I very much support your decision to remove assault style weapons from your stores and recycle them. It is a very responsible thing for your business to do, and I hope it is a small step toward reducing the mass shootings the country is plagued with. I have shopped at Dick's before, and will make sure to use your store for all the purchases I can make in the future. Thank you.
That is because you are STUPID!!!!!
Don't argue with morons- they can't use logic or reason. They only have feelings and hysteria.
So you are right on point, Dick's was responsible for all the shootings. I agree, shut them down and take them to court .
A man shoots a gun with his blackened heart and he doesn't care where he get his gun. He will still get it. This only hurts good Americansypu ate an idiot
Pull your head from the sand Ellen, it's not the tool, it's the people. If these silly liberals get their way, we'll be banning knives eventually, like London. And that won't work either. Look at the bigger picture please.
No, it's both. If you have a country that gives access to weapons to people who are disabled or have already shown that they would like to shoot someone, then both your gun laws and guns are at the wrong.
Tim. It's the tool AND the person that makes the mass killer. Hard to kill a bunch of people at one time with a golf club. Easy when you have a semi-auto rifle with lots of high capacity magazines and a bump stock. So who's silly and got their head in the sand?
By the way, London bans knives to be carried longer than 3 1/2 inches. The reason they have passed New York City in murders (for Feb and Mar) is because of recent flare-up of gang violence. Another reason London could pass up New York City is because New York City enacted strict gun laws which has helped to significantly drop gun deaths. Last year, London's murder rate was half of New York City's. Try googling your "facts" before accusing people of being silly and ignorant. Makes you look kinda dumb if you don't.
That is such a good point that it is the tool AND the person!
You're so wrong. London has now surpassed NYC with murders by stabbing. They banned guns 20 yrs ago. Now they are consficating knives. Wake up.
Queen Bee. It is YOU who is so wrong. Yes, London surpassed NYC in murders for FEBRUARY and MARCH, but in 2017 London had HALF the murder rate of NYC. Here's my source:
Wrong again, London is not "now" confiscating knives. They've been doing it for quite some time. It is illegal to carry a knife in London longer than 3 1/2".
And how's that banning of guns in the UK working out for them? There were 0.23 gun deaths/100,000 people in the UK (2011) and 11.96 gun deaths in the US (2016).
Sounds like you are the one that needs to wake up. Best to check your facts before you spout off otherwise you look kinda dumb.
Wise vet you are right it is the "tool and the person" , but your conclusions and logics are wanting. The tools are not evil but some people are. So Which would work best? Get rid of the not evil tool or the evil people or both. If you say both; it is impossible. Many tools and evil people are out there already. You generally can't find them until evil uses the tool. If you say evil people; that is also impossible. They are usually found after the fact. Then If you say the tool, evil people can still commit evil with any tools available and will do so. Banning one tool only diminishes people's rights but it can't reduce evil. That's a pipe dream of yours. You will say banning the tool will save lives but that is mere speculation based on recent events that can not actually predict what future tools will be used. You are drawing a conclusion based on what "could" possibly happen, not what will happen if some tool is banned. If you think other tools are not just as deadly you're delusional. I could list them for you but I don't want to give anyone any ideas. What's true and logical is that banning one good tool will "positively" diminish our rights. That banning allows evil events to win over the lawful rights of peacekeepers who number in the thousands.
It's easy enough to kill a lot of people very quickly with a car. Should Detroit start melting them all down? You are proof that common sense isn't so common. BAAHHH! Me along now your holding up the flock.
A Veteran. I believe it is YOU that doesn't have common sense. This is going to be a little complicated for your brain:
There are approximately 222 million drivers in the US. In 2016 34,439 people died by automobile accident. That means one person died for every 6,646 drivers. Now, there are 249 million adults (18 or older) in the US Approximately 75% of adults in the United States DON'T own a gun. That means there are approximately 62 million gun owners (by the way, over HALF of the guns in the US are owned by 3% of the adult population). In 2016 over 38,000 people died by a gun. That means one person died for every 1.631 gun owners. Which of the two, automobile-vs-gun is the most deadly? Which of the two is the most necessary for daily living, automobile-vs-gun? Which of the two is most often used for the intent to kill, automobile-vs-gun? Which one is the weapon of choice for mass killing, automobile-vs-gun? Which one demonstrated the capability of killing and wounding over 500 people (Las Vegas shooting) in a single event, automobile-vs-gun?
You see "A Veteran", common sense isn't so common because posters, like you, go with the headline from the NRA rather than dig down (use their brain) to get the facts. So who now is the mindless sheep following a NRA shepherd?
Hey, look people it's the "wise vet" the walking (or crawling) encyclopedia" again.
Vote for the "wise vet" for presidante.
Lopez. It's not that I'm an encyclopedia. It's that I use my fingers to type on something called the "internet". It has a wealth of information on any topic in the world accessible in a matter of seconds. It helps me understand the facts so I and others who seek the truth can come up with solutions to problems so we can avoid repeating them.
Instead of taking the time to type mindless mocking, you should try searching for facts to change your beliefs rather than changing facts to support your beliefs.
ASSAULT STYLE WEAPONS GIVE ME A BREAK! Obvious you know nothing about guns!!
If the dumb ass kid wanted to kill more students he would of used a shot gun with 00 Buck with no plug in the gun
so it could hold as many shells as possible!! Is that an assault style weapon NOT- There are already laws on the books that are in place
to try to prevent fully auto guns. If you know what that is???? DUH!!
ALL WEAPONS ARE DANGEROUS!
At least have the courage to show who you are before you say anything. You might as well not post.
Cold Dead Hands. Really? No plug in the shotgun can hold as many shells as possible to make it a better mass killing machine than a semi-auto rifle with a 30 rd. magazine or 100 rd. drum? You should write the Pentagon with your idea. See if they are aware that they could equip our army with shotguns using 100 rd. drums.
And... so don't call it an assault rifle because it doesn't have an "automatic fire" mode. Let's call it a Love Expression Machine instead. It doesn't matter what you call it... it still kills lots of people in the shortest amount of time possible. That was Ellen's point. And you have to nit-pick her on her nomenclature? Cold dead hands AND a cold dead brain.
With one shotgun shell and adjusted spray pattern it would be simple to kill 3 people in a closed environment. You must be an animal vet because no military veteran would spout such nonsense.
Queen Bee. This isn't an argument about which gun is the best killing machine and how to modify it or its ammunition to make it more efficient in its killing. It's about which guns and accessories are mass killing machines and how to remove them from getting into the hands of the mass killer and when they do how to insure that the killing machine can't kill a bunch of people. Answer this question: Why does the public need a weapon capable of killing a bunch of people?
Now as to me being an animal vet rather than a military vet... I will concede that I'm an animal vet when you concede that with the posting name of "Queen Bee" means that you fed by the workers of America while sitting around making lots of babies to serve solely your needs. Rather than type away and call each other names, why don't we reason together to come to the best solution concerning gun deaths? Or is calling another names your idea of a solution?
You should change your name... you have made it clear in the past that you have never had or need a gun. So please take the vet part off,, you are embarrassing the other vets as if you know anything about guns.
We have discussed the differences between big guns and the ar15. I have tried to point out that my 300 could kill more with 5 rounds than 30 .223 rounds. I understand that you and many non gun informed people feel you have all the answers but you really should go after things that actually kill many people.
I know you know this, Ar15s have the LOWEST number of deaths of ALL guns... so what are you all so scared of... THINK
Real Vet. Perhaps YOU should take off the "real" part of YOUR name because you need to get "real". To kill at a 6:1 ratio with a .300 than each .223 round would require a perfect alignment of each child in order to allow a single round to pass through them. That is not the reason why so many are able to be killed by a mass shooter. YOU are dealing only with a theoretical situation of a .300-vs-.223. So get "real". The issue is not about the "best" killing rifle, but about the mass killing of adults and children with rifles.
Second, it is YOU who needs to "THINK". I have said repeatedly in my posts that I agree that the AR could be considered to have the "LOWEST" number of deaths of ALL guns". But what YOU fail to recognize, understand, or choose to remain ignorant of is that the AR with its accessories has the ability to kill as many children as possible in the shortest amount of time possible. You have continually chose to disregard or challenge the validity of that statement. Answer this: Is the AR capable of killing the most number of people in the shortest amount of time possible? When will YOU get "real" about that question and answer it?
Third, you are dead wrong about me. You have no idea who or what I am or have done in my life. I too could claim that you are the "400 lb. man sitting on his bed" typing away on his computer making a false claim to your expertise. So stop obfuscating and making this issue about me and make it about the AR and its mass killing capability.
I'm beginning to "THINK" that you love your guns more than the truth and people. This amorous relationship with your guns blinds you.
Not so wise vet...
It is clear that the ar has the lowest number of death from any gun. It is also very clear the anything that is classified as a MASS killing machine should actually do just that, do you agree? One nuke on a city kills millions, one chemical attack kills many, one car or truck drives thru a crowd and kills many. ... How is it that the Vegas shooter has his victims all penned up, unloads well over 500 rounds and only kills 47,less than 10%. How is it that the Florida kid unloads well over 150 rounds and only kills maybe 10 %.
I fully support your passion but you and the libs are so blinded by the facts you want to see..
We all agree dont want anyone hurt from mental illness..
Real Vet. You are guilty of the worst kind of lying... to yourself. You bend the facts to fit your beliefs rather than bend your beliefs to fit the facts. You have provided proof of a tortured mental process (yours and the NRA) in your post justifying the AR as an ineffective mass killing machine. You posted, "How is it that the Vegas shooter has his victims all penned up, unloads well over 500 rounds and only kills 47 [AND wounded hundreds more],less than 10% [of those attending the concert]." You claim that I "and the libs are so blinded by facts" only we want to see..", and yet YOU CAN'T SEE your own blindness to the facts you just gave as a a justification that the AR is an ineffective mass killing machine. Wow! Your post makes me think that the statement that "Some people are so stupid that they don't know they are stupid" can be modified to say, "Some people are so irrational that they don't know they're irrational. Come to think of it, that's a definition of insanity! And then you proudly say your wife loves the AR.
Yes. Go to Cabo San Lucas. Relax. Sit in the sun... and think of how absolutely insane your reasoning is.
Wow! Real Vet and people who think like him are allowed to own guns.
Here is what the far left says you should do to protect yourself. This shows that some people have no clue what they are talking about... and they actually have the right to vote???? The link shows exactly what happens when stupid people give advice. My wife will not shoot my 300 but loves the ar,,, completely safe..
And yes wise vet,, into a crowd , a 300 will do more damage with 5 rounds than an ar15.
I may be taking a break for a bit, we are in Cabo San Lucas for 10 days... yes I left my guns at home, the gangs and drug dealers still have theirs!!!
Mexico, the Libs, and Chicago share the same mindset. Take guns from the people and watch the gun,gang violence go up...
Wise vet. You are behind the curve again. The pentagon already discovered the shotgun. The Remington M870 and the Mossberg 590A1, is used by the US military. Both are pump action. Riot shotguns have similar characteristics. You see, as I and others try to tell you, other deadly guns can be used by deranged killers. Many may lawful firearms are as deadly depending on circumstances. Liberal none-patriots may win the battle to bar the AR-15 types but that will not win the war against social violence. Look elsewhere for real solutions.
Bob k. I KNOW the pentagon is aware of the shotgun. It was obvious to any rational person that I was being sarcastic in my post.
You said, "Liberal none-patriots may win the battle to bar the AR-15 types but that will not win the war against social violence. Look elsewhere for real solutions." Okay! Let's look elsewhere for real solutions. How about the France and their war against "social violence" by banning the AR-15 and other gun controls? Their death rate from guns is 02.83/100,000 people. Too high? Not enough winning? Maybe we should try Germany. Their gun death rate is 1.01/100,000 people. Still too high? Still not enough winning? Then let's try the United Kingdom. Theirs is 0.23/100,000. STILL too high and not enough winning the war against social violence? Okay. Japan... they have 0.06/100,000. Satisfied? By the way, what's the rate for the land of the 2nd amendment? 11.96/100,000 Hmmmm. What are those other countries doing to win their war against social violence that we aren't? Maybe we should ask them.
Bob k., do you get the sarcasm?