Shoppers Speak Out After Dick’s Sporting Goods Removes Guns

  • Comments (25)
The gun section of Dick's Sporting Goods in Danbury was empty Tuesday after the retailer decided to halt gun sales at the location.
The gun section of Dick's Sporting Goods in Danbury was empty Tuesday after the retailer decided to halt gun sales at the location. Photo Credit: Jes Siart

DANBURY, Conn. – The back wall of Dick’s Sporting Goods, normally filled with guns of all shapes and sizes, was bare Tuesday after the retailer decided to halt all gun sales at the Danbury location and stop the sale of certain modern sporting rifles across the country.

The retailer said in a message on its website that it pulled the guns out of respect for the victims of the deadly shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. Shoppers had mixed reactions to the decision, and many snapped pictures of the barren racks that usually hold the weaponry.

The move to pull all guns from the Danbury location is a step in the right direction to help people affected by the Newtown shooting feel safer, said Ashley, a Danbury resident who declined to give her last name.

“It’s good in a way because I don’t feel like guns are necessary for most of the public,” Ashley said as she left the retailer. “It seems like only really paranoid people have guns and that’s dangerous.”

Other shoppers disagreed, saying guns aren’t the root of the problem.

“Guns don’t kill people,” said Nick, a New York resident who declined to give his last name. “If some guy goes out drunk driving and kills someone, you’re not going to ban cars.”

Devin, also a New York resident who declined to give her last name, agreed with Nick and said that taking guns away would not decrease gun violence. If anything, she said, it would increase violence.

“If you give everyone in the world a gun, no one would shoot each other,” she said. “You’re not going to try to shoot someone if you know they have a gun, too.”

But the move received positive support on Facebook, with an earlier article that announced the decision receiving more than a dozen “likes” on The Danbury Daily Voice Facebook page and nearly two dozen “likes” on The Ridgefield Daily Voice Facebook page in just a few hours.

“Bravo,” Wayne Gowdy commented on the earlier article.

“Way to show corporate responsibility and sensitivity Dick’s! Thank you,” Debra Oria commented.

Managers at the store diverted all questions to the chain’s corporate media relations team, which did not return calls or emails for further comment.

  • 25

Comments (25)

Speed limits are not mentioned in the Constitution. Gun rights are.

Most people are NOT trying to repeal the second amendment. By all means, protect yourself, target shoot, compete, hunt. But how many bullets need to come rocketing out of that magazine in how few seconds? Since we're using car analogies, there are limits to how fast a car can go -- both speed limits and the car's performance limitations. Exceeding either is against the law. I don't see AAA getting their panties twisted about that; in fact they work WITH law enforcement.

" there are limits to how fast a car can go -- both speed limits and the car's performance limitations. Exceeding either is against the law."

I don't think so. My porsche is supposed to be able to go above 200 mph, but no one will ever go that fast in the US streets. No lawmakers want to limit how big a car engine can be made. No law should limit how many rounds a magazine can hold. And do you think a crazy guy who wants to kill as many people as possible will only bring 1 magazine. VTech killer brought 20 loaded magazines with him, and fired a total of 200+ rounds. He killed more than 30 people, the worst mass shooting in the US history. No rifle, no assault weapon. Only 2 handguns used.

Since I am not a gun guy (don't own any), I don't know much about magazines. So my question is, how hard is it for a hobbyist to make a large magazine? Is it just a square metal or plastic box with a spring loader at the bottom? In other words, would it be difficult to make your own high capacity magazine, or do they need to be fairly precise to prevent jamming? I think I remember that a recent high profile shooting rampage (the Arizona guy?) featured a high capacity magazine that did jam, and I saw someone claim that high capacity magazines were more prone to jamming, but I don't know.

Is there any legitimate hunting application, or even self defense application, where you need more than a 10 round magazine? I haven't seen any claims that high capacity magazines have any really useful application except for military or law enforcement.

"how hard is it for a hobbyist to make a large magazine?" Very hard
"Is it just a square metal or plastic box with a spring loader at the bottom?" Yes
"In other words, would it be difficult to make your own high capacity magazine, or do they need to be fairly precise to prevent jamming?" They need to be fairly precise.

People shoot 100-200 rounds every time they visit a gun range. They don't want to spend time there putting rounds into the magazine every 10 shots.

The NRA has blood on its hands..Once again

Yeah, Timmy, go ahead and try to repeal the second amendment. That's the logical way to disarm America. Lotsa luck Timmy.

This cars argument that gun rights people bring up is poor. Cars are rarely used with the intention of killing someone. Can you say the same for guns?


There's more links to be added, but I am tired and it is late.

REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT..The Republican scum have blood on their hands

You need 38 state legislatures to go along with overturning the second amendment (which could be accomplished only as a new constitutional amendment). Since there are only 50 states, 13 states could essentially block any amendment. I doubt you could even get 25 states to approve a new amendment overturning the second amendment. Even "blue" states like Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire and Iowa would be tough.

I'm with Tim. This whole notion of fearing government tyranny might have been relevant back in the late 1700's after the US just gained independence but it's archaic and not needed anymore.

Appreciate the comment John, but it doesn't change the point. Tired of seeing 2nd hand victims of people who need military-like weapons. Interestingly you never answered a question I asked earlier regarding the 2nd Amendment; does it include the right to have a missile launcher, tank or an automatic rifle? If not, then why shouldn't semi-automatics be limited too? If yes, I'm impressed with your consistency in your ideology but find it on a par with Westboro Baptist Church.

Boycott all stores that sell automatic, semi-automatic guns and/or sell clips until they stop. If legislation won't work, making it hit peoples budget will

Automatic weapons have been banned for the last 80 years. Only semi-automatic weapons/guns are being sold legally in the US. Stupid.

Those stupid politicians in DC will come up with new stupid meaningless feel-good gun laws. Yes, assault weapons ban will be such law. CDC has studied 51 gun control measures, including 1994-2004 assault weapons ban, and found no relations between crimes and gun controls. NONE.
Also they will ban high capacity magazines. Just like stupid thing they are doing in NYC. They ban 16-oz drink but you can always buy 2 12-oz drinks. Stupid, if you ask me. 2 low capacity magazines can amount to more rounds than a high capacity magazine. What's next? Only derringers allowed?
Stop wasting time with gun control. Start dealing with mental patient control.

Do you have any idea what you are rambling about???

Looks like a reply has been deleted. Its pretty dissapointing the way nobody wants to focus on the reality of how & why these things go on. Stores that had nothing to do with it pulling guns off shelves, schools miles away getting extra police after the guy is dead, politicians & social leaders calling for MORE gun control, calls for banning assault weapons which are already banned. Many of these people not even knowing that the gun used isnt a machine gun. This was a tragedy worth waking up for, waking up from the dream that we can legislate saftey. We cant, thats obvious. Maybe this woman should have locked up her guns better. Maybe if she didnt have that Bushmaster he would have only got 10 instead of 20. I guess that matters as long as your kid wasnt among the ten. But what if he were? What if we allow only single shot firearms? Great eh, unless your kid is the one that gets shot. Why not just admit the FACT that the issue is really that WE dont want to take responsibility, we want to pretend that it'll go away just because we want it to. That if we pass laws showing how badly we want our kids safe it will stop. Anything but taking real responsibility individually. We all know police need guns, we dont question that and we shouldnt. But we should question any suggestion that the rest of us dont. If the people who are called when we need help need them then its silly to suggest we dont. The responders to school shootings NEVER need guns, theyre always too late, not their fault in any way. Just reality. The ones who NEED a way to stop these killers are the victims, even if they themselves wont admit it. Thats reality, cold hard reality. If someone is in your home trying to harm you or your family YOU need a way to save your life, what the responding officers have wont save you. Thats a cold hard fact. Laws preventing responsible permit holding adults from carrying in a school are no different than a law banning it in your home. Unless your childs life is somehow LESS valuable in a school setting. My children are priceless no matter where they are and I think it criminal that its illegal for the people I entrust their saftey to every single day to take reasonable & logical steps to provide for their saftey. Thats NOT paranoia, its common sense. People who can & do carry legally arent the ones we need to keep out of our schools. They are about as law abiding & upstanding as you can get. Look into the hoops & hurdles CT places on people trying to get a permit, its harder & more intrusive than being a teacher is as far as background & personal history go.

More guns= More violence. People will always do terrible things, but making it easier for them to do so by allowing them to kill 20 people in seconds is crazy. 30 gun deaths a day in the US, compare it to the rest of the developed world. Your answer seems to be more violence->more guns->>more and more violence->-> more and more guns. Capitalizing your words to make a point doesn't make it more true.

By renting a hummer or large suv and waiting for them to exit the school. Sad but true, he would have probably accomplished his sick plot regardless.

So true.

The gunman apparently tried to purchase a gun at this store, but didn't want to go through the background check. Some other news article say this is not confirmed. In any event, this particular store was named in many news articles as being tangentially related to the events (the gunman ultimately used the guns owned by his mother). There's probably no way to confirm if he went there but then decided not to go through a background check (there'd be no paper trail).

Not sure if I'd say only paranoid people own guns: by most reports, over a third of households own a gun.

Hey Nick in NY that declined to give his last name, How does a 20 year old mentally unstable person mow down 20 innocent children in his car?

Im not Nick in NY, but what he said was a guy gets drunk and kills someone, you dont ban cars.