Nikon virtue signalling

I've used Nikon cameras for over thirty years and am currently considering a new camera purchase. For the time being I'm holding off to see what Nikon brings to the mirrorless market later in the year.

But then I read over on Nikon Rumors that Nikon have decided to withdraw from this years National Rifle Association event.

On of the top commenters on Nikon Rumors writes:

I agree, however there are many of us who would like an explanation of why they choose this stance. I have invested some 50k plus in Nikon camera equipment and believe in the company. I also invest in the NRA to the sum of about 100 bucks a year. Clearly Nikon gets much more of my money than the NRA. If it's due to political correctness in order to some how think that we can destroy the NRA then Nikon is no better than a terrorist group that seeks to silence. The NRA does so much for the good of the people we will never hear about

When Delta Airlines cancelled a discount scheme for NRA members (that had only ever been used 13 times!) the airline's home state of Georgia retaliated by cutting a tax break worth $40 million to Delta.

I wonder who on earth made this decision. Was it Nikon in Japan? Nikon's top management in the US or some virtue signalling fool lower down in the hierarchy?

The Second Amendment is supported by a majority of Americans and I'd guess that the kind of folk who buy expensive camera equipment are likely to fall into that group. Nikon, like Canon, are falling behind in the new mirrorless camera world. Pissing off your customers is not exactly a winning strategy.