds of other safeguards that are equally redundant and expensive–multiple exits, monitored alarms, fire-resistive construction…

      So yes, you can see all the failures leading up to the shooting as failures that never should have happened, and you’d be right. But they’re also proof that failures happen, which is where controlling access to guns (not banning all guns at all) comes in.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Chris I February 24, 2018 at 8:40 am

      So, if we arm teachers (the only logical solution, right?) and a 30 year-old female math teacher chooses not to come charging out of her 6th grade class to confront a trained shooter with an assault rifle, are you going to call her a coward as well?

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • I wear many hats February 23, 2018 at 5:16 pm

    I’m stoked to see Sellwood Cycles lead the charge!

    Recommended Thumb up 11

  • rachel b February 23, 2018 at 5:23 pm

    Adore Erik and Sellwood Cycle. Way to go!

    Recommended Thumb up 7

  • Adam February 23, 2018 at 5:35 pm

    This is all really unfortunate. Giro is an important brand for many dealers. Margins are some of the strongest and best defended in the industry. Meanwhile, Vista does far more business with shooting brands, so they would not part ways with NRA if the Bell/Giro boycott were 100%. Doesn’t really seem worth dragging a potential wedge issue into the shop, IMO. You have to respect Sellwood Cycles doing what they feel is right, however.

    A concerned shop owner might consider the likely efficacy of this boycott vs allocating a portion of profits to midterm campaigns.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

  • dawn February 23, 2018 at 5:41 pm

    Wondering why this conversation only seems focused on Vista Outdoor’s connection to the NRA, since this article says that Vista Outdoors is a leading manufacturer of weapons and ammunition as well. Looking at Vista Outdoors’ website appears to back up this article – many of the brands they own manufacture guns and gun accessories.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Kristina February 23, 2018 at 5:47 pm

    This is such bandwagon nonsense. Cell phones, petroleum products, pharmaceuticals, air fare… you name it. If you have ever spent money on these things, or plan to in the future, you are more than likely supporting death and dismay. Why are guns so bad but conflict minerals get a pass? Boeing probably made the last plane you flew in but you’re cool with their military contracts? Are those issues not cool enough to rally behind?

    Boycott Vista Outdoor to what end? And what if your local shop still carries their stuff? Boycott them too? Again, to what end? What is it really going to accomplish. It might put a small local shop out of business… Is that a “win” in your book? It isn’t in mine.

    But maybe I’m just another “gun nut” so my thoughts are easily dismissed by anti-gun folks. News flash though: there are a lot more cyclists that are also gun owners than one might think (and I bet most of us will still spend our money at our favorite shops without worrying about their political views).

    Recommended Thumb up 39

  • Rob Chapman February 23, 2018 at 5:58 pm

    Was the Cruz kid an NRA member? Smoke and mirrors.

    Recommended Thumb up 6

  • mark smith February 23, 2018 at 6:51 pm

    Yelling at the the wind. There are real issues…bike shops. This isn’t one of them.

    Recommended Thumb up 26

  • Rob Chapman February 23, 2018 at 7:51 pm

    I don’t know enough about women’s reproductive issues, it doesn’t mean I can’t have an opinion about them.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Jim Lee February 23, 2018 at 8:14 pm

    These comments demonstrate why it is not a good idea to conflate separate issues.

    Recommended Thumb up 5

  • bikerider1 February 23, 2018 at 9:08 pm

    Why make it the issue for the bike shops, (many who are struggling to stay a float)…Maybe we the customers should vote w/ our dollars. Just don’t buy the products that Vista owns, then the shops would be more likely to stop carrying said products. Seems unfair to ask our local shops to make tough profitable decisions w/ how hard the retail world is already. The onus is on us the consumer. Support your shop, and buy the products you believe in. In time the shops will stop carrying the products that don’t sell. win-win.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

  • John Nurse-Mayes February 23, 2018 at 10:28 pm

    I was just shopping for a new helmet and shoes … I will be now looking at some different brands being Giro was where my money was going again after years of wearing their products.

    I am glad to be able to support our local bike shops who have the same beliefs as my family and I. Power to the people and our pocket books. There is more power there than our vote I am feeling lately.

    Keep the rubber side down by cycling possi

    John Nurse-Mayes
    Tile and Design By-Cycle LLC

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Hazel Gross February 23, 2018 at 11:22 pm

    Seems like Rapha somehow got missed in all this. They got bought by the owners of Walmart last year. Walmart sells guns and sponsors NRA events.

    Recommended Thumb up 15

  • Josh February 23, 2018 at 11:30 pm

    I agree with Kristina’s “bandwagon nonsense”- This is a publicity stunt to get some attention of the liberal Portland bike crowd and it’s a load of crap. If people really were upset about the lives that may be damaged by the products they buy, then they should stop buying anything made in China, Indonesia, Taiwan, etc, etc. The child labor that is used to make those awesome jerseys, or those great tires, are FAR more damaging than a company that makes guns. Every innocent life that is lost is a tragedy, but life has always been so. It almost impossible to buy anything that has been made by people who weren’t oppressed, and by companies that are egalitarian. So take your sanctimonious “I won’t buy your product, so there” to the local farmers market, and never shop in a grocery store, department store, or big box store again.

    Recommended Thumb up 23

  • David Branscome February 24, 2018 at 12:01 am

    I am a bicyclist. I’m much more concerned about having my bicycle stolen or being killed by a motorist who is drunk or texting. People who hit and kill cyclists get away with murder.

    Recommended Thumb up 9

  • Jim February 24, 2018 at 2:27 am

    Let’s start a boycott on AAA, since they support automobiles, and automobiles kill bicyclists

    Recommended Thumb up 8

    • Chris I February 24, 2018 at 8:42 am

      Many cyclists already do.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty February 24, 2018 at 12:20 pm

      If AAA advocated for polices as extreme as the NRA does, I would support you. Generally, however, they take reasonable positions.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Tim February 24, 2018 at 5:55 am

    Just a thought…. Last time I checked Bell bike products were fairly inexpensive, and people below the poverty level don’t have a lot to spend on bike stuff. So the poor will have to pay more for other brands (or just stop riding), because a shop chooses to not stock what they can afford?

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Dan A February 24, 2018 at 8:25 am

      The stores that stock Bell bike products (other than helmets) are department stores like Target, Walmart and Fred Meyer. Walmart is definitely not going to take a stand against the NRA.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • antianti February 24, 2018 at 11:13 pm

        Bell sports have a wide product range. Yes they do market low end items at the department store level. Did you know that if you are cycle touring around the country, you can get decent folding tires in three different diameters at the average Walmart? Makes it easy to leave spares at home. Not everything on the books for sale at Walmart sucks anymore. Just saying…

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Rivelo
    Rivelo February 24, 2018 at 5:58 am

    We don’t stock any stuff from Vista Outdoor –although after vowing to wear a helmet more often–I bought a Giro “Sutton” helmet a few months ago from another bike shop.

    Yesterday, I read that our alarm company (SimpliSafe) was an NRA contributor. News to me!

    By the end of afternoon, they had dropped their association/support.

    Recommended Thumb up 8

  • Old fart my a$$ February 24, 2018 at 8:29 am

    I ride my bike to get away from all of the political crap everywhere its to bad the LBS are going to cut their profits over what corp. america is doing. The tragedy last week has got people talking about changes for the better no need to cut your own throat.

    Recommended Thumb up 6

  • Steve Scarich February 24, 2018 at 9:28 am

    I, personally, would not shop at any bike shop that joined this boycott. Am I a gun owner? No, never have been. Am I horrified at the senseless killing by criminals using guns? Yes. Do I think the NRA is responsible? No way. They are an advocacy organization for a legal product. The reaction of blaming the NRA for these deaths is Political Correctness gone amuck. What’s next, boycotting a food company because incorrect usage of its products causes obesity? I could go on, but you get the point.

    Recommended Thumb up 11

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty February 24, 2018 at 12:09 pm

      The NRA is not at fault (are people saying it is?). But they do support policies that make events like this more possible.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • GlowBoy February 25, 2018 at 10:06 pm

        Just like the Tobacco Institute wasn’t responsible for millions of smoking related deaths?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • bendite February 25, 2018 at 12:56 pm

      I have no problem saying the NRA shares responsibility. They exerted enough influence over the last 40 or so years to manipulate the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to mean the individual rather than the militia. They bought Congress which then dictated Supreme Court nominations to be “2nd amendment supporters”, i.e. unfettered gun access for the individual. This has led to a proliferation of guns and easy access. Having lots of guns around means greater gun homicide rates and gun death rates.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Jason February 25, 2018 at 7:11 pm

      Well said Steve!!!

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • GlowBoy February 25, 2018 at 10:08 pm

      Not analogous. Most people killed by food made the choice to eat what they ate. Most people killed by guns didn’t buy the product.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Richard Sachs February 24, 2018 at 12:34 pm

    Jonathan – Thank you for this post. I have been looking for a decent discussion regarding this week’s news story and these brands. Many of the comments here are helpful too. And I trust Eric Tonkin’s discretion regarding the path he’s taking. I am weighing up options here this weekend.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

  • q February 24, 2018 at 12:38 pm

    When laws proposing restrictions on texting while driving were being considered recently, I’m pleased that nobody argued that those laws were an attack on First Amendment rights.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Softrocker February 24, 2018 at 1:11 pm

    Knives are less efficient at killing people… but crazy people still try:

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • bikeninja February 24, 2018 at 1:41 pm

    If the NRA wasn’t bad enough already they are also against Net Neutrality. They recently gave their ” Charlton Heston Award” to the new head of the FCC who battled the odds to repeal Net Neutrality ( still being fought over in the courts) . So there is more than one reason to support a boycott of any company that openly supports the NRA.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

  • Gene James February 24, 2018 at 6:27 pm

    I don’t know the answer to this problem. I do know that I’m against people owning assault weapons. I do know that from the 1920’s through the 1970’s it was far easier to buy a weapon. I do know that during this period, school shootings were unheard of.
    Maybe society should look in the mirror and realize that the way they’re raising the next generation is completely wrong. Nobody wants to address the issue of how parents are raising children who are not equipped to live in a peaceful society

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • GlowBoy February 25, 2018 at 10:02 pm

      Being a parent in today’s violence-ridden American society is difficult enough without the constant parent-shaming we have to deal with on every possible topic. You want kids raised right? Have some of your own and raise them the way you see fit.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • T. C. Wahl February 25, 2018 at 6:45 am

    I find it funny that the citizens of Portland forget that the other 3/4’s of the states citizens are hunters and shooting enthusiasts that feed their families and provide deer and elk hides for the Native artisans to work with. Portland’s social justice warrior class needs to remember that they are just a tiny drop in an otherwise heavily outdoors, shooting sports and hunting culture.

    Yeah, I know, when you live in a big city and don’t provide for yourself off the land all you have to worry about is who might be selling what to whom and what their affiliation may or not be to the NRA or other 2nd Amendment rights organizations…

    Bully for you folks, everyone else in this state however has a life to tend to including riding their bikes regardless of who makes our gear and who owns the company.

    Recommended Thumb up 10

    • bendite February 25, 2018 at 12:51 pm

      3/4’s of the state population hunts? I don’t know about that. The majority of the population lives between PDX and Eugene. While the rural folks might resent the Oregon urban folks, the narrative that those rural people function independently from the west side is worn out and inaccurate. There dependent on the state’s laws and urban consumption as much as anyone else. I think of this every time I see the water diverters on the Deschutes here in town, taking the water out east.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Dan A February 25, 2018 at 7:52 pm

      The NRA should support responsible use of limited-capacity hunting weapons, or smaller arms for self defense. The problem is that the NRA has grown too big for its britches, and also supports gun show loopholes, gun freedoms for the mentally ill, sales of AR-15s and other similar guns designed for efficient human slaughter, and even the ending of net neutrality. Can we be for the 2nd amendment but against the NRA? I know I am.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • GlowBoy February 25, 2018 at 9:58 pm

      And our efforts to stop the NRA’s stranglehold on gun laws poses absolutely no threat to your ability to hunt, or shoot reasonable arms recreationally, or provide for your families off your land.

      Also, to dismiss city dwellers as out of touch or having invalid opinions simply for “not knowing enough” about guns is insulting, and not even a compelling argument, although such tactics are commonplace by those opposed to the views of the nation’s urban/suburban majority.

      Personally, I come from a family with many gun-owning hunters. Last Thanksgiving we enjoyed venison that was not purchased at a store. I even have family members who sometimes don’t show up for thanksgiving because it’s prime hunting season. Yet none of my family members is or ever has been a member – or even a supporter of the NRA. Universally we condemn their disingenuous tactics and support stronger common sense gun laws. I’ve seen relatives spit out the NRA’s name in disgust at what they do in the name of hunters and other reasonable gun owners.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • pruss February 25, 2018 at 7:47 am

    hate to be “that guy”…but this is a seriously sexist. in a fight/flight situation, what do you think is holding her back? that she’s going to be too busy doing “math stuff”…or that she’s a she?

    agree that the idea that arming teachers paints incredibly absurd images…but the intent isn’t to create a mini-military force…its to give the teachers a defensive option..and to potentially dissuade people from attacking the school in the first place.

    The real question we should be asking, and i’ll admit the answer could go either way, is whether or not a teacher in a mass school shooting scenario would want access to a defensive option. If your poor frail 30y old female math-lete has trained with guns, my guess is she would answer “yes”.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • pengo February 25, 2018 at 8:47 pm

      A few more basic questions we should be asking:

      Given the notorious difficulty of prosecuting police in the aftermath of a shooting are we effectively immunizing from consequence a teacher who might ‘feel threatened’ and kill an innocent student or do you think there’s no way this could happen in the first place?

      Do we really think that this will be considered a defensive option or will armed teachers be vilified and/or subject to discipline if they choose to shelter in place with students?

      Will weapons be kept under lock & key, separate from ammunition or will they be kept loaded in a location relatively more accessible to students?

      How many visibly armed people in civilian clothes do we want wandering around the scene of an active shooter situation when the SWAT team shows up?

      How would arming teachers be any kind of deterrent to a shooter who expects and wants to die anyhow?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • David Ransom February 25, 2018 at 8:19 am

    Will the shops ensure their business has no connection to the ACLU, also? If you are going to take a position, make sure it’s inclusive.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty February 25, 2018 at 3:16 pm

      Why would that be relevant?

      Recommended Thumb up 1

    • GlowBoy February 25, 2018 at 10:04 pm

      Why should they do that, and how would it be “inclusive”?

      Recommended Thumb up 3

  • V.O. Marx February 25, 2018 at 12:57 pm

    >”One thing I have to consider is that Bell-Giro is our #1 most profitable brand, percentage wise. If we drop them, our sales will drop and profits will drop. It is likely that we would have to lay someone off or otherwise cut payroll. How would that person feel about my decision?”

    If I didn’t shill unethical products at a huge markup, I could never afford to pay others less than I make to sell them for me! If I was a good guy I’d have to fire them, you see.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • V.O. Marx February 25, 2018 at 1:00 pm

    Watching performatively woke small business tyrants struggle to preemptively justify their future losses and at-will firings feels as exhausting as it looks

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Amy February 26, 2018 at 6:43 am

    Anyone can recommend another brand beside those manufactured by Vista? I’m not going to change the minds of anyone who already has an opinion on this topic. I personally would like to support other brands. And if a bike shop wants to carry or not carry Vista brands that is up to them. I would still go there I just wouldn’t buy those products.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Dave February 26, 2018 at 7:41 am

      Lazer helmets–a branch of Shimano/Pearl Izumi.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Axess Denyd February 26, 2018 at 6:57 am

    How about this:

    I’ll stop supporting any bike shop that takes part in this “boycott” and I’ll just buy online.

    We’ll see who goes out of business first.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dave February 26, 2018 at 7:40 am

    True–50 years ago, the NRA was about hunting safety and helping kids in Scouting get their shooting-related merit badges. They hadn’t become industry pimps/a terrorist organization back then.

    Hello, Kitty
    I’ll bet your view on gun ownership is not the polar opposite of mine. You don’t need to be in favor of a repeal on guns to see that the NRA has become a lobbying organization for the gun industry, and pursues an agenda that is at odds with the good of the country. I do not support banning guns, but I do support those who choose not to provide indirect financial support to the NRA.If you support the NRA and their tactics and positions, sending them just $5 would more than offset buying a non-Gyro brand helmet from your local shop.Recommended 6

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • joel domries February 26, 2018 at 8:11 am

    this may sound crazy-

    what about boycotting the logistics companies that move ammunition and guns.

    many bike frames will probably ship right next to guns on the truck? ive seen ammunition on my trucks more than a few times. everything moves by frieght in this world. but cutting the logistics people off would be …. hard?

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • joel domries February 26, 2018 at 8:33 am

    ok- another thought.

    do we really need guns at all?

    as they say the genie is already out of the bottle in the usa, but.. There are some countries where people only check out guns for hunting…. and they are doing fine. some countries only allow guns for police (and the first bullet is a blank) in case they accidentally fire. some countries require police to have the gun attached to thier outfit by a cord so it cant get taken.

    guns are designed to make killing things easy.

    allowing everyone over a certain age to have a gun- i think is not awesome.

    why should i own a gun intended to kill other people. should we kill people if we feel threatened. should i use a gun emotionally………

    i wish i could say that businesses werew not politically motivated- but i know that i am a person motivated for y business to support certain things and lifestyle choices…

    great- article.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • SD February 26, 2018 at 9:27 am

    “Come to argue about guns… stay to argue about bikes.” : )

    btw- Thanks Erik Tonkin and all my other favorite LBSs in this story.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Jeff Menown February 26, 2018 at 2:12 pm

    You might be a hypocrite if – you’re calling for the boycott of companies owned by Vista, but you still use Fed Ex for your shipping needs….. just a thought.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Dan A February 27, 2018 at 6:36 am

      I guess everyone has a different version of what being a hypocrite means. I keep hearing this word used in discussing this boycott, but I don’t think ‘hypocrite’ means ‘someone who takes a moral action sometimes but not 100% of the time’.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • q February 27, 2018 at 10:10 am

      In the same way that people who give money to the animal shelter must not care about the children with cancer?

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Sophie Ballo February 26, 2018 at 3:32 pm

    I have to take issue with the implication that this information was hidden from public view until recently “revealed.” There were multiple press releases when the sale went through in 2016, including one in Bicycle Retailer and Industry News, and yet no consumers or bike shops had a problem with it at that time, nor did they during the shootings that have happened between then and now. Why, all of a sudden, is everyone acting like this fact was hidden in a malevolent or misleading way by Bell, Giro, etc? A boy-cot for those brands does imperceptible damage to Vista’s bottom line given their overall % of company earnings, or to harm the NRA, but it will harm a lot of good bike industry folks.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty February 26, 2018 at 4:18 pm

      Why wasn’t mainstream America talking about police violence towards black people until George Zimmerman walked free? Sometimes an idea needs the right moment to catch on. Maybe this is it for gun violence and the NRA.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • antianti February 26, 2018 at 6:20 pm

        Uh, I think Huey Newton and Eldridge Cleaver would scratch their heads on this. So would Walter Cronkite, my dead grandparents, my mom and dad, and lastly me. I remember this topic in the sixties.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Hello, Kitty
          Hello, Kitty February 26, 2018 at 8:22 pm

          I’m not saying no one mentioned the issue, but surely it wasn’t part of the national conversation the way it is now.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Robert Chapman February 26, 2018 at 6:35 pm

        Zimmerman wasn’t a cop.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

        • Hello, Kitty
          Hello, Kitty February 26, 2018 at 8:20 pm

          Indeed, he wasn’t. Yet he was the trigger for the BLM movement.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

    • q February 26, 2018 at 4:31 pm

      Is anyone really acting like “this fact was hidden in a malevolent or misleading way”? I think the more likely explanation is people just didn’t notice, or maybe some did but the whole NRA issue wasn’t in the forefront of public awareness then.

      And I think the value of the boycott isn’t necessarily in harming Vista’s bottom line, but rather it’s the cumulative effect of many similar boycotts leading to many companies (especially much larger, more visible ones) cutting ties with the NRA, and all of it being in the news. I’d guess many large companies right now are at least reconsidering their relationships with the NRA, and many others will be convinced not to enter into new ones with the NRA.

      Some bike industry folks will get hurt (and I admire bike shops who support the boycott despite potential risks to their own businesses). On the other hand, people aren’t going to stop buying helmets (as an example), they just may buy helmets from other companies. It’s unfortunate if say, Bell employees get hurt in the process. On the other hand, nobody forced Bell to sell itself to Vista, and nobody forced Vista to support the NRA. Boycotters are the messengers, not the primary cause of consequences to bike industry people.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Sophie Ballo February 26, 2018 at 4:56 pm

        Bell used to be owned by a corporation called BRG, which in turn used to be Easton. Piece by piece, these companies have been bought/sold/traded, and the individual brands have zero say in the matter. To say “nobody forced Bell to sell itself to Vista” isn’t true – there were people who DID “force” Bell, Giro, and other brands to “sell themselves” to Vista. Nobody who actually works at those companies day-to-day in the office have control over those decisions.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

        • Richard Sachs February 26, 2018 at 5:02 pm

          Do the people there – you, or others – have a POV regarding this news story? Can you speak about it? Tell folks what you think without fear of retribution? I’m not trying to be snarky or divisive. I really want to know what folks in the trenches at these bicycle brands feel about the parent company.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Sophie Ballo February 26, 2018 at 7:07 pm

            I can’t speak for everyone in the building. But speaking only for myself, as someone who recently worked there, I know that it was very difficult for me to speak out in any way, not necessarily because I was afraid (though I’m sure if I spoke out I wouldn’t have been given a pat on the back), but because the Bay Area is a place where you can’t really rock the boat given how difficult it is to live there outside of tech. I can’t deny that it was a huge struggle of conscience at times to work there knowing who owned us, but there were also few alternatives in the Santa Cruz area that wouldn’t have totally upended my life if I had decided to look elsewhere, bike industry or otherwise. And that’s coming from someone who has no kids or other obligations. And more importantly, I loved the products we made and the people I worked with.

            It begs to be said that the volatility and extreme high cost of the Bay Area makes it even more necessary for those with solid jobs AND financial obligations to keep their positions whatever it takes. Maybe if Bell or Giro were in a location with easier living costs, things would be different – but people there need those jobs to pay rent or mortgages or college or even just basic needs. It’s hard to take a risk or a stand when there’s others who depend on you that you need to think of as well.

            Recommended Thumb up 5

            • Hello, Kitty
              Hello, Kitty February 26, 2018 at 8:35 pm

              The reality is that working in a place that, you have only two choices — accept it or leave. You don’t really have any options for changing the ownership structure at a holding company that owns your employer. Speaking out in that situation is always a losing move.

              Recommended Thumb up 2

        • q February 26, 2018 at 5:29 pm

          OK, then nobody forced Bell to sell itself to Easton, which apparently started the whole chain…The point is that at some point, Bell controlled its destiny, and the owners sold their right to control the company’s destiny. So I agree, today people who actually work in those companies may have no control over the decision by the parent company to support the NRA, and it IS sad if some of them get laid off or face other negative consequences from that. But it remains true that the blame for that doesn’t lie with boycotters. It lies with the parent company’s owners who chose to align itself (and thus Bell and all the smaller companies it owns) with one of the country’s most controversial organizations.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

  • SD February 27, 2018 at 10:21 am

    When I have had ethical differences with my employers from time to time, I have greatly appreciated it when outside pressure is put on the organization to change.
    Of course, I can’t speak for employees of these companies, but I could imagine that some of them might be happy that their work may eventually be more aligned with their personal values.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • PewPew February 27, 2018 at 1:01 pm

    Just purchased a helmet on Amazon rather than Sellwood. Screw your politics, lets ride!

    Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Dan A February 27, 2018 at 1:30 pm

      [he said, right after a politically-motivated purchase]

      Recommended Thumb up 7

  • Lonerider February 28, 2018 at 5:56 pm

    As an avid cyclist for over 20 years I am so disappointed to see a generally free-thinking segment of the population (cyclists) mindlessly jumping on a political bandwagon. Going along with anti-gun hysteria takes no particular courage, guts, or intellectual activity.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Dan A February 28, 2018 at 8:21 pm

      Tell us more about our minds. I already forgot what you said.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty February 28, 2018 at 11:38 pm

      What I’ve seen expressed here is mostly anti-NRA; it is quite possible to support gun rights while opposing the NRA’s extreme positions and tactics. Our national leaders show very little courage, guts, or intellectual activity when it comes to this issue, which may be why these tragedies keep happening.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Paul Yale February 28, 2018 at 9:26 pm

    I hope everyone who is taking the NRA to task will be equally zealous in taking Apple to task, since irresponsible use of the iPhone has caused a great number of the huge increase in traffic fatalities in the past few years. USA traffic and highway deaths rose to 41k in 2017, a 10-year high. The government notes that cell phone distraction played a significant role in the increased fatalities…and a lot of the dead were bicyclists. If the NRA is culpable for the shooting deaths at Parkland, then by the same reasoning Apple is culpable for deaths caused by misuse of their product, the iPhone.. perhaps even more so.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • q March 1, 2018 at 8:39 pm

      If Apple stops making phones, and instead becomes an organization that fights all attempts at regulating phone use while driving, then you might have a point. And you’ll have an even better point if Apple argues that any attempt at restricting phone use by drivers is an attack on First Amendment rights to free speech. And a yet better point if Apple argues that restrictions on texting while driving are the first step towards the government taking away all our phones.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty March 1, 2018 at 8:46 pm

      I, for one, own as many Apple products as NRA products.

      Recommended Thumb up 0