TexasCHLforum.com

https://www.foxnews.com/us/dicks-sporti ... of-weapons

Ed Stack told CBS News during an interview that aired Sunday that the millions of dollars worth of inventory was turned into scrap metal.


"I said, 'You know what? If we really think these things should be off the street, we need to destroy them,'" he said.

If I was a stock holder, I would file suit. To purposely destroy valuable legal merchandise that will cost investors money to recoup has to be some breach of fiduciary and financial responsibility.

rtschl wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:04 pm If I was a stock holder, I would file suit. To purposely destroy valuable legal merchandise that will cost investors money to recoup has to be some breach of fiduciary and financial responsibility.

Genius

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.

Got my Field and Stream fall hunt catalog in the mail today.
For those who don't know - F&S is owned by Dick's.
I tossed it in the trash without reading it.

Is it just me or anyone else notice how there is a "Domino effect" going on, not looking to good?

rtschl wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:04 pm If I was a stock holder, I would file suit. To purposely destroy valuable legal merchandise that will cost investors money to recoup has to be some breach of fiduciary and financial responsibility.

Their stock is up 17% since the policy change which is more than double the S&P return. Good luck suing a company because you don't like how they manage inventory.

"I said, 'You know what? If we really think these things should be off the street, we need to destroy them,'" he said.

Trouble with this statement is that in 99% of the cases they AREN'T ON THE STREET.

They are in law abiding person's homes for self defense.

They are in the field for various types of hunting.

There are at gun ranges for target practice and shooting sports.

They are in Police Cruisers for the purpose of protecting the public.

Etc....Etc........

hondo44 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:47 pm

rtschl wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:04 pm If I was a stock holder, I would file suit. To purposely destroy valuable legal merchandise that will cost investors money to recoup has to be some breach of fiduciary and financial responsibility.

Their stock is up 17% since the policy change which is more than double the S&P return. Good luck suing a company because you don't like how they manage inventory.

Ah the old correlation is causation fallacy. Dicks is an apparel and toy company. Fine that’s their business model. They’re a fashion brand. Fine for the coastal “elites” in their market. Guns are a waste of time. They can make a bigger margin on antifa apparel and Nike’s made by slave labor in Ho Chi Minh city.

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.

The only problem is their beliefs are wrong and ours are right. So we SHOULD complain about them.

In the world we live in today where the definition of TRUTH is "that which advances the agenda" I have to wonder if this really took place. Who documented it. Where did it take place. Just how did they destroy them. How did they log this on their ATF paper work.
For me this statement raises more legal questions than a law suit for willful destruction of merchandise.

SHOW ME.

EDIT THOUGHT:
Some of you search gurus should be able to find the answer to some of the above Qs. Just the security to transport and destroy that many weapons ought to be documentable.
I don't swallow this. Just more smoke to the gullible socialist out there

longtooth wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 6:12 am In the world we live in today where the definition of TRUTH is "that which advances the agenda" I have to wonder if this really took place. Who documented it. Where did it take place. Just how did they destroy them. How did they log this on their ATF paper work.
For me this statement raises more legal questions than a law suit for willful destruction of merchandise.

SHOW ME.

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.