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

281–290 of 346 posts

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#281

Post by smegger001 »

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 can see why you would have that point of view living in your situation. If I may Let me share with you a different perspective.

I have grown up around firearms but with reason. I have spent the majority of my life living in rural areas, as a kid/teen I lived far out of town with acres of woodlands, swamps, forest, interspersed with occasional pastures for miles in every discretion. I have had multiple encounters with apex predictors in my backyard. I have had mountain lion in my woodshed, a bear wander into my yard, and other smaller predators such as coyotes bobcat, and feral dogs try to eat my pets/animals. I also enjoy many outdoor activities such as fishing camping and hiking in the backwoods, and have encountered more predators there (the above but also various venomous snakes and wolves). I started carrying .22 loaded with snake shot as defense against rattle snakes when fishing around age 12. But before I was allowed near my fathers guns he took me out to the range for safety training. The lesson I learned that day have stuck with me.

He placed a watermelon out on the range. He then shot the melon. Next he walked out with me to its pieces and told me to put it back together. I stared at him like he was insane, He then got down at eye level with me and told me that it would do that same to a person and to never point it at anyone, that it would kill them, that guns were deadly weapons not toys. We spent the rest of the day going over gun use and safety.

While today I don't live out in the country I still own firearms mostly used for sport shooting and defense when in the wilderness. But I take gun safety very seriously. My firearms are kept in a locked gunsafe bolted to the floor, inside the case they are all kept unloaded and all have a trigger lock of are kept in a locked case inside the safe.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#282

Post by smegger001 »

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?

around where I live its usually meth addicts trying to steal something to pawn and buy more drugs. The meth addicts in that state are not the most rational forward thinking people.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#283

Post by smegger001 »

wl wrote: post #198
akiselev wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The guns rural people tend to need are rifles. The guns that you see used in cities are almost entirely handguns. The concentration on scary black rifles is misguided unless you only focus on mass shootings, which make up a tiny fraction of firearm homicides.

small caliber handguns are useful to rural people for dealing with snakes. I used to carry a .22 revolver loaded with snake shot regularly.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#284

Post by novaleaf »

rascul wrote: post #280
novaleaf wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pro 2nd Amendment, but anti-gun. With the equipment a modern military has at it's disposal, I fail to see how the right to own small arms is going to help keep our government in check.

> I'm pro 2nd Amendment, but anti-gun. I'm a little confused, aren't those positions a bit contradictory? I would be interested in reading a bit more of your views here. > With the equipment a modern military has at it's disposal, I fail to see how the right to own small arms is going to help keep our government in check. After seeing various militaries (is that the right word?) fight for the last 19 years in Afghani…

My idea is that "the right to bear arms" should be reconsidered. One way or the other is fine, but I think that with military technology advancements we are in a poor middle ground right now. If we as Americans affirm the 2nd amendment, then the right to bear arms should be relaxed considerably (meaning, more military equipment should be allowed to civilians. If we reject the 2nd amendment then guns should be restricted to a greater degree (maybe like Canada)

The 2nd amendment is not a right to own a gun. Here is it's text:

> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

so what I'm arguing is that "small arms" are now basically ineffective arms.

If for some reason the USA Military became Americas enemy there's no way a credible opposition could rise without another military backing it. The point of the 2nd amendment is impossible today, so I think we should either fix it, or abolish it.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#285

Post by slenk »

blaser-waffle wrote: post #105
yaur wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Express. The whole idea is to not drag an expensive gun through a brier patch.

Maverick 88 is cheaper and doesn't have Remington stigma. Fit and finish isn't amazing but I haven't heard anything bad about Mossberg triggers themselves. Mossberg has plastic safeties and plastic trigger guards, though :/

Great sub $200 shotgun for me

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#286

Post by SEJeff »

FireForce wrote: post #279
SEJeff wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The remington precision is also at an incredible price point for a longer range rifle compared to much of its competition.

Are you referring to the RPR? If so, that's made by Ruger, not Remington.

Lysdexia for the lose. You’re spot on. I read this article thinking of Ruger for some stupid reason. The Ruger Precision Rifle (I have one chambered to 6.5mm creedmoor) is an excellent and affordable distance shooting rifle.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#287

Post by frank2 »

novaleaf wrote: post #284
rascul wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm pro 2nd Amendment, but anti-gun. I'm a little confused, aren't those positions a bit contradictory? I would be interested in reading a bit more of your views here. > With the equipment a modern military has at it's disposal, I fail to see how the right to own small arms is going to help keep our government in check. After seeing various militaries (is that the right word?) fight for the last 19 years in Afghani…

My idea is that "the right to bear arms" should be reconsidered. One way or the other is fine, but I think that with military technology advancements we are in a poor middle ground right now. If we as Americans affirm the 2nd amendment, then the right to bear arms should be relaxed considerably (meaning, more military equipment should be allowed to civilians. If we reject the 2nd amendment then guns should be restric…

>"small arms" are now basically ineffective arms

Are you sure? Half of the grunts in an US infantry platoon carry only weapons (specifically the M-4) available to civilians.

Civilians' having small arms greatly increases the number of soldiers needed to repress them, and the more soldiers needed, the more likely soldiers will revolt against the repression.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#288

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

ultrarunner wrote: post #172
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stock Harleys aren't loud either. The loud ones are all aftermarket mods than any bike can have.

Eh… I was just in a Harley dealer last weekend and a salescritter was riding one around the showroom (…yeah…) and it was loud. I know they have db requirements to be imported or whatever, but I don't get the sense that Harley-Davidson is just now building quiet bikes.

Dealers will swap out pipes so what you heard wasn't necessarily stock.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#289

Post by mulmen »

frank2 wrote: post #287
novaleaf wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My idea is that "the right to bear arms" should be reconsidered. One way or the other is fine, but I think that with military technology advancements we are in a poor middle ground right now. If we as Americans affirm the 2nd amendment, then the right to bear arms should be relaxed considerably (meaning, more military equipment should be allowed to civilians. If we reject the 2nd amendment then guns should be restric…

>"small arms" are now basically ineffective arms Are you sure? Half of the grunts in an US infantry platoon carry only weapons (specifically the M-4) available to civilians. Civilians' having small arms greatly increases the number of soldiers needed to repress them, and the more soldiers needed, the more likely soldiers will revolt against the repression.

The M4 is not available to civilians. And don't try to tell me an AR-15 is the same thing as an M4.

What does the other half of the platoon carry?

The argument here seems to be that civilians do not have an effective counter for an F-35. Or a B-52. Or an M1 Abrams.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#290

Post by wave_function »

kls wrote: post #96
nappy wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remington levered up and took on a ton of debt at the wrong time. The owners gambled and lost. It's a shame that people will lose their jobs over this.

It was actually strategic by the private equity that bought them. They leveraged Remington to the hilt, extracted all of the value and then bankrupted the shell. Not that I am an advocate of what they do but it was actually brilliant. Gun companies on average don't go bankrupt, so they where able to significantly leverage Remington while hollowing it out and moving the assets to other companies. Leaving the shell for…

I never understood how this works. If you're a bank, why would you lend money to Remington knowing that there's a good chance the owner strips the company and leaves you holding the bag?
Post reply on HN