A 20-year-old Oregon man has accused Walmart and Dick’s of age-discrimination

[Eurytos]

Neither the journal nor my post says that, if that helps.



I showed you my source, you'll have to show me this research you are referring to. I do find it intriguing though. So you are saying of the 15,000 (give or take) gun related homicides each year, most of the killers took the victim's gun from them while the victim was trying to defend themselves and shot them with it? Seems a bit far fetched, but I'm interested in reading your source.

As far as the claim I'm making, could you specify what you believe I'm claiming? If your first sentence is indicative of what you believe I'm saying, then you have mistaken my claim.

This is specifically what I'm citing:

"Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million"

and

"A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gunwielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies"

So that is why I said "violence or death" not "deadly attack".

1) I am NOT saying this: "So you are saying of the 15,000 (give or take) gun related homicides each year, most of the killers took the victim's gun from them while the victim was trying to defend themselves and shot them with it?" What I am saying is that where a person, mainly women, own a gun for personal protection, they are more likely than not killed with their own weapon. Sometimes from an offender, often times their significant other in a domestic dispute, and other times its accidental, or a child, etc. Some are homicides, some are accidental gun deaths. In the homicides it is often someone they know, like an abusive boyfriend/husband, less frequently it is just a random stranger. How many of all homicides are this, I do not know, thats not the claim I am making.

2)The claim of yours I take issue with, is this one, "You have between 10,000 to 20,000 murdered by firearms each year, however you have an estimated 500,000 to 3,000,000 who defend themselves from violence or death each year with firearms." I'm wondering where you came up with this number of 500k-3m people using their guns to defend themselves from some violent attack, each year. You then linked to that article, which I thought was supporting this claim. Maybe it was supporting a different claim you made, or maybe I'm interpreting what you said wrong. But the number I'm curious about is this 500k-3m number you stated.

3) Reading what you just quoted, I find it hard to believe that defensive gun use annually is 500k-3m. Or that offensive gun use is similar. First off, this is a massive range. Second, there are, on the top end, 30k gun homicides annually. Thats no where near 500k, much less 3m. Even when you throw in non homicide gun crime, it doesnt approach these numbers. This needs more explaining, because the numbers simply don't add up. There is no way that there are 500k-3m gun incidents a year, and only, at most, 30k deaths from those incidents.

4) Youre focused too much on me saying deadly attack. Violence, death, whatever, I still find it hard to believe these numbers are accurate.

[Nurasu]

There is no way that there are 500k-3m gun incidents a year, and only, at most, 30k deaths from those incidents.

Just pointing out that a gun-related death caused by self defense would not be classified as a homicide.

[Eurytos]

Reminds me of a time, many years back, when there were some boob grabbers running around. They would walk up to random women in public and grab their boobs. Since there was no law specifically against "grabbing random boobs", the authorities would just ask the women, "did he let go of your boob when you asked him to?". So as far as I am aware, because they always stopped when the ladies protested, they were never prosecuted.

This behavior is clearly a crime. It is assault and/or battery, depending on how the state defines those crimes. An unwanted physical touching is a crime. In my state it would be a battery. It is definitely illegal to just grab or touch another person in an offensive way.

- - - Updated - - -

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

Lol, this is a person who absolutely doesnt understand Constitutional Law.

There are "infringements" on all of your rights, they are just legal infringements, not illegal infringements. Who determines what is or isnt a legal infringement...well, thats the Supreme Court. As it pertains directly to the 2A, there are two cases, one from 2008, the other from 2010. DC V Heller, and McDonald v Chicago. Go read them, and when you see the part where Justice Scalia(noted liberal tree hugger) says that the 2A doesn't give you the right to own whatever weapon you want...come back to me.

[Jademist]

Can't he just go buy a gun somewhere else?

Isn't that the rhetoric many conservatives push for anyway? Business rights and all?

I'm gay but I was not for the whole suing the cake company for not wanting to make a cake for a gay couple.

[Eurytos]

Just pointing out that a gun-related death caused by self defense would not be classified as a homicide.

Yeah, but it would still be considered a gun death, a gun related incident. If there are 30k gun homicides, then that means on the low end there are 470k other gun incidents where a person defended themselves with a gun? And on the high end, 2,970,000 gun incidents where a person defended themselves?

No way that this is happening.

[rhorle]

http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/loca...discrimination

A teen in Michigan is suing under the same type of "public accommodations" law as Oregon.

"“a business, or an educational, refreshment, entertainment, recreation, health, or transportation facility, or institution of any kind, whether licensed or not, whose goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations are extended, offered, sold, or otherwise made available to the public.” MCL 37.2301(a)."

There may be a better case in Michigan because it specifically includes things sold/offered where as the Oregon law does not as far as I have seen. Which is why for example in Michigan an 18 year can rent a car but Oregon they can not. I still think it is silly. A store should be able to set what ever age limit they want for an already restricted product.

[Eurytos]

Can't he just go buy a gun somewhere else?

Isn't that the rhetoric many conservatives push for anyway? Business rights and all?

I'm gay but I was not for the whole suing the cake company for not wanting to make a cake for a gay couple.

Thats not how the law works though. Places of public accommodation don't get to discriminate against a protected class simply because there are other places that serve that protected class. Everybodies gotta follow the rules, unless there is an exception, and you fall in that exception. The bakers did not. Dick's and Walmart might not either. It is an interesting argument.

[Zan15]

I kind of wondered how legal this was myself. At first I thought it might be legal to do it because I have been to places where you couldn't rent a motel room unless you were 21 or rent a car until 24. But unlike those things there are laws saying you are allowed to buy a rifle at 18.

Wonder what happened to the rights stance

"business have the right to sell or not sell their services/goods to anyone they don't want to....."

Guess this only works with cakes and gays.

[Dlucks]

America, where you can be shipped off to war and you can buy weapons by 18 but don’t you dare have a drop of alcohol.

[zenkai]

Guess this only works with cakes and gays.

It didn't work, hence the lawsuits.

[Skulltaker]

Hey, there's a way to make it legal. Mandatory three-year waiting period. Can't file for it until you turn 18. Just make EVERYONE wait the three years.

Three years? But I'm mad now!!

[Z-Man]

Mark the gun up to $18,000, then offer a 90% "senior citizen" discount for those over 21. Problem solved.

[Zan15]

Mark the gun up to $18,000, then offer a 90% "senior citizen" discount for those over 21. Problem solved.

what will happen is these stores will just stop selling guns.
Its just not worth the hassle to a 400 billion dollar company in these states with these law loopholes/poorly written laws.

[Shadowferal]

what will happen is these stores will just stop selling guns. Its just not worth the hassle to a 400 billion dollar company in these states with these law loopholes/poorly written laws.

You're joking, right?

[Tinykong]

So your suggestion of stores to stop selling guns is pointless.

Seems like you are wrong on this one, since they're already trying to distance themselves from AR sales, might as well just go all the way, especially to avoid being sued from discrimination.

[spdr]

Wonder what happened to the rights stance

"business have the right to sell or not sell their services/goods to anyone they don't want to....."

Guess this only works with cakes and gays.

Nope. They should be free to put age limits on everything they sell, as long as they're willing to deal with any repercussions of alienating their customers.

[spanishninja]

so.....I wonder if he would say it's age discrimination that he cannot buy cigarettes as well until he is 21 as well (Oregan's minimum age to buy cigarettes is 21).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_age

that's not a valid comparison because the store's rule wouldn't be different than state law in the case of the cigarettes.

[Zan15]

You're joking, right?

Why would i be joking?

I mean the airlines did it after they found out their discounts to the NRA were worth 13 customers over all those years

Drug stores stopped selling cigarettes when they found the bad press and sales cost them more then not selling them at all. And they made a lot more money than Walmart is making off guns in these few states.




Walmart in 2015 stopped selling AR's and look, ended up effecting them......oh wait....



501 billion in revenue per year
10.2 billion profit

Total gun sales in the US is only 13.5 billion Annual revenue of gun and ammunition manufacturing industry, with a $1.5 billion profit.


So lets assume Walmart accounts for 10% of the market.

1.35 billion in revenue and 150 million profit.

So its .2% of their revenue and 1.4% of profit.


Now just stop sales in the few states where the laws will need to be fixed and are written poorly....you are talking 3-4 of them......so now you are talking an even smaller percent of their sales and profit.



They can go back to selling them when the laws are re-written

[gaymer77]

Would you say anyone creating a law suit in the name of discrimination is "throwing a tantrum"? Seems like you are being a bit hyperbolic here.

Not selling a gun to someone because they have guidelines in place at the company that says you must be a certain age to purchase them is NOT discrimination.

[Eurytos]

I think there might actually be some education going on in this thread.

But the one thing that keeps being brought up is this weird claim that age discrimination only applies to 40 and over. Which is an incomplete, if totally wrong, way of describing that particular problem, and age discrimination in general. Then a few folks came along and pointed out that its 40 and over in employment laws, which is more correct, but still not complete.

1) The constitution protects all folks, whatever age, from age discrimination, unless otherwise specified by a valid law. Like employment laws, school laws, or other things in the various states.
2) This is generally done through the 14th amendment Equal Protection clause.
3) Some areas are well settled. Others could pop up.
4) The 14th amendment still protects all ages, until otherwise determined.

Thats how the constitution works. You have all the freedoms, the government cant restrict them, until a court says it can.

BUT

None of that actually has anything to do with this case, since the government is not involved in this case, which a few other astute folks also pointed out.
So, this actually isnt a 14th amendment case, nor a 2nd amendment case. It is specifically about Oregon's Public Accommodations law. Which is a State law that basically says that, unless otherwise excepted from this rule, all places of public accommodation have to accommodate all people. There is a federal law that says essentially the same thing. Things like cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other things have already been excepted from this rule, allowing places of public accommodations to refuse service to those folks who would otherwise be entitled to the products.

In Oregon, guns are not excepted from the Public Accommodations law. Which means that a store(Dick's and Walmart), if(and this is sorta a big if, likely the crux of the case) they are determined to be a place of Public Accommodation, cannot refuse to sell a legal product to a person of legal age(in this case, federal law allows 18year olds to buy guns).

I'm as liberal as they come, I'm also a lawyer, I also own a few guns, I'm also over 21(theres all my biases in this case) and I've been thinking about this for a few days now. And I actually think this is the right answer. Dick's and Walmart cant just say they arent selling guns to under 21 when there is a fed law that says 18 is ok, unless Oregon also passes its own law that says 21 is the legal age for our state, and then that law is determined to be constitutional(which I think it would be). This is where the gay wedding-cake baker argument comes in. As you all recall, the cake baker couldnt deny the couple a cake based on being gay. Likewise, Dicks and Walmart cant deny the kid a gun because hes under 21. In the case of the baker, the state could have tried to pass a law that said it was ok to discriminate against the gay couple, but that would undoubtedly be ruled an unconstitutional law. The same cant be said for passing an age restriction for guns, as there are plenty of other states with similar laws. The other thing that could happen, besides a new state law passing, as some have pointed out, is that the stores could just stop selling them altogether.

- - - Updated - - -

Not selling a gun to someone because they have guidelines in place at the company that says you must be a certain age to purchase them is NOT discrimination.

Actually, it probably is. Nevermind, it most certainly is discrimination. Whether it is a legal or illegal form of discrimination is going to be determined. It's also likely illegal.