Call on Walmart to end gun sales

Forum rules
Keep News and Politics about News and Politics.

Do not post full articles from other websites. Always link back to the source

Discuss things respectfully and take into account that each person has a different opinion.

Remember that this is a place for everyone to enjoy. Don’t try and run people off of the site. If you are upset with someone then utilize the foe feature.

Report when things come up.

Personal attacks are against guidelines however attacks need to be directed at a member on the forum for it to be against guidelines. Lying is not against guidelines, it’s hard for us to prove someone even did lie.

Once a topic is locked we consider the issue handled and no longer respond to new reports on the topic.
BionicBunny
Princess Royal
Princess Royal
Posts: 8793
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 5:20 pm

Unread post

Ledina60 wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 10:37 pm
Poietes wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:32 pm This whole conversation is amusing to read as I’m sitting at a hunters safety course with my 13 year old.
13 is a little young to be putting a gun in a kid’s hands.
Let him be innocent a little while longer!
Why don’t you mind your own business
hockeymom87
Regent
Regent
Posts: 3619
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 6:20 pm

Unread post

Ledina60 wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 10:37 pm
Poietes wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:32 pm This whole conversation is amusing to read as I’m sitting at a hunters safety course with my 13 year old.
13 is a little young to be putting a gun in a kid’s hands.
Let him be innocent a little while longer!
My son got a BB gun for Christmas he was 5 1/2. My 3 year old want to shoot the targets too. My 6 year old want to go hunting with his daddy this fall. He won’t be able to shoot the gun but he last year he helped skin it. And he watched his daddy butcher it.
DSamuels
Princess Royal
Princess Royal
Posts: 5639
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 9:56 pm

Unread post

LMAO because our 13 year old grandson is about 6 feet tall, not very little at all. He’s been shooting a bow for over a year in the school archery program. He and his older sister have gone to regional, state, national and world championships.
Never explain - your friends do not need it and your enemies will not believe you anyway. - Elbert Hubbard

Keep up - Calm Down - Pay Attention
29again
Regent
Regent
Posts: 4288
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:56 pm

Unread post

CockatooCrazyColt529 wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:45 am
iamanon wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:08 pm
Carpy wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:56 am

The three day waiting period. If no response is given on the background check you can let them take the gun after three business days.
Three business days would seem like an eternity if an abused woman felt the need for a gun to protect herself and her family.
Doesn't really matter the length of time for criminals because they don't get their guns legally.
With a concealed carry permit, one doesn't need to wait. But at the same time, a woman who's in that position has options if she'd just choose to take them. And what woman doesn't have access to kitchen knives or anti-freeze? Hurt me and vengeance is mine, sadly. I don't back down.
I was thinking hair spray (or any aerosol) and a lighter makes a great flame-thrower!
I gotta ask............. what do you do with anti-freeze?
Expand your thinking


It’s possible to disagree with an article and not respond with a personal attack you know.
Try it.
29again
Regent
Regent
Posts: 4288
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:56 pm

Unread post

CockatooCrazyColt529 wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:26 am
29again wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:40 am Purchasing a gun over the internet still requires a background check at the delivery point, which must be someone who holds an FFL. They do the check, and if you pass, you can pick up the gun. It's not like when you order a gadget off of Amazon, that gets delivered to your doorstep.
Momto2boys973 wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:35 pm Exactly. So obviously backgrounds check are useless. Just like putting a Band-Aid in open heart surgery. Just the illusion that something is being done.

And by using the guns he wasn’t a criminal. He was old enough to carry a gun, he just wasn’t old enough to own one (yeah, very logical 👍🏻😁) If the “background check” had included the people in her household that could have access to the gun and mental health being a deterrent to have access to a gun, she wouldn’t have been able to purchase one legally and she didn’t seem the kind to be so desperate to go and get one illegally. If background checks include checking social media and allowing for a waiting period of not 3 days, but of 3 months to see how the person is behaving, if gun ownership was limited to a certain number and types of guns and ammo, then maybe some of these incidents should be stopped. There’s no excuse why Stephen Paddock owned 24 legal weapons that he used to murder people in Las Vegas. ZERO excuses for that. Number of guns owned should be a red flag in any background check.

And, as I said, mass shootings are crimes so opportunity. If Adam Lanza, the Columbine kids, the Orlando club shooter, and the Virginia yech shooter didn’t have a ready access to guns, those crimes would most likely not have been committed. Seung-Hui Cho had a history of mental problems, even psychiatric evaluations for suicide threats and he was even able to legally purchase a gun over the internet. So again... how did the “background check” help there?

What if you find a private seller online and drive several states to purchase it?
Well, IDK. All I can say is have a good road trip! Not something I would do, but to each their own.
Expand your thinking


It’s possible to disagree with an article and not respond with a personal attack you know.
Try it.
29again
Regent
Regent
Posts: 4288
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:56 pm

Unread post

Ledina60 wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 5:23 am
hockeymom87 wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:58 pm
Momto2boys973 wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:36 pm And if you have seconds, you wouldn’t be able to get to your gun if it was properly and safely stored. Because you do know that the safest way to store guns is unloaded, locked and separate from ammunition. So please tell me how would a safely stored gun would save you when you only have seconds to get it?

My handgun is in a fingerprint safe with the clip out and next to it. The clip is loaded. It would take me about 30-45 seconds to get from the door to the bedroom. The kids would get in the closet while I get the gun. We’ve practice before.
Practice? That’s a siege mentality , unhealthy , negative . Overreacting.
I doubt you’d really be able to be that cool and that fast and efficient if an intruder entered your home. It sounds good here but in reality , you wouldn’t be that cool. You’d be scared . Scared of the bad guys...It’s obvious you’re easily scared just by the fact that you’ve got guns and practice for a shoot-out with an intruder.
So, you do not approve of fire drills or earthquake drills in school, then, right?
It's the same thing. Practice. Whether it is to save your life, or the piano, practice helps.
It's obvious that you are easily scared by weapons just by the fact that you have to personally insult those who state they own weapons.
Expand your thinking


It’s possible to disagree with an article and not respond with a personal attack you know.
Try it.
29again
Regent
Regent
Posts: 4288
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:56 pm

Unread post

You do understand that as of now, the mental health of a potential gun buyer is a loophole that some people fall through, right? Also, if the local and/or state authorities have not entered or submitted the data to the databases, then it may not show up. FTR, I totally support banning any person who is undergoing therapy and using psychotropic drugs from owning a weapon.
Mental health records present a particular problem. The only way a history of involuntary psychiatric confinement or a judge’s ruling of mental incompetence will show up on a gun background check is if a state makes the effort to submit it to the NICS Indices — those records aren’t meant for the other two databases. The Virginia Tech massacre, committed by a gunman whose history of severe psychiatric illness had not been forwarded to the the FBI, exposed shortfalls in mental health reporting to the NICS Indices. Several states have since made progress in correcting those omissions, but others have remained resistant, citing privacy laws. As of December 31, 2016, several states have submitted only a handful of disqualifying mental health records to the NICS.

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/gun-ba ... cs-guide/
Momto2boys973 wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:02 am If those background de were any useful, the Virginia Tech shooter wouldn’t have been able to legally buy one over the Internet. He had a history of mental illness and violence tendencies.
Fact is, those “background checks” are just the bare minimum and completely useless. They’re just there for the pro-gun crowd to be able claim that “something” is being done.
29again wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:40 am Purchasing a gun over the internet still requires a background check at the delivery point, which must be someone who holds an FFL. They do the check, and if you pass, you can pick up the gun. It's not like when you order a gadget off of Amazon, that gets delivered to your doorstep.
Momto2boys973 wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:35 pm Exactly. So obviously backgrounds check are useless. Just like putting a Band-Aid in open heart surgery. Just the illusion that something is being done.

And by using the guns he wasn’t a criminal. He was old enough to carry a gun, he just wasn’t old enough to own one (yeah, very logical 👍🏻😁) If the “background check” had included the people in her household that could have access to the gun and mental health being a deterrent to have access to a gun, she wouldn’t have been able to purchase one legally and she didn’t seem the kind to be so desperate to go and get one illegally. If background checks include checking social media and allowing for a waiting period of not 3 days, but of 3 months to see how the person is behaving, if gun ownership was limited to a certain number and types of guns and ammo, then maybe some of these incidents should be stopped. There’s no excuse why Stephen Paddock owned 24 legal weapons that he used to murder people in Las Vegas. ZERO excuses for that. Number of guns owned should be a red flag in any background check.

And, as I said, mass shootings are crimes so opportunity. If Adam Lanza, the Columbine kids, the Orlando club shooter, and the Virginia yech shooter didn’t have a ready access to guns, those crimes would most likely not have been committed. Seung-Hui Cho had a history of mental problems, even psychiatric evaluations for suicide threats and he was even able to legally purchase a gun over the internet. So again... how did the “background check” help there?

Expand your thinking


It’s possible to disagree with an article and not respond with a personal attack you know.
Try it.
User avatar
Poietes
Regent
Regent
Posts: 2492
Joined: Thu May 24, 2018 11:57 am

Unread post

Ledina60 wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 10:37 pm
Poietes wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:32 pm This whole conversation is amusing to read as I’m sitting at a hunters safety course with my 13 year old.
13 is a little young to be putting a gun in a kid’s hands.
Let him be innocent a little while longer!
The hunters safety course is designed for people 12 and over. There are special youth and mentor programs so kids can learn to hunt and handle fire arms safely. Just like the instructors said tonight. Wether you actually go hunting or not having a safety course is always a good idea. He is actually a very good trap shooter and got his shotgun Merritt badge for Boy Scouts at camp this year. Knowing how to properly handle a gun does not make a child lose his innocence. It makes them smart and cautious about gun safety. Maybe you should look into taking a class and getting educated on a subject before you rant about it. People of all ages take these classes all the time. Gun safety is something every single living person should know.
”Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.”
User avatar
Valentina327
Princess
Princess
Posts: 16075
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 2:23 am

Unread post

EarlGrayHot wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:42 am Well, three days is hardly enough time to do a thorough background check. That is ridiculous.
Don't they offer background checks online?
Let's Go Brandon!
#FJB

https://openvaers.com/
User avatar
Valentina327
Princess
Princess
Posts: 16075
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 2:23 am

Unread post

Poietes wrote: Sat Aug 17, 2019 12:50 am
Ledina60 wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 10:37 pm
Poietes wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:32 pm This whole conversation is amusing to read as I’m sitting at a hunters safety course with my 13 year old.
13 is a little young to be putting a gun in a kid’s hands.
Let him be innocent a little while longer!
The hunters safety course is designed for people 12 and over. There are special youth and mentor programs so kids can learn to hunt and handle fire arms safely. Just like the instructors said tonight. Wether you actually go hunting or not having a safety course is always a good idea. He is actually a very good trap shooter and got his shotgun Merritt badge for Boy Scouts at camp this year. Knowing how to properly handle a gun does not make a child lose his innocence. It makes them smart and cautious about gun safety. Maybe you should look into taking a class and getting educated on a subject before you rant about it. People of all ages take these classes all the time. Gun safety is something every single living person should know.
Hear hear!
Let's Go Brandon!
#FJB

https://openvaers.com/
Locked Previous topicNext topic