Walmart Gun Sales


PDA






wingman
February 10, 2007, 01:39 PM
Perhaps this is old news but I was told today by my local Walmart that as of
March 1st all gun sales stop at all stores. My understanding it would be at selected stores. Info please.

If you enjoyed reading about "Walmart Gun Sales" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Lupinus
February 10, 2007, 01:44 PM
ugh we are back to this agian?

Wal mart is not stopping at all stores, they are adjusting inventory like any sensible buisness. In the stores where they are money makers they are staying, in the ones they are not money makers they are going.

On that not I had my one walk of gun buying shame and I don't intend to do it agian. I don't care to be escorted to my car by someone who looks generaly pissed off that I bothered him, esspecialy after I have just completed an expensive transaction in his store. And then told I can't buy ammo at the same time.

MattC
February 10, 2007, 02:11 PM
Check this out some of the discussion on the topic: http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=210682

Use search terms such as walmart and stop selling to find related threads

wingman
February 10, 2007, 02:22 PM
Appreciate the info, the manager I talked with today was certain it was all
stores, the story continues.

svtruth
February 10, 2007, 02:45 PM
no good. This is a recurring topic, but the good aspect, as I see it, is that it helps the LGS.
Paying a slightly higher price at the LGS is an investment in it's being around when you need it.

Robert Hairless
February 10, 2007, 05:28 PM
This is a recurring topic, but the good aspect, as I see it, is that it helps the LGS.

Paying a slightly higher price at the LGS is an investment in it's being around when you need it.

"LGS" means "local gun shops," right? Any gun owner who chooses to pay higher prices for the sake of supporting a local gun shop can do so right now.

I don't share your belief that it's better not to let gun owners have choices about where and how they spend their money. Communists think that way. Americans don't. We believe in free enterprise and competition, so we want a lot of merchants competing for our business. That way the most efficient businesses thrive and we get as much value as possible for the dollars we earn.

By the way, money spent at a local gun shop is not an investment in its being around "when we need it." Small businesses go out of business for many reasons, including the death of an owner or his decision to retire. Money you spend at a local gun shop will never influence such events: they are entirely out of your control.

Nor do the dollars you spend at a local gun shop affect the political and legal pressures that force increasing numbers of them out of business. Read the messages in this forum alone and you'll see that small gun shops are being forced out of business by zoning, taxes, mayors, and a great many other irresistible forces. Local gun shops are lousy investments.

Wal-Mart is only one of the competitors to local gun shops and, realistically, probably the least influential of them.

Much more of a problem are the Internet and brick-and-mortar chains such as Sportsman's Warehouse and Cabela's. Read the messages in this forum alone and you'll see that people are buying a great many guns from forum ads, from online dealers such as Impact and CDNN, and through auctions on GunBroker and many other sites. Wal-Mart recently raised its ammunition prices and seems to be experiencing shortages as manufacturers fall behind in production. A couple of weeks ago we found that it was cheaper to buy brand name factory .45 ACP ammunition from an Internet dealer and have it shipped than it was to buy from Wal-Mart: the delivered price was the same, and there was no sales tax. Our local gun shops charged much more than either Wal-Mart or the Internet dealer, and of course they charged sales tax too. If we had to pay sales tax to the Internet dealer, we'd have paid exactly the same as we would have paid to Wal-Mart but we wouldn't get it delivered to our door. There was no advantage to buying from the local gun shops.

Local merchants do benefit when they are not troubled by highly-efficient competitors that offer lower prices to consumers. But consumers don't benefit from overpaying, no matter how it might be made to look. It's like arguing that drivers should be forced to pay more for gasoline if the extra money helps the owner of a local gas station instead of a low-priced chain.

Zoogster
February 10, 2007, 08:43 PM
Hairless I disagree about some of those points. Walmart and other stores that get most of thier income from other sources are far less motivated by profit and greed to support RKBA than say an internet site that depends on those sales. Regardless of the motivating factor those that support RKBA support our right to have arms with what speaks loudest in this society, cash. Whether that is fighting lawsuits, or donating to organizations it helps in a way many of us cannot.

Walmart and other super stores that we may enjoy having as an option due to great savings however do not. If problems come up for one of thier many products, they will just discontinue selling that product or submit to any demands by lobbyists because it is not important to them. They are not invested in one product such as firearms or any other, and if regulations become too numerous or challenging to offset the profit margins made, they will drop guns, ammo or any other product because they are not motivated by any ideology, or invested or dependent on any one product.

The two important things it really means is that the competition just went down, so the price will go up, and that guns are becoming so stigmatized that even the most numerous mainstream American store is discontinuing them. That says a lot about what society thinks about them. If society liked them they wouldn't have such strict regulations and procedures to be sold that are too complex and a liability to have minimum wage workers performing for thier store.

You have people showing up at Kmart (like a walmart) after columbine incidents and complaining that it was responsible because the ammo came from them, and they subsequently remove the product. However that is because of the stigma on firearms.

The 9/11 hijackers had box cutters purchased at a walmart, but nobody is complaining and having walmart discontinue box cutters even though they were used to kill a few passengers and airline personal and hijack planes that would be used to killed thousands. Why? Because box cutters do not have the negative image of firearms in our society. Nobody sees people in movies opening a box cutter in a macho, stylish way, and proceeding to slaughter people in a gruesome display. Yet that scene with firearms is numerous and common in media. So firearms are becoming a highly legislated and restricted item surrounded by negative emotions.

In fact women are the most vulnerable to these negative views because they do not identify with that whole load of macho BS they are associated with, and are generaly more inclined to feel sympathy with the sob stories the antis present, and less inclined to feel combative or want tools that are used to inflict injury. Only a previous victim or educated woman knows better, and in fact realizes they protect them by making them physical equals in the face of violence or crime. Add to that people in power. Those in power do not want those they control to have anything capable of being used in anger against them, they have bodyguards and special permits anyways so they are against RKBA and in positions of society to easily voice thier views. So RKBA has more tilted against it than for it unless education comes into play. However formal education today is very socialist and left leaning, so non formal education is required, and it is the hardest to administer. This means as more people are "educated" and a higher percent of society recieves degrees that require years in an anti gun environment (firearms are not legal on campus, even to law abiding adults of age in a residence) to achieve, less and less support will exist for RKBA. Many of the most prestigious colleges in the nation are in anti gun territory, and most other colleges take ques from them.

Of course new regulations and legislation does not deter crime, but it sure makes some people feel a little better when a politician "tough on crime" makes another law regarding them and he/she gets thier support and votes which is all they want. 2nd amendment and second most important part of the Bill of Rights in protecting equality be damned!

Technosavant
February 10, 2007, 09:53 PM
Appreciate the info, the manager I talked with today was certain it was all stores, the story continues.

Keep in mind that many of the store managers have risen up through the ranks of Wally World. It makes for good stories (stock boy became store manager), but sometimes you end up with management that has little formal training, just on the job experience and whatever they learned in training at Bentonville. Sometimes the managers are intelligent, sometimes they can't find their rears with both hands, a map, and a native guide. It can really be a crapshoot, and rumors circulate as readily there as anywhere else.

As for "it helps local gun stores," look at it this way: guns are being pushed further out of the mainstream. When they are in display cases alongside sleeping bags and tents, the message is that they are things that are legitimate and normal for people to buy and own. When they are only available at specialty gun stores, then gun stores will become just like stores with "adult items." You have to go there to buy guns because guns are dangerous and you can't trust them in normal stores, and they are also separate because they are shameful.

Whatever you think about Wal-Mart, firearm sales becoming restricted to separate, out of the way shops is not necessarily a good thing for us. Sure, many of the local shops love it- less competition. Don't forget that what is good for business may be bad for us- many gun makers supported import bans because it meant they had less competition. Do you think that was a good thing?

RNB65
February 10, 2007, 10:00 PM
Who cares? If Wally World is the best gunstore you've got nearby, you're living in the wrong place.

FieroCDSP
February 10, 2007, 10:03 PM
The idea that a big-box retailer like Kmart or Walmart doesn't care about specific groups of consumers is fairly true. If something becomes socially, politicaly, or legally questionable, then it's pulled, regardless of demand. They don't want the loss in sales generated by anything remotely resembling a boycott. This makes sense from a large company point of view, but not from an individual store point of view. I've lost a lot of money in sales over the past two years just from not carrying muzzle-loader gear during hunting season. We had reduced sales on it for a couple years, mainly because like many quality goods, they don't break immediately and need replaced. They want you in to buy the $10 blender, break it after the return policy, then come in to get a new one. It the way retail is now, and short of the complete closing of foreign trade, it's not going to stop.
Anyway, firearms are an ebb and flow commodity. Some years you sell a lot, some you sell only a few. Box retailers can't stand this!!! They would rather replace an expensive item that sells inconsistantly with one that is cheap (price and quality) and sells constantly. Even then, it's up to someone-on-high and their personal whim. I sold ceramic light fixtures (like the ones in every basement in America) two or three a week. The very least I sold was a case-pack of ten a month. At a couple bucks a pop, that's not great money, but it's consistent. They pulled it and replaced them with three types of night-light that I sell 1 every six months of, at half the price. :banghead:

I've discussed the firearm and ammunition demands of my customers with my regional buyer, and as of this point, I've seen nothing happen, with the possible exception that we haven't stopped carrying firearms, yet. Should we drop them, we'll probably be forced to level the sports department in favor of washing machines or something else that isn't going to sell because the Lowes and Home Depot down the street sell more of them for less. At that point, due to the fact I'm tired of making excuses to customers for company stupidity, I quit. :D

Phaetos
February 10, 2007, 10:10 PM
What's odd is that my local Wal-Mart has stopped selling long-guns. Then suddenly they started stocking blackpowder guns :confused: That I don't understand.

RNB65
February 10, 2007, 10:26 PM
Then suddenly they started stocking blackpowder guns That I don't understand.

Simple. Black Power gunds don't require a 4473 form. No paperwork or ATF issues.

Neo-Luddite
February 10, 2007, 10:31 PM
Less regulation for most blackpowder guns.

They have issues with the profit they generate off firearms justifying the payment of staff able to handle a (relatively) complex transaction with many potential liability issues. Most Walmarts I have been to lately just don't have the staff to cope. Ammo is not as big a deal. They work the staff they have pretty hard. It is, everyday, more of a self-serve environment. Who wants to buy a weapon in that setting? I don't. Ammo and some supplies, sure.

I agree about the de-legitimization of weapons. But at the same time you have the gander mountains of the world selling a pretty wide varriety in a much more well-staffed environment if you want to see a 'gun' footprint at the mall.

Robert Hairless
February 11, 2007, 01:22 AM
Zoogster:

Hairless I disagree about some of those points. Walmart and other stores that get most of thier income from other sources are far less motivated by profit and greed to support RKBA than say an internet site that depends on those sales. Regardless of the motivating factor those that support RKBA support our right to have arms with what speaks loudest in this society, cash. Whether that is fighting lawsuits, or donating to organizations it helps in a way many of us cannot.

Of course you disagree. You actually think that a business has some duty to fight for your interests, whatever they happen to be, and however you define them at the moment, and in whatever ways you think they should. Business is supposed to do what you won't or can't do for yourself, and they are supposed to risk their money and their very existence to fight for your interests. Businesses are where Americans expect love and nurturing after they leave mommy and daddy, and woe to the business that doesn't do whatever gun owners want at any particular moment.

From that point of view you actually believe that gun owners benefit when the only remaining mass market merchandiser to sell guns and ammunition stops doing so. I understand your point of view, although it's so limited and wierd that you can't possibly see the fatal harm that it does to gun owners.

I grew up in a time when most general merchandise chain stores displayed guns and ammunition, and even put their own brand names on it: Sears, Western Auto, Montgomery-Ward, and a great many other chains both national and local. Guns and ammunition were displayed in hardware stores, feed stores, and many other places that the general public did their daily shopping throughout the country. General interest magazines carried display ads for guns and ammunition, and so did just about every newspaper in the country.

You killed all that--not necessarily you personally, but your generation as a whole. And your generation is so proud of the accomplishment that you actually cheer the demise of the last remaining stores anywhere in the country where the non-gun-owning public is exposed to seeing guns or ammunition displayed for sale while they shop for food, housewares, school supplies, automobile accessories, athletic goods, and other products they want as ordinary people.

You don't see--and will never see--that Wal-Mart's contribution to your Right to Keep and Bear Arms was greater than that of GOA, JFPO, and all your other favorite organizations combined.

Wal-Mart did--every single day of the week--what none of those organizations could ever do: Wal-Mart showed millions and millions of normal people that they had absolutely nothing to fear from guns or ammunition. No gun ever leaped out of a Wal-Mart case and started murdering shoppers. None of Wal-Mart's ammunition exploded spontaneously and destroyed the neighborhood. It all sat there, quietly refuting the propaganda spread by anti-gun forces. So did the people who bought guns and ammunition from Wal-Mart: there is no recorded case in which anyone was turned into a homicidal maniac by the sigh of guns and ammunition at his local Wal-Mart. Children were not psychologically maimed, nursing mothers did not run dry, and little old men did not start goosing women with their canes. Everything was normal, and millions of Wal-Mart shoppers saw that it was.

And now they won't. You don't see that the result of Wal-Mart getting out of the firearms business is one of the greatest possible blows to your Right to Keep and Bear Arms. When Wal-Mart is out of the business, you and the rest of us are segregated into the few remaining gun stores. Normal people who don't own guns and don't want to own one know that the people who go into gun stores are nuts. They are unstable people who are threats to their communities and the rest of the world. The proof: even Wal-Mart didn't want them in their stores.

Gun stores are not places where normal people go or take their kids to shop. So you--and the rest of us--are about to be shoved further down the road to being marginalized. And then we will be extinct. You--and the rest of us--have almost completed the process of being oddballs shunned and suspected by ordinary, average people. And you celebrate it.

Guns are bad. Bad people own guns. No good person needs a gun. That's the message that Wal-Mart was quietly counteracting every day, but you don't see that as helping your Right to Keep and Bear Arms. And you really think that we benefit when Wal-Mart stops counteracting that message.

When Michael Bloomberg and a bunch of other mayors try to close down a little store that sells guns and ammunition, people here and in other gun forums squeal like stuck pigs, protest, and contribute to the defense of those local stores. VCDL, GOA, JFPO, and other pro-gun organizations realize that it hurts us all if even one local gun shop is forced to close, so they set up a hue and cry about how Bloomberg violates our Right to Keep and Bear Arms by attempting to close down a store here and there.

But many of those same people try to force the country's biggest chain out of the very same business and celebrate when it happens. None of you even seem to realize--or care--that Wal-Mart was a handy source of good inexpensive guns and cheap ammunition for people who just can't afford to shoot otherwise, or who live too far from a local gun store. Fewer of us will be able to shoot often, and perhaps only rarely. Yippee! We won!

When K-Mart discontinued sales of guns and ammunition a few years ago, people here and in other gun forums denounced and boycotted K-Mart for not supporting their Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Wal-Mart resisted the anti-gun forces throughout that time. Now that Wal-Mart is pulling in its horns, the same people are celebrating it as a victory for their Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Is this sane?

So, with all due respect for your opinions and your thoughts and your virtue and so on, I think that any business that bets its future on supporting our Right to Keep and Bear Arms is out of its mind. Gun owners don't even know what's in their own interests, and they're so incredibly inconsistent, unreasonable, and unpredictable that it's clear they can't see further than their own eyelids.

I don't mind that you disagree. Everyone in America has the absolute right to an opinion. Let's send them a message! :)

Robert Hairless
February 11, 2007, 01:29 AM
FieroCDSP

At that point, due to the fact I'm tired of making excuses to customers for company stupidity, I quit.

No. I'm sorry but you are not allowed to quit. Customers who spent their money in your store made an investment in your being there when needed. You therefore have no right to quit.

Don't be downhearted, though. You also have no right to die. You are immortal because customers who spent their money in your store made an investment in your being there when needed.

I read it here so I know it's so. I believe it so thoroughly that I might never go to a doctor or hospital again, and I'll have no need for medical insurance or medicines. Neither of us should fear being hit by a car, stabbed by an attacker, or murdered by a home invader. I'm getting a Tee shirt that reads "Customers who spent their money in my store made an investment in my being there when needed." What better protection could there be?

Sergeant Bob
February 11, 2007, 01:50 AM
Who cares? If Wally World is the best gunstore you've got nearby, you're living in the wrong place.
I care. Walmart has way better prices on guns and ammo than any gunshop round.
For instance, our Walmart has the Henry Golden Boy for $50 less than the gun shops charge for the standard model.

I can shoot 1/3 more for my dollars by buying my ammo at Walmart than I can from gun shops.

Just because they don't have a gun on display doesn't mean you can't get it there. They will order it for me. I can wait a few days for a 20 to 30% savings.

Zoogster
February 11, 2007, 04:29 AM
Of course you disagree. You actually think that a business has some duty to fight for your interests, whatever they happen to be, and however you define them at the moment, and in whatever ways you think they should. Business is supposed to do what you won't or can't do for yourself, and they are supposed to risk their money and their very existence to fight for your interests. Businesses are where Americans expect love and nurturing after they leave mommy and daddy, and woe to the business that doesn't do whatever gun owners want at any particular moment.

That is quite out of context and not even properly applied to my statements nevermind rude and disrespectful. A business has no "duty" to fight for my rights and I never thought any did. However stores that make most of thier profit on selling guns have a "duty" to themselves to fight for pro gun politics to continue having a large market to sell thier products to. Walmart and other stores in which nothing but a tiny fraction of a percent of thier profit comes from guns would never challenge anti gun politics because it will never interfere with thier overall profits in a meaningful way.

So I choose to spend my money where it will go to those who would be directly effected by lack of a gun market, because quite different than any percieved "duty" to me, they have a strong desire to exist and profit for themselves, and that more often than not will coincide with pro RKBA politics and lobbying because without gun rights, they have no significant market.

Obviously you became absorbed in criticizing my first paragraph you failed to read the rest of my post or you would have seen I said exactly what you babble on about the rest of the post: that it will have a severe impact on making guns even more stigmatized and outside the norm in our society. I agree as I posted that it is a severe blow to gun ownership and the overall perception of guns to the public, along with many additional things being done in society.

In CA walmart has not sold guns since late 2002 early 2003. Them nationalizing that policy starting with the least gun friendly states and working inwards until all stock of guns are finaly sold off in the most gun friendly states before they stop selling them altogether does not surprise me one bit.

This posted here http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/05/national/main547858.shtml in early 2003, they have not resumed sales in CA in the 4 years since.
(AP) Wal-Mart agreed Friday to immediately suspend sales of rifles and shotguns in its 118 California stores, following nearly 500 violations of state firearms laws in six stores.

In two cases, a store sold guns to felons, according to Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who announced the agreement with the retail giant.

Wal-Mart's action comes after the chain announced in July that it had implemented a rule requiring customers to undergo a background check before buying rifles and shotguns — no matter how long the check takes.

In California, store employees released guns to customers before background checks were completed, Lockyer said, and failed to verify the identities of buyers through thumbprints and driver's licenses.

Other violations included failing to document sale of a firearms safety device with the gun.

Wal-Mart spokesman Tom Williams said Friday the company will begin new employee training in state firearms law early next week.

"We need to do a better job and that's what we're going to do," he said.

Williams said store employees involved in the offenses will not be terminated.

He added it's the first time Wal-Mart, which sells rifles and shotguns — but not handguns — has suspended firearms sales in a state for such violations.

State and federal laws prohibit selling guns to felons or people convicted of domestic violence offenses. Sales are also banned to subjects of restraining orders and people with mental conditions that make them a dangerous to themselves and others.

The policy announced in July, which exceeds federal guidelines, came after Wal-Mart's own research showed that weapons it sold were being used in crimes.

Under federal law, background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System are required for anyone attempting to purchase a gun. If the results are not returned within three business days, the dealer may complete the sale.

As you can see they feel thier own weapons are used in crimes, and are willing to do an about face against guns the moment it threatens the almighty $. This liberal news source of course implies all the firearms violations were serious when it was a couple instances, and most violations were California specific violations like not documenting the selling of a trigger lock with a gun, and even then only in 6 of its 118 CA stores over a long period of time. A couple times for only using federal guidlines for a NICs check instead of state law which is much more severe and uses Brady Campaign suggestions. Remember these are all long guns. All violations, most of which were minor, and only 2 serious happened in 6 of 118 stores. Rather than challenge it and risk any legal loss in profit they just stopped sales in CA since that date.

Since then: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12316692/

Which in April of 2006 Walmart announced it will stop selling guns in a third of it's US stores.

This trend of course is increasing as they ship remaining stock to certain regions and they order less bulk from thier suppliers to restock. Meaning the total production will drop, so the savings in remaining locations will be less significant as they finish selling remaining stock if they order more.

Robert Hairless
February 11, 2007, 05:59 AM
Zoogster, I didn't think you would get it. Your argument was the first paragraph of your message. I respect you like crazy but your argument is based on three fantasies.

Your first fantasy is that "an internet site that depends on" the sales of firearms and/or ammunition will "support our right to have arms with what speaks loudest in this society, cash." Many--probably most--Internet sites dealing in firearms are the cyberspace extension of very small businesses. One of the more prominent ammunition sites is operated by one man (which is not at all unusual) while others are operated by a husband and wife. You really think that these people donate large amounts of "what speaks loudest in this society." I hope and expect that they all are NRA members and respond to some appeals with small checks, but it's a fantasy to believe that these people or their small businesses have sufficient surplus funds to do much.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg knows the reality that you should know, but ignore in your fantasy: they can't afford to engage in "fighting lawsuits" and will go under if they can't settle out of court quickly. Other anti-gun activists know the same thing, which is why their strategy is to file lawsuits even if they can't win them. The cost of law is so high, in fact, that last year the NRA put great effort behind a federal law designed to protect the firearms industry in lawful commerce. The anti-gun people know all that, the NRA knows it, and even I know it. You don't, or else you would relinquish your fantasty and not try to infect others with it.

Your second fantasy is much more crippling but you won't relinquish it despite what you yourself said and what I recast in the cold, hard light of reality. Cash is not always "what speaks loudest in this society." This particular fantasy is especially unsettling because it is well-known that Wal-Mart exposure is so valuable that businesses large and small do anything for even a little Wal-Mart space. And yet you seem unable to understand that cash can't buy anything like the exposure and legitimacy that Wal-Mart gave to firearms, accessories, and ammunition for the general public. No gun store makes that kind of impact. Not all the gun stores in the United States combine to make that kind of impact: people who don't own guns and don't want to own guns just don't go into gun stores. That reality is easy to understand but you don't see what it means. You still talk about "what speaks loudest in this society, cash." Lots of people transmit such cliches, especially in Internet gun forums when they argue their fantasies, but no matter how many people do so it's just not true. Mass delusions are great fun to watch, but their consequences are damaging.

Your third fantasy underpinned your others and shaped the rest of your points. Businesses have no duty to support your political aspirations of the moment. I know you say that it wasn't your point, but it is your point: you continue to think that businesses in the firearms industry believe that it is in their interest to support your Right to Keep and Bear Arms as you define it.

William Ruger didn't.

Smith & Wesson didn't.

Colt doesn't.

Many major ammunition makers don't: they market entire lines of their products "For Law Enforcement Only" even though no law requires them to do so.

Remington doesn't. Its policy is not to sell shotgun magazine extensions to civilians.

There even are several Internet sites that admit only law enforcement officers or military operatives instead of supporting a general Right to Keep and Bear Arms by admitting everyone. Try to buy certain products--body armor, for example--on the Internet and you'll find that several Internet dealers will not sell to anyone not in law enforcement or the military.

Look back on even those few examples and you should see many businesses not following your principle that "Walmart and other stores that get most of thier income from other sources are far less motivated by profit and greed to support RKBA than say an internet site that depends on those sales."

It's all fantasy. But you cling to the fantasies and decide that I'm "rude and disrespectful" for disdaining them. They are lovely fantasies indeed, and they're shared by many people, but they have created many needless problems and continue to do so. Why not emerge from them enough to consider the possiblity that the length and detail of my responses indicate respect for you and others here, although most certainly not for your position or argument.

I do see what you consider to be Wal-Mart's betrayal of your Right to Keep and Bear Arms. You criticize Wal-Mart for taking a stronger stand than is required by federal law. I assume that you won't consider, even for a moment, that because the article is talking about California, Wal-Mart is responding to a problem that grew out of the $14.5 million settlement Wal-Mart made with California for its employees' violations of state as well as federal laws. And I do understand that you believe it was in Wal-Mart's self interest to fight the state, and the federal government, in the courts even if it were sure to lose because it did violate those laws. That ailment, diagnosed as "Lets You and Him Fight" in the old bestselling self-help book I'm Okay, You're Okay, seems to be endemic among many gun owners. Of course it would not have been in Wal-Mart's self-interest--or in the self-interest of any company that wanted to stay in business--to do as you want. But since you believe as you do, you should attack the Georgia gun shops that have settled with Mayor Michael Bloomberg on terms that go far, far, far beyond the requirements of either state or federal law. They didn't follow your principle.

BlkHawk73
February 11, 2007, 11:05 AM
Awwwww no more guns at wally mart. Ain't that just awful. :rolleyes: Now what ever shall we all do? Hmmmm...maybe spend an extra couple dollars and help support the local gun shop guy? You know, the guy that'll be there when there's an issue with your gun. The guy that'll know what you're talking about when you have a question. Geeeze, I don't know if we all could handle that. Such a darn pity that service is what we'll have now instead of dealing with a unknowing clerk that goes from sporting goods to housewares to kids clothing...:p

Baba Louie
February 11, 2007, 11:22 AM
Just going down the same path that JC Penney's, Sears Roebuck and Montgomery Ward went back in the 70's/80's when they ALL sold firearms. They left a window that Sam Walton was smart enough to open and did well to keep a portion of the American gun-owning desire alive... for awhile.

I'd bet that soon all of the lower 48 state WalMarts will be out of that end of the business within a decade (maybe not in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho tho).

Blame it on liability, lack of profit, fewer hunting Americans... it's still a sad thing in a way.

But someone else will probably come along and... maybe not. Probably not.

So if you can still find and buy a gold plated Sam Walton commerative 28/20 ga. Remington 1100/11-87 upland shottie (the man loved to hunt), now might be the time to act. (only the name is gold plated so it's not really too tacky)

Robert Hairless
February 11, 2007, 01:53 PM
BlkHawk73:

Awwwww no more guns at wally mart. Ain't that just awful. Now what ever shall we all do? Hmmmm...maybe spend an extra couple dollars and help support the local gun shop guy? You know, the guy that'll be there when there's an issue with your gun. The guy that'll know what you're talking about when you have a question. Geeeze, I don't know if we all could handle that. Such a darn pity that service is what we'll have now instead of dealing with a unknowing clerk that goes from sporting goods to housewares to kids clothing...

Is that the same local gun shop guy who knows that Colt went out of business, that the Hi-Point handguns he is pushing are what the real experts use, and that the junk U.S.A. brand magazines he bought in quantity when the company went out of business are "as good as any other." The same guy who dismisses anything he doesn't sell as "junk."

Who fixes minor gun issues by turning them into major problems requiring expensive gunsmithing work. Who thinks that the way to fix most problems is to stretch magazine springs or recoil springs. Who knows that dry firing a Model 1911 pistol once ruins it forever.

Who marks up new guns way over their list price and marks up used guns well over their Blue Book value. Who advises women interested in buying a self-defense gun to get the smallest, lightest handgun he sells so that they hurt every time they fire it, develop flinch, are afraid to practice, and either set it aside forever or don't draw it when they are attacked? Whose knowledge of firearms and laws is encyclopedic, but whose encyclopedia seems to have been Mad Magazine.

Who laughs at customers behind their backs and who makes nasty comments about one customer to another customer. Who knocks his competitors at every opportunity. Who jams a gun into a holster that isn't right for it because he doesn't have one that is.

Who runs "special sales" on ammunition by marking it up, then crossing out that inflated price and writing a slightly lower price on it.

Isn't that the guy who has driven away customers in such large numbers that they don't value what he offers, don't think that his service is worth the additional cost of what he sells, decide that it's smarter to pay lower prices for commodity items instead of paying higher prices to support someone who takes advantage of them, and prefer not to go into his friendly local gun shop unless absolutely neccessary and dread going there then too.

I know that guy! I haven't seen him in a long time, though, and it doesn't surprise me that he complains about the competition. I don't see that it's better to deal with him "instead of dealing with a unknowing clerk that goes from sporting goods to housewares to kids clothing," but it's okay with me if you do. I guess that I don't like being forced to do business with people I don't want to do business with, but perhaps I'm in the minority. You obviously buy from your local gun store instead of from discounters, the Internet, or other gun owners because you feel a duty to support the store with your own money. I don't have any objection to your spending your own money that way. I'm such an easygoing fellow that I don't even mind when you insist that I have to do it too. Go ahead and insist all you want. I like happy people.

But why not get rid of all discount stores and supermarkets too so we can force everyone to support only mom and pop stores. No one who thinks that way about their local gun shops should mind paying higher prices for a more limited selection of merchandise, sometimes outdated, and sometimes shoddy and overpriced. There's obviously some reason for the rest of us to use some of our own hard earned money to help support businesses that don't offer the same value as their competitors. I don't know the reason.

Neither do many other people, or else Wal-Mart wouldn't have customers.

ceetee
February 11, 2007, 02:31 PM
I know that guy! I haven't seen him in a long time, though, and it doesn't surprise me that he complains about the competition.

I know that guy too... In fact, I know plenty of different versions of him. They've all been trained by "the finest firearms instructor in the United States", and this makes their opinion slightly more valuable than God's, while you're opinion is just bunk. Unfortunately, every gun shop within a reasonable driving distance of my house has hired nothing but these chairborne commandos to tell me just why it is that I can't look at the only thing I came into their store to look at.

I can't for a moment understand how patronizing a business that's 50% overpriced, staffed by rude and incompetant know-it-alls, who doesn't ever have what you want to buy is a good thing for RKBA. If these "mom-and-pop" shops want my business, they'll darn well have to earn it, just like every other retail establishment I buy from. I've spent untold hours trying to deal with the poor service, and rude behavior that comes from the staff of my local gun shops. I'd much rather spend that time educating an ignorant (but willing to learn) mega-mart store employee. I'd much rather save myself the dollars, also. At least when shopping at Wal Mart, when I walk away, I feel like we've both benefitted from the transaction. I've got my merchandise at a good price, and the clerk may have learned a thing or two.

In my opinion, you would be much better off serving the RKBA by spending your dollars on stamps for letters to stores like K-Mart, and Sears, explaining why it's in their best interest to take up sales of arms again. Spending those dollars at your "mom-and-pop" store only benefits mom and pop.

If you enjoyed reading about "Walmart Gun Sales" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!