Dick’s Sporting Goods Suspends Sale of Some Semi-Automatic Rifles
By: Sarah JonesDec. 18th, 2012more from Sarah Jones
Dick’s Sporting Goods has removed all of the guns from its store closest to Newton, Connecticut and is suspending the sale of certain semi-automatic rifles from all of its stores nationwide.
The store made a statement Tuesday morning [ http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/justice/connecticut-dicks-guns/ ] saying that the move was made out of respect for the victims and families of last week’s Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting during this time of “national mourning”. They didn’t indicate how long the suspension would be in place.
The Sandy Hook shooter was thought to have tried to purchase a gun from the Dick’s Sporting Goods store nearest to him, but the store has no record of a sale to him.
Sporting good stores refer to semi-automatics as “modern sporting rifles,” which evokes a hunting rifle meant for hunting. However, the weapon used in the Sandy Hook shootings was modeled after the M-16, [ http://www.politicususa.com/dicks-sporting-goods-suspends-sale-semi-automatic-rifles.html ] which was developed for U.S. troops in Vietnam. Furthermore, the 1994 federal law banning assault weapons provided specific protection to 670 types of hunting rifles and shotguns, so these weapons are not the same.
“I call them “assault” rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I’ll go so far as to call them “terrorist” rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are “tackdrivers.”
Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don’t need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I’ve always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don’t use assault rifles. We’ve always been proud of our ‘sporting firearms.’”
This ad for the semi-automatic assault weapon used in the Sandy Hook shooting also explains the difference between a real sporting rifle and an assault weapon (note: anyone drawn to this weapon/ad probably should not have an assault weapon for obvious reasons):
I don’t recall this happening after previous mass shootings. One thing this tells us is that this store does not want to be branded with the horror of the Sandy Hook massacre. Thus, we see the power of public opinion in the “free market”. This means that gun control supporters might have more power than they realize right now, if they can keep the issue in the public’s mind long enough to shame our legislators more than the NRA scares them. [ http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/12/17/gun-spending/ ]
Explaining the power of the National Rifle Association, in one graph
by Lee Drutman Dec. 17, 2012, 12:48 p.m.
In the wake of the tragic shooting in Newtown, one of the emerging debates is whether there will even be a debate. Past mass shootings have come and gone without any action. Many argue that the reason for this inaction is simple: politicians have been afraid to take on the National Rifle Association, the large and influential pro-gun lobby that spent at least $18.6 million this past election cycle - $11.1 million through its Political Victory Fund, plus $7.5 million through its affiliated Institute for Legislative Action.
As CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer put it, “Congress is literally afraid to take on the National Rifle Association because they know that if they make any kind of statement [that] even suggests some sort of limits on gun control, the NRA is going to pour, literally, hundreds of thousands of dollars in a campaign to defeat them."
Here are the data: The NRA has spent 73 times what the leading pro-gun control advocacy organization, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, has spent on lobbying in the 112th Congress ($4.4 million to $60,000, through the second quarter of 2012), and 3,199 times what the Brady Campaign spent on the 2012 election ($18.6 million to $5,816). (One caveat on the data is that the NRA itself does a very poor job of accurately reporting its spending, and we must rely on its self-reports.)
Graphic by Amy Cesal
What these numbers don't capture is that the NRA boasts a grassroots list of millions of voters and the resources to mobilize these voters at even the slightest threat of gun control laws. Gun control advocates have nothing that comes close. In 2012, the NRA spent at least $682,595 on communication costs, that is, political messages to its own members. [http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=C00053553&cycle=2012 ]
When it comes to the debate on gun policy, Congress is only hearing from one side.
If incentives explain political behavior, the data show where the incentives lie. The imbalance of resources signals that all the political rewards are concentrated one side of the issue: the side of inaction, the side of fewer restrictions. Until this changes, gun control laws are going to be very, very difficult to pass.
Update (12/18/12): The 2012 NRA spending number we published on 12/17/12 was off because of a bug in the program we used, leading to double counting of some expenditures that had been itemized in the National Rifle Association of America Political Victory Fund's amended post election report. We did not realize the error because totals reported by the Federal Election Commission reflected the same error. We have corrected the error.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
