Walmart Ends All Handgun Ammunition Sales and Asks Customers Not To Carry Guns Into Stores (cnn.com) 654
Walmart on Tuesday announced it will reduce its gun and ammunition sales, one month after more than 20 people were killed in a mass shooting at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas. Walmart also pressured Congress to enact gun safety measures. From a report: The company, America's largest retailer, said it will stop selling handgun ammunition and ammunition for short-barrel rifles after selling all of its current inventory. Walmart will also stop selling handguns in Alaska, the only state where it still sells handguns. And Walmart will request that customers no longer openly carry guns into its 4,700 US stores, or its Sam's Club stores, in states that allow open carry.
However, Walmart will continue to sell long barrel deer rifles and shotguns and much of the ammunition for those guns. Walmart will also continue to allow concealed carry by customers with permits in its stores. In a memo to employees on Tuesday, Walmart CEO Doug McMillon said Walmart's changes were prompted by the El Paso, Texas, shooting, as well as recent mass shootings in Dayton, Ohio, and Midland and Odessa, Texas. "In a complex situation lacking a simple solution, we are trying to take constructive steps to reduce the risk that events like these will happen again," he said. "The status quo is unacceptable."
However, Walmart will continue to sell long barrel deer rifles and shotguns and much of the ammunition for those guns. Walmart will also continue to allow concealed carry by customers with permits in its stores. In a memo to employees on Tuesday, Walmart CEO Doug McMillon said Walmart's changes were prompted by the El Paso, Texas, shooting, as well as recent mass shootings in Dayton, Ohio, and Midland and Odessa, Texas. "In a complex situation lacking a simple solution, we are trying to take constructive steps to reduce the risk that events like these will happen again," he said. "The status quo is unacceptable."
And nothing of value was lost (Score:4, Insightful)
Walmart already didn't sell any ammo that was really useful for anything other than target practice, and for that there are plenty of other retailers that are far cheaper than Walmart.
Walmart was good for some WWB in a pinch, but nobody ever used Walmart as their supply for any appreciable quantity of target ammunition.
For personal defense ammunition, their selection was nil to none, so really nothing of value is being lost here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a win win then, nothing of value was lost however it is significant to see large corporations wanting to change status quo, its moving in the right direction. Enough large corporation, enough money will hopefully trump (no not that Trump) NRA lobby. So something was gained, aka public opinion that gun control needs to happen.
Re:And nothing of value was lost (Score:5, Informative)
Good luck getting Bass Pro and Cabalas to stop selling firearms and ammo... But I do most of my shopping at the local gun dealer anyway. They have what I need at reasonable prices and are good for advice if I need it.
Ammo is a legal product, it will be sold one way or another. If not at Wal-Mart, then at the local Gun Dealer, mail order or out of the back of a truck on the street. If you don't like those options, then make your own. The equipment and supplies are cheap and the process isn't that hard, just tedious.
Re: (Score:3)
Good luck getting Bass Pro and Cabalas to stop selling firearms and ammo...
There's one Bass Pro and one Cabelas within reasonable drive my where I live (if I want to drive 2-3 hours, that number expands to about 4). I can be at roughly 5 Wal-Marts within a 45 minute drive. So that will still cut down on availability.
The local gun shops by me have horrible ammo selections anyway unless you only shoot 9mm, .45, 5.56, or 7.62x39. I have to go to Cabelas or the mega gun store about 40 minutes away just to find .30 carbine. I had a hard time even finding 7.62x54.
Speaking of 7.62x54
Re:And nothing of value was lost (Score:4, Informative)
Just buy ammo online.
Watch for coupons, and you can buy in bulk for a discount, free shipping and often no sales tax collected.
Re: (Score:3)
All this does is cut down on how fast you can get ammo, sometimes... It's still out there, but it may take a few days to lay your hands on it.
There are literally 4 gun dealers within a 20 min drive of my house that sell ammo (3 of which have ranges where you can shoot said ammo). There are a few more Wal-Mart Stores in that range, but not that many. I am already forced to buy online or mail order (Or pay outrageous prices at an "Outdoors" national chain). So that's what I do, buy in bulk and just keep it
Re:And nothing of value was lost (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe long riflemen. Far easier for me to get a deal on bulk ammo than load it myself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Gun control will lead to knife control will lead to bomb control will lead to chemicals control... fix the actual problem instead of playing whack-a-mole with the symptoms. No gun control is ever acceptable. If people gotta die because no one wants to actually fix the underlying cause, then let it be blood on the policymaker's hands.
One if by bullet, two if by knife, but dead is dead, so I guess that's alright.
Re:And nothing of value was lost (Score:5, Interesting)
Well... I've just been robbed at gunpoint in a country with very strict gun control (Brazil), and I'm about to visit Switzerland which has one of world's highest gun ownership rates. Let's see which one is safer...
Spoilers: It's the one with the stricter gun control, some of the strictest in the world, that is only seen as a gun nut's paradise if your only knowledge of it comes from NRA propaganda.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Heh I know, for the genuinely ignorant it's fun to ask if the US should have gun laws more like Switzerland's and see how far they'll paint themselves into a corner before they begin to suspect they've been duped.
Re:And nothing of value was lost (Score:5, Insightful)
Read about gun control measures in the USA vs. Switzerland and all will be revealed...it's apples and oranges. Comparing the gun ownership rates alone is meaningless and often used as a red herring.
Re:And nothing of value was lost (Score:5, Informative)
Switzerland is very misleading. It has high gun ownership rates because they have no standing army and instead the citizens are their militia, and they're armed with automatic weapons that are very highly regulated and cannot be used unless ordered by the state. Switzerland has some of the tightest gun control regulations in the world.
Re:And nothing of value was lost (Score:5, Informative)
Well... I've just been robbed at gunpoint in a country with very strict gun control (Brazil), and I'm about to visit Switzerland which has one of world's highest gun ownership rates. Let's see which one is safer...
Switzerland doesn't have favelas and drug gangs like Brazil does. Switzerland also requires that people purchasing ammunition present a passport and a criminal record history or weapons permit. As for the military issued assault rifles for their militia, they are no longer issued ammunition for it and all ammunition was expected to be returned to their local armory.
Re: (Score:3)
A citizen in good standing in Switzerland can purchase a gun with ammunition. An ordinary citizen in Brazil can't.
Gun related violence in Switzerland (Score:3)
and I'm about to visit Switzerland which has one of world's highest gun ownership rates. Let's see which one is safer...
Among the *actual civilized western world*, here in Switzerland we have among the highest gun ownership, and we also have among the highest gun-related violence.
Of course this is absolutely dwarfed by the US, and if you put them on the same scale as us, it seems like nitpicking over tiny variation.
But we're still having more gun-related death than, say, random examples: Japan, Iceland, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Spain, Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Austria. Pay attention to Jap
Re:And nothing of value was lost (Score:5, Informative)
You have learned nothing from history.
Says the guy who ignores the connection between gun control and decreased deaths at the hands of crazy people and violent thugs. Or the fact that man-portable guns didn't keep the Syrians out of death camps, and merely damage the paint of a modern mechanized military. A real student of history, this one.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course there is a connection, so what? There would be a connection between banning alcohol and deaths from alcohol, or opiates and deaths from opiates.
So? As for the beloved trope that "durp, your AR15 won't help against the military" it's barely worth addressing because it's so silly. First, only lunatics (mostly right wing, but some left as well) think we're anywhere near that. But let's pretend the kooks are right and we have a huge civil war because it's magic-land not reality. You seem to think th
Re:And nothing of value was lost (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the data wrong or are you just butthurt that a leftist posted it?
Re:And nothing of value was lost (Score:5, Informative)
Please pay no attention to the statistics that show countries with stricter gun controls have fewer gun deaths. Or the statistics that show having a gun in the house is more likely to lead to the accidental death of a family member than prevention/deterrence of a crime. Just plug your ears and ignore all that and continue living your vigilante fantasy.
Re:And nothing of value was lost (Score:4, Informative)
'Crazy' people are not the big worry. Impulsive, drunk, or angry people are.
Actually, the biggest problem is depressed people.
About 60% of gun deaths in America are suicides.
And it's getting worse. Suicides are rising while homicides are falling.
Re:And nothing of value was lost (Score:4)
that's not true, adequate hunting and self defense ammo sold by Winchester, Federal, Remington, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I'm curious about this guy's standards here.
Re: (Score:3)
they totally ruined Bearmaggeddon (Score:2, Funny)
Re:And nothing of value was lost (Score:4, Insightful)
When retailers no longer fear the gun nuts
And this is where people like you lose people like me. Painting your fellow countrymen with such a broad brush is divisive and counterproductive. Is it not fathomable that a person who purchases ammunition from a Wal-Mart then goes on to use it in a safe and legal manner? If you truly think only murderous 'gun nuts' keep the firearms industry in business, you're ignorant at best.
Re:And nothing of value was lost (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And nothing of value was lost (Score:5, Insightful)
So, you're now saying US citizens, wanting to exercise and enjoy their Second Amendment rights are "gun nuts"....all of them?
I guess I"m also a "Free Speech Nut" too...I kinda like the 1st amendment too, which is just as imporant at the 2nd and all the rest of them.
If you don't want a gun, you're perfectly free to do so....those that want and enjoy them are free to do so too, and continue to do so.
I think the base question is...what has happened to PEOPLE??
I mean, we've had guns around in this country since its founding.
It was MUCH easier to get guns in the past, I mean background checks weren't even a thing till 1998.
Yet, you didn't see as many of these high profile shooting sprees.
Hell, not that long back, you could go to your local hardware store and buy guns, no check, no problems.
So, what is causing mostly young men to go unhinged and just want to take out as many people as possible before they commit suicide by police?
Something has fundamentally changed in society, and I don't know what it is.
Have we stopped raising children to respect human life?
I mean we've had troubled people forever, but usually they just offed themselves if it got that bad, but they didn't try to take out a bunch of innocent people.
I wish we could somehow look at that, as that no weapon I know of has jumped up, chambered it's own round and shot people of its own accord.
And after all, when a drunk person plows into a crowd of people, we don't blame the liquor or auto industry.....we blame that idiot that was operating the vehicle under the influence.
Re:And nothing of value was lost (Score:5, Interesting)
And after all, when a drunk person plows into a crowd of people, we don't blame the liquor or auto industry.....we blame that idiot that was operating the vehicle under the influence.
True, but that doesn't mean we tell people to simply pray not to get run over by drunks, or pass laws making it easier to drink and drive. We have the police set up checkpoints. Local and state governments put out regular ad campaigns to reduce drunk driving. Bars and restaurants are encouraged to look for signs of impairment and some places (and even some local police departments) offer rides home if you drink too much. But no one compares this to Prohibition.
The fact is, there is a certain, large segment of gun owners who consider any talk, any movement towards pushing and advocating for responsible gun ownership and production/sales as tantamount to the government trying to come in and confiscate everyone's guns. To them, there is no middle ground, no compromise.
Re: (Score:3)
because they're not the ones doing most the shootings.
Thousands killed each year by inner city gangs, but we whip up hysteria to take guns from law abiding citizens by some sensationalized shootings with dozens of deaths each year.
Inner city gangs tend to only kill people in their own neighborhoods (which is of course still a problem and plenty of innocent people get caught in the crossfire). These shootings are happening in schools, stores, movie theaters, etc. Places where people expect to feel safe. But you are right, gang killings are the bigger, harder problem. So let's solve the easier problem first: mass shootings.
Re: (Score:3)
There were plenty of shootings during the 70's/80's in schools, stores, movie theaters, etc, (arguably more than today) except they were primarily in the inner cities and you didn't hear about them on sensationalist 24/7 cable news channels. Chicago started putting metal detectors in their schools in the mid-70's.
Re:And nothing of value was lost (Score:4, Interesting)
True, but historically guns were tools. They were necessary for defense and for getting food. Not only that, when our country was founded, guns were very primitive and nowhere near as deadly as they are now.
Also, guns rights advocates always take the 2nd amendment out of context. The first part says, "In order to maintain a well-regulated militia.. the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right to bear arms was DIRECTLY tied to the need to maintain a militia for the nation's defense. This was before America had a standing army.
Guns are not completely the problem. It's our culture that is also to blame. But convenient access to firearms by those with little training and respect for them, have proven to cause lots of problems.
This isn't a situation that has a single, simple solution, but pretending there is no problem, just makes things worse.
You need a license to drive a car. You have to be trained and tested, and regularly you have to re-quality your competence, and there's an elaborate network of checks and balances to make sure people drive safely. You don't have that with guns.
Re: (Score:3)
That's what I've been saying for a long time. "The Second Amendment was written for muskets" is a common liberal phrase parroted, but realistically firearms technology hasn't advanced very much in a long time. The much-maligned AR-15 was introduced in 1959 - 60 years ago. The first variant of what we'd consider a "modern" assault rifle was the Stg-44 introduced in 1943 - 76 years ago. General "machine guns" like the Lewis gun are well over 100 years old.
Yet the whole "mass shooting" craze has really onl
Re: (Score:3)
It's time for some reasonable, common-sense media-control laws. When the 1st Amendment was written, printing presses weren't much advanced from the original Gutenberg press - only capable of a few hundred pages per hour. There was no radio, TV, or Internet. Clearly, none of those advanced f
Re: (Score:3)
As far as I know, nothing. From what I've seen posted elsewhere (someone look it up and tell me if I'm right or wrong, this is all information I've seen in postings so take with a massive grain of salt), actual firearm-related homicides have gone down significantly in the past several decades. What has gone up is firearm-related suicides and media coverage of firearm
Re:And nothing of value was lost (Score:4, Interesting)
Wrong, a gun is a weapon, not a tool. It is designed to kill living things at a distance and isn't terribly useful for anything else. There are better tools or toys for any other use.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny, my guns have had thousands of rounds through them, and they have never killed a single living thing.
They have put a lot of 2L soda bottles and trashcans and other misc type things out of their misery, but never any living, breathing inhabitant of this earth.
A gun does nothing by discharge and send a projectile down ra
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite correct, at least at our local Walmart: they were selling 200 rounds of Federal Red Box 9mm for $33, which was cheap enough to buy locally instead of buying online. But, if they don't want that money, interested customers will take it elsewhere I'm sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Walmart already didn't sell any ammo that was really useful for anything other than target practice, and for that there are plenty of other retailers that are far cheaper than Walmart.
Could you qualify what sort of ammo it was that they sold that was "only good for target practice"?
Re: (Score:2)
Target practice ammo or range ammo is usually FMJ (full metal jacket). It shoots a bullet that doesn't expand when hitting a target. Self defense ammo is usually hollow point, a bullet that expands by rolling back the edges when hitting a target. FMJ is cheaper to use and not desirable in self defense mode as it can go right thru the target and hit what's on the other side while a hollow point bullet is usually more expensive and doesn't exit the target.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not completely true (Score:4, Interesting)
It was the first place I'd look for decent .357 ammo because they sold yellow-box Remington ammo at a decent price.
More importantly, the real issue is with supply. When there's no cheap alternative, the remaining sellers can ratchet up their prices.
Re: (Score:3)
This gun control thing in the United States has already gone too far. We should enact the 2nd amendment exactly as it is written.
Every child in the US should be issued one AR-15 assault rifle at birth. They should also be issued 30 round magazine and 1,000 rounds of ammunition. LIke wise every child born is to be issued one 9mm handgun, with a 14 round magazine and 1,000 rounds of ammunition. Every child in the United States it to be trained in the use of these weapons at the age of eight years of a
That'll definitely work (Score:3, Insightful)
They will also end drownings by not selling wading pools anymore.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And one store or group of stores stopping the sale of ammunition will not save a single person either, so what is the real point of this?
Walmart just loses revenue, its their loss. They will just be bought somewhere else.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed, less than 0.2% (Score:5, Informative)
> One of the things I hate about how this debate has shifted is the focus on mass murder, which is an exceedingly rare type of crime even if it gets the headlines.
That's one thing we can agree on.
Mass shootings accounted for less than two-tenths of 1% (0.2%) of all homicides in the United States between 2000 and 2016. If we wanted to stop murder we'd be talking about domestic violence and stalkers.
If we wanted to stop people from being killed, we'd be trying to address the 40,000 killed in the US every year by bad driving. Failure to use turn signals alone kills more people than all the guns.
Do you have any thoughts on addressing domestic violence?
Re: (Score:3)
Guns are not designed to shoot paper targets, they are design to inflict damage. You are kidding yourself if you don't think a gun's primary purpose is to inflict damage. The paper targets are to practice inflicting the damage.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, my analogy falls apart because it is about something that blows up, not because we're talking about things that were designed with the purpose of warfare and killing people *eyeroll*
If we're going to talk about being disingenuous, lets talk about your claim that "A firearm is designed to launch a projectile in a known, controlled direction." I'm sure that was the only goal when developing the very first firearms... purely the need to launch a projectile in a known, controlled direction. Think about all
Re: (Score:2)
They will also end drownings by not selling wading pools anymore.
While I agree that their action is unlikely to affect the homicide rate, at all, that analogy doesn't really hold water, because the thing they're refusing to sell any more is a major component of the tool used to commit most homicides in this country.
At the very least, it makes a lot more sense than their decision a while ago to stop selling modern rifles, which don't play a statistically-significant role in the murder rate.
Re: (Score:3)
So, dead people isn't the issue. Thanks for making that clear. It is the mode of death that matters. Thanks for enlightening us on your standard of virtue.
2016 statistics: 11,004 gun homicides, 65% handguns, 6% rifle/shotgun, 30% other/unknown type. 67 identified as being by "rifle". You think that 30/30, 3006, .227, 5.56 ... etc are a horrible problem? And, if you take out the top 5 Cities, (Detroit, Chicago, Philly, DC, NewOrleans) the totals drop dramatically.
But we aren't allowed to talk about those cit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The murder rate in the united states is Far below Historic highs.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe... [fivethirtyeight.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I know you're going to say "NO YOU'RE TEH REAL RACIST!" to the first person to call out your white-nationalist dog whistling, so here I am: Take that shit to Stormfront, or better yet take some pills in a bunker. Fight me, Adolf, I've got all day.
Not the best move, not the worst... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm mostly with you on this.
It is convenient to buy ammo at Wal-Mart, but there are plenty of gun shops available. Prices will go up a bit, but hey.
I'm not sure open carry in many venues is either helpful or wise. It is provocative. It's possibly unnecessary, a concealed weapon can be drawn almost as quickly, and if you're not that skilled you need to reconsider your carry, which is why I do not carry.
But we continue to see these devastating incidents involving either illegally obtained weapons, emotionally
Re:Not the best move, not the worst... (Score:5, Insightful)
... and open carry makes it more likely you will be the first one targeted in an actual active shooter situation (you also have higher odds of someone trying to take it away from you).
Open or concealed carry, if you are holding a gun when SWAT shows up it also increases your likelihood of being mistaken for the shooter and shot by SWAT by several orders of magnitude, especially if you are not white. Not that I can blame them for being confused, they get a call about a shooting rampage at a Wallmart, enter the scene and there's a dozen people with guns, which one is the shooter? There's a video on YouTube of two of these SWAT troopers shooting a guy they had crawling on the floor doing some insanely complex demented version of 'Simon says' because he moved his hand behind his shoulder [youtube.com]. I can only imagine what these SWAT guys would do in in a situation where they are confronted by a dozen guys carrying guns of whom one is a mad shooter and eleven are concealed or open carry citizens.
Re: (Score:3)
And this is why you should continue to train after you've gotten a CCL. This has come up in several training sessions (usually but not always in the context of an active shooter scenario), and the trainers' response has always been (paraphrasing a bit):
"If you're more worried about SWAT than you are about the active shooter, seek cover, leave the area, and be prepared to render first aid if required or requested. Nobody has ever been arrested or shot by Law Enforcement for failure to engage an active shoo
Re: (Score:3)
And this is why you should continue to train after you've gotten a CCL. This has come up in several training sessions (usually but not always in the context of an active shooter scenario), and the trainers' response has always been (paraphrasing a bit):
"If you're more worried about SWAT than you are about the active shooter, seek cover, leave the area, and be prepared to render first aid if required or requested. Nobody has ever been arrested or shot by Law Enforcement for failure to engage an active shooter."
All of the trainers I've worked with have suggested setting up behavior triggers: if someone does something, what will you do? If it's an armed robbery, will you attempt to stop the robber? If it's an active shooter targeting the public at large? Targeting a woman or a child? Targeting your spouse or children? Are you willing to engage an active shooter to prevent greater loss of life, knowing that there are very good odds that you'll be engaged not only by SWAT/Law Enforcement, but also by other concealed carriers on scene who may not take the time to sort out good guys from bad?
Only the carrier can make that decision in that moment.
One of my often proposed elements of what I consider sane gun control is a requirement to attend an initial training session followed by yearly recurrent training covering basic firearm safety, handling, marksmanship, laws, and scenarios. Anyone that is carrying a gun in public should have had to demonstrate at least basic marksmanship skills and know the proper way to handle the most likely scenarios(when to draw, when to engage, when to avoid, etc).
Re:Not the best move, not the worst... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd wager there wouldn't be a need for SWAT if 11 armed citizens were near an active shooter.
Really? I don't know the people at my local supermarket from Adam 99.95% of the time. These are total strangers. So there you are, with your little Glock tucked into your shoulder holster and somebody starts shooting. You pull your Glock, 10 other people pull their, pistols or shoulder their AR-15 or AK-47, you head for cover, a guy rounds a corner coming from the general direction of the shooting carrying an AK, is he the shooter? ... what do you do? ... do you shoot him? ... maybe he is another concealed or open carry citizen but if you hesitate he will really mess you up with a burst of 7.62 from that AK. Now let's say he is a citizen but he gets nervous and shoots at you, you shoot back, next thing you know everybody with a gun is shooting at everybody else with a gun. I'd wager half those 11 carry citizens have shot or wounded each other by the time SWAT even arrives, and we haven't even begun to talk about .45 cal, 9 mm, 223 cal and 7.62 mm rounds tearing through produce shelves, ricocheting off walls and hitting bystanders, especially when some open carry person opens up with a semi auto and empties a 30 round mag (which seems to be legal to own in Texas).
Re: (Score:2)
If I saw someone open carrying and then heard there was an active shooter. I'm probably going to be instantly hostile to him if I see him again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, do you think there's a mass number of dudes carrying guns places legally then getting pissed and shooting people? Sure, it happens, but it's typically gangland shit and it's not like they're going to obey the law and stop carrying.
You people never really understand the problem. If you wanted to stop the most deaths in the US from guns you'd outlaw plain old semi automatic pistols. Nothing else even comes close gun-wise, rifles including AR15's are in the noise. Similarly, people carrying guns legally
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like they aren't even banning open carry, per se, merely asking customers not to.
I just wish.... (Score:2)
If companies/people want to do stuff like this i wish they would do it and just shut up. I guess the feel like it's good, free advertising.
Typical reaction though. Wd have a couple apples with worms in them. Let's cut down the orchard.
As for the article here.... i fail to see the tech angle. That seems to be a growing trend.
Re: (Score:2)
See Dick's for a perfect example of "feel good" policies and "How feel good policies can impact the bottom line."
dumb (Score:2)
the weapon used in mass shooting was not the type sold at Walmart.
Mainstream hunting, target and self defense ammo sold there. That ammo used by normal people for intended purpose.
Walmart greeters will now wear body armor (Score:2)
So sad (Score:2)
Bad headline (Score:2)
They asked people to not openly carry. You can concealed carry all you want.
Slashdot... News for nerds (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
My prediction: if a ban actually worked, liberals will end up watching U-Hauls being loaded down with heavy garbage and rammed into large crowds of people. /p>
It's a lot easier and cheaper to build anti vehicle barriers around schools, buildings, and pedestrian areas than it is to hand out bullet proof vests to everyone or send every kid to school with a Kevlar backpack. Metal/concrete posts, large concrete planters, etc. A lot of them can and are designed in such a way that they aren't even noticeable as barriers.
Re: (Score:3)
Or you could just absorb the fewer-than-1000 deaths from rifles including AR15's in the US as the laughable noise, statistically, that they are and grow up.
I was reading some nonsense about someone lamenting the fact that to live in the US now you have to know trauma care. No you fucking don't, what kind of imaginary bullshit world do people live in? The odds of you being involved in any way in a mass shooting are fucking minuscule, absolutely tiny. You'd be much more likely to save lives learning to give t
Re: (Score:3)
Or you could just absorb the fewer-than-1000 deaths from rifles including AR15's in the US as the laughable noise, statistically, that they are and grow up.
I'd still rather have sub-1k per year deaths from truck ramming than I would AR-15s. But the gun control I support doesn't place any additional restrictions on which firearms can be legally owned. I prefer mandatory licensing and training (including yearly recurring training), classifying any magazine over 30 rounds as NFA much like silencers, and mandatory background checks for privates sales/transfers.
Re:They want to renew the AWB (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's look at the data [wikipedia.org]. The murder rate in the US is 5.3 per 100,000 inhabitants. The very highest rate of any country in western Europe is 1.7 in Belgium. Clearly Europe has proved that restricting guns doesn't work.
guns are different than knives (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No, what we need is a society where people don't kill people - regardless of what tool they use. We have a society (at least, in terms of the vast majority of shootings) where "disrespect" is considered worthy of death. We have a culture that's moved from "respect your neighbors, be courteous" to one where it is applauded to take from people if you feel you don't have "enough", and that your own self-image is more important than society as a whole.
It's not the tool (gun, knife, bat, car, bomb) - it's a cu
Re: (Score:3)
When the President's bodyguards stop carrying guns, it'll be time for me to consider getting rid of mine.
so, unless someone wants to amend the Constitution, people are going to own guns. Get over it...
Re: (Score:3)
It's just as well you don't look into how people dress at the Wal-Mart here...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
tell me about the rules at the places during the November 2015 Paris attacks. Were the "no bomb" and "no gun" rules followed?
Re: (Score:3)
oh so submachine gun import bans don't work either?
I live in city where guns are sold over the counter and there is no violent crime.
Meanwhile, in big inner cities two ethnic groups with no regard for family structure and morals carry out most the murders with handguns. A major political party gets elected by pandering to those groups and so they don't crack down on crime, gangs, etc. with easy to implement policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stop murder by turning in your guns (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually country-wide gun bans are effective. Just compare about any other developed country to the USA. Less hand guns, less assault riffles, and less murders.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
right, that's working so well in Mexico.
Or, you're wrong and have no point.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No excuse for poor mental health care when you spend far more than other developed countries for your health system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:It makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, you have a guy who wants to kill a bunch of people - you can bet that a Walmart policy will stop people like him.
This is the thought process imagined by the anti-gun crowd:
"Well, gee, I'd love to go illegally kill a bunch of people in Walmart, but Walmart doesn't want me to carry a gun in there so I'll go somewhere else :("
People like that don't care about committing crimes that carry the death penalty as a punishment - they're really not going to care about Walmart not wanting them to openly carry a gun.
It's probably more to stop people like that dumbass that decided two days after the El Paso shooting to walk around a Wal-Mart in tactical gear and an AR-15 as a "social experiment". We've gotten to a point in this country where getting nervous and concerned is a rational response to seeing someone walking around open carry. Hell, there's even a good chance the open carry guy walking around walmart gets popped by a conceal carry guy thinking he's planning to shoot up the place.
Re: (Score:3)
People who actually own and carry guns tend to actually the relevant laws.
I beg to differ [nytimes.com]. Most actually do not know the laws, because there is no requirement that you do so. I believe there should be as a requirement for owning a firearm, as well as having demonstrated basic marksmanship ability and knowledge of safe firearm practices. These 3 things alone would address a significant portion of firearm deaths in this country.
Re:It makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
If people's rights to own and carry guns are to be respected, there has to be a discussion of context.
If I see a guy in the woods dressed for hunting carrying a hunting rifle I am not alarmed. If I see someone walking into a range with a rifle slung across his back I am not concerned. If I see my father in law with a shotgun in his back yard I am not concerned.
If I see someone with their semi automatic rifle gripped in hand walking through the mall I get the kids away from there.