03-02-2018, 02:28 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-02-2018, 02:32 PM by Eric the Green.)
(03-02-2018, 01:40 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:(03-01-2018, 11:22 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:Are they going to stop selling cigarettes to 18 year old's too? Cigarettes kill way more people than AR-15's. Society would be much better served by banning access to them. Like I said, Columbine took place while the assault rifle ban was in place. How many mass shootings have taken place in schools or on campus's since Columbine was the first mass shooting to take place in a school? I'd say a lot and I'd say the liberal hype that followed each one provided the fuel and inspiration for the next one.(03-01-2018, 09:16 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:(03-01-2018, 05:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Good news indeed. Business is getting ahead of government on guns. It shows that some businessmen are able to come to their senses, and also reveals the abject failure so far of our government.Business's are ignoring the law and establishing their own law. I didn't think Liberals would ever be willing to go for that and support it in any way.
Some are coming to the recognition that the guns that they may be selling profitably are the ones used in crimes that hurt business as a whole -- as in armed robberies.
If such retailers as Dick's Sporting Goods, Wal*Mart, and Kroger are doing something positive that government can't do or won't do, then I don't have a complaint with those corporate decisions. Let us remember one of the basic rules of good business -- never hurt your ultimate customers. The gun that Wal*Mart or the Fred Meyer division of Kroger sells that kills or cripples a convenience-store clerk or even a welfare recipient may deprive Wal*Mart or Kroger of a desirable customer. Remember: Wal*Mart and Kroger get much revenue from TANF customers.
Now, I recognize their right to determine what they sell in their stores and I'd have no issue with them getting out of selling guns in their stores. However, I don't recognize their right to ignore the law and establish a law of their own. I didn't see any AR-15's at the local Walmart. The local Walmart doesn't have many guns. I don't know why they waste their space with the small amount of guns that they have for sale. I doubt they sell many based on their lack of advertising and I'm pretty sure they're not selling enough to cover the cost of the space.
YOU'd say a lot, but I think the facts are otherwise. The fuel for the next ones was the availability of guns and the publicity given to the shooting, which causes imitations. Still, yes mass shootings will continue in America, regardless of any ban or controls, for a long time to come, because gun ownership in this country is grandfathered in, and we don't propose some kind of mass search and confiscation. But fewer mass shootings and less gun violence occurs in blue states (of which gun control is a common feature, with 2 exceptions in 2 northern rural states), and still less in other developed countries, BECAUSE there is gun control and/or gun bans there.
You recognize a store's right to not offer guns in their stores, but accuse them of ignoring the law and establishing a law of their own. You meant the age restriction, I guess. That's a good point. But should a bartender supply a drink to someone they think has had too much? Should stores not have the right to refuse service to anyone, as many say they do? It could be that, by law, stores have some discretion, unless that discretion is against the law. I would guess that the gun supporters could file suit against stores refusing to sell guns to 18-20 year olds, if they think the stores are violating the law in doing so.