Companies Drop ARs, NRA Support
At this writing, at least fifteen companies including Delta and United airlines have dropped their support for the National Rifle Association’s members benefits programs. With that, every one of these companies has announced they don’t want to do business with more than five million NRA members.
I’m thinking NRA members should grant their wish- in spades.
No one who believes in the right to “keep and bear” - in any form - should spend their dollars supporting companies who have made it abundantly clear they don’t want the business of gun rights supporters.
It’s their right as retailers to do business with whom they choose.
It’s also the right of Edward Stack, the CEO of Dick’s Sporting Goods (NYSE: DKS) to stop selling all “assault-style rifles” in its stores. Effective [Wednesday], Dicks and Field & Stream stores are exercising that right- and pulling all NRA-branded merchandise from both.
Stack, whose father founded the chain in 1948, is quoted in the New York Times as saying that, after discovering his company had sold a gun to Parkland shooter Nikolas Cruz, he decided “we don’t want to be part of this any longer.”
They’ll no longer be selling [standard]-capacity magazines or guns to anyone under 21 years of age either. I don’t like the decision, but admire the willingness to take the heat of following your convictions.
Stack says he’s guided by his conscience. How much of that conscience is driven by social media pressure is something only time will answer. And shareholders will be watching.
We’ve seen retailers (including Dick’s) pull AR-style rifles, then quietly put them back on the shelves or make them available on an “ask to see one” basis. That’s not conscience, that’s cowardice. You really can’t have it both ways.
This time, Dick’s may have removed reconsideration as a viable option.
Stack’s calling for “common sense gun reform” along with regulations that ban assault-style firearms, raise the minimum age to purchase firearms to 21, ban [standard]-capacity magazines, and require universal background checks that include relevant mental health information and previous interactions with the law.”
I’m not seeing coming back from that declaration.
He’s saying this knowing consumers who disagree will take their business elsewhere.
Voting with the wallet is the only impactful way to express displeasure to a retailer.
And I believe it’s the personal responsibility of NRA members and 2A supporters not to support Dick’s -or Field & Stream stores - based on their decision. If for no other reason than to demonstrate their displeasure in the company’s stock price.
Meanwhile, the five step process psychologists use to describe the cycle of responses to tragedy seems to be tracking.
The five steps?
Tragedy, introspection, action, divergence, and, finally, a return to the status quo.
The legislative “gun debate” seems to have moved into the divergence phase.
From a business standpoint, some companies having taken action. Many more have quietly stayed on the sidelines waiting for the hubbub to die down and for things to -eventually - return to the status quo.
By now, some of you reading this are already irritated with me for suggesting that [nothing] ultimately substantive will come of this tragedy.
That’s OK.
But I’m convinced anti-gun groups are more interested in banning guns than addressing problems. And ultimately, despite comments to the contrary, there’s no real way to make the case that the tools used to kill are the root cause of the problem.
The Parkland situation has driven more conversation than any other. But there’s a significant difference between “conversation” and “change”.
Key indicators of true change are absent -even in the student protests.
For example, where are the teachers in all of these protests? If they agreed, they should be leading the protests not watching from the sidelines.
Teachers, better than administrators, politicians and social commentators, know there are problems in the schools.
Their lack of support for the student-driven anti-gun movement would seem to be a tacit endorsement they support “hardening” schools. Any training organization offering free instruction for teachers and administrators is being overwhelmed by the response - from teachers.
Teachers I’ve spoken with tell me hardening schools wouldn’t just protect the students from outsiders, it would protect everyone in the schools.
I don’t advocate the “cop on every corner” solution - that’s a police state.
But I do believe that there are reasonable steps that can be taken to protect schools and workplaces from violence.
In many countries, the idea of a “safe workplace” means that from the time you park your car in the morning until you drive across the curb to return home, you’re in an environment that’s safe from outside threats.
The pro-gun side of the debate has already taken substantive action.
Training facilities are offering free instruction to teachers, administrators and school board members. Retailers are offering firearms at cost, and retired police and military members are volunteering their services to help augment law enforcement.
Not everyone is warm to the idea. But neither is there overwhelming opposition.
And despite the heated opposition, it’s gaining traction while the time-worn calls for “legislative action to curb gun violence” is getting …crickets.
And there’s another bit of evidence that says that when it comes to heavy lifting, there’s not much conviction behind the demands. Five years ago, after Sandy Hook, the Connecticut legislature passed restrictive gun laws, and earmarked millions of dollars to make the state’s schools safer. That included everything from hardening buildings to addressing communications gaps and the problems of coordinating different agencies.
An investigation by the Hartford Courant says those efforts have “dwindled”.
To the point that nearly half the state’s school districts are violating at least some aspects of an accompanying law requiring them to submit school safety information.
Security experts, according to the Courant report, say the number of non-compliant school districts is “stunning.”
I’m not citing this to say no one cares. Everyone cares. The problem is that the problem is far more complicated than the tool used by attackers.
Driving arguments with emotion doesn’t provide any clarity when it comes to finding substantive solutions.
So the rancorous arguments continue -and the problems remain unaddressed.
That should concern everyone.
Republished from The Outdoor Wire.
Additional Information:
Walmart: Will not sell firearms and ammunition to people younger than 21
- 1501 reads
