Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Dick’s Sporting Goods Suspends Sale of Some Semi-Automatic Rifles
Dick’s Sporting Goods has removed all of the guns from its store closest to Newton, Connecticut and is suspending the sale of certain semi-automatic rifles from all of its stores nationwide.
The store made a statement Tuesday morning saying that the move was made out of respect for the victims and families of last week’s Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting during this time of “national mourning”. They didn’t indicate how long the suspension would be in place.
The Sandy Hook shooter was thought to have tried to purchase a gun from the Dick’s Sporting Goods store nearest to him, but the store has no record of a sale to him.
Sporting good stores refer to semi-automatics as “modern sporting rifles,” which evokes a hunting rifle meant for hunting. However, the weapon used in the Sandy Hook shootings was modeled after the M-16, which was developed for U.S. troops in Vietnam. Furthermore, the 1994 federal law banning assault weapons provided specific protection to 670 types of hunting rifles and shotguns, so these weapons are not the same.
Jim Zumbo, a long-standing writer for Outdoor Life magazine, explained the difference in 2007:
“I call them “assault” rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I’ll go so far as to call them “terrorist” rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are “tackdrivers.”
Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don’t need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I’ve always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don’t use assault rifles. We’ve always been proud of our ‘sporting firearms.’”
This ad for the semi-automatic assault weapon used in the Sandy Hook shooting also explains the difference between a real sporting rifle and an assault weapon (note: anyone drawn to this weapon/ad probably should not have an assault weapon for obvious reasons):
I don’t recall this happening after previous mass shootings. One thing this tells us is that this store does not want to be branded with the horror of the Sandy Hook massacre. Thus, we see the power of public opinion in the “free market”. This means that gun control supporters might have more power than they realize right now, if they can keep the issue in the public’s mind long enough to shame our legislators more than the NRA scares them.
Related Posts :
Like many of you, I've been the recipient of angry gun nuts' talking points. Yesterday a real gun nut to ...
When the assault weapon ban expired in 2004 as part of its "sunset provision", Wayne LaPierre, the exe ...
Many of you have asked how you can help the families affected by the devastating events in Newtown/Sand ...
I looked yesterday at the deplorable response of the Religious Right to the Sandy Hook Elementary School tra ...
The slayings of twenty children and seven adults in Newton, Connecticut proves something is wrong with g ...
51 Responses to Dick’s Sporting Goods Suspends Sale of Some Semi-Automatic Rifles
Public Service Advertisements
Andrew Carvin
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 10:20 am
Criminals don’t care about gun laws, just like rapists/murderers continue to rape/murder even though rape/murder is illegal. When you make it harder to obtain a gun all you are doing is creating a disarmed public that is easier to victimize. Individual crazy people that commit evil acts with guns are not representative of the vast majority of gun owners, and if you actually thought for a second you would know this. I made a video about it, and it’s at my YouTube channel Zarrakan, and here’s the name:
2012 12 16 ZOC Shooting For Reponsibility Part 1
www.youtube.com/watch?v=X...
Watch it, share it, and join the fight against the evil anti-gun movement.
Reynardine
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 10:29 am
By your logic, we should legalize rape and murder.
Tom
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 10:36 am
Notice how the nutjobs pretend that the majority of NRA members don’t want to regulate guns, when polls show that they support some regulations, including banning weapons of mass destruction like assault weapons!
Anne
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 12:10 pm
The nutjobs also want to use the fact that we can’t prevent all violence as an excuse to do nothing to address the problem. They are quick to paint gun control advocates with the broad brush of being automatically anti-gun. They fail to acknowledge that there are gun owners who believe in gun control or that not wanting guns for oneself does not have to preclude respect for responsible, sensible gun owners.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 10:42 am
The evil anti-gun movement? I think you generalize. Many of us want to ban ownership of weapons people don’t need, the kind that allow people to murder many rather than just a few. What is evil is pretending that guns are harmless.
Darel Chase
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 4:55 pm
the thing is, firearms are completely harmless. the same thing goes for knives, and cars. the thing that is dangerous is the people that are operating them. have you known of a semiautomatic rifle to load itself, aim towards someone, and then fire itself? i don’t think so… has a knife ever consciously stabbed or slashed at someone without a violent operator? has a car ever run down someone with violent intent? do pencils write threatening letters? you see, firearms are tools. that’s all they are. you use them for a purpose that is accepted by society. and just like everything else, there are improper ways to use them. but guess what? people use them wrong all the time! that’s the problem, not the firearm itself. rather than taking away the problem, what needs done is addressing and counseling it. if you’re active in any sport or work with equipment, you’ve learned that it’s not the tool’s fault you messed up. you did something wrong.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Please dont lower yourself to ridiculous arguments that carry no weight.
Locewasright
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 11:38 am
Laws aren’t written so that people will voluntarily comply with them. Laws are put in place so that they can be enforced whether the criminals like it or not. Every meth lab that’s ever been shut down, was run by someone who didn’t care what the law was. It’s only because the law was in place that the cops could shut the lab down. It has nothing to do with this silly argument that it matters even in the slightest whether criminals will voluntarily comply with the law. If there was no law against rape, no rapists would be in jail. Many of them would still be out there raping more victims.
MC
Dec. 21st, 2012 at 7:14 pm
Your argument is in the prentense that rape is morally acceptable. As with gun ownership it is one of our freedoms – rape violates our inalienable rights. So, is the freedom to walk down the street with out being in fear part of the constitution – no. All this media is spreading fear and of course the non-gun owners and persons who are affraid will point to the NRA and guns as a scapegoat. Perpetuating fear will spread hatred towards the law abiding citizens who bear arms.
Marcie Monroe
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Andrew, your argument is futile and was just voided last Friday by 27 more lives lost. A vast majority of the spree and mass murders committed in this country in the past 30 yrs have been committed by people who LEGALLY obtained the weapons “of mass destruction”. And those which were not legally obtained were stolen from somebody who did buy them legally. www.motherjones.com/polit...
These particular guns have absolutely NO PURPOSE other than to kill in rapid succession. If you are a true hunter, then you should be able to kill your prey without unloading a magazine of 50 – 100 rounds into it. and ANY idiot can make a video and post it onto YouTube, thus it does not make you an expert nor does it give you any credibility.
Alan
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 1:06 pm
would YOU approve this being done to your family?
Leah
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 10:48 am
I think that what Dick’s sporting goods did was very considerate and thoughtful after last Friday’s tragedy. I think it was a nice thing to do. I know where I’m going to be buying fishing gear. ;-)
Reynardine
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 11:00 am
Fishing is so relaxing. I’d feel guilty if I caught anything, but I don’t. Ever.
neil
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 11:37 am
In other words you’re not fishing you’re drowning worms.
I’ve always heard that a bad day at fishing is still better then a good day at work.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 11:47 am
LOL You have no idea how true that is. When I first moved to Tennessee I was shocked at the number of new hires on probation who would give their jobs up to go fishing one day. And then come back and wonder why they lost their job.
Reynardine
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 11:49 am
I used to bait the hook with the unfortunate roaches I bushwhacked in the kitchen; now, I don’t bait it at all. Catfish like hushpuppies, though.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 11:56 am
I once looked at a job in the Belle Glade area, and once they showed me the housing they provided I was shocked. It was right next to the canal with alligators and there were cockroaches literally covering the floor. I decided that I liked Michigan a lot more
Reynardine
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 1:11 pm
Big ones or little ones? What color? The choices in Florida are enormous!
Leah
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 10:49 am
It was a nice thing for Dick’s Sporting Goods to do…..very appropriate, and very considerate.
Gretchen Robinson
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 1:53 pm
this represents human decency and integrity triumphing over the profit motive. I may even consider shopping at Dick’s after this.
When they moved into Patriot Place in Foxboro, near Patriot Stadium, the local paper had rifle shoppers, two guys, sighting with lazars down and across the whole store. It looked like a set up to pick people off. Gave me the willies.
SAMANTHA DANO
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 11:46 am
i am a hunter and i see no need for these assault guns, guns which hold 70 to 100 rounds give me a break they are guns made for the sole purpose to kill in large numbers guns of war and thats where they should be not in public places but bottom line is that any gun will kill and if a cazy person is set on killing innocent people no gun law will stop that these people throw morals out the window do you realy think they care what the law says lol we all want to think we live in a safe place but bottom line is we are all at the mercy of these pycos who loose it and you can only hope your not in the wrong place at the wrong time its sad but its true :-)
Darel Chase
Dec. 19th, 2012 at 5:04 pm
were you aware that they sell 50 round banana clips for a Remington .30-06? yeah, that’s my hunting rifle. it doesn’t matter how many rounds they can hold. here’s a thought. the weapons used to kill JFK was an Italian rifle called the Carcano which only held 6 shots. the pistol used to assassinate Lincoln was a single shot Philadelphia Derringer. guess what, neither held +10 rounds! just showing that you don’t need 50 rounds to kill somebody. and on the other end of the spectrum, since those guns are out there and already owned, suppose they realize they’re the only ones with them now? all of a sudden, they can come in blazing shells everywhere and all you have is a single shot .30-06. how does that make you feel? how are you planning to protect your family then? God forbid this should ever happen to anyone, I’m just presenting another view.
Nelson
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 12:51 pm
Good thing your bias doesn’t show in your reporting… oh, wait…
And another thing, while it is a considerate move on Dick’s Sporting Goods part to suspend that sale of these weapons, don’t believe that it wasn’t a calculated move by the PR Department. Their marketing machine will reap the benefit of this action…. they have already swayed customer opinion, even in the posts above. So, while it IS a good public gesture… It is NOT ALL about respect. There is a certain amount of separation that they are trying to achieve and public good will that they are trying to foster.
Sugapea
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Don’t underestimate this one small gesture…you ain’t seen nothing yet!
There are powerful emotions brewing all across America and we’ve reached the point where we’re not going to take it anymore!
Anonymous Coward
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 3:36 pm
If you honestly believe that banning guns because they LOOK like M16s, you’re an idiot.
If you think that banning guns will get rid of the automatic weapons on the market, you’re also wrong. Because automatic weapons cannot be legally bought or sold in the United States unless:
1. It was made before 1986
2. You pay a 200 dollar tax stamp on top of the price.
3. You go through an extensive background check.
4. You pay the 20-25 THOUSAND dollar cost of the weapon itself.
The guns that you people are so scared of are no different than any other gun on the market. They LOOK more menacing, but they function identically.
Stop trying to ban things that you don’t understand. Or should we start banning things because they look harmful? Cars are big and move fast. They can be used to drive through crowds of people and kill thousands every year. Let’s ban them, they sound pretty horrifying. And knives? Some of those are meant specifically to be used as killing tools. We should ban all knives, just to be safe.
Banning guns (assault weapons are just regular guns, and anyone who tells you anything to the contrary is an idiot) based on how menacing they look will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Nothing at all.
And while I’m at it, stop misquoting the second amendment or ignoring the parts that you don’t like. The well regulated militia part is important, but so is the right to bear arms. The reason we have the right to bear arms is because our right to form a well regulated militia is severely hindered if not destroyed by removing the right to bear arms.
If you’re in favor of regulations on guns, that’s fine. I agree that some regulations should be put in place. But first, learn about what you’re trying to regulate. It’s a bit like trying to regulate whisky because its alcohol content is higher than beer, but saying that rum is okay because it’s clear and therefore more like water, so it’s obviously okay for you.
Also, fixing the mental healthcare…
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 4:18 pm
Sorry. Am taking away your right to kill little kids in just seconds with semi auto and automatic weapons. Too bad. You will get over it.
Anonymous Coward
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 4:31 pm
That’s not the point of my post. The point is that semi-automatic guns are no more dangerous than any other kind of gun. Does it take longer to shoot one that isn’t semi-automatic? Sure. But you can kill the same amount of people in a similar amount of time. The problem isn’t how many people you kill or how fast you can do it. It’s that people kill at all.
The fact of the matter is, banning guns in a country with the most guns per capita isn’t going to solve anything. People will still be able to get their hands on guns. People will still use guns to kill others. And people will still be able to use guns for mass murder.
Instead of banning guns, we need to focus on things that will actually help. Assault weapon bans don’t ban anything any more dangerous than a regular old hunting rifle. They look more menacing, but that doesn’t make them more dangerous.
Fix society’s stigma against mental healthcare patients. And fix our mental healthcare system. These people aren’t right in the head. Nobody who is goes into a school and shoots a bunch of children. If these people had the help that they needed before they were set off, these things never would have happened.
People constantly argue that countries with fewer guns have fewer gun crimes. Firstly, that’s a ridiculous statistic. Of course they have fewer gun crimes. Fewer people have guns. That’s just common sense. But nobody ever looks at their healthcare systems. They don’t treat the mentally ill horribly like we do. They don’t treat drug addicts like criminals. They treat their ill, and they don’t have nearly as many problems with them. THAT is our problem. We don’t do that. And until we fix that, we will have these problems. Maybe it won’t be guns. But on the same day as the school shooting, there was a similar event in China with a knife. 22 people stabbed.
So basically, fix what’s wrong with the people and we don’t have to worry about mass murder in any capacity.
Anonymous Coward
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 4:23 pm
Couple of clarifications, because I forgot to proof read and the last part didn’t make it in.
First sentence should say that if you think banning guns that looks like M16s will help anything.
Next “paragraph” should be banning “assault weapons”, and I forgot to mention that part about it not helping anything because automatic weapons aren’t, legally, in reach of anyone who would use them to commit a large-scale gun crime.
As a clarification, most of the rest of what I was saying was meant to argue that reasonable change is fine, but to understand the argument and what it entails before you make a rash decision based entirely on fear.
The last part, which was cut off, was meant to say that fixing the mental healthcare system would benefit us tremendously. We have more shootings because we have more guns, but we also have more shootings because we have more people who don’t get the help they need.
And finally, I’d like to apologize for the harshness of the previous post. I get a bit caught up in this argument, because it’s always the same and neither side ever looks at the underlying problem. One side argues to ban guns based on no rationale or evidence, and the other side argues to give everyone guns with just as little rationale or evidence. Both sides act on fear, and when things are done out of fear, EVERYONE loses.
Tom
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 6:54 pm
“However, the weapon used in the Sandy Hook shootings was modeled after the M-16, which was developed for U.S. troops in Vietnam.”
The police from Newtown agree with that statement so it looks like it’s you who’s missing something.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 7:00 pm
Very easrly on Breitbart and a couple opthers were stating he left the Bushman in the car. But they couldnt justify when the coroner said every kid was shot with it
Anonymous Coward
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 7:10 pm
“Modeled after”.
That doesn’t mean that it fires like an M16 or that it IS an M16.
It is a semi-automatic rifle, no more harmful than a hunting rifle, which is dressed up to look like an M16. And actually, I believe the model that he used was a carbine, not a rifle, which means it was dressed up to look like an M4. I may be wrong about that, though.
Either way, it was not a legally obtained automatic weapon. If it was legally obtained, it was almost certainly semi-automatic. Just because it looks menacing doesn’t mean it’s more dangerous than any other rifle.
Reynardine
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 10:59 pm
But it was more dangerous. The result- twenty dead first-graders and six dead educators- speaks for itself. Al Capone never did that.
Mighty Slim
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 6:13 pm
Only an idiot would use the guns/cars analogy. Cars are a NECESSITY in our society, they aren’t made to end lives. On the contrary, they are made to SAVE lives! Assault weapons are NOT a necessity, and guns in general are NOT a necessity in our society. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe they are specifically made to KILL! Yet there are more laws on the dealing with car ownership than gun ownership! WTF!!
Anonymous Coward
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 6:49 pm
That’s fine. You can have cars, but only if they don’t go faster than 5 miles per hour and have safety features so that it is impossible to run over someone.
These features would cripple the car’s ability to travel on all but the smoothest roads, but it would save lives.
Either way, that was the point. The argument was made to be ridiculous, just like that argument you’re making. I made the argument not as an equivalence to show how ridiculous your argument is. Cars are not necessary. We could get around using bikes, or trains, or many other forms of transportation which didn’t leave the guidance of the vehicle up to a person who may or may not be well trained or which pose a minimal risk to the people using them or the people around those who do use them.
The fact of the matter is, “assault weapons” aren’t any different than any other hunting rifle. You don’t understand what “assault weapons” are, but you’re terrified of them.
These “assault weapons” fire exactly the same rounds as hunting rifles. They fire at the same rate as hunting rifles. The fire using the same mechanisms and at the same velocity and do the same damage. The only difference is in their appearance.
“Assault weapons” are NOT automatic weapons. They are semi-automatic, just like hunting rifles. And semi-automatic means that for every 1 trigger pull, 1 cartridge/shell is fired.
And again, let’s look at healthcare. If our mentally ill were properly accounted for and taken care of, we wouldn’t have nearly the amount of incidence as we do now. Right now we not only allow them, but FORCE them to roam the streets, building up all the motivation they need to do something horrific, and then we sit around and blame everything but the problem when something goes wrong. THAT is why we have these shootings. Not because guns are available, but because we ignore our mentally ill, our drug addicts, our poor. The people with nowhere else to go.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 6:57 pm
No, lets lok at semi automatic weapons and how many they can kill in a few second.
Reagan killed mental health care. Obamacare will institute it in 2014.
Yes, becuase guns are available. Not available, not used. Your argument is extremely weak. Why dont you discuss 1 shot, cock and aim and shoot and how many more would have a chance to survive.
Anonymous Coward
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Your first argument and third arguments should be lumped together because they contain the same content. So I’ll look at them at the same time.
Yes, semi-automatic weapons can kill a few people in a few seconds; however, the “1 shot, cock, aim, and shoot” method wouldn’t give much more room to survive. You have to remember, these are angry, mentally ill people rampaging through crowds, not cold, calculating murderers. They’re not aiming. They’re shooting. The largest portion of the having a bolt-action/cocked weapon is having to re-aim. If you don’t have to aim, you don’t have to waste time. This is something that I understand from experience.
Your third argument, however, seems to imply that by BANNING guns in a country where guns are owned on a large scale, that all guns will be removed from the market. This is a ridiculous assumption. The fact of the matter is that if you remove the guns from law abiding citizens, the illegal guns left on the market would still be just as deadly and probably more available. And not to mention, you would create a larger market for black market weapons. That’s simply not a good thing at this point.
As for Obamacare, I agree. But it doesn’t fix society’s stigma against the mentally ill. We, as a society, need to recognize that these people are suffering from an actual condition. We write these people off as lazy or just not trying hard enough, and with a system like that, sooner or later, someone is going to crack.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 7:08 pm
No, I only speak of banning what we call assault rifles. No more semi rifles or pistols. Limit the number that can be killed
And I know you can kill a vast number(relatively speaking) of people with a semi then you can a single short. And you dont need a lot of experience to figure that out. If 10 die instead of 20 thats an improvement. If you can take instant mass murder out of the equation then do it
Anonymous Coward
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 7:13 pm
What you call assault rifles aren’t any more or less dangerous than single shot firearms. Period. The only thing that making them use single shot firearms will do is encourage the killers to use better aim. That, or encourage them to buy the guns illegally. I’m sure you’ll agree that someone who is mentally ill and about to stage a mass murder isn’t exactly picky about where he gets the weapon.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 7:14 pm
Ok, you just proved you are not informed on weapons.
Anonymous Coward
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 7:21 pm
Again, that’s not true. I’ve fired plenty of both sorts of firearms, and I understand how they work. The fact of the matter is, if it helps, it will only be marginal. Of course, it seems that YOU have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s doubtful that you have any experience based on your position and, from your statements, I can assume you’ve never even done any proper research on the subject.
If you have to wait for the recoil because you have to work the bolt, you’re going to be more accurate. If you’re more accurate, you’re going to hit more people. If you hit more people, there’s a greater potential for death.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 7:28 pm
Move along. If one cannot tell the difference in kills between semi auto and single shot in the hands of an amateur, they are doing nothing more then defending guns.
Anonymous Coward
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 6:56 pm
Also, can I just say that calling me an idiot probably isn’t the best move you’ve ever made. Seeing as you are making an argument for a position based on no evidence or knowledge of that position. You’re arguing completely out of fear.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 7:01 pm
“Seeing as you are making an argument for a position based on no evidence or knowledge of that position. ”
And so are you. totally opinion based stuff
Anonymous Coward
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 7:05 pm
No, I’m making an argument based on rational thoughts and my prior experiences with firearms. I’m also making it based on past evidence of mass shootings and the psychiatric state of the people involved in those shootings.
Claiming that someone is basing their opinion on nothing doesn’t make it true.
Kerry
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 7:15 pm
In response to “Anonymous Coward” Your need to call anyone who disagrees with you an “idiot” is not appreciated by me at all. This response only serves to expose your own simple mindedness and lack of desire to even listen to a different point of view.
I am a lifelong hunter and gun owner and I am well aware of the difference between an “automatic” and a “semi-automatic” firearm. I am also aware that a semi-automatic hunting rifle or shotgun mechanically functions exactly like an “assault rifle” type firearm. The point that you, in your simple, narrow minded way, are missing is this. Assault type weapons are patterned after military firearms that were designed for one purpose. That is to kill PEOPLE!! There is no legitimate need for a semi-auto assault rifle with a 20-30 round clip in the hunting world.
I am a FORMER NRA member who gave up my membership because of the NRA’s totally unwillingness to compromise on this issue. If that makes me an “IDIOT” in your opinion then I will proudly wear that title. I would much rather be known an Idiot who is open to others opinions and willing to compromise than the alternative!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
djchefron
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 7:43 pm
Its getting tiresome hearing the arguments against doing something about our 3nd original sin.Blame Hollywood,blame the video game blame everything but the weapons that are designed for maximum carnage.You hear about the 2nd amendment and that is our right and you cant change it blah blah.But all our rights can be regulated.You say the 1st amendment gives you freedom of speech.Try screaming fire in a theater.That same amendment guarantees freedom of assembly.Lot of good that did the protesters during the republican convention who ended up detained.So the amendment can be regulated.You say banning certain weapons wont make a difference?Well explain this:On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.
Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.
At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent and guess what? No mass shootings since 1996.Now are Australians different human beings than us?Or is it our American exceptionalism that makes us different.
Donna
Dec. 18th, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Thank you to Dick’s for taking semi-automatic rifles off the sales counter. Wish you would do this permanently. I am a customer, so no idle ask. Also, the large magazine clips should be discontinued.
I would also appreciate support in asking for legeslation that does not allow internet sails of guns, or gun show sales without security checks. Dick’s should be able to support rules that don’t allow competitors to play by relaxed rules.
Yes, and we need legislation that helps get mental health help for adult dependent children. This is very difficult for parents to do, even when they know there is an issue. This needs to be addressed ASAP>
Mr. Gremlin
Dec. 20th, 2012 at 11:54 am
For that matter, they may as well ban semi-automatic shotguns. With 00 buck someone could do some serious damage. And let’s not forget about the penetration of slugs. One could easily penetrate walls with slugs. With practice one could fully load a shotgun in 1-2 seconds.
For that matter, we may as well ban Combat Knives. We should learn from what happened in China where a guy ran into a school and killed about 20 kids with just a knife.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 20th, 2012 at 1:14 pm
You probably heard the story about China from Breitbart. A man did attack a bunch of children in a school with a knife. Every one of the children lived
Mr. Gremlin
Dec. 20th, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Actually heard it from my boss at work. I have no idea who Breitbart is.
Regardless, regular knives were meant to as utensils. Combat knives were meant to be attached to the end of guns to stab people with.
Also, I don’t feel the need for semi-auto shotguns. Honestly, I feel as if they’re more dangerous than modern assault rifles. So if you’re gonna ban assault rifles, do the same for semi-auto shotguns, otherwise those would be used in mass murders.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 20th, 2012 at 7:17 pm
Up close the semi auto shotgun is a stunning killing machine