Organizer postpones Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show

[beevul]

Source: wgal news 8

HARRISBURG, Pa. —The company organizing the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show has postponed the event due to the controversy surrounding its decision to limit the sale or display of modern sporting rifles at the event, according to a statement posted on the show's website

The show had been scheduled for Feb. 2-10 at the Farm Show Complex in Harrisburg

Dozens of vendors had canceled plans to participate in the show. Vendors will be refunded, according to an email company officials sent to them.

"It has become very clear to us after speaking with our customers that the event could not be held because the atmosphere of this year’s show would not be conducive to an event that is designed to provide family enjoyment. It is unfortunate that in the current emotionally charged atmosphere this celebratory event has become overshadowed by a decision that directly affected a small percentage of more than 1,000 exhibits showcasing products and services for those interested in hunting and fishing.


Read more: http://www.wgal.com/news/susquehanna-valley/dauphin/Organizer-postpones-Eastern-Sports-and-Outdoor-Show/-/9704162/18262818/-/58a957z/-/index.html

[ErikJ]

1. Somebody with a conscience over greed

[jberryhill]

7. His main sponsors had pulled out

Greed won, in this instance.

[frylock]

2. gun humpers are going to turn out to be their own worst enemies..

I feel bad for the legitimate sportsmen and women that will miss out, as well as some vendors, because the humpers got their nuts all twisted up when they couldn't get their fix of black gun porn.

[2naSalit]

3. I see it as

another TP tactic, if we can't have our way, you can't have anything until we get our way.

[AlecBGreen]

4. dangit

this is a great show, loads of fun. there is so much here for all outdoor enthusiasts. it is by no means a 'gun' show for those who have never been.

[badhair77]

5. This is a shame - it was a fun show.

We loved seeing the campers and boats and all the outdoor equipment.

The local TV news just reported there will be an 80 million dollar impact on the central PA area. That would include the hotel and restaurant employees, gas stations, etc - all people who had nothing to do with guns. My complaint is the pro-boycott people were so wrapped up in their outage that some guns were banned that they cannot see others' rights.

Jamie Gray, the Olympic gold medalist in shooting, dropped out. "My decision is due to what I feel would be an inability as an Olympic athlete to represent my sport, industry and USA Shooting teammates in the best possible manner given the political climate that will be present as a result of the decisions that have been made." One wonders how much the gun industry strong-armed vendors and participants, especially since she mentioned "my industry." She noted that there were lots of nasty comments on her facebook page till she dropped out.

Another vendor that was boycotting was Comcast. Interesting.

[frylock]

6. bank it that the loss of revenue will be blamed on king gungrabber the magnifcent

[badhair77]

8. oh frylock, you are wise

The commenters online are already blaming everything on Obama, including stuff that happened before he was born. He's a powerful guy.

[frylock]

9. according to the baggers, he is both the most inept..

and most powerful being in the multiverse!

[Demo_Chris]

10. This event organizer is an idiot

I don't care if it's a gun show or a clown convention, the many vendors who attend these events gamble a great deal of money to do an event like this. The event coordinator's job is to put on the show, advertise, keep it clean, provide security and and entertainment and enough bathrooms, and don't screw up anything you did right in the past.

At a big show like this the vendors might well be paying thousands of dollars per space, many have booked hotels, it's a massive expense. And for many it's a make or break thing. They have so much money tied up that if it goes bad they're out of business. Especially in this economic climate.

And for those saying "Who cares!" remember that most of these vendors have nothing at all to do with guns. They are there selling everything from fishing lures to cotton candy. I do this for a living and there is nothing I hate more than an event coordinator getting creative.

[ErikJ]

11. Too hot to handle now-lots of hot-headed NRA gunnuts out there

especially at gun shows. Who knows what could happen?

[NickB79]

12. Stores like Cabela's won this fight

Cabela's, one of their largest supporters, pulled out because they wouldn't be allowed to sell assault rifles there. Shortly thereafter, the show is cancelled.

Next year, there is no way the show operators will snub them again with tightened standards for what can and cannot be sold and displayed.

It's all about the money.

[xoom]

14. Exactly..

Their nut supporters will only support them more now...

[Javaman]

13. It's a win-win to me...

No sponcers, no show.

[hack89]

15. One show sacrificed to teach a lesson to all the other show promoters

I can guarantee you this will be the last time any show promoter will venture into the political and cultural mine field of gun control. They just want to make money.

[Paladin]

16. You're Familiar With The Term "Pyrrhic Victory" Aren't You?

The assault rifle crowd's causing this show to be postponed and probably canceled is just that: a Pyrrhic Victory. The show's organizers undoubtedly wanted to make some money from it, but they look like saints as a result of what's happened, and the gun extremists look like a bunch of street thugs by comparison. This incident wouldn't have been noticed by the general public a few weeks ago, but now it's national news. It all adds up over time.

[Crepuscular]

17. Saints?

The organizers look like saints? Hardly. They look like extremely poor businessmen who completely misread the potential fallout resulting from taking a public stance on a political issue. Their decision will likely cost them millions in lost revenue in the future, since they will probably lose a number of future shows in the US over this blunder, including the SHOT show, which is the largest firearms show in the country, which they had previously been the host for.

From a tactical standpoint in the gun debate, this does nothing but strengthen the hand of the NRA, which was one of the major show sponsors who pulled out in protest. My guess is that it will result in tens of thousands of new members for that organization. I kind of doubt they are viewing this as a Pyrrhic victory.

[hack89]

18. I doubt it will have a lasting impact.

next year the show will go on like it has for years. As for Reed Exhibitions, to you they look like saints. To many they look like clueless foreigners. Your mistake is assuming your view is truly a consensus view.

[friendly_iconoclast]

19. Remember, we are dealing with a false consensus about the subject of guns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False-consensus_effect

In psychology, the false-consensus effect or false-consensus bias is a cognitive bias whereby a person tends to overestimate how much other people agree with him or her. There is a tendency for people to assume that their own opinions, beliefs, preferences, values and habits are 'normal' and that others also think the same way that they do.[1] This cognitive bias tends to lead to the perception of a consensus that does not exist, a 'false consensus'. This false consensus is significant because it increases self-esteem. The need to be "normal" and fit in with other people is underlined by a desire to conform and be liked by others in a social environment...

...The false-consensus effect is not necessarily restricted to cases where people believe that their values are shared by the majority. The false-consensus effect is also evidenced when people overestimate the extent of their particular belief is correlated with the belief of others. Thus, fundamentalists do not necessarily believe that the majority of people share their views, but their estimates of the number of people who share their point of view will tend to exceed the actual number.

This bias is especially prevalent in group settings where one thinks the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population. Since the members of a group reach a consensus and rarely encounter those who dispute it, they tend to believe that everybody thinks the same way.

Additionally, when confronted with evidence that a consensus does not exist, people often assume that those who do not agree with them are defective in some way.[2] There is no single cause for this cognitive bias; the availability heuristic, self-serving bias and naïve realism have been suggested as at least partial underlying factors.

About the bolded sentence in the excerpt above- note the reaction from certain people on threads like these

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172106236

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172106162

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172105918


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002210317790049X

The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes

Lee Ross, David Greene, Pamela House

Stanford University USA

Abstract

Evidence from four studies demonstrates that social observers tend to perceive a “false consensus” with respect to the relative commonness of their own responses. A related bias was shown to exist in the observers' social inferences. Thus, raters estimated particular responses to be relatively common and relatively unrevealing concerning the actors' distinguishing personal dispositions when the responses in question were similar to the raters' own responses; responses differing from those of the rater, by contrast, were perceived to be relatively uncommon and revealing of the actor. These results were obtained both in questionnaire studies presenting subjects with hypothetical situations and choices and in authentic conflict situations. The implications of these findings for our understanding of social perception phenomena and for our analysis of the divergent perceptions of actors and observers are discussed. Finally, cognitive and perceptual mechanisms are proposed which might account for distortions in perceived consensus and for corresponding biases in social inference and attributional processes.