Walmart and Dick's Sporting Goods put new limits on gun sales - Polidicks

Seems pretty virtue signally to me. Most Dicks and WalMarts either have tiny firearms sections or none at all. Barely any of them sell ammo, and I've never seen a Dicks sell an AR or AK platform, just your usual Mini-14 or Rugers and then every mossberg on the planet apparently.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53169375]Seems pretty virtue signally to me. Most Dicks and WalMarts either have tiny firearms sections or none at all. Barely any of them sell ammo, and I've never seen a Dicks sell an AR or AK platform, just your usual Mini-14 or Rugers and then every mossberg on the planet apparently.[/QUOTE] The company is making a tangible change to how it does business and it's company policy. This is the exact opposite of virtue signalling? Unless I'm entirely misunderstanding what virtue signalling even is.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53169387]The company is making a tangible change to how it does business and it's company policy. This is the exact opposite of virtue signalling? Unless I'm entirely misunderstanding what virtue signalling even is.[/QUOTE] The change doesn't really affect much as most stores of theirs, to my knowledge, did not carry AR/AK platforms, and those that did usually had them far above MSRP, etc. This change doesn't affect much as those who want to get around the (arbitrary) restrictions placed by these stores can simply go elsewhere.

Wal Mart says every few years they're pulling AR-15s but they just set them in the back and quietly set them back out when the clamoring dies down.

Guys, can I add on the military debate, that in most European countries - with or without national service or a draft - members of the military are not permitted to return home and buy/carry guns without any controls being placed on their purchase or use. There is no age restriction - it's just a no. Strangely enough, nobody makes a big fuss about it. Because [i]our home countries are not fucking combat zones.[/i] Get a grip.

[QUOTE=Jon27;53169588]Because [i]our home countries are not fucking combat zones.[/i] Get a grip.[/QUOTE] Neither is ours, I don't know why you act like it is. Also "Get a grip"? Really?

[QUOTE=Jon27;53169588]Because [i]our home countries are not fucking combat zones.[/i] Get a grip.[/QUOTE] But gun owners own it for hunting and sport. Self defense, too.

[QUOTE=Jon27;53169588] Get a grip.[/QUOTE] Pistol grip? :v:

[QUOTE=Jon27;53169588]Guys, can I add on the military debate, that in most European countries - with or without national service or a draft - members of the military are not permitted to return home and buy/carry guns without any controls being placed on their purchase or use. There is no age restriction - it's just a no. Strangely enough, nobody makes a big fuss about it. Because [i]our home countries are not fucking combat zones.[/i] Get a grip.[/QUOTE] Yet curiously in those European countries where they ARE permitted to do it, it isn't an issue. Hmm.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53169557]Wal Mart says every few years they're pulling AR-15s but they just set them in the back and quietly set them back out when the clamoring dies down.[/QUOTE] Truly there is no ethical consumption under capitalism

[QUOTE=TestECull;53168735]No, not really. It's even more honest, blue-collar jobs going up in smoke, another hit to the economy, and another knee-jerk reaction that won't ultimately have any meaningful effect on these sorts of incidents.[/QUOTE] What blue collar jobs are you talking about? People who work at Dicks? People who manufacture guns?

Hah, I didn't catch that poor choice of words. I was not implying that the USA was a combat zone. More that the implication that USMC personnel should have any right to weapons in their home country by virtue of their service, is really a non-argument. There's no use to it apart from the usual hunting and sport and the fact that the military can carry weapons in combat zones is irrelevant at home.

[quote]Not to take away from Dick’s move, but the business risk is relatively low. [B]The company only sells assault-style weapons at the 35 stores in its Field & Stream chain. (The company operates 715 namesake stores.[/B] Dick’s removed assault-style weapons from those stores in 2012 after the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre and shifted that part of its business to Field & Stream.) Indeed, Wall Street doesn’t seem to be worried: [B]Dick’s shares are up 2%.[/B] What’s more, Dick’s is reducing its exposure to a business that is shrinking anyway: [B]its overall hunting business, which encompasses firearms, has been declining with sales down by a double-digit percentage for a few quarters now.[/B] And it’s not just Dick’s; industry wide, sales are flagging in the absence of fear among gun owners that President Trump and Republicans will push for new laws. For the full year in 2017, background checks by the FBI, a proxy for gun sales fell 8.4% to 25.3 million. Earlier this month, Remington Outdoor, a major manufacturer of firearms, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after an extended sales slide. [B]In Dick’s case, Wedbush Securities estimates that the whole hunting segment, not just firearms, make up only 10% of company sales and that the moves announced by Dick’s would have at most a small impact on sales, with the biggest threat coming from a hit to store traffic. [/B]What’s more, even if there is a backlash, it might not be that big: a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll shows support for stricter gun laws among registered voters at 68%, well above the 25% who oppose such laws. (To be sure, such support typically soars after a mass shooting.)[/quote] [url]http://fortune.com/2018/02/28/dicks-sporting-goods-guns-2/[/url] [editline]1st March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Jon27;53169701]Hah, I didn't catch that poor choice of words. I was not implying that the USA was a combat zone. More that the implication that USMC personnel should have any right to weapons in their home country by virtue of their service, is really a non-argument. There's no use to it apart from the usual hunting and sport and the fact that the military can carry weapons in combat zones is irrelevant at home.[/QUOTE] So people that A) certified know how to handle a gun and B) are definitely known to not have mental illness, should not have any benefit to having a weapon once home? To jump ahead of you, yeah I know a lot of troops come home with PTSD and depression. But that is often discovered fairly easy, especially by military personnel. If a soldier were to come home with said problems, it would be identified prior to trying to purchase a gun. (so long as the air force doesn't fuck up again and not send such info to the background check system).

I guess I'm not helpful in this debate because I've become in favour of tight weapons control after learning about the effect it had in Australia and the UK. I suppose a more realistic solution which works for the US would be universal background checks and a mental health assessment before being granted a [i]compulsory[/i] license. For neither of these measures I believe there is political enthusiasm or anyone who has the courage to try it yet. The idea with opposing special rules for the military is for there to genuinely be no special rules or exemptions as I think the assumption that anyone is suitable to carry weapons on the streets is simply dangerous; I've worked around the British forces for even just a short time and, despite our highly selective service, seen that there are always unsavoury and suspicious individuals just like in any walk of life. I dislike the idea that the community has, that it's somehow immune to or prepared for certain issues like unexpected mental health problems.

18, old enough to die in a sand wasteland in conquests for oil, old enough to put yourself on the path to lung cancer, and old enough to vote but fuck you if you want to hunt or keep a shotgun around the house for home defense. You don't have constitutional rights.

[QUOTE=Whibble;53169735]18, old enough to die in a sand wasteland in conquests for oil, old enough to put yourself on the path to lung cancer, and old enough to vote but fuck you if you want to hunt or keep a shotgun around the house for home defense. You don't have constitutional rights.[/QUOTE] Fortunately: 1.) The Second Amendment does not apply to private actors. 2.) 18-year-olds can still buy and own guns legally. 3.) Nothing in this decision affects any of the constitutional rights of 18-year-olds. Nice zinger though

[QUOTE=Snowmew;53169774]Fortunately: 1.) The Second Amendment does not apply to private actors. 2.) 18-year-olds can still buy and own guns legally. 3.) Nothing in this decision affects any of the constitutional rights of 18-year-olds. Nice zinger though[/QUOTE] This was not a directed solely at the business decisions alone, moreso at the general notion that 18-20 year olds cannot purchase rifles or shotguns. Never did I say "Walmart and Dick's have no right to do this". I suggest you look at the current executive orders and laws being put forth in our government at this very second. So yes, all three of those things are under consideration for violation.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53169395]The change doesn't really affect much as most stores of theirs, to my knowledge, did not carry AR/AK platforms, and those that did usually had them far above MSRP, etc. This change doesn't affect much as those who want to get around the (arbitrary) restrictions placed by these stores can simply go elsewhere.[/QUOTE] I just don't see how it's virtue signalling. "Let's try improving society in what small ways we can" "Stop virtue signalling you dick"

Can I start calling that policy proposing to let teachers bring guns into schools virtue signalling? Because there's not solid evidence that it will help in most cases.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53169827]Can I start calling that policy proposing to let teachers bring guns into schools virtue signalling? Because there's not solid evidence that it will help in most cases.[/QUOTE] Whataboutism at it's finest. That's not what we're discussing, that's a whole different argument for a whole different thread. We're discussing how raising the purchasing age to 21 is a way for retailers to keep out of the public scrutiny, despite that not actually doing anything to help anyone. Sure, it might have stopped or hindered Cruz, but it's literally just a coincidence. It's like banning people with the last name Cruz from buying rifles. Most of the attackers in recent years were 24-64 years old, what does age have to do with it?

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53169827]Can I start calling that policy proposing to let teachers bring guns into schools virtue signalling? Because there's not solid evidence that it will help in most cases.[/QUOTE] I would say so, absolutely.

[QUOTE=Whibble;53169855]Whataboutism at it's finest. That's not what we're discussing, that's a whole different argument for a whole different thread. We're discussing how raising the purchasing age to 21 is a way for retailers to keep out of the public scrutiny, despite that not actually doing anything to help anyone. Sure, it might have stopped or hindered Cruz, but it's literally just a coincidence. It's like banning people with the last name Cruz from buying rifles. Most of the attackers in recent years were 24-64 years old, what does age have to do with it?[/QUOTE] I'm mostly just talking about how virtue signalling has become overused and essentially meaningless.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53169915]I'm mostly just talking about how virtue signalling has become overused and essentially meaningless.[/QUOTE] At least around here I’d call it virtue signaling since pretty much all of the outlets I’ve been to within the state have never sold semiautomatic rifles or handguns of any kind. Also getting rid of cheaply made airsoft guns just reinforces this point.

[QUOTE=Jon27;53169719]I guess I'm not helpful in this debate because I've become in favour of tight weapons control after learning about the effect it had in Australia and the UK. I suppose a more realistic solution which works for the US would be universal background checks and a mental health assessment before being granted a [i]compulsory[/i] license. For neither of these measures I believe there is political enthusiasm or anyone who has the courage to try it yet. The idea with opposing special rules for the military is for there to genuinely be no special rules or exemptions as I think the assumption that anyone is suitable to carry weapons on the streets is simply dangerous; I've worked around the British forces for even just a short time and, despite our highly selective service, seen that there are always unsavoury and suspicious individuals just like in any walk of life. I dislike the idea that the community has, that it's somehow immune to or prepared for certain issues like unexpected mental health problems.[/QUOTE] And what effect did it have in Australia? Last time I checked the 1996 buyback had no effect on our murder rate. And no one is arguing for special rules for the military. They're pointing out the hypocrisy of allowing people to die in a foreign war but not allow them to drink alcohol or own a gun older people in the country can have.

[QUOTE=Shibbey;53169049]There has been more than one "incident" recently, dude[/QUOTE] Yeah, but in relation to gun crime - rifles are used in a small percent. Hell, they barely break the 500 person mark. Handguns (which have been restricted to 21) are used in nearly all gun crimes. I mean if we're going to make a move, let's do something that actually makes logical sense. To me this is just a PR move for retailers.

[QUOTE=download;53170752]And what effect did it have in Australia? Last time I checked the 1996 buyback had no effect on our murder rate. And no one is arguing for special rules for the military. They're pointing out the hypocrisy of allowing people to die in a foreign war but not allow them to drink alcohol or own a gun older people in the country can have.[/QUOTE] Fair enough, so counterpoint, fighting to 'defend your country' (or its interests, really that's a whole other debate) is a useful and meaningful career which can help your nation and even the world in some small way. Drinking alcohol or bearing arms for recreation - or that strange comfort some people seem to get from having a weapon on their person all the time - is not nearly as useful or meaningful and only makes a difference if you happen to be victim of or near to and incident with an armed criminal. I think there's a false equivalency being drawn between the necessity and value of military service and the necessity and value of drinking or private gun ownership.

[QUOTE=Jon27;53171633]Fair enough, so counterpoint, fighting to 'defend your country' (or its interests, really that's a whole other debate) is a useful and meaningful career which can help your nation and even the world in some small way. Drinking alcohol or bearing arms for recreation - or that strange comfort some people seem to get from having a weapon on their person all the time - is not nearly as useful or meaningful and only makes a difference if you happen to be victim of or near to and incident with an armed criminal. I think there's a false equivalency being drawn between the necessity and value of military service and the necessity and value of drinking or private gun ownership.[/QUOTE] You're still completely missing the point. I suggest you re-read what has been said and the explanations.

Obviously I've missed the point big time because I'm still not seeing it. I'll withdraw from this argument and leave it to those who know what's actually going on. Apologies

[QUOTE=Jon27;53171699]Obviously I've missed the point big time because I'm still not seeing it. I'll withdraw from this argument and leave it to those who know what's actually going on. Apologies[/QUOTE] People are saying it’s stupid to treat 18 year old as adults who can go die in a foriegn country, but can’t come home and be able to drink, defend themselves, etc... Honestly, I’m not sure how I feel about these age raises. Either we treat 18 year olds as independent adults or we don’t.

[url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/02/gun-boycott-rei-mountain-equipment-co-op-stop-selling-major-outdoor-brand-due-to-its-weapons-sales-nra-ties/?utm_term=.48186965581e]REI's announced they're no longer going to stock wares from Vista Outdoors - who e: have ties to the NRA.[/url] Vista Outdoors own the brands of CamelBak, Giro, Bell, and 47 others. This was a result of a petition made by thousands of REI's membership to halt orders on Vista Outdoors due to their NRA ties. For those wondering the relevance: [quote]Vista Outdoor’s business is divided into two branches: One side is dedicated to outdoor products; the other branch is dedicated to “shooting sports,” which generates 54 percent of the company’s external sales revenue, according to its annual report. Its firearms brands include Savage Arms, which makes “modern sporting rifles” and lists a semiautomatic series of weapons on its website, and Federal Premium Ammunition, which sponsors NRATV. Vista Outdoor also is a large vendor at the NRA’s annual gun show.[/quote]