Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 346 posts

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#201

Post by yeetawayhn »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #175
jm4 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have. A couple guys came into the house late at night while I was in bed. I was upstairs and they were downstairs. I didn't have a means to escape. Cops can't help in that situation. I confronted them at the stairs and the whole thing de-escalated very quickly. Nobody got hurt. As far as someone sneaking into your house while you sleep, it was pretty much a best case scenario.

Stories like this sound so weird to me. Breaking into an occupied house sounds like suicidal behavior. What kind of thought process goes into doing something like that?

Not sure, but according to Bureau of Justice Statistics, it happens in 27% of burglaries. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#202

Post by stevehawk »

jonahbenton wrote: post #128

Am sure this will be downvoted but just commenting that I find discussion in these threads fascinating, terrifying, fundamentally foreign. Having lived in large cities all my life I cannot conceive of owning a gun, or of other nearby city dwellers owning guns, or even being allowed to in a non law enforcement capacity. There are apartments in NYC with working fireplaces- seems almost equally insane to me, though gun…

I mean, as a gun owner, if you told me you lived in a NYC apartment and owned a gun for in-home, self defense I'd ask "why?". You're putting the lives of a lot of people around you in jeopardy if you miss (which you almost certainly will at least once). I think if I lived in NYC, in an a place where I was concerned about that, I'd reinforce entryways so I could shelter in place somewhere.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#203

Post by wcarron »

komali2 wrote: post #5
manfredo wrote: post #3

Never owned a Remington myself, but they've not been held in high regard for a while. Some say it was linked to it's acquisition by Cerberus Capital. Ultimately, though, it seem alike the company was asking customers to pay premium prices for average guns. What justifies spending 800 - 1200 dollars on a Remington 700 as compared to $500 on a Ruger American?

Sounds eerily similar to the Harley situation. I had the displeasure of renting a Harley something - street 500 or something along those lines - just to see what all the fuss was about. Seems much ado about nothing, why would I drop 8,000$ on a slab of iron, not even made in the USA anymore, when I could get twice the bike at half the weight for the same price from Suzuki?

I'll do ya 1 better: I had the displeasure of actually buying a new Harley (I was young and stupid). The street 500/750 are the worst of the worst from HD. The Iron 883 is the smallest "real" harley. And it's a completely different feel from the streets.

However, it was a trashcan of a bike. I was always fixing weird issues, the HD dealership absolutely sucked in every facet from timeliness of service, to prices, to the guy at the service desk just not being a cunt. I upgraded many parts just to get the damn thing to perform at a reasonable level.

Thankfully, I was hit by a car and my bike was totalled. This freed me to purchase a KTM 790 duke which is 160lbs lighter, with double the horsepower, 20% more torque, 80% longer service intervals, all for significantly less than the Iron 883.

Harley-Davidson is literally hemmorhaging cash. Their main demo is aging out of the market and they haven't been able to sell to millenials because millenials aren't stupid and go buy a Yamaha MT-09 or Suzuki, etc for waaay less. And I'm hearing whispers that H-D willl be axing their new forays into ADV, standard, and E-bikes.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#204

Post by Shared404 »

ctdonath wrote: post #86
throwaway-facts wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I generally agree with the message of the protests but I feel like what's going on in Portland isn't being widely covered by the media. I am a long standing democrat for many years and it is becoming really difficult to stand behind the message when the activists have no agenda, want to continue doing this and there is no end in sight. I absolutely resent federal forces defending the courthouse. If protestors want to…

We jail arsonists for good reason. “Burn the courthouse for change” isn’t centrist, it’s delusional.

It's escalation. Not even unreasonable imho.

The protesters were attacked. They did not escalate before this. After being attacked, their options are to continue being attacked with no recourse, or counterattack.

I personally have 0 issue with burning the courthouse. As with the previous violent protests, my issue comes with damage to civilian property.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#205

Post by akira2501 »

awillen wrote: post #178
dsparkman wrote: post #155

If a business is purchased by a private equity company, it is not long for this world. Private equity is all about strip mining a business.

This grossly (and incorrectly) oversimplifies an enormous industry with a number of different approaches. Some PE firms absolutely strip the assets out of businesses and maximize their short term profits, while others buy and hold for the long term and others add value to companies they buy then sell them or take them public. I hate the whole "PE is evil" attitude from people who don't understand it. Often there are…

> while the reality is the business in its current form was going to fail and take everyone's job with it, and it was necessary to cut jobs in order to save the business

As a rate, how many business are actually "saved" by PE firms?

> (and thus save the jobs that remain)

Wouldn't that be simpler with a general bankruptcy? What is gained when a third party, often encumbered with leverage, gets involved?

> but it's just unhelpful to label the whole industry based on those

It's equally unhelpful to expect the minority players in an industry to define that industry.

> the whole tech industry is very much evil because it exploits cheap labor (Uber, DoorDash, etc.).

To engage the hyperbole, the current iteration of it may well be. I expected flying cars and trips to the moon, not face recognition surveillance, deep fakes and manipulative social networks.

Realistically... PE on it's own, and tech on it's own may be neutral concepts, but our current lack of regulation of their specific markets really shows.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#206

Post by volkl48 »

ed25519FUUU wrote: post #168
volkl48 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a similarly opposite perspective as someone who's currently in a rural area: I can go out back, set up target(s) and plink away basically anytime I want. Might even do it this evening if the ammo I ordered finally gets delivered today. There's a safe direction to aim in and the distant neighbors don't mind, they do the same! For longer range, there's various outdoor ranges around, both formal and informal (you ma…

What part of the country do you live in? Even on a few acres, I'm not confident that a stray bullet couldn't cause quite a bit of harm.

(far) Northern New England. And you would be right, that's an important consideration if there isn't an appropriate backstop.

The topography up here has granted plenty of appropriate natural backstops, however. (And some not so natural, the various old gravel pits and quarries are popular for that purpose as well).

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#207

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

tharne wrote: post #147
badrequest wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I can't possibly think of a single method of dealing with coyotes that isn't an AR-15. Until that specific model of firearm was invented, people just sort of let coyotes eat their chickens, as there was nothing they could possibly do. They couldn't use humbler firearms with less capacity for committing mass shootings, they just let their chickens die.

You don't know much about firearms based on your response. An AR-15 is a high-powered rifle that has a lot of stopping power even at long range and is very accurate - that's why my buddy had one. It also doesn't have the spread of a shotgun, which is important if you need to shoot a coyote that's too close to your chickens -- you don't want to fire a round of buckshot and take out a bunch of your chickens in the proc…

I do think this is a bit unfair. When the average person says "AR-15", they mean "rifle with a big ol' external mag", and it's a pretty new phenomenon for the average gun owner to have those. Until the assault weapons ban expired in 2004, even gun enthusiasts really did tend to think that a "normal" rifle was one with a wood stock and a fixed internal magazine.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#208

Post by hef19898 »

rsync wrote: post #120
walrus01 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Among people I know who track modern firearm technology I don't know a single person who would even contemplate buying a Remington. They are to modern guns what a Harley Davidson is to a modern motorcycle. People who care about good tech and value are buying things like CZs, aero precision and Anderson AR10/15 lowers and uppers, etc. Even the canik pistol from turkey is remarkably good quality. Savage offers good val…

"Among people I know who track modern firearm technology I don't know a single person who would even contemplate buying a Remington." Anecdotal, but we needed several workhorse .308 rifles and even considering the previous issues with the Rem 700 triggers, etc., I still chose that model. In addition to being a simple mechanism and easy to clean and maintain, it has a very high adoption rate which means parts and chas…

I like that logic. Something a lot of enthusiats, fire arms, cars, etc.., don't get. Servicability and maintainability of a large fleet of X is such a big deal that you chose X for these reasons over Y. even if Y would, on the single unit level, be a tad better.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#209

Post by stevehawk »

akiselev wrote: post #152
jonahbenton wrote: post #128

Am sure this will be downvoted but just commenting that I find discussion in these threads fascinating, terrifying, fundamentally foreign. Having lived in large cities all my life I cannot conceive of owning a gun, or of other nearby city dwellers owning guns, or even being allowed to in a non law enforcement capacity. There are apartments in NYC with working fireplaces- seems almost equally insane to me, though gun…

I live in Los Angeles and I used to feel that way until this pandemic hit - I'm not saying you'll change your mind living in NYC, just sharing my change in perspective. I bugged out mid-March to a family farm to wait out the pandemic and since then its been a nonstop string of events reinforcing why - at least outside of cities - guns are absolutely necessary. Now, mind you, one member of the household works at a res…

> Some of them have really warped views of human civilization that led them to live further out (rapists and murderers around every corner) and seem to relish the idea of "defending themselves" with a gun

It's unfortunate how true that statement is. Every time I've attended a class for a concealed carry permit it seems to be filled with wanna-be vigilantes. Which is ironic because almost every CCP class is a gun advocate instructor saying "do not shoot people! even if you're in the right you'll go bankrupt defending yourself in civil court". And everytime they get asked "But what if...?" "You'll still get sued..." "but what.." repeat ad nausea

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#210

Post by Shared404 »

whammywon wrote: post #196
Shared404 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe. On the other hand, I would argue that a violent protest is still a protest, thus the need to specify non-violent.

Sincere question: How do you differentiate between a "violent" protest and a riot? Edit: realized I accidentally typed "non-violent" as opposed to "violent".

I would say probably destruction of civilian property.

Most of the protests could be considered as violent, due to the police shooting tear gas etc. into crowds of peaceful protest.

Protests where the protesters get violent would in my mind involve

A) Actual retaliation vs police, not just water bottles.

or

B) Destruction of government property.

or

C) Both.

Protests where it devolves into looting private property are not protests, they are riots -- that have at least partially been caused by people who _definitely_ do not agree with the protesters.

Edit: Just noticed your edit, no worries. I understood your intent fine.

Post reply on HN