A very similar conversation about Dicks is taking place right now on another forum I frequent. I might have a little insight on this topic.
My career was mostly spent selling brand name sporting goods (hardgoods and footwear mostly) to retail sporting goods stores, big and small. Also department stores and other generalists. I've done business with everyone from Walmart, Sears, Footlocker and Penny down to tiny golf pro shops, and every type of retailer in between. And to my upcoming point, general sporting goods chains like Dicks. Now, I never did business specifically with Dicks but I did with both Sport Authority and Sport Mart as well as some very large Canadian retailers. SM & SA led the charge into "Big Box" sporting goods retailing. Dicks followed. Please note, SA and SM are long gone from the retail scene. There is a reason for that.
Dicks is in a battle for survival and not winning. Like most generalists they do a lot of different things badly and few things well. They win by location/quantity of stores along with buying power. They hope those two things will make up for all the things they don't do well. In any particular category, they usually get their asses handed to them by smaller, more focused and nimble competitors. They are typically terrible at managing inventory, training staff and personalized service.
While they may have publicly attributed political reasoning to their discontinuation of certain types of firearms, personally I call BS on that. I'd bet they thought they would be gaining some positive PR with some segment they want to attract and so used an action they were likely going to take at some point anyway. It is much more likely their whole shooting and hunting hard goods category (actual guns and ammo, not clothing) is under performing. It takes some serious balls in an organization like that to dump a well performing category. It's just not done. They can't afford to.
If they are completely shutting down the firearms departments in 125 stores it is because those departments are losing significant amounts of money, they can't see a way to turn it around and they think they can restock that area with merchandise that will perform better.
What's happened is that the ascendancy of anti-firearms thought, as propagated by the liberal left, has given them cover, and potentially a benefit, for publicizing a fiscal decision they would have taken at some point anyway. And for that, I blame hunters and shooters who have either behaved as Fudds over the last 30 years and ignored encroaching guns laws because "they won't affect me" or those who actively support Liberal politicians who are clearly anti gun. And I blame hunters and gun owners who have allowed themselves to become embarrassed by their activity....who have accepted the idea that what they do should be hidden.
Not everything is a conspiracy against us. Usually this sort of thing is simple economics. In this specific case with Dick's, I think it's the passive result of the liberal left's anti gun efforts, not an active part of it.
Good answer CB. I would only add to that the declining number of hunting and shooting enthusiasts. If dicks has a twenty year plan.... they may be on the right path. My kids are far from being left wingers, nor do they have a passion to hunt, although they will go with me if given the chance. I don't think the lack of hunting enthusiasm, is directly related to any leftist political ideology, they would just rather do something else.
