Walmart announces major plans to scale back gun sales

[Mister44]

How are we getting lost in the forest for the trees here? Yes all of those examples are bigoted - that’s the point. (And bigoted doesn’t apply to JUST a person’s inherent trait.)

The point is:

Lumping in everyone of a group of people as one thing is bad. Unequivocally.

These example were too broad?

Ok - how about:

Not all jocks are dumb.

Not all gamers are loser incels in their moms basement.

Not all people who get good grades are nerds with no social skills.

Not all “feminists” are shrill man-haters

Not all “hipsters” are snowflakes who can’t handle real life.

Not all vegans are annoying holier-than-thous about their diet choice.

Not all democrats are really secret communists.

Not all farmers are inbred hicks.

ETC, ETC, ETC.

Or are all these comparisons invalid? Does anyone here does think it is ok to conflate the “average” gun owner with either a mass shooters or criminals as if they are the same thing? I don’t think anyone is explicitly saying that (if they are, by all means, back up your opinion). But it certainly is IMPLIED. Certainly no one is saying, “No, no, you’re right, we shouldn’t conflate the two.”

@Backie

If these bullets are so cheap it could really hurt the criminals the most just by the increased cost of purchase.

Look, if you’re a mass shooter expecting to go out in a blaze of glory, you just don’t pay rent for a month. Double the cost of ammo, they could still afford it. How many bullets do you think criminals go through in a month? Probably next to none. They buy ONE box and it could last them a year, while a guy going to a shooting match needs to buy 4 to complete all the rounds. People who practice every weekend buy more. Overwhelmingly the people buying the bulk of the ammo are the people into shooting sports or regular users. Or even occasional users who only get out a few times a year, go back home, or visit with friends, and they stock up a little here and a little there during the year.

Like I said - it isn’t the end of the world. Walmart wasn’t always the cheapest, but they did have some ammo that was cheap and it was convenient. You can go to a sporting goods store and get the same stuff for not that much more, or order online and possibly get it for less, depending on shipping.

But I don’t see this move affecting crime in the least, it is just making it a bit inconvenient for some people, and doesn’t actually affect availability.

@Backie

Like a membership card that says you can have guns and ammo.

You mean like a license to buy ammo? Of all the things suggested, I’ve said licenses I could live with. This would target people who are already on the prohibited list.

@Pradaldi

This idea homosexuality somehow lead to paedophilia is just a bigoted talking point with no basis.

You’re right there is no basis - but it is a belief. There are gay men who prey on young boys. It is a small minority, MOST gay men do not. The most well known cases are the Catholic priest scandals. But even then, MOST Catholic priests are not pedophiles. But people conflate the two all the time. See above.

[Pradaldi]

Still a bad argument, just drop it, if you need to explain it to everyone IT’S JUST BAD.

And still no idea to give us on how the US can solve its mass shooting problem ?
Not even a small one ? Come on, don’t let us down.

[Brainspore]

@Mister44

Lumping in everyone of a group of people as one thing is bad.

No one is suggesting all gun owners are violent criminals. That is a classic straw man argument and you don’t do your credibility any favors by repeating it.

The vast majority of people who buy explosives use them for peaceful, legal purposes like demolition. It does not follow that those who seek to regulate the manufacture, sale and use of explosives are “bigoted” against those who use explosives.

[8-p]

@Mister44

First off, not sure why you’re bringing up “conservatives”, no one has mentioned them.

Because the comparisons you made are typical conservative talking points demonizing the exact groups you listed. Just watch FOX on any given day. If you don’t know that, you aren’t paying attention. Do all self-identifying conservatives believe this? No. But it’s more than a few. It’s a huge chunk of the idiot in chief’s supporting base.

Let’s look at a couple quotes from you:

@Mister44

Just like the average person with mental illness is not violent.

The average Mexican or South American immigrant is not in MS-13, a drug cartel, or otherwise a criminal.

The average Muslim is not a terrorist.

The average homosexual is not a pedophile.

And all the other groups who have bad elements within them which negatively taints the rest of them.

Focus on that last sentence. It’s important.

Also,

@Mister44

o_0 LOL - what? No, not at all. These are examples of large groups of people who get labeled due to a very small minority of bad actors within them.

Let’s not be erecting fantastic strawmen to burn down.

Here the important part is “get labeled due to a very small minority of bad actors within them”

Do you see the problem?

None of the groups on the right (violent people, terrorists, etc.) are proper subsets of the groups on the left. Violent people are not a subset of mentally ill people any more than bank tellers are a subset of mentally ill people. The groupings are COMPLETELY orthogonal. The fact that some mentally ill people happen to also be violent is not significant as many more violent people are not mentally ill. Lets extend this to the other groups: Many terrorists are not muslim (there is a rising tide of non-Islamic homegrown U.S. terrorism happening right now, although it isn’t exactly new). Many criminals/gang members are not immigrants (In the U.S. immigrants are responsible for less crime than native born citizens, even after accounting for population size). Many pedophiles are not homosexuals (I’d say by far most are hetero, although I don’t have statistics on hand).

The problem with the demonizing being normalized among Trump’s cronies and apologists is not at all mitigated by suggesting the entire group isn’t responsible and that it’s just a subset of ‘bad apples’ tainting (to use your word) the overall group. The truth is those ‘bad apples’ exist outside the groups being demonized often to an equal or greater degree. When you realize that, the motives for the rhetoric become a lot clearer.

[DukeTrout]

@Mister44

Lumping in everyone of a group of people as one thing is bad. Unequivocally.

You are not part of an oppressed minority. That’s what’s offensive about the metaphor you are using. Using it as cover for a hobby you enjoy, that is enabling the deaths of thousands, makes it doubly offensive.

You are part of a privledged minority who sees their hobby as more important than the lives of tens of thousands of your neighbors, friends, and family members.

The “99.9% of gun owners are responsible” is also a line of BS. The line between “responsible gun owner” is not defined as “hasn’t murdered anyone (yet).” There are hundreds of incidents every day that don’t get compiled into the FBI’s gun death database that are still tragedies. There are tens of thousands of firearm injuries per year, due to malice, self-harm, and accidents. There are tens of thousands more where no one is hurt, but only through sheer luck. So your 99.9% number is full of it.

[mjlonsda]

I’ve probably been saying that wrong for years. Thanks! Clearly I’ve never filled out the form myself

[jaded]

What, you’ve never heard of an ammosexual before?

[Steve_L]

@DeclanMcManus

Also, if your firearms philosophy cites Spider-Man, it may not hold up to scrutiny, you know?

Just because a quote comes from a fictional character that doesn’t necessarily make it false or worthless. Looking at the Wikiquote page for Power I find a quote from a former Prime Minister of the UK that’s very close to Ben Parker’s:

@William Lamb

The possession of great power necessarily implies great responsibility.

“With great power comes great responsibility” is slightly shorter to say, and more people today are likely to be familiar with the context of a quote from Spider-Man than one from a speech given by a 19th century Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

[Mister44]

@Brainspore

No one is suggesting all gun owners are violent criminals. That is a classic straw man argument and you don’t do your credibility any favors by repeating it.

They aren’t? Have you not read the same comments dripping with contempt and slurs that I have? Like I said, it isn’t yet explicit, but it certainly is implied. (Nor is it everyone, of course.)

There is clearly many examples in various threads where people are just happy to be “sticking it to ammosexuals” or see it as a blow to “gun culture”. Like this specific examples does NOTHING to help combat mass shootings nor general homicide, but we get comments like “it is going to make buying guns and ammo at Walmart less normal” like THAT is the cause of mass shootings and homicides. Is that not conflation?

@8-p

Because the comparisons you made are typical conservative talking points demonizing the exact groups you listed.

Yes, they are, and something that I imagine 99+% of people on BB disagree with. They are clear examples where conflation of the two groups is wrong.

But instead of agreement, everyone is up an arms about my examples. Which tells me, and please, correct me if I am wrong, is that while they may agree that my examples show clear examples of a group getting demonize by the minority - they don’t quite see it the same way when it comes to gun owners. It isn’t nearly as separate.

@8-p

None of the groups on the right (violent people, terrorists, etc.) are proper subsets of the groups on the left.

So, are you saying that violent murders ARE a proper subset of gun owners? Because if not then yes, I agree with your point. If you are saying they are, then I am going to have to ask more questions.

As to your other examples, of course none of my examples meant that there weren’t others. Of course they are domestic terrorists, domestic criminals, and straight pedophiles.

@DukeTrout

The “99.9% of gun owners are responsible” is also a line of BS.

I never said that. I said they don’t murder anyone, which is true. If there are 15,000 gun murders per year with 80 million gun owners, that is 0.01875%

You want to factor in accidents and suicides it is about 40,000 deaths per year, which is 0.05%.

You’re right, there are more injuries both intentional and accidental. I have never claimed that there are 99.9% of responsible gun owners - I don’t think there are that many responsible people anywhere for anything.

I’ve said before if want wants laws changed etc, fine. I have a problem with all of the contempt and mis-characterization I’ve seen.

[Brainspore]

@Mister44

They aren’t? Have you not read the same comments dripping with contempt and slurs that I have? Like I said, it isn’t yet explicit, but it certainly is implied. (Nor is it everyone, of course.)

That contempt is for people who think their ability to enjoy their hobby without being inconvenienced in any way is more important than, say, a child’s ability to attend school without being gunned down by a psychopath with military-grade weaponry.

When I hear people rail against white supremacy or toxic masculinity I don’t perceive it as an insult because even though I’m a white man I still find those ideologies off-putting and destructive. By the same token, it’s possible to be a reasonable law-abiding gun owner and still recognize American gun culture has gotten out of hand and needs to be reigned in to reduce the ridiculous level of ongoing gun violence in this country.

[DukeTrout]

@Mister44

But instead of agreement, everyone is up an arms about my examples. Which tells me, and please, correct me if I am wrong, is that while they may agree that my examples show clear examples of a group getting demonize by the minority - they don’t quite see it the same way when it comes to gun owners. It isn’t nearly as separate.

YOU ARE NOT AN OPPRESSED MINORITY.

[Magdalene]

@Mister44

So, are you saying that violent murders ARE a proper subset of gun owners? Because if not then yes, I agree with your point. If you are saying they are, then I am going to have to ask more questions.

Are you suggesting that those people who do use guns to kill or to commit crimes are not gun owners?

[Backie]

@Mister44

But I don’t see this move affecting crime in the least, it is just making it a bit inconvenient for some people, and doesn’t actually affect availability.

Backie:

Like a membership card that says you can have guns and ammo.

You mean like a license to buy ammo? Of all the things suggested, I’ve said licenses I could live with. This would target people who are already on the prohibited list.

It seems from reading your comments (in this and every other gun thread) that the only things that could ever work are things you agree with. I’m not saying you have a bias but the rest of the world keeps proving what works. While the USA reminds the rest of the world what doesn’t.

I’m not really surprised you agree with an ammo license. I think it fits well into your general guns and ammo comments. You mainly trying to reply to people with a lack of experience with guns. I’m no psychic but something tells me you would be against all restrictions in regards to handloading though. Especially in regards to powder sales.

[Backie]

Look I’m not interested in blaming you on every gun crime but like I have said on here the issue with guns in the USA is the gun culture.

I got introduced to a guy one time who worked for Amnesty International. He asked if I wanted to do some coke with him. The moral gymnastics interested me more then the cocaine. He saw no link between his drug of choice and his profession. He saw it as an example of antiquated drug laws and US involvement in South American politics or something.

The USA gun owner to me is like him. It’s just a thing you do. You rationalise, you aren’t killing people. My opinion is though like with him you are supporting the industry. In the only way that matters with money then defending it for free.

[Mister44]

@DukeTrout

YOU ARE NOT AN OPPRESSED MINORITY.

I’m not saying I am.

@Magdalene

Are you suggesting that those people who do use guns to kill or to commit crimes are not gun owners?

I’ve said they are gun owners. Now, are they a proper subset of gun owners where their actions should color everyone else? Should all gun owners be treated like a potential mass shooter or criminals? Is this conflation somehow a rare exception to the rule and is ok? If so, why?

@Brainspore

That contempt is for people who think their ability to enjoy their hobby without being inconvenienced in any way is more important than, say, a child’s ability to attend school without being gunned down by a psychopath with military-grade weaponry.

Well I feel that is a BS way of presenting the issue. I mean, if I care about X I don’t care about Y? You’re telling me that is not bullshit?

There are a lot of people who own and use guns who don’t share my hard line stance, including wanting more gun control. Some of them on this very forum. Is it possible some of the comments are a bit broad in their contempt?

@Brainspore

When I hear people rail against white supremacy or toxic masculinity I don’t perceive it as an insult because even though I’m a white man I still find those ideologies off-putting and destructive

I don’t get insulted because not only do I agree with the overall point of those two things, but MOST people aren’t conflating ALL males with toxic masculinity, or all whites with white supremacy.

And most the time when someone DOES take offense, it is because 1) the person making the statement doesn’t do good job making the point (hey, we all know how that feels), 2) the statement was taken out of context, or 3) The statement was filtered and/or twisted by a third party.

I’ve talked to people about toxic masculinity and they think it is an attack on them and traditional male traits. For example when the Gillette ad came out at the Super Bowl. They’re obviously wrong about what toxic masculinity is about, but the only reason MOST of them are upset about it is because the issue has been conflated so they think that masculinity is the problem, not specific negative parts about masculinity.

One example I like to give them is vets who feel less of a man for needing help and ending up committing suicide. Another is the idea of the Sheepdog and Wolf - the Wolf is who is using toxic masculinity.

@Brainspore

By the same token, it’s possible to be a reasonable law-abiding gun owner and still recognize American gun culture has gotten out of hand and needs to be reigned in to reduce the ridiculous level of ongoing gun violence in this country.

And that is my point right there. What is the “American gun culture”? What, specifically, about gun culture is creating mass shooters or criminals? The people I know who own guns has nothing in common with mass shooters or people who use guns for crime. Can’t stand Ted Nugent? Me too! Don’t like the NRA? Out of ~80 million gun owners, only 5 million are paying members. Don’t like “assault weapons”, there are many who don’t own a single one. There are many different reasons people own guns, different uses, and for all walks of life.

I’m glad you brought up toxic masculinity, because that probably is a good analogy here. My point is there is conflation, and when you use the term “gun culture”, well, what is that? Everyone? Some people? The good parts? The bad parts? Which parts are bad?

If you could select specific issues, then we could address those. I have two that I can think: People who are lax on safety out of either ignorance or they just don’t care, and 2) people whose personality clashes with the responsibility of carrying a gun and escalates a situation instead of deescalates. You find me an examples of people doing these things and I will condemn them, and so will the majority of gun owners. So are these people the problem if they are the first to condemn these bad actors? (ETA - in hindsight, I’d contend those two examples aren’t even part of “gun culture”, as the rules and ideal usually espoused condemn those things. I suppose it is two of the negative trait someone people into guns have.)

Saying that Walmart selling less guns and less ammo thus making them some how “less normal” and reducing mass shootings and criminals, I am afraid one is going to have to explain that to me and show how those dots line up. People buying ammo at walmart isn’t part of any culture that leads to mass shooters. It’s just regular people buy ammo.

Heck several of the shooters were relatively new gun owners, they didn’t grow up around guns, had guns for years, and then decided to hurt a lot of people. They decided to hurt a lot of people and then got guns. They weren’t part of any “gun culture”. Their part of some other culture and they got a gun.

@Backie

I’m no psychic but something tells me you would be against all restrictions in regards to handloading though. Especially in regards to powder sales.

I’m no psychic either, so I have no idea why you would bring this up. What would hand loading have to do with mass shooters or criminals? I mean, I have never heard of anyone using handloads in crime. It takes some time and gear and knowledge to do it properly. It is another signal that one doesn’t care about focusing on the bad actors, it’s just focused on everyone and everything.

@Backie

I got introduced to a guy one time who worked for Amnesty International. He asked if I wanted to do some coke with him… The USA gun owner to me is like him. It’s just a thing you do. You rationalise, you aren’t killing people. My opinion is though like with him you are supporting the industry.

He’s right the drug laws are antiquated and prohibition of drugs, even hard drugs, has just lead to a lot of bad things.

It is ironic that someone probably died getting that coke to him in either the making of, smuggling, or selling. Now we have even more people dying from legally made and illegally traded drugs. So I guess because I have to use opioids, I’m on the hook for those deaths too? Well, shit, I am double damned.

[DukeTrout]

@Mister44

I’m not saying I am.

That’s exactly what you are saying! Or do you not understand how metaphors work?

@Mister44

But instead of agreement, everyone is up an arms about my examples. Which tells me, and please, correct me if I am wrong, is that while they may agree that my examples show clear examples of a group getting demonize by the minority - they don’t quite see it the same way when it comes to gun owners. It isn’t nearly as separate.

@Mister44

The problem I have is conflating the average gun user (around 80 million of them) with mass shooters or people involved in illicit activities. There is SOME overlap, obviously, but the average gun owner hurts no one and had no desire to.

Just like the average person with mental illness is not violent.

The average Mexican or South American immigrant is not in MS-13, a drug cartel, or otherwise a criminal.

The average Muslim is not a terrorist.

The average homosexual is not a pedophile.

And all the other groups who have bad elements within them which negatively taints the rest of them.

Whether it was your intent or not, your argument really clearly comes down to, “quit picking on me and my poor, oppressed fellow gun owners! We’re not all bad people!”

[alahmnat]

@Mister44

I’m not saying I am.

No, you’re just comparing yourself to a lot of them. Maybe stop doing that.

@Mister44

Now, are they a proper subset of gun owners where their actions should color everyone else?

Here’s the thing: Muslims don’t have a monopoly on religious extremism. Latin Americans don’t have a monopoly on gang violence. Gay people don’t have a monopoly on pedophilia. Their negative stereotypes do not have anything to do with the group to which they belong.

However, gun owners pretty much do have a monopoly on killing people with guns. The latter is intrinsically a subset of the former in a way that is absolutely not the case with any of the other groups and their negative stereotypes that you thought it would be a good idea to compare yourself to.

@Mister44

Should all gun owners be treated like a potential mass shooter or criminals?

Well, I’m certainly going to treat them more like potential mass shooters than people who don’t own a gun. Y’know, since it’s hard to commit a mass shooting without one. If someone feels like it’s appropriate to carry a firearm in public (spoiler: it’s not) and I see them, you can bet your fucking ass I’m going to give them a wide berth and start scanning for exits. How do I know they’re a “Responsible Gun Owner” and not a “Responsible Gun Owner Until They Do Something Deeply Illegal And Also Extremely Deadly”? How do I know if they’re having a bad day and interacting with them will set them off unexpectedly? How do I know they won’t instantly escalate a minuscule conflict to fatal levels?

@Mister44

If you could select specific issues, then we could address those. I have two that I can think: People who are lax on safety out of either ignorance or they just don’t care, and 2) people whose personality clashes with the responsibility of carrying a gun and escalates a situation instead of deescalates. You find me an examples of people doing these things and I will condemn them, and so will the majority of gun owners. So are these people the problem if they are the first to condemn these bad actors?

Considering that your stated position is that nothing can (and therefore, should) be done to stop people like this from owning guns in the first place because it’s some magical “right” given to them by God and The Founders for reasons that you’ve consistently had a terrible fucking time explaining, then yes. Yes, you are the problem.

@Mister44

Heck several of the shooters were relatively new gun owners, they didn’t grow up around guns, had guns for years, and then decided to hurt a lot of people. They decided to hurt a lot of people and then got guns. They weren’t part of any “gun culture”. Their part of some other culture and they got a gun.

A significant part of America’s gun culture (by which we mean “the way America in general conceptualizes the utility and importance of guns” and not “how gun-owners see themselves”) is the widespread notion that guns are an acceptable mechanism for solving problems under pretty much every circumstance. They are not (or at least, they are not in a civil society). A lot of other countries understand that this is genuinely stupid, but America has this fantastical, mythical conception of the Old West and the Rugged Individual (which, incidentally, have no connection with the actual history of this country) that reinforces this notion that toughness and “force” are the most important things about being a Man, and the more tough and the stronger the force, the better. Gun culture and toxic masculinity are inextricably connected to each other because they reinforce one another.

@Mister44

Saying that Walmart selling less guns and less ammo thus making them some how “less normal” and reducing mass shootings and criminals, I am afraid one is going to have to explain that to me and show how those dots line up. People buying ammo at walmart isn’t part of any culture that leads to mass shooters. It’s just regular people buy ammo.

Regular people in sane countries don’t feel like it’s necessary to purchase boxes of ammunition with their gallon of milk and skinny jeans. That’s my entire point. The pervasiveness of guns in America and American culture is not and should not be thought of as “normal”, and any steps that can be taken to advance us toward that end goal is fantastic. If you want ammo to use at the shooting range, go buy it at the damn range (hell, go rent a gun at the range if you just want to target shoot). If you use a rifle to hunt, I’m sure there are specialty stores that will fulfill your needs. There’s no god-damned reason for lethal weapons to be available for sale at the local grocery store, nor is there any universe where it should be considered “normal” to walk around in public with one slung over your shoulder like it’s NBD.

[Brainspore]

@Mister44

I don’t get insulted because not only do I agree with the overall point of those two things, but MOST people aren’t conflating ALL males with toxic masculinity, or all whites with white supremacy.

And I don’t think most people are condemning ALL gun owners when they use terms like “ammosexuals.” They’re condemning people who have such an absolutist view toward guns that they prioritize unrestricted access to firearms over legitimate concerns about the human carnage created by such policies.

My grandfather had several shotguns and hunting rifles. I wouldn’t have ever referred to him as an “ammosexual” or “gun nut” because he kept them safely locked away when he wasn’t hunting and he thought of them as useful but highly dangerous tools rather than a core element of his identity.

@Mister44

And that is my point right there. What is the “American gun culture”? What, specifically, about gun culture is creating mass shooters or criminals?

“American gun culture” refers to the uniquely American view that all (or at least most) civilians should have nearly unlimited access to firearms. This approach doesn’t “create” mass shooters and criminals, but it does arm them. If Walmart sold dynamite over the counter it wouldn’t “create” terrorists and mass murderers, but it would make it a hell of a lot easier for terrorists and mass murderers to blow people up. Luckily the cultural norms and laws surrounding explosives in this country are very different than the cultural norms and laws surrounding guns.

[Magdalene]

@Mister44

I’ve said they are gun owners. Now, are they a proper subset of gun owners where their actions should color everyone else? Should all gun owners be treated like a potential mass shooter or criminals? Is this conflation somehow a rare exception to the rule and is ok? If so, why?

It’s not a conflation.

If you have a firearm in your posession, you are a gun owner. If you use it in service of crime, violence, or terror you are still a gun owner.

As it stands, guns are by far the most popular choice of weapon for criminals and yes, mass shooters -the unique brand of home-grown American terror. Mass killers who were just like a billion other people until they weren’t.

At the end of the day it’s not even only about "gun owners. After all, if a person with no guns has a sudden violent urge but is unable to secure firearms or ammunution, so much the better for all of us.

[8-p]

@Mister44

@8-p

Because the comparisons you made are typical conservative talking points demonizing the exact groups you listed.

Yes, they are, and something that I imagine 99+% of people on BB disagree with. They are clear examples where conflation of the two groups is wrong.

But instead of agreement, everyone is up an arms about my examples…

If you don’t understand why people have a problem with your examples, either you aren’t reading people’s responses, or you are being disingenuous with your replies. I don’t know which, but I’m not going to bother explaining it a third time.

@Mister44

@8-p

None of the groups on the right (violent people, terrorists, etc.) are proper subsets of the groups on the left.

So, are you saying that violent murders ARE a proper subset of gun owners? Because if not then yes, I agree with your point. If you are saying they are, then I am going to have to ask more questions.

Violent murderers are not a proper subset of gun owners…but it’s not a small percentage either. For mass murderers, even more so. For the record, I don’t believe all (or even most) gun owners are deliberately dangerous. But I do not subscribe to the fantasy that it is at all safe to be around gun owners outside a range or hunting situation. Some are dangerous because they are aggressive nitwits who would be dangerous regardless of owning a gun. Others are dangerous through negligence, carelessness, or inattention, others through immaturity or inability to deal with stressful situations. Others through drug or alcohol problems. The list is long.

The fact is guns are by far the most effective, easy to use, cheap, easy to obtain, long range killing devices. Large vehicles or explosives might be a a very distant second, but they come with lots of difficulties guns don’t. To oppose sensible regulation for guns is to effectively promote mass murder.