Earlier this month, Dick’s Sporting Goods destroyed $5 million worth of guns help prevent shootings. When they did abolish these guns however, they were possibly not thinking only about shootings, but also the positive or negative reaction of the public. But will this act save lives, or not?

When they destroyed these guns, they were taking it upon themselves to halt shootings, but will demolishing all these guns save lives or contribute to more loss of life? In an interview with CBS, the CEO of Dicks, Ed Stack stated how “so many people say to me, you know, ‘If we do what we want to do, it’s not going to stop these mass shootings,’” My response is: ‘You’re probably right. It won’t. But if we do these things and it saves one life, don’t you think it’s worth it?’” Although I do agree with saving one life, it is possible that people would become injured or even killed due to this decision. When Dicks took so many of these guns off the shelves, they were taking away the ability of people to protect themselves away as well. If a mom of three had been concerned of the recent rise of burglaries in the area, but had not able to purchase a legal gun to protect herself and family, then that would be horrible. Even if no one did die, the ability for them to protect themselves is gone. Senior Nicole Hayes, junior Kyle Jackson, and freshmen Liam Heninger all agreed that there will still be shootings and gun distribution. There may just be a higher demand for them or even more illegal distribution with gangs or the black market.

The issue of this act being a publicity stunt raises more questions. Even if they did destroy all these guns, why would they want it to be such a public matter? Even if they lose a ton of gun supporting customers, by destroying all these guns. They would most certainly gain the customers back, through people who support gun control. Again, Hayes, Jackson, and Heninger all agreed that this was, in fact, a publicity stunt, especially with the rise in shootings and the demand for the guns to be off the streets. It is a sickening possibility of destroying $5 million worth of guns just to gain more customers, even if that means losing all these useful guns.

A smarter and certainly a cheaper option is to have stricter background checks on these guns. When Vox was interviewing Ed Stacks, he revealed how “the Parkland shooting was a turning point for Stack, who discovered that the shooter had purchased a shotgun from Dick’s (although that shotgun wasn’t used in the shooting). That’s when Stack said, ‘We’re done. “Even though it wasn’t the gun he used. It could’ve been.” One of the main reasons that Dick’s had made this decision was because the shooter Nikolas Cruz had purchased a weapon from the store. If Dick’s had stricter background checks, it would be more effective, and guns would not be sold to customers who would possibly use the gun for harm instead of protection. Even if the company did not find it necessary to have stricter background checks and continued to sell to everyone who can legally obtain it. It would be wise to get guns off the streets and into the hands of those who protect us, like the military or police. Both Heninger and Jackson agreed that it would have been smarter to donate the guns to the military instead, for training. If we gave the guns to the military for training and active service, it would cut back on the military’s budget and benefit the nation.

The point is there are many options to prevent guns from getting into bad hands, or at least lessening the potential of injury or death. But there are certainly smarter and safer way to do this such as having stricter background checks so people who need to protect themselves can receive the guns. The guns to the military, could also be donated but there is absolutely no need to waste this large number of weapons.