(October 9, 2019 at 8:58 am)Brian37 Wrote: Kudos to Dicks Sporting Goods for doing the right thing despite losing money. Instead of sending spray weapons back to the makers, they sold them to scrap metal companies to be destroyed rather than risk them ending up on the streets. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/busin...ifles.html

And while they took a short term hit, they are not hurting now, and they've gotten lots of support for doing the right thing.

You understand sending them back to the makers will have largely the same effect as selling them to scrap metal, right?

When they sell them to scrap dealer, the makers of the guns still realizes the profit, and it would not affect their future gun production.

If they go back to the maker, the makers will have to credit Dicks for their value, which will leave a hole in their balance sheet, which they will have to fill by putting these guns on the market again where they will take the place of the maker's own future production?

---

(October 9, 2019 at 12:20 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(October 9, 2019 at 12:12 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: They didn't destroy any 'spray weapons'.

Boru

Yes they did. The products they sold to scrap metal companies were specifically designed for high and rapid output with a hair trigger pull on a trigger.

Typically spray means automatic.

If rapid repeat of trigger pull constitute "spray" than everything that does not require manual operation of the bolt would be a spray weapon.

Hair trigger has nothing to do with rate of fire.  It has to do with accuracy of the gun and how much the act of pulling the trigger upsets the aim.  Mass shooting doesn't involve precision aiming.

(October 9, 2019 at 12:20 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(October 9, 2019 at 12:12 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: They didn't destroy any 'spray weapons'.

Boru

Yes they did. The products they sold to scrap metal companies were specifically designed for high and rapid output with a hair trigger pull on a trigger.

But that's not a 'spray weapon'.  You're thinking of automatic weapons.  Dick's didn't stock those.

Boru

edit:  Yeah, what Anomalocaris said (I was ninja'd)

OR they could sell them at "gun shows" for a small loss. Cousins facilitate that kind of thing in the "Four State area". (Missouri, Kansas, Arkansas, and Oklahoma.)

(October 9, 2019 at 12:19 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: 'mein Kompf'? 

Boru

The spell checker prevented me from committing a Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy.

In a way, this dog-and-pony show at Dick's makes things worse, not better.  It's closing off one of the outlets for people who follow the law to procure a firearm.

Boru

(October 9, 2019 at 12:27 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(October 9, 2019 at 12:19 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: 'mein Kompf'? 

Boru

The spell checker prevented me from committing a Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy.

Kind of funny, though.  'Kompf' is very close to 'kopf', which means 'head'.  'Mein Kompf' could possibly be read as 'My Head', which would explain a lot about Hitler. 

Boru

(October 9, 2019 at 12:25 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(October 9, 2019 at 12:20 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Yes they did. The products they sold to scrap metal companies were specifically designed for high and rapid output with a hair trigger pull on a trigger.

But that's not a 'spray weapon'.  You're thinking of automatic weapons.  Dick's didn't stock those.

Boru

edit:  Yeah, what Anomalocaris said (I was ninja'd)

Come on Boru, 

I am sick of the hair splitting of "models". Many firearms can be modified to create rapid output. 

And regardless of model, riffle or handgun, the best prevention is better vetting at time of sale, rather than reacting to violence after the buy.

(October 9, 2019 at 12:33 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(October 9, 2019 at 12:25 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: But that's not a 'spray weapon'.  You're thinking of automatic weapons.  Dick's didn't stock those.

Boru

edit:  Yeah, what Anomalocaris said (I was ninja'd)

Come on Boru, 

I am sick of the hair splitting of "models". Many firearms can be modified to create rapid output. 

And regardless of model, riffle or handgun, the best prevention is better vetting at time of sale, rather than reacting to violence after the buy.

It's best to pay attention to the hair-splitting.  Pro-gun types love to pounce on perfectly understandable mislabeling of various firearms as a way to derail the argument, such as, 'Ha ha, you idiot - it's a Klockenglubbel Model 1806, not 1806-A.  You don't know what the fuck you're talking about!'  Getting the details right may help our side in the argument.

You may not have read the article you posted too carefully.  Dick's selling off the guns as scrap WAS a reaction to violence after the buy, the CEO said so.

You still haven't explained how 'better vetting at time of sale' would work.

Boru

(October 9, 2019 at 12:22 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(October 9, 2019 at 8:58 am)Brian37 Wrote: Kudos to Dicks Sporting Goods for doing the right thing despite losing money. Instead of sending spray weapons back to the makers, they sold them to scrap metal companies to be destroyed rather than risk them ending up on the streets. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/busin...ifles.html

And while they took a short term hit, they are not hurting now, and they've gotten lots of support for doing the right thing.

You understand sending them back to the makers will have largely the same effect as selling them to scrap metal, right?

When they sell them to scrap dealer, the makers of the guns still realizes the profit, and it would not affect their future gun production.

If they go back to the maker, the makers will have to credit Dicks for their value, which will leave a hole in their balance sheet, which they will have to fill by putting these guns on the market again where they will take the place of the maker's own future production?

---

(October 9, 2019 at 12:20 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Yes they did. The products they sold to scrap metal companies were specifically designed for high and rapid output with a hair trigger pull on a trigger.

Typically spray means automatic.

If rapid repeat of trigger pull constitute "spray" than everything that does not require manual operation of the bolt would be a spray weapon.

Hair trigger has nothing to do with rate of fire.  It has to do with accuracy of the gun and how much the act of pulling the trigger upsets the aim.  Mass shooting doesn't involve precision aiming.

HOLY CRAP.......

I am sooooo done, and beyond spray or handgun! It is literally a matter of ease of access and flooded market. But when one side cant even get on board with banning battlefield weapons, what do you want me to say?

America has an unhealthy obsession with all types of firearms. No other westernized first world country comparable to America has anything close to our firearm violence. The issue isn't about rights, it has always been about one industry scaring the shit out of the public needlessly to protect the profits of one industry.

(October 9, 2019 at 12:39 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(October 9, 2019 at 12:22 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: You understand sending them back to the makers will have largely the same effect as selling them to scrap metal, right?

When they sell them to scrap dealer, the makers of the guns still realizes the profit, and it would not affect their future gun production.

If they go back to the maker, the makers will have to credit Dicks for their value, which will leave a hole in their balance sheet, which they will have to fill by putting these guns on the market again where they will take the place of the maker's own future production?

---

Typically spray means automatic.

If rapid repeat of trigger pull constitute "spray" than everything that does not require manual operation of the bolt would be a spray weapon.

Hair trigger has nothing to do with rate of fire.  It has to do with accuracy of the gun and how much the act of pulling the trigger upsets the aim.  Mass shooting doesn't involve precision aiming.

HOLY CRAP.......

I am sooooo done, and beyond spray or handgun! It is literally a matter of ease of access and flooded market. But when one side cant even get on board with banning battlefield weapons, what do you want me to say?

America has an unhealthy obsession with all types of firearms. No other westernized first world country comparable to America has anything close to our firearm violence. The issue isn't about rights, it has always been about one industry scaring the shit out of the public needlessly to protect the profits of one industry.

(bold mine)

Does the US have a problem with privately owned anti-tank missiles? 

Boru