Our Gun Violence Problem. What if…?
Remember the name Ed Stack. As the CEO of Dick’s Sporting Goods, a chain of 727 stores nationwide, he has shown more leadership in trying to solve the nation’s gun violence problem than all the politicians in Washington combined. Stack, 65, is not just talking the talk, he’s walking the walk down the path of citizen involvement – even though it has cost his company dearly.
In February 2018, Stack couldn’t tear himself away from news reports following the fatal shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida. He watched surviving students and their parents speak to reporters about the 17 dead and the emotional scars the mass shooting had left on the community. Stack says the event, perpetrated by a 19-year-old mentally disturbed former student carrying two semi-automatic rifles, had a “profound effect” on him.
Nikolas Cruz Had Mental Problems for Years – Wikipedia
“I’m a pretty stoic guy,” he told the New York Times recently. “But I sat there hearing about the kids who were killed, and I hadn’t cried that much since my mother passed away. We need to do something. This has got to stop,” he said.
Within days Stack did do something. He ordered Dick’s Sporting Goods stores to stop selling all assault-style rifles. He further ordered store managers to stop selling high capacity ammunition magazines and to refuse to sell guns to anyone under the age of 21, no matter what local laws mandated. Then Stack did the unthinkable by taking a reported multimillion dollar hit to his bottom line. Instead of returning his store’s inventory of assault rifles and their accessories for a refund Stack ordered all the weapons destroyed. It was a $5 million loss, but he decided destruction was a better move than to return the rifles for resale to potential criminals. Stack simply wanted no part of it.
Following Stack’s lead in 2018, Walmart’s CEO, Doug McMillon stepped up to announce his stores would no longer sell firearms or bullets to anyone under the age of 21. In September 2019, after two fatal shootings inside Walmart stores, McMillon announced three major changes: Walmart stopped selling rifle ammunition used in military-style weapons, it stopped selling ammunition for handguns and Walmart stores in Alaska stopped selling handguns, marking a “complete exit” from all handgun sales.
Walmart’s CEO, Doug McMillon – courtesy Walmart Corporation
Ed Stack’s leadership on this issue made me wonder. What if the top executives at more major gun selling outlets took similar stands? What if they also decided they wanted no part of guns potentially winding up in the hands of disturbed individuals? What if this idea of putting public safety over profits resulted in a trend toward selling guns from only a pared down number of outlets? What if in-depth background and age requirement checks were conducted before every purchase? What if a federal law was passed requiring all states to keep up-to-date lists of citizens with violent mental health issues so that information could be shared with those conducting the background checks? What if it became illegal to buy a gun or ammunition via the internet?
That’s a lot of ‘What ifs’, right? Look, the stand Mr. Stack spearheaded will not completely wipe out the problem of the wrong people getting and misusing guns. But we have to keep public safety as the top priority and find a way to do that without trampling on anyone’s 2nd Amendment rights. Eliminating the number of places that a disturbed or criminally minded person can buy ammo and weapons is a positive step by any measure. To those who believe these baby steps are meaningless, I say they are not.
The opposing view, of course, is the response from the gun rights folks, the NRA in particular. The moment actions like Stack’s or McMillon’s are announced there is a hue and cry. There are threats of widespread boycotts of those who dare take a stand. The internet (and my mailbox) overflow with warnings about a government conspiracy to “take guns away!” There seems to be no recognition from that sector that America has a gun violence problem, not among the NRA’s law abiding membership but among those who should never have a gun. Crossed arms and dug in heels, ignoring the obvious and deadly facts, will not solve the problem.
Some NRA Members Worry About Gov’t Confiscation
There must come a time when we stop arguing and break through this deadlock because the death toll keeps rising. The latest Pew Research statistics show there were nearly 24,000 depressed and desperate Americans who used a gun to kill themselves in 2017. Another 14,500 were murdered by someone who shot them. During the first 9 months of this year 21 mass shootings took the lives of 124 people. When does this record-breaking tally start to slow down?
No, a solution to our gun violence will not come quickly or all at once. Nor will it ever be absolute. But the status quo is simply not acceptable, and steps must be taken. What if we could all agree on that as a starting point?
###
Reader JamesMadison1791 wrote:
Where to begin?
I guess, first, I want to thank my lucky stars. Not a single one of my dozen plus guns has turned violent. Not one of them has even snuck out of the house, much less gone on a shooting spree.
I find it very difficult to take anyone, that thinks there is “gun violence,” seriously. What I take them as is part of the Totalitarian fringe, or idiots.
There is NO gun violence, period, exclamation point. There IS human violence. There is Mental illness.
I bought a couple of rifles (bolt action) and some ammo from Dick’s. They will never get another penny from me. I do urge all my friends to avoid them. They are, allegedly, a sporting goods store.
If I didn’t reject the Anti-Constitutional obscenity that is “Public Accommodation,” I would urge someone between the age of 18-20 to attempt to buy a rifle or ammo and sue, if refused. That IS Age discrimination. The last time I checked, that was against the law.
However, far more important, is this idea that adults can be denied their unalienable right to effective self defense. SCOTUS has found that owning a handgun is an individual right protected by the 2nd amendment.
EIGHTEEN is the age when an individual can get married and leave home without mommy or daddy’s permission. As an adult, they have full access to their unalienable rights, that includes the 2nd amendment.
Just one final comment about the idiocy of refusing to allow guns to those with mental illness. NO gun is needed to kill, maim or otherwise commit a violent felony. IF a person is too dangerous to own a gun, he is too dangerous to be let out among the unknowing public. A simple shove in front of a subway train, or bus is just as fatal as a gunshot. Either they are a danger to the community and need to be in a secure facility or they aren’t and have the right to effective self defense. The same argument can be made for convicted felons that have “Paid their debt to society.”
Freedom is NOT for the Faint of Heart.
Mr. Madison:
Interesting that you beleive there is no problem with guns being used in violent/criminal ways in the United States. I would disagree. Those familiar with my columns know I do not support enfinging on law abiding citizens rights to own firearms – far from it. I also agree with you that if someone is deemed too mentally ill to posses a gun they should be in some sort of care that keeps the public safe from their irrational behavior – such as shoving a stranger in front of a train or stabbing them with a knife. But here’s the rub. We don’t have enough facilities to treat those in need. So what do we do?
You and I agree – the problem stems from the mentally ill (as you state) – and, I would add, the criminal, who wants to use a gun in VIOLENT ways. This is America’s current problem as I see it.
Also intersting that you extol your freedom of choice – and all those over the age of 18 – to buy guns and ammo without restrictions. Yet you decry Mr. Stack’s freedom of choice to stop selling assault rifles at his stores. Your response to his constitutionally protected decsion is to punish him with a widespread boycott. I frequently wonder what happened to the American value of freedom of thought, action and deed?
Reader Fred Mizzi writes:
We have to stop passing laws against law abiding citizens. news flash: ask most all prisoners, they dont care about the law and dont watch the news. if they get a gun its through theft or on the street. its a fact our government secretly sold guns to gangs a document fact so we need to address it all or none. this piece meal approach has been tried since the 70s just like race relations, where are we today?
Reader Paulette Pewsey writes:
“The most hopeful piece I’ve read yet on the possibility of ending the plaque of gun violence in America.”
Reader Roy Winans writes:
I just finished reading your article on weapons in The Joplin Globe, and I would point out a lack of parental control is needed.
I was born in 1944 on the family farm, and we had loaded weapons throughout the house, as did most of my friends, and nobody went on a killing spree. We learned, from our parents, at an early age, to leave the weapons alone, until we were old enough to use them.
Today, the parents are out of the picture, and most kids rule the roost. Everyone has their noses stuck to their cellphones, as do the kids, and no one talks to each other anymore. To compound the problem, Hollywood has glorified violence, as have video game makers, and impressionable kids do not know the difference. Hollywood should receive much of the blame, but they are like politicians, and pass it off on someone else.
Diane, why don’t you take on Hollywood, instead of picking on an easy target like the NRA, of which I am not a member. I have never heard of an NRA member becoming a mass murderer, as most are loners, or mentally unstable. What I am trying to say is that there are more to blame than just the NRA, or certain politicians.
Keep writing, and I will keep reading, and the world will go on, as it has for centuries.
Move to California, most area you have to carry after dark or stay home.
Uncle Mike
Uncle Mike:
Wouldn’t it be great if you didn’t have to worry about going out after dark? Wouldn’t it be great if your elected officials actually came up with a viable plan to do something about criminals/mentally ill people with guns? The leadership on this has to come from somewhere – even if its baby steps toward making it socially unacceptable to use a gun against innocents. How about tougher penalities for those who use a gun in the commission of a crime? (tack on 10 years to their sentence instead of 5) or How about building more mental health facilities? At least Ed Stark took action on his desire to see gun violence diminish. ~DD
Taking your narrative to it’s logical conclusion, just what is your ideal “pared-down number of outlets” in this country who should be allowed to sell their legal products consistent with state and federal law without being harassed or doxxed or sued by your ideological ilk? Just start by giving us a number, then maybe I’ll think about addressing the rest of your emotional appeals.
Anthony: I prefer to think of my writing on this subject as probative and common-sense. What should we do about the problem of guns getting into the hands of the criminally minded or mentally ill? It is an obvious problem and the lack of leadership from our elected officials is frustrating. If there are fewer places for a mentally ill person to walk into to buy a weapon that doesn’t take away anyone’s right to buy a gun. How many “pared down” places should there be? I don’t pretend to know. But you should know that I grew up in the Southwest, I learned to safely shoot, I am not anti-gun. I’m anti- needless deaths.
Ok let’s examine the probative/common sense angle.
it’s not probative or common-sense to begin your article by lionizing Ed Stack, who’s irresponsible virtue-signalling at the expense of his shareholders hid the fact that his company to this day still sells the very weapon used by the Parkland Shooter, and it still sells handguns, which are responsible for most all gun violence in the country.
It’s also not probative or common sense to insinuate that Stack destroyed his stock of AR15’s to keep them out of the hands of possible criminals, while at the same time claiming that the NRA’s lawful gun owners are not the problem. Hint: they are the very people who would have bought Stack’s guns, after a background check.
Most mass shooters in recent history which is spurring this debate over age limits were not under 21. Suicide victims do not use AR15’s. Stack’s misguided move after Parkland involved only 35 Field and Stream outlets as his Dick’s stores had already stopped selling AR15’s 6 years earlier. It was a PR move, not probative. Stack’s company is on life support and he’s begun selling off his Field and Streams. I hope you don’t own retirement stock with him.
The deadlock you speak of is due to the gun ban lobby. You believe that revealing the “pared down number of outlets” is irrelevant or a subject for another time, but it cuts to the whole problem with the Left and gun control. They will never stop. There is no “pared down number” that they will accept. Normal American gun owners have been told for decades that the notion of gun confiscation is nothing but an hysterical conspiracy theory, yet here we are, with the Left talking about little else these days than confiscating tens of millions of guns from law abiding citizens. Truth is, we don’t trust your ilk to stop at anything until all gun ownership for self defense is eliminated.
So here’s a hint. Look up the word “compromise” and tell me what you think Democrats might be willing to compromise “LONG TERM” regarding gun ownership for self defense? You see, more and more, it’s looking like Democrat ideas on compromise is “We will only go for the bans we can achieve right now, so we’ll let you keep the rest for now” is not compromise. Show how I’m wrong on this.
Nobody can convince me that you don’t care about gun violence, but to understand the deadlock, you really need to understand the horrible reputation and ill will that the political left has built up over the past 30 years regarding guns, gun ownership and the 2A.
Reader Doug Mueller writes:
Ed Stack took an admirable stand. I personally believe in my Second Amendment rights, but I also know there are certain limits to the liberties taken in support of the Amendment. The Constitution has built in methods to adjust to the times.
Just as I don’t trust anyone with biological weapons, I cannot trust anyone with disturbing mental health to have any weapons capable of wreaking havoc and killing others whose rights are violated by the gun user.
Common sense and debate are necessary. Blind obedience to the NRA, IRS, FBI or any other government entities are simply unworkable. ( I put the NRA in since they have difficulty in realizing they are not God’s final arbiter in this matter.)
You and other reporters serve us well by covering what people of influence are doing, whether it’s seen as biased. Truth in reporting, sensible editorial analysis, such as yours is required for the solution to be found.
Thank you. Keep up the good work. No matter the obstacles, you, by our First Amendment, are necessary to the understanding of the Second Amendment.
Yeah, those built in methods are called “amendments”. If you want to ban AR15’s the framers wanted you to amend the Constitution, not simply re-invent or ignore it. The fact that you have to mention biological weapons (others use nuclear weapons as well) illustrates the ridiculousness of trying to support the argument that citizens should not own semi-auto rifles under the 2A.
Ed Stack cost his shareholders dearly with his PR stunt. He’s a horrible CEO. His company continues to sell handguns and shotguns. Banning AR15’s will not affect the gun murder rate
Reader Daniel B. Morgan writes:
I come from South Jersey gun country ! No one will take the lead…….
Reader Jodi Crisera Kelly writes:
With THOUSANDS of Gun Control Laws already on the books, the biggest problem seems to be in the criminal justice system, by NOT enforcing them. Case in point; a recent decision in NY by a judge who gave bail to a gun blazing thug!
Passing laws that “punish” law abiding citizens, will NEVER deter criminals or madpersons bent of murder and mayhem!
DD replies:
I completely agree, Jodi. I also believe we MUST establish more mental health facilities to help those who have a violent streak. We fail to do so at the public’s peril.
Reader Centeno Angeles writes:
Hardly anyone because no one wants to do the nitty gritty of taking of a multifaceted complex problem. A lot easier to just chant catchy slogans and parade around kids. It’s a mental heath issue, a criminal issue, a social issue and to some degree (related to crime) and economic issue, and each of those facets needs it’s own solution. There’s no one size fit all fix.
Reader Kurt K Guy writes:
In Chicago, where I live, gun laws are not enforced yet the rhetoric continues about all kinds of limits and restrictions.
And I don’t think Stacks decision will have any effect except on share holders and easing his conscience.
We vilify the pitbull. The pitbull is just a dog that’s not predisposed to violence. Society made it so. The AR carries a small caliber round that’s not even allowed for hunting. It’s just a popular weapon that’s seldom used in crime. Get rid of this and something else will take its place. Hollywood’s good at promoting the next weapon. Dirty Harry…44 mag sales went through the roof. Terminator…9mm Uzi. Etc.
Reader Bob Burtis writes:
To call attention to this news item:
Pregnant Florida Woman saves family with an AR-15 https://www.nbcnews.com/…/home-invader-fatally-shot…
Reader John Connolly writes:
Hey, boys and girls, Let me tell you a story about how to get guns off the streets of our country. Twenty years, ago the Island of Jamaica had a rash of gun deaths. Tourism was down, the new PM passed a law that if you were caught with a gun, you went straight to prison for Five years. No appeal, no nothing, do not pass ho, just go to prison. With a few years gun violence diappearedm Enough said.
A former NYPD cop,
John Connolly
Reader Steve Liddick replies to John Connolly:
Yes, but there’s that pesky old Constitution that won’t let us make it up as we go or pick and choose the parts we like. /// If every assault rifle in America were to disappear tomorrow there would still be mass shootings. What has to be done is to devise ways to keep those weapons out of the hands of those who would kill the innocent. Some people are willing to die to become famous–or infamous in this case. It’s not the only motive, but denying them recognition might help to deter the next one in line willing to commit murder.
Reader Bill McColl writes:
To call attention to his interview.
Ed Stack on our show a couple of weeks ago https://www.facebook.com/WSJatLarge/videos/955375168139572/
Reader Pat Kelley Wittorf writes:
I agree that the violence is deplorable but I’m a big believer of getting to the “root cause” of the violence. WHY are people so angry? Why do they feel empowered to take lives? Why have they lost their empathy? Why are they so desensitized to violence and death? Let’s figure out the WHYs and fix the CAUSE and the EFFECTS will take care of themselves.
Reader Richard Hydell writes:
I guess we need to ban knives, trucks , and hands …
Reader Arthur Kramer writes:
Not surprising that your article was right to address things we and others can do to reduce gun violence without having to address the mryiad causes why some people become shooters. We don’t have to improve everyone’s mental health to save lives. I am not sure the mental health industry or government can effectively separate the sane from the not so sane without making the problem worse.
Reader Camellio Contreras writes:
Criminals will always have access to firearms which leaves citizens vulnerable. Disarming law abiding citizen is a recipe that the Nazi’s used for genocide against the Jews. Castro and every communist country has disarmed its citizens forcing submission. The British tried to disarm the colonist but the properly armed colonist were able to repel and fight for freedom and a reason the constitution allows for the right to bear arms. Put God back into the home and schools and you solve the gun, drug and crime problem.
Reader Lew Suber writes:
Dianne,
I try to read each of your columns that appear in the Journal.
Your column today on Dick’s & Walmart & their progress on cutting down on the availability
of guns & ammunition, especially assault rifles, was timely & completely on target (no pun intended).
Thank you!
I have written our senators & congressional representatives stating that I can see absolutely no reason
for private citizens to possess assault rifles. And furthermore that we need universal background checks
before allowing any firearm purchase.
Thanks again,
Lew Suber
Albuquerque, NM
There’s no reason to own semi-automatic rifles except for the 2nd Amendment reason.
Hi Diane,
It’s been a few months since we last communicated. I am pleased to see in today’s Albuquerque Journal your references to Dick’s Sporting Goods and Walmart providing a role model for other retailers to follow. I fully agree.
I am also pleased that you’ve taken the high road in *not* couching this in left-versus-right terms, and, instead, cited the stats and humbly offered good suggestions. I was surprised in August by your “Left-leaning media….” piece which I thought perpetuated divisiveness rather than vied for common ground.
Today, you cited some of the areas where the majority of Americans agree. I often cite these seven:
1. Background checks for private and gun show sales.
2. Prevent people with mental illness from purchasing guns.
3. Ban on high-capacity ammunition clips.
4. Ban on assault-style weapons.
5. Create a federal database to track gun sales.
6. Bar gun purchases by people on the federal no-fly or watch lists.
7. Red-flag laws, allowing household members to seek the temporary removal of a firearm from another dangerous household member.
So, keep up the good efforts. I agreed with you in August that “words matter,” and I hope the words you chose today may impact the minds of retailers, legislators, and voters for legislators so that the scourge of gun violence may be reduced.
Best,
Mike
Michael Baron, PhD
Corrales, NM
Reader Anthony Simonetti writes:
Ok let’s examine the probative/common sense angle.
it’s not probative or common-sense to begin your article by lionizing Ed Stack, who’s irresponsible virtue-signalling at the expense of his shareholders hid the fact that his company to this day still sells the very weapon used by the Parkland Shooter, and it still sells handguns, which are responsible for most all gun violence in the country.
It’s also not probative or common sense to insinuate that Stack destroyed his stock of AR15’s to keep them out of the hands of possible criminals, while at the same time claiming that the NRA’s lawful gun owners are not the problem. Hint: they are the very people who would have bought Stack’s guns, after a background check.
Most mass shooters in recent history which is spurring this debate over age limits were not under 21. Suicide victims do not use AR15’s. Stack’s misguided move after Parkland involved only 35 Field and Stream outlets as his Dick’s stores had already stopped selling AR15’s 6 years earlier. It was a PR move, not probative. Stack’s company is on life support and he’s begun selling off his Field and Streams. I hope you don’t own retirement stock with him.
The deadlock you speak of is due to the gun ban lobby. You believe that revealing the “pared down number of outlets” is irrelevant or a subject for another time, but it cuts to the whole problem with the Left and gun control. They will never stop. There is no “pared down number” that they will accept. Normal American gun owners have been told for decades that the notion of gun confiscation is nothing but an hysterical conspiracy theory, yet here we are, with the Left talking about little else these days than confiscating tens of millions of guns from law abiding citizens. Truth is, we don’t trust your ilk to stop at anything until all gun ownership for self defense is eliminated.
So here’s a hint. Look up the word “compromise” and tell me what you think Democrats might be willing to compromise “LONG TERM” regarding gun ownership for self defense? You see, more and more, it’s looking like Democrat ideas on compromise is “We will only go for the bans we can achieve right now, so we’ll let you keep the rest for now” is not compromise. Show how I’m wrong on this.
Nobody can convince me that you don’t care about gun violence, but to understand the deadlock, you really need to understand the horrible reputation and ill will that the political left has built up over the past 30 years regarding guns, gun ownership and the 2A.