Who's to say it wouldn't be 15% or more if they sold assault rifles? This proves zero correlation
Whoosh! You missed the point. Go back and read the tweet again.
I guess when you're in a hurry to be captain contrarian you miss the details.
It is a pretty dumb tweet to be honest. NRA lovers? Yes I am sure some people said that but no one in their right mind thought dick s would go out of business. The sale “Assault weapons” I assume were not a huge part of their business.
Agree. I am willing to bet it was a calculated move and they looked into how much revenue they get from assault rifles, and when they realized it was very little they thought that making a big deal about not selling them would help business even more with a lot of free advertisement from this. I doubt it had much to do with not selling assault rifles. Get a gun store who has the majority of sales from guns to not sell these would be a bigger statement.
Because it’s really all about making a “statement?” Didn’t Colt firearms recently go out of business? Or was it Remington? Any tariffs on those manufacturing businesses yet?
My point was that I doubt this move by Dicks was probably not about not selling assault rifles, but more about publicity and whats better for business. Don't know about Colt, but Remington filed for bankruptcy, but i still in business.
Couldn’t it also be as likely as to be about not wanting to be associated with the potential next mass killing and thus, being part of the solution rather than part of the problem?
Absolutely it could be. Its just my opinion that it was a calculated move. I don't know the CEO of the company and don't have any reason to believe one way or another, but just knowing that CEOs and big companies are usually in it to make money (how else to you explain a hospital charging $22 for a single pill of ibuprofen?) so its my guess they thought the publicity would outweigh the sales loss.
Seems to me they’re more interested in being part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Their full statement is at the end of the article and they were already associated with a mass killing.
And the left says the right has issues with critical thinking lol
14% bump proves bupkus... I'm a fan of them not selling the weapons... but a stock going up doesnt prove the point the tweet thinks it was making. If they sold guns maybe the stock would have gone up 15%, who knows?
Who's to say it wouldn't be 15% or more if they sold assault rifles? This proves zero correlation
Whoosh! You missed the point. Go back and read the tweet again.
I guess when you're in a hurry to be captain contrarian you miss the details.
It is a pretty dumb tweet to be honest. NRA lovers? Yes I am sure some people said that but no one in their right mind thought dick s would go out of business. The sale “Assault weapons” I assume were not a huge part of their business.
Agree. I am willing to bet it was a calculated move and they looked into how much revenue they get from assault rifles, and when they realized it was very little they thought that making a big deal about not selling them would help business even more with a lot of free advertisement from this. I doubt it had much to do with not selling assault rifles. Get a gun store who has the majority of sales from guns to not sell these would be a bigger statement.
Because it’s really all about making a “statement?” Didn’t Colt firearms recently go out of business? Or was it Remington? Any tariffs on those manufacturing businesses yet?
My point was that I doubt this move by Dicks was probably not about not selling assault rifles, but more about publicity and whats better for business. Don't know about Colt, but Remington filed for bankruptcy, but i still in business.
Couldn’t it also be as likely as to be about not wanting to be associated with the potential next mass killing and thus, being part of the solution rather than part of the problem?
Absolutely it could be. Its just my opinion that it was a calculated move. I don't know the CEO of the company and don't have any reason to believe one way or another, but just knowing that CEOs and big companies are usually in it to make money (how else to you explain a hospital charging $22 for a single pill of ibuprofen?) so its my guess they thought the publicity would outweigh the sales loss.
Seems to me they’re more interested in being part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Their full statement is at the end of the article and they were already associated with a mass killing.
I hope they really feel that way. But you don;t think they have anything to gain from some of their proposals like banning private sales? I don't know their true motives, but its clear they got a lot of publicity by doing so.
Who's to say it wouldn't be 15% or more if they sold assault rifles? This proves zero correlation
Whoosh! You missed the point. Go back and read the tweet again.
I guess when you're in a hurry to be captain contrarian you miss the details.
I didn't miss the point at all, you did actually...
The point of the tweet is simple, gun supporters thought dicks would lose business when they stopped selling certain kinds of weapons... to prove that theory wrong the tweet says their stock is up 14%... but that proves nothing of the sort
who is to say the stop on sales didnt hurt them and their profits or stock price would have gone up more than the 14% it did? Maybe if they were still selling them their stock would be up 15, 18, 25%?
The stock being up means nothing.
The NRA specifically said "What is becoming increasingly clear, however, is that Dick’s has inserted itself into a tight spot from which it might not emerge unscathed, if it manages to survive at all."
They have not only survived, their stock has risen, so far at least. Now, if the NRA had said "they won't make as much profit as they could have", then maybe that would be true, but that's not what they said. They predicted at the least that Dick's would not "emerge unscathed", and at worst "not survive at all", neither of which appears to be the case.
Haha. I don't know why you bother, captain contrarian has to be trolling at this point right? The point was so damn clear.
By this point, I agree with you.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
It doesnt prove it helped or hurt, because we have no idea what the stock would be at if they continued to sell
It's really not that complicated. Cincy gets the point
Well, as mentioned, the immediate comments when they made this decision is that they'd sputter and die (they may still not make it), but what has so far held true is that their sales didn't continue in a downward trend. Could they have possibly been higher? Sure, but the point being made is that the pro-2A crowd is currently incorrect in their assessment back in May. In a year, who knows, maybe they will be right. So contrary to your dismissive rhetoric, it actually does prove it hasn't caused them to close the doors at this point in time, about 6 months later.
Who's to say it wouldn't be 15% or more if they sold assault rifles? This proves zero correlation
Whoosh! You missed the point. Go back and read the tweet again.
I guess when you're in a hurry to be captain contrarian you miss the details.
I didn't miss the point at all, you did actually...
The point of the tweet is simple, gun supporters thought dicks would lose business when they stopped selling certain kinds of weapons... to prove that theory wrong the tweet says their stock is up 14%... but that proves nothing of the sort
who is to say the stop on sales didnt hurt them and their profits or stock price would have gone up more than the 14% it did? Maybe if they were still selling them their stock would be up 15, 18, 25%?
The stock being up means nothing.
The NRA specifically said "What is becoming increasingly clear, however, is that Dick’s has inserted itself into a tight spot from which it might not emerge unscathed, if it manages to survive at all."
They have not only survived, their stock has risen, so far at least. Now, if the NRA had said "they won't make as much profit as they could have", then maybe that would be true, but that's not what they said. They predicted at the least that Dick's would not "emerge unscathed", and at worst "not survive at all", neither of which appears to be the case.
Haha. I don't know why you bother, captain contrarian has to be trolling at this point right? The point was so damn clear.
By this point, I agree with you.
Wait - so you don't think that in order to prove the effect on Dick's business you'd have to see how Dick's did over that time after the announcement and compare it with it's competitors performance over that time? Cause I think it's a valid point to determine the true effect.
Unless the only point was only that Dick's will still make $ even if they don't sell these guns....then you only need to know how Dick's did. But again, My2hands isn't trying to be contrarian...simply pointing out what anyone that looks at investing in companies does...it's not just how they are doing, but how they are doing compared to their peers.
Who's to say it wouldn't be 15% or more if they sold assault rifles? This proves zero correlation
Whoosh! You missed the point. Go back and read the tweet again.
I guess when you're in a hurry to be captain contrarian you miss the details.
I didn't miss the point at all, you did actually...
The point of the tweet is simple, gun supporters thought dicks would lose business when they stopped selling certain kinds of weapons... to prove that theory wrong the tweet says their stock is up 14%... but that proves nothing of the sort
who is to say the stop on sales didnt hurt them and their profits or stock price would have gone up more than the 14% it did? Maybe if they were still selling them their stock would be up 15, 18, 25%?
The stock being up means nothing.
The NRA specifically said "What is becoming increasingly clear, however, is that Dick’s has inserted itself into a tight spot from which it might not emerge unscathed, if it manages to survive at all."
They have not only survived, their stock has risen, so far at least. Now, if the NRA had said "they won't make as much profit as they could have", then maybe that would be true, but that's not what they said. They predicted at the least that Dick's would not "emerge unscathed", and at worst "not survive at all", neither of which appears to be the case.
Haha. I don't know why you bother, captain contrarian has to be trolling at this point right? The point was so damn clear.
By this point, I agree with you.
Wait - so you don't think that in order to prove the effect on Dick's business you'd have to see how Dick's did over that time after the announcement and compare it with it's competitors performance over that time? Cause I think it's a valid point to determine the true effect.
Unless the only point was only that Dick's will still make $ even if they don't sell these guns....then you only need to know how Dick's did. But again, My2hands isn't trying to be contrarian...simply pointing out what anyone that looks at investing in companies does...it's not just how they are doing, but how they are doing compared to their peers.
My point has been well explained so I don’t see why repeating it would help. Tbergs just states it as well. The NRA made no comment about growth relative to peers, just that they would struggle and likely fail. And they haven’t, to date.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Who's to say it wouldn't be 15% or more if they sold assault rifles? This proves zero correlation
Whoosh! You missed the point. Go back and read the tweet again.
I guess when you're in a hurry to be captain contrarian you miss the details.
I didn't miss the point at all, you did actually...
The point of the tweet is simple, gun supporters thought dicks would lose business when they stopped selling certain kinds of weapons... to prove that theory wrong the tweet says their stock is up 14%... but that proves nothing of the sort
who is to say the stop on sales didnt hurt them and their profits or stock price would have gone up more than the 14% it did? Maybe if they were still selling them their stock would be up 15, 18, 25%?
The stock being up means nothing.
The NRA specifically said "What is becoming increasingly clear, however, is that Dick’s has inserted itself into a tight spot from which it might not emerge unscathed, if it manages to survive at all."
They have not only survived, their stock has risen, so far at least. Now, if the NRA had said "they won't make as much profit as they could have", then maybe that would be true, but that's not what they said. They predicted at the least that Dick's would not "emerge unscathed", and at worst "not survive at all", neither of which appears to be the case.
Haha. I don't know why you bother, captain contrarian has to be trolling at this point right? The point was so damn clear.
By this point, I agree with you.
Wait - so you don't think that in order to prove the effect on Dick's business you'd have to see how Dick's did over that time after the announcement and compare it with it's competitors performance over that time? Cause I think it's a valid point to determine the true effect.
Unless the only point was only that Dick's will still make $ even if they don't sell these guns....then you only need to know how Dick's did. But again, My2hands isn't trying to be contrarian...simply pointing out what anyone that looks at investing in companies does...it's not just how they are doing, but how they are doing compared to their peers.
My point has been well explained so I don’t see why repeating it would help. Tbergs just states it as well. The NRA made no comment about growth relative to peers, just that they would struggle and likely fail. And they haven’t, to date.
Maybe repeat cause I asked? Guess that's too much.
But a company that grows but not as fast as it's competitors will eventually fail. I personally didn't think Dick's would struggle and that I am glad they stop selling those guns. Companies are always comparing themselves to their peers. And so is the stock market.
Who's to say it wouldn't be 15% or more if they sold assault rifles? This proves zero correlation
Whoosh! You missed the point. Go back and read the tweet again.
I guess when you're in a hurry to be captain contrarian you miss the details.
It is a pretty dumb tweet to be honest. NRA lovers? Yes I am sure some people said that but no one in their right mind thought dick s would go out of business. The sale “Assault weapons” I assume were not a huge part of their business.
Agree. I am willing to bet it was a calculated move and they looked into how much revenue they get from assault rifles, and when they realized it was very little they thought that making a big deal about not selling them would help business even more with a lot of free advertisement from this. I doubt it had much to do with not selling assault rifles. Get a gun store who has the majority of sales from guns to not sell these would be a bigger statement.
Because it’s really all about making a “statement?” Didn’t Colt firearms recently go out of business? Or was it Remington? Any tariffs on those manufacturing businesses yet?
My point was that I doubt this move by Dicks was probably not about not selling assault rifles, but more about publicity and whats better for business. Don't know about Colt, but Remington filed for bankruptcy, but i still in business.
Couldn’t it also be as likely as to be about not wanting to be associated with the potential next mass killing and thus, being part of the solution rather than part of the problem?
Absolutely it could be. Its just my opinion that it was a calculated move. I don't know the CEO of the company and don't have any reason to believe one way or another, but just knowing that CEOs and big companies are usually in it to make money (how else to you explain a hospital charging $22 for a single pill of ibuprofen?) so its my guess they thought the publicity would outweigh the sales loss.
Seems to me they’re more interested in being part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Their full statement is at the end of the article and they were already associated with a mass killing.
I hope they really feel that way. But you don;t think they have anything to gain from some of their proposals like banning private sales? I don't know their true motives, but its clear they got a lot of publicity by doing so.
Where in their statement do they advocate banning “private sales?”
Who's to say it wouldn't be 15% or more if they sold assault rifles? This proves zero correlation
Whoosh! You missed the point. Go back and read the tweet again.
I guess when you're in a hurry to be captain contrarian you miss the details.
I didn't miss the point at all, you did actually...
The point of the tweet is simple, gun supporters thought dicks would lose business when they stopped selling certain kinds of weapons... to prove that theory wrong the tweet says their stock is up 14%... but that proves nothing of the sort
who is to say the stop on sales didnt hurt them and their profits or stock price would have gone up more than the 14% it did? Maybe if they were still selling them their stock would be up 15, 18, 25%?
The stock being up means nothing.
The NRA specifically said "What is becoming increasingly clear, however, is that Dick’s has inserted itself into a tight spot from which it might not emerge unscathed, if it manages to survive at all."
They have not only survived, their stock has risen, so far at least. Now, if the NRA had said "they won't make as much profit as they could have", then maybe that would be true, but that's not what they said. They predicted at the least that Dick's would not "emerge unscathed", and at worst "not survive at all", neither of which appears to be the case.
Haha. I don't know why you bother, captain contrarian has to be trolling at this point right? The point was so damn clear.
By this point, I agree with you.
Wait - so you don't think that in order to prove the effect on Dick's business you'd have to see how Dick's did over that time after the announcement and compare it with it's competitors performance over that time? Cause I think it's a valid point to determine the true effect.
Unless the only point was only that Dick's will still make $ even if they don't sell these guns....then you only need to know how Dick's did. But again, My2hands isn't trying to be contrarian...simply pointing out what anyone that looks at investing in companies does...it's not just how they are doing, but how they are doing compared to their peers.
My point has been well explained so I don’t see why repeating it would help. Tbergs just states it as well. The NRA made no comment about growth relative to peers, just that they would struggle and likely fail. And they haven’t, to date.
Maybe repeat cause I asked? Guess that's too much.
But a company that grows but not as fast as it's competitors will eventually fail. I personally didn't think Dick's would struggle and that I am glad they stop selling those guns. Companies are always comparing themselves to their peers. And so is the stock market.
Maybe read up just a few posts? That’s too much to ask, but you figure I should retype it all because you don’t want to scroll?
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Who's to say it wouldn't be 15% or more if they sold assault rifles? This proves zero correlation
Whoosh! You missed the point. Go back and read the tweet again.
I guess when you're in a hurry to be captain contrarian you miss the details.
I didn't miss the point at all, you did actually...
The point of the tweet is simple, gun supporters thought dicks would lose business when they stopped selling certain kinds of weapons... to prove that theory wrong the tweet says their stock is up 14%... but that proves nothing of the sort
who is to say the stop on sales didnt hurt them and their profits or stock price would have gone up more than the 14% it did? Maybe if they were still selling them their stock would be up 15, 18, 25%?
The stock being up means nothing.
The NRA specifically said "What is becoming increasingly clear, however, is that Dick’s has inserted itself into a tight spot from which it might not emerge unscathed, if it manages to survive at all."
They have not only survived, their stock has risen, so far at least. Now, if the NRA had said "they won't make as much profit as they could have", then maybe that would be true, but that's not what they said. They predicted at the least that Dick's would not "emerge unscathed", and at worst "not survive at all", neither of which appears to be the case.
Haha. I don't know why you bother, captain contrarian has to be trolling at this point right? The point was so damn clear.
By this point, I agree with you.
Wait - so you don't think that in order to prove the effect on Dick's business you'd have to see how Dick's did over that time after the announcement and compare it with it's competitors performance over that time? Cause I think it's a valid point to determine the true effect.
Unless the only point was only that Dick's will still make $ even if they don't sell these guns....then you only need to know how Dick's did. But again, My2hands isn't trying to be contrarian...simply pointing out what anyone that looks at investing in companies does...it's not just how they are doing, but how they are doing compared to their peers.
My point has been well explained so I don’t see why repeating it would help. Tbergs just states it as well. The NRA made no comment about growth relative to peers, just that they would struggle and likely fail. And they haven’t, to date.
Maybe repeat cause I asked? Guess that's too much.
But a company that grows but not as fast as it's competitors will eventually fail. I personally didn't think Dick's would struggle and that I am glad they stop selling those guns. Companies are always comparing themselves to their peers. And so is the stock market.
Maybe read up just a few posts? That’s too much to ask, but you figure I should retype it all because you don’t want to scroll?
Whatever. I asked you cause I was clarifying what you were meaning. What a waste of time.
Who's to say it wouldn't be 15% or more if they sold assault rifles? This proves zero correlation
Whoosh! You missed the point. Go back and read the tweet again.
I guess when you're in a hurry to be captain contrarian you miss the details.
It is a pretty dumb tweet to be honest. NRA lovers? Yes I am sure some people said that but no one in their right mind thought dick s would go out of business. The sale “Assault weapons” I assume were not a huge part of their business.
Agree. I am willing to bet it was a calculated move and they looked into how much revenue they get from assault rifles, and when they realized it was very little they thought that making a big deal about not selling them would help business even more with a lot of free advertisement from this. I doubt it had much to do with not selling assault rifles. Get a gun store who has the majority of sales from guns to not sell these would be a bigger statement.
Because it’s really all about making a “statement?” Didn’t Colt firearms recently go out of business? Or was it Remington? Any tariffs on those manufacturing businesses yet?
My point was that I doubt this move by Dicks was probably not about not selling assault rifles, but more about publicity and whats better for business. Don't know about Colt, but Remington filed for bankruptcy, but i still in business.
Couldn’t it also be as likely as to be about not wanting to be associated with the potential next mass killing and thus, being part of the solution rather than part of the problem?
Absolutely it could be. Its just my opinion that it was a calculated move. I don't know the CEO of the company and don't have any reason to believe one way or another, but just knowing that CEOs and big companies are usually in it to make money (how else to you explain a hospital charging $22 for a single pill of ibuprofen?) so its my guess they thought the publicity would outweigh the sales loss.
Seems to me they’re more interested in being part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Their full statement is at the end of the article and they were already associated with a mass killing.
I hope they really feel that way. But you don;t think they have anything to gain from some of their proposals like banning private sales? I don't know their true motives, but its clear they got a lot of publicity by doing so.
Where in their statement do they advocate banning “private sales?”
The ending of the article you linked:
Beginning today, DICK'S Sporting Goods is committed to the following:
We will no longer sell assault-style rifles, also referred to as modern sporting rifles. We had already removed them from all DICK'S stores after the Sandy Hook massacre, but we will now remove them from sale at all 35 Field & Stream stores.
We will no longer sell firearms to anyone under 21 years of age.
We will no longer sell high capacity magazines.
We never have and never will sell bump stocks that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire more rapidly.
At the same time, we implore our elected officials to enact common sense gun reform and pass the following regulations:
Ban assault-style firearms
Raise the minimum age to purchase firearms to 21
Ban high capacity magazines and bump stocks
Require universal background checks that include relevant mental health information and previous interactions with the law
Ensure a complete universal database of those banned from buying firearms
Close the private sale and gun show loophole that waives the necessity of background checks
So while not banning private sales, would require them to go through a 3rd party like DIcks, who usually charge $50 for 5 minutes of paperwork. I'm not saying its a bad idea, but I am saying gun stores do benefit from that.
So while not banning private sales, would require them to go through a 3rd party like DIcks, who usually charge $50 for 5 minutes of paperwork.
Thats not advocating banning "private sales." Not even close. Nice try though. A "responsible" gun buyer can't afford $50 for a background check?
And the right says the left has issues with critical thinking lol
I'm not sure what your issue is with anyone who has a different point that you. What reasoning skills, or lack of are you talking about? All I've said was that Dicks move could have been, and in my opinion probably was, based on publicity and the benefit from that.
Dicks does benefit if the private and gunshow loophole is banned and requires background checks. Its actually very simple logic. That means I could not sell a gun to a friend by myself, but have to use a third party, like Dicks, to complete the transaction. Although not technically "banning" private sales, I know you are intelligent enough (at least I've always assumed so....) to follow the conversation to understand that it means a private sale between 2 people is banned without going through a third party - and who does that financially benefit? Its like requiring me to go through a dealership if I sell my car, I'm sure the dealership would be happy about that too. In practicality that is like treating the gun store like a consignment shop, which is how many gun owners sell guns because of legal requirements in some states. At least in California, when a private party goes through a gun store for a sale, the store takes possession of the gun and deals with the buyer. Why you chose to flip everyone's words and belittle them who has a different view than you is not known to me. I never once said gun owners couldn't afford it. But gun stores benefit from it, so it is at no surprise at all to me that they would advocate for that. I'd suggest trying to have a real conversation instead when you disagree with someone. Its much more useful.
So far all I've said was I imagine Dicks' move was probably motivated by publicity as much has anything else. I mean, they publicly announce they won't continue to sell what they already aren't selling. Seems like a reasonable leap to me, but hey, I guess I'm bad with critical thinking so who knows.
So while not banning private sales, would require them to go through a 3rd party like DIcks, who usually charge $50 for 5 minutes of paperwork.
Thats not advocating banning "private sales." Not even close. Nice try though. A "responsible" gun buyer can't afford $50 for a background check?
And the right says the left has issues with critical thinking lol
I'm not sure what your issue is with anyone who has a different point that you. What reasoning skills, or lack of are you talking about? All I've said was that Dicks move could have been, and in my opinion probably was, based on publicity and the benefit from that.
Dicks does benefit if the private and gunshow loophole is banned and requires background checks. Its actually very simple logic. That means I could not sell a gun to a friend by myself, but have to use a third party, like Dicks, to complete the transaction. Although not technically "banning" private sales, I know you are intelligent enough (at least I've always assumed so....) to follow the conversation to understand that it means a private sale between 2 people is banned without going through a third party - and who does that financially benefit? Its like requiring me to go through a dealership if I sell my car, I'm sure the dealership would be happy about that too. In practicality that is like treating the gun store like a consignment shop, which is how many gun owners sell guns because of legal requirements in some states. At least in California, when a private party goes through a gun store for a sale, the store takes possession of the gun and deals with the buyer. Why you chose to flip everyone's words and belittle them who has a different view than you is not known to me. I never once said gun owners couldn't afford it. But gun stores benefit from it, so it is at no surprise at all to me that they would advocate for that. I'd suggest trying to have a real conversation instead when you disagree with someone. Its much more useful.
You made a blanket statement, via with a question mark, that Dick’s was advocating “banning” private sales when in fact, they’re advocating for “regulating” private sales. In the car example you give, you do have to transfer your title to the buyer and the buyer has to register the car through DMV. Dick’s and any other FLFD, I assume, acts as the DMV. But I also thought all the gun buyers were going to boycott Dick’s anyway? Is Dick’s the only game in town? If not, it doesn’t act as a “ban.” And I disagree with you because you never start out by saying what you truly mean. Your issue went from a “ban” to having to pay $50.
People actually think Dicks did that to "do the right thing"?
Really?
For realz?
lol, cute
That does happen. It's why the Washington Bullets changed their name to Wizards. (A change I wish hadn't been made but the point remains the owner did it because he no longer felt comfortable with the name).
Now, do I think the decision was calculated? Of course, No company of that size goes into decisions like that willy-nilly. I am sure a lot of staff time went into the finding that this was not going to cost them in a big way. But that doesn't mean the idea was not conceived because of doing the right thing.
And if they did do this because it was the smart decision. What does that say about the number 2A snowflakes* out there? Maybe not so big...
*And yes, if a store's decision not to sell guns stops you from buying your shoes there, you are a snowflake.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
People actually think Dicks did that to "do the right thing"?
Really?
For realz?
lol, cute
That does happen. It's why the Washington Bullets changed their name to Wizards. (A change I wish hadn't been made but the point remains the owner did it because he no longer felt comfortable with the name).
Now, do I think the decision was calculated? Of course, No company of that size goes into decisions like that willy-nilly. I am sure a lot of staff time went into the finding that this was not going to cost them in a big way. But that doesn't mean the idea was not conceived because of doing the right thing.
And if they did do this because it was the smart decision. What does that say about the number 2A snowflakes* out there? Maybe not so big...
*And yes, if a store's decision not to sell guns stops you from buying your shoes there, you are a snowflake.
If anything, doesn't this demonstrate that the idealized "snowflake" doesn't really exist? And if it does, its such a small insignificant number of gun owners? Because it a large percentage of gun owners decided to stop shopping at Dicks, it would hurt their business. So I think this just shows that snowflake persona isn't really an accurate one.
People actually think Dicks did that to "do the right thing"?
Really?
For realz?
lol, cute
That does happen. It's why the Washington Bullets changed their name to Wizards. (A change I wish hadn't been made but the point remains the owner did it because he no longer felt comfortable with the name).
Now, do I think the decision was calculated? Of course, No company of that size goes into decisions like that willy-nilly. I am sure a lot of staff time went into the finding that this was not going to cost them in a big way. But that doesn't mean the idea was not conceived because of doing the right thing.
And if they did do this because it was the smart decision. What does that say about the number 2A snowflakes* out there? Maybe not so big...
*And yes, if a store's decision not to sell guns stops you from buying your shoes there, you are a snowflake.
If anything, doesn't this demonstrate that the idealized "snowflake" doesn't really exist? And if it does, its such a small insignificant number of gun owners? Because it a large percentage of gun owners decided to stop shopping at Dicks, it would hurt their business. So I think this just shows that snowflake persona isn't really an accurate one.
That's kinda what I am saying. I'm saying that anyone that won't by their running shoes at Dick's because they no longer sell a gun, is a snowflake...and that there are not too many out there.
I also use the term "snowflake" from time-to-time, simply because I believe that as BS as the term is, it's ownership on the right as a label of the left is hypocritical and I can find "snowflakes" of any persuasion.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
So while not banning private sales, would require them to go through a 3rd party like DIcks, who usually charge $50 for 5 minutes of paperwork.
Thats not advocating banning "private sales." Not even close. Nice try though. A "responsible" gun buyer can't afford $50 for a background check?
And the right says the left has issues with critical thinking lol
I'm not sure what your issue is with anyone who has a different point that you. What reasoning skills, or lack of are you talking about? All I've said was that Dicks move could have been, and in my opinion probably was, based on publicity and the benefit from that.
Dicks does benefit if the private and gunshow loophole is banned and requires background checks. Its actually very simple logic. That means I could not sell a gun to a friend by myself, but have to use a third party, like Dicks, to complete the transaction. Although not technically "banning" private sales, I know you are intelligent enough (at least I've always assumed so....) to follow the conversation to understand that it means a private sale between 2 people is banned without going through a third party - and who does that financially benefit? Its like requiring me to go through a dealership if I sell my car, I'm sure the dealership would be happy about that too. In practicality that is like treating the gun store like a consignment shop, which is how many gun owners sell guns because of legal requirements in some states. At least in California, when a private party goes through a gun store for a sale, the store takes possession of the gun and deals with the buyer. Why you chose to flip everyone's words and belittle them who has a different view than you is not known to me. I never once said gun owners couldn't afford it. But gun stores benefit from it, so it is at no surprise at all to me that they would advocate for that. I'd suggest trying to have a real conversation instead when you disagree with someone. Its much more useful.
You made a blanket statement, via with a question mark, that Dick’s was advocating “banning” private sales when in fact, they’re advocating for “regulating” private sales. In the car example you give, you do have to transfer your title to the buyer and the buyer has to register the car through DMV. Dick’s and any other FLFD, I assume, acts as the DMV. But I also thought all the gun buyers were going to boycott Dick’s anyway? Is Dick’s the only game in town? If not, it doesn’t act as a “ban.” And I disagree with you because you never start out by saying what you truly mean. Your issue went from a “ban” to having to pay $50.
And I’m not the smartest guy in the room.
That is correct how the DMV works, but that isn't how gun transfers work in some states. My only experience is in CA, where both parties have to meet at the shop, the shop takes control of the gun until the background check and waiting period are over and charges a fee. Now I know most states don't have waiting periods, but it still isn't as simple as getting a piece of paper and taking in to get registered. The DMV is like the ATF, and the store would be the dealership. It really would be like requiring someone to register their car to the DMV through a dealership. And requiring background checks on all guns would do exactly that and require all sales to go through a third party.
And I'll say it again, I don't think it is a bad idea for that process. I'm just pointing out that Dicks' motive was probably strategy rather than gun control. I mean they stopped selling assault rifles in 2012, but announce again last year they they are going to no longer sell assault rifles. Its like Chic-Fil-A announcing they will no longer sell beef for health reasons. Free publicity. Why not stop selling hand guns which are responsible for like 95% of gun deaths? Probably because they'd lose too much money over that.
Just like when Discovery channel said they were going to stop filming Duck Dynasty due to the dad's interview and comments that don't align with the views of Discovery channel, then when people started boycotting Discovery they started filming again. Its my opinion of an example of a big company trying to make money by "doing the right thing/"
So while not banning private sales, would require them to go through a 3rd party like DIcks, who usually charge $50 for 5 minutes of paperwork.
Thats not advocating banning "private sales." Not even close. Nice try though. A "responsible" gun buyer can't afford $50 for a background check?
And the right says the left has issues with critical thinking lol
I'm not sure what your issue is with anyone who has a different point that you. What reasoning skills, or lack of are you talking about? All I've said was that Dicks move could have been, and in my opinion probably was, based on publicity and the benefit from that.
Dicks does benefit if the private and gunshow loophole is banned and requires background checks. Its actually very simple logic. That means I could not sell a gun to a friend by myself, but have to use a third party, like Dicks, to complete the transaction. Although not technically "banning" private sales, I know you are intelligent enough (at least I've always assumed so....) to follow the conversation to understand that it means a private sale between 2 people is banned without going through a third party - and who does that financially benefit? Its like requiring me to go through a dealership if I sell my car, I'm sure the dealership would be happy about that too. In practicality that is like treating the gun store like a consignment shop, which is how many gun owners sell guns because of legal requirements in some states. At least in California, when a private party goes through a gun store for a sale, the store takes possession of the gun and deals with the buyer. Why you chose to flip everyone's words and belittle them who has a different view than you is not known to me. I never once said gun owners couldn't afford it. But gun stores benefit from it, so it is at no surprise at all to me that they would advocate for that. I'd suggest trying to have a real conversation instead when you disagree with someone. Its much more useful.
You made a blanket statement, via with a question mark, that Dick’s was advocating “banning” private sales when in fact, they’re advocating for “regulating” private sales. In the car example you give, you do have to transfer your title to the buyer and the buyer has to register the car through DMV. Dick’s and any other FLFD, I assume, acts as the DMV. But I also thought all the gun buyers were going to boycott Dick’s anyway? Is Dick’s the only game in town? If not, it doesn’t act as a “ban.” And I disagree with you because you never start out by saying what you truly mean. Your issue went from a “ban” to having to pay $50.
And I’m not the smartest guy in the room.
That is correct how the DMV works, but that isn't how gun transfers work in some states. My only experience is in CA, where both parties have to meet at the shop, the shop takes control of the gun until the background check and waiting period are over and charges a fee. Now I know most states don't have waiting periods, but it still isn't as simple as getting a piece of paper and taking in to get registered. The DMV is like the ATF, and the store would be the dealership. It really would be like requiring someone to register their car to the DMV through a dealership. And requiring background checks on all guns would do exactly that and require all sales to go through a third party.
And I'll say it again, I don't think it is a bad idea for that process. I'm just pointing out that Dicks' motive was probably strategy rather than gun control. I mean they stopped selling assault rifles in 2012, but announce again last year they they are going to no longer sell assault rifles. Its like Chic-Fil-A to announcing they will no longer sell beef for health reasons. Free publicity. Why not stop selling hand guns which are responsible for like 95% of gun deaths? Probably because they'd lose too much money over that.
Just like when Discovery channel said they were going to stop filming Duck Dynasty due to the dad's interview and comments that don't align with the views of Discovery channel, then when people started boycotting Discovery they started filming again. Its my opinion of an example of a big company trying to make money by "doing the right thing/"
Stopped selling them, but then had started selling them in some stores again, so not really a good comparison.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Comments
http://www.businessinsider.com/dicks-sporting-goods-will-stop-selling-assault-rifles-2018-2
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
14% bump proves bupkus... I'm a fan of them not selling the weapons... but a stock going up doesnt prove the point the tweet thinks it was making. If they sold guns maybe the stock would have gone up 15%, who knows?
It's really not that complicated. Cincy gets the point
I don't know their true motives, but its clear they got a lot of publicity by doing so.
Unless the only point was only that Dick's will still make $ even if they don't sell these guns....then you only need to know how Dick's did. But again, My2hands isn't trying to be contrarian...simply pointing out what anyone that looks at investing in companies does...it's not just how they are doing, but how they are doing compared to their peers.
But a company that grows but not as fast as it's competitors will eventually fail. I personally didn't think Dick's would struggle and that I am glad they stop selling those guns. Companies are always comparing themselves to their peers. And so is the stock market.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I guess that's going to be the new threshold for elitism - “won’t retype posts when asked”
Beginning today, DICK'S Sporting Goods is committed to the following:
We will no longer sell assault-style rifles, also referred to as modern sporting rifles. We had already removed them from all DICK'S stores after the Sandy Hook massacre, but we will now remove them from sale at all 35 Field & Stream stores.
At the same time, we implore our elected officials to enact common sense gun reform and pass the following regulations:
I'm not saying its a bad idea, but I am saying gun stores do benefit from that.
And the right says the left has issues with critical thinking lol
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
What reasoning skills, or lack of are you talking about?
All I've said was that Dicks move could have been, and in my opinion probably was, based on publicity and the benefit from that.
Dicks does benefit if the private and gunshow loophole is banned and requires background checks. Its actually very simple logic. That means I could not sell a gun to a friend by myself, but have to use a third party, like Dicks, to complete the transaction. Although not technically "banning" private sales, I know you are intelligent enough (at least I've always assumed so....) to follow the conversation to understand that it means a private sale between 2 people is banned without going through a third party - and who does that financially benefit? Its like requiring me to go through a dealership if I sell my car, I'm sure the dealership would be happy about that too. In practicality that is like treating the gun store like a consignment shop, which is how many gun owners sell guns because of legal requirements in some states. At least in California, when a private party goes through a gun store for a sale, the store takes possession of the gun and deals with the buyer. Why you chose to flip everyone's words and belittle them who has a different view than you is not known to me. I never once said gun owners couldn't afford it. But gun stores benefit from it, so it is at no surprise at all to me that they would advocate for that.
I'd suggest trying to have a real conversation instead when you disagree with someone. Its much more useful.
And I’m not the smartest guy in the room.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Really?
For realz?
lol, cute
Now, do I think the decision was calculated? Of course, No company of that size goes into decisions like that willy-nilly. I am sure a lot of staff time went into the finding that this was not going to cost them in a big way. But that doesn't mean the idea was not conceived because of doing the right thing.
And if they did do this because it was the smart decision. What does that say about the number 2A snowflakes* out there? Maybe not so big...
*And yes, if a store's decision not to sell guns stops you from buying your shoes there, you are a snowflake.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I also use the term "snowflake" from time-to-time, simply because I believe that as BS as the term is, it's ownership on the right as a label of the left is hypocritical and I can find "snowflakes" of any persuasion.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
And I'll say it again, I don't think it is a bad idea for that process. I'm just pointing out that Dicks' motive was probably strategy rather than gun control. I mean they stopped selling assault rifles in 2012, but announce again last year they they are going to no longer sell assault rifles. Its like Chic-Fil-A announcing they will no longer sell beef for health reasons. Free publicity. Why not stop selling hand guns which are responsible for like 95% of gun deaths? Probably because they'd lose too much money over that.
Just like when Discovery channel said they were going to stop filming Duck Dynasty due to the dad's interview and comments that don't align with the views of Discovery channel, then when people started boycotting Discovery they started filming again.
Its my opinion of an example of a big company trying to make money by "doing the right thing/"