That is not quite what CNN is saying:
You completely ignored my point.
Not big news at all. Rifles account for only a tiny chunk of gun deaths. They are the scary, splashed all over the media deaths; there just aren’t many of them. Online purchases of ammo are also simple. It’s about as hard as ordering a DVD from Amazon (although IIRC Amazon doesn’t do ammo.) You can get ammo delivered right to your door in a couple days. Guns are harder to get legally. If you can get the gun, ammo is the easy bit.
So Walmart is limiting the potential shooters who use a rifle, don’t already have some ammo on hand for the next range trip, and can’t buy ammo locally anyplace but Walmart.
As I said…
One way in which they might not do so is that increased talk by politicians on the left about finding policy solutions to mass shootings will mobilize more pro-gun voters on the right to vote against those politicians than it will mobilize gun-control voters to vote for them.
This is the story of gun control efforts in the US. The minority of voters who are opposed to (most) measures are highly motivated. The majority that is in favor of them is not.
Getting an issue in the forefront of the public’s mind might result in the less-motivated voters to go vote… or it might not. It’s not obvious to me which effect wins there.
Got anything to contribute?
I think I did in post #2, above.
The rest is obvious.
It won’t matter.
Here’s the issue, most people are not very informed, they get their information from a single source typically mainstream media on the television. The left, often has very nuanced policy proposals while the rights is more straight forward, this immediately causes right winged policies to look more attractive at first glance (to the low informed single source voters). Add these false narratives into the equation and of course you’re going to have hard liners on both sides. When a leftist says gun control, the right assumes they mean banning guns. In many cases some leftist do want to ban specific guns or make it harder to obtain certain weapons. So any conversation about gun control automatically gets conflated with outright banning firearms. We see this on the immigration topic as well. Trump touts about open borders then right wingers assume any leftist talk about immigration reform is automatically open borders.
I wouldn’t call mass shooting anomalies when we have an disproportionate amount of them occur in the US even when you scale population/shootings.
It’s relatively rare to all the other forms of gun violence, but that doesn’t invalidate the correlation between mass shootings, and firearms per capita, increasing wealth inquality, poorer social programs, and increase accessibility of information. The reason why the centrists in the democratic party started really cracking down on the gun control proposals is because of these mass shootings. Bernie Sanders until 2013 wasn’t that hard on firearms until the mass shootings started to pick up pace.
You also make this seem like the “gun control side” is unwilling to compromise… they’re willing to take ANY form of gun control including making our existing laws tougher, such as closing the boyfriend loophole for example. It really appears like you’re downplaying/ignoring why gun control has became as big of a debate as healthcare. Cops and black people have been getting murdered via firearms for a long time now, mass shootings or shooting up little jimmy’s school, everyone no matter who they are gets pissed off about that hence why we’re now talking about the topic.