Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

****'s Sporting Goods ends assault-style weapon, high-capacity magazine sales


Recommended Posts

WASHINGTON, Feb 28 (Reuters) - ****'s Sporting Goods Inc will not sell assault-style firearms or high-capacity magazines, and will not sell any guns to those under age 21, its chief executive said on Wednesday, citing the recently massacre at a high school in Florida.

****'s CEO Ed Stack, in an interview on ABC News, said the current systems in place are not effective enough to prevent gun sales to people who are potential threats and urged Congress to act. (Reporting by Susan Heavey Editing by Eric Walsh)

  • Thanks 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Indraman said:

Does anyone think less guns is the answer to better safety? Aren't schools "Gun-free" zones already? So businesses are free to choose what they sale and to who? I agree! Wonder if we should revisit the Christian Cake Baker case again? 

 

Indy

 

The difference is D*ck's removed the "cake" from the shelves, while the Christian Cake Baker chose an alternative path.

 

GO RV, then BV

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

They will be bankrupt in one year

 

Are you going to boycott them? I guess many will boycott them and the rest.

Allied Van Lines
North American Van Lines
Avis Budget Group
Hertz
Enterprise Holdings (which includes Alamo, Enterprise and National)
Starkey Hearing Technologies
MetLife
Chubb
Teladoc
TrueCar
SimpliSafe
Symantec (which includes LifeLock)
Wild Apricot

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

They will be bankrupt in one year

 

There's plenty of other recreational and sports equipment available as D*ck's Sporting Goods.....I suppose if they take a serious economic hit, I'll be able to update my golf clubs at some seriously reduced prices...which is nice.  :D

 

GO RV, then BV

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Delta Airlines is ending its discount contract with the National Rifle Association. Avis, Hertz, and Enterprise will stop offering NRA members discounts on rental cars. The First National Bank of Omaha will stop issuing NRA-branded credit cards.

These companies and more have pulled their support from the gun advocacy group in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida. If history is any guide, their moves could have a lasting effect.

Calls for companies to sever ties to the group began taking off on social media under the #BoycottNRA hashtag soon after the February 14 shooting, according to the Washington Post. Among the first to respond was First National Bank of Omaha, which announced on Thursday that “customer feedback has caused us to review our relationship with the NRA. As a result, First National Bank of Omaha will not renew its contract with the National Rifle Association.”

While the NRA has faced public pressure in the past, this the first time it’s been hit with such a broad boycott, according to Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA and the author of the book Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.

Something similar happened last year, when more than 80 brands pulled their ads from The O’Reilly Factor after sexual harassment complaints against host Bill O’Reilly became public. The advertising boycott wasn’t the only factor behind his ouster from Fox News, but it was a major one. Faced with an exodus of advertiser money, the network that had been protecting O’Reilly for years finally decided to cut ties.

As a nonprofit, the NRA isn’t beholden to advertisers the way Fox is. Still, O’Reilly’s trajectory is a reminder of how powerful boycotts can be. On the issue of gun control, where even repeated mass killings of children have failed to spur legislative action, the added pressure of corporate money might just be enough to produce change.

A boycott may have cost Bill O’Reilly his job

The boycott against O’Reilly came in April 2017, after the New York Times reported on decades of harassment allegations against the host. Fox had been aware of such allegations since 2004, when Andrea Mackris, a former producer on The O’Reilly Factor, filed a lawsuit accusing the host of telling her to buy a vibrator and describing sexual fantasies involving her, among other inappropriate behavior. In at least two cases, the network appears to have paid settlements to O’Reilly’s accusers of over a million dollars.

In other cases, Fox was aware of settlements paid by O’Reilly himself, including a $32 million agreement reached in 2016. Soon after that settlement deal was reached, Fox gave O’Reilly a four-year contract extension worth $25 million a year, according to the New York Times.

But in April 2017, brands like Mercedez-Benz, Jenny Craig, and Geico started pulling their ads from The O’Reilly Factor. Over the course of the month, the show lost about half of its national advertising buys.

At the time, public opinion of O’Reilly, even among viewers, was beginning to sour. Family dynamics among the Murdochs, who own Fox, may also have played a role in O’Reilly’s ouster. Still, the boycott provided a tangible, financial reason to get rid of O’Reilly, and it seems likely that it played a significant role in his eventual dismissal.

The NRA isn’t Fox News — but that doesn’t mean it’s not vulnerable

The NRA boycott is different from what happened to O’Reilly in a number of ways. Most obviously, the NRA, a nonprofit group, doesn’t depend on companies like Delta and Avis the way a TV show depends on advertisers. It does, however, depend at least to some degree on deep-pocketed donors — in 2016, the group’s political arm took in more than $124 million in contributions and grants from individuals, corporations, and other entities, including a single donation of $19.2 million, according to Mother Jones. An exodus of corporate partners could have a chilling effect on those donations.

That could affect the NRA’s influence on politics — in 2016, the group spent more than $54 million to help elect President Trump and other Republican candidates, Mother Jones reports. All but a few candidates who got support from the group won their elections. Fewer donations could mean less money to spend on future races.

The NRA also depends on corporations to help spread its message. NRATV, the group’s online video channel, has become a “vital forum for the dissemination of some of the most strident pro-gun messaging in politics today,” Jeremy W. Peters and Katie Benner reported at the New York Times.

Amazon, Apple, Google, and Roku are facing pressure to drop the channel from their streaming services in the wake of the Parkland shooting, according to USA Today. A Change.org petition asking Amazon to drop the channel had more than 170,000 signatures on Monday afternoon.

Roku appears to be sticking with the channel for now, according to USA Today, but Amazon, Apple, and Google have yet to weigh in. If they choose to end streaming for NRATV, the group will find it harder to get its message into American homes.

On the flip side, it’s possible the boycott could actually benefit the NRA in some ways, said Winkler. Criticism of the organization might produce a backlash, with gun enthusiasts deciding to contribute even more.

Gun rights advocates have already pledged on social media to boycott the companies cutting ties with the NRA, according to Business Insider. And the NRA has said the boycotts change nothing. “Let it be absolutely clear,” the group said in a statement. “The loss of a discount will neither scare nor distract one single NRA member from our mission to stand and defend the individual freedoms that have always made America the greatest nation in the world.”

Winkler doubts whether the NRA boycott will have much direct influence on legislators. However, he says, “the reason why these companies are boycotting the NRA is because they feel that consumers want them to boycott the NRA.” At election time, if consumers vote with the same passion they’re bringing to hashtags like #BoycottNRA, pro-gun lawmakers could be in trouble, and gun control legislation could have a better chance of passing.

“The reason why the boycott is happening is because there’s a real tide shifting in the gun debate,” added Winkler. He pointed to support among Florida Republicans for age restrictions on assault rifles, as well as the president’s promise to “take action” on guns. Elected officials aren’t responding to the boycotts, he said, but to the public opinion behind them.

Still, Winkler noted, corporate boycotts are “an increasingly important avenue for social change” in America. In addition to O’Reilly’s departure, the repeal of North Carolina’s anti-transgender “bathroom bill” may have been influenced by the NCAA’s pledge not to hold championship events in the state until the law was scrapped.

“One thing these cases show is that businesses exert a tremendous amount of political power and influence in America,” said Winkler, who has also written a book on the subject, We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights. “The good news is that is sometimes used for good causes. The bad news is that it’s almost always done to pursue profit.”

The line from boycott to gun control legislation in Congress is far from a straight one. But one thing is clear: in America, money talks. The NRA has long used this fact to its advantage. Now, it may be coming back to haunt them

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

The difference is D*ck's removed the "cake" from the shelves, while the Christian Cake Baker chose an alternative path.

 

GO RV, then BV

 

 

How is this different? Actually the D#@$'s scenario is egregious, and the Cake Baker scenario is not!

 

D#@$'s is removing a product from it's shelves (which is their right) but now refusing to sale a product to a specific class of people who should be able to purchase (mind that these citizens have a specified right under the Constitution to purchase and own fire arms). This is AGE discrimination.

 

The Cake Baker removed a product from it's shelves (cakes that were baked with specific decorations) which was viewed by the LEFT as Sexual Orientation Discrimination. Only problem is that the Cake Baker refused to sale these cakes to anyone, not just one specific class of people. Also, where is it specified in the Constitution that a customer has the right to demand a business create a specific type of product, without a mutual agreement between the two parties?

 

Indy

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Indraman said:

 

How is this different? Actually the D#@$'s scenario is egregious, and the Cake Baker scenario is not!

 

D#@$'s is removing a product from it's shelves (which is their right) but now refusing to sale a product to a specific class of people who should be able to purchase (mind that these citizens have a specified right under the Constitution to purchase and own fire arms). This is AGE discrimination.

 

The Cake Baker removed a product from it's shelves (cakes that were baked with specific decorations) which was viewed by the LEFT as Sexual Orientation Discrimination. Only problem is that the Cake Baker refused to sale these cakes to anyone, not just one specific class of people. Also, where is it specified in the Constitution that a customer has the right to demand a business create a specific type of product, without a mutual agreement between the two parties?

 

Indy

 

As for age discrimination, we agree......on all other parts I must respectfully agree to disagree, Indy.  :peace:

 

GO RV, then BV

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

The Christian Cake Baker will indeed still bake, decorate and sell wedding cakes to patrons......whereas, D*ck's is taking all assault style weapons off it's shelves.  

 

GO RV, then BV

 

Not the same!!!

 

D*cks is choosing to remove one product from its shelves: certain types of guns. D*ck's is still selling guns.

 

Cake Baker is removing one type of product from it's shelves: cakes that are decorated in specific ways. Cake Baker is still selling cakes.

 

D*cks is choosing to not sell guns to anyone under 21. This is discrimination of one sector of society by AGE.

 

Cake Baker is not discriminating against one specific sector of society because they are by default refusing to sell to the entire population.

 

Indy

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

****'s Sporting Goods: major gun retailer to stop selling assault-style weapons

 

CEO Ed Stack says there are not enough systematic protections to prevent gun sales to people who are potential threats

 

Wed 28 Feb 2018 15.16 GMT

Dominic Rushe and agencies

 

 

4500.jpg?w=700&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=6c829f30065789524ead52c7a43ec393
Pennsylvania-based ****’s sells weapons through its ****’s Sporting Goods and Field & Stream stores
Photograph: Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
On ‎2‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 11:08 AM, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

They will be bankrupt in one year

 

Hmmmm maybe not so much...

 

****’s Sporting Goods (DKS😞 Shares are soaring in early trade, up around 19.5%.  Revenue beat expectations, despite the company’s move to end the sale of assault-style rifles in February. Comparable-store sales fell more than expected, but ****’s also raised its full-year outlook largely above the Street’s forecast.

 

 

B/A

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

29 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

 

Hmmmm maybe not so much...

 

****’s Sporting Goods (DKS😞 Shares are soaring in early trade, up around 19.5%.  Revenue beat expectations, despite the company’s move to end the sale of assault-style rifles in February. Comparable-store sales fell more than expected, but ****’s also raised its full-year outlook largely above the Street’s forecast.

 

 

B/A

 

Now that ****'s angry former patrons are shopping elsewhere, the shopping experience for those who remained loyal customers is obviously more enjoyable and paying off monetarily in the company coffers.  It's good to see them doing well.

 

GO RV, then BV 

  • Thanks 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.