Dick’s Admits Sales Affected by Gun Sale Restrictions

It's ironic how some people want a company to fail for exercising their freedoms.

 

They never have mattered and never will matter.

The anti movement is entirely based on emotions, lies and falsehoods, proffered by people who know little or nothing about firearms other what they have learned from Hollywood.

 

A publicly traded company has no freedoms, with that type of company it's only job is to maximize profits.

 

So it's against the law for them to decide not to sell certain items?

 

Corporations purposely create an image through the products they decide to sell, or not sell, produce, or not produce, every day.

 

It's not against a law, however if BOD or CEO of a publically traded company makes a decision based not on sound business practices but on emotion or politics, and that decision causes a loss of revenue, the company and the people involved in making that decision can be sued for the loss.

 

What freedom?

 

Normally the board of directors votes on the subject.

 

Maybe so....but what does that have to do with Dick's exercising it's freedom to not sell certain items?

 

Was that decision based on a sound business reasoning, or for an emotional or political position? Perhaps the decision makers at Dicks felt that they were going to get a sales backlash from one side or the other, and that the numbers suggested a smaller impact from losing a portion of the pro-2A side sales than from the GCA- soccer mom side. I had only rarely shopped at Dicks, and if actually you found someone at the gun counter to help you were lucky. Their selection and prices were uncompetitive with other big box stores, too.

 

If you don't like them, don't shop there. That's the American way.

 

I have never shopped at a Dicks but I have found it to be very common for big box stores, excepting the two Bass Pro shops I have been in, do not have people who understand firearms working in their firearms department.

And for the most part many of the floor people really don't seem to care much about their jobs either.

 

What does it matter what the decision was based on. They still have the freedom to sell or not sell certain items.

I too only rarely shop at Dick's. Mostly shop there for exercise equipment for our home gym or sports equipment for the kids. Used to shop more at Sports Authority before it closed.

 

If a purely political decision impacted the revenue of a publicly held company, the officers could be subject to legal action. If the decision had a business component, they could be covered.

I haven't shopped there since their decision, and Scheels put in a 200,000 Sq ft store about half a mile from where the Dicks is. There really isn't any reason to go to the Dicks anymore.

 

Creating an image is a business decision. Obviously.

 

I would think, typically, most publicly traded companies are not going to make a business decision of this magnitude based on emotion.
Their decision doesn't bother me so I will continue to shop there till a closer option becomes available.

 

This is emotion:

"Dick’s said it is also calling on elected officials to enact “common sense gun reform,” such as an assault-style firearms ban, a minimum purchase age of 21, and a ban on high-capacity magazines and bump stocks. It also called for private sale and gun show loopholes to be closed and universal background checks to be enacted, as well as a universal database of those banned from buying guns."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/28/17061618/dicks-sporting-goods-parkland-gun-sales

 

So now you're going after his freedom of speech, freedom of thought, morality, leadership skills, etc., etc.

Again, you don't like it, don't shop there.

Imagine telling a corporation what they should sell, and calling that freedom?

 

Well, sure, they aren't robots. But no doubt they also looked at the books and calculated that they would still be fine business wise by not selling guns. Decisions like this are not made lightly and without some type of analysis.

 

I have no concerns with what they want to sell. I have concerns when a company announces that they will support efforts to restrict the rights of gun owners. That's why I don't shop there.

 

Given their gun department, that's an understandable position. They still want to sell guns - hunting rifles and shotguns. They pissed off the base that would buy those guns, though.

 

So you want to restrict the rights of corporations to sell what they want to sell instead? Please.

 

they sell guns, many guns, they just decided to stop selling the ar-15

 

How am I suggesting that a corporation be restricted in what they want to sell? It's those who wish to ban "assault weapons" that are limiting what corporations are allowed to sell?