• shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    This is so dumb it beggars belief. Yes, prohibited people are not allowed to buy ammo. However, anyone can go anywhere and buy ammo with nothing more than an ID, and that’s only an age check. Do these senators think Walmart is running a background check on me when I pick up a box of 12-gauge?!

    Saw an amusing video showcasing the ammo cops had confiscated from gangbangers. These guys often had 3-4 different types of ammo in the same magazine. If they can’t afford to visit Academy for a box of 20, they sure can’t afford vending machine prices.

    Wrong hill to fight on you idiots.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Well.

      Walmart kinda does do a background check on you, yes. They have an entire biometric dossier, too.

      They don’t care if you’re buying ammo illegally, though. But they are running background checks on everyone coming into their stores. Have been for a while.

      • ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        Wait what? Background checks on everyone that goes in a Walmart?? That’s an insanely large number of people.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          ACLU

          We asked some of America’s biggest retailers and, with a few exceptions, they refused to tell us.

          Naturally. Like Bruno, you don’t generally talk about your security arrangements. Most companies that install security cameras for commercial uses have their own AI system- or a relationship with a company that provides it. It can actually be extremely useful and not at all as awful as you imagine. Usually, it’s actually quite worse. one might even say nefarious.

          in any case…

          We do know that most major retailers have video cameras in their stores. We know that at least one face recognition vendor is pushing the use of the technology for identifying shoplifters, and claims to have several Fortune 500 retailers among its clients. We know the technology’s use is rapidly growing in the UK. We know the New York Times reported recently that the use of face recognition is being “explored” at Madison Square Garden. We know that Walmart tested the technology in its stores for several months in 2015. And now we know that at least one major American retailer, Lowe’s hardware, has begun using the technology without informing visitors to its stores.

          and it goes on.

          But I think it’s fair to say that most customers do not think that they are being subject to a perpetual lineup, scrutinized by face recognition technology to see if they resemble anyone that a company security service has decided to put on a watch list. They do not expect that their faces are being captured, retained, connected to their real-world identity (for example when they use a credit card at checkout), and combined with information about their income, education, demographics, and other data. They do not expect that their every footstep, hand motion, and gaze will be analyzed by computers and filed away to give insight into their shopping habits, patterns, and preferences, and shared among different companies, data brokers, and advertisers. They do not expect that they are subject to the risk of being misidentified as someone in a database of suspected criminals, fugitives, terrorists, or whatever other blacklists stores may be using or begin using in the future. They don’t expect that all these intimate details about their behavior will become accessible to government agencies through legal demands or voluntary sharing.

          And if those things are happening, I think most customers would want to know about it.

          if you scroll there’s a very clear message of “we don’t know, they’re not saying”. they asked 20 of the top retailers… most refused to answer. of the remainder that did answer… only one said ‘no’.

          Remember, we don’t talk about Bruno. but maybe we should.

          • Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            I might be misreading this, but it seems like the ACLU is saying it’s possible, but they don’t have any yard evidence.

            • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Of course there’s no hard evidence.

              You really think the people that have first hand knowledge are allowed to tell them? You think that Walmart or anyone else is going to admit to knowing your dick size?* (Or your partner’s as the case may be?)

              All the people that responded back, only two gave a hard answer, and I’d be willing to bet that the one that said “no” probably weaseled it with something like “we do not do facial recognition for security reasons” or whatever if they’re doing it for “marketing” or “improving shopper experience” or whatever.

              And what they’re doing isn’t illegal (and they’ve lobbied governments across the world to ensure that,) so they simply don’t have to answer.

              Of course there’s no hard evidence. But there’s plenty of soft evidence. Like how the fuck do you think they’re going to pop personalized adds in store if they don’t know who you are and what you’re doing?

              “But they don’t know my dicksize! You’re just being alarmist!”…. You ever buy condoms?

                • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  “hard” evidence.

                  you’re sealioning. I’ve already dropped plenty of good evidence. You’re welcome to drop any evidence you have, at all, that they’re not. including the ACLU, and several other sources.

                  I’ll wait.

                  You’re wrong if you think you’re entire life isn’t already in Walmart’s database, though. Or any other major retailer. or minor retailer. Or the data brokers that are buying and selling from everybody. Welcome to 2024.

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      Different calibers or different tips?

      People have pet theories about the best order of rounds for self defence and stuff.

      I bet you’re right it’s just whatever they found but different calibers would surprise me

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah, putting different rounds in a magazine isn’t that weird. It’s particularly useful if you are using tracers, to notify you when the end of the magazine is coming up for example, and to only have a tracer every few rounds. Even without that, there are reasons someone might have for mixing rounds in a magazine. Obviously, like you said, same caliber is how this is done. If it’s alternating calibers then that’s not great.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Do these senators think Walmart is running a background check on me when I pick up a box of 12-gauge?!

      They’re playing dumb because they want to start doing background checks on ammo purchases.

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Depends on the state. The senators in question are both from Massachusetts, where you are required to have a license to purchase a firearm, and, presumably, ammunition as well. I know that Illinois requires a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) for any gun or ammunition purchase.

      I don’t think I’d even get carded in my state; I’m clearly old enough.

    • Mak'
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      If it took more than one shot, you weren’t using. Jakobs!

  • t�m@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    And yet we didn’t win gold for every shooting event at the Olympics