So while not banning private sales, would require them to go through a 3rd party like DIcks, who usually charge $50 for 5 minutes of paperwork.
Thats not advocating banning "private sales." Not even close. Nice try though. A "responsible" gun buyer can't afford $50 for a background check?
And the right says the left has issues with critical thinking lol
I'm not sure what your issue is with anyone who has a different point that you. What reasoning skills, or lack of are you talking about? All I've said was that Dicks move could have been, and in my opinion probably was, based on publicity and the benefit from that.
Dicks does benefit if the private and gunshow loophole is banned and requires background checks. Its actually very simple logic. That means I could not sell a gun to a friend by myself, but have to use a third party, like Dicks, to complete the transaction. Although not technically "banning" private sales, I know you are intelligent enough (at least I've always assumed so....) to follow the conversation to understand that it means a private sale between 2 people is banned without going through a third party - and who does that financially benefit? Its like requiring me to go through a dealership if I sell my car, I'm sure the dealership would be happy about that too. In practicality that is like treating the gun store like a consignment shop, which is how many gun owners sell guns because of legal requirements in some states. At least in California, when a private party goes through a gun store for a sale, the store takes possession of the gun and deals with the buyer. Why you chose to flip everyone's words and belittle them who has a different view than you is not known to me. I never once said gun owners couldn't afford it. But gun stores benefit from it, so it is at no surprise at all to me that they would advocate for that. I'd suggest trying to have a real conversation instead when you disagree with someone. Its much more useful.
You made a blanket statement, via with a question mark, that Dick’s was advocating “banning” private sales when in fact, they’re advocating for “regulating” private sales. In the car example you give, you do have to transfer your title to the buyer and the buyer has to register the car through DMV. Dick’s and any other FLFD, I assume, acts as the DMV. But I also thought all the gun buyers were going to boycott Dick’s anyway? Is Dick’s the only game in town? If not, it doesn’t act as a “ban.” And I disagree with you because you never start out by saying what you truly mean. Your issue went from a “ban” to having to pay $50.
And I’m not the smartest guy in the room.
That is correct how the DMV works, but that isn't how gun transfers work in some states. My only experience is in CA, where both parties have to meet at the shop, the shop takes control of the gun until the background check and waiting period are over and charges a fee. Now I know most states don't have waiting periods, but it still isn't as simple as getting a piece of paper and taking in to get registered. The DMV is like the ATF, and the store would be the dealership. It really would be like requiring someone to register their car to the DMV through a dealership. And requiring background checks on all guns would do exactly that and require all sales to go through a third party.
And I'll say it again, I don't think it is a bad idea for that process. I'm just pointing out that Dicks' motive was probably strategy rather than gun control. I mean they stopped selling assault rifles in 2012, but announce again last year they they are going to no longer sell assault rifles. Its like Chic-Fil-A announcing they will no longer sell beef for health reasons. Free publicity. Why not stop selling hand guns which are responsible for like 95% of gun deaths? Probably because they'd lose too much money over that.
Just like when Discovery channel said they were going to stop filming Duck Dynasty due to the dad's interview and comments that don't align with the views of Discovery channel, then when people started boycotting Discovery they started filming again. Its my opinion of an example of a big company trying to make money by "doing the right thing/"
Dick’s stopped selling assault rifles in Dicks Sporting Goods in 2012 after Sandy Hook. They stopped selling the same in Field and Stream stores after Parkland. A more apt description would be if chik fil-A stopped selling 85% lean beef in Chik Fil-A and then 5 years later stopped selling it in Taco Bell, which they also happened to own. But they still sell 90% lean beef because otherwise maybe they would go out of business?
But even so, requiring background checks for ALL gun purchases would definitely put a crimp in sales if the process were as thorough as what you describe in CA. I’d be willing to bet that there are commonalities to a legal and “responsible” gun purchase background checks across all 50 states and that you could set a federal minimum and allow the state’s to set higher standards as they wish. But boy would those straw purchasing opportunities dry up and that’s what the NRA is protecting. Personally, I’m glad that Dick’s is trying to be part of the solution rather than continuing the status quo.
And jumping through a few more hoops does not equal a ban unless Dicks is the only player and they leave the state or shutter their doors and no other retailer can step in.
So while not banning private sales, would require them to go through a 3rd party like DIcks, who usually charge $50 for 5 minutes of paperwork.
Thats not advocating banning "private sales." Not even close. Nice try though. A "responsible" gun buyer can't afford $50 for a background check?
And the right says the left has issues with critical thinking lol
I'm not sure what your issue is with anyone who has a different point that you. What reasoning skills, or lack of are you talking about? All I've said was that Dicks move could have been, and in my opinion probably was, based on publicity and the benefit from that.
Dicks does benefit if the private and gunshow loophole is banned and requires background checks. Its actually very simple logic. That means I could not sell a gun to a friend by myself, but have to use a third party, like Dicks, to complete the transaction. Although not technically "banning" private sales, I know you are intelligent enough (at least I've always assumed so....) to follow the conversation to understand that it means a private sale between 2 people is banned without going through a third party - and who does that financially benefit? Its like requiring me to go through a dealership if I sell my car, I'm sure the dealership would be happy about that too. In practicality that is like treating the gun store like a consignment shop, which is how many gun owners sell guns because of legal requirements in some states. At least in California, when a private party goes through a gun store for a sale, the store takes possession of the gun and deals with the buyer. Why you chose to flip everyone's words and belittle them who has a different view than you is not known to me. I never once said gun owners couldn't afford it. But gun stores benefit from it, so it is at no surprise at all to me that they would advocate for that. I'd suggest trying to have a real conversation instead when you disagree with someone. Its much more useful.
You made a blanket statement, via with a question mark, that Dick’s was advocating “banning” private sales when in fact, they’re advocating for “regulating” private sales. In the car example you give, you do have to transfer your title to the buyer and the buyer has to register the car through DMV. Dick’s and any other FLFD, I assume, acts as the DMV. But I also thought all the gun buyers were going to boycott Dick’s anyway? Is Dick’s the only game in town? If not, it doesn’t act as a “ban.” And I disagree with you because you never start out by saying what you truly mean. Your issue went from a “ban” to having to pay $50.
And I’m not the smartest guy in the room.
That is correct how the DMV works, but that isn't how gun transfers work in some states. My only experience is in CA, where both parties have to meet at the shop, the shop takes control of the gun until the background check and waiting period are over and charges a fee. Now I know most states don't have waiting periods, but it still isn't as simple as getting a piece of paper and taking in to get registered. The DMV is like the ATF, and the store would be the dealership. It really would be like requiring someone to register their car to the DMV through a dealership. And requiring background checks on all guns would do exactly that and require all sales to go through a third party.
And I'll say it again, I don't think it is a bad idea for that process. I'm just pointing out that Dicks' motive was probably strategy rather than gun control. I mean they stopped selling assault rifles in 2012, but announce again last year they they are going to no longer sell assault rifles. Its like Chic-Fil-A announcing they will no longer sell beef for health reasons. Free publicity. Why not stop selling hand guns which are responsible for like 95% of gun deaths? Probably because they'd lose too much money over that.
Just like when Discovery channel said they were going to stop filming Duck Dynasty due to the dad's interview and comments that don't align with the views of Discovery channel, then when people started boycotting Discovery they started filming again. Its my opinion of an example of a big company trying to make money by "doing the right thing/"
Dick’s stopped selling assault rifles in Dicks Sporting Goods in 2012 after Sandy Hook. They stopped selling the same in Field and Stream stores after Parkland. A more apt description would be if chik fil-A stopped selling 85% lean beef in Chik Fil-A and then 5 years later stopped selling it in Taco Bell, which they also happened to own. But they still sell 90% lean beef because otherwise maybe they would go out of business?
But even so, requiring background checks for ALL gun purchases would definitely put a crimp in sales if the process were as thorough as what you describe in CA. I’d be willing to bet that there are commonalities to a legal and “responsible” gun purchase background checks across all 50 states and that you could set a federal minimum and allow the state’s to set higher standards as they wish. But boy would those straw purchasing opportunities dry up and that’s what the NRA is protecting. Personally, I’m glad that Dick’s is trying to be part of the solution rather than continuing the status quo.
And jumping through a few more hoops does not equal a ban unless Dicks is the only player and they leave the state or shutter their doors and no other retailer can step in.
I think the bolded part is a good idea.
The F&S branches are insignificant. There are 35 F&S stores compared to 850 Dicks'. That is less than 4% of their stores. So, staticstially speaking, its pretty safe to ignore their F&S branches when discussing Dicks. I don't think anything i've said has changed. Dicks' announcing that they will no longer sell assault rifles when 850 of their stores already don't and only 35 of a off-branch under a different name does is misleading. Its meant for publicity.
I only meant "ban" as in it ends the sale between 2 private parties without involving a third party, something that clearly benefits the third party. But anyway, I think at this point were kicking a dead horse with Dicks'.
I just saw quote, but I can't find it again to link. But it said 60% of all straw purchases come from 1% of gun dealers. SO clearly there's a massive problem with a few select gun stores.
“Gun trafficking” refers to the diversion of guns from lawful commerce into the illegal market.1 Studies of gun trafficking have identified the following major channels of trafficked guns:
CORRUPT GUN DEALERS
ATF data confirms that corrupt or irresponsible gun dealers are the leading source of guns on the black market, responsible for “nearly half of the total number of trafficked firearms” uncovered in ATF investigations.2 Though stolen firearms are also a major source of black market guns, 4.5 times as many guns are obtained from dealers as are stolen from any source.3 According to ATF, gun dealers’ “access to large numbers of firearms makes them a particular threat to public safety when they fail to comply with the law.”4 On average, ATF trafficking investigations implicating a gun dealer involve over 350 black market guns per investigation, or over 550 guns in cases in which the dealer was the sole trafficker.5 Strong dealer regulations, such as laws requiring licensing, inspections, employee background checks, and videotaping of gun purchases, can prevent this conduct. For more information about the role gun dealers play in gun trafficking and laws regulating gun dealers, see our summary on Gun Dealers.
UNLICENSED SELLERS
Federal law allows people who are not licensed gun dealers to sell guns at gun shows, online, and in person. These unlicensed “private” sellers are not required to conduct background checks or maintain records of purchasers. As a result, they play a significant role in gun trafficking.6 Some states have addressed this problem by passing laws requiring universal background checks. For more information, see our summary on Universal Background Checks.
LOST OR STOLEN GUNS
Gun traffickers often falsely claim that guns they purchased were lost or stolen in order to hide their involvement in crime. Laws that require the reporting of lost or stolen firearms to law enforcement can provide a check against this behavior and are discussed in our summary on Reporting Lost & Stolen Firearms.
BULK FIREARM SALES
Gun traffickers often buy large quantities of guns at once in order to supply them to convicted felons and other prohibited persons. A 2007 University of Pennsylvania report to the National Institute of Justice found that guns purchased in bulk were up to 64% more likely to be used for illegal purposes than guns purchased individually.7 Laws limiting the number of guns that may be purchased in a single transaction help deter this conduct. See our summary on Bulk Gun Purchases for more information.
STRAW PURCHASERS
A “straw purchase” occurs when the actual buyer of a firearm uses another person, a “straw purchaser,” to execute the paperwork necessary to purchase a firearm from a firearms dealer. People who are prohibited from purchasing firearms and people who do not want to be identified through crime gun tracing often obtain firearms through straw purchases. By intentionally buying firearms for someone else, straw purchasers undermine background checks and gun safety laws and allow firearms to be funneled to violent criminals, domestic abusers, and other prohibited people.8
An ATF study of 1,530 gun trafficking cases determined that straw purchasers were involved in almost one-half (46%) of the investigations, and were associated with nearly 26,000 illegally trafficked firearms.9
Subsequent ATF investigations at gun shows also uncovered “widespread” straw purchasing from gun dealers, where guns were diverted to “convicted felons and local and international gangs.”10
In 2009, New York City officials conducted their own investigation at gun shows across the US to test whether, among other things, gun dealers would be willing to sell guns to someone who appeared to be a straw purchaser.11 New York’s investigation found that 16 out of 17 (or 94% of) dealers approached by investigators willingly sold to an apparent straw purchaser.12
A 2007 study found that straw purchases were significantly more common at gun shows in states with little regulation (Arizona, Florida, Nevada, and Texas) than at gun shows in California, which regulates gun shows and requires background checks for all firearm transfers.13
Guns move from states with weak gun laws into states with strong gun laws. Gun traffickers frequently obtain guns in states that lack anti-trafficking laws such as dealer regulations, background check requirements, and lost and stolen reporting requirements, and re-sell them in states that have these laws.14
Trafficking channels are identified through the use of crime gun tracing.15 Crime gun trace data is generated when law enforcement recovers a firearm from a crime scene and requests that ATF or another law enforcement agency conduct an investigation to determine who originally sold and purchased the gun. As detailed in our summary on Maintaining Records of Gun Sales, crime gun trace data is crucial to individual criminal investigations and, when aggregated, can reveal patterns regarding who is trafficking firearms and how they are being trafficked.
Unfortunately, ATF’s ability to investigate and prosecute gun trafficking has been significantly hampered by Congress.According to an investigation by the Washington Post in 2010, ATF’s efforts are hindered by a lack of sufficient funding, as well as statutory limitations on the use of crime gun trace data.16 In addition, the number of ATF agents—2,500—has not changed since 1972. During the same period of time, the staffs of other government agencies have increased dramatically (for example, the staff of the Drug Enforcement Agency more than tripled during the time period).17
Guns trafficked from the US also play a major role in arming Mexico’s violent drug cartels. According to data from ATF, approximately 87% of firearms seized by Mexican authorities and traced over Fiscal Years 2004 to 2008 originated in the US.18 Since Mexico’s laws regarding the possession of guns by civilians are strict,19 the Mexican drug cartels obtain the firearms that fuel drug-related violence legally—and easily—in the US.
A June 2009 US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that certain federal firearms laws, including restrictions on the collection and reporting of information regarding gun purchases and the lack of a background check requirement for private gun transfers, present significant challenges to US efforts to fight firearms trafficking into Mexico.20
Another study points out that the near absence of ammunition sales regulation in the US also contributes substantially to the cross-border trafficking problem.21
A 2010 analysis of trace data regarding crime guns exported to Mexico revealed significant differences in the states that serve as sources for these guns.22 Not surprisingly, the four states with the highest number of exports were the four that share a border with Mexico—Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. However, after controlling for population, three of these states—Arizona, New Mexico and Texas—each exported firearms to Mexico at a rate that is more than three times as high as California, a state with some of the strongest gun laws.23 This data supports the argument that strong state gun laws are the key to reducing gun trafficking.
People actually think Dicks did that to "do the right thing"?
Really?
For realz?
lol, cute
Didn't you just go on a rant in another thread about liberals being condescending?
How is that condescending?
Dicks is a publicly traded corporation who has a fiduciary responsibility... they are by definition driven by profit... a decision was made this would benefit them and at a minimum not hurt them
Dont think for a second if they thought this would hurt their bottom line that they would "do the right thing"
I'm not your enemy, the system that gives Dick's the same rights as a citizen as you, a human, might be your enemy though
If it’s so insignificant, why did the NRA make such a big deal about it?
Because their leaders say stupid stuff all the time.
That's for sure, and not just the leaders.
Did you read the article from the NRA-ILA? It's kind of embarrassing, actually. I'm not sure why a national organization with the money they have can't hire someone to write articles that don't sound childish.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
If it’s so insignificant, why did the NRA make such a big deal about it?
Because their leaders say stupid stuff all the time.
That's for sure, and not just the leaders.
Did you read the article from the NRA-ILA? It's kind of embarrassing, actually. I'm not sure why a national organization with the money they have can't hire someone to write articles that don't sound childish.
True, I could say the extreme in any groups says dumb stuff. Unfortunately many groups are often defined by their extremes, which are almost always a small fraction of the group.
If it’s so insignificant, why did the NRA make such a big deal about it?
Because their leaders say stupid stuff all the time.
That's for sure, and not just the leaders.
Did you read the article from the NRA-ILA? It's kind of embarrassing, actually. I'm not sure why a national organization with the money they have can't hire someone to write articles that don't sound childish.
True, I could say the extreme in any groups says dumb stuff. Unfortunately many groups are often defined by their extremes, which are almost always a small fraction of the group.
No, I have not read it yet.
So the leadership of the NRA counts as the extremists?
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
If it’s so insignificant, why did the NRA make such a big deal about it?
Because their leaders say stupid stuff all the time.
That's for sure, and not just the leaders.
Did you read the article from the NRA-ILA? It's kind of embarrassing, actually. I'm not sure why a national organization with the money they have can't hire someone to write articles that don't sound childish.
True, I could say the extreme in any groups says dumb stuff. Unfortunately many groups are often defined by their extremes, which are almost always a small fraction of the group.
No, I have not read it yet.
So the leadership of the NRA counts as the extremists?
Isn't the leadershio pretty much the russians funding them?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
If it’s so insignificant, why did the NRA make such a big deal about it?
Because their leaders say stupid stuff all the time.
That's for sure, and not just the leaders.
Did you read the article from the NRA-ILA? It's kind of embarrassing, actually. I'm not sure why a national organization with the money they have can't hire someone to write articles that don't sound childish.
True, I could say the extreme in any groups says dumb stuff. Unfortunately many groups are often defined by their extremes, which are almost always a small fraction of the group.
No, I have not read it yet.
So the leadership of the NRA counts as the extremists?
I would say many of the things I've heard from the NRA don;t represent the average gun owner. So yes.
Active shooter outside Pittsburgh synagogue. Just another “responsible” gun owner angry at something. Or defending us from, well I’m not sure but heaven forbid they be regulated.
Active shooter outside Pittsburgh synagogue. Just another “responsible” gun owner angry at something. Or defending us from, well I’m not sure but heaven forbid they be regulated.
There are a lot of people in this country, and even a few on here, that are okay with location of this shooting.
Active shooter outside Pittsburgh synagogue. Just another “responsible” gun owner angry at something. Or defending us from, well I’m not sure but heaven forbid they be regulated.
There are a lot of people in this country, and even a few on here, that are okay with location of this shooting.
You really think people on here are ok with the shooting?
Considering how many there have been, their vociferous opposition to any type of regulation and their veiled political and social views, yes.
I see it a little differently, but share the frustration.
But I was speaking more specifically about the reference to the location of the shooting. We really think people are ok with that? Seems a harsh judgement, who are we talking about specifically?
You really think people on here are ok with the shooting?
Considering how many there have been, their vociferous opposition to any type of regulation and their veiled political and social views, yes.
I see it a little differently, but share the frustration.
But I was speaking more specifically about the reference to the location of the shooting. We really think people are ok with that? Seems a harsh judgement, who are we talking about specifically?
Team Trump Treason could, “really tone it up.” But use your thinking cap.
Right... because Trump has something to do with thinking posters here are so anti-Semitic that they are cool with mass shootings at Synagogues
Gotchya
I'm going to make this as clear and concise as I can...
What I wrote has nothing to do with the current president. And you can be as contrarian as you want but there are anti-semites in this world, in this country, and on this site that will always be okay with the senseless slaughter of jews.
Comments
But even so, requiring background checks for ALL gun purchases would definitely put a crimp in sales if the process were as thorough as what you describe in CA. I’d be willing to bet that there are commonalities to a legal and “responsible” gun purchase background checks across all 50 states and that you could set a federal minimum and allow the state’s to set higher standards as they wish. But boy would those straw purchasing opportunities dry up and that’s what the NRA is protecting. Personally, I’m glad that Dick’s is trying to be part of the solution rather than continuing the status quo.
And jumping through a few more hoops does not equal a ban unless Dicks is the only player and they leave the state or shutter their doors and no other retailer can step in.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
The F&S branches are insignificant. There are 35 F&S stores compared to 850 Dicks'. That is less than 4% of their stores. So, staticstially speaking, its pretty safe to ignore their F&S branches when discussing Dicks. I don't think anything i've said has changed. Dicks' announcing that they will no longer sell assault rifles when 850 of their stores already don't and only 35 of a off-branch under a different name does is misleading. Its meant for publicity.
I only meant "ban" as in it ends the sale between 2 private parties without involving a third party, something that clearly benefits the third party.
But anyway, I think at this point were kicking a dead horse with Dicks'.
I just saw quote, but I can't find it again to link. But it said 60% of all straw purchases come from 1% of gun dealers. SO clearly there's a massive problem with a few select gun stores.
“Gun trafficking” refers to the diversion of guns from lawful commerce into the illegal market.1 Studies of gun trafficking have identified the following major channels of trafficked guns:
CORRUPT GUN DEALERS
ATF data confirms that corrupt or irresponsible gun dealers are the leading source of guns on the black market, responsible for “nearly half of the total number of trafficked firearms” uncovered in ATF investigations.2 Though stolen firearms are also a major source of black market guns, 4.5 times as many guns are obtained from dealers as are stolen from any source.3 According to ATF, gun dealers’ “access to large numbers of firearms makes them a particular threat to public safety when they fail to comply with the law.”4 On average, ATF trafficking investigations implicating a gun dealer involve over 350 black market guns per investigation, or over 550 guns in cases in which the dealer was the sole trafficker.5 Strong dealer regulations, such as laws requiring licensing, inspections, employee background checks, and videotaping of gun purchases, can prevent this conduct. For more information about the role gun dealers play in gun trafficking and laws regulating gun dealers, see our summary on Gun Dealers.
UNLICENSED SELLERS
Federal law allows people who are not licensed gun dealers to sell guns at gun shows, online, and in person. These unlicensed “private” sellers are not required to conduct background checks or maintain records of purchasers. As a result, they play a significant role in gun trafficking.6 Some states have addressed this problem by passing laws requiring universal background checks. For more information, see our summary on Universal Background Checks.
LOST OR STOLEN GUNS
Gun traffickers often falsely claim that guns they purchased were lost or stolen in order to hide their involvement in crime. Laws that require the reporting of lost or stolen firearms to law enforcement can provide a check against this behavior and are discussed in our summary on Reporting Lost & Stolen Firearms.
BULK FIREARM SALES
Gun traffickers often buy large quantities of guns at once in order to supply them to convicted felons and other prohibited persons. A 2007 University of Pennsylvania report to the National Institute of Justice found that guns purchased in bulk were up to 64% more likely to be used for illegal purposes than guns purchased individually.7 Laws limiting the number of guns that may be purchased in a single transaction help deter this conduct. See our summary on Bulk Gun Purchases for more information.
STRAW PURCHASERS
A “straw purchase” occurs when the actual buyer of a firearm uses another person, a “straw purchaser,” to execute the paperwork necessary to purchase a firearm from a firearms dealer. People who are prohibited from purchasing firearms and people who do not want to be identified through crime gun tracing often obtain firearms through straw purchases. By intentionally buying firearms for someone else, straw purchasers undermine background checks and gun safety laws and allow firearms to be funneled to violent criminals, domestic abusers, and other prohibited people.8
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Guns move from states with weak gun laws into states with strong gun laws. Gun traffickers frequently obtain guns in states that lack anti-trafficking laws such as dealer regulations, background check requirements, and lost and stolen reporting requirements, and re-sell them in states that have these laws.14
Trafficking channels are identified through the use of crime gun tracing.15 Crime gun trace data is generated when law enforcement recovers a firearm from a crime scene and requests that ATF or another law enforcement agency conduct an investigation to determine who originally sold and purchased the gun. As detailed in our summary on Maintaining Records of Gun Sales, crime gun trace data is crucial to individual criminal investigations and, when aggregated, can reveal patterns regarding who is trafficking firearms and how they are being trafficked.
Unfortunately, ATF’s ability to investigate and prosecute gun trafficking has been significantly hampered by Congress. According to an investigation by the Washington Post in 2010, ATF’s efforts are hindered by a lack of sufficient funding, as well as statutory limitations on the use of crime gun trace data.16 In addition, the number of ATF agents—2,500—has not changed since 1972. During the same period of time, the staffs of other government agencies have increased dramatically (for example, the staff of the Drug Enforcement Agency more than tripled during the time period).17
Guns trafficked from the US also play a major role in arming Mexico’s violent drug cartels. According to data from ATF, approximately 87% of firearms seized by Mexican authorities and traced over Fiscal Years 2004 to 2008 originated in the US.18 Since Mexico’s laws regarding the possession of guns by civilians are strict,19 the Mexican drug cartels obtain the firearms that fuel drug-related violence legally—and easily—in the US.
A 2010 analysis of trace data regarding crime guns exported to Mexico revealed significant differences in the states that serve as sources for these guns.22 Not surprisingly, the four states with the highest number of exports were the four that share a border with Mexico—Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. However, after controlling for population, three of these states—Arizona, New Mexico and Texas—each exported firearms to Mexico at a rate that is more than three times as high as California, a state with some of the strongest gun laws.23 This data supports the argument that strong state gun laws are the key to reducing gun trafficking.
https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/crime-guns/trafficking-straw-purchasing/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Dicks is a publicly traded corporation who has a fiduciary responsibility... they are by definition driven by profit... a decision was made this would benefit them and at a minimum not hurt them
Dont think for a second if they thought this would hurt their bottom line that they would "do the right thing"
I'm not your enemy, the system that gives Dick's the same rights as a citizen as you, a human, might be your enemy though
#73-0
Let's go progressives.
That's for sure, and not just the leaders.
Did you read the article from the NRA-ILA? It's kind of embarrassing, actually. I'm not sure why a national organization with the money they have can't hire someone to write articles that don't sound childish.
Unfortunately many groups are often defined by their extremes, which are almost always a small fraction of the group.
No, I have not read it yet.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/26/us/kentucky-kroger-shooting/index.html
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2018/10/27/heavy-police-presence-near-synagogue-in-squirrel-hill/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
But I was speaking more specifically about the reference to the location of the shooting. We really think people are ok with that? Seems a harsh judgement, who are we talking about specifically?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Gotchya
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
What I wrote has nothing to do with the current president.
And you can be as contrarian as you want but there are anti-semites in this world, in this country, and on this site that will always be okay with the senseless slaughter of jews.
Shalom
I'm disappointed...