• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dick's Sporting Goods halts sales of assault-style weapons

minnie616 said:
Your opinion.

I agree with The CEO of Dicks sporting Goods.

Dick's Sporting Goods, the nation's largest sporting goods retailer, will stop selling assault-style weapons like the one used in the Parkland, Florida, high school shooting.
The company said it will also raise the minimum age for all gun sales to 21. Dick's (DKS) will not sell high-capacity magazines that allow shooters to fire far more rounds than traditional weapons without reloading, as well as other accessories used with weapons similar to the AR-15.
Click to expand...

But you can't actually articulate why this would work.
Click to expand...
 
minnie616 said:
Your opinion.

I agree with The CEO of Dicks sporting Goods.

Dick's Sporting Goods, the nation's largest sporting goods retailer, will stop selling assault-style weapons like the one used in the Parkland, Florida, high school shooting.
The company said it will also raise the minimum age for all gun sales to 21. Dick's (DKS) will not sell high-capacity magazines that allow shooters to fire far more rounds than traditional weapons without reloading, as well as other accessories used with weapons similar to the AR-15.
Click to expand...

your opposition to "assault weapons" appears devoid of logic. DO you realize who most needs weapons that hold more rounds? Not criminals but the elderly
Click to expand...
 
minnie616 said:
Your opinion.
Click to expand...

No offense intended, but I'd rather base my opinion on logic, reason, and facts than emotion and supposition.

minnie616 said:
I agree with The CEO of Dicks sporting Goods.
Click to expand...

Notice this comment:

"As we sat and talked about it with our management team, it was -- to a person -- that this is what we need to do," he said. "These kids talk about enough is enough. We concluded if these kids are brave enough to organize and do what they're doing, we should be brave enough to take this stand."

Dick's Sporting Goods will stop selling assault-style rifles - Feb. 28, 2018
Click to expand...

So the accommodating, progressive media give kids a soap box to stand on, upon which they emotionally plea for a "ban" on a certain type of rifle because it looks menacing, and somehow the people at Dick's are "brave" for embracing it? I can forgive the ignorance and emotional, knee-jerk reaction of high school kids who think a gun ban will prevent anything, but the people at Dick's are supposed to know better because they already understand that no weapons will will be removed from private circulation. There will still be millions of high-capacity magazines and weapons capable of using them, but, more importantly, nothing will have altered the circumstances that cause people determined to commit evil from doing it. So we'll have more mass shootings, and then what?
 
Ahlevah said:
No offense intended, but I'd rather base my opinion on logic, reason, and facts than emotion and supposition.



Notice this comment:



So the accommodating, progressive media give kids a soap box to stand on, upon which they emotionally plea for a "ban" on a certain type of rifle because it looks menacing, and somehow the people at Dick's are "brave" for embracing it? I can forgive the ignorance and emotional, knee-jerk reaction of high school kids who think a gun ban will prevent anything, but the people at Dick's are supposed to know better because they already understand that no weapons will will be removed from private circulation. There will still be millions of high-capacity magazines and weapons capable of using them, but, more importantly, nothing will have altered the circumstances that cause people determined to commit evil from doing it. So we'll have more mass shootings, and then what?
Click to expand...

Magazines are flying off the shelves at major dealers right now because anytime the anti gun movement screams about magazine bans, people remember what happened in 1994 and the cost increase. SO right now, the anti gun movement is making sure that millions of normal capacity magazines are being bought up right now.
 
TurtleDude said:
Magazines are flying off the shelves at major dealers right now because anytime the anti gun movement screams about magazine bans, people remember what happened in 1994 and the cost increase. SO right now, the anti gun movement is making sure that millions of normal capacity magazines are being bought up right now.
Click to expand...

I'm sure. And did that 1994 palliative sop actually prevent anything? During the last ban, we had the Atlanta shootings and Columbine in 1999. (In the Atlanta incident, before going on his shooting spree, the perp used a hammer to bludgeon to death his second wife and two kids, ages 10 and 12. I don't recall any emotional pleas or rants from kids to ban hammers at that point.) And let's not forget that the two worst incidents of mass murder in U.S. history, the Oklahoma City Bombing (fertilizer bomb resulting in 168 deaths) and 9/11 (2,996 deaths), occurred while this so-called "ban" was in effect.
 
Ahlevah said:
I'm sure. And did that 1994 palliative sop actually prevent anything? During the last ban, we had the Atlanta shootings and Columbine in 1999. (In the Atlanta incident, before going on his shooting spree, the perp used a hammer to bludgeon to death his second wife and two kids, ages 10 and 12. I don't recall any emotional pleas or rants from kids to ban hammers at that point.) And let's not forget that the two worst incidents of mass murder in U.S. history, the Oklahoma City Bombing (fertilizer bomb resulting in 168 deaths) and 9/11 (2,996 deaths), occurred while this so-called "ban" was in effect.
Click to expand...

all the clinton gun ban did (other than hand the GOP congress for the first time in 40 years) was to jack up the prices of "pre ban guns" and magazines. Since the ban died, most of us have stocked up on magazines to the point we have several lifetimes of supplies.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Common sense would assume that making it easy to get a weapon that is designed to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time with large capacity clips means we will continue to see mass murders.
Click to expand...

Opinions noted.
 
TaterTots said:
I would not support that, but I'm not against banning semi automatic rifles for a couple of years so we can develop statistics. For example, lets get the CDC involved instead of blocking them out. If it's a flop, its a flop.
Click to expand...

In what way do you think the CDC is "blocked out"? I've seen a lot of this lately, and it's one of those things that just ends up getting repeated over and over but simply isn't true.
 
Harshaw said:
In what way do you think the CDC is "blocked out"? I've seen a lot of this lately, and it's one of those things that just ends up getting repeated over and over but simply isn't true.
Click to expand...

From the following:

Why Can't the U.S. Treat Gun Violence as a Public-Health Problem?

There is, in fact, little research into gun violence at all—especially compared to other causes of death in the United States.

The modern origins of the impasse can be traced to 1996, when Congress passed an amendment to a spending bill that forbade the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from using money to “advocate or promote gun control.”

The National Rifle Association had pushed for the amendment, after public-health researchers produced a spate of studies suggesting that, for example, having a gun in the house increased risk of homicide and suicide. It deemed the research politically motivated.

Gun-rights advocates zeroed in on statements like that of Mark Rosenberg, then the director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. In response to the early ’90s crime wave, Rosenberg had said in 1994, “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes ... It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol—cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly—and banned.”
Click to expand...

Read more:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/02/gun-violence-public-health/553430/
 
Parrish said:
And another:

Gun violence research: History of the federal funding freeze
Click to expand...
This link cited the Kellermann study which studied three urban population groups, and included firearms brought into the home as guns in the home. Guns in the home were ranked 4th in the list of dangerous activities after arrests, renting, and living alone. If guns are a public health menace with regards to murder then the CDC needs to speak out against renting and living alone much louder. Have they done so on the 25 years since the Kellermann study was released?
 
minnie616 said:
From the following:

Why Can't the U.S. Treat Gun Violence as a Public-Health Problem?



Read more:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/02/gun-violence-public-health/553430/
Click to expand...

There's no prevention of the CDC from studying gun violence. There's only prevention of the CDC from advocating gun control. That statement from Rosenstein confirmed that the CDC's aim, at least under him, was political, not scientific.

Science and study aren't banned. Only the advocacy of political policy is.

In 2013, Obama commissioned a CDC study on gun violence. You don't hear a lot about it because it didn't come back with the findings gun control zealots were hoping for.

So no, the CDC isn't blocked out from anything but partisanship. Which is something it should be blocked from.

I'm sure you'd feel the same way if they intended to come down on what you consider the wrong side of your own favorite subject.
 
Harshaw said:
There's no prevention of the CDC from studying gun violence. There's only prevention of the CDC from advocating gun control. That statement from Rosenstein confirmed that the CDC's aim, at least under him, was political, not scientific.

Science and study aren't banned. Only the advocacy of political policy is.

In 2013, Obama commissioned a CDC study on gun violence. You don't hear a lot about it because it didn't come back with the findings gun control zealots were hoping for.

So no, the CDC isn't blocked out from anything but partisanship. Which is something it should be blocked from.

I'm sure you'd feel the same way if they intended to come down on what you consider the wrong side of your own favorite subject.
Click to expand...

Actually, the 1996 amendment has restricted how much the CDC can focus on gun ownership as the risk factor in suicides.

Also in the article I linked researchers say

is also a lack of data. While motor-vehicle deaths are tracked in minute detail in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, no such comparable database exists for gun deaths. Basic questions like exactly how many households own guns are not definitively answered.[/QUOTE%]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
MACS-24 said:
The first article that I read early this morning but unable to view now, said that immediately all rifles required a 21 yr old and only AR15 was removed. Don't know if Dicks have modified their stand now.
Click to expand...

Well they will once this is no longer in Vogue they'll likely resume selling guns just like they always have.
 
minnie616 said:
Actually, the 1996 amendment has restricted how much the CDC can focus on gun ownership as the risk factor in suicides.
Click to expand...

No, it didn't. This is an utter fabrication.

Here's everything the 1996 amendment says about the CDC and guns:

: Provided further,
That none of the funds made available for injury prevention and
control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may
be used to advocate or promote gun control:
Click to expand...

And that's all it has to say about that. Nothing about "focus" or "gun ownership" or "risk factors" or "suicides." You made that up.

I note that even your article states what the amendment actually says:

The modern origins of the impasse can be traced to 1996, when Congress passed an amendment to a spending bill that forbade the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from using money to “advocate or promote gun control.”
Click to expand...

You don't get the benefit of the doubt that this was an honest mistake on your part; you simply lied. You just invented it out of thin air.

If you're right, why DO you have to lie, minnie? You do it all the time; you just do it with such casual ease and breeziness that no one seems to notice, which I'm sure you count on.

Also in the article I linked researchers say

is also a lack of data. While motor-vehicle deaths are tracked in minute detail in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, no such comparable database exists for gun deaths. Basic questions like exactly how many households own guns are not definitively answered.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Another of your red herrings. To wit: just because the CDC hasn't researched something, it doesn't mean they were prevented from it, which is the actual point here.
 
Harshaw said:
No, it didn't. This is an utter fabrication.

Here's everything the 1996 amendment says about the CDC and guns:



And that's all it has to say about that. Nothing about "focus" or "gun ownership" or "risk factors" or "suicides." You made that up.

I note that even your article states what the amendment actually says:



You don't get the benefit of the doubt that this was an honest mistake on your part; you simply lied. You just invented it out of thin air.

If you're right, why DO you have to lie, minnie? You do it all the time; you just do it with such casual ease and breeziness that no one seems to notice, which I'm sure you count on.



Another of your red herrings. To wit: just because the CDC hasn't researched something, it doesn't mean they were prevented from it, which is the actual point here.
Click to expand...

the gun restrictionist movement is based on the whopper that saving the lives of innocents is its main motivation. A movement built on a lie is going to tell lots of other lies in order to advance their goals
 
TurtleDude said:
the gun restrictionist movement is based on the whopper that saving the lives of innocents is its main motivation. A movement built on a lie is going to tell lots of other lies in order to advance their goals
Click to expand...

To be fair, a lot of people argue from ignorance. In this case, it's from intentional dishonesty.
 
Harshaw said:
To be fair, a lot of people argue from ignorance. In this case, it's from intentional dishonesty.
Click to expand...

The herd members of the anti gun movement-the ignorant sheeple who spew pavlovian bleats in favor of gun control are mainly ignorant or pillow headed utopianistas. The leaders are fundamentally dishonest-machiavellian prevaricators who are all about political paybacks
 
TurtleDude said:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/dicks-sporting-goods-sales-sink-after-new-gun-policy/

hope they go out of business

not for deciding to cease selling ARs

but for lobbying against others being able to sell them
Click to expand...

The article only mentions the Field and Stream stores.

There are only 35 Field and Stream stores nationwide vs over 600 Dick’s sporting Goods stores.

The article also said:

However, the store has also suffered problems with overstocking and high discounts, as well as increased competition from places like Nike and Amazon.
Click to expand...

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/dicks-sporting-goods-sales-sink-after-new-gun-policy/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom