Hunter Customs
New member
Personally I could care less what Dick's does. In my opinion their name says it all. They do have a store near me, never been in it and never will!
Dick's destroying lots of rifles
- Thread starter spacecoast
- Start date
- Status
m&p45acp10+1
New member
The prices of the place drove me away long before their political policies were made known. If they want to destroy some or all of their overpriced inventory of guns they can have at it. I do not shop there, and doubt I will in the future anyway.
dontcatchmany
New member
I met the young man who resigned/quit working for dicks in Morehead City, NC.
He is now working at a store not far from dicks that is a bait and tackle and Gun store.
For his young age I was impressed with his knowledge of guns and fishing. I marvel at his youth having the courage to stand up for his convictions. He is very articulate. And, within just a few days after his resignation story hit the airways, he had 175 ish job offers.
I very, very seldom went into dicks previously, but I will never go again......I have noticed that their parking lot seems to have much fewer vehicles there now. Their crap was over priced and in a saltwater fishing town, they were woefully lacking in their product.
He is now working at a store not far from dicks that is a bait and tackle and Gun store.
For his young age I was impressed with his knowledge of guns and fishing. I marvel at his youth having the courage to stand up for his convictions. He is very articulate. And, within just a few days after his resignation story hit the airways, he had 175 ish job offers.
I very, very seldom went into dicks previously, but I will never go again......I have noticed that their parking lot seems to have much fewer vehicles there now. Their crap was over priced and in a saltwater fishing town, they were woefully lacking in their product.
bamaranger
New member
card
I've got a gift card with them, when it's spent, I won't be back.......ever.
I've got a gift card with them, when it's spent, I won't be back.......ever.
Hobe Sound Falcon
New member
I may be wrong, but! I see a Parallel here. I recall the first time I went into a Sports Authority in the early 1990s when they put one in the Same Store Front as Barnes and Nobel, and a Office Max Supply Store that went belly up later.
The first thing S.A. did was get rid of their FFL and all Weapons they sold. Then sometime about 10 Years ago they closed down the Sporting Goods Section which was a well stocked section as this was a large Sports Authority. I remember asking some Geek, wearing Glasses, who was nowhere near Manhood, and would no doubt not know which end of the Bullet you loaded into a Magazine, What had happened, and he said the Store had got rid of the Sporting Goods section.
I then asked why, he said it was a Corporate Decision. Now I was to the Point of only going to S.A. for New Balance Men's Running Shoes.(Nike's are only for Beautiful People, with Perfect Feet) If you have Flat Feet as do I, then you have Orthotics from your Foot Doctor. This was the only reason I why I went to S.A. as at that time, all the Preppy Shoe Stores in the Treasure Coast Mall stopped selling New Balance, except for Sears.
Then Shoe Carnival Opened 6 or 7 Years ago, and that was the end of S.A. They went out of Bussiness. New Balance you may be wondering, why I mentioned that Brand, It is one of 3 Shoe Brands that you can insert your Orthotics into with out a problem, or requiring Fitting.
Now Dicks moved into the old S.A. Section of the same Storefront, Office Max is gone, and Barnes and Nobel is still doing well. (I will never Read a Book online, If I cannot hold it in my Hand, Thank you!)
Now for the final point! Dicks has already made their first Politically Correct Mistake! If I am right, how long do you all think they will last? Paul
The first thing S.A. did was get rid of their FFL and all Weapons they sold. Then sometime about 10 Years ago they closed down the Sporting Goods Section which was a well stocked section as this was a large Sports Authority. I remember asking some Geek, wearing Glasses, who was nowhere near Manhood, and would no doubt not know which end of the Bullet you loaded into a Magazine, What had happened, and he said the Store had got rid of the Sporting Goods section.
I then asked why, he said it was a Corporate Decision. Now I was to the Point of only going to S.A. for New Balance Men's Running Shoes.(Nike's are only for Beautiful People, with Perfect Feet) If you have Flat Feet as do I, then you have Orthotics from your Foot Doctor. This was the only reason I why I went to S.A. as at that time, all the Preppy Shoe Stores in the Treasure Coast Mall stopped selling New Balance, except for Sears.
Then Shoe Carnival Opened 6 or 7 Years ago, and that was the end of S.A. They went out of Bussiness. New Balance you may be wondering, why I mentioned that Brand, It is one of 3 Shoe Brands that you can insert your Orthotics into with out a problem, or requiring Fitting.
Now Dicks moved into the old S.A. Section of the same Storefront, Office Max is gone, and Barnes and Nobel is still doing well. (I will never Read a Book online, If I cannot hold it in my Hand, Thank you!)
Now for the final point! Dicks has already made their first Politically Correct Mistake! If I am right, how long do you all think they will last? Paul
Last edited:
I would just LOVE to be a fly on the wall, as they are explaining this to investors and banks.
"Well, see, what happened here is we utilized a lot of your capitol, the last couple years
to purchase a product which we NOW have decided our conscience has told us we should destroy. Oh, NO, our competitors are doing a fantastic business with the ARs, er what?
Why didn't we have conscience problems BEFORE we bought the rifles? Now THAT's
a good question. There's this guy from a high school, er, no he's not a marketing expert,
OR a firearm's specialist, but he's getting people to cheer, at rallies, see. So we need
to tell everybody we're cutting up our entire inventory of ARs.
NOW, what we'd really like to expend your capital on NEXT is..."
"Well, see, what happened here is we utilized a lot of your capitol, the last couple years
to purchase a product which we NOW have decided our conscience has told us we should destroy. Oh, NO, our competitors are doing a fantastic business with the ARs, er what?
Why didn't we have conscience problems BEFORE we bought the rifles? Now THAT's
a good question. There's this guy from a high school, er, no he's not a marketing expert,
OR a firearm's specialist, but he's getting people to cheer, at rallies, see. So we need
to tell everybody we're cutting up our entire inventory of ARs.
NOW, what we'd really like to expend your capital on NEXT is..."
riiight.....
There's your headline..."Dick's supplies evil weapons of war, suitable only for killing mass numbers of people as fast as possible, to your local police, for FREE!!!"
OR some variation on that theme.
Assuming the police would even want them (and its quite possible they wouldn't want what Dick's have to offer), donating them does not satisfy Dick's corporate head's desire for public self flagellation to show their repentance for the "wrong" choice of selling these "evil" guns and accessories in the first place.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
That does sound like a good shareholder lawsuit. I also note that Dicks has now hired three gun control lobbyists on Capitol Hill. They apparently have decided they need a new class of customers.
This is directly opposite the ideals of the Founding Fathers. Leaving aside "the police", because in the Founder's day, there were none, the idea was that if the regular citizenry had the same arms (including cannon!!) as the military, then the "standing army" could never successfully be used for tyranny, because they would be outnumbered by the citizenry.
"every terrible weapon of war" was the birthright of the citizen. The 2nd Amendment was written to place a check on the power of government to change that. IT's not a grant of rights, its a restriction on the government.
Worked fairly well, until the 20th century...
And it gets more interesting. They've retained three lobbyists from Glover Park Group, a gun-control think tank.
bluewizard
Inactive
Dick's is trying to capitalize on recent News, and position itself as the "good guy". If they want to waste Thousand if not Millions of Dollars destroying their own inventory ... Let Them, who cares? You can only shoot yourself in the Foot just so many times before you have no foot left to shoot.
They claim they are going to stop selling Assault Rifles, though we all know that Assault Rifles, if such a thing really existed, would have been (pretty much) banned in 1934. No Ordinary Citizen can go into an Ordinary Guns Store and buy an "assault rifle". That simply doesn't happen. It is a deep, expensive, and convoluted process, and many seeming law abiding citizens would be denied.
Further, though people use the term all the time (mostly as a scare tactic) what actually is an "assault" rifle? -
Is this an "assault" rifle? -
https://ruger.com/products/1022Carbine/specSheets/1201.html
Is THIS an "assault" rifle? -
https://ruger.com/products/1022Carbine/specSheets/1103.html
Is this an "ASSAULT" rifle? -
https://ruger.com/products/1022Tactical/specSheets/11198.html
This clearly establishes the absurdity of banning "assault" rifles. Which of these are "assault" rifles, well technically NONE of them are. I'm guessing the uninitiated would say Number 3 was the "assault" rifle.
But those of us who are not currently brain dead know that they are all THREE the exact SAME RIFLE, just dress up in different cloths. Further these are not even mid-powered or high-powered guns, they are 22lr Rim-fire.
Trying to ban "assault" rifles is like trying to ban Hoddies (hooded sweat shirts) because criminals might wear them. So, let's say we ban Hoddies in an effort to cut down crime. So, the criminal is simply going to put on a light jacket, and go on committing crime. Same with alleged "assault" Rifles, if someone is intent of doing harm to others, they will simply use a different method.
Next, to put Rifle Homicide in perspective, you do know that you are MORE LIKELY to be Struck By Lightning than to be murdered by a Rifle? (FBI-2016)
The odds of being murdered with a Rifle nationally are 1 in 870,000. (FBI-2016)
The odds of being Struck By Lightning are 1 in 700,000 according to the Top Google search.
California has the highest absolute number of Rifle Homicides, yet, the odds of being murdered by a Rifle in California are GREATER THAN 1 in a Million. (FBI-2016)
There were 374 Rifle Homicides nationally, but there were 4000 Texting While Driving Deaths. That means you are MORE THAN 10 TIMES MORE LIKELY to be killed by your Smart Phone than by a Rifle. Where is the call for age restrictions on Smart Phones, where is the call to ban "Assault" Phones?
The Anti-Gun crowd bases their message on pure hysteria and fear-mongering, because they know if the facts were widely know, they wouldn't stand a ghost of a chance in hell of passing stricter gun laws.
Sadly ...I'm preaching to the choir.
They claim they are going to stop selling Assault Rifles, though we all know that Assault Rifles, if such a thing really existed, would have been (pretty much) banned in 1934. No Ordinary Citizen can go into an Ordinary Guns Store and buy an "assault rifle". That simply doesn't happen. It is a deep, expensive, and convoluted process, and many seeming law abiding citizens would be denied.
Further, though people use the term all the time (mostly as a scare tactic) what actually is an "assault" rifle? -
Is this an "assault" rifle? -
https://ruger.com/products/1022Carbine/specSheets/1201.html
Is THIS an "assault" rifle? -
https://ruger.com/products/1022Carbine/specSheets/1103.html
Is this an "ASSAULT" rifle? -
https://ruger.com/products/1022Tactical/specSheets/11198.html
This clearly establishes the absurdity of banning "assault" rifles. Which of these are "assault" rifles, well technically NONE of them are. I'm guessing the uninitiated would say Number 3 was the "assault" rifle.
But those of us who are not currently brain dead know that they are all THREE the exact SAME RIFLE, just dress up in different cloths. Further these are not even mid-powered or high-powered guns, they are 22lr Rim-fire.
Trying to ban "assault" rifles is like trying to ban Hoddies (hooded sweat shirts) because criminals might wear them. So, let's say we ban Hoddies in an effort to cut down crime. So, the criminal is simply going to put on a light jacket, and go on committing crime. Same with alleged "assault" Rifles, if someone is intent of doing harm to others, they will simply use a different method.
Next, to put Rifle Homicide in perspective, you do know that you are MORE LIKELY to be Struck By Lightning than to be murdered by a Rifle? (FBI-2016)
The odds of being murdered with a Rifle nationally are 1 in 870,000. (FBI-2016)
The odds of being Struck By Lightning are 1 in 700,000 according to the Top Google search.
California has the highest absolute number of Rifle Homicides, yet, the odds of being murdered by a Rifle in California are GREATER THAN 1 in a Million. (FBI-2016)
There were 374 Rifle Homicides nationally, but there were 4000 Texting While Driving Deaths. That means you are MORE THAN 10 TIMES MORE LIKELY to be killed by your Smart Phone than by a Rifle. Where is the call for age restrictions on Smart Phones, where is the call to ban "Assault" Phones?
The Anti-Gun crowd bases their message on pure hysteria and fear-mongering, because they know if the facts were widely know, they wouldn't stand a ghost of a chance in hell of passing stricter gun laws.
Sadly ...I'm preaching to the choir.
Last edited:
From what I'm reading on the Internet, if the trend continues, Dick's will be out of the gun sales business before long, even if they continue their FFL license, the list of products they will have to sell is getting shorter and shorter.
Mossberg just said no sale of their products to Dick's once current contracts run out (and we're looking at those....)
Because they hired lobbyists to promote more gun control.
Dick's has been kicked out of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
Things are a little cloudy with the smoke of burning bridges, but one thing seems clear, Dick's is doing what Dick's wants to do. Or at least what the people currently running Dick's want done.
What an "assault rifle" is, has become one of those things that are "it depends on who you talk to", despite there being an actual, historical definition that existed before the Internet. And there is a lot of mis-information on the Internet, as well.
And the matter is further complicated by the nuances of language, translation, deliberate confusion and mis-definition, over and above the unavoidable confusion when a technical subject is discussed by people who know little or nothing about the subject.
I'll try to keep this simple and general, you can look up the details on your own. First, some history of the actual "assault rifle"...(leaving out a lot of details, but including my snarky commentary!
)
Once Nazi Germany had overrun Europe, Hitler issued a directive suspending further research on new rifles. (we're winning! waste of resources!)
Some weapons engineers were working on a new concept rifle, and wanted to keep do so. They used bureaucratic subterfuge to do so. They renamed their rifle project "Maschinen Pistole" (MP) which is the German term for what we call submachine guns. Research on new submachine guns was permitted.
Small numbers of the MP43, and then the MP 44, were sent to the Eastern Front for field testing. It was well received. A little later, at a conference
Hitler asked what the frontline officers he was meeting with wanted and needed, and they said "more of those new rifles!!!"
WHAT NEW RIFLES???!!!!!
When that was explained, Hitler was furious his order had been flouted!!!! (etc.) some quick thinking officers got some of the new "rifles" (MP44) and demonstrated them for Hiter, who became an instant convert.
"That's what I want! That's what I need! It will be the Sturmgewehr!!"
Production was increased but despite battlefield effectiveness, it was too little, too late to change the outcome of the war.
Sturmgewehr is a German compound word, Sturm (storm) and Gewehr (rifle).
Stormrifle. Storm in the military context, as in "storming an objective" or "assaulting an objective". So sturm is also translated into "assault" in English.
Hitler renamed the MP 44 into the Sturmgewehr (Stg 44) and later the Stg 45
SO, that rifle is technically and correctly (as identified by the maker) the first "Assault Rifle".
In the years following, the defining features of the Stg44 became used to define the class of rifles identified as assault rifles. There are 3.
and all 3 need to be present to be an assault rifle.
Intemediate power cartridge. Defined using WWII rifle and pistol round standards. Intermediate cartridge meant less powerful than the standard infantry rifle round, but more powerful than the standard pistol round.
Detachable magazine fed.
Selective fire
(defined as the capability to fire either semi automatic or full automatic by changing control settings- move a lever, push a button, etc.)
Other features, such as straight line stock, pistol grip, etc., are common to many designs but are not the defining features that make something an assault rifle.
There are no "assault rifles" under US Federal Law. US Fed law does not use that term. The full auto capability of an assault rifle makes it a machine gun under US Federal law, and that's how they are referred to.
ASSAULT WEAPON is a term defined in the Federal 1994 law (which sunset in 2004). It does not cover machine guns, it only covers certain semiautomatic firearms, rifle, pistol and shotgun.
I believe the choice of "Assault Weapon" as a term can only have been deliberately done to enhance confusion.
People have a very strong tendency to reduce complex concepts down to simple sounding terms, but doing so often changes important meanings.
If its an "assault weapon" and its a rifle, then its an Assault Rifle, right???
no, not right. But explaining that to anyone other than the choir gets technical, and most just tune you out right away.
When incorrect use of terms goes on long enough, and widespread enough, it becomes "correct". Virtually every dictionary will tell you that they define words as "in common usage".
SO, what is an assault rifle?
There's the actual historical definition, the one used in firearms literature and histories.
There is the one in common use today that is "anything military looking, black and scary....etc."
And, there ever a few morons (with my apologies to actual morons...)
that define assault rifle as any rifle you assault someone with....
Ok, to try and get this a little back on track...
Dick's NEVER had any real assault rifles to sell. Actual assault rifles are legally machine guns, and fall under all provisions of the 1934 NFA.
Dick's AR-15s MIGHT be assault weapons under specific STATE laws. The Federal law went away in 2004, the state laws did NOT, and have been added to, since.
Mossberg just said no sale of their products to Dick's once current contracts run out (and we're looking at those....)
Because they hired lobbyists to promote more gun control.
Dick's has been kicked out of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
Things are a little cloudy with the smoke of burning bridges, but one thing seems clear, Dick's is doing what Dick's wants to do. Or at least what the people currently running Dick's want done.
What an "assault rifle" is, has become one of those things that are "it depends on who you talk to", despite there being an actual, historical definition that existed before the Internet. And there is a lot of mis-information on the Internet, as well.
And the matter is further complicated by the nuances of language, translation, deliberate confusion and mis-definition, over and above the unavoidable confusion when a technical subject is discussed by people who know little or nothing about the subject.
I'll try to keep this simple and general, you can look up the details on your own. First, some history of the actual "assault rifle"...(leaving out a lot of details, but including my snarky commentary!
)Once Nazi Germany had overrun Europe, Hitler issued a directive suspending further research on new rifles. (we're winning! waste of resources!)
Some weapons engineers were working on a new concept rifle, and wanted to keep do so. They used bureaucratic subterfuge to do so. They renamed their rifle project "Maschinen Pistole" (MP) which is the German term for what we call submachine guns. Research on new submachine guns was permitted.
Small numbers of the MP43, and then the MP 44, were sent to the Eastern Front for field testing. It was well received. A little later, at a conference
Hitler asked what the frontline officers he was meeting with wanted and needed, and they said "more of those new rifles!!!"
WHAT NEW RIFLES???!!!!!
When that was explained, Hitler was furious his order had been flouted!!!! (etc.) some quick thinking officers got some of the new "rifles" (MP44) and demonstrated them for Hiter, who became an instant convert.
"That's what I want! That's what I need! It will be the Sturmgewehr!!"
Production was increased but despite battlefield effectiveness, it was too little, too late to change the outcome of the war.
Sturmgewehr is a German compound word, Sturm (storm) and Gewehr (rifle).
Stormrifle. Storm in the military context, as in "storming an objective" or "assaulting an objective". So sturm is also translated into "assault" in English.
Hitler renamed the MP 44 into the Sturmgewehr (Stg 44) and later the Stg 45
SO, that rifle is technically and correctly (as identified by the maker) the first "Assault Rifle".
In the years following, the defining features of the Stg44 became used to define the class of rifles identified as assault rifles. There are 3.
and all 3 need to be present to be an assault rifle.
Intemediate power cartridge. Defined using WWII rifle and pistol round standards. Intermediate cartridge meant less powerful than the standard infantry rifle round, but more powerful than the standard pistol round.
Detachable magazine fed.
Selective fire
(defined as the capability to fire either semi automatic or full automatic by changing control settings- move a lever, push a button, etc.)
Other features, such as straight line stock, pistol grip, etc., are common to many designs but are not the defining features that make something an assault rifle.
There are no "assault rifles" under US Federal Law. US Fed law does not use that term. The full auto capability of an assault rifle makes it a machine gun under US Federal law, and that's how they are referred to.
ASSAULT WEAPON is a term defined in the Federal 1994 law (which sunset in 2004). It does not cover machine guns, it only covers certain semiautomatic firearms, rifle, pistol and shotgun.
I believe the choice of "Assault Weapon" as a term can only have been deliberately done to enhance confusion.
People have a very strong tendency to reduce complex concepts down to simple sounding terms, but doing so often changes important meanings.
If its an "assault weapon" and its a rifle, then its an Assault Rifle, right???
no, not right. But explaining that to anyone other than the choir gets technical, and most just tune you out right away.
When incorrect use of terms goes on long enough, and widespread enough, it becomes "correct". Virtually every dictionary will tell you that they define words as "in common usage".
SO, what is an assault rifle?
There's the actual historical definition, the one used in firearms literature and histories.
There is the one in common use today that is "anything military looking, black and scary....etc."
And, there ever a few morons (with my apologies to actual morons...
)that define assault rifle as any rifle you assault someone with....
Ok, to try and get this a little back on track...
Dick's NEVER had any real assault rifles to sell. Actual assault rifles are legally machine guns, and fall under all provisions of the 1934 NFA.
Dick's AR-15s MIGHT be assault weapons under specific STATE laws. The Federal law went away in 2004, the state laws did NOT, and have been added to, since.
bluewizard
Inactive
RICKYRICK - "There is such a thing as an Assault Weapon. The AR15 rifles are legally Assault Weapons..."
I can pass a law that says an Apple is an Orange, but does that make it so?
According to Thomas Jefferson - "The Law is but the tyrant's will and always so when it violates the Rights of the Individual."
"Assault Rifle" and "assault weapons" are a manufactured term make up by propagandist to scare the public. Though over time it has come into common use. But even the common use is still incorrect. The best definition of a Assault Rifle is a compact Carbine of medium power with Select Fire capability. Very difficult for anyone to buy those, unless they are squeaky clean and very rich. Generally banned in 1934 as 44 AMP points out (see below).
As 44 AMP points out - "Actual assault rifles are legally machine guns, and fall under all provisions of the 1934 NFA."
Common use, but incorrect, definitions of 'assault rifles' are used by self-serving politicians who know very little about guns and have an agenda that is absolutely counter to the Bill of Rights.
As I demonstrated in my previous post, the EXACT SAME GUN can be Pretty in Pink or Scary in Black, but it is still the EXACT SAME GUN. They would try to ban one but not the others, which pretty much establishes that the whole attempt to restrict and ban Modern Sport Rifles is pure Cow Dung.
Most firearm 'assault' rifle bans rely purely on cosmetics, and do little to address function. And so I must ask, how does the appearance, independent of function, of a gun harm anyone? It doesn't. How does banning it protect anyone? It doesn't.
As I also pointed out, there is no data or facts available to justify such a ban. You are MORE LIKELY to be Struck By Lightning than to be murdered by a Rifle. I think that puts things into perspective.
In my State (MN) you are FOUR TIMES more likely to be struck by lightning than to be murdered by a Rifle, and in the near by State of Iowa, you are 2.7 TIMES more likely to be Struck by Lightning. That is not sufficient to justify any further restrictions on Rifles.
Keep in mind that is ALL RIFLES, not just alleged "assault" rifles; "assault" rifles would actually be a smaller subset of those numbers.
Most data comes from FBI-2106 reports that are readily available to the public.
Here are more facts -
* 99.9963% of Guns NEVER murder anyone.
* 99.99% of Guns NEVER kill anyone EVER under ANY circumstances.
Here is how people really die -
* as many as 200,000 Dead from Medical Malpractice
* 88,000 Dead from Alcohol Poisoning
* 56,000 Dead from Opiates
* 5,600 Dead from Suicide - age 15 to 24
* 4,000 Young People Dead Texting While Driving
* 4,000 Drown
You are TEN TIMES more likely to be killed by your Cell Phone that murdered by a Rifle.
Should not 100% of the Alcohol Poisonings be preventable? It would seem so, but even if we only save 1/8th of them, that would totally offset those who died from Guns Homicides.
Also note that Firearm Homicides are at a 51 year low in the US. World wide violent death peaked in the late 80's and early 90's and has been on a downward trend ever since. Some say it is connected to Lead in Gasoline, or the outlawing there of.
Again, calls to restrict or ban Rifles are not founded in any realistic data. It is all propaganda and fear-mongering.
Once you see the actual verifiable facts, Gun Control is ridiculous.
Steve/bluewizard
I can pass a law that says an Apple is an Orange, but does that make it so?
According to Thomas Jefferson - "The Law is but the tyrant's will and always so when it violates the Rights of the Individual."
"Assault Rifle" and "assault weapons" are a manufactured term make up by propagandist to scare the public. Though over time it has come into common use. But even the common use is still incorrect. The best definition of a Assault Rifle is a compact Carbine of medium power with Select Fire capability. Very difficult for anyone to buy those, unless they are squeaky clean and very rich. Generally banned in 1934 as 44 AMP points out (see below).
As 44 AMP points out - "Actual assault rifles are legally machine guns, and fall under all provisions of the 1934 NFA."
Common use, but incorrect, definitions of 'assault rifles' are used by self-serving politicians who know very little about guns and have an agenda that is absolutely counter to the Bill of Rights.
As I demonstrated in my previous post, the EXACT SAME GUN can be Pretty in Pink or Scary in Black, but it is still the EXACT SAME GUN. They would try to ban one but not the others, which pretty much establishes that the whole attempt to restrict and ban Modern Sport Rifles is pure Cow Dung.
Most firearm 'assault' rifle bans rely purely on cosmetics, and do little to address function. And so I must ask, how does the appearance, independent of function, of a gun harm anyone? It doesn't. How does banning it protect anyone? It doesn't.
As I also pointed out, there is no data or facts available to justify such a ban. You are MORE LIKELY to be Struck By Lightning than to be murdered by a Rifle. I think that puts things into perspective.
In my State (MN) you are FOUR TIMES more likely to be struck by lightning than to be murdered by a Rifle, and in the near by State of Iowa, you are 2.7 TIMES more likely to be Struck by Lightning. That is not sufficient to justify any further restrictions on Rifles.
Keep in mind that is ALL RIFLES, not just alleged "assault" rifles; "assault" rifles would actually be a smaller subset of those numbers.
Most data comes from FBI-2106 reports that are readily available to the public.
Here are more facts -
* 99.9963% of Guns NEVER murder anyone.
* 99.99% of Guns NEVER kill anyone EVER under ANY circumstances.
Here is how people really die -
* as many as 200,000 Dead from Medical Malpractice
* 88,000 Dead from Alcohol Poisoning
* 56,000 Dead from Opiates
* 5,600 Dead from Suicide - age 15 to 24
* 4,000 Young People Dead Texting While Driving
* 4,000 Drown
You are TEN TIMES more likely to be killed by your Cell Phone that murdered by a Rifle.
Should not 100% of the Alcohol Poisonings be preventable? It would seem so, but even if we only save 1/8th of them, that would totally offset those who died from Guns Homicides.
Also note that Firearm Homicides are at a 51 year low in the US. World wide violent death peaked in the late 80's and early 90's and has been on a downward trend ever since. Some say it is connected to Lead in Gasoline, or the outlawing there of.
Again, calls to restrict or ban Rifles are not founded in any realistic data. It is all propaganda and fear-mongering.
Once you see the actual verifiable facts, Gun Control is ridiculous.
Steve/bluewizard
Last edited:
Go ahead and try to convince the public that there’s no such thing as an Assault Weapon. They don’t care anymore anyway. They heard the machine gun like sounds echoing throughout Las Vegas. The whole world heard it. They’re not real interested in playing word games with gun enthusiasts. They don’t care if your feelings are hurt by the term Assault Weapon; School children are dead, county workers in California are dead, concert and nightclub goers are dead... all have the AR15 in common.
They don’t care how we try to sugar coat it.
They don’t care how we try to sugar coat it.
- Status