Unless Deeks produces a video or shows $5 mil worth of inventory being destroyed, I call BS.
Guessing the shareholders were on board with the CEO’s action?
1 Like
“'That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” This move is not measured in weeks or months or years. But in decades. It will take decades, but it will happen.
I think they are lying too.
You guys really believe a US retail chain destroyed $5MM worth of their own merchandise?
You guys really believe this is some kind of plot put together by the executives at Dicks to create a false narrative, and push it not only to the general public but also it’s shareholders? Lol. That’s some wing nut conspiracy kook talk there I tell ya…
1 Like
There is no evidence to suggest doing so would make any difference whatsoever.
Here’s something that will make a difference longer sentences for all felons and double the current sentences for all violent felons.
Here’s another. No more pleading out violent felons period and no early release, probation, or parole for any of them.
No he certainly isn’t unless prior to that decision he had instructed his gun sales people to unlawfully sell them to felons, the insane, and people threatening to commit crimes with same.
Dodge was never the “wild west”.
Our violent crime rates have fallen by more than half at the same time as lawful carry has expanded to all fifty states.
More than 10 million new firearms are sold in the US each and every year with “self defense” being cited by the overwhelming majority of buyers making a new purchase.
The problem has never been too many guns, it’s solely about who’s hands the guns are in.
If you want to reduce crime, fully enforce existing laws and keep violent felons and those committing drug related crimes i prison until they are ready to draw social security.
Punishing the law abiding isn’t going to reduce crime at all, it simply violates our rights.
Which again is irrelevant. Anyone wanting to commit a crime with a gun that had planned on buying it at Dicks can simply buy one elsewhere.
It was your completely unsupportable claim, no one else’s.
Irrelevant. Dick’s may no longer sell the ever dreaded and terrifying “Assault Rifles” but tens of thousands of other retailers will continue to sell them. Even if your local mom and pop store doesn’t carry them you can buy one online and pick it up from them after they do the transfer.
This move by Dick’s isn’t taking any guns from the hands of would be mass shooters or anyone else, they’ll simply buy them elsewhere.
It’s not a dream. Evertime something like this happens, many people who had no inclination to buy a gun, go out and buy one just for spite.
One of those “uncomfortable truths”.
Obama was the single greatest firearms salesman in history for this very reason.
Well, if they didn’t, they would have had to either lie to the ATF or bribe them to turn a blind eye. All FFLs must be able to account for every gun removed from their inventory whether it is sold, stolen or destroyed.
They would essentially have to do it in cooperation with the ATF or local/state police who would have to certify each of the weapons being destroyed.
Good point, this story smells like a dead carp in August.
If he did he or they may be civilly responsible for the loss, breach of fiduciary duty of care.
This seriously smells of another publicity stunt/fabrication.
This is an opinion board, is it not? Is every single claim you make supportable? Nope. In this case, I used the company’s word. Their word is not mine. It’s theirs. Your word is your own. I’ll take what the company says.
Anyone who is serious about determining if they did destroy them need only look at their quarterly financials to get a pretty good idea if they really took the loss on destroying the weapons.
You guys really believe a US retail chain destroyed $5MM worth of their own merchandise?
