America's Gun Violence
Comments
-
CM189191 said:If you outlaw bombs, only outlaws will have bombs
Am I doing it right?
Can I have a bomb, please?
I probably didn't do that right
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
My right to a bomb is enshrined in the constitution as afterall what is a bomb but an arm, of which my right to possess and bear shall not be infringed, to provide for the common defense.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Did you even read the article? Sure, Dick's sells a lot of different products besides guns, but the wager made by the pro-gun crowd was that they'd lose business not only from those wanting to buy those guns, but anyone in support of 2A. You know, the whole boycott thing. Not only that, but several gun manufacturers cut their ties altogether and publicly voiced their displeasure.mace1229 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
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.dignin said:
Whoosh! You missed the point. Go back and read the tweet again.my2hands said:Who's to say it wouldn't be 15% or more if they sold assault rifles? This proves zero correlation
I guess when you're in a hurry to be captain contrarian you miss the details.
Get a gun store who has the majority of sales from guns to not sell these would be a bigger statement.
All that tweet is pointing out is that the bogus claims made back when this story broke is that it could spell the store's demise, especially since they had just reported a 6% loss in the 1st quarter. It didn't.
The pro gun crowd sure gets defensive when someone even tries to point out that someone was wrong about their prediction for a business pulling out of the gun trade. You'd think you guys had a vested interest in trying to downplay anything that makes 2A-ers look bad, even little stuff like this. Weird.It's a hopeless situation...0 -
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?mace1229 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
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.dignin said:
Whoosh! You missed the point. Go back and read the tweet again.my2hands said:Who's to say it wouldn't be 15% or more if they sold assault rifles? This proves zero correlation
I guess when you're in a hurry to be captain contrarian you miss the details.
Get a gun store who has the majority of sales from guns to not sell these would be a bigger statement.
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Yes. Gun fans were going to go elsewhere for their running shoes, baseball gloves, golf clubs, and soccer balls. It was never about the lost revenue from the guns themselves.tbergs said:
Did you even read the article? Sure, Dick's sells a lot of different products besides guns, but the wager made by the pro-gun crowd was that they'd lose business not only from those wanting to buy those guns, but anyone in support of 2A. You know, the whole boycott thing. Not only that, but several gun manufacturers cut their ties altogether and publicly voiced their displeasure.mace1229 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
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.dignin said:
Whoosh! You missed the point. Go back and read the tweet again.my2hands said:Who's to say it wouldn't be 15% or more if they sold assault rifles? This proves zero correlation
I guess when you're in a hurry to be captain contrarian you miss the details.
Get a gun store who has the majority of sales from guns to not sell these would be a bigger statement.
All that tweet is pointing out is that the bogus claims made back when this story broke is that it could spell the store's demise, especially since they had just reported a 6% loss in the 1st quarter. It didn't.
The pro gun crowd sure gets defensive when someone even tries to point out that someone was wrong about their prediction for a business pulling out of the gun trade. You'd think you guys had a vested interest in trying to downplay anything that makes 2A-ers look bad, even little stuff like this. Weird.
And while I am not equipped to nitpick whether the overall effect has been positive or negative, the predictions of the company’s demise are not looking great. Maybe it turns out that there aren’t as many people obsessed with 2A over stuff that doesn’t actually threaten 2A as the NRA thought. Come to think of it, this is the most encouraging thing I’ve seen about Americans in a while.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
2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley0 -
Am I missing something?
The downward spiraling trend seems to be holding steady. Not sure a 14% bump is anything to cheer about. They have been treading water for a while now. Not sure the refusal to sell these guns hurt them as it seems they weren’t selling much in the first place. Does not seem like it helped them either...
Post edited by PJPOWER on0 -
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
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?mace1229 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
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.dignin said:
Whoosh! You missed the point. Go back and read the tweet again.my2hands said:Who's to say it wouldn't be 15% or more if they sold assault rifles? This proves zero correlation
I guess when you're in a hurry to be captain contrarian you miss the details.
Get a gun store who has the majority of sales from guns to not sell these would be a bigger statement.
0 -
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?mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
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?mace1229 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
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.dignin said:
Whoosh! You missed the point. Go back and read the tweet again.my2hands said:Who's to say it wouldn't be 15% or more if they sold assault rifles? This proves zero correlation
I guess when you're in a hurry to be captain contrarian you miss the details.
Get a gun store who has the majority of sales from guns to not sell these would be a bigger statement.
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Absolutely it could be.Halifax2TheMax said:
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?mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
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?mace1229 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
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.dignin said:
Whoosh! You missed the point. Go back and read the tweet again.my2hands said:Who's to say it wouldn't be 15% or more if they sold assault rifles? This proves zero correlation
I guess when you're in a hurry to be captain contrarian you miss the details.
Get a gun store who has the majority of sales from guns to not sell these would be a bigger statement.
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.0 -
Not sure what article you are referring to, can't remember where I got a link to the article I did read. But I did read one that also stated Dicks stopped selling guns in 2012, so their claim to no longer sell them last year didnt really apply to but about a dozen or so sister stores under the name Field and Stream. So again, why I think it was more about publicity that anything else. And thats just my opinion, I don't really know.tbergs said:
Did you even read the article? Sure, Dick's sells a lot of different products besides guns, but the wager made by the pro-gun crowd was that they'd lose business not only from those wanting to buy those guns, but anyone in support of 2A. You know, the whole boycott thing. Not only that, but several gun manufacturers cut their ties altogether and publicly voiced their displeasure.mace1229 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
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.dignin said:
Whoosh! You missed the point. Go back and read the tweet again.my2hands said:Who's to say it wouldn't be 15% or more if they sold assault rifles? This proves zero correlation
I guess when you're in a hurry to be captain contrarian you miss the details.
Get a gun store who has the majority of sales from guns to not sell these would be a bigger statement.
All that tweet is pointing out is that the bogus claims made back when this story broke is that it could spell the store's demise, especially since they had just reported a 6% loss in the 1st quarter. It didn't.
The pro gun crowd sure gets defensive when someone even tries to point out that someone was wrong about their prediction for a business pulling out of the gun trade. You'd think you guys had a vested interest in trying to downplay anything that makes 2A-ers look bad, even little stuff like this. Weird.0 -
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.mace1229 said:
Absolutely it could be.Halifax2TheMax said:
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?mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
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?mace1229 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
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.dignin said:
Whoosh! You missed the point. Go back and read the tweet again.my2hands said:Who's to say it wouldn't be 15% or more if they sold assault rifles? This proves zero correlation
I guess when you're in a hurry to be captain contrarian you miss the details.
Get a gun store who has the majority of sales from guns to not sell these would be a bigger statement.
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.
http://www.businessinsider.com/dicks-sporting-goods-will-stop-selling-assault-rifles-2018-2
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
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?0 -
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 point0 -
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?Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:
Absolutely it could be.Halifax2TheMax said:
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?mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
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?mace1229 said:
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.mcgruff10 said:
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.dignin said:
Whoosh! You missed the point. Go back and read the tweet again.my2hands said:Who's to say it wouldn't be 15% or more if they sold assault rifles? This proves zero correlation
I guess when you're in a hurry to be captain contrarian you miss the details.
Get a gun store who has the majority of sales from guns to not sell these would be a bigger statement.
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.
http://www.businessinsider.com/dicks-sporting-goods-will-stop-selling-assault-rifles-2018-2
I don't know their true motives, but its clear they got a lot of publicity by doing so.0 -
By this point, I agree with you.dignin said:
Haha. I don't know why you bother, captain contrarian has to be trolling at this point right? The point was so damn clear.oftenreading said:
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."my2hands said:
I didn't miss the point at all, you did actually...dignin said:
Whoosh! You missed the point. Go back and read the tweet again.my2hands said:Who's to say it wouldn't be 15% or more if they sold assault rifles? This proves zero correlation
I guess when you're in a hurry to be captain contrarian you miss the details.
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.
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.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
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.my2hands said: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
It's a hopeless situation...0 -
It's a pretty simple point, really. But whatever, it's all good.
0 -
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.oftenreading said:
By this point, I agree with you.dignin said:
Haha. I don't know why you bother, captain contrarian has to be trolling at this point right? The point was so damn clear.oftenreading said:
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."my2hands said:
I didn't miss the point at all, you did actually...dignin said:
Whoosh! You missed the point. Go back and read the tweet again.my2hands said:Who's to say it wouldn't be 15% or more if they sold assault rifles? This proves zero correlation
I guess when you're in a hurry to be captain contrarian you miss the details.
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.
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.
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.hippiemom = goodness0 -
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.cincybearcat said:
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.oftenreading said:
By this point, I agree with you.dignin said:
Haha. I don't know why you bother, captain contrarian has to be trolling at this point right? The point was so damn clear.oftenreading said:
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."my2hands said:
I didn't miss the point at all, you did actually...dignin said:
Whoosh! You missed the point. Go back and read the tweet again.my2hands said:Who's to say it wouldn't be 15% or more if they sold assault rifles? This proves zero correlation
I guess when you're in a hurry to be captain contrarian you miss the details.
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.
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.
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 small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
Maybe repeat cause I asked? Guess that's too much.oftenreading said:
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.cincybearcat said:
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.oftenreading said:
By this point, I agree with you.dignin said:
Haha. I don't know why you bother, captain contrarian has to be trolling at this point right? The point was so damn clear.oftenreading said:
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."my2hands said:
I didn't miss the point at all, you did actually...dignin said:
Whoosh! You missed the point. Go back and read the tweet again.my2hands said:Who's to say it wouldn't be 15% or more if they sold assault rifles? This proves zero correlation
I guess when you're in a hurry to be captain contrarian you miss the details.
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.
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.
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.hippiemom = goodness0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help