Actions Meet Consequences: Dick's Sporting Goods Loses Major Revenue After Anti-Gun Stance
Shortly after and largely in reaction to the shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School last year, Dick's Sporting Goods took a stand against the scary boom boom sticks. The gun the shooter used had been purchased at Dick's, and in perfect knee-jerk fashion, Dick's head honcho decided to stop selling "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines." The two terms most often used by people who aren't always sure what they're talking about. The move has cost the company millions. But the CEO, Ed Stack, doesn't care.
Dick’s estimates the policy change cost the company about $150 million in lost sales, an amount equivalent to 1.7 percent of annual revenue. Stack says it was worth it.
“The system does not work,” Stack said. “It’s important that when you know there’s something that’s not working, and it’s to the detriment of the public, you have to stand up.”
Four things here:
- The shooter of Stoneman Douglass purchased his gun at a Dick's store, and a would-be shooter who was apprehended before he could take action also purchased his gun from Dick's. I can understand how that would be unsettling if you're in any way associated with Dick's. Emotions aren't always rational. Hence they're emotions.
- But how many guns were purchased from Dick's in 2017 (the year before the policy change) that didn't shoot a single, solitary person? Hundreds? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Let's err on the side of low numbers and say 500 guns were purchased at Dick's. That means 1/500 guns were used to kill people. And that's using a low number.
- How many guns purchased at Dick's were used in self-defense and thus saved lives? Curious minds...
- Ed Stack is free to run his company as he'd like, yes. He also put his money where his mouth was and paid for it, yes. So I do have to give him some credit for knowing he'd lose the company millions and going ahead with it anyway, for his principles. How the rest of the company board will feel about it, that's another matter and yet to be seen.
I think that last point was several points in one. We'll call it a high capacity paragraph.
More importantly, guns are a tool. I wonder if someone is stabbed with a kitchen knife, does Amazon stop carrying that particular knife? When a terrorist drives a van into a crowd, does Dodge stop selling the van? If someone finds fault with my article and sends me their hate tweets, should I write to Apple and blame their wireless keyboard?
Of course not. But for the left, the gun is always the problem. When really, it's the person pulling the trigger. Always.