Dick's Sporting Goods CEO on decision to no longer sell assault-style rifles: 'We don’t want to be a

[ABX]

It's not Dick's job to address root causes or solve problems.  What it can do is acknowledge the concerns many of its customers have regarding kids being shot in cold blood at concerts, schools and other public places.  Yes, it wants to portray itself as virtuous - and will likely suffer a loss of business for it.   Perhaps the rest of us should strive to be virtuous and civic-minded as well.     

You just said in the comment I was responding to it was helping solve the problem.

[Jazzhead]

You just said in the comment I was responding to it was helping solve the problem.

My original comment tracked the language of Dick's statement:

But we have to help solve the problem that's in front of us. Gun violence is an epidemic that's taking the lives of too many people . . .

Now is Dick's action, by itself, going to "solve the problem", even in a small way?  Probably not.  But I like the old adage that if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.   Dick's will likely lose business for being civic-minded rather than selfish.   Virtue is its own, and this case likely only, reward. 

[andy58-in-nh]

@andy58-in-nh 

More felons commit murder with firearms then crazies.   Felons don't purchase their firearms at a gun store.

That's exactly right. Which is why all gun control laws are ultimately useless.

We have culture and morality problems. We have behavioral and mental illness problems. We have law enforcement problems.

Guns did not cause any of these problems, and banning them won't solve them, either.

[driftdiver]

It's not Dick's job to address root causes or solve problems.  What it can do is acknowledge the concerns many of its customers have regarding kids being shot in cold blood at concerts, schools and other public places.  Yes, it wants to portray itself as virtuous - and will likely suffer a loss of business for it.   Perhaps the rest of us should strive to be virtuous and civic-minded as well.     

@Jazzhead
First you commend them for helping to solve the 'problem' and then say its not their job to address the problem.

[driftdiver]

My original comment tracked the language of Dick's statement:

Now is Dick's action, by itself, going to "solve the problem", even in a small way?  Probably not.  But I like the old adage that if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.   Dick's will likely lose business for being civic-minded rather than selfish.   Virtue is its own, and this case likely only, reward.

@Jazzhead
So based on your logic should Dicks also stop selling knives?  They kill a lot more people then guns.

[Frank Cannon]

This is grand standing bullshit to inject themselves into the story. This crappy store hasen't had guns for years.

[skeeter]

@Jazzhead
So based on your logic should Dicks also stop selling knives?  They kill a lot more people then guns.

Dicks selfishly considers knives a bridge too far.

[catfish1957]

I'd say the company is pretty aptly named.

[dfwgator]

That's exactly right. Which is why all gun control laws are ultimately useless.

We have culture and morality problems. We have behavioral and mental illness problems. We have law enforcement problems.

Guns did not cause any of these problems, and banning them won't solve them, either.

And focusing on guns is a cop-out to avoid talking about the root causes,  which contain a lot of 'inconvenient truths'.

[Jazzhead]

Guns did not cause any of these problems, and banning them won't solve them, either.

I believe the idea is that banning certain types of guns with large capacities and rapid fire, that the carnage at mass shootings may be less.   For example, if the Las Vegas shooter didn't have an array of high capacity semi-autos,  he may have killed 10 folks and wounded 25, rather than killed 50 and wounded 500.   

So the idea isn't to "solve" the problem of crazies with guns, but rather limit their ability to cause multiple deaths in a short period of time.   

I'm not saying I support these types of bans;  I'm merely describing what appears to be the motivation behind them.   

[Jazzhead]

And focusing on guns is a cop-out to avoid talking about the root causes,  which contain a lot of 'inconvenient truths'.

What cop out?   Why not address both?   

[driftdiver]

I believe the idea is that banning certain types of guns with large capacities and rapid fire, that the carnage at mass shootings may be less.   For example, if the Las Vegas shooter didn't have an array of high capacity semi-autos,  he may have killed 10 folks and wounded 25, rather than killed 50 and wounded 500.   

So the idea isn't to "solve" the problem of crazies with guns, but rather limit their ability to cause multiple deaths in a short period of time.   

I'm not saying I support these types of bans;  I'm merely describing what appears to be the motivation behind them.   

@Jazzhead
Thats the stated motivation.  Each and every proposal by gun control activists are simply one more step to make it harder and more expensive to own firearms.  They have clearly stated their goal is to ban all guns.  So anything, no matter how  minor that furthers that goal is acceptable.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead
First you commend them for helping to solve the 'problem' and then say its not their job to address the problem.

Like I said, at least they're willing to try to be part of a civic-minded solution.   They are not being merely selfish.   

[Cyber Liberty]

Is this true?

Apparently they did, but started selling them again in their subsidiary stores.  Oddly, people wanted them.  Who knew?

[driftdiver]

What cop out?   Why not address both?

@Jazzhead

A.  Ownership of firearms is a constitutionally protected right.
B.  Gun control has been proven to increase crime and deaths associated with those crimes. 

[Suppressed]

@Jazzhead
So based on your logic should Dicks also stop selling knives?  They kill a lot more people then guns.

@driftdiver

Uh, no.  Not even close, at least in the US.

[Suppressed]

My main complaint against them is I went in a couple weeks ago to buy a Henry 45/70 and they were sold out.

Ask Allen Lee in the Far Harbor gun store.  He usually has one for sale every couple of days.

[INVAR]

Like I said, at least they're willing to try to be part of a civic-minded solution.   They are not being merely selfish.   

Only tyrants and their supporters are stupid enough to declare that a refusal to surrender a Right and the instruments and exercises of that right is 'selfish'.

I think we should take a page out of your playbook, and find a pro-2nd Amendment Judge and sue Dicks for refusing to sell guns when they advertise that they are a sporting goods store that sells sporting equipment and hunting gear.

[andy58-in-nh]

I believe the idea is that banning certain types of guns with large capacities and rapid fire, that the carnage at mass shootings may be less.   For example, if the Las Vegas shooter didn't have an array of high capacity semi-autos,  he may have killed 10 folks and wounded 25, rather than killed 50 and wounded 500.   

So the idea isn't to "solve" the problem of crazies with guns, but rather limit their ability to cause multiple deaths in a short period of time.   

I'm not saying I support these types of bans;  I'm merely describing what appears to be the motivation behind them.   

The problem with that is that there are many millions of these weapons currently owned by Americans, and 99.999% of them will never be used to harm innocent life. They are, however, highly useful in defending and saving human lives.

Bear in mind also that these are not automatic weapons, they are not "weapons of war", nor do they allow the truly high rates of fire associated with such military weapons. If outfitted with so-called "bump-stocks", an AR-15 can fire more rapidly by reducing the time required between trigger pulls, although with a significant sacrifice in accuracy (which of course, did not help those poor people in Las Vegas).

But that sick, twisted bastard never should have had access to a gun in the first place, and that is primarily a failure of law enforcement, FBI background reporting and the detritus of cultural rot.

[thackney]

@Jazzhead
So based on your logic should Dicks also stop selling knives?  They kill a lot more people then guns.

Knives more than rifles, not the generic guns including handguns.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-12

But the problem with that claim is the amount in the column: Firearms (type unknown)

[driftdiver]

@driftdiver

Uh, no.  Not even close, at least in the US.

@Suppressed

Sure they do.   

[Jazzhead]

The problem with that is that there are many millions of these weapons currently owned by Americans, and 99.999% of them will never be used to harm innocent life. They are, however, highly useful in defending and saving human lives.

A similar statement could be used with respect to cars.   As I've said repeatedly, the rules requiring owners to register and insure their cars has not led to confiscation.   The RKBA does not confer the right to amass arsenals in secret.  Guns, like cars, should be registered and insured. It's called being responsible.

Bear in mind also that these are not automatic weapons, they are not "weapons of war", nor do they allow the truly high rates of fire associated with such military weapons. If outfitted with so-called "bump-stocks", an AR-15 can fire more rapidly by reducing the time required between trigger pulls, although with a significant sacrifice in accuracy (which of course, did not help those poor people in Las Vegas). 

I know what they are.  I don't favor bans on entire classes of weapons such as semi-automatics - for obvious reasons (as you alluded to above),  such laws impact the good guys far more than the bad guys.   I could, however, favor a ban on high capacity magazines and bump stocks.   

But that sick, twisted bastard never should have had access to a gun in the first place, and that is primarily a failure of law enforcement, FBI background reporting and the detritus of cultural rot.

Agree, 100%.    That's why I favor such targeted measures as gun violence restraining orders.    There may have been insufficient evidence to incarcerate Cruz, but there may have been enough to take his guns away.   

[thackney]

Guns, like cars, should be registered and insured. It's called being responsible.

So like cars, registered and insured if used in public funded areas? but not private property?

[mountaineer]

Dick's announcement is utterly irrelevant to most gun owners in my area. We generally patronize local gunshops or Cabela's. Now if Cabela's starts pandering to snowflakes, it may be a problem (though not for me, I'll stick to one of the locally-owned dealers).

[roamer_1]

So like cars, registered and insured if used in public funded areas? but not private property?

 A whole bunch of jeeps out here that are fitted with a tow bar, or trailered to the sticks. not registered or insured. Legal off the paved road last I looked.