Dick’s Sporting Goods Makes A Courageous Political Statement

[Pogo]

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.

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.

If that's what passes for an argument on your planet, you need to go back to the minor leagues.

 

[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.

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.

Understood, and I would totally agree with you if this decision wasn't made after the shooting; but it was, and that's an anti-gun stance which of course is political.

You have to look at it from all angles. What if Walmart decided to start selling AR's after Dick's stopped? Would you consider that a political position?

 

[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.

Understood, and I would totally agree with you if this decision wasn't made after the shooting; but it was, and that's an anti-gun stance which of course is political.

You have to look at it from all angles. What if Walmart decided to start selling AR's after Dick's stopped? Would you consider that a political position?

No. It's a business decision, straight up. And a correction to the first part, declining to sell a product is in no way the same thing as being "anti" that product. I don't happen to sell rice pudding, that certainly doesn't make me "anti-rice pudding".

But that's all it is, a business decision, just as any business would start or stop selling any product. Here'a parallel well-known story from four years ago --- again, a business decides it would discontinue a legal product and take it off its shelves, and ergo not be responsible for enabling the destruction it causes. Same thing. Nothing "political" about it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Has Dick's announced when they will close down all their stores yet?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
No. It's a business decision, straight up. And a correction to the first part, declining to sell a product is in no way the same thing as being "anti" that product. I don't happen to sell rice pudding, that certainly doesn't make me "anti-rice pudding".

It's an exit strategy. Dick's made the decision to exit the sports market.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No. It's a business decision, straight up. And a correction to the first part, declining to sell a product is in no way the same thing as being "anti" that product. I don't happen to sell rice pudding, that certainly doesn't make me "anti-rice pudding".

It's not about being anti this or anti that. It's about making a business decision based on politics. If you decided not to sell rice pudding out of the blue, that's a business decision. If you decided not to sell rice pudding because some left leaning groups were protesting rice due to the pesticides they used growing it, that's a political decision.

But that's all it is, a business decision, just as any business would start or stop selling any product. Here'a parallel well-known story from four years ago --- again, a business decides it would discontinue a legal product and take it off its shelves, and ergo not be responsible for enabling the destruction it causes. Same thing. Nothing "political" about it.

Not in this case, no. That's because cigarettes are not a controversial subject divided pretty much equally down the line. Guns are different because it is divided down the line. CVS in this case made that decision without political or public pressure. There was no tobacco controversy at the time, no major story to report on cigarettes, or kids walking out of school because of tobacco.

 

[Pogo]

No. It's a business decision, straight up. And a correction to the first part, declining to sell a product is in no way the same thing as being "anti" that product. I don't happen to sell rice pudding, that certainly doesn't make me "anti-rice pudding".

It's not about being anti this or anti that.

You just said it was, and I corrected that.


It's about making a business decision based on politics. If you decided not to sell rice pudding out of the blue, that's a business decision. If you decided not to sell rice pudding because some left leaning groups were protesting rice due to the pesticides they used growing it, that's a political decision.

Nope. Still doesn't work. Those hypothetical protests would be representing public concerns or some portion thereof. At that point the business decides whether those concerns are serious enough to merit dumping the product. Like CVS and tobacco.

Whether one chooses to smoke, like whether one chooses to shoot, is a personal decision, not a political one.

But that's all it is, a business decision, just as any business would start or stop selling any product. Here'a parallel well-known story from four years ago --- again, a business decides it would discontinue a legal product and take it off its shelves, and ergo not be responsible for enabling the destruction it causes. Same thing. Nothing "political" about it.

Not in this case, no. That's because cigarettes are not a controversial subject divided pretty much equally down the line. Guns are different because it is divided down the line. CVS in this case made that decision without political or public pressure. There was no tobacco controversy at the time, no major story to report on cigarettes, or kids walking out of school because of tobacco.

Tobacco has been controversial for decades, and it also has in common with firearms (a) that, used for its designed purpose it kills, and (b) it's legal. Now you have a point that there was no particular event or contemporary revelation in 2014 but that undermines your attempted connection with the instant case, as you just acknowledged it isn't necessary as impetus FOR a business decision --- it can be, and generally is, the accumulated concern over time. I seem to remember K-Mart quit selling firearms after a previous mass shooting years ago --- again, legal product that the store CAN sell if it wants to, where the store simply decided it doesn't want to. That's their decision and those are made on the basis of 'what's good for the company'.

The bottom line is, you may have a legal right to smoke or shoot, but you don't have a legal right to force Dick's to sell guns or CVS to sell tobacco. That's up to the business. I believe there's some big fast food chain that doesn't open on Sundays --- again, they can if they want to, they simply choose not to. If a business (or any entity) is openly calling for legislation, that would be political. That's not what this business is doing. Dick's has not agitated for firearms sales to be banned or restricted, just as CVS didn't call for tobacco bans and whatever that fast food store is didn't call for banning sales on Sundays. They simply chose to take that path.

 

[Dschrute3]

Cowardly PC shite. No Gun Owner should give their money to Dick's or Walmart. If they do decide to, they'll be supporting the Gun Grabber Agenda. They need to think very carefully before spending their money at those stores.

 

[bgrouse]

Cowardly PC shite. No Gun Owner should give their money to Dick's or Walmart. If they do decide to, they'll be supporting the Gun Grabber Agenda. They need to think very carefully before spending their money at those stores.

Yes, that's the way to go with DIck's. Let them eat the cost of the guns, help the gun makers, and cut off their income.

 

[Dschrute3]

Cowardly PC shite. No Gun Owner should give their money to Dick's or Walmart. If they do decide to, they'll be supporting the Gun Grabber Agenda. They need to think very carefully before spending their money at those stores.

Yes, that's the way to go with DIck's. Let them eat the cost of the guns, help the gun makers, and cut off their income.

Dick's will likely suffer and fade at some point. But Walmart's another story. It just implemented the same policies. But so many people are addicted to Walmart. It'll be a real test to see if Gun Owners are willing to make a sacrifice and stop giving Walmart their money.

I mean if you can't make that kind of sacrifice, what chance do you really have against the Gun Grabbers? The Gun Grabber Agenda has $Billions behind it. If you can't sacrifice buying cheap shitty stuff at Walmart, how are you gonna successfully battle those folks?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nope. Still doesn't work. Those hypothetical protests would be representing public concerns or some portion thereof. At that point the business decides whether those concerns are serious enough to merit dumping the product. Like CVS and tobacco.

Whether one chooses to smoke, like whether one chooses to shoot, is a personal decision, not a political one.

Sure it's a potlical one because the left is anti-gun and the right is pro-gun. If you take an anti-gun position, then you chose a political side. It's just like the NFL kneeling crap. The left are anti-police and the right are pro-police. It's a political stance they took when they chose to kneel.

Tobacco has been controversial for decades, and it also has in common with firearms (a) that, used for its designed purpose it kills, and (b) it's legal. Now you have a point that there was no particular event or contemporary revelation in 2014 but that undermines your attempted connection with the instant case, as you just acknowledged it isn't necessary as impetus FOR a business decision --- it can be, and generally is, the accumulated concern over time. I seem to remember K-Mart quit selling firearms after a previous mass shooting years ago --- again, legal product that the store CAN sell if it wants to, where the store simply decided it doesn't want to. That's their decision and those are made on the basis of 'what's good for the company'.

The bottom line is, you may have a legal right to smoke or shoot, but you don't have a legal right to force Dick's to sell guns or CVS to sell tobacco. That's up to the business. I believe there's some big fast food chain that doesn't open on Sundays --- again, they can if they want to, they simply choose not to. If a business (or any entity) is openly calling for legislation, that would be political. That's not what this business is doing. Dick's has not agitated for firearms sales to be banned or restricted, just as CVS didn't call for tobacco bans and whatever that fast food store is didn't call for banning sales on Sundays. They simply chose to take that path.

I never said anything about Dick's right to sell guns or not. That's not what this conversation is about. It's about how some people are reacting to their decision. Dick's can do whatever they want as far as I'm (and most on the right) are concerned. Im not a customer of Dick's, but if I were, I would discontinue my business there; not because of what they want or don't want to sell, but because they took a political position.

 

[Pogo]

Nope. Still doesn't work. Those hypothetical protests would be representing public concerns or some portion thereof. At that point the business decides whether those concerns are serious enough to merit dumping the product. Like CVS and tobacco.

Whether one chooses to smoke, like whether one chooses to shoot, is a personal decision, not a political one.

Sure it's a potlical one because the left is anti-gun and the right is pro-gun.

Wow, it must be Blatant Combined Sweeping Generalization Day. Did not notice that on the Google page.
They must be too busy snorting coke and undermining America.

If you take an anti-gun position, then you chose a political side. It's just like the NFL kneeling crap. The left are anti-police and the right are pro-police. It's a political stance they took when they chose to kneel.

Excellent. A twofer.
And playing the part of the irrelevant Red Herring -- "the police".

We'll just wait here for a valid argument to show up.

Tobacco has been controversial for decades, and it also has in common with firearms (a) that, used for its designed purpose it kills, and (b) it's legal. Now you have a point that there was no particular event or contemporary revelation in 2014 but that undermines your attempted connection with the instant case, as you just acknowledged it isn't necessary as impetus FOR a business decision --- it can be, and generally is, the accumulated concern over time. I seem to remember K-Mart quit selling firearms after a previous mass shooting years ago --- again, legal product that the store CAN sell if it wants to, where the store simply decided it doesn't want to. That's their decision and those are made on the basis of 'what's good for the company'.

The bottom line is, you may have a legal right to smoke or shoot, but you don't have a legal right to force Dick's to sell guns or CVS to sell tobacco. That's up to the business. I believe there's some big fast food chain that doesn't open on Sundays --- again, they can if they want to, they simply choose not to. If a business (or any entity) is openly calling for legislation, that would be political. That's not what this business is doing. Dick's has not agitated for firearms sales to be banned or restricted, just as CVS didn't call for tobacco bans and whatever that fast food store is didn't call for banning sales on Sundays. They simply chose to take that path.

I never said anything about Dick's right to sell guns or not. That's not what this conversation is about. It's about how some people are reacting to their decision. Dick's can do whatever they want as far as I'm (and most on the right) are concerned. Im not a customer of Dick's, but if I were, I would discontinue my business there; not because of what they want or don't want to sell, but because they took a political position.

And you would be taking yet another position you can't back up, because it STILL isn't a political position at all.

Once AGAIN --- if the NRA lobbies against firearm regulations --- THAT is a political position. If a business decides what it will or will not sell in its own retail stores --- that is a BUSINESS decision. Whatever the NRA might accomplish with its lobbying, affects everybody. Whatever Dick's does with its own stock ----- affects only its own business. It ain't rocket surgery. Just as CVS dumping tobacco isn't "political" either --- exactly the same thing. Now if CVS were lobbying to ban tobacco altogether --- that would affect EVERYBODY, not just its own customer base. And that would be political. But that's not what CVS did, and it's not what Dick's did. Not that hard to figure out, really it isn't.

Sorry, somehow I got through all that without a sweeping blanket generalization. I gotta work on that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Far too many on the right perceive the company’s decision to destroy its inventory of AR 15s as ‘political’ because they believe – incorrectly – that by doing so some sort of ‘ripple effect’ will manifest among the general public where voters will infer that banning AR 15s is warranted, resulting in legislation to do exactly that.

Yes, the notion is ridiculous, unfounded sophistry, but that’s the convoluted manner in which most conservatives ‘think.’

 

[Vandalshandle]

Cowardly PC shite. No Gun Owner should give their money to Dick's or Walmart. If they do decide to, they'll be supporting the Gun Grabber Agenda. They need to think very carefully before spending their money at those stores.

Yes, that's the way to go with DIck's. Let them eat the cost of the guns, help the gun makers, and cut off their income.

Dick's will likely suffer and fade at some point. But Walmart's another story. It just implemented the same policies. But so many people are addicted to Walmart. It'll be a real test to see if Gun Owners are willing to make a sacrifice and stop giving Walmart their money.

I mean if you can't make that kind of sacrifice, what chance do you really have against the Gun Grabbers? The Gun Grabber Agenda has $Billions behind it. If you can't sacrifice buying cheap shitty stuff at Walmart, how are you gonna successfully battle those folks?

It pretty much comes down to just down deeply ingrained the paranoia has drilled into the gun nut.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And you would be taking yet another position you can't back up, because it STILL isn't a political position at all.

You can look at it anyway you like and the rest of us will look at it our way. If it were not a political decision, it wouldn't even be a topic. If Dick's stopped selling pup tents, nobody would give a damn because nobody would have even heard about it.

Once AGAIN --- if the NRA lobbies against firearm regulations --- THAT is a political position. If a business decides what it will or will not sell in its own retail stores --- that is a BUSINESS decision. Whatever the NRA might accomplish with its lobbying, affects everybody. Whatever Dick's does with its own stock ----- affects only its own business. It ain't rocket surgery. Just as CVS dumping tobacco isn't "political" either --- exactly the same thing. Now if CVS were lobbying to ban tobacco altogether --- that would affect EVERYBODY, not just its own customer base. And that would be political. But that's not what CVS did, and it's not what Dick's did. Not that hard to figure out, really it isn't.

Sorry, somehow I got through all that without a sweeping blanket generalization. I gotta work on that.

Yes, the NRA is political because gun ownership is political. The Democrats hate the NRA and the Republicans support the NRA.

 

[bgrouse]

Cowardly PC shite. No Gun Owner should give their money to Dick's or Walmart. If they do decide to, they'll be supporting the Gun Grabber Agenda. They need to think very carefully before spending their money at those stores.

Yes, that's the way to go with DIck's. Let them eat the cost of the guns, help the gun makers, and cut off their income.

Dick's will likely suffer and fade at some point. But Walmart's another story. It just implemented the same policies. But so many people are addicted to Walmart. It'll be a real test to see if Gun Owners are willing to make a sacrifice and stop giving Walmart their money.

I mean if you can't make that kind of sacrifice, what chance do you really have against the Gun Grabbers? The Gun Grabber Agenda has $Billions behind it. If you can't sacrifice buying cheap shitty stuff at Walmart, how are you gonna successfully battle those folks?

It pretty much comes down to just down deeply ingrained the paranoia has drilled into the gun nut.

"Gun nuts" are "paranoid" about violent criminals. Liberals are paranoid about law-abiding citizens that want nothing to do with them.

 

[Pogo]

And you would be taking yet another position you can't back up, because it STILL isn't a political position at all.

You can look at it anyway you like and the rest of us will look at it our way. If it were not a political decision, it wouldn't even be a topic. If Dick's stopped selling pup tents, nobody would give a damn because nobody would have even heard about it.

Yanno in over 200 posts here I don't believe the OP ever did make the case to justify his thread title but just because he makes up a bullshit title and punches "create thread" --- doesn't mean it isn't still bullshit. And bullshit it remains until he makes his case, which he can't do. You're a better thinker than him and you can't do it either.

Once again, and I guess we'll just keep at it until it sinks in, a business making its own choices about what to add or drop from its wares, has nothing to do with "politics". And the measure of that has absolutely zero to do with "nobody would have even heard about it". Any given retail business will sell, or not sell, whatever legal goods it chooses to sell or not sell, under the conditions it chooses to sell or not sell them. They cant be required to sell something just because you, an admitted non-customer of their business, think they "should". That's absurd. It's also fascist.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And you would be taking yet another position you can't back up, because it STILL isn't a political position at all.

You can look at it anyway you like and the rest of us will look at it our way. If it were not a political decision, it wouldn't even be a topic. If Dick's stopped selling pup tents, nobody would give a damn because nobody would have even heard about it.

Yanno in over 200 posts here I don't believe the OP ever did make the case to justify his thread title but just because he makes up a bullshit title and punches "create thread" --- doesn't mean it isn't still bullshit. And bullshit it remains until he makes his case, which he can't do. You're a better thinker than him and you can't do it either.

Once again, and I guess we'll just keep at it until it sinks in, a business making its own choices about what to add or drop from its wares, has nothing to do with "politics". And the measure of that has absolutely zero to do with "nobody would have even heard about it". Any given retail business will sell, or not sell, whatever legal goods it chooses to sell or not sell, under the conditions it chooses to sell or not sell them. They cant be required to sell something just because you, an admitted non-customer of their business, think they "should". That's absurd. It's also fascist.

Wrong. It's just like when Target decided to cater to goof balls wearing dresses. It was political because the right is for two genders only in our society and the left is for thirty. It's a right and left issue. Guns are a right and left issue. Gay marriage was a right and left issue. Speaking of which, it was the left that tried to boycott Chick-Fil-A because of their religious stance on gay marriage.

 

[Pogo]

And you would be taking yet another position you can't back up, because it STILL isn't a political position at all.

You can look at it anyway you like and the rest of us will look at it our way. If it were not a political decision, it wouldn't even be a topic. If Dick's stopped selling pup tents, nobody would give a damn because nobody would have even heard about it.

Yanno in over 200 posts here I don't believe the OP ever did make the case to justify his thread title but just because he makes up a bullshit title and punches "create thread" --- doesn't mean it isn't still bullshit. And bullshit it remains until he makes his case, which he can't do. You're a better thinker than him and you can't do it either.

Once again, and I guess we'll just keep at it until it sinks in, a business making its own choices about what to add or drop from its wares, has nothing to do with "politics". And the measure of that has absolutely zero to do with "nobody would have even heard about it". Any given retail business will sell, or not sell, whatever legal goods it chooses to sell or not sell, under the conditions it chooses to sell or not sell them. They cant be required to sell something just because you, an admitted non-customer of their business, think they "should". That's absurd. It's also fascist.

Wrong. It's just like when Target decided to cater to goof balls wearing dresses. It was political because the right is for two genders only in our society and the left is for thirty. It's a right and left issue. Guns are a right and left issue. Gay marriage was a right and left issue. Speaking of which, it was the left that tried to boycott Chick-Fil-A because of their religious stance on gay marriage.

You seem enslaved to this absurd dichotomy machine to fuel your blanket generalizations.

I have no idea what the Target reference means but I believe Chick-fil-A was the fast food chain I was trying to think of that closes on Sundays ---- once again, a business decides how (and when) it will do what it does. Just as CVS decides it will stop selling tobacco even though it's legal and a source of revenue to do so, just as Dick's drops the AR-15s, etc etc etc.

Once AGAIN there's no law, nor can there be, declaring that CVS "must" sell tobacco, that Chick-Fil-A "must" open on Sundays, or that Dick's or Mal-Wart or K-Mart "must" sell firearms. THAT'S THEIR CHOICE.

When I moved into this town it was a "dry" county (no liquor). In time "dry" was voted out and it became legal to sell booze. Immediately the local megagrocery cleared out a corner of its space to sell beer and wine and a liquor store opened down the road. The "political" part of that was the referendum that made the county "wet". Once that was done, politics ceased to be associated with it. The businesses added alcohol sales (or did not) according to what made sense to their business and their own sensibilities. No law, and no politics, "required" them to sell or not sell alcohol -- it's their own decision.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Drove by Dickheads today on the way to bloodbath and beyond and the parking lot was empty,yet you'd be hard pressed to find a parking spot at Academy.