And now Walmart...

[ODB]

They are still selling ammo and guns, just deciding to only sell certain kinds of ammo. I would guess they were going to do that anyway, eventually. Why sell ammo for weapons you don’t sell? None of you will believe this, but Walmart doesn’t make their money on guns and ammo. They had tragic things happen in their stores and they needed to respond. Although I don’t agree with their decision, we live in a free country and it is theirs to make. Great time for any of you who want to open up a shop and start selling guns and ammo. They are giving free access to the system they created in house for selling guns.

Also, maybe it will help you guys living in the overcrowded hunting states out west.

Sportsman’s warehouse doesn’t really make much money on guns and ammo either. It’s the 200-300% markup stuff you have to wade through to get to the guns and ammo that they make their money on.

A couple walk into a sportsman’s warehouse, the wife sees some thing shiny (200% markup) and says, “Go on, honey. I’ll meet you back there (by the guns) in a little bit.” Two happy customers, one very happy corporation.

You do know that Stu Utgaard originally bought SW to sell it, turned it into a profit machine, then overexpanded and then went belly up. He didn’t make the money in guns. A good friend rode on the SW jet many, many times.

He also wasn’t much (if at all) of a hunter - just played the role. He selling olive oil now.

Point is, it’s about money, folks, not the 2A, states rights, the constitution, your safety or hobbies. It’s just money.

 

[ODB]

IMO it opens up another avenue of approach for the anti gun crowd.

If the anti2a crowd raise hell with Walmart, Dicks, Kroger etc. and get them out of the business of guns and ammo, then they push the whole industry further to the margins. You end up with situations like REI rejecting Vista Outdoors and then vista is forced to sell its firearms related businesses in order to get back in with REI. It turns into death by slow strangulation. If you can’t win head to head against 2A, tax guns, tax ammo, pressure retailers, create regulation and administration friction. It is an effective strategy and one we will see more of in the coming years.

Heck, Walmart is probably complicit in killing more people by selling bad food, cigarettes and booze in any given year than they ever will be by selling guns or bullets. You don’t hear a peep about them pulling Marlboros or twinkies off the shelves.

I like your Walmart/cigarette connection. My guess is a higher % of Walmart shoppers smoke than other stores. Walmart knows this and exploits it with cheap tobacco, all the while the cartons say the product can kill them. Willful obtuseness in the face of empirical evidence ... to make money.

 

[Ratbeetle]

Regardless of the 4473, maybe guns should be handled a little bit different than legos. As we’ve seen plenty of times (and I’ve sold hundreds and hundreds of guns) the 4473 is an imperfect beast built by a system that has no interest in feeding it the information it needs to be truly effective.

Well they are treated a bit different than legos and you know that. Or at least you should know that if you've sold "hundreds" of guns. Of course none of that has anything to do with the size of stores that sell guns.

If you think nics is a bad system and should be fixed fine, but that has nothing to do with you original statement.

 

[browning2480]

You are right Baxterb and that is what I was trying to say. They are just dropping certain ammo, not all ammo and guns. I doubt they even see it reflect in their overall sales, but it does give the anti’s ammo to use against gun rights

 

[ODB]

Well they are treated a bit different than legos and you know that. Or at least you should know that if you've sold "hundreds" of guns. Of course none of that has anything to do with the size of stores that sell guns.

If you think nics is a bad system and should be fixed fine, but that has nothing to do with you original statement.

Which was that guns probably shouldn’t have been sold in mega-marts. Still stand by that. And no need to put hundreds in quotes.

You have to start thinking rhetorically about what putting guns in discount stores does to the consumer. How they perceive it, value it - how it fits into their world. Regardless of the 4473, when you can fill out a 4473, then while they are running the check, you can go pick up some pudding, a carton of cigarettes and a ham sandwich, there is very little space between those items. I think there SHOULD be greater space between those items. Even though to a guy who is familiar with guns, a gun is a tool, etc., as society changes and the epistemological understanding of what a gun is changes due to how it’s represented in pop culture, I think there is a decided irresponsibility in selling guns en masse just because you can, and it brings in a certain demographic to your store.

We spend a lot of time putting space between the way we hunt and fish (west/east, public/private land, fly/gear), yet when it comes time to think about guns, everyone gets all egalitarian which is understandable given the consequences. I’m just saying perhaps, perhaps, had we gone about things in a different way, we wouldn’t be where we are right now.

 

[tracker12]

It will only get worse. Crazy’s are going to ruin it for all.

 

[Ratbeetle]

Which was that guns probably shouldn’t have been sold in mega-marts. Still stand by that. And no need to put hundreds in quotes.

You have to start thinking rhetorically about what putting guns in discount stores does to the consumer. How they perceive it, value it - how it fits into their world. Regardless of the 4473, when you can fill out a 4473, then while they are running the check, you can go pick up some pudding, a carton of cigarettes and a ham sandwich, there is very little space between those items. I think there SHOULD be greater space between those items. Even though to a guy who is familiar with guns, a gun is a tool, etc., as society changes and the epistemological understanding of what a gun is changes due to how it’s represented in pop culture, I think there is a decided irresponsibility in selling guns en masse just because you can, and it brings in a certain demographic to your store.

We spend a lot of time putting space between the way we hunt and fish (west/east, public/private land, fly/gear), yet when it comes time to think about guns, everyone gets all egalitarian which is understandable given the consequences. I’m just saying perhaps, perhaps, had we gone about things in a different way, we wouldn’t be where we are right now.

So you're a gun dealer that doesn't like the competition?

Your statement holds absolutely no water. There was a time in this country where you could mail order firearms from the same place you bought your blue jeans and shovels and have them shipped directly to you doorstep. There is a problem in this country and is has absolutely nothing to do with where or how firearms are sold to the public.

 

[realunlucky]

Can we change guns in video games to bananas? Yep it actually does nothing but maybe maybe it would make a difference

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[ODB]

So you're a gun dealer that doesn't like the competition?

Your statement holds absolutely no water. There was a time in this country where you could mail order firearms from the same place you bought your blue jeans and shovels and have them shipped directly to you doorstep. There is a problem in this country and is has absolutely nothing to do with where or how firearms are sold to the public.

You are of course correct. And we failed to remedy the problems as they began to occur. We went blithely along acting as though one did not have an effect on the other.

And because we can’t seem to address them, the noose will tighten. You seem to forget that it’s the same society in control of both of these problems that we can’t seem to solve.

Oh, and not a dealer. Just sold them for a few years. You stand behind the counter of a major guns store and get a feel for some of the people who want to buy what guns and it will start to shift your thinking - provided you do.

 

[Ratbeetle]

You are of course correct. And we failed to remedy the problems as they began to occur. We went blithely along acting as though one did not have an effect on the other.

And because we can’t seem to address them, the noose will tighten. You seem to forget that it’s the same society in control of both of these problems that we can’t seem to solve.

Well, I just don't care enough to give up another inch to the antis. Incrementalism is how we ended up where we are now. I'm tired of infringements that do absolutely nothing to solve the problem and I simply won't support any more.

 

[ODB]

Well, I just don't care enough to give up another inch to the antis. Incrementalism is how we ended up where we are now. I'm tired of infringements that do absolutely nothing to solve the problem and I simply won't support any more.

That’s fine, I don’t support it any more than you do. But we are where we are ...the question remains, from here, how do we NOT lose more ground but GAIN some? I don’t have the answer, just my own thoughts.

 

[realunlucky]

Well, I just don't care enough to give up another inch to the antis. Incrementalism is how we ended up where we are now. I'm tired of infringements that do absolutely nothing to solve the problem and I simply won't support any more.

Status quo in this country is unacceptable for the majority of citizens with all these continued mass shootings. Things WILL change you can pro active and try to deter the problem or reactive to the solutions coming from others.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[brsnow]

The vast majority of guns are owned by very few people, couple that with a weakening NRA, you are starting to see the influence of consumers, not necessarily anti-2A, that are not going to support stores that they view contribute to a dangerous trend in society.

The part to be concerned about is the support of people that previously supported the 2nd or were indifferent.

 

[Kootenay Hunter]

While mass shooting are undoubtedly tragedies, they add up to a small percentage or tragic preventable deaths due to restrictive and archaic systems. It's sad that there are so many efforts directed at the gun issue when there are much bigger fish to fry.

Doing these bans are just easy PR for companies, doesn't affect anybody's bottom line or anybody's access to these goods, it's just fodder for the media.

 

[Ratbeetle]

Status quo in this country is unacceptable for the majority of citizens with all these continued mass shootings. Things WILL change you can pro active and try to deter the problem or reactive to the solutions coming from others.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

Or we can collectively push back against feel good legislation that does nothing to fix the problem. Gun owners in this country have done nothing but give in since 1934 and the nfa. It has gotten us no where.

So many gun owners act as though the antis will be satisfied if they get universal background checks or magazine capacity limits or banning private sales or...whatever the next hot topic is. They will never be satisfied until everything is banned. We're collectively the frog in the pot of water as antis incremetally turn up the heat.

Anyone that wants to infringe on a constitutionally protected right is going to have to do it without help from me.

 

[Sccritterkiller]

Typical corp knee jerk reaction...if it was truly about "saving lives" they quit selling alchohol, tobacco, and car parts. All three things that contribute to way more deaths a year than guns but logic does not prevail with emotional decisions.

The release I saw said discontinuing the sell of pistol and short barrel rifle ammo. It seems they have found some jargon to try to further divide us pro 2A groups...Short barreled rifle ammo??? What is that? You can have a 300 wm SBRed if you have the right paper work...So are they not going to sell 308 and 6.5?

I bet they dont quit selling 22lr which you can use in a pistol, rifle or a short barreled rifle....but then again this isn't about principles it's about optics.

 

[5MilesBack]

There are too many people in this country that fully believe that the 2nd Amendment "gives us the right" to bear arms. We already had that right........the 2nd Amendment just forbids the government from restricting or infringing on that right. The 2nd Amendment isn't directed at citizens.....it's directed at the government. So ANY infringement by the government via legislation or otherwise IS unconstitutional. That includes the fully automatic rifle ban of 1986. The SCOTUS may not see it that way, but that doesn't change the facts.

 

[realunlucky]

Or we can collectively push back against feel good legislation that does nothing to fix the problem. Gun owners in this country have done nothing but give in since 1934 and the nfa. It has gotten us no where.

So many gun owners act as though the antis will be satisfied if they get universal background checks or magazine capacity limits or banning private sales or...whatever the next hot topic is. They will never be satisfied until everything is banned. We're collectively the frog in the pot of water as antis incremetally turn up the heat.

Anyone that wants to infringe on a constitutionally protected right is going to have to do it without help from me.

Complacency is the same as helping. I agree with you about feel good legislation but the demand for change is loud and it's strong and it's COMING. It only needs the perception as positive change.

You want to keep what you have now? Better start admitting there is a problem that's needs a solution and provide some alternative solutions. Like I said be pro active or reactive, but the world is changing very quickly.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[ODB]

There are too many people in this country that fully believe that the 2nd Amendment "gives us the right" to bear arms. We already had that right........the 2nd Amendment just forbids the government from restricting or infringing on that right. The 2nd Amendment isn't directed at citizens.....it's directed at the government. So ANY infringement by the government via legislation or otherwise IS unconstitutional. That includes the fully automatic rifle ban of 1986. The SCOTUS may not see it that way, but that doesn't change the facts.

Correct on all accounts. People need to remember that the government did not create the constitution - the constitution created the government, and those who wrote the constitution had a very specific idea in mind.

 

[realunlucky]

There are too many people in this country that fully believe that the 2nd Amendment "gives us the right" to bear arms. We already had that right........the 2nd Amendment just forbids the government from restricting or infringing on that right. The 2nd Amendment isn't directed at citizens.....it's directed at the government. So ANY infringement by the government via legislation or otherwise IS unconstitutional. That includes the fully automatic rifle ban of 1986. The SCOTUS may not see it that way, but that doesn't change the facts.

SCOTUS interpretation of the law is all that matters it's the way the system works. Would be interesting if only your interpretation mattered.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk