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

291–300 of 346 posts

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#291

Post by qserasera »

kevwil wrote: post #181
qserasera wrote: post #45

Foreign weapons manufactueres declare victory once again. Russia seems to be in a military boom.

I wouldn't disagree, overall, but it may not be that clear-cut. I heard Sig Sauer is closing a German factory and the US plant will be exporting US-made Sigs. Reminds me of the Accord I used to have, made in Ohio. Are these wins for foreign companies? I tend to think of them as domestic wins with foreign owners getting a slice off the top.

For Sigs I suppose the market still exists in the US where it wouldn't in Europe.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#292

Post by qserasera »

ilstormcloud wrote: post #83
qserasera wrote: post #45

Foreign weapons manufactueres declare victory once again. Russia seems to be in a military boom.

Are they? What makes you say that? I would have assumed the CAATSA would make it very difficult to secure big budget sells.

It's not very effective against places with low US economy exposure.

Economics dont happen in a vacuum

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#293

Post by dragonsky67 »

indymike wrote: post #149
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…

First, I really like your comment because it is honest and highlights how different Urban and Rural issues are. Lots of guns in the hands of non-law enforcement people is scary in a big city and most of the reasons are really good (i.e. accidents, crime, etc). In the country, not owning a gun is scary because of the inability of law enforcement to respond quickly when called... even suburbs often have slow police com…

I'm from Australia so am missing your context. Is violent crime such a high risk for you that the proximity of law enforcement is a factor, or are you talking about using law enforcemnet to deal with dangerous animials?

My experience here and having travelled much of this country is that I've never felt at risk of violent crime whilst in remote areas and rairly in urban areas when in an area near a pub or "drug" area.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#294

Post by dragonsky67 »

Koshkin wrote: post #253
stevehawk wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, sure - only criminals should be able to have guns in a city.

In the fact that somebody who is not experienced handling and firing a weapon in a stressfull situation is more likely to hurt themselves or an innocent bystander, I think you are correct.

I would think that, beyond waking up to find you have an intruder, that having a gun in your house is not going to to you much good if you have a voilent intruder. If somebody decides to bash down your door in a violent range, you are not likely to have the instant access to a weapon that would be required to deal with the situation.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#295

Post by missedthecue »

novaleaf wrote: post #278
snapetom wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a very pro-2A gun owner, I'm upvoting you and hope at least people stop downvoting you. Downvoting this comment, which in no way attacks other people or their points of view, goes against the spirit of HN. Save that crap for reddit. Back to your comment, though, I grew up in the San Francisco suburbs. I have pretty much lived in either metropolitan suburbs or urban center of medium sized cities. I never even shot…

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.

Both the Soviet Union and the United States, sporting the most powerful armies the world has ever seen, failed to conquer a bunch of farmers and goat herders using 60-100 year old rifles in Afghanistan.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#296

Post by missedthecue »

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 is popular to say, but doesn't hold up to reality.

An analysis of "17,171 worldwide leveraged buyout transactions that include every transaction with a financial sponsor in the CapitalIQ database announced between 1/1/1970 and 6/30/2007" found bankruptcy rates around 6% [1]. This isn't exceptionally high.

[1] https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.23.1.121 Table 2

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#297

Post by SamPatt »

mulmen wrote: post #289
frank2 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"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.

Tens of millions of armed citizens is absolutely an effective counter to any threat. Imagine keeping supply lines moving across a country this large if you knew millions of armed people would try to shut you down.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#298

Post by HeadsUpHigh »

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…

How exactly do you plan on keeping occupation of a country when the entire place is full of armed citizens that don't like you? That's the point. A military coup in the USA is unlikely to succeed.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#299

Post by DiabloD3 »

refurb wrote: post #197
DiabloD3 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cerberus sort of hinges on "a guaranteed amount of much less profit" vs "we might profit, or we might completely lose our investment". They're not "investors", they're predatory vultures. However, given that, their model does work, even if it is immoral and short-sighted.

Can you share the details you're referring to? Cerberus is Private Equity, so as far as I know, those details of the deal aren't public.

I can only point to the public knowledge of the outcomes: either, under far stricter management, the new company alienates workers and long time customers... or, those companies do not survive, and are stripped down for their valuable assets and debtors get as little as possible due to bankruptcy.

People describe companies like Cerberus sort of like the undertaker of companies in a capitalist society, but I don't entirely agree with that metaphor.

Re: Remington Arms Declares Bankruptcy

#300

Post by banku_brougham »

A law professor, Heidi Feldman, points out that

>With bankruptcy, Remington means to halt the Sandy Hook litigation from continuing in Connecticut state court.Notable timing, it comes after a series of decisions by the trial judge refusing to let Remington dodge discovery.

Post reply on HN