Walmart raises minimum age for buying firearms

[webfact]

Walmart raises minimum age for buying firearms

 

FILE PHOTO: A customer pushes a shopping cart at a Walmart store in Chicago, Illinois, U.S. November 23, 2016. REUTERS/Kamil Krzaczynski/File Photo

 

(Reuters) - Walmart Inc said on Wednesday that it was raising the minimum age at which customers could buy firearms and ammunition to 21 years.

 

The U.S. retailer is also removing items from its website resembling assault-style rifles, including non-lethal airsoft guns and toys, it said in a statement.

 

A massacre at a Florida high school two weeks ago has reopened a fierce debate over gun control in the United States.

 

(Reporting by Ismail Shakil in Bengaluru, Editing by Rosalba O'Brien)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-03-01

[NanLaew]

The all-powerful Walmart lobby as acted!

[Becker]

It says a lot about the current situation that the private sector must go ahead and show the politicians (read: GOP) what the right thing to do is. Quite sad and I hope the electorate are fired up enough to give them a hammering in the mid terms and beyond.

[mogandave]

Walmart cares about sales. They can use a “good” press.

Firearms is a tiny portion of their sales, and what they sell to 18-21 year olds is a tiny part of that.

If they’re not mature enough to buy a rifle, should they be voting?


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[natway09]

Nothing to do with Walmart,

If I am 19 & the law says I can legally buy a gun ,, then I should be able to.

Stupid country & at 19 I can't buy a beer.

The US will just never learn, Government is controlled by the mighty $$$$$$$$$

[mogandave]

Nothing to do with Walmart,
If I am 19 & the law says I can legally buy a gun ,, then I should be able to.
Stupid country & at 19 I can't buy a beer.
The US will just never learn, Government is controlled by the mighty $$$$$$$$$

So what government is not controlled by money?

[natway09]

But not to the extent where the loss of upright citizens  lives are put behind the gun manufacturers 

profit margins.

 

[mogandave]

But not to the extent where the loss of upright citizens  lives are put behind the gun manufacturers 
profit margins.
 

So I think it safe to say you are against the 2nd amendment.

You should petition your congressman to grow a pair amend it.

[Grouse]

A step in right direction ?

[InnerCynic]

7 hours ago, mogandave said:

Walmart cares about sales. They can use a “good” press.

Firearms is a tiny portion of their sales, and what they sell to 18-21 year olds is a tiny part of that.

If they’re not mature enough to buy a rifle, should they be voting?


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Not only that.  Isn't it ironic that the empire has no problem training, arming and directing 18 year olds to pull the trigger, and worse, around the world at their masters behest?  That little bit seems to always get lost in translation.

[Scott]

Troll post removed.  

[Credo]

Walmart, along with Dick's are making a wise and smart move.   It's very bad publicity to have your store associated with selling guns or ammunition to anyone involved in a mass shooting.   

 

It's one step in the right direction.   

[Basil B]

15 hours ago, mogandave said:

Walmart cares about sales. They can use a “good” press.

Firearms is a tiny portion of their sales, and what they sell to 18-21 year olds is a tiny part of that.

If they’re not mature enough to buy a rifle, should they be voting?


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

No many are not even mature enough to put a "X" on a ballot paper... 

[AsianAtHeart]

I support Walmart's decision on the basis that there's nothing in the Constitution that would require them to sell guns at all, nor to force them to sell a particular type of gun to a particular type of person.  Walmart should be free to choose for itself what it will do.  I'm sure other gun sellers will welcome an increased opportunity for the business Walmart is voluntarily giving up.  I appreciate the fact that there are other venues through which an American may exercise his/her rights.

[mogandave]

13 minutes ago, AsianAtHeart said:

I support Walmart's decision on the basis that there's nothing in the Constitution that would require them to sell guns at all, nor to force them to sell a particular type of gun to a particular type of person.  Walmart should be free to choose for itself what it will do.  I'm sure other gun sellers will welcome an increased opportunity for the business Walmart is voluntarily giving up.  I appreciate the fact that there are other venues through which an American may exercise his/her rights.

 

I think they should be free to sell them or not sell them, but I not sure they should be able to sell them or not sell them to "...a particular type of person.".

[Credo]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

I think they should be free to sell them or not sell them, but I not sure they should be able to sell them or not sell them to "...a particular type of person.".

They should be on fairly safe ground because the age of full majority is 21 in most places, so statutory laws for those under 21 are generally considered to be legal.   They would have a problem if they tried to deny selling something they stalk to say, women, or Muslims or some other group.   

[tigermoth]

16 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

 

So I think it safe to say you are against the 2nd amendment.

You should petition your congressman to grow a pair amend it.

 

The 2nd amendment is completely outdated. It came into existance before a true and well trained military existed and therefore every citizen had a right to bear arms as a defence against foreign powers. That situation no longer exists and the fact that so many citizens now own arms, most of whome are not trained in the safe handling of these weapons, contibutes to the appalling death toll in the USA. To add more stupidity to the situation is the availability of automatic weapons which were designed for situations of war.

[mogandave]

1 hour ago, tigermoth said:

The 2nd amendment is completely outdated. It came into existance before a true and well trained military existed and therefore every citizen had a right to bear arms as a defence against foreign powers. That situation no longer exists and the fact that so many citizens now own arms, most of whome are not trained in the safe handling of these weapons, contibutes to the appalling death toll in the USA. To add more stupidity to the situation is the availability of automatic weapons which were designed for situations of war.

 

It is my understanding the Continental Army predates the 2nd amendment by at least 15 years.

 

Automatic weapons are not generally available to the public in the US. I assume you mean semi-automatic weapons which have been in the US since (at the latest) 1780, which again predates the 2nd amendment. 

 

Anything else? 

 

 

 

 

[Andaman Al]

34 minutes ago, mogandave said:

I assume you mean semi-automatic weapons which have been in the US since (at the latest) 1780, which again predates the 2nd amendment. 

What semi automatic weapons were those in 1780?

[mogandave]

What semi automatic weapons were those in 1780?

Long guns. I would say rifle, but I am not sure if the barrels were actually rifled.

[Andaman Al]

19 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Long guns. I would say rifle, but I am not sure if the barrels were actually rifled.

 

but that is not a semi automatic weapon is it? Semi Automatics were not invented until after 1880 which is 100 years after you state. They were not in normal circulation in any army until around 1917 and even that was not widespread. This is all well AFTER the 2nd amendment.

[CharlesSwann]

You can buy guns at Walmart along with your Cheerios and Wisconsin cheese? Hahahaha. Totally dysfunctional nation.

[mogandave]

42 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

but that is not a semi automatic weapon is it? Semi Automatics were not invented until after 1880 which is 100 years after you state. They were not in normal circulation in any army until around 1917 and even that was not widespread. This is all well AFTER the 2nd amendment.

Semi-automatic long guns invented in 1700s

 

Mass production started in the 1800s

[mogandave]

40 minutes ago, CharlesSwann said:

You can buy guns at Walmart along with your Cheerios and Wisconsin cheese? Hahahaha. Totally dysfunctional nation.

Where do you buy guns where you come from?

[Andaman Al]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

Semi-automatic long guns invented in 1700s

 

Mass production started in the 1800s

Completely wrong. Show me who invented a semi automatic weapon in the 18th century. Mass production started in the 1900's. If we had semi automatic weapons in the 1800's under mass production, here would have been no wars lost. It seems you have no idea what a semi automatic weapon is.

[mogandave]

9 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

Completely wrong. Show me who invented a semi automatic weapon in the 18th century. Mass production started in the 1900's. If we had semi automatic weapons in the 1800's under mass production, here would have been no wars lost. It seems you have no idea what a semi automatic weapon is.

Girandoni,  I’m sorry, it was a 22-shot repeating rifle, not actually semi-automatic, my bad. Still, the idea that the semi-automatic could not be imagined is ridiculous. 

[Andaman Al]

8 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Girandoni

You really need to read a LOT more about subjects you pick up in passing. The Girandoni air rifle was nothing more than a concept weapon. What you are saying is like crediting the Montgolfier brothers with the introduction of trans-atlantic passenger flights. An Austrian invented weapon was NOT in mass production or even join use in the America's and if it was successful it would have been used by all land army's in Europe - but guess what, it wasn't successful or used.

 

Please stop the hamster wheel. Simply admit you are wrong. Semi-Automatic weapons were NOT in use nor practically invented at the time of the second amendment. The first mass produced semi-automatic weapon was by Remington.  Please educate yourself or just stop arguing as it is nothing more than trolling now.

[mogandave]

1 minute ago, Andaman Al said:

You really need to read a LOT more about subjects you pick up in passing. The Girandoni air rifle was nothing more than a concept weapon. What you are saying is like crediting the Montgolfier brothers with the introduction of trans-atlantic passenger flights. An Austrian invented weapon was NOT in mass production or even join use in the America's and if it was successful it would have been used by all land army's in Europe - but guess what, it wasn't successful or used.

 

Please stop the hamster wheel. Simply admit you are wrong. Semi-Automatic weapons were NOT in use nor practically invented at the time of the second amendment. The first mass produced semi-automatic weapon was by Remington.  Please educate yourself or just stop arguing as it is nothing more than trolling now.

Really? "...The Girandoni air rifle was in service with the Austrian army from 1780 to around 1815. "

[Andaman Al]

16 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Girandoni,  I’m sorry, it was a 22-shot repeating rifle, not actually semi-automatic, my bad. Still, the idea that the semi-automatic could not be imagined is ridiculous. 

Nobody has said it could not be imagined you said semi-automatic weapons were in service and mass produced in the 18th century.. Even the invention by Girandoni was nothing more than a concept weapon. DaVinci imagined tanks and long range artillery are you to now propose that the tank was in service in 1560? 

 

I see you are sticking with the fact you believe the Girandoni was a successful weapon. This discussion is utter nonsense, please stop.

[mogandave]

3 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

You really need to read a LOT more about subjects you pick up in passing. The Girandoni air rifle was nothing more than a concept weapon. What you are saying is like crediting the Montgolfier brothers with the introduction of trans-atlantic passenger flights. An Austrian invented weapon was NOT in mass production or even join use in the America's and if it was successful it would have been used by all land army's in Europe - but guess what, it wasn't successful or used.

 

Please stop the hamster wheel. Simply admit you are wrong. Semi-Automatic weapons were NOT in use nor practically invented at the time of the second amendment. The first mass produced semi-automatic weapon was by Remington.  Please educate yourself or just stop arguing as it is nothing more than trolling now.

I admit that a true semi-automatic was not in full production until the late 1800s. But repeating rifes were, and a good repeater, can be almost as fast as a semi-automatic. 

 

Again, the idea that the founders could not imagine a semi-automatic rifle is silly.