questionswho still thinks woot should get an ffl ?


Woot is able to keep costs down due to the simplicity of their ordering process. You order, you pay, they pack, they ship.

If you complicate that, you will create backlogs and big order processing roadblocks.

It's hard to imagine anything harder for them to do in their business model than sell guns legally.

Let them sell the accessories. Buy your guns from companies whose specialty is selling guns.


@mrgrogg: Wouldn't FFL to FFL be simpler because there are a smaller number of possible addresses and recipients. So they would ship the same as the rest just to an FFL. I don't see how this complicates things other than the lack of SMART POST if that is actually a USPS services.


No, it wouldn't simplify things by giving fewer addresses. It would double the number of addresses on the orders. For the paperwork, they still need the address of the purchaser.

Plus, they then need to allow the purchaser to specify which FFL they want the gun shipped to. Plus, they need to compare that selection to the current list of FFLs to make sure it's still valid. Then they ship to the FFL. If the gun isn't picked up within 30 days or the purchaser becomes disqualified for whatever reason to legally purchase it, they then have to deal with the return, and returns aren't something Woot likes to deal with. If they get a stock of, say 300, shotguns and sell them at a steep discount until they are out, and then two of them get returned by the recipient's FFL, then what are they supposed to do with them? Two isn't even enough for a decent Wootoff.

There's a reason websites that sell guns tend to focus on them - because it's not simple. Woot should focus on what they're good at.


@mrgrogg: I see your reasoning with the doubling of addresses. If what you say is true then that makes sense.
By your reasoning woot should not have gone with wine.woot or deals.woot because they where not "good" at those things that are clearly different from the original Also should they not do the shipping bundle deals that have recently come up because they are new and not something woot is "good" with.
Clearly woot is innovative (maybe not as much since Amazon came along) and that is what made them able to expand and one reason we don't find them stale. (Not trying to speak for everyone)
As for any excess, not sold off items, or returns I would say that is why we have woot-offs and Moofi. I do not know the legality but perhaps a form needing to be e-signed stating that all firearms not picked up from the FFL with in 30 days becomes properity of the FFL and need not be returned to woot. The FFL gets a free item to sell and woot need not deal with the return. Seems like a win-win to me.


@mrgrogg: Also I would like to thank you for the interaction on the subject. I appreciate your incite and enjoy getting a different perspective.


Your argument makes no sense.

Wine.woot is exactly the same as the original Woot except that there are certain states they can't ship to.

Deals.woot doesn't have them doing anything at all other than maintaining a website.

You can innovate within the things you are good at and expand your offerings without changing the core of your business.

Guns introduce a whole new level of complexity. The logistics are far more complicated. As for giving the guns to the recipient FFL for free, you say it's a win/win. But what about Woot's loss? Woot isn't going to give away a $700 pistol just because somebody didn't come by to pick it up or because they got arrested for something during the shipping time. (And if they did, FFLs would be incentivized to generate fake orders or to pay others small amounts to place orders that would never be picked up.)

Selling unregulated things is easy. Even semi-regulated alcohol is easy. Regulated arms is a complex beast that would drag Woot down.


@mrgrogg: obviously the firearm is paid for before shipping like EVERY OTHER WOOT ITEM unless you have some magic way of ordering from woot where it does not get to your bank account or credit card until after you receive the item.


i thought you meant "fantasy football league."
i'm definitely out of my element.


@pemberducky: appreciate you at least taking a look. :D


YES!!! I'd love to see more gun/gun related deals....and more outdoor gear deals while I'm complaining....


@philosopherott: "Obviously"? Really? And then when the person who never received the item (for whatever reason) asks for their money back, who's on the hook? If you say it's the purchaser, then the question becomes who does the purchaser successfully sue to get their money back? That would be Woot. So Woot would lose. Have you thought this through even a little bit? Because yo keep lobbing softballs.


@mrgrogg: Yes Obviously! I do not understand you hostility about that. You (and I apologize if I interpreted wrong) made it seem like there is some type of COD with woot, and to my knowledge there is not. If there is please enlighten us as to how to go about that.

I put out there, that there might be “a form needing to be e-signed” that would waive liability if the item would not be picked up with in 30 days or what ever the maximum time period is . If you are a lawyer, and know that this would not suffice or is not legal, then just let me know and I will step aside and respect your expertise. I am not a legal professional, but I do have experience with waivers and know how they work as well as the fact that you can e-sign things to make them legally binding.

To be continued...


My argument must make sense because you are making counter arguments to them. If it made no sense, neither would your counter arguments.
I have thought this through but you seem to be getting angry about this hypothetical (again I am sorry if I am misinterpreting but the questioning my thought process and the lobbing of soft balls comments lead me to this conclusion.) Now I could say something dramatically emotional like maybe “one lob hit you in the head”, but that would be childish and I don’t think that it would get us anywhere except us insulting each other instead of logically think bout the problem. Thanks for the debate!

@johnnys13: thanks for chiming in; I would love to hear more of your thoughts 