I posted several links earlier that show fewer guns mean fewer deaths. I’ll stand by those.
But you have said for CERTAIN that because they won’t sell guns it will prevent at least one death. Your links do NOT back that up.
I want to know how you know for certain that it will play out that way? You have a link to any gun bought at Dicks being used in a murder?
Trying to nitpick this argument doesn’t work. More restrictive gun policies around the world have resulted in fewer gun deaths as the links I posted showed. Gun advocates don’t accept that. I’ve dealt with that here for a long time. Too bad. I’ve heard forumites say we’re safer with guns than without them. Dodge City was never safer with guns. That’s a crazy argument. Period.
No, that’s Bass Pro Shops.
What we do know, however, is that those particular guns will now never be used to take an innocent life.
I’m taking issue with your biased, unprovable statement given your background.
Prove to me, without a doubt that you ARE correct when you unequibicably state that one life will be saved because this store stopped selling guns.
I’m still waiting for you to prove your statement – again given your background.
My argument is my personal opinion and has really nothing to do with my background. Interesting that you’re going after my position using that. I’m not sure I’d be allowed to argue based on your (or any other member’s) background.
As for your “prove to me without a doubt” line, I’ve given you the best argument in my comments earlier. I have yet to see you refute that except to ask me to prove my stand. Which I have.
You have NOT proven your stand where you say that for certain that this will prevent even one death. You have provided absolutely no proff that this will happen in the certainty you have a personal opinion of. I’m still waiting for proof. Problem is, there is no way for you to prove it, and you damn well know it.
And as I’ve said, you also have no way to prove your stand. So we’re bumping heads here. Let the observers take a stab at it.
No one can prove the move by the company will prevent a single death, just as no one can prove the move by the company will result in a single death.
I have said that in the thread. Yet YOU keep saying you are certain it will prevent a single death.
I’m asking you for proof. You can’t provide any.
Have you provided any?
In fact there’s no reason to think there will be even one gun less among the population because of the Dick’s ban.
There are plenty of places available to buy guns and people will just buy elsewhere.
1 Like
So Dick’s didn’t sell many guns?
Dick’s not selling ARs will not reduce industry sales of ARs. In fact, it has the potential to increase industry sales.
1 Like
That’s because Dick’s is not the only store in town.
How does Dick’s policy reduce the number of guns?
1 Like
Or save one…
The guns Dick’s destroyed were not in the public domain. They were at the tail end of distribution. Their destruction has no impact on the number of guns in public hands. And as far as manufacturers are concerned, the destruction of their product is the same as a sale.
1 Like
It doesn’t matter how many guns Dick’s used to sell. The question you need to answer is how many people did not buy a gun because Dick’s quit selling them?
1 Like
No idea. However anyone wanting a gun will just go elsewhere. There are plenty of gun stores available.
There’s no reason to think the action by Dick’s will result in even one less gun.
2 Likes
Keep dreaming.
