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.
hockeymom87
Regent
Regent
Posts: 3619
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 6:20 pm

Unread post

Ledina60 wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:55 am I’m in the USA and I think it’s ridiculous that Walmart sells guns!
In fact I didn’t even know that until just recently and it’s making me consider I should stop shopping there.
Pictures on “people of Walmart” is also a motivation to avoid it. Big gross guys with rifles slung over their backs - a few big women with guns too.barf.🤢
Momto2boys973 wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:45 am I don’t know if this is because I’m not in the U.S, but the thought that Walmart sells guns it’s just so ridiculous to me. I’m actually just heading out to Walmart myself, I was making my list and just the idea of going “milk, bread, ice cream, potatoes, pineapple, a gun and ammo, fabric softener, face cream, oh, and this month’s Better Homes and Gardens must be out!” is comical to say the least 😁
You really have an issue with big people don’t you. 🤔
hockeymom87
Regent
Regent
Posts: 3619
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 6:20 pm

Unread post

Momto2boys973 wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:52 am It goes beyond looking for a record. How many mass shooters had a record? Pretty much not one. And some mass shooters, like the one of Sandy Hooks, didn’t even use their own weapons. They were guns legally purchased by his mother, the one he also killed. So when you purchase a weapon, it’s not just you the one with access to it. So it shouldn’t just be your background being checked, but your household, the people that could have access to your weapon, your knowledge on gun safety and use and the amount of guns you already own.
hockeymom87 wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:05 am
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.
How long do you think it should take? If your record is clean it doesn’t take long. My husband gets a security background check and it’s pretty quickly done. And they look for everything. You give your SSN and it looks for arrests or other crime that could make you ineligible.
And when his mother bought that gun he didn’t have anything that would have came up to stop her from getting it. Him and other using guns that aren’t there’s shows that criminals(and if you use a gun that’s not your a criminal) don’t care about laws.
Momto2boys973
Princess
Princess
Posts: 20107
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 5:32 pm

Unread post

But do you think that background check is enough for a private person to own a gun? As I said before, the Sandy Hooks shooter didn’t have a record, or even owned a gun. He actually couldn’t legally own a gun at his age, but he could legally use one (🙄). He used his mother’s guns, legally bought. The Las Vegas shooter didn’t have a record, either. Neither did the Columbine kids. So how is a simple background that could take an hour prevent these incidents?
In fact, it’s well known that most mass shooters experience a sort of “crisis point” days, weeks or months before the incident. So a “background check” would do little to help there. Also, mass shootings are crimes of opportunity. If the person finds the opportunity and has the means (access to a gun), then he goes ahead with committing the crime. So it’s just common sense that not making access to those guns an easy thing will help.

Here’s a very interesting article on commonalities in mass shooters, tell me which one will be affected by a quick background check:

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2 ... oters-data

“First, the vast majority of mass shooters in our study experienced early childhood trauma and exposure to violence at a young age”
“Second, practically every mass shooter we studied had reached an identifiable crisis point in the weeks or months leading up to the shooting”
“Third, most of the shooters had studied the actions of other shooters and sought validation for their motives.”
“Fourth, the shooters all had the means to carry out their plans. ”

Rebeccaraev2 wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:10 pm
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.
I got my job in a prison, federal background checks, and it only took 2 days.
❤️🇮🇱 עמ׳ ישראל חי 🇮🇱❤️
Deleted User 1344

Unread post

hockeymom87 wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:18 pm
Ledina60 wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:55 am I’m in the USA and I think it’s ridiculous that Walmart sells guns!
In fact I didn’t even know that until just recently and it’s making me consider I should stop shopping there.
Pictures on “people of Walmart” is also a motivation to avoid it. Big gross guys with rifles slung over their backs - a few big women with guns too.barf.🤢
Momto2boys973 wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:45 am I don’t know if this is because I’m not in the U.S, but the thought that Walmart sells guns it’s just so ridiculous to me. I’m actually just heading out to Walmart myself, I was making my list and just the idea of going “milk, bread, ice cream, potatoes, pineapple, a gun and ammo, fabric softener, face cream, oh, and this month’s Better Homes and Gardens must be out!” is comical to say the least 😁
You really have an issue with big people don’t you. 🤔
Yahhttp://www.peopleofwalmart.com/page/4/?m=vod-s ... %29endif-A
Rebeccaraev2
Duchess
Duchess
Posts: 1817
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 9:46 am

Unread post

Momto2boys973 wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:23 pm But do you think that background check is enough for a private person to own a gun? As I said before, the Sandy Hooks shooter didn’t have a record, or even owned a gun. He actually couldn’t legally own a gun at his age, but he could legally use one (🙄). He used his mother’s guns, legally bought. The Las Vegas shooter didn’t have a record, either. Neither did the Columbine kids. So how is a simple background that could take an hour prevent these incidents?
In fact, it’s well known that most mass shooters experience a sort of “crisis point” days, weeks or months before the incident. So a “background check” would do little to help there. Also, mass shootings are crimes of opportunity. If the person finds the opportunity and has the means (access to a gun), then he goes ahead with committing the crime. So it’s just common sense that not making access to those guns an easy thing will help.

Here’s a very interesting article on commonalities in mass shooters, tell me which one will be affected by a quick background check:

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2 ... oters-data

“First, the vast majority of mass shooters in our study experienced early childhood trauma and exposure to violence at a young age”
“Second, practically every mass shooter we studied had reached an identifiable crisis point in the weeks or months leading up to the shooting”
“Third, most of the shooters had studied the actions of other shooters and sought validation for their motives.”
“Fourth, the shooters all had the means to carry out their plans. ”

First of all, I am pro gun reform and want a model similar to Japan's in the US so I am not reading all of that drivel. I simply stated a fact about background check timeframes.
Rebeccaraev2 wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:10 pm
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.
I got my job in a prison, federal background checks, and it only took 2 days.

First of all, I am pro gun reform and want a model similar to Japan in the US so I am not reading all of that drivel. You must have assumed a stance. I didn't state one until now. I simply stated a fact about background check timeframes. Everyone in our facility didn't have a terribly long wait. That's all I'm stating.
Momto2boys973
Princess
Princess
Posts: 20107
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 5:32 pm

Unread post

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?
hockeymom87 wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:20 pm
Momto2boys973 wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:52 am It goes beyond looking for a record. How many mass shooters had a record? Pretty much not one. And some mass shooters, like the one of Sandy Hooks, didn’t even use their own weapons. They were guns legally purchased by his mother, the one he also killed. So when you purchase a weapon, it’s not just you the one with access to it. So it shouldn’t just be your background being checked, but your household, the people that could have access to your weapon, your knowledge on gun safety and use and the amount of guns you already own.
hockeymom87 wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:05 am

How long do you think it should take? If your record is clean it doesn’t take long. My husband gets a security background check and it’s pretty quickly done. And they look for everything. You give your SSN and it looks for arrests or other crime that could make you ineligible.
And when his mother bought that gun he didn’t have anything that would have came up to stop her from getting it. Him and other using guns that aren’t there’s shows that criminals(and if you use a gun that’s not your a criminal) don’t care about laws.
❤️🇮🇱 עמ׳ ישראל חי 🇮🇱❤️
Momto2boys973
Princess
Princess
Posts: 20107
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 5:32 pm

Unread post

I didn’t assume anything. I replied to your comment as it was. If you thought your stance on gun control was relevant, you should’ve mentioned it. You didn’t, so I can just comment on what you wrote. You can’t get pissed at me for commenting on what YOU wrote and nothing else.
Rebeccaraev2 wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:27 pm
Momto2boys973 wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:23 pm But do you think that background check is enough for a private person to own a gun? As I said before, the Sandy Hooks shooter didn’t have a record, or even owned a gun. He actually couldn’t legally own a gun at his age, but he could legally use one (🙄). He used his mother’s guns, legally bought. The Las Vegas shooter didn’t have a record, either. Neither did the Columbine kids. So how is a simple background that could take an hour prevent these incidents?
In fact, it’s well known that most mass shooters experience a sort of “crisis point” days, weeks or months before the incident. So a “background check” would do little to help there. Also, mass shootings are crimes of opportunity. If the person finds the opportunity and has the means (access to a gun), then he goes ahead with committing the crime. So it’s just common sense that not making access to those guns an easy thing will help.

Here’s a very interesting article on commonalities in mass shooters, tell me which one will be affected by a quick background check:

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2 ... oters-data

“First, the vast majority of mass shooters in our study experienced early childhood trauma and exposure to violence at a young age”
“Second, practically every mass shooter we studied had reached an identifiable crisis point in the weeks or months leading up to the shooting”
“Third, most of the shooters had studied the actions of other shooters and sought validation for their motives.”
“Fourth, the shooters all had the means to carry out their plans. ”

First of all, I am pro gun reform and want a model similar to Japan's in the US so I am not reading all of that drivel. I simply stated a fact about background check timeframes.
Rebeccaraev2 wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:10 pm

I got my job in a prison, federal background checks, and it only took 2 days.

First of all, I am pro gun reform and want a model similar to Japan in the US so I am not reading all of that drivel. You must have assumed a stance. I didn't state one until now. I simply stated a fact about background check timeframes. Everyone in our facility didn't have a terribly long wait. That's all I'm stating.
❤️🇮🇱 עמ׳ ישראל חי 🇮🇱❤️
hockeymom87
Regent
Regent
Posts: 3619
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 6:20 pm

Unread post

Ledina60 wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:26 pm
hockeymom87 wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:18 pm
Ledina60 wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:55 am I’m in the USA and I think it’s ridiculous that Walmart sells guns!
In fact I didn’t even know that until just recently and it’s making me consider I should stop shopping there.
Pictures on “people of Walmart” is also a motivation to avoid it. Big gross guys with rifles slung over their backs - a few big women with guns too.barf.🤢

You really have an issue with big people don’t you. 🤔
Yahhttp://www.peopleofwalmart.com/page/4/?m=vod-s ... %29endif-A
I know about people of Walmart. The have skinny mesh head looking people on it too. I was commenting on how you always seem to bring someone’s wait into something. That or their lack of education and the south.
Deleted User 1344

Unread post

Here’s a big guy with a gun - the kind I don’t want to shop with at Walmart or anywhere else.
http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/page/27/ ... %29endif-A
hockeymom87 wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:41 pm
Ledina60 wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:26 pm
hockeymom87 wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:18 pm

You really have an issue with big people don’t you. 🤔
Yahhttp://www.peopleofwalmart.com/page/4/?m=vod-s ... %29endif-A
I know about people of Walmart. The have skinny mesh head looking people on it too. I was commenting on how you always seem to bring someone’s wait into something. That or their lack of education and the south.
hockeymom87
Regent
Regent
Posts: 3619
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 6:20 pm

Unread post

Ledina60 wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:59 pm Here’s a big guy with a gun - the kind I don’t want to shop with at Walmart or anywhere else.
http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/page/27/ ... %29endif-A
hockeymom87 wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:41 pm
Ledina60 wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:26 pm
Yahhttp://www.peopleofwalmart.com/page/4/?m=vod-s ... %29endif-A
I know about people of Walmart. The have skinny mesh head looking people on it too. I was commenting on how you always seem to bring someone’s wait into something. That or their lack of education and the south.
So a small guy with a gun would be fine?
Locked Previous topicNext topic