TexasCHLforum.com

uthornsfan wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:37 pm I think it is refreshing that someone is actually standing up for what they believe in. Even if it isn't popular or fiscally responsible why are people so butt hurt here about it?

If more people thought less about money and more about their convictions we would probably be better off.

Our beliefs here aren't more important than anyone else's whether they are the same or different than our own.

I would agree with you if it were a case of an individual putting his money where his mouth was. But in this case it is an individual putting the shareholders money up for grabs. Will he be risking his job? Probably has a contract where he walks away with a ton of money no matter how badly the company does.

puma guy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:32 pm

longtooth wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:31 am

puma guy wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:47 pm Until I see the inventory list with S/N and some documentation that removes these weapons from the data base for tracking them with ATF I don't believe a word of what Dick's says they did with them.

Exactly. One sentence summary or whether or not Dick's really did destroy them.

I hope they try to take it as a business loss and someone calls the IRS is they do.

That's a really good point. I'm not sure if it changed with the latest tax reform, but the standard used to be that something had to be a "reasonable and ordinary" business expense to qualify as a deduction. Intentionally destroying your inventory does not seem to meet this standard.

This might definitely be worth a note to the IRS.

You know, maybe Dick's should buy up all the MSR's they can get their hands on, and destroy them all. That would really show they were serious!

Of course, destroying weapons just means an increase in demand, and possibly, a short term spike in prices. That should be obvious to anyone with half a brain. The total amount of weapons sold will still be equal to the total amount that people actually want. Basically, Dick's actions just equate to a transfer of wealth from the stockholders of Dicks to the stockholders of all gun manufacturers. There will be no long term impact on the number of guns that are owned.

And openly admitting to destroying company assets is grounds for a shareholder lawsuit, even if the stock price increased thanks to unrelated actions by Trump's administration. An unnecessary $5m expense, by definition, reduced earnings compared to what they would have been without that expense. This is ignoring the $250m negative impact to sales, which the CEO also admitted to intentionally causing.

hondo44 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 8:41 am

Rob72 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 7:55 am

uthornsfan wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:37 pm I think it is refreshing that someone is actually standing up for what they believe in. Even if it isn't popular or fiscally responsible why are people so butt hurt here about it?

If more people thought less about money and more about their convictions we would probably be better off.

Our beliefs here aren't more important than anyone else's whether they are the same or different than our own.

Do you believe that human beings have rights, including the right to be free from oppression? If so, this argument is a non-sequiter, based in moral relativism. The issue for those that believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is that Dicks (among others) is perfectly happy to sacrifice profit to their idea that the common citizens have the "right" to some toys and pretty-shineys, as long as they stay within Humanistically prescribed standards. My experience with human beings does not allow me to believe that our inherent nature is, "good," or capable of elevating our condition in any transcendental way.

The only non sequitur here is the assumption that Dicks or any corporations have a belief system. Dicks is a corporation. Corporations don't "believe" anything. The only responsibility corporations have is to maximize value for their shareholders.

Chic-fil-a & Hobby Lobby are just two corporations that have beliefs & convictions which govern their business models. Countless small businesses do the same.

The issue with Dick’s is that they lobby against the right to keep and bear arms. It wasn’t enough for them to stop participating in the firearms market. I have no complaints about their exiting the firearms sales industry. Their business, their choices. If shareholders aren’t happy, get out, sell. It’s the risk you take as a shareholder. But for them to lobby against my constitutional right, that’s a problem. They have become the enemy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... story.html

Texas_Blaze wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:48 pm

hondo44 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 8:41 am

The only non sequitur here is the assumption that Dicks or any corporations have a belief system. Dicks is a corporation. Corporations don't "believe" anything. The only responsibility corporations have is to maximize value for their shareholders.

Chic-fil-a & Hobby Lobby are just two corporations that have beliefs & convictions which govern their business models. Countless small businesses do the same.

Chic-fil-a and Hobby Lobby are privately owned companies that are not beholden to stockholders.

Stack, 64, has a long history with guns. He grew up around guns and has owned them for much of his life,
and he says he supports the Second Amendment. But that support is not absolute.

I would like to see proof that Dick's is really going to destroy $5 Million worth of weapons.
I just don't believe it. If I owned stock in the company I would vote the CEO out.