George P
member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2018
- Messages
- 7,772
IDK about that; Academy has some great prices on guns and ammo......and they sell tennis balls too.......
Dicks Admits Corporate Gun Control Hurting Business
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
RedlegRick
Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2017
- Messages
- 728
I stopped shopping there right years ago, after buying my Crickett. I wish I could have recorded the entire transaction, because it was alternately hilarious and infuriating at the same time.
First off, I didn't go there to buy a gun, all I wanted was a couple bulk packs of 9mm ammo they had on sale. No dice, all they had was an empty space on the shelf and I spied what I now call Nature Boy sitting all by itself on the rack.
When I finally got a clerk to come over so I could inspect it, he looked like he had gas or something, and when I told him I wanted to buy it, actually looked I'll.
I always say it was an impulse buy and it was, but more than once I was tempted to walk away, that's how much that guy pissed me off. I almost had to talk him through the process, from asking for the 4473 to accepting my NYS pistol permit as 'secondary' ID.
Seriously, that stain wanted me to go home and come back with a piece of mail to 'prove' I lived at my address. I asked him three times to get a manager if he didn't know what he was doing, and finally flagged down another clerk who did.
The manager-type was slightly more competent, but only just so. The final straw came was when they insisted I had to wait five days to pick it up, like a handgun, and I ended up calling their corporate office in front of them and listened to some regional manager ream them out over the phone.
Long story short, I walked out of there with it, but NEVER returned again. It'll be a cold day downstairs before they see another penny of mine, thanks to that one encounter.
First off, I didn't go there to buy a gun, all I wanted was a couple bulk packs of 9mm ammo they had on sale. No dice, all they had was an empty space on the shelf and I spied what I now call Nature Boy sitting all by itself on the rack.
When I finally got a clerk to come over so I could inspect it, he looked like he had gas or something, and when I told him I wanted to buy it, actually looked I'll.
I always say it was an impulse buy and it was, but more than once I was tempted to walk away, that's how much that guy pissed me off. I almost had to talk him through the process, from asking for the 4473 to accepting my NYS pistol permit as 'secondary' ID.
Seriously, that stain wanted me to go home and come back with a piece of mail to 'prove' I lived at my address. I asked him three times to get a manager if he didn't know what he was doing, and finally flagged down another clerk who did.
The manager-type was slightly more competent, but only just so. The final straw came was when they insisted I had to wait five days to pick it up, like a handgun, and I ended up calling their corporate office in front of them and listened to some regional manager ream them out over the phone.
Long story short, I walked out of there with it, but NEVER returned again. It'll be a cold day downstairs before they see another penny of mine, thanks to that one encounter.
22-rimfire
Member
I haven't been in a Dick's store since they did their internal gun control. Don't miss them in the least. What I would buy at Dicks I generally can buy at Sportsman Warehouse or Academy.
Deanimator
Member
It's hard to boycott a place that actively discourages you from buying anything in the first place.
At their North Olmsted, Ohio store, it's more work to get somebody to just TELL you if they HAVE a particular type of ammunition than to buy a registered Thompson SMG from an NFA dealer. Now I know what invisibility is like...
At their North Olmsted, Ohio store, it's more work to get somebody to just TELL you if they HAVE a particular type of ammunition than to buy a registered Thompson SMG from an NFA dealer. Now I know what invisibility is like...
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,077
I'm thinking they pretty much knew how much it would affect their sales......and still made the decision to take their stand publicly. It's called integrity. Staying true to yourself and following your moral and/or ethical convictions, even when others disagree. I'm not saying I agree with their ethics/morals, but I give them credit for sticking to them, even when it costs them profits.
What the 'ell do tennis balls have to do with anything? Are they like clowns and scare you?
I buy most of my guns from two places that also sell Tennis Balls. Both are small town hardware stores that sell guns for the same price as you can get them from Davidson's or Gunbroker, without charging you a transfer fee. One has over 3000 guns in stock and if they don't have what you want, they'll get it. They are pretty much a landmark in the area for over 120 years. The other is only about 8 blocks from my house. While they don't have the on hand inventory as the other store(30 miles away), they too have no problem ordering what you want and getting it. I'd be a fool for not getting my guns at either. But then clowns don't scare me either.
Deanimator
Member
Bull Conner took his "stand" too.
I prefer to call both examples not of "integrity", but of stupidity, prejudice and malice.
Steadfast evil is still evil.
Bottom Gun
Member
They will get no respect from me. They made a stupid decision based upon emotion and prejudice and it cost the shareholders a lot of money. Their first obligation should have been to the shareholders. Making investors pay the price so some fools can make a political statement is inexcusable.
That's manifestly not what I wrote.
The OP cited a post from Breitbart which has a history of reporting what the President characterized as "fake news". The President himself fired Steve Bannon. And since - as shown by the quote - you just agreed that Breitbart - along with other news outlets - can and does get it wrong, why should anyone gamble they might have gotten it right for a change? Why not do as I suggested and just skip the liberal/conservative filter and get the press release directly from the company?
Or, are you concerned that without someone else applying a partisan political filter for you, the press release might not conform to your viewpoint and you would be left to interpret the press release on your own?
George P
member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2018
- Messages
- 7,772
So where is this store with 3000 guns? I might want to take a road trip...........
Like CNN?
PWC
Member
This is beginning to sound like another well known shooting forum that seems to have been taken over most actively with political commentary.
BSA1
member
I don't know about that. I've bought guns at Walmart, Academy and my old employer. Got some really good deals at all three places.
Of course this was meant as a slight at Dick's. A small town FFL is totally different. I remember my dad buying a gun from Western Auto. Of course they didn't sell tennis balls either. I will admit to buying a loss leader at Walmart.
I'll adding a modifier "except for Academy." They seem okay, though I haven't had the occasion to buy a gun there yet.
EIB0879
Member
Ours used to be a Galyans. That was a good store.
Same. Unfortunate that Dick's bought them.
Deanimator
Member
It wasn't a press release but found in required guidance document filed with the SEC which I posted later. Both the WSJ and Breitbart stories were based upon it but the WSJ is behind a paywall. I trust SEC filings even more than a "press release" as there are legal duties that entail if a company posts misleading information in these. Company press releases in many cases are worse fiction than media stories.
If you use the standard of Steven Bannon firing to discredit Breitbart, then you must disqualify CBS for Dan Rather ,Uncle Walter's misreporting on Tet, and its failed reporting on Westmoreland years ago, you must disqualify the NYT for hiring Jayson Blair, having a German agent as their WWI era reporter, and a reporter, Walter Duranty, who lied about the existence of the Holodomor in Ukraine and many other things. The Washington Post published another fabulist and promoted Bob Woodward who claimed an interview with dying William Casey which could not have happened. The New Republic had Stephen Glass among others, NBC had Brian Williams and the Dateline fiasco on pickup trucks etc., and so forth. CNN had Saddam Hussein's minions edit any reporting from there and the whole blown up nerve gas use in Vietnam fake story as well. Reuters had stringers inventing stories, photoshopping pictures, etc. AP has been caught in fibs and distortions and so forth.
Often entire subject matters are considered off limits for the media (lying by omission) that upset gentry liberals, some are issues that only pop up based on party, etc. Sugar daddies paying to play also come up, Bezos did not buy the Washington Post to make money but to parley influence in Washington, Carlos Slim did not purchase a large stake in the NYT for gain, etc. Others with large fortunes do the same. Under your rules applied to Breitbart, you would not read nor listen to any news whatsoever as all of these news sources have had people with prominent issues of truthfulness, corruption-direct or through pushing desired outcomes regardless of facts, distortions of opinion, and so forth.
So, most people have a couple of choices. One is to disbelieve everything by everyone which can leave someone quite ignorant. Two, only believe sources that you believe tell you the truth---which is going to be a bit different for everyone and risks confirmation bias, Three, the Constanza option--only use those sources that are opposite from your inclinations for information--which avoids confirmation bias but runs aground on sins of omission of facts, Four, dig up the original sources (multiple ones are preferred) and decide for yourself--time consuming, difficult, etc. In option 4, you are still at risk for confirmation bias by choosing to believe sources and data to support your inclinations and risks of omission.
I use the idea of trust but verify myself. I have limited time in the day to discuss whether or not Pluto is a planet, whether hi carb, keto, etc. is the ideal diet, whether or not dogs use the bathroom on a north south axis due to planetary magnetism, the personal proclivities of celebrities, etc. Thus, I invest little time or effort in these stories and have little stake in whether or not they are "true",
On things that actually matter to me, I do the time and research or do sufficient groundwork on things like retirement planning, reloading information, health information, that I trust the source(s) with periodic rechecks.
On things of marginal importance, I do cursory research to more or less inform myself and put it out there. It doesn't upset me that someone finds that I may be mistaken, uses different sources that indicate another truth, or has a different opinion on a matter of taste. In the case of Dicks, it is of marginal importance to me whether or not Dick's is growing or not. I will not shop there as a matter of personal preference due to Ed Stack nor invest in their company. Others may feel differently and that is fine.
In the O/P's post, it was attacked for not being from the proper source (e.g. this is the genetic logical fallacy that information is false based on who made the statement). A more helpful response would be to find the press release and post it yourself and allow others to determine whether or not the original story was distorted. This was not a case of what would happen if you filled a .30-06 case with Unique and set off a round but merely a dispute of which source is preferable. I did cursory investigation, found half a dozen links, and posted the original source which appears to be the required SEC stock guidance filing for the WSJ and Breitbart stories. I did not find a press release on the issue but really do not care as the SEC guidance speaks for itself without company pr gloss.
A lot of people may disdain Breitbart, the Daily Caller, Fox News, etc. while others disdain the NYT, Wash Post, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc. depending on what stories interest them and what is their general political outlook. A lot of what is in these sources is only opinion which resembles the rear end similarity of individuals. A lot of it is merely reporting a few quotes from wire services or other sources and repackaging it with a heaping of opinion.
Very little of it deals with actually talking with sources and trying to get it right.
To me, our media is like the old Soviet joke regarding the newspapers of Pravda and Izvestia. In Pravda there is no truth and in Izvestia there is no news. Pravda means truth in Russian and Izvestia means news. Russians learned to cope by noticing what events in their life was not covered and how events were reported. The rumor mills were rife. For example, if the news was so bad that even the papers covered it, then it must be so bad that it could not be covered up. FWIW, I have talked to reporters including one from a source that Iisted above, on some issues in the past and when my bland not spicy academically correct statements of fact were not enough, the stories never ran. I have known other interviewees that have had their statements totally mangled and often in some way to spur further controversy. Unless you can handle a cross-examination like an expert witness in court, dealing with the press is best with a written statement.
Thus, one can get news tidbits even if you are reading a biased source. One can use these tidbits to conduct further investigation/research to determine whether or not the real story was reported. With the internet, it is relatively easy to check with a couple of keystrokes whether or not the reporting was fair, objective, and balanced if it matters to you. Post the additional information if you think that others should know. If it doesn't matter to you or you cannot indicate that the O/P's story's facts were flawed, then so what.
ColoradoMinuteMan
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2015
- Messages
- 702
What surprises me (not really) is that you debate the validity of the article, by providing not conflicting evidence from another source, but rather with a hypothesis based upon a what-if. If you're so interested in ensuring the validity of information before engaging in discourse, then why not at minimum provide a source of information that supports that Brietbart has provided incorrect information in this article - or does that not suit your narrative?
skeptical_in_Ohio
Member
This right here is the issue - I trade at a lot of stores that don't sell firearms, but once one starts advocating laws that would serve to diminish the rights of otherwise law-abiding citizens, that store will no longer derive benefit from my custom.
nettlle
Contributing Member
I have never thought much of Dick's. The last time I was in a Dick's was many years ago and I observed a young man trying on several very expensive baseball caps while looking at himself in a mirror. He was putting these baseball caps on backwards. That is my memory of Dick's.
OneFreeTexan
Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 454
WHY do you even go to Dick’s to buy guns? I don’t understand,,,Never been in one, but you all complain about them so much, so why go there. I am fortunate to have a Dunham’s that has ‘killer’ service and prices to match anyone’s, even online,, IN Texas my Academy bends over backwards for me...Also have a few LGS that are great, and for that odd ammo,, I get it online...so again:
Why go to Dick’s?? Do you just enjoy being abused? Reminds me of the story about the bear hunter.
Why go to Dick’s?? Do you just enjoy being abused? Reminds me of the story about the bear hunter.
Deus Machina
Member
I bought my first shotgun at a Dick's. A shame because I liked it and got it for a better price than anywhere else, and managed to get the guy that knew what he was doing.
Kind of hurts not going back because they're the only local place that carries my favorite fishing lures. Even Bass Pro rarely does, and they're down an extra three miles of twisting road with confusing turns and no signs, when they could be down a block or two off the highway instead.
But after working retail for sixteen years, I can see what Dicks' issue with the workers is. They have too few people, and they're paid and trained too little to force them to cover too many departments per person and too many customers; the local one's attached to a mall. They're usually friendly when I had stopped in during the slowest times, and either knew answers or where to find them. I really don't think they hire the bottom of the barrel, they just burn them out.
You can buy a box of 60-watt bulbs, but it still doesn't work when you either need to buy a second box or fix your old 100-watt sockets.
Kind of hurts not going back because they're the only local place that carries my favorite fishing lures. Even Bass Pro rarely does, and they're down an extra three miles of twisting road with confusing turns and no signs, when they could be down a block or two off the highway instead.
But after working retail for sixteen years, I can see what Dicks' issue with the workers is. They have too few people, and they're paid and trained too little to force them to cover too many departments per person and too many customers; the local one's attached to a mall. They're usually friendly when I had stopped in during the slowest times, and either knew answers or where to find them. I really don't think they hire the bottom of the barrel, they just burn them out.
You can buy a box of 60-watt bulbs, but it still doesn't work when you either need to buy a second box or fix your old 100-watt sockets.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
