Dicks destroys $5 million worth of weapons

[Rob72]

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.

[hondo44]

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.

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

As the NBA is discovering if some random coach offends some people in communist China by expressing support for democracy in Hong Kong..... only in this case it’s the 1st Amendment that is being sacrificed to the gods of profit.

[Rob72]

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.

Human institutions are the embodiment of human values and intentions, e.g., "beliefs". A cooperative effort cannot exist in the absence of a shared core belief(s). This is true whether it is a government or a corporation.

In this instance, Dick's is not solely in pursuit of profit engaging activities, but in pursuit of an ideal.

[LDP]

I agree. But I also had a thought. If they were really concerned about any financial setbacks, why wouldn't they donate these guns to a law enforcement agency? Seems to me that would be less controversial than destrying them and could be used as a tax write off. Just another knee jerk reaction on their part.

Why not donate to LE or a better cause? Because that would be too logical.
I do often give leftists the benefit of the doubt. And in this case I truly doubt their little pea brains are capable of thinking logically on such level once their feelings kick in.

[Lynyrd]

Dicks Sporting Goods? Never heard of them.

[Flightmare]

I agree. But I also had a thought. If they were really concerned about any financial setbacks, why wouldn't they donate these guns to a law enforcement agency? Seems to me that would be less controversial than destrying them and could be used as a tax write off. Just another knee jerk reaction on their part.

Why not donate to LE or a better cause? Because that would be too logical.
I do often give leftists the benefit of the doubt. And in this case I truly doubt their little pea brains are capable of thinking logically on such level once their feelings kick in.

Ahhh, but then they would catch heat when one of those fully semi-auto assault weapons is used on a sweet kid like Michael Brown.

[flintknapper]

RPBrown wrote:

But I also had a thought. If they were really concerned about any financial setbacks, why wouldn't they donate these guns to a law enforcement agency? Seems to me that would be less controversial than destroying them and could be used as a tax write off. Just another knee jerk reaction on their part.

Well sure....but that would be exercising logic. It would benefit both Law Enforcement and the company (Dicks). But that wasn't ever a consideration...because it wouldn't make a 'statement' (these guns are inherently evil) and appease the 'base' who think similarly.

[puma guy]

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.

[Oldgringo]

I don't remember the last time, or where, I visited a DICK'S store but I do know when I'll visit another.

[longtooth]

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.

[Paladin]

I don't remember the last time, or where, I visited a DICK'S store but I do know when I'll visit another.

LOL, thinking the same. They're WAY overpriced anyway.

[puma guy]

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.

[puma guy]

Docks ended sales of "assault weapons" at their Dick's Sporting Goods stores some 20 months ago only selling them at their Field and Stream locations. Doing some math and using an average of $650 each for the price of the "assault weapons" (I never saw any high end AR's there) that would be 7692 rifles for a total $5 million. It would mean each of the 34 F&S stores had 226 rifles available. I find that extremely difficult to believe.

[The Annoyed Man]

I don't remember the last time, or where, I visited a DICK'S store but I do know when I'll visit another.

Would that be when temperatures in Hades fall to record lows?