Dick’s Sporting Goods Makes A Courageous Political Statement

[Vandalshandle]

View attachment 188765
Dick's Sporting Goods to destroy all unsold assault-style weapons

there Dick's! That's an odd sentence. But...


btw: If anyone finds a video of them being scrapped, post it for DOPer Gun Nutters to enjoy!

I WANT TO WATCH.

That'd be a hoot. What might be even more fun would be to force the gun nuts to watch, and we watch them.

​

Is that cruel? Am I a bad person?
I dunno, I just find slavish fetishism to be fuckin' funny.

So Dick's bought the gun maker's guns and then destroyed them. That's great for the gun maker, since they can effectively sell more guns now. The number of end users (buyers who purchase something and do NOT resell) actually went up. Before this, Dick's was a middle man. Now Dick's became an end user (which uses the guns by destroying them). It might have worked 1,000 years ago when there was no internet or phone and people didn't travel much, but buying from a different middleman is no big deal these days. Funny but Dick's would have done more damage to the gun industry by giving these away for free since it would have a small effect of reducing the value of these guns.

Way to go, clown!

You don't seem to understand what's going on here.

Any retail chain is well aware that their customers have multiple sources for their goods. That's what the word "competitor" means. To imagine this particular retailer is under some illusion that destroying their stock somehow means no one will ever buy that item again is profoundly naïve.

All Dick's is doing here is clearing its own conscience, dumping what it considers dangerous goods where they can never hurt anybody, which means there's zero chance that they will bear any responsibility out of having ordered them in the first place.

It's the same as if Dick's Drug Store was selling cigarettes and when it dawned on them what the effect that product has on people, so they pull all the tobacco off the shelf and toss the stock into a bonfire --- since their purchase from the tobacco companies was done in good faith, they can't ask those suppliers to take the stock back for a refund. They'll take a hit on what they spent for that stock, but obviously they consider the principle more important than money.

And that's how you get it right.

I suppose it would make sense, except the link between gun ownership and violent crime is questionable at best.

 

[bgrouse]

I WANT TO WATCH.

That'd be a hoot. What might be even more fun would be to force the gun nuts to watch, and we watch them.

​

Is that cruel? Am I a bad person?
I dunno, I just find slavish fetishism to be fuckin' funny.

So Dick's bought the gun maker's guns and then destroyed them. That's great for the gun maker, since they can effectively sell more guns now. The number of end users (buyers who purchase something and do NOT resell) actually went up. Before this, Dick's was a middle man. Now Dick's became an end user (which uses the guns by destroying them). It might have worked 1,000 years ago when there was no internet or phone and people didn't travel much, but buying from a different middleman is no big deal these days. Funny but Dick's would have done more damage to the gun industry by giving these away for free since it would have a small effect of reducing the value of these guns.

Way to go, clown!

You don't seem to understand what's going on here.

Any retail chain is well aware that their customers have multiple sources for their goods. That's what the word "competitor" means. To imagine this particular retailer is under some illusion that destroying their stock somehow means no one will ever buy that item again is profoundly naïve.

All Dick's is doing here is clearing its own conscience, dumping what it considers dangerous goods where they can never hurt anybody, which means there's zero chance that they will bear any responsibility out of having ordered them in the first place.

It's the same as if Dick's Drug Store was selling cigarettes and when it dawned on them what the effect that product has on people, so they pull all the tobacco off the shelf and toss the stock into a bonfire --- since their purchase from the tobacco companies was done in good faith, they can't ask those suppliers to take the stock back for a refund. They'll take a hit on what they spent for that stock, but obviously they consider the principle more important than money.

And that's how you get it right.

I suppose it would make sense, except the link between gun ownership and violent crime is questionable at best.

If you look at Europe, there are plenty of countries with more guns and less violence than the UK. Most homicides in the USA are committed by blacks. There's a far stronger correlation between blacks and violent crime than between guns and violent crime.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

MAGA. Dick's Knows Best! For a better America. Again, that's an odd sentence.

It's just the right thang to do for civilian public safety.
Some Dick's Love America's kids at least. FFS!
Again, that's an odd sentence.

View attachment 188784

More rightwing ignorance and stupidity.

An assault weapon is whatever the law designates it to be pursuant to regulatory policy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

...Martyrs. Sales have plummeted.

Sales have plummeted.

Safety, Common Sense and Life have been enriched.

It's a fair trade.

--------------------------

Besides... the weather is getting warmer... sales will spike again soon enough... DSG is a lot more than assault rifles.

And the rapists applaud Dicks decision as much as you do. They need as many defenseless 18 to 21 year old girls as they possibly can find.

Personally, I won't do business with a store that acts in such a reckless manor.

Give it a rest, Pop

Are you denying my rights?

Here’s one then. We only want a little exception to the right to marry.

Shall I go on?

No one’s rights are being ‘denied.’

Neither the right to marry nor the right to possess a firearm are unlimited, both are subject to government regulation, provided that regulation is consistent with the Constitution.

And denying same-sex couples the right to marry is as un-Constitutional as banning the possession of handguns.

So yes, please go on exhibiting the ignorance and stupidity common to most conservatives.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And denying same-sex couples the right to marry is as un-Constitutional as banning the possession of handguns.

Except for the FACT marriage is not in the Constitution and the right to bear arms is.

 

[EverCurious]

Yep, making all them drugs illegal and highly regulated sure got them off the street and dried up the black market for em...

Oh wait...

 

[Pop23]

...Martyrs. Sales have plummeted.

Sales have plummeted.

Safety, Common Sense and Life have been enriched.

It's a fair trade.

--------------------------

Besides... the weather is getting warmer... sales will spike again soon enough... DSG is a lot more than assault rifles.

And the rapists applaud Dicks decision as much as you do. They need as many defenseless 18 to 21 year old girls as they possibly can find.

Personally, I won't do business with a store that acts in such a reckless manor.

Give it a rest, Pop

Are you denying my rights?

Here’s one then. We only want a little exception to the right to marry.

Shall I go on?

No one’s rights are being ‘denied.’

Neither the right to marry nor the right to possess a firearm are unlimited, both are subject to government regulation, provided that regulation is consistent with the Constitution.

And denying same-sex couples the right to marry is as un-Constitutional as banning the possession of handguns.

So yes, please go on exhibiting the ignorance and stupidity common to most conservatives.

Pretzel much?

Their is no such thing as same sex marriage. Marriage is the right. And just as the left thinks controlling my right to self defense by restricting it YOUR right is equally vulnerable.

No one says you can’t get married, we just ( the same as the gun control argument), just want you to do it the way WE think is best.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

MAGA. Dick's Knows Best! For a better America. Again, that's an odd sentence.

It's just the right thang to do for civilian public safety.
Some Dick's Love America's kids at least. FFS!
Again, that's an odd sentence.

View attachment 188784

More rightwing ignorance and stupidity.

An assault weapon is whatever the law designates it to be pursuant to regulatory policy.

You don't have a ******* clue what an "assault" rifle is. Adding some plastic and composite materials does not change how a firearm functions and if you accept the Government regulating Constitutional rights you are a slave.

 

[Dschrute3]

Walmart has done the same thing. But it probably won't hurt them, because they know so many dimwit greedy douchebags are hooked on Walmart. Those folks don't shop anywhere else. Most of the gun owners who shop there, will stay loyal Walmart customers. They shouldn't, but they will. Many did stop shopping at Dicks in protest of its AR ban a few years ago, but will they stop shopping at Walmart in protest? I seriously doubt it.

So let's be real, if you can't even make a sacrifice by not shopping at Walmart anymore, how are you gonna successfully battle the Communists who are trying to take your Constitutional Rights away? The Communists/Democrats have $Billions behind their Agenda. You don't stand a chance if you can't even stop shopping at Walmart in protest. Are you willing to take a stand, or not? Gun owners better start thinking about that. The Communists/Democrats aren't going away.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sales have plummeted.

Safety, Common Sense and Life have been enriched.

It's a fair trade.

--------------------------

Besides... the weather is getting warmer... sales will spike again soon enough... DSG is a lot more than assault rifles.

And the rapists applaud Dicks decision as much as you do. They need as many defenseless 18 to 21 year old girls as they possibly can find.

Personally, I won't do business with a store that acts in such a reckless manor.

Give it a rest, Pop

Are you denying my rights?

Here’s one then. We only want a little exception to the right to marry.

Shall I go on?

No one’s rights are being ‘denied.’

Neither the right to marry nor the right to possess a firearm are unlimited, both are subject to government regulation, provided that regulation is consistent with the Constitution.

And denying same-sex couples the right to marry is as un-Constitutional as banning the possession of handguns.

So yes, please go on exhibiting the ignorance and stupidity common to most conservatives.

Pretzel much?

Their is no such thing as same sex marriage. Marriage is the right. And just as the left thinks controlling my right to self defense by restricting it YOUR right is equally vulnerable.

No one says you can’t get married, we just ( the same as the gun control argument), just want you to do it the way WE think is best.

Still flogging the same failed, moronic "argument."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

MAGA. Dick's Knows Best! For a better America. Again, that's an odd sentence.

It's just the right thang to do for civilian public safety.
Some Dick's Love America's kids at least. FFS!
Again, that's an odd sentence.

View attachment 188784

More rightwing ignorance and stupidity.

An assault weapon is whatever the law designates it to be pursuant to regulatory policy.

You don't have a ******* clue what an "assault" rifle is. Adding some plastic and composite materials does not change how a firearm functions and if you accept the Government regulating Constitutional rights you are a slave.

Your ignorance of and contempt for the law is typical of most conservatives.

Assault weapons are in fact being regulated as a matter of law consistent with the Second Amendment.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

MAGA. Dick's Knows Best! For a better America. Again, that's an odd sentence.

It's just the right thang to do for civilian public safety.
Some Dick's Love America's kids at least. FFS!
Again, that's an odd sentence.

View attachment 188784

More rightwing ignorance and stupidity.

An assault weapon is whatever the law designates it to be pursuant to regulatory policy.

You don't have a ******* clue what an "assault" rifle is. Adding some plastic and composite materials does not change how a firearm functions and if you accept the Government regulating Constitutional rights you are a slave.

Your ignorance of and contempt for the law is typical of most conservatives.

Assault weapons are in fact being regulated as a matter of law consistent with the Second Amendment.

A semi-automatic is not an "assault" rifle you colossal idiot My knowledge comes from over 40 years of owning a wide range of firearms and military service.

What part of shall not be infringed can't you comprehend. Stop listening to morons who either don't have a clue or those intentionally trying to take away the rights of law abiding citizens

 

[Dschrute3]

Stop shopping at Dick's and Walmart. Don't give em your money. They won't likely go out of business, but at least you won't be supporting their cowardly PC shite. Gun Owners who continue giving those companies their money, are supporting the Gun Grabber Agenda. They should really think about that.

 

[Vandalshandle]

That'd be a hoot. What might be even more fun would be to force the gun nuts to watch, and we watch them.

​

Is that cruel? Am I a bad person?
I dunno, I just find slavish fetishism to be fuckin' funny.

So Dick's bought the gun maker's guns and then destroyed them. That's great for the gun maker, since they can effectively sell more guns now. The number of end users (buyers who purchase something and do NOT resell) actually went up. Before this, Dick's was a middle man. Now Dick's became an end user (which uses the guns by destroying them). It might have worked 1,000 years ago when there was no internet or phone and people didn't travel much, but buying from a different middleman is no big deal these days. Funny but Dick's would have done more damage to the gun industry by giving these away for free since it would have a small effect of reducing the value of these guns.

Way to go, clown!

You don't seem to understand what's going on here.

Any retail chain is well aware that their customers have multiple sources for their goods. That's what the word "competitor" means. To imagine this particular retailer is under some illusion that destroying their stock somehow means no one will ever buy that item again is profoundly naïve.

All Dick's is doing here is clearing its own conscience, dumping what it considers dangerous goods where they can never hurt anybody, which means there's zero chance that they will bear any responsibility out of having ordered them in the first place.

It's the same as if Dick's Drug Store was selling cigarettes and when it dawned on them what the effect that product has on people, so they pull all the tobacco off the shelf and toss the stock into a bonfire --- since their purchase from the tobacco companies was done in good faith, they can't ask those suppliers to take the stock back for a refund. They'll take a hit on what they spent for that stock, but obviously they consider the principle more important than money.

And that's how you get it right.

I suppose it would make sense, except the link between gun ownership and violent crime is questionable at best.

If you look at Europe, there are plenty of countries with more guns and less violence than the UK. Most homicides in the USA are committed by blacks. There's a far stronger correlation between blacks and violent crime than between guns and violent crime.

I thought for a second that I would reply seriously to this, but then I realized that it would be equivalent to me getting into an argument with my brother over whether or no the Ark Experience in Kentucky represents real history.

 

[Pogo]

View attachment 188765
Dick's Sporting Goods to destroy all unsold assault-style weapons

there Dick's! That's an odd sentence. But...


btw: If anyone finds a video of them being scrapped, post it for DOPer Gun Nutters to enjoy!

I WANT TO WATCH.

That'd be a hoot. What might be even more fun would be to force the gun nuts to watch, and we watch them.

​

Is that cruel? Am I a bad person?
I dunno, I just find slavish fetishism to be fuckin' funny.

So Dick's bought the gun maker's guns and then destroyed them. That's great for the gun maker, since they can effectively sell more guns now. The number of end users (buyers who purchase something and do NOT resell) actually went up. Before this, Dick's was a middle man. Now Dick's became an end user (which uses the guns by destroying them). It might have worked 1,000 years ago when there was no internet or phone and people didn't travel much, but buying from a different middleman is no big deal these days. Funny but Dick's would have done more damage to the gun industry by giving these away for free since it would have a small effect of reducing the value of these guns.

Way to go, clown!

You don't seem to understand what's going on here.

Any retail chain is well aware that their customers have multiple sources for their goods. That's what the word "competitor" means. To imagine this particular retailer is under some illusion that destroying their stock somehow means no one will ever buy that item again is profoundly naïve.

All Dick's is doing here is clearing its own conscience, dumping what it considers dangerous goods where they can never hurt anybody, which means there's zero chance that they will bear any responsibility out of having ordered them in the first place.

It's the same as if Dick's Drug Store was selling cigarettes and when it dawned on them what the effect that product has on people, so they pull all the tobacco off the shelf and toss the stock into a bonfire --- since their purchase from the tobacco companies was done in good faith, they can't ask those suppliers to take the stock back for a refund. They'll take a hit on what they spent for that stock, but obviously they consider the principle more important than money.

And that's how you get it right.

I suppose it would make sense, except the link between gun ownership and violent crime is questionable at best.

It is indeed. It's certainly not necessary to own a gun to go on a shooting rampage, nor is it impossible to get one illegally, and after all if a psycho nut is gonna go out strafing strangers he's not exactly going to be concerned about the niceties of getting armed through proper channels.

This is simply a store chain clearing its own conscience. They're not pretending it shuts down gun violence; they're just not going to be responsible for facilitating it. Simple as that.

The most instructive part of all this is not the company's actions but the emotional meltdown gyrations the gun fetishists go through bitching about a commercial business they're not even connected with. It serves as more confirmation of the emotional basis, which is exactly why I describe it as a fetish.

 

[bgrouse]

So Dick's bought the gun maker's guns and then destroyed them. That's great for the gun maker, since they can effectively sell more guns now. The number of end users (buyers who purchase something and do NOT resell) actually went up. Before this, Dick's was a middle man. Now Dick's became an end user (which uses the guns by destroying them). It might have worked 1,000 years ago when there was no internet or phone and people didn't travel much, but buying from a different middleman is no big deal these days. Funny but Dick's would have done more damage to the gun industry by giving these away for free since it would have a small effect of reducing the value of these guns.

Way to go, clown!

You don't seem to understand what's going on here.

Any retail chain is well aware that their customers have multiple sources for their goods. That's what the word "competitor" means. To imagine this particular retailer is under some illusion that destroying their stock somehow means no one will ever buy that item again is profoundly naïve.

All Dick's is doing here is clearing its own conscience, dumping what it considers dangerous goods where they can never hurt anybody, which means there's zero chance that they will bear any responsibility out of having ordered them in the first place.

It's the same as if Dick's Drug Store was selling cigarettes and when it dawned on them what the effect that product has on people, so they pull all the tobacco off the shelf and toss the stock into a bonfire --- since their purchase from the tobacco companies was done in good faith, they can't ask those suppliers to take the stock back for a refund. They'll take a hit on what they spent for that stock, but obviously they consider the principle more important than money.

And that's how you get it right.

I suppose it would make sense, except the link between gun ownership and violent crime is questionable at best.

If you look at Europe, there are plenty of countries with more guns and less violence than the UK. Most homicides in the USA are committed by blacks. There's a far stronger correlation between blacks and violent crime than between guns and violent crime.

I thought for a second that I would reply seriously to this, but then I realized that it would be equivalent to me getting into an argument with my brother over whether or no the Ark Experience in Kentucky represents real history.

You did reply, and this is the best you could come up with, because the liberal anti-gun position is full of shit and ridiculous.

I WANT TO WATCH.

That'd be a hoot. What might be even more fun would be to force the gun nuts to watch, and we watch them.

​

Is that cruel? Am I a bad person?
I dunno, I just find slavish fetishism to be fuckin' funny.

So Dick's bought the gun maker's guns and then destroyed them. That's great for the gun maker, since they can effectively sell more guns now. The number of end users (buyers who purchase something and do NOT resell) actually went up. Before this, Dick's was a middle man. Now Dick's became an end user (which uses the guns by destroying them). It might have worked 1,000 years ago when there was no internet or phone and people didn't travel much, but buying from a different middleman is no big deal these days. Funny but Dick's would have done more damage to the gun industry by giving these away for free since it would have a small effect of reducing the value of these guns.

Way to go, clown!

You don't seem to understand what's going on here.

Any retail chain is well aware that their customers have multiple sources for their goods. That's what the word "competitor" means. To imagine this particular retailer is under some illusion that destroying their stock somehow means no one will ever buy that item again is profoundly naïve.

All Dick's is doing here is clearing its own conscience, dumping what it considers dangerous goods where they can never hurt anybody, which means there's zero chance that they will bear any responsibility out of having ordered them in the first place.

It's the same as if Dick's Drug Store was selling cigarettes and when it dawned on them what the effect that product has on people, so they pull all the tobacco off the shelf and toss the stock into a bonfire --- since their purchase from the tobacco companies was done in good faith, they can't ask those suppliers to take the stock back for a refund. They'll take a hit on what they spent for that stock, but obviously they consider the principle more important than money.

And that's how you get it right.

I suppose it would make sense, except the link between gun ownership and violent crime is questionable at best.

It is indeed. It's certainly not necessary to own a gun to go on a shooting rampage, nor is it impossible to get one illegally, and after all if a psycho nut is gonna go out strafing strangers he's not exactly going to be concerned about the niceties of getting armed through proper channels.

This is simply a store chain clearing its own conscience. They're not pretending it shuts down gun violence; they're just not going to be responsible for facilitating it. Simple as that.

The most instructive part of all this is not the company's actions but the emotional meltdown gyrations the gun fetishists go through bitching about a commercial business they're not even connected with. It serves as more confirmation of the emotional basis, which is exactly why I describe it as a fetish.

They should stop selling clothes and boots, too. After all, those were used by mass shooters. Hard to conceal a gun and walk around without those.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This is simply a store chain clearing its own conscience. They're not pretending it shuts down gun violence; they're just not going to be responsible for facilitating it. Simple as that.

It's not like they decided to do this one day at random. It was in response to the Fla school shooting. The school shooting did become political, therefore if you choose sides, you take a political position as well. When a company makes themselves political and against your politics, it's not hard to image why people would get so upset by it, especially if you were one of their loyal customers.

 

[Pop23]

And the rapists applaud Dicks decision as much as you do. They need as many defenseless 18 to 21 year old girls as they possibly can find.

Personally, I won't do business with a store that acts in such a reckless manor.

Give it a rest, Pop

Are you denying my rights?

Here’s one then. We only want a little exception to the right to marry.

Shall I go on?

No one’s rights are being ‘denied.’

Neither the right to marry nor the right to possess a firearm are unlimited, both are subject to government regulation, provided that regulation is consistent with the Constitution.

And denying same-sex couples the right to marry is as un-Constitutional as banning the possession of handguns.

So yes, please go on exhibiting the ignorance and stupidity common to most conservatives.

Pretzel much?

Their is no such thing as same sex marriage. Marriage is the right. And just as the left thinks controlling my right to self defense by restricting it YOUR right is equally vulnerable.

No one says you can’t get married, we just ( the same as the gun control argument), just want you to do it the way WE think is best.

Still flogging the same failed, moronic "argument."

What, now rights are sacred?

You can’t make this shit up.

A couple years ago the dude argues that there is no such thing as same sex marriage, only marriage, now he thinks there is?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So Dick's bought the gun maker's guns and then destroyed them. That's great for the gun maker, since they can effectively sell more guns now. The number of end users (buyers who purchase something and do NOT resell) actually went up. Before this, Dick's was a middle man. Now Dick's became an end user (which uses the guns by destroying them). It might have worked 1,000 years ago when there was no internet or phone and people didn't travel much, but buying from a different middleman is no big deal these days. Funny but Dick's would have done more damage to the gun industry by giving these away for free since it would have a small effect of reducing the value of these guns.

Way to go, clown!

You don't seem to understand what's going on here.

Any retail chain is well aware that their customers have multiple sources for their goods. That's what the word "competitor" means. To imagine this particular retailer is under some illusion that destroying their stock somehow means no one will ever buy that item again is profoundly naïve.

All Dick's is doing here is clearing its own conscience, dumping what it considers dangerous goods where they can never hurt anybody, which means there's zero chance that they will bear any responsibility out of having ordered them in the first place.

It's the same as if Dick's Drug Store was selling cigarettes and when it dawned on them what the effect that product has on people, so they pull all the tobacco off the shelf and toss the stock into a bonfire --- since their purchase from the tobacco companies was done in good faith, they can't ask those suppliers to take the stock back for a refund. They'll take a hit on what they spent for that stock, but obviously they consider the principle more important than money.

And that's how you get it right.

I suppose it would make sense, except the link between gun ownership and violent crime is questionable at best.

If you look at Europe, there are plenty of countries with more guns and less violence than the UK. Most homicides in the USA are committed by blacks. There's a far stronger correlation between blacks and violent crime than between guns and violent crime.

I thought for a second that I would reply seriously to this, but then I realized that it would be equivalent to me getting into an argument with my brother over whether or no the Ark Experience in Kentucky represents real history.

There’s no reason to reply to their ignorance and stupidity at all, seriously or otherwise.

A private company doing as it sees fit with its own property is a non-issue.

 

[Pogo]

This is simply a store chain clearing its own conscience. They're not pretending it shuts down gun violence; they're just not going to be responsible for facilitating it. Simple as that.

It's not like they decided to do this one day at random. It was in response to the Fla school shooting. The school shooting did become political, therefore if you choose sides, you take a political position as well. When a company makes themselves political and against your politics, it's not hard to image why people would get so upset by it, especially if you were one of their loyal customers.

I'm sure it is connected to the Florida shooting, I don't disagree. But that still doesn't make it a 'political' thing. It's a social conscience issue. There's nothing "political" about a retail store deciding what products it will sell and what it won't. If the company were to campaign for or against political candidates or legislation, then they would be political. They're not doing that.