I mean if the conversation is going to quickly change to bump stocks, those things won’t be around much longer at least not legally.

I have several hand guns and will probably own more in the future. I just see absolutely no purpose for a civilian to be able to purchase a weapon like an AR-15 or similar. Banning certain things, IMO, doesn't create the avalanche many people are afraid of.

 

AR-15 are really no different than a modern hunting rifle, except for the look of them.

AR-15 are really no different than a modern hunting rifle, except for the look of them.

 

Except for the fact people aren't committing mass shootings with modern hunting rifles, of course.

Except for the fact people aren't committing mass shootings with modern hunting rifles, of course.

 

If they were using staplers, would we ban staplers? The medium isn't the issue, its the people committing the acts.

I had no idea that Dick's sold them.

 

This is a Ruger Mini 14. It's semi auto and shoots the same caliber as most "AR" models. I would think most people just looking at this pic would not classify it as an "assault rifle".

 

Probably why I didn't think they sold them.

I have several hand guns and will probably own more in the future. I just see absolutely no purpose for a civilian to be able to purchase a weapon like an AR-15 or similar. Banning certain things, IMO, doesn't create the avalanche many people are afraid of.

Our lives are full of things that serve no purpose. What purpose does alcohol serve. More people are killed every year because of alcohol than AR's. Are you ready to ban alcohol? An AR is nothing more than a semi auto rifle. What's the purpose of anyone should be able to purchase a semi auto pistol?

 

You think it doesn't create an avalanche, but what happens if you ban the AR and it works as desired. The next mass shooting is pulled off with a couple of semi auto pistols. There's no AR to ban so what do you go after? The next is pulled off with a semi auto shot gun? The next with a pump shot gun.

 

You think it doesn't create an avalanche, but what happens if you ban the AR and it works as desired. The next mass shooting is pulled off with a couple of semi auto pistols. There's no AR to ban so what do you go after? The next is pulled off with a semi auto shot gun? The next with a pump shot gun.

 

If it works as desired, I'd be ecstatic. I can't believe anyone wouldn't be.

If it works as desired, I'd be ecstatic. I can't believe anyone wouldn't be.

The desired effect is the AR will no longer be used in these mass shootings. It won't stop them from happening. The next shooter uses a shotgun or pistols. I don't think the kid in Marshall County used an AR did he? Didn't he just have some hand guns? The kids at Columbine didn't use AR's. Mostly used hand guns.

 

My point is not having AR's changes nothing.

My point is not having AR's changes nothing.

 

Except potentially limiting the death count...

Except potentially limiting the death count...

 

This thing has to be combatted on both sides. If carrying a weapon will limit the death count then we also got admit the weapon the perp. uses will limit death count too.

Its not illegal for 18-21 to purchase a firearm, this is strictly a store/company policy.

 

My question wasn't about a law, although it could pertain to a law if it existed. Regarding the store policy, could the proof of prior military service be a way for stores to still sell to certain individuals who were not yet 21?

My question wasn't about a law, although it could pertain to a law if it existed. Regarding the store policy, could the proof of prior military service be a way for stores to still sell to certain individuals who were not yet 21?

 

According to Dicks, no.

My question wasn't about a law, although it could pertain to a law if it existed. Regarding the store policy, could the proof of prior military service be a way for stores to still sell to certain individuals who were not yet 21?

 

Sure, if that's what Dick's wanted to do. As long as their store policy fits in the framework of the laws, they can pretty much write the policy however they want.

Sure, if that's what Dick's wanted to do. As long as their store policy fits in the framework of the laws, they can pretty much write the policy however they want.

 

As I'm sure everyone is trying to do, I'm thinking about what makes sense for store policies and those making laws. I'm trying to figure out what the two sides of the issue need to do to draw closer together. I'm respectful of those who are for maintaining Second Amendment rights, but I'm also desiring the safety of our children.

 

Is Dick's really trying to fix a problem or is this just another marketing ploy to get them free advertising by being in the news?

As I'm sure everyone is trying to do, I'm thinking about what makes sense for store policies and those making laws. I'm trying to figure out what the two sides of the issue need to do to draw closer together. I'm respectful of those who are for maintaining Second Amendment rights, but I'm also desiring the safety of our children.

 

Is Dick's really trying to fix a problem or is this just another marketing ploy to get them free advertising by being in the news?

 

Marketing ploy, nothing more. They are only doing it in Dicks stores, still plan to sell them in Field and stream stores, so what really are they accomplishing other than reaping the headlines.

 

Also, most that I know, we're not buying their firearms from Dicks anyways so, I doubt it has a significant financial impact. I mean after all they are no longer selling the guns, but the shelves will be full of the ammo.