Dick's Sporting Goods CEO on decision to no longer sell assault-style rifles

"We’re staunch supporters of the 2nd Amendment. I’m a gun owner myself," Stack said. "We’ve just decided that based on what’s happened with these guns, we don’t want to be a part of this story and we’ve eliminated these guns permanently."

we don’t want to be a part of this story and we’ve eliminated these guns permanently

So they eliminate a subset (assault style) of a type of firearm (rifles) that is responsible for about 2% of all homicides annually.

The math behind that claim: In 2014, there 11,961 homicides in America (link below) and 248 of them were committed with a rifle - only some of which were AR-15s or similar weapons. 262 murders were committed with a shotgun. Oddly, no one wants to ban shotguns. 5,782 murders were committed with handguns. Again, no call for handgun legislation.

1,567 murders were committed with a knife or other cutting instrument. 428 murders were committed with just a blunt object, like grandma's ash tray or a frying pan. 687 murders were committed with the murderer's body, i.e. hands, feet, head butting, etc.

Again, no call to ban these weapons (not sure how you'd ban a fist). The most important thing that society apparently needs to do is ban the weapon employed in - at most - 2% of homicides.

Why?

Murder Victims  by Weapon, 2010–2014

By way of comparison, the United Kingdom had 571 homicides in the year ending March 2016 . 26 of those were by means of firearms generally, leaving 545 non-firearm homicides.

Now, a little more math: Our population in 2014 was about 4.9 times the UK population in 2015/16. So if the murder rate is the same, that would mean we could expect about 2670 non-firearm homicides. Instead, we had 3837 non-firearm homicides. That's pretty impressive considering how easy it is to use a gun instead.

Unquestionably, we have more firearm homicides than the UK does because we have so many more firearms, but it's also clear that we commit murder more than they do with or without the guns . I think it's reasonable to assume that if we didn't have the guns, many of those firearm murders would still have happened, making the difference even more dramatic.

So why are so few people willing to ask the really important question: Why do Americans commit so many murders? The answer is clearly not "because AR-15s."

Wouldn't it be more productive for us to look into the why question instead of trying to outlaw a weapon of such minimal impact that is favored by so many law-abiding citizens who haven't murdered anyone?

So they eliminate a subset (assault style) of a type of firearm (rifles) that is responsible for about 2% of all homicides annually.

Their concern is mass shootings, something assault weapons are really designed to enable. 

Wouldn't it be more productive for us to look into the why question instead of trying to outlaw a weapon of such minimal impact that is favored by so many law-abiding citizens who haven't murdered anyone?

Because it would save hundreds of lives a year.  I thought your sort was all about "pro-life" (of course, you never have been really; it was always just a slogan to throw around).

Because it would save hundreds of lives a year.

You really believe that! Another example of magical thinking.

Not evil, scary looking. Snowflakes are easily spooked.

Snowflakes are fantastic! Look at them closely and you will see that almost magically none of them are exactly alike. If you get enough of them they cover rolling hills in the country and the ground and trees in snow covered paths in the woods. If you take a walk down such a path on a sunny winter day you will see the incredible light show as the sun reflects on the different shapes of the piles and drifts. Then in the spring the snowflakes all melt and flow into brooks and rivers, providing life for fish and frogs and minnows and other wild life. They also flow down to farmland to grow crops for food for all of us. Without snowflakes we would all die and so would so many other animals and so much other vegetation. So when someone calls me a snowflake I am not insulted. I am complimented. I am honored.

Using your logic, it wouldn't make much difference if the retail stores sold machine guns and flamethrowers. In fact, you'd probably be happy if every corner variety store sold them.

It looks like criminals and killers will now have to get these guns on the street, or the black market, on the dark web, or from each other.

Their concern is mass shootings, something assault weapons are really designed to enable.

I get that, but the AR-15 (or similar weapon) is not necessary to achieve that result. Several mass shootings have been carried out with other types of firearms. We can't look at the Florida shooting or most other shootings and say "but for" the AR-15, less people would have died.

If I can accomplish the same thing with another weapon, there isn't much point in banning that one type of weapon. And considering how popular the weapon is, we would primarily be penalizing the millions of law-abiding citizens who want to own the weapon for legitimate legal purposes.

My only caveat to that is not the gun itself but the ammunition it fires. The .223 round leaves the muzzle at around 3,000 ft. per second, while most handgun rounds are subsonic. This means that the .223 tends to strike with more energy and could inflict a more deadly wound. Still, a bullet to the chest is a bullet to the chest, isn't it. The point is that it's not the pistol grip, the flash suppressor, the magazine size, or even the semi-automatic function of the gun that makes it especially deadly. We're banning the wrong things.

For example, there's a lot of talk of raising purchasing ages to 21. Why? Because this shooter was 19? Look at the history of mass shootings. I think you'd have to go back to Columbine to find another shooter who was under 21 and they didn't even acquire those guns legally.

By contrast, I would say we can look at the Las Vegas shooting and say "but for" bump stocks - a technology intended to subvert laws against automatic weapons - the killer would not have been able inflict such devastation in so short a time.

They probably do that now.

docs.google

Trouble is, of the 97 public mass shootings since the 80s, only 8 times did the gunman use only an AR type semi-auto rifle. 18 times, the gunman has both AR type and non-AR type firearms. The other 71, there was no AR type firearm used. If the left wants a reasonable debate on guns, I'd suggest the left uses some reason, and quits erroneously asserting that the AR is the weapon of choice, when the facts clearly do not support such a proposition. 

Somehow, in liberal logic, 73% is less than 26% of the same whole. Hell, Ron Burgundy is now delivering the news for the left. 60% of the time, it works every time. I'm not saying there is nothing that can be done. I'm saying I'd like to see something other than posturing, because a ban on AR type firearms would be just that. 

I get that, but the AR-15 (or similar weapon) is not necessary to achieve that result. Several mass shootings have been carried out with other types of firearms. We can't look at the Florida shooting or most other shootings and say "but for" the AR-15, less people would have died.

All weapons, large magazines and other accessories which make mass shootings easy should be under scrutiny.    The AR-15 isn't the only thing which does that but that really is the reason it was designed and it's good at it.

Personally I think the constitution really only requires muzzle loaders.    We'd have far less crime and very few mass shootings if all other guns were prohibited.    "Class, please stand still while I load and tamp the next round."

Because it would save hundreds of lives a year.

Your claim is not supported by the facts. There were only 248 murders committed with a rifle of any kind in 2014 and that number is steadily decreasing. Not all of these rifles were AR-15s or similar designs. So, while it could potentially save some lives, it won't be in the hundreds. 

I thought your sort was all about "pro-life"

Please don't troll. I won't respect it and it won't help your argument. You know very well that "pro-life" is an abortion position. Having said that, I am, of course pro-life in most respects. I don't want to see people murdered with any weapon. The thing is, people don't magically become murderers just because guns exist. I have no doubt that guns cause allow situations to escalate, but even our non-firearm murder rate is very high. Doesn't that concern you?

Using your logic, it wouldn't make much difference if the retail stores sold machine guns and flamethrowers.

It's not "my logic." It's just logic.

It actually wouldn't make much difference based on the data we have. You are welcome to address the argument using that data. The fact is that the vast majority of murders are carried out with easily portable handguns. Machine guns and flame throwers are large, heavy, expensive weapons that are difficult to control compared with the available alternatives. Thus, it's safe to assume that if they were available, few people would possess them. Thus, as you put it: it wouldn't make much difference.

In fact, you'd probably be happy if every corner variety store sold them.

Are you trolling or do you have an actual reason why that should make me happy?

The AR-15 isn't the only thing which does that but that really is the reason it was designed and it's good at it.

The AR-15 is simply a well-designed gun. It's lightweight. It's easy to use and clean. It's easily customized. It's effective in close quarters and at long range. It's an outstanding general purpose long gun, which is why the military has stuck with basic platform since the 1960s.

It was not designed to kill masses of innocent civilians. Even though it is a capable tool for that, that was never the intended use. It is intended to allow good, law abiding people to defend themselves or others against wrongdoers. The fact that it is sometimes misused is a problem of the user, not the tool. 

It was not designed to kill masses of innocent civilians. Even though it is a capable tool for that, that was never the intended use.

Actually it was and it's how Colt marketed it to the US military when they adopted the full auto version and called it the M16, the weapon of choice for things like the Mai Lai massacre.    It's a great tool for killing lots of people.

It's an outstanding general purpose long gun, which is why the military has stuck with basic platform since the 1960s.

Actually Tacos, the basic design is easily stopped up by dirt and firing residue; the stock can easily be broken and the long range characteristics of the round are horrible (500 yards my ass).  The platform has been kept because it's cheap to make, not because it works particularly well.  The actual outstanding general purpose long gun was the M-14 (at least it would have been if the military had been able to get rid of the idea that a good rifle should also be a good light machine gun).  What I actually had to use was an M-1 Garand.  It had good long range characteristics and a truly powerful cartridge.  Only problem was that the stock didn't fit my arm length well so it kicked badly.  I spent three deployments fighting a flinch.  I would much rather have had a Springfield, but China Lake wouldn't issue them.

The only thing that the M-16 really did well was break up ambushes.  Breaking an ambush requires a high volume of fire, but the actual rounds don't have to be particularly effective as long as the sound of them coming past the ambusher's head made him duck and miss his target.

Personally I think the constitution really only requires muzzle loaders.

Taking into account your point of when the 2nd Amendment was written, I strongly support the right of every American to keep and bear muzzle loading muskets. Now if someone comes up with a semi-automatic or even fully automatic muzzle loading musket then we can ask the SCOTUS. The same applies to hand held muzzle loading weapons.

Actually it was and it's how Colt marketed it to the US military when they adopted the full auto version and called it the M16, the weapon of choice for things like the Mai Lai massacre.

First time I held one in Basic Training I thought I was going to break it by holding it too tight. And TTGA is right, the ones we trained on in 1973 (Vietnam rejects) jammed if you even whispered the word dirt within 100 yards of it. But still they were light, easy to handle, easy to load, with no real kick and therefore easy to keep on target. They were meant to kill people and for no other reason.

Personally I think the constitution really only requires muzzle loaders

Why would you think that? Is it because that was the available technology or because you think only one shot is needed to satisfy the purposes underlying the 2nd Amendment.

If you are focused on the technology, then we also shouldn't have a right to express ourselves on the internet.

Wonder if they will stop selling the Mini 14.

I'd just modify it with one of the many plastic, quad rail, pistol grip aftermarket stocks.

This independent centrist gun aficionado agrees with you on a few things. Other things, not so much.

Students who survived the attack are lobbying for tougher gun laws, and many have demanded companies stop doing business with the NRA.

Discussing the possible repercussions for Dick’s, Stack pointed to the courage of those students, many of whom are responsible for mobilizing and organizing gun control rallies, marches and social media-inspired boycotts.

Something's different this time around...

many of whom are responsible for mobilizing and organizing gun control rallies, marches and social media-inspired boycotts.

The mobilizing and organizing is being done by Democrat activists, who are also paying for all the expenses

Never waste a crisis...

The mobilizing and organizing is being done by Democrat activists,

What makes you think that all these student activists are Democrats?

But even if they were-- why do you thinks Democrats should not be allowed to protests, etc? (Do you seriously believe that only Republicans should be allowed to take political action?)

The mobilizing and organizing is being done by Democrat activists, who are also paying for all the expenses

The mobilizing and organizing is being done by the students. You're far underestimating how smart young people of today are, but much more importantly, how connected to each other they are through social media. They don't need any liberal or conservative groups, pro-gun or anti-gun groups to organize them and it's arrogantly paternalistic and the height of adult snobbery for those groups for anyone else to think so. All they need is some financial support from their parents (most of whom support them) or gofundme pages or other fund raising pages of their own for hotel rooms and transportation and they'll handle the rest themselves. And they can do it by themselves.

No matter what you're age is, I suspect you have a bad case of old foggy-ism.

At my age I'd resent being called an old foggy - I'm not at all foggy. I may be an old fogey, but I'm not an old foggy.  

I prefer the term 'geezer' myself!  

So you've said.  I was thinking of you when I made that comment. I had a feeling you'd jump in with that previous conversation.

You know us Larrys!

LOL

You're far underestimating how smart young people of today are,

If they were truly smart, they would stop the stupid emotionalism and start thinking.  A few minutes logical thought would tell them that, no matter how many laws are passed,  it is impossible to keep potential shooters away from the firearms, whether acquired legally or illegally.  The only sensible thing to do is keep the potential shooters  (meaning armed people) away from their intended targets.  The way to do that is to harden the defenses of the schools.  That can be done fairly easily, and even fairly cheaply, and is likely to show immediate benefits.

That, of course, does not fit the agenda of the Leftist anti gunners.  Their objective is not to keep students, and others gathered into large groups, safe; but to disarm the general public in any way they can.

By the way, neither Buzz nor I are fogeys.  We both passed our geezer tests some years back, so now we get the added dignity of being "old geezers".  The benefit of that is that, whenever we get tired and grumpy, people take it as a sign of wisdom.

ADDITION:  OK Lenny, you get to be a geezer too.

I may be an old fogey, but I'm not an old foggy.

I am, but only my bottom....

But you're not one of the "Soggy Bottom Boys" from "O Brother Where Art Thou".

Nope, not soggy bottom. Foggy Bottom is the nickname for the U.S. State Department because that's the D.C. neighborhood where it's located. There are a lot of other things in the Foggy Bottom neighborhood though.

en.wikipedia

Thanks to you I learned something today I never knew before.

Thanks to you I learned something today I never knew before.

Buzz, you never knew about Foggy Bottom (home of the State Department) before? 

It gets even better.  Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton had to be the best salesmen in the history of the United States, maybe even the world.  Somehow, they managed to persuade the President and Congress to purchase from the States of Maryland and Virginia, an area that all the people living nearby called "The Great Swamp-", and turn it into the national capital. 

When President Trump talked about "draining the swamp", he was actually referring to Washington DC as what it really is, a swamp.  Public health people there have to worry about the incidence of Malaria.

Well, perhaps being a Canadian I don't know that much about the District of Columbia and its history. However, I have been to Washington DC more than once, toured the White House, the Capital Building, was awed while looking at the statue of Lincoln and the words of his speeches in the Lincoln Memorial, have attended the Smithsonian Festival of American Folklife in front of the museum, and rode beside the infamous DC Mayor Marion Barry in his Mercedes sports coupe when he took me and others out for lunch at his favourite restaurant, so I think I have experienced perhaps some things about DC that many Americans have not.

ending sales of assault-style rifles

Whatever an assault-style rifle is . . . 

Whatever an assault-style rifle is . . .

Oh, please.  Playing these idiotic little semantic games just shows you poverty stricken your stance is. 

When the liberals cannot even define the problem, anything they say should be dismissed. 

they can bring the emotions and mindlessness to the fore with great expertise.

Yep-- pretty shocking that after seeing some of their closest friends shot down in cold blood right next to them that some of these kids would actually feel strong emotions! And worse yet-- express their grief! Having natural human emotions-- what's wrong with them! (I bet a strong person like yourself would never stoop so low as to feel any human emotion when some one close to you is massacred-- much less express it!)

When I read this reply you made, Krishna, I thought about how much you're missed when you're away from this site for a while.

Yep-- pretty shocking that after seeing some of their closest friends shot down in cold blood right next to them that some of these kids would actually feel strong emotions! And worse yet-- express their grief!

They aren't asking to express their grief.  They are asking for laws to be written, which is something entirely different.  I see that whenever someone brings up logical thought, the first response you express is a retreat to emotionalism. 

NEVER, NEVER, write laws based on emotionalism.  If you do so, they will be bad laws.  Laws (the use of governmental force) must always be written using thought and logic, with no emotion at all being used.  The use of armed force can never be based on emotions.

Playing these idiotic little semantic games just shows you poverty stricken your stance is.

Perhaps you'd care to define it and explain the specific dangers. I can't wait to hear how flash suppressors, pistol grips, and black coloring are killing more Americans than other features.

None of that counts in the gunfreak world.  They always try  drag the discussion into the rabbit hole of gunfreak esoterica and arcane minutiae  in a desperate attempt to derail the whole thing.  It's pathetic and disgusting.

Perhaps you'd care to define it and explain the specific dangers

Okay.  In a word:  YOU and, um, YOU.*

* meant collectively to include the entire gun nut universe.

Okay.  In a word:  YOU and, um, YOU.* * meant collectively to include the entire gun nut universe.

Except that I haven't harmed anyone with my guns and neither have 99%+ of other legal gun owners. So, your argument is lame. I and WE are not the problem.

Seems like a PR stunt to me.  Did they need to announce this?

Wouldn't be much of a PR stunt if they didn't announce it...  

no kidding 

Did they need to announce this?

They did. 

They make all of their money by selling teen team sports uniforms and combat shotguns.

banning the sale of guns to people younger than 21,

can they do this?

Dick's has balls.

If I say I like those balls.....

Their prices are too high  

Dicks did this once before.   After Sandy Hook I think.  Cleared their shelves of all AR-rifles.  That lasted about 6 months.  And when AR sales skyrocketed, they brought them back.

I remember the Dicks in Columbia MO did this.  There's a Mom and Pop gun store in the shopping center across the street from it.  They had a sign in their window that basically said bring us proof of a price for any firearm at Dicks, and we will beat it by 15%.  At the gun counter at Dicks, they posted a sign "DO NOT TAKE PICTURES OF PRICE TAGS".  Funny shit right there.

I love it when Tire Rack does the same thing.

I'm thinking of starting a business in the USA, and I KNOW it will be successful. It'll be called BUZZ'S RENTAGUN EMPORIUM. I think there's a need for it because so many Americans can't afford a decent gun for their business or self-preservation, and have to settle for using knives, or, as someone said above, frying pans. Every homeless person needs "protection" (and I'm not talking about condoms), perhaps even more so than those who can afford homes. I'll have a special on AR-15s as they seem to be desired by gun-aficianados - get them in any colour, black, white, yellow, red (for all 4 races in order to be as substantially PC as so many people are - don't want to discriminate these days. I'm not a baker), pink for the ladies, rainbow for "you know who".  I'll need a variety of ammunition as well. Silver-tipped bullets for killing vampires, exploding ones that can take out a small crowd of people, rocket-propelled ones for long-distance sniping. Accessories can include pistol-warmers for those who love a warm gun, jockstraps with front pockets as holsters for those who want to impress the ladies, practice targets with pictures of schoolkids, Daniel Boone coonskin hats, Scarface videos ("Say hello to my little friend") and other miscellaneous toys. I'll make a fortune in the USA.

Yes although you might be more successful to do it on the black market in China. They are even more likely not to be able to afford to buy one thanks to their tyrannical government and it is probably the only way they will rid themselves of those commies.  

Jealousy will get you nowhere, Dean.  Actually there is a huge increase in the number of successful middle class families, lots of millionaires and even billionaires. Ever heard of Jack Ma?

I’m not jealous and I don’t blame you for turning to the good old USA when you are looking for economic opportunity and making a profit as you stated above. You can rent your AR-15’s here without worrying about quietly getting a bullet in the head from your government like you would there. 

Well, actually, according to statistics, as an innocent law-abiding individual I think there's a lot more chance I'd get a bullet in the head in the USA than I would where I am.

Yes that’s because the commies don’t release the data on how many of their own people they kill like that. It is reported they kill more of their own than any other country in the world but those numbers are not released to the public. That’s why I said quietly. 

I think it was obvious to everybody except yourself that my comment about RENTAGUN was a sarcastic joke. I believe I have a lot more chance of getting a bullet in my head in the USA than I would here. I mind my own business, I don't make noise and why would I?  There is no advantage for me to rub ANYONE here the wrong way, so I am living quite a comfortable and SAFE life here.  I am not just tolerated here, I am respected - respected by government officials and by the POLICE (see below) many of whom have invited me and my wife to dinner.  

Meanwhile Tibetan monks are setting themselves on fire to protest the atrocities they are experiencing by the same tyrannical government.

foreignpolicy

Yes although you might be more successful to do it on the black market in China.

You will be more likely to be executed.

Well, as I've said, it pays to obey the laws of the land you live in, but every culture is different. In China it's the government that kills some of those who DON'T obey the laws, whereas in America it's the people, so many of whom are armed to the teeth, who kill those who DO obey the laws.  I think I'd rather live in China because I obey the laws.

pistol-warmers for those who love a warm gun

Seems I heard once that happiness is a warm gun.

Dicks don't suck, dicks GET sucked.  Don't you people know ANYTHING??  

A step in the right direction, albeit a small one. But still, better than nothing. 

Good for them. It's the kind of leadership in the private sector which has come forward that shines, while the paid members of Congress fail, like they have been failing for ages.

I have to laugh ....not out of callousness or indifference, but in the constant use of the wording "Assault" Rifle/Weapon.....or whatever they call it to make a political point.... as if the weapon is the actual "Assaulter" !

Believe it or not.... "Assault" isn't about an object..... It's about a Fucking "ACTION" ! 

Only when that gun is "Picked Up" by "Someone"....can one actually "ASSAULT" someone else. Guns aren't some " chip implanted Towelie " like on south park, that can roam this earth and speak and do on their own. 

I have always had a niggling feeling about the term "assault weapon " , I have always had a feeling it was all to encompassing in definition, meaning , it could mean just about anything to anyone.

as of late I have been using the term Tactical weapon, might be because of my time in the military, serving as an LEO, or what I know a tactical weapon actually is mainly used for . 

 You say tactical weapon to me , and I think any firearm that is shortened , lightened, set up in such a way to take different acsessories to enhance its usefulness in differing conditions as needed easily. And even then I would agree that definition is still rather broad.

The word "Tactical".....doesn't have the same political effect as using the word "Assault".

Most "Sky Screamers" don't know what "Tactical" means !

Politics is always about "Kneejerk Feelings" ! Not reality !

The word "Tactical".....doesn't have the same political effect as using the word "Assault".

Very true.  In a non political way, the word "tactical" has a very distinct meaning that also has nothing to do with military usage.  What it means is that I can take an ordinary, good quality flashlight that costs $15 and, by calling it "tactical", sell it for $ 50.  As Phineas Barnum said a long time back, "There's a sucker born every minute".

I have to laugh

I laugh at your lack of understanding of how the English language works (or how you'd like to think it works in order to make yet another gunfreak, dumbshit play at word games).  The reason the word "assault" is used to describe these weapons is because that is how they're designed and especially marketed.  It also happens to be the name given to them by their manufacturers.  Liberals didn't invent the "AR" appellation for these things.  It also happens to be the reason gunfreaks are so fascinated by them.

are you trying to say that the AR in AR-15 stands for assault rifle?

Nope.  But I smell another gunfreak word game coming up.  So, I'll play along.  Are you saying that AR-15 does NOT refer to an assault style rifle?

The reason the word "assault" is used to describe these weapons is because that is how they're designed and especially marketed.

Stupid is as Stupid posts.....huh.

The gun doesn't do the assault. The One Assaulting uses the tool in order to accomplish the objective. My Old "Singe Shot" Stevens rifle can become an "Assault Weapon"....if I so choose !

“Always remember... Rumors are carried by haters, spread by fools, and accepted by idiots.”
Ziad K. Abdelnour

The gun doesn't do the assault.

I see I"m going to have to go to kindergarten level grammar here (you and OSM aren't the same person, are you?).  See, putting "assault" in front of "rifle" in no way suggests that the rifle itself is doing the assaulting.  Now, if you were actually calling it an "assaulting rifle" or a "rifle that assaults" that would, in fact, suggest that the rifle, somehow acting on its own was doing the assaulting.  It's the way adjectives differ from verbs, you see.  The English language is sometimes fairly tricky but this isn't one of those trickier things to learn. 

not a word game , simple fact the AR in the name stands for the company that designed and developed it , It is the Armalite rifle , model 15. some  people in the past have mistakenly thought that the AR meant assault rifle, which it doesn't.

I see I"m going to have to go to kindergarten level grammar here

Whatever YOU have to do to try to make sense of YOURSELF !

According to Bruce Kobayashi and Joseph Olsen in the Stanford Law and Policy Review:
"Prior to 1989, the term "assault weapon" did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of "assault rifles".

What's the difference? Perception.
In a 1988 report by the Violence Policy Center, they state that "the weapon's menacing looks , coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns vs. semi-automatic assault weapons, anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun which will increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

In 1993 the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was introduced in Congress which would ban the sale of new assault weapons to U.S. civilians. Since "assault weapon" was a made-up term, it didn't have a definition. Legislators had to come up with one. Since assault rifles were already banned, and a ban on all semi-automatic firearms wasn't realistic, the AWB defined assault weapons as "semi-automatic firearms that share too many cosmetic features with their fully automatic counterparts".

These features didn't make the firearms more lethal, and the guns that the AWB would ban were used in 2% of gun crimes according to the Dept. of Justice. Many Americans believed this bill would ban machine guns, which have actually been banned for many years.

None of your semantics change the fact that there are NO “assault” weapons sold to the American public

i disagreed even with taking the Thompson Machine gun out of public availability.  I used one in the military and liked how it handled.

furthermore, it’s a ridiculous argument to even suggest that banning the AR-15 would reduce these kinds of tragedies.

A determined gunman who enter a school with a handgun and kill just as many, just as quickly if not quicker. Most semi auto handguns have faster firing rates to the AR and are more effective for killing rates in close quarters

or create an even worse crime scene with a shotgun. Shotguns including pump shotguns have a capacity for at least equivalent firing rates to an AR with more body devastation 

an old fashioned Remington lever action 30-30 has a larger bullet, nearly the same muzzle velocity as the AR.  It also can nearly match the AR firing rate

anti AR hysteria stems from ignorance of fire arms

i disagreed even with taking the Thompson Machine gun out of public availability.  I used one in the military and liked how it handled.

Save up and buy yourself a desert island. Then get you a machine gun and spend all your time on your island shooting the coconuts out of the trees. 

Just leave the rest of us alone. 

naaah , you can still buy a "tommy" gun , as long as it is only semi automatic , you can even buy a select fire full auto version , if you wish to go through the class 3 procedure , can find one made before 1986, and have the money, all perfectly legally , and without having to prove a "need"  to have it.

 The misconception that full automatics(machine guns ) are banned is a fallacy, they ARE however , restricted to those with certain classes of firearms lics . They are still available to whomever wants one , they just have to follow the proper procedures. Oh and have the money.....

i disagreed even with taking the Thompson Machine gun out of public availability.

Of course you did.   Freedum!

Now, if you were actually calling it an "assaulting rifle" or a "rifle that assaults" that would, in fact, suggest that the rifle, somehow acting on its own was doing the assaulting.

Plus assault rifles have rarely killed or even harmed anyone.   It's the assault bullets which do that.

The Constitution guarantees our natural right of self defense against criminals and all enemies foreign and domestic 

Per US law all able bodied men over 17 are part of the unorganized militia and thus require firearms consistent with that of the soldier (as affirmed by SCOTUS)

the AR has become the home self defense weapon of choice for both men and women.  It is used often for that purpose which the leftist media ignores and censors

Self defense examples with AR-15

nypost

15 year old boy shoots intruder with AR
gunowner.tv

The man who stopped the Texas Church killer says anything less than his AR would not have stopped the killer
thefederalist

themaven

ammoland countrylegends971

Women who have AR-15 for self defense
nbcnews

Care to continue playing?

Sure.  Here's what we get if we put "Armalite 15" into a Google search:

Your move.

people in the past have mistakenly thought that the AR meant assault rifle, which it doesn't.

Since the AR-15 is an assault-style rifle (and can be easily modified to be a functionally automatic one), you are as predicted playing word games.  It's the last resort of the gunfreaks with no real argument to make.

EXACTLY what makes that an "assault rifle".

I'll bet you wouldn't have the nerve to ask that bullshit word game question to someone who's kid had been mowed down by one.

can be easily modified to be a functionally automatic one

Another fallacy, that I believe it was shrek brought up and even supplied a neat little youtube video and article  to prove this claim . problem is , the drop in sear he thinks is so easy to convert a semi into a select fire auto , isn't all that easy . I will grant that it would work on any AR lower receiver , made prior to 1986, but it would not work on one made after that date. reason being is the semis lower receiver has been redesigned so not to be able to use that sear without having to do some serious machining to the lower that have to be within strict tolerances, to accept the additional needed M-16 parts ( not available outside government procurement)in order to make this supposedly "legal" drop in autosear work.

It can be had for a mere$20 K, it is serialized so the government knows of its existance, so in order to obtain one legally , one would first have to go through the Class 3 licensing checks , just like they have to to buy a full auto already made.

 next problem is that 1986 law , stated that the public is banned from buying or making any full auto that was made after 1986.

In order to even make this work even if it were legal, you not only would need the drop ibn sear, but certain M-16 trigger parts that , simply are not available , then you would have to have the lower machined out to tight tolerances to be able to even install all the new parts , one of the changes made to the lower as a result of the 86 law , the lower is thick enough to accept a trigger intended for semi auto , but it is thin enough that if one tries to modify it to accept the M-16 trigger group , the metal is thin enough the forces of firing full auto , makes it a time bomb, of when it will have a catastrophic failure, meaning up to and including literally blowing up in your hands and face.

there is another method that is way simpler , but illegal as all hell due to current laws , and all it involves is a common bench file , and the knowledge of which part to use it on. But I wouldn't recommend that, because once done , the gun is strictly full auto with no select fire capability( meaning you cant make it a semi any more), so what you have is a fire are that keeps firing even if you take your finger off the trigger , and it will fire until its ammunition feed supply is exhausted . A few years back a guy was convicted because his legal AR had a worn sear , and it turned into what is called a "runaway gun", he got 10 years .

So with all those laws , and the needed parts you cant get,lets not forget the licensing , tell me how simple is it to convert ?

I mailed them my cut up Dick’s member card.   I will never shop there again.

proud NRA member

I will never shop there again.

I'm sure Dick's in mourning

I used to spend quite a bit with them.  Many of my friends have joined in this action this week. I’ll spend my money with those companies who also believe in individual liberty

My guess is that they are thrilled about losing the riffraff and classing up their clientele.

I mailed them my cut up Dick’s member card.   I will never shop there again.

Interesting.    Why didn't you stop shopping at Dick's when they actually stopped selling assault weapons in the Dick's stores after the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre?

Because I didn’t start shopping there until 2015 and was unaware of that decision

skirting the CoC [ph]

I've been looking at all these companies who have decided a young man who is not 21 doesn't have the right to buy protection for his wife and family, but is not only allowed to serve in the military, but under some future as in the past situation, will be required to carry a gun to fight for this country.  Something is wrong with this picture.  And especially since actual mass murders are down from past years.

Better background checks and competent people and agencies to perform them is of utmost importance in the fight to prevent these tragedies and even then there are so many other ways to commit mass murders, which most people haven't even thought about.

These companies are taking advantage of this situation as a marketing tool to help their staggering sales.  If you look at some of their stocks over the last year or more, you'll notice they are on their way out of business anyway. Dicks purchased Sports Authority's intellectual property for $15 million dollars.  That may sound like a lot of money to an average individual, but it's not.  Dicks stock was approximately $60 on election day.  It is now approximately $32.  What's interesting while almost all stocks started climbing the day after the election theirs started tumbling.  I attribute that to the fact the greatest gun salesman in history retired and was replaced with the lowest gun salesman in history took his job.

No one seems to be even talking about 'Protecting the Children' in the MSM or these stores.  While they all flatter themselves for preventing a young man and his small family from legally having the ability to protect themselves, they jump on board with the Leftist tactic of emotions, ignoring reality that banning everyone of these guns will not 'Protect the Children'.  The clock is ticking and the children are not any more safe today than they were last week.

Sure the children are emotional as they should be living through such a tragedy, but they are being manipulated and sponsored financially by the most far Left organizations such as Media Matters and The Open Society.  This is their grand opportunity to take advantage of this tragedy to accomplish something they could not accomplish at any other time by discarding the real problems and putting the attention on the guns themselves.  Are we going to band substances put in food at schools at cafeterias by someone who is intent to kill?  There are so many ways to kill, much more effective than an AR15 and anytime someone has the intent of evil for others, they had better expect evil will attack at some point with whatever means is available to accomplish his or her goal.

Young people are more concerned with their phones and their friends than about political issues like gun control.

Something is wrong with this picture.

That's the first true thing I've ever seen you say and it's for all the wrong reasons.

Awww, this is going to cause some tears for gunfreaks hoping they caught Dick's ( comment removed for CoC violation [ph] ) in some hypocrisy:

Dick’s will stop selling assault-style weapons in its Field & Stream stores, including 4 in NC

Hmm!  I wonder what they are going to call the new store they are going to open to sell them. Sports Illustrated? 

Meh, this really is a huge nothing-burger.

In this country Dicks is free to sell AR’s or not.    And we are all free to shop there or not over the decision.

Beyond that anyone making a big deal about their decision is just sensationalizing a huge, double patty nothing burger with extra, secret meaningless sauce.