Posted on May 19, 2018
Should pro-gun advocates consider the reason Dick's Sporting Goods hired anti-gun lobbyists?
5.68K
54
39
2
2
0
Breaking News: The Santa Fe shooting. Do you still believe liberals are using school kids to further an agenda? Does Dick's and Field and Stream deserve to remain boycotted by pro gun businesses? A 17 year old used legally owned guns of his father to committ the mass shooting.
Posted in these groups: 
Gun Control
Gun Control
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 8
5
5
0
and just how would dicks new policy have prevented any of these tragic shootings?
(5)
(0)
TSgt David L.
SSG (Join to see) - That they do. My guy at home is a retired military guy and does my FFL transfer for $20. He looks for my "special order" stuff as well. A guy you can talk to and feel like you count.
(1)
(0)
Maj John Bell
PO3 Phyllis Maynard - Dick's sporting goods made a decision to publicize its stand. Socially conscious signalling is among other things a marketing ploy. I don't care for it, even when I agree with it. (In the case of Dick's sporting goods I don't agree with it.) If Dick's had quietly made the decision, without fanfare and a press release, I would not care. But Dick's the made the issue and how I spend my disposable income a political issue. Now I have a choice, I can shop at Dick's and give the false impression that I support restricting the legal access to guns by law-abiding adults, or I take my money elsewhere. Those who support Dick's decision can stop shopping elsewhere and support Dick's. You cannot take the hide without the tail.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Phyllis Maynard
Maj John Bell I am pro gun ownership and without restriction to lawful abiding citizens, without doubt. I am a victim of felony crime. However, I am able to place myself on the other side of the issue and see the value in what Dick's did as social consciousness and responsibility. The imbedded aspects of marketing, name making that sort of thing was not in the forefront of my thinking on the issue, just the big picture of conscious responsibility. We do the best we can to be responsible businesses and citizens and it isn't always popular. This is a charged subject with so many perspectives. Here in NC there are government officials that want to repeal the Castle Law because some homeowners have shot neighbors over dog poop on their yards instead of taking them to civil or small claims court. I believe responsibility homeowners have the right to stand our ground when it comes to protecting our families and homes. But instead of filing a trespassing complaint some homeowners have used deadly force over dog poop and that cannot be ignored but it threatens my belief to use deadly force against and intruder.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
PO3 Phyllis Maynard - I cannot place myself on the other side of the issue, nor do I want to. There are about 320,000,000 Americans. It is estimated that roughly one third of Americans legally own fire arms That puts the number conservatively at 100,000,000. On average there are about 13,000 gun crimes per year. I'll give the gun control advocates the benefit of the doubt on statistics an assume that each act is committed by a separate person. That means restricting the rights of law abiding citizens based on the bad behavior of 0.004% of the population.
What is the point of repealing the NC Castle Law? Are you asserting that the people who shot their neighbor of a dispute about dog poop were in compliance with the law? If they were in compliance with the law, it wasn't the dog poop that kept them within legal guidelines it was the unlawful conduct of the person who was shot. I don't think your point is relevant, or that repealing the Castle Law based on "dog poop" disputes is sequitar.
Dick's made a "socially conscious" decision and made it in a very public way. The cannot possibly have expected that everyone would agree, and should have expected that some would be put off. Not shopping at a "socially conscious" enterprise with which you disagree is no different than not going on a second date with someone you found incompatible. It is human nature to seek out those with whom agree and avoid those with whom you disagree.
What is the point of repealing the NC Castle Law? Are you asserting that the people who shot their neighbor of a dispute about dog poop were in compliance with the law? If they were in compliance with the law, it wasn't the dog poop that kept them within legal guidelines it was the unlawful conduct of the person who was shot. I don't think your point is relevant, or that repealing the Castle Law based on "dog poop" disputes is sequitar.
Dick's made a "socially conscious" decision and made it in a very public way. The cannot possibly have expected that everyone would agree, and should have expected that some would be put off. Not shopping at a "socially conscious" enterprise with which you disagree is no different than not going on a second date with someone you found incompatible. It is human nature to seek out those with whom agree and avoid those with whom you disagree.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Yes, I do still believe liberals are using school kids to further an agenda. But it is no skin off my nose. The parents that allow their kids to enter the public arena have made a decision that their kids can take it. But I'm not going to pull punches because it is a kid. If you want to play in the grown up arena, be up to it and take your lumps, or get back into the bleachers.
A business that signals social mores may gain business that it would NOT have otherwise; and may turn away patrons who disagree. That is a business decision. Whether or not Dick's deserve's a boycott is not a "societal" decision. It is an individual decision, so to answer your question "Does Dick's and Field and Stream deserve to remain boycotted by pro gun businesses?" As far as I am concerned yes, they deserve to be boycotted. They made a public statement. I don't agree and I don't want to create the false impression that I agree. Do you think they deserve to be boycotted?
Now if they had been quiet about it, never made a public stand, I could not have cared less. I'm not going to stop doing business with a company that quietly decides to stop selling certain products or types of products for social reasons if they don't make it a public display.
Finally, if there are immature, irresponsible, or mentally ill minors in a household; it is NOT the gun manufacturer's fault that a grown up man didn't properly secure his firearms. It is NOT a firearm dealers fault that a grown up man did not properly secure his firearms. It IS the grown up man's fault that he did not properly secure his firearms. Substitute Car, Liquor, Cigarettes, Medications, Toxic Cleaning Supplies, Power Tools, or anything else that can result in death or serious injury; whose fault is it if it is not properly secured and someone gets hurt.
A business that signals social mores may gain business that it would NOT have otherwise; and may turn away patrons who disagree. That is a business decision. Whether or not Dick's deserve's a boycott is not a "societal" decision. It is an individual decision, so to answer your question "Does Dick's and Field and Stream deserve to remain boycotted by pro gun businesses?" As far as I am concerned yes, they deserve to be boycotted. They made a public statement. I don't agree and I don't want to create the false impression that I agree. Do you think they deserve to be boycotted?
Now if they had been quiet about it, never made a public stand, I could not have cared less. I'm not going to stop doing business with a company that quietly decides to stop selling certain products or types of products for social reasons if they don't make it a public display.
Finally, if there are immature, irresponsible, or mentally ill minors in a household; it is NOT the gun manufacturer's fault that a grown up man didn't properly secure his firearms. It is NOT a firearm dealers fault that a grown up man did not properly secure his firearms. It IS the grown up man's fault that he did not properly secure his firearms. Substitute Car, Liquor, Cigarettes, Medications, Toxic Cleaning Supplies, Power Tools, or anything else that can result in death or serious injury; whose fault is it if it is not properly secured and someone gets hurt.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
The 17 yo didn’t legally own anything. He stole the guns, illegally possessed them, illegally carried them on school property, murdered people... etc, etc.
(4)
(0)
(2)
(0)
LTC David Brown
TSgt David L. - I agree, gun law violations are the first that are dropped or pleaded down.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google