Nice Move, Dick's Sporting Goods

[McLoofus 35,182]

3 minutes ago, kd4au said:

As a member of the NRA, I'm ok with Dick's move, it's the free market at work and it is their right to sell what they please. I'm sure there will be some other place that will sell what they will not and fill the void. And I would be ok with congress raising the age to buy a gun to 21 if they raise the age to vote to 21 also.

Don't think it's been 19 year old voters screwing things up. Besides, they're the ones who are actually concerned about the long-term future and not strictly maximizing their fixed or soon-to-be fixed income. 

I find it more bizarre to think that you can buy a gun but not a beer. 

[kd4au 1,145]

5 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Don't think it's been 19 year old voters screwing things up. Besides, they're the ones who are actually concerned about the long-term future and not strictly maximizing their fixed or soon-to-be fixed income. 

I find it more bizarre to think that you can buy a gun but not a beer. 

Don't put words in my mouth. My point was if your old enough to vote you should have all of your rights which includes owning or buying a gun.  And there was a poll other day that showed most young people did not want the age to buy a gun raised. Which goes against what the media would have you think.

[stoic-one 1,549]

26 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Don't think it's been 19 year old voters screwing things up. Besides, they're the ones who are actually concerned about the long-term future and not strictly maximizing their fixed or soon-to-be fixed income. 

I find it more bizarre to think that you can buy a gun but not a beer. 

Tyranny rarely comes from a single person, but rather from a mob cheering for the destruction of liberty and rights from those with whom they disagree.

As a Benefactor NRA member, it most certainly looks to me like the press, especially CNN, would like nothing more than to blame me for something I had absolutely nothing to do with. It's a well funded and mobilized effort by a few groups busing young "victims" around to protest a system of which they have very little understanding. You're right, it's not the 19 year old's, it's the adults taking advantage of ignorant 14-17 year old's to push an agenda.

Meh, I've always thought the age requirements for many things were arbitrary at best, be it adulthood, military service, tobacco, drinkings, or guns. I've met sharp 16 YO's and plain old stupid 28 YO's, whom I wouldn't trust with a hammer. Dicks can obviously do what they want, the market will work around them like it always does...

[McLoofus 35,182]

6 minutes ago, kd4au said:

Don't put words in my mouth. My point was if your old enough to vote you should have all of your rights which includes owning or buying a gun.  And there was a poll other day that showed most young people did not want the age to buy a gun raised. Which goes against what the media would have you think.

Sorry. Didn't mean to imply that's what you were saying.

I just don't personally equate the two. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 minute ago, stoic-one said:

Tyranny rarely comes from a single person, but rather from a mob cheering for the destruction of liberty and rights from those with whom they disagree.

As a Benefactor NRA member, it most certainly looks to me like the press, especially CNN, would like nothing more than to blame me for something I had absolutely nothing to do with.

Well, that's the whole debate. Is the ease of access to firearms, particularly certain firearms, resulting in more deaths in this country than there would be otherwise? 

If your answer is no, then you would presumably believe that the NRA and its members are in no way complicit in deaths resulting from gun violence.

If your answer is yes, then you would presumably believe that the NRA and its members are complicit in deaths resulting from gun violence.

Quote

It's a well funded and mobilized effort by a few groups busing young "victims" around to protest a system of which they have very little understanding. 

Please explain the scare quotes around victims.

Also, it sure seems like a lot of victims and their parents are putting a lot of emotion and effort into these things they don't understand and only care about because CNN told them to. 

Quote

Meh, I've always thought the age requirements for many things were arbitrary at best, be it adulthood, military service, tobacco, drinkings, or guns. I've met sharp 16 YO's and plain old stupid 28 YO's, who I wouldn't trust with a hammer. Dicks can obviously do what they want, the market will work around them like it always does...

Can't disagree with you there. And yeah, Dick's and any retailer can do what they want. Glad that what Dick's wants right now is to make its gun sales more restrictive. Seems like Wal-Mart can tell which way the wind is blowing, too. Won't be surprised if there are more. We'll see what the market does. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

20 minutes ago, stoic-one said:

Tyranny rarely comes from a single person, but rather from a mob cheering for the destruction of liberty and rights from those with whom they disagree.

Also, I'm really not sure where this came from. Pretty odd in the context of this conversation. Also odd that it's a frequent refrain when the subject of other people who want different things comes up. I mean, I could just as easily argue that the NRA is a tyrant trying to destroy the liberty and rights of people who aren't gun fetishists to, you know, not get shot, but I don't see much value in that brand of whining. 

[stoic-one 1,549]

6 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Well, that's the whole debate. Is the ease of access to firearms, particularly certain firearms, resulting in more deaths in this country than there would be otherwise? 

If your answer is no, then you would presumably believe that the NRA and its members are in no way complicit in deaths resulting from gun violence.

If your answer is yes, then you would presumably believe that the NRA and its members are complicit in deaths resulting from gun violence.

In this particular case, and frankly, several that preceded it, there were more than enough red flags and even probably crimes for the current system to have captured information and prevented the purchase. Can the system be improved, most certainly.

There is no chance I will blame someone else, or even an entity, for the actions of others, there has to be personal responsibility somewhere, but the fact that you can imply an other entity can be responsible pretty much means you think it can. We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

 

6 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Please explain the scare quotes around victims.

Also, it sure seems like a lot of victims and their parents are putting a lot of emotion and effort into these things they don't understand and only care about because CNN told them to.

If you have been watching the coverage, and especially the CNN town-hall/kangaroo court, along with a host of spurious protests, you've probably seen plenty of young students which were not involved in the 2/14 shooting being interviewed and trotted out as advocates for a cause that's being funded by various groups.

 

[stoic-one 1,549]

39 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Also, I'm really not sure where this came from. Pretty odd in the context of this conversation. Also odd that it's a frequent refrain when the subject of other people who want different things comes up. I mean, I could just as easily argue that the NRA is a tyrant trying to destroy the liberty and rights of people who aren't gun fetishists to, you know, not get shot, but I don't see much value in that brand of whining. 

It came from me, and since we clearly disagree on where blame can and should be assigned, I guess I'll just have to take my "gun fetish" and NOT shoot you or yours. Not that I've ever had any intention to, nor do I believe any other NRA members do. Which is where we clearly disagree on what the mission of the NRA actually is.

It's not whining, it's a statement of fact, groups/organizations with an agenda use incidents like this to get what they think is right. People I happen to disagree with. Vehemently.

"You never let a crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." - Rahm Emanuel

 

 

 

[kd4au 1,145]

I don't see how we get to blaming the NRA and not the person committing the crime. IMO that is one of the problems today is no one is accountable for their actions, it is always some else that is to blame. I don't believe guns kill people, I believe people kill people. Now you can certainly kill more people with certain types of guns, but the responsibility is still with the person. I think the dragging of the NRA into this is just a tactic to try and destroy all gun rights.

[homersapien 11,440]

26 minutes ago, stoic-one said:

It came from me, and since we clearly disagree on where blame can and should be assigned, I guess I'll just have to take my "gun fetish" and NOT shoot you or yours. Not that I've ever had any intention to, nor do I believe any other NRA members do. Which is where we clearly disagree on what the mission of the NRA actually is.

It's not whining, it's a statement of fact, groups/organizations with an agenda use incidents like this to get what they think is right. People I happen to disagree with. Vehemently.

"You never let a crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." - Rahm Emanuel

According to an ex-NRA insider, they are a "cynical, mercenary political cult."

Feldman writes that the NRA is "obsessed with wielding power while relentlessly squeezing contributions from its members, objectives that overshadow protecting Constitutional liberties."

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16324652

 

The NRA's primary goal is raising money, much of which goes into their own pockets.  

 

[stoic-one 1,549]

Oddly seen the same the thing said about political parties, I won't bother finding links.

I'm not nearly as cynical about the organization, and there are plenty of people out there that criticize groups they were affiliated with.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

11 minutes ago, kd4au said:

I don't see how we get to blaming the NRA and not the person committing the crime. IMO that is one of the problems today is no one is accountable for their actions, it is always some else that is to blame. I don't believe guns kill people, I believe people kill people. Now you can certainly kill more people with certain types of guns, but the responsibility is still with the person. I think the dragging of the NRA into this is just a tactic to try and destroy all gun rights.

But to some degree this is like saying "Sarin nerve gas doesn't kill people, people kill people."  Of course an inanimate object doesn't just up and kill people of its own free will.  But some things are too lethal, too dangerous to just let anyone have.  So if some organization with the money and influence that the NRA has were arguing (successfully) that average citizens should have the right to access to biological/chemical weapons, we'd treat them like crazy people.  And if we had a rash of incidents where people legally purchased biological/chemical weapons to kill dozens of school children, we'd be right to try and curtail that access.

So what I'm saying is, the reason the NRA is catching some flak (not being "blamed" per se) over this is that they continually fight tooth and nail against almost any effort that would make these high powered weapons harder to get when the consensus is that such weaponry should be, at best, VERY difficult to obtain.

[McLoofus 35,182]

29 minutes ago, stoic-one said:

In this particular case, and frankly, several that preceded it, there were more than enough red flags and even probably crimes for the current system to have captured information and prevented the purchase. Can the system be improved, most certainly.

There is no chance I will blame someone else, or even an entity, for the actions of others, there has to be personal responsibility somewhere, but the fact that you can imply an other entity can be responsible pretty much means you think it can. We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

I think there is room for both. In fact, I am of the opinion that blame is very, very rarely owned by one entity alone. Point in case: I share your opinion that the system not operating as it is intended is another culprit in this and, as you point out, other cases.

Quote

If you have been watching the coverage, and especially the CNN town-hall/kangaroo court, along with a host of spurious protests, you've probably seen plenty of young students which were not involved in the 2/14 shooting being interviewed and trotted out as advocates for a cause that's being funded by various groups.

Thanks for the clarification. It is fair to say that kids who weren't there were not victims of this incident. I do think it's fair, also, though, to say that it is understandable that kids in other schools are looking at the landscape and starting to wonder when it's going to be their turn. 

As for the NRA and tyranny, their contributions soar after events like this. 50% increase after Sandy Hook. They are a group using "incidents like this to get what they think is right". A group I disagree with. Vehemently. Hopefully that was a less abrasive way to make my point. 

[homersapien 11,440]

13 minutes ago, stoic-one said:

Oddly seen the same the thing said about political parties, I won't bother finding links.

I'm not nearly as cynical about the organization, and there are plenty of people out there that criticize groups they were affiliated with.

The book provides many specific example in which the NRA favored the money-making potential of opposing legislation that is actually in the best interests of their members.  They are first and foremost a money generating machine for themselves and indirectly - the firearms industry. 

Protecting the rights of their members is simply a facade to enable that.   

[stoic-one 1,549]

Just now, homersapien said:

The book provides many specific example in which the NRA favored the money-making potential of opposing legislation that is actually in the best interests of their members.  They are first and foremost a money generating machine for themselves and indirectly - the firearms industry. 

Protecting the rights of their members is simply a facade to enable that.   

No agenda I'm sure, and no organization is so pristine, they for sure have faults.

But I see the other sides of the organization as well. Education, training, safety advocacy, believe it or not, they actually do quite a few good things.

[McLoofus 35,182]

50 minutes ago, stoic-one said:

No agenda I'm sure, and no organization is so pristine, they for sure have faults.

But I see the other sides of the organization as well. Education, training, safety advocacy, believe it or not, they actually do quite a few good things.

I believe this. I believe that most people in the NRA are decent and honest people. 

I just think that, as an organization, they've lost the forest for the trees. Sort of like PETA in that way. 

[stoic-one 1,549]

22 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

I believe this. I believe that most people in the NRA are decent and honest people. 

I just think that, as an organization, they've lost the forest for the trees. Sort of like PETA in that way. 

I don't know if I can disagree, to a point. As I said, no group or organization is perfect, and there are always factions pulling in different directions.

To be clear though, the NRA is a member directed organization, and as such, the members get to vote for the board members. As a matter of fact I just mailed my ballot to Deloitte & Touche this week. I'm not expecting earth shattering changes by electing 1/3 of the board every 3 years, but much like our government, things change over time. I'm involved enough to know where many of those changes need to happen, and try to lead things where I think they should go, but it's painfully slow.

Do the things I want to see changed align with most of the noise going on out there right now, probably not, but I'm not going to make apologies for things I'm not at least trying to change, either. Regardless, the vilifying of members (yes, members) in the press accomplishes not a damn thing, and only serves to put a target on what are predominantly good people that happen to believe in a cause and mean well. Just like most any other Americans.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

It's called sustainability. This popped up alot in my MBA marketing classes/projects. Research shows that individuals will pay higher prices in today's society to shop at stores that actively take a role in it.

While there is crossover, they are betting on K-12 parents to top gun enthusiast in buying power.

[stoic-one 1,549]

40 minutes ago, Texan4Auburn said:

It's called sustainability. This popped up alot in my MBA marketing classes/projects. Research shows that individuals will pay higher prices in today's society to shop at stores that actively take a role in it.

While there is crossover, they are betting on K-12 parents to top gun enthusiast in buying power.

I don't think sustainability is as applicable to the firearms market. Not as the internet market stands now.

I've been around brick and mortar retailers, gun shops, gun shows, and done a LOT of online purchases (legally transferred through an FFL, of course )

"gun enthusiasts" don't get outspent nowadays. They shop smarter than K-12 parents that don't understand the buying process and get suckered into pretty storefronts because it streamlines the purchasing process in a manner they're used to. Buying a gun is an intimidating process, ya know. Go to store, pay for probably one maybe 2 guns ever, fill out form 4473, walk out.

"gun enthusiasts" spend a lot more, but spend it smarter, generally. Go to local store, fondle product to see if you like it. Visit website for vendor who has what they want at a better price, pay by preferred method, arrange shipping to FFL, wait for shipment, go to FFL, fill out form 4473, walk out. 4 weeks later, maybe, go to local store, fondle product to see if you like it. Visit website for next vendor who has what they want at a better price, wash rinse, repeat...

[McLoofus 35,182]

Just now, stoic-one said:

"gun enthusiasts" spend a lot more, but spend it smarter, generally. Go to local store, fondle product to see if you like it. Visit website for vendor who has what they want at a better price, pay by preferred method, arrange shipping to FFL, wait for shipment, go to FFL, fill out form 4473, walk out. 4 weeks later, maybe, go to local store, fondle product to see if you like it. Visit website for next vendor who has what they want at a better price, wash rinse, repeat...

Except for the FFL/4473 part, that's how all savvy consumers shop these days. But maybe they don't feel as comfortable doing it for guns. 

[stoic-one 1,549]

Just now, McLoofus said:

Except for the FFL/4473 part, that's how all savvy consumers shop these days. But maybe they don't feel as comfortable doing it for guns. 

Truth.

[stoic-one 1,549]

Just to add:

I've guided a LOT of people through their first, and in many cases only, firearm purchases. Because they knew I was a gun guy (such as it is), and I would look out for them and help them get something suited to their needs. It usually starts with a rather long conversation about why they want a firearm and how they'll use it. Self defense, home defense, on person carry, all have unique requirements. Then I take a sample of 5-10 weapons I think might suit them, spend a day getting familiar with them and how to safely handle them, and we go shooting. All the while expressing my desire that they always follow safety rules, and make a point that it's important to stay proficient through occasional practice. They make a decision, and I help them through the process of buying. I still shoot with many of these people and try to coordinate range trips to help them stay safe and proficient.

Most all of these people, had I not known them, would have simply went to a Dicks, F&S, Cabelas, Academy, or Gander Mtn, or wherever, and taken the counter guys recommendation with about a twentieth as much probing and interaction, no training, maybe not ever shooting the weapon. EVER. They would have filled out the 4473, payed the money, and walked out. Take gun home, load it, into the nightstand it goes. I do NOT consider that a good thing. In fact I think it's dangerous to have a firearm and never receive proper training. Unfortunately, it happens all the time, and is but one thing the NRA actually advocates, training/education.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

33 minutes ago, stoic-one said:

I don't think sustainability is as applicable to the firearms market. Not as the internet market stands now.

I've been around brick and mortar retailers, gun shops, gun shows, and done a LOT of online purchases (legally transferred through an FFL, of course )

"gun enthusiasts" don't get outspent nowadays. They shop smarter than K-12 parents that don't understand the buying process and get suckered into pretty storefronts because it streamlines the purchasing process in a manner they're used to. Buying a gun is an intimidating process, ya know. Go to store, pay for probably one maybe 2 guns ever, fill out form 4473, walk out.

"gun enthusiasts" spend a lot more, but spend it smarter, generally. Go to local store, fondle product to see if you like it. Visit website for vendor who has what they want at a better price, pay by preferred method, arrange shipping to FFL, wait for shipment, go to FFL, fill out form 4473, walk out. 4 weeks later, maybe, go to local store, fondle product to see if you like it. Visit website for next vendor who has what they want at a better price, wash rinse, repeat...

It will be the K-12 parents view that Dick's is making a stand and doing something for the environment socially. So now parents will go to Dicks vs Sports Authority, Walmart, etc to buy their sporting good needs. They care about your children, they care about reducing gun violence..... when I say sustainability I am referring to green marketing.

I bought my handgun at a gun store, so ya I see what you are saying there. I wouldn't of bought at a Sporting Good store. Wasn't intimidated though, ask some questions, was given the chance to fire it on range, did the paperwork (I have nothing to hide).

[stoic-one 1,549]

6 minutes ago, Texan4Auburn said:

It will be the K-12 parents view that Dick's is making a stand and doing something for the environment socially. So now parents will go to Dicks vs Sports Authority, Walmart, etc to buy their sporting good needs. They care about your children, they care about reducing gun violence..... when I say sustainability I am referring to green marketing.

I bought my handgun at a gun store, so ya I see what you are saying there. I wouldn't of bought at a Sporting Good store. Wasn't intimidated though, ask some questions, was given the chance to fire it on range, did the paperwork (I have nothing to hide).

And I agree with you by that definition. Which is why I don't think Dicks/F&S loses that much on this deal. Everyone thinks they care.

Based on my not that limited experience, what you did is not atypical, but is hardly the norm. Too many guns get sold and are never fired if/until "needed", that's a horrible scenario.

And I would hope you would have nothing to hide in regards to the 4473, but you're doing that form either way at a store.

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

8 minutes ago, stoic-one said:

Just to add:

I've guided a LOT of people through their first, and in many cases only, firearm purchases. Because they knew I was a gun guy (such as it is), and I would look out for them and help them get something suited to their needs. It usually starts with a rather long conversation about why they want a firearm and how they'll use it. Self defense, home defense, on person carry, all have unique requirements. Then I take a sample of 5-10 weapons I think might suit them, spend a day getting familiar with them and how to safely handle them, and we go shooting. All the while expressing my desire that they always follow safety rules, and make a point that it's important to stay proficient through occasional practice. They make a decision, and I help them through the process of buying. I still shoot with many of these people and try to coordinate range trips to help them stay safe and proficient.

Most all of these people, had I not known them, would have simply went to a Dicks, F&S, Cabelas, Academy, or Gander Mtn, or wherever, and taken the counter guys recommendation with about a twentieth as much probing and interaction, no training, maybe not ever shooting the weapon. EVER. They would have filled out the 4473, payed the money, and walked out. Take gun home, load it, into the nightstand it goes. I do NOT consider that a good thing.

It's good to know that folks like you are out there. Seriously. I have friends and family who are- and I promise I only say it this way for convenience- "the right kind of gun owners and enthusiasts". I'm glad folks like you and them are out there. 

Quote

In fact I think it's dangerous to have a firearm and never receive proper training. Unfortunately, it happens all the time, and is but one thing the NRA actually advocates, training/education.

What are the NRA's efforts towards ensuring that a prospective gun owner demonstrate aptitude and a basic understanding of responsible gun ownership before purchasing one?