“The senseless violence that met its devastating end in the famous and widespread discount department store is not the first of its kind to play out on Walmart premises,” bustle.com reports. “Earlier this year, two men got into an argument at a Walmart service counter in Chandler, Arizona that turned deadly. In 2013, at a Greenville, North Carolina Walmart parking lot, Lakim Faust, an African-American man, shot four people, targeting white people as his victims. A number of other crimes have also occurred on Walmart sites, including an attempt to sell a baby, the theft of a Girl Scouts cookie cash box [!] and an attempted sock robbery by a naked man [!!].” The article concludes that the “Walmart effect” is all down to . . .
location, location, location.
[Scott Wolfe, an assistant professor at the University of South Carolina and the lead author of the study entitled “Rolling back prices and raising crime rates”] noted that Walmart tended to build its stores in “counties with higher than average crime rates” that were “more likely to see Walmart build even after accounting for crime-related predictors, such as poverty, unemployment, immigration, population structure and residential turnover.”
But Wolfe and Pyrooz did not find that Walmart was responsible for rising poverty levels, economic disadvantages, or other common markers of crime. Researchers say that more work is needed in order to fully uncover the relationship between Walmart and illegal activity, questions about why criminals might specifically choose the big box store remain unanswered.
Researchers need to do more work to decide the fact of a matter, rather than settling for simple correlation? The next thing you know you’ll tell me we should look into whether or not “high-capacity” magazines are more dangerous than less capacious ammo holders. Or whether or not assault weapon registration and/or ban has any effect on crime. Nah. Let’s just ban ’em. And Walmart.