Walmart Takes Down Displays of Violent Video Games in Stores (bloomberg.com) 353
Walmart is removing displays and signs of violent video games in its stores in the wake of two deadly shootings at its locations in Texas and Mississippi in recent weeks. From a report: "We've taken this action out of respect for the incidents of the past week, and this action does not reflect a long-term change in our video game assortment," Walmart spokeswoman Tara House said. Further reading: Violent Video Games Don't Cause Mass Shootings, Study Says; and Dear Walmart C.E.O.: You Have the Power to Curb Gun Violence. Do It. (Op-ed).
Nice compromise between respect and censorship (Score:2)
Re:Nice compromise between respect and censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree that this is a good move. What it is is a knee-jerk reaction to the narrative being pushed by the NRA and being mouthed by the right. Video games are not the cause at all and we all know that. It would have made better sense if they had removed all guns and ammunition from the store shelves out of respect for the shooting but oh we can't have that now can we.
How about vaping, beer, porn, cannabis posters? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither do guns.
Neither do knives
Neither do swords
Neither do potted plants
Neither do large trucks
Neither do pressure cookers
I have yet to have any of these inanimate object spontaneously jump up and cause harm or commit violent acts upon anyone....
Only people cause violence against other people.
Re:How about vaping, beer, porn, cannabis posters? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"Don't be foolish" is an attempt to prevent the reader from engaging in critical thinking by falsely establishing your argument as the accepted norm. I'm not falling for it. There isn't any body of evidence that supports the idea that fictional violence leads to any kind of significant real life violence (by significant, I mean something more substantial than the MMO nerd screaming at the people in his raid for standing in the fire or the FPS kid throwing his ke
Re: (Score:2)
It was cited today that in Japan, with 127M people and an enormous amount of ostensibly violent game culture, that there are about 10 murders, which of course, is 10 too many.
Walmart is now intensely intimidated by the idea that their stores are good places to get shot, and attract white nationalist suicide murderers. So of course, they're pulling the games, which at best is nihilistic.
Would they stop selling the weaponry that executes these mass murders? LOL-- they're slaves to the other Wal-- Wall Street.
Are you even an anonymous coward? (Score:2)
I don't know what to say anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you fucking kidding me?! This is the most retarded thing I've seen since the election! Extremists murder innocents with guns and ammo, and the response is to remove motherfucking videogames? AND LEAVE THE FUCKING WEAPONS UP FOR SALE!?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Video games (violent or otherwise) are not the cause of this. It's the talking points which were put out by the NRA and which is being picked dup by the right. Don't blame the guns, blame.uhhh video games, yeah that's it! It's like the 80's when playing Dungeons and Dragons was going to lead kids to satanic worship and murder.. (hint: it was bullshit and never happened). Now the big boogeyman is violent video games (played all over the world in other nations with NO mass murder shooting like the US
Re: (Score:2)
The weapons are staying up for sale because they affect the bottom line.
The violent games displays are coming down temporarily because people are currently upset at glorifications of violence.
If we take away the weapons (and by the way, wal-mart doesn't sell assault rifles) then we'll just cause other problems.
Not selling them to people who are known to be inappropriately violent is, on the other hand, probably a good idea.
It's looking more and more like we're getting universal background checks and waiting
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much noone does. Assault rifles are selective fire (full auto or semiauto), which require a special license to own.
Note that "assault weapons" (semi-auto look-alikes) are not really any different than your basic deer rifle, other than having a MUCH weaker cartridge (5.56mm/.223 is generally illegal to use in a deer rifle).
Yeah, they're scary-looking, and therefore EVIL!!1! But they're not nearly so deadly as ignorant people make them out to b
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, and sadly, the people that are going to try to be writing up new laws to ban firearms, are ones that know nothing about them.
They will write them so that basically the
Re: (Score:2)
Note that "assault weapons" (semi-auto look-alikes) are not really any different than your basic deer rifle, other than having a MUCH weaker cartridge
Well, my basic deer rifle is a Mauser, so it's pretty different. My varmint rifle is semi, though. However, I think there's an argument to be made that a rifle designed to have select fire is inherently different from one that isn't. If you can just swap a part or file something down and get fully automatic fire, it might make sense to consider that to be different from a firearm where you can't do that.
On the other hand, the second amendment was specifically intended to keep military weapons in the hands o
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you know he initiated the Moon Base [wikipedia.org]?
But they don't remove guns from their stores (Score:5, Insightful)
Guns are ok, but "violent games" are not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think the point was posters showing people getting shot aren't in good taste right after a shooting so they took them down. They are still selling the games and the guns.
Re: (Score:3)
No.
"Guns are ok. Using guns to kill innocent people is not."
Re: (Score:3)
No evidence that they don't, either (Score:2)
The studies are too weak and too short term to show any real result either way.
The correct answer, according to science, is "we don't know."
Re: (Score:2)
This is the most ass backwards reasoning I have ever heard.
Re: (Score:2)
No proof that guns don't increase violent activity either, why not ban those? This is the most ass backwards reasoning I have ever heard.
I'm not proposing banning video games. I am just pointing out that people are quoting what the science doesn't say without clearly pointing out that in fact the studies really don't support any conclusion on the matter, positive or negative.
Good god, is Slashdot really one of those places where people only like science when it agrees with what they already believe? Oh, wait, stupid question. Of course it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is school shootings something that you'll find nearly exclusively in the US? The world-wide school shootings on record show lower numbers of shootings (and victims) than what happened in the US in the last five years.
If you're looking to find a problem, you might want to start looking for something that is not a global but a very local phenomenon. What is specific about the US that is different from the rest of the world?
Here's a hint where to start at: Ask yourself, why do they shoot up their school? I
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a hint where to start at: Ask yourself, why do they shoot up their school? If they're just after a body count, why not a mall on Black Friday?
Amen to that. All cases where the shooter knew one or more victims are almost certainly targeted, at least at an institution if not at specific persons.
Re: (Score:2)
When you analyze the shooting, you'll find that more often than not it was exactly targeted. Not just as a specific institution but also at specific people.
That's not a killing spree. That's revenge.
But that's something we can't say. How DARE you! Those poor, innocent victims of the mad shooter. Those who say that underestimate just how cruel teenagers can be to each other. Especially if the other dares to not conform to whatever arbitrary standard the in-crowd sets.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a killing spree. That's revenge.
Well, it's both.
Those poor, innocent victims of the mad shooter. Those who say that underestimate just how cruel teenagers can be to each other.
They can both be victims.
Re: (Score:2)
It is true that there isn't evidence that video games increase violent activity... but the evidence does not show that they don't, either.
It suggests it more strongly than the reverse, since no correlation has been found.
Re: (Score:2)
It is true that there isn't evidence that video games increase violent activity... but the evidence does not show that they don't, either.
It suggests it more strongly than the reverse, since no correlation has been found.
So, cite that study showing no correlation.
No, I didn't think you could. The actual science is, there's really no good evidence either way.
A real problem with politics is that politics isn't very good with "we don't have evidence either way." Politics is all "we need to do something, what's the answer?!" If the correct answer is "the data is not very good, really we don't know", politics is all "we don't care. Tell us an answer. We need an answer."
Re: (Score:3)
So, cite that study showing no correlation.
Ok.
https://www.gunviolencearchive... [gunviolencearchive.org]
Mass shootings in 2019 in other countries that have violent video games: 0 to 3.
Mass shootings in 2019 in the US: >250.
I will happily accept your nomination for my Nobel.
A real problem with politics is that politics isn't very good with "we don't have evidence either way."
We have ample evidence one way - the rest of the planet exists, and has access to the same violence in media as the US.
Also, if you actually believe that we don't have sufficient data, well then maybe you could apply some pressure to the political party that keeps explicitly forbidding any studies [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
And while we're at it, where is the evidence that vaccines don't cause autism?
There is no direct evidence because there is no such thing as direct evidence for the non-existence of an effect. You can only look for an effect and fail to find one. When a lot of people try to find something they think exists, and fail to find it, that's the strongest evidence possible for non-existence.
Granted, that's not very strong evidence. But it's your best bet. If you allow your preconceptions to overrule the lack of
Re: (Score:2)
And while we're at it, where is the evidence that vaccines don't cause autism?
Huh? There's very good evidence that vaccines don't cause autism.
The popular notion "you can't prove a negative" is not actually true.
https://www.autismspeaks.org/science-news/new-meta-analysis-confirms-no-association-between-vaccines-and-autism
https://www.healthychildren.org/English/safety-prevention/immunizations/Pages/Vaccine-Studies-Examine-the-Evidence.aspx
Re: (Score:2)
Got a cite?
I don't like people mis-using science, and I don't like it on either side of the political divide. The studies of the effects of video-game violence on real-world violence are worthless. If a study shows no useful results, it should be noted that it neither confirms NOR proves the hypothesis.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the mechanism you discovered supporting the hypothesis? Do peers agree? Is there a hypothesis test? What shouldn't have been part of the test? What should have been part of the test? Can you try something less expensive to test and compare?
Exactly. Those are all things that need to be asked. They need to be asked when the hypothesis is "violent video games cause violence in real life," and they also need to be asked when the hypothesis is "violent video games do not cause violence in real life."
Most notably, the question to be asked is "does the evidence support the hypothesis, and if so, how well, and is it confirmed by others?
You don't have to stay if you don't like real science. Why are you mansplaining? Man spreading? You always bring nothing to the table. You're hardly ever showing up. Fine, say a few words but that's all.
?
Re: (Score:2)
Someone needs to take Logic 101 again. That's not how it works. There is not a 50/50 chance of something being valid or not valid. The burden to prove that video games are violent lies on those claiming that they are.
Correct. If somebody asserts "violent video games cause violence," then the burden of proof to show that they do falls on them.
If somebody asserts "violent video games do not cause violence," then the burden of proof to show that they do not falls on them.
In the absence of evidence either way, the correct conclusion is "there is no evidence either way".
(and I have no idea where your "50/50 chance" statement comes from. Certainly not from me.)
Which came first? Violence or Video games? (Score:2)
Good thing there was no violence or murders before video games were invented! /s Oh wait, we only had 2 world wars and ...
Gee, maybe the violence and genocide in video games is a symptom and not a cause. Considering Minecraft and Tetris are the two biggest selling games of ALL time maybe not all games are bad.
--
Q. What do you call someone who murders 160 people?
A. Depends who is paying them:
If the government then a war hero.
If no one then a serial killer.
Re: (Score:2)
Your Q./A. is oversimplified. If you kill people from a different tribe/religion/nation/ideology, you are a hero, blessed by the gods, and so on. Today, ideology seems more important. And killing people is passé so there are other methods to punish those which your side doesn't agree with.
The good news for wal-mart is now there (Score:2)
will be a lot of space freed up for additional ammo and gun displays.
Seriously, this is more of a condemnation of existing mental health care measures than violent video games.
If proper mental health facilities and treatments were available and actually did something other than catch and release, there would probably be quite a bit fewer "incidents".
Just look at some of the comments in this thread for evidence of people who need help.
Mental health treatment isn't enough (Score:2)
Seriously, this is more of a condemnation of existing mental health care measures than violent video games.
That's only half the equation. The other half is easy access to weapons. There are numerous other countries with mental health systems as bad or worse than the US but which do not have anywhere close to the amount of gun violence. What they do have is reasonable regulation of firearms. It's difficult to shoot someone if you can't get a gun in the first place. And not all people with access to guns and motivation to kill others are demonstrably mentally ill or at least cannot be proven to be prior to th
Re: (Score:2)
There are numerous other countries with mental health systems as bad or worse than the US but which do not have anywhere close to the amount of gun violence.
I'd like to see some data to support this assertion.
Way to go Walmart! (Score:5, Funny)
Security theater (Score:2)
Walmart is removing displays and signs of violent video games in its stores in the wake of two deadly shootings at its locations in Texas and Mississippi in recent weeks.
How about actually stopping selling guns and ammunition instead of pretending that video games have anything to do with it? You know, the things that actually are necessary to commit these acts of violence?
Wal-Mart analogies anyone? (Score:2)
Wal-Mart fighting gun violence by targeting video games is like them trying to stop the opiod crisis by banning Flintstone chewables.
Will make more room for Christmas decorations (Score:2)
Well, that'll make a difference. (Score:2)
By the same logic, Walmart should take down displays of shoes. I can't think of a single mass shooting incident where the perpetrator wasn't wearing shoes.
If firearms access caused mass shootings, why (Score:2)
weren't mass shootings always common?
High schools used to have skeet and rifle clubs, yet the mass shooting era was much later. What changed?
If I draw any conclusions the trolls will sperg, so I'll just ask the question.
Re: (Score:2)
It's so strange, I live in neighborhood with high per capita gun ownership, but there are no murders nor armed robbery. Guns and ammo are sold in stores. The University I attended allowed students living on campus to have long guns for hunting, but no one ever shot up the campus. Apparently access to guns for those of proper upbringing isn't a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget... (Score:2)
Fine, do more (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah Jack the Ripper should have stayed out of the penny arcades.
You claim correlation without a shred of proof. Almost everyone watches violent movies but hardly anyone is doing the acts depicted. Violent novels, cartoons, movies, plays, have existed for over a century. Violence with body count goes far back in history, your brain is categorizing those historic things as something different but they aren't
Meanwhile... (Score:2)
Meanwhile, Texas will reduce restrictions on concealed carry of weapons in public spaces. In the same wake of the same shootings.
My video game theory... (Score:2)
Video games are a scape goat (Score:3)
It's more dangerous to see a a person walking around with a Bible, Qur'an, Guru Granth Sahib, Vedas or other holy book(s),in contrast to a video game, because it demonstrates that a person has detached from reality and is living in a state of intense and dangerous mental delusion. When a person is in an intense mental delusion, they're capable of driving a car into a crowd or people, flying planes into buildings, burning witches at the stake, and stopping all forms of human progress.
Whose more dangerous, Mother T, or Will Wright? Mother T was a monster who has one of the highest body counts in human history. She punished, tortured and killed in the name of her delusion, which was labelled religious faith, whereas, Will Wright designed one of the most successful video game series in history. If video games cause violence, then why did some of the most aggressive acts of evil take place before we had video games and in places where it wasn't possible to have easy / readily access to video games? Video games are an easy out because once we blame the real roots of terrorism, people will have to own up to the fact that once they die, it's over and they're not coming back, or that true evil exists regardless of mental illness (religious faith).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Keep them down (Score:5, Insightful)
None of them have daily mass shootings. Yet somehow this is correlated to video games?
How?
No scientific study shows a causal link or even a correlation between video games and shootings.
> something has changed
> something has to be done
"Well, we don't know what is causing it so we might as well ban video games."
The most retarded policy ever.
Re: (Score:3)
Yet somehow this is correlated to video games? How?
Video games are the least well entrenched of the correlating factors between the incidents. Fingering one of the other factors generates greater pushback from ideological concerns, so the greatest consensus is that video games are the largest culprit. This despite the fact that few people actually believe that video games are the largest culprit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Keep them down (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't believe violent video games are causing this.
And the OP had a point, that the US has had guns, specifically semi-auto guns (pistols and rifles) for a LONG time too and we've not had the problems in the past.
Aside from them redefining what "mass shooting" is....this isn't a video game problem and it isn't a gun problem.
It is a PEOPLE problem.
Again, we've had guns freely available here in the US forever. Hell, we didn't even start background checks at all till 1994.
And not long before that, you could go to hardware stores or even the old Western Auto stores and buy guns quite readily.
Again, we didn't have the problem with idiots going around mowing people down in public gathering places like is happening today.
No, something fundamentally wrong with PEOPLE is occurring.
What is the problem with people?
Are they more isolated today?
Is social media a contributing factor?
Are kids not being raised to understand the basic value of a human life?
I think maybe all of these are the contributing factors, and I'm not sure the answer.
But if it were a gun problem, then with US civilians owning about 393 Million firearms, about 48% of the whole worlds arms [wikipedia.org] then you'd expect things like this to be worse.
But it is not.
Sources like to attribute about 40K gun deaths a year, but out of those, about 30K are suicides.
I think you could take that number out as that that is not what people think about with "gun violence" as a topic, they think of someone trying to murder someone else with a gun.
So, out of those 10K gun deaths, you take out legitimate LEO shootings, and incidental discharges, you have a lower more realistic idea of what the actual gun death numbers are in the US.
And out of those....the overwhelming majority of those are handgun deaths, predominantly gang and drug related.
These are the historic numbers.
These recent mass shootings in public like last weekend are a fairly new phenomena...yet guns have been around forever, so, why are PEOPLE doing this?
And, how do we solve this, without vasty and overwhelmingly infringing upon the majorities rights to own and enjoy firearms as most do?
Re:Why things were "better" in the past (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh please...why bring race into this?
No one has condoned lynching in well over 120 years or so.
That is ancient history...I'm talking about recent history....as I mentioned, there were NO background checks of any kinds prior to 1994.
You could buy a gun mail order in a catalog, or at the local hardware store.
Semi-automatic pistols and rifles are nothing new, they have been around for ages, YET....we didn't have people using them to mow down as many people as possible in public areas.
If this were a gun problem, we'd have seen this "mass shooter" syndrome more and more and more from days way in the past when it was even easier to get guns than today.
No, it is something gone wrong with some people in modern days...what is it?
Hell at this point, I'd blame more of it on the social media society we've created, where people are isolated and don't know how to meet or interact with real people in real meatspace, and that the only recognition they know is by likes or what another people they'll never meet say and agree with them on on impersonal forums.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Keep them down (Score:3, Informative)
The same AAA hames are sold worldwide. They are by no means a US phenomenon.
Re:Keep them down (Score:5, Insightful)
As a Canadian, with two sons aged 13 and 15, I can say without a doubt that my children play exactly the same violent video games as American children. I've tried to steer them away from first-person shooters, but their game time is definitely dominated by the genre. All of their friends are playing the same games.
Yet Canada has one-seventh the rate of US firearm homicides, per-capita. You can make the same comparison, and similar statement, about every first-world nation in the world. In fact, Canada has a slightly higher homicide rate than its first-world counterparts, except for the US, which leads by a wide margin.
I'm no fan of video games, having almost totally given them up more than a decade ago because the real world is more fun, but you will need to pick a better scapegoat for gun violence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
CS:GO, Fortnite, Doom, Half-Life, Quake, Call of Duty: All The Games etc. are sold all over Europe. Europe does not have daily shootings the way the US does.
Were you thinking of other hyper-violent first person games? Can you mention which ones you're thinking of, in that case?
Re: (Score:3)
They play video games, but as I understand it, they don't play the same hyper-violent video games that kids in the US play
At least where I live (false) this is completely, guns are very limited but everybody played mortal kombat and/or doom and/or whatever at some point in their lives. But keep pretending that it's video games (or death metal, or d&d), and ignore the elephant gun in the room.
Re: (Score:2)
silver bullet
Replying to myself sorry. But look. I can't even write up 3 paragraphs about violence in american culture without referencing shooting something.
Re: (Score:3)
I think American culture has a fetishization of guns to a degree that other countries don't. .
Perhaps, but we are the country the world runs to to save them when some piss-ant dictator comes knocking at their doors.
Re: (Score:2)
So no possibility to get the Death Wish [wikipedia.org] movie on WallyWorld anymore?
Re:Keep them down (Score:5, Insightful)
We've always had mass shootings. It's just that they were in black neighborhoods so they were never on the national news. They only started national news when night time news magazines switched from reporting the war in the Middle East to sensationalism.
And to put it bluntly...Nowadays nothing is more sensational than white-on-whomever mass violence.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The one thing no one has been able to explain is that guns have existed in the United States for centuries now. No mass shootings....
I grew up in the 60s. Americans have way more access to guns, and way more access to serious guns, now.
Guns in America [wbhm.org].
And when I was a kid, having a "gun" meant a .22 bolt-action rifle to plink at cans, and maybe squirrels. Nobody, and I mean nobody, had semi-automatic assault rifles.
Re: (Score:2)
So what did the gunman in the UT Texas tower shooting use to kill all of those people in 1966? Were the reports of civilians getting their hunting rifles and shooting back at him untrue?
Re: (Score:2)
70s [Re:Keep them down] (Score:2)
In the '70s we had shag carpet and a wet-bar in the fully-furnished basement. If there were any moose heads, they were left-overs from decades ago.
What you had as a kid was not representative. (Score:5, Insightful)
I also grew up in the 1960s and military surplus Garands and carbines were common. What you had access to as a kid isn't necessarily representative of what gun owners owned. .30-30 Winchester Model 1894 (note the model date) is an example with a powerful cartridge. Why so few mass shootings?
One difference was the WWII generation were most of the workforce and had nothing to prove. A firearm was a tool. Their WWII bringbacks and domestic milsurp stayed in their collections. That's when my interest in firearms began. An M1 carbine is as capable at close quarters as any other semi-auto.
Revolvers fire as rapidly as semi-auto. Why so few mass shootings? The definition of "mass" is four or five kills. Most revolvers hold six rounds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Lever action carbines are quick, handy and were VERY popular in the 1950s and 1960s thanks to Hollywood.. The classic
Even a traditional 1800s western loadout of two single action revolvers and a shotgun or lever action rifle is ample for a mass shooting.By the 1960s millions of those weapons were owned throughout the US. Why so few mass shootings?
Semi-auto pistols were very common in the 1960s by which time the classic designs like M1911, Browning Hi-Power and Luger were elderly. Why so few mass shootings?
Another difference is kids were socialized differently and far less entitled. Today people have trouble understanding they aren't special or important to others. IMO mass shooting is an act of ENTITLEMENT. They are rare in societies where the group matters more than the individual.
Anonymous coward [Re:Keep them down] (Score:2)
Yeah, anonymous cowards always quibble on vocabulary when they don't have anything to actually say.
a bolt-action rifle is neither an assault rifle NOR a semi-automatic. That's what we had when I was a kid.
Re: (Score:2)
One could also ask why the US and not the rest of the world, it's not like, say, Japan, doesn't sell a lot of video games.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"The one thing no one has been able to explain is that guns have existed in the United States for centuries now. No mass shootings."
there were no mass populations to shoot at, dummy
well, not people, anyways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
was there the equivalent of today's mega cities and run-down suburbs powered by cars and highways?
And how would you do a mass shooting with a muzzle loading musket firing ball ammo?
"Violent video games started being a thing in the late 90s. All of a sudden, we start havin
Re: (Score:2)
The one thing no one has been able to explain is that guns have existed in the United States for centuries now. No mass shootings.
Violent video games started being a thing in the late 90s. All of a sudden, we start having a rash of mass shootings.
Now I know correlation isn't causation, but we know it's not the access to firearms. But something has changed, and one of the things that has changed is the easy available of killing simulators available to young children. Something should be done about it.
Hyper partisanship and the rise of internet echo chambers on social media, same as antivaxxers, steaming your vagina, and "internet personalities".
Re:Keep them down (Score:5, Insightful)
Baggy jeans started being a thing in the late 90s. All of a sudden, we start having a rash of mass shootings.
PDAs started being a thing in the late 90s. All of a sudden, we start having a rash of mass shootings.
Fast Internet access started being a thing in the late 90s. All of a sudden, we start having a rash of mass shootings.
Violent movies started being a thing in the late 90s. All of a sudden, we start having a rash of mass shootings.
Violent video games started being a thing in the late 90s. All of a sudden, countries other than the USA with many gamers and loads of guns start having no mass shootings whatsoever
Re: (Score:2)
There certainly have been mass shootings in the past. There were no violent video games in 1966 when Charles Whitman opened fire from the tower at the University of Texas. And there certainly not the kind of violent video games we have now back in 1984 when James Huberty opened fire in a McDonalds in San Diego.
In fact, there's quite a list of mass shootings over the 20th century in the United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
You are suggesting murder to stop guns because of potential for murder. Whatever mental gymnastics you use to twist that logic pretzel must be exhausting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you buy a firearm does not mean you are going to kill someone with it.
True - you're far more likely to commit suicide with it (2/3 of all firearms deaths are suicides).
Re: (Score:3)
The funny thing is that they already stopped selling "evil" semi-automatic rifles years ago. Didn't really help, did it?
Re: (Score:2)
What else should people not be able to see according to you?
Re:Flogging Jack Thompson's (political) corpse (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, their position on the seems reasonable: they have no long term plans to change what they're selling, they're just taking down the displays for a while as a show of respect for the victims.
I mean, sure, it's helping to over-sensationalize the situation, and Walmart's working it to their perceived benefit, but both in very minor ways.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, their position on the seems reasonable: they have no long term plans to change what they're selling, they're just taking down the displays for a while as a show of respect for the victims.
/quote>
Pulling displays and signs of violent video games, but not pulling their displays and signs for guns and bullets.
They're doing nothing but adding to the false idea that "violent video games" are to blame.
Re: (Score:3)
This. Blaming video games is a red herring which can be quickly and easily debunked, it doesn't deserve the debate or attention it continues to get. It's comical that the guns remain on display and for sale in Wal-Mart during this farce.
Why the gun violence/video game link is bullshit, in one graph [vox.com]
My 2-step guide to quickly debunking gun policy red herrings [slashdot.org]
Re:Flogging Jack Thompson's (political) corpse (Score:4, Insightful)
So could we please hide crosses/etc in respect to over 100M victims of Christianity?
You mean, more than you do already, banning them from every public building?
Re:Flogging Jack Thompson's (political) corpse (Score:4, Informative)
Because that is what the Constitution says to do. Just like the guy who wrote the Constitution said:
And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.
Or this doozy:
The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting Usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.
Or:
There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermingle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation.
And finally:
The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of
Or, if you prefer, his remarks when he vetoed a bill which would have officially incorporated an Episcopal church in Washington, D.C.:
It "violates in particular," said Madison, "the article of the Constitution of the United States which declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.'"
But please, tell us more how banning religion and religious symbols from public buildings isn't what was meant by the person who wrote the words.
Re:Flogging Jack Thompson's (political) corpse (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, but I think it's more "this advertisement will actually hurt sales this week" than any abstract virtue signaling.
Re:Flogging Jack Thompson's (political) corpse (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This is my understanding as well. But then Walmart management always struck me as being rather clueless [trbimg.com].
Re: (Score:3)
What they are doing is virtue signalling thanks to an Orange man (that really isn't a nice term for the president, he's hardly a man) whipping out the massively debunked link between gun violence and video games.