Woman Pulls Gun And Threatens Walmart Customers After Being Sold The Wrong Ammunition

We know it’s stressful out there, but really, there’s no reason to start waving your gun around in the Walmart parking lot. According to the Peninsula Daily News, a woman threatened several other customers who told her to stop yelling at Walmart worker who had sold her the wrong ammunition.

Guess it’s better to just mind your own business.

[Clallam County Undersheriff Ron Peregrin] said she was upset with the employee, saying she had sold her the wrong kind of ammunition.

After she received her refund, she walked out to the parking lot, removed a gun from her car and confronted the customers she had argued with earlier inside the store, Peregrin said.

“The long and the short of it is, she didn’t like what was happening at the store . . . and as a result, pulled a weapon and threatened people with it out in the parking lot,” he said.

No one was hurt, thankfully, but let that be a lesson to you all. It’s probably best not to intervene during loud disputes about guns and ammo.

Port Angeles woman allegedly pulls gun on Wal-Mart customers [Peninsula Daily News]
(Photo:frankieleon)

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. sean98125 says:

    It’s a good thing they didn’t ask to see her receipt.

  2. ophmarketing says:

    Fortunately, she had no ammo…

    • Tim says:

      @ophmarketing: Yeah, I was gonna say …

      She got the wrong ammo, so if she’d had kept it, she wouldn’t be able to use it in her gun. But she returned it anyway, so … yeah, no ammo …

    • Bob Lu says:

      @ophmarketing: Not necessary. what if she just wanted to buy some extra?

      • consciousj says:

        @Bob Lu: You know there are different kinds of ammo for each type of gun, right? Meaning she could very well have had working ammo, just not the kind she wanted. Just a tip that could save your life before you go thinking of taking her on.

  3. dave_coder says:

    And this is why your Americans needs better gun control. Tell me, why does a Wal-Mart shopper like this need a gun?

    • ShiningSquirrel says:

      @dave_coder:
      She is not just a “walmart shopper”.
      She could be a security guard, own a liquor store, been raped, there are dozens of legit reasons to own a gun.

      Now if you had said “Why does a nut case like this need a gun”?, I would have agreed with you 100%.

      • The_IT_Crone says:

        @ShiningSquirrel: Perfect response, Squirrel.

      • Applekid ┬──┬ ノ( ã‚œ-゜ノ) says:

        @ShiningSquirrel: Doesn’t every state in the union already have restrictions against people with mental illness from being able to possess a firearm?

        • The Porkchop Express says:

          @Applekid: if the mental illness has been diagnosed, I think so. but some people “go” crazy, meaning that they weren’t always crazy and may have gotten the gun prior to being crazy or at least getting diagnosed.

        • kepler11 says:

          @Applekid: only if you have been officially judged by the state to have a mental problem. Unofficially, plain, old-fashioned, angry, hateful, and insecure people, can have all the guns they want.

        • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

          @Applekid: Illinois doesn’t. I only know because our local rep proposed legislation preventing people diagnosed as mentally ill from owning firearms.

        • Underscore_Lysdexia says:

          @Applekid: Yeah that seems to work just fine, right?

      • StevePJobs says:

        @ShiningSquirrel: I don’t see the reason, in any of those cases, for someone to have a gun. If the possession or manufacture of a firearm by *anyone* is criminalized, the country would be better off. Carry a knife or a can of Mace. Or a sword.

        Civilians don’t need firearms, cops don’t need firearms, no one needs them.

        • admiral_stabbin says:

          @StevePJobs: I hope the Mexican drug cartel takes your house first. I doubt they (or anyone else hell bent on doing harm to America & Americans) will give a shit if we made possession illegal.

          Drunk drivers kill more people than guns each year. Outlaw the booze.

          • GinaLouise says:

            @admiral_stabbin: Admiral Stabbin, you do realize that Mexican drug cartels get their guns from the good ol’ USA:

            [voices.washingtonpost.com]

            • HiPwr says:

              @GinaLouise: The flaw in your article is that it states that “87 percent of firearms seized by Mexican authorities and submitted to the U.S. for tracing in the last five years came from the U.S.”. That’s 87% of those guns SUBMITTED to the U.S. authorities. The firearms not submitted were determined to have known origins outside of the U.S. by the Mexican Government and were therefore not submitted for tracing.

              • Firethorn says:

                @HiPwr:
                To go on with the flaws of that ‘study’, only about a third of the guns are submitted for tracing, and only those guns suspected of coming from the USA in the first place.

                In addition, a lot of the guns from the USA that originated in the states were sold to the Mexican government…

        • silver-bolt says:

          @StevePJobs: Knives are illegal, mace is illegal, swords are doubly so. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns.

        • DH405 says:

          @StevePJobs: How about this reason..

          I was about to be attacked by a large thug neighbor of mine in an old apartment complex. He rapidly approached me, repeating “I’ll kill you, motherfucker. I’ll kill you.”

          Guess what I DIDN’T see around me at that moment? A cop. The “law enforcement” officers were nowhere to be found. I was about to be severely beaten or killed by my neighbor and his gang, and law and order meant precisely dick.

          So, I lift my shirt and place my hand on the weapon I carry for self-defense. He saw this and immediately stopped. He walked back to his apartment and left me alone from that point on.

          So, maybe I was asking for the situation and a reasonable person would not need a firearm for defense? No, I had just parked by my apartment. He felt that it was his parking space. Did I live in a bad neighborhood? No, it was a nice-looking gated aparment complex in Oklahoma City. ANYONE could have wound up in that situation unwittingly. I just happened to be the one who knows how to defend himself, so the situation was avoided.

          Still question why anyone should have a gun?

          • trujunglist says:

            @SMSDHubbard:

            Actually, you don’t know how to defend yourself, that’s why you have a gun.

            • BertMask says:

              @trujunglist: Since he has a concealed carry permit, he actually is highly trained in how to defend himself.

              Nice try, though. How’s that yellow belt treating you?

              • j-o-h-n says:

                @BertMask: I suppose that depends on your definition of “highly trained”. Here you need only score 70 percent on a written test and 60 percent on the firing range.

                The thought that there are armed people walking around who scored that pathetically is pretty troubling — is there any chance they are going to hit what they aim for in a real stress-filled situation!?

                • failurate says:

                  @j-o-h-n: Um… there are armed people walking around who flunked out/dropped out of 8th grade… and by hitting what they are shooting at during a stressful situation, do you mean when they are robbing you on the street?

            • DH405 says:

              @trujunglist: So you think I should spend a ton of time learning some martial arts that would be rendered useless by the fact that this dude had two friends ready to jump in?

              If I fought, I would possibly be hurt. Further, the other guy could get hurt. Further, it would involve law enforcement. Messy situation. In my situation, I defused the entire problem.

              And just because I happen to use a tool to get the job done doesn’t mean the job doesn’t get done.

            • smonkey says:

              @trujunglist: As a former bouncer and current martial arts enthusiast. I know how to take care of myself. However, I do not want to go toe to toe with anyone if I can avoid it. There are too many variables. Further more, why should I be forced to risk injury in going hand to hand with someone if other solutions exist? I should not have to pay the price for someone else going crazy.

        • krista says:

          @StevePJobs: You’re entitled to your opinion, but as a woman who lives alone, I’m going to hang on to my gun. Do you really think that a 140lb disabled woman has much of a chance against a 220lb rapist or burglar in hand to hand or knife combat?

          • dave_coder says:

            @krista: I don’t know you and while I hope that you’re a reasonable person I would not want to risk peoples lives in the heat of a moment on that hope.

          • RandomZero says:

            @krista: Yes, I do, because what is commonly known as a “knife fight” is more accurately referred to as “getting stabbed by someone you didn’t know was armed”. Doesn’t matter how big the other guy is – a large and unexpected gut wound makes people think twice.

        • ShiningSquirrel says:

          @StevePJobs:
          Maybe you should ask the British how they made out with that.

        • Andrew Farris says:

          @StevePJobs: This is an absurd thing to say. When one weapon is outlawed from all the population there is no longer any reason to allow any other weapon to remain legal. When Guns are universally outlawed, so will be knives, so will be sharpened sticks, so will be mace, and so will be ball-point pens. Someone INTENT on doing harm to you can do so with nothing more than their fingernails. Do you intend to outlaw fingernails? How about random rocks on the side of the road?

          Feel free to try rationalizing how that is different. The simple fact is that you cannot outlaw all weapons of any form and even if you did you cannot mandate PEACE and RESPECT. Since you cannot guarantee noone will attack me, I have the right to defend myself and/or my family against attack; I definitely need a gun. You can choose not to own one if you please.

        • Anonymous says:

          @StevePJobs: All crimes committed with guns are illegal, like murder, armed robbery, etc. If the criminal ignores these laws, what will make them obey the law against having a gun? People have the inherent, inalienable right to defend their own lives. Saying you can do so, but only a little (as in with a knife/mace) is stupid and, fortunately, unconstitutional. Go live in Japan, where they have mass stabbings in schools and public squares and no one, even the unarmed police, can do anything about it!

        • pot_roast says:

          @StevePJobs: I don’t see the reason why anybody needs to smoke cigarettes. There is absolutely no health benefit. No one needs them. If the possession or manufacture of a cigarette by *anyone* is criminalized, the country would be better off.

          Doesn’t sound so hot, does it? Actually eliminating cigarettes would save us billions each year on health care.

    • CubeRat says:

      @dave_coder:

      Well, when the inevitable zombie holocaust happens, the average Wal-Mart shopper might be a little more prepared than that of a non-Wal-Mart shopper. :P

    • Gokuhouse says:

      @dave_coder: Obviously she’s a crazy person, but most folks that own guns are not crazy. Everyone in this country has the right to bear arms. If you’re crazy you get that right taken away. I personally own a gun and I use it for fun with friends and family to shoot some clay pigeons and I go hunting once or twice a year. There is nothing wrong with having a gun in this country. There will always be horrible people everywhere you go. Some of them will try to ruin it for everyone else and maybe someday they will wind up doing just that with guns. Just imagine how much easier it will be robbing people and breaking into their homes when you know they don’t have a gun with them. Right now at least there is a little fear thinking they could have one.

    • FooSchnickens - Full of SCAR says:

      @StevePJobs: You must be the reason that people in the UK have to sell “stab-proof” knives now.

      The only thing more regulation does is make it EASIER for weapons to fall into the hands of criminals. Criminals don’t give a shit about laws, they break them anyway. Law-abiding citizens obey laws, though, and they’re the ones who need protection in the first place, be it with a firearm or other weapon.

      The UK is a perfect example of this. I mean hell, the UK is not only the most violent country in Europe, but they have more violent crimes per capita than all of North America. COMBINED.

      If anything should be outlawed it’s the government.

      • dave_coder says:

        @FooSchnickens: Two wrongs don’t make a right. Just because criminals have guns does not mean that innocent people must have them as well.

        • zigziggityzoo says:

          @dave_coder: so when a criminal approaches you with a gun in his hand, pointed at your forehead, what do you do? Pull out that can o’ mace?

          As long as criminals have guns, then anyone else should be able to get them legally.

          But it’s not really about that. The second amendment was written to ensure that the government would fear the people, by securing the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

          Unfortunately, over the years, this right has been unconstitutionally limited, and is not able to achieve its goal.

          • Theoutlet says:

            @zigziggityzoo: Let me guess. You want the right to have your own tank? Because you’ll at least need that if you hope to overthrow the american military.

            The second ammendment is dated and kept around for reasons that the founding fathers did not intend.

            Keeping guns legal is the solution to a problem that guns themselves cause. No one needs to have a handgun.

            Give me a shotgun for home defense and a rifle for hunting and I’m fine.

            • zigziggityzoo says:

              @Theoutlet: Were the second amendment around for Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia, or Mussolini’s Italy, World War II may never have happened.

              • RandomZero says:

                @zigziggityzoo: Right, because two of your three examples didn’t use armed insurrections themselves to establish a power base (or try to and fail, in Hitler’s case).

            • kduhtoe says:

              @Theoutlet: “The second ammendment is dated and kept around for reasons that the founding fathers did not intend.”

              With this logic, we should also repeal the first amendment since the founding fathers did not anticipate blogs, twitter or websites with commenting systems.

            • bairdwallace says:

              @Theoutlet: Hear, Hear! What about automatics?

          • jamiesue says:

            @zigziggityzoo: I’m not sure you can pull out your gun, flip the saftey, and fire before the guy with the gun pointed point blank at your forehead can twitch his finger. Heck, I’ll even assume you don’t have your saftey on since it’s so unconstitutionally limiting and I still don’t think you’ll be fast enough.

            Guns have a place, but people grossly over estimate their ability to protect themselves using them.

      • Trai_Dep says:

        @FooSchnickens: Who has a higher murder rate, the USA or the UK? USA vs Western Europe?
        Who has higher levels of gun ownership?

        • Con Seannery says:

          @Trai_Dep: What percentage of gun owners commit a violent crime with their gun? The OVERWHELMING majority use them responsibly, safely, and legally.

          • Trai_Dep says:

            @Con Seannery: But your hypothesis is that the more guns in a society, the safer they are. This should be reflected in hard numbers.
            The US has more guns than Europe or the UK. All three also track murder rates, which doesn’t rely on anecdotal data.
            So, which of these has a lower murder rate? If it’s not the US then it seems to not support your hypothesis.

            • Con Seannery says:

              @Trai_Dep: However, you must also take into account WITHIN the US the statistics. Many of our high crime areas are also areas with very strict gun control. Many areas with relatively low crime and violence have lax gun control.

              • failurate says:

                @Con Seannery: Knee jerk reactions. Cities with gang and drug violence pass tough gun laws taking guns away from law abiding citizens. Meanwhile, the streets are flooded with criminals and illegal guns.
                Milwaukee, WI anyone?
                [www.wisn.com]

            • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

              @Trai_Dep: What actually troubles me is that most people who actually use their gun to fire at another person will fire at their romantic partner. People rarely “get the chance” to shoot at criminals, but romantic partners are frequent victims.

              Nobody ever addresses this problem, because apparently men shooting their wives is a personal family issue, not a societal one, because apparently it’s all 1880 up in here.

              I’m not particularly anti-gun-ownership (I like me some deer jerky, and I like me my hunting friends who bring me deer jerky), but there are massively troubling issues, particularly with respect to violence against women, that are never addressed and are lost in the “But I’ll be the guy who shoots a rapist!” rhetoric. Statistically that’s extremely unlikely … but statistically it’s very likely that you’ll be the guy who shoots your girlfriend.

              • Traveshamockery says:

                @Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): Eyebrows, you can’t just make a statement like “most people who actually use their gun to fire at another person will fire it at their romantic partner”. You really need to provide a credible link, because I’m calling BS.

                • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

                  @Travishamockery: slightly dated, but: [www3.interscience.wiley.com] goes into it some.

                  In many states, and I don’t have this stat handily accessible, but I’ll see if I can find it on an accessible database rather than behind a paywall on an academic database, the MOST common use for a handgun that is fired is to shoot a domestic partner, by a LOT. Only very rarely are they fired in self-defense. (For various reasons — most people, for example, don’t sleep with a gun under their pillow, and unless it’s under your pillow and loaded, it’s not terribly useful in a nighttime home invasion situation.)

                  Whether a handgun is otherwise useful for intimidation is a different question, but once we start firing them, we’re typically firing at female domestic partners before anything else.

                  • morlo says:

                    @Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): Well in my area grabbing women by the hair, punching, and strangling them is much more popular. Then comes stabbing. And baseball bats.

                    Really women should cut their hair. That plus a gun will make things equal, although a knife is also pretty good.

                    • Trai_Dep says:

                      @morlo: If you don’t have cites for what you just posted (i.e., if you’re just making sh*t up because it’s “funny”) then you’re a …
                      Well, imagine a lot of curse words that ultimately suggest you’re a freaken’ loser.

                    • morlo says:

                      @Trai_Dep: Hey, I just read the newspaper (no online archives–read your own local rag). Men have a strength advantage that makes shooting their women to death unnecessary (and less fun, ha ha!). @Trai_Dep: The murder rate is directly related to freedom. Confine everyone to cells and the murder rate drops to 0.00

                • Theoutlet says:

                  @Travishamockery: You’re calling BS? Have ever read/seen the news? How many times have you heard of a woman or man killing their wife/husband and then killing themself compared to hearing a heroic tale of a person stopping an attempted rape?

                  Wake up.

              • jamiesue says:

                @Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): Here Here, my Dear! I’ve had a personal and intimate encounter with the business end of gun that was being held by a lunatic lover and though that sitation was quickly resolved and no one was harmed it was enough for me to decide that while I won’t take your hunting rifles I’d be damned if you bring your hand gun around me.

            • Traveshamockery says:

              @Trai_Dep: The majority of gun murders in the USA are gang-on-gang violence. The problem is the gang, not the gun.

        • HiPwr says:

          @Trai_Dep: Maybe I’m not gulping the entire hook, but I’ll take a nibble:

          These kinds of discussions are always reduced to those that want to be able to defend themselves like a Chicago mayor vacationing in Michigan and those that believe in waiting for the police like a couple of women raped and murdered after calling 911.

          Ok, have at it.

        • zigziggityzoo says:

          @Trai_Dep: How about the USA vs. Israel, where EVERYONE EVERYWHERE carries an assault rifle, if not, at least a handgun?

          Even with the daily missiles coming in from militant combatants, their murder rate is 1/5th the USA’s.
          ( [en.wikipedia.org] )

          Look at the parts of the USA where guns are completely banned: Chicago, LA, NYC. How safe are those streets? How about universities and schools, where guns are generally completely banned? Virginia Tech, Columbine.

          The USA has a moronic habit of banning guns where there are large crowds of people. On the surface, that sounds like a great idea, because if it were honored, it truly would make us safer. Unfortunately, most lawmakers haven’t figured out that criminals don’t obey the law (by definition, duh). So the only people that do obey the law are left helpless against the criminals who do obey the law.

          • zigziggityzoo says:

            @zigziggityzoo: last five words should be “who don’t obey the law.” Apologies.

          • DH405 says:

            @zigziggityzoo: When making this comparison, I wouldn’t look to Israel. I’d look to Sweden, where many are issued AK4s by the gov’t after joining the Hemvärnet. Now, I’m not one for mandatory military service, but that is one armed country.

            • kduhtoe says:

              @SMSDHubbard: On the contrary, very few young people are required to join the Swedish military now and many that do join are a part of the unarmed forces. In my experience in Sweden, it is not as common to own any type of gun (much less an automatic) as you have implied. Most people who own guns outside of the military are members of a gun club which costs a decent amount of time and money.

              • DH405 says:

                @kduhtoe: My apologies for my inaccuracies. My information was coming from a member of the Swedish military who had an assault rifle at home, but perhaps he implied an exaggerated portion of the population was the same.

          • Theoutlet says:

            @zigziggityzoo: How is that in anyway relevant to Modern America?

            @kduhtoe: I believe that our Freedom of Speech is a little bit more subjective and probably had many more reasons for putting in to effect than just the ability of the people to speak poorly of their government. Of course I have no real way of knowing but I do believe their intention was meant for freedom of speech in all things, which is evident in the plain and broad wording of the ammendment.

            @bairdwallace: Of course no one needs an automatic rifle either. Like I said, I see the point of a shotgun for home defense and a rifle for hunting but I don’t see much reason for any other firearms. I am open for someone to persuade me otherwise of course, I just have yet to hear a compelling enough reason.

      • RandomZero says:

        @FooSchnickens: “The only thing more regulation does is make it EASIER for weapons to fall into the hands of criminals.”

        Is this the point where I casually note that the overwhelming majority of illegal weapons in my country come from the US, or is that bad form?

        More regulation makes it much harder for criminals to get weapons – if you want to get one here, chances are it’s going to originate in a place with piss-poor regulation and be taken through gaps in border security.

      • bairdwallace says:

        @FooSchnickens: when you say per capita, adding “COMBINED” to the argument does not really mean anything. Because these are averages…

    • Rhainor says:

      @dave_coder: Thank you for saying “better” instead of “more”. They are not the same thing.

    • working class Zer0 says:

      @dave_coder: If you shopped at my Wal-mart you would know why.

    • Squeezer99 says:

      @dave_coder: to protect ourselves from criminals.

    • ChuckECheese says:

      @dave_coder: She needs a gun because she didn’t like the meat selection in the store and decided to bag her own.

    • christoj879 says:

      @dave_coder: @ShiningSquirrel: And this is why your Americans needs better gun control. Tell me, why does a nut case like this need a gun?

    • Anonymous says:

      @dave_coder: As usual, gun control comment replies are impassioned and polarized because of people’s beliefs on what the proper approach to guns should be in today’s societies. As one of my favorite movies expunges, “I think it’s better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier.” So, here’s an interesting idea I came across in a Robert A. Heinlein novel called “Beyond This Horizon”.

      In this story, “Dueling and the carrying of arms is a socially accepted way of maintaining civility in public”. The result, according to the story, is a word where people are well learned in the use of firearms and are mindful of what they say and do.

      Since reading this story, I have wondered if something like that would work in reality. Disarmament of the entire population seems to me like an impossible goal independent of the merits of having an unarmed population. So, I wonder if fully arming everyone – or at least having an environment where being armed was the norm and being unarmed, although allowed, the exception – would result in a less violent and dangerous world.

      • Tankueray says:

        @OwenQuincy: That is why I support open carry.
        Even drunk out of your mind, you’d think twice about popping off to some guy outside of a bar with a sidearm.
        I do have to say though, that many people in my concealed carry class thought they were there to “enforce the law when the law wasn’t around.”

        It’s about defense people, really.

    • banmojo says:

      @dave_coder: this kind of crazy a$$ed person could potentially be just as dangerous with a kitchen knife as she could be with a handgun. And btw, if this crazy a$$ed person (who could have gotten the handgun illegally btw, as could anyone in YOUR sorry a$$ed cuntry) DID start shooting people in the store – well, in YOUR cuntry, everyone there would be screwed blue, and dead. In MY country, where people can buy and train with guns, if I was in the store, and someone started shooting, I would investigate the threat, and if she had the ability and likely intent to shoot me or my fellow citizens I would be fully justified to pull out MY licenced gun and eliminate the threat to myself. And my fellow citizens.

      YOU on the other hand, would be dead, with your c@ck in your hands.

      thank you, come again.

      • Trai_Dep says:

        @banmojo: Yet again, outside of bad Steven Seagal movies, were this a likely scenario, it would show up in a nation’s murder stats. I’ll repeat my question posed above:
        Your hypothesis is that the more guns in a society, the safer they are. This should be reflected in hard numbers.
        The US has more guns in private hands than Europe or the UK, by far. All three also track murder rates, which doesn’t rely on anecdotal data (or feverish Steven Seagal scripts).
        So, which of these has a lower murder rate? If it’s not the US then it seems to not support your hypothesis.

        PS: nice writing style. Are you twelve?

    • mrearly2 says:

      @dave_coder:
      No, this isn’t a good example of a need for “gun control”. The only control needed there, was for the woman to stop eating prescription drugs (poisons) and act responsibly with her firearm (the best gun control). (I’m assuming she’s under the influence of drugs, which make many people do crazy things.)

  4. wgrune says:

    She’s lucky she even got a refund. Every place I’ve bought ammunition at has had a strict “all sales final” policy.

  5. MostlyHarmless says:

    Cue in someone who claims that gun control would have avoided this, and another one who claims that if someone else had a gun, this nonexistent bloodbath would have been avoided. I intend to sit this one out. I got disemvoweled the last time i participated in gun talk. And since then I have earned a star. I am supposed to show more decorum now, apparently.

    • madog says:

      @MostlyHarmless: Guns have saturated the nation, and I would imagine it to be impossible to completely get rid of them. However, I think those over-zealous gun nuts need to stop quoting the Constitution as if every amendment and passage were gospel and infallible. Things change, the British are no longer a physical threat to us (maybe a threat to our appetites or sensibilities, but that’s different).

      • madog says:

        @madog: “There are too many guns because they make so much money selling guns to the people who need guns to protect themselves from bad people with guns who have guns to make money and attack the other people with guns! YAAARRRR!”

        You can’t deny my logic.

        • dlcole says:

          @madog: Madog, just remember that when YOUR lift is in danger from a home invasion, and you have seconds to do something to save it, the POLICE are just MINUTES away…LEO has no legal right to protect you, just uphold the laws as written. They get the BAD GUY AFTER he/she has done something bad. In the mean time, you get a round up your ass.

          • Trai_Dep says:

            @dlcole: Why would Leo have or not have the right to protect you? And in a fight, wouldn’t it be better to rely on something other than astrology?
            This coming from a California kid, which says volumes…

      • sir_pantsalot says:

        @madog: One of the reasons that Japan did not invade mainland U.S. is that a lot of the citizens were armed and knew how to use a gun. The right to bear arms is to protect the citizens from the government and from any outside threat.

        -This lady should have her gun taken away. With a gun comes great responsibility and this lady showed that she shouldn’t have either one.

        • MostlyHarmless says:

          @sir_pantsalot: I very seriously doubt the validity of the japan not invading usa statement.

          It is worth noting that guerrilla warfare was not the “in” thing then, and that it would hardly have been the concern for an army that only wanted to bomb the bejeezuz out of you.

          • sir_pantsalot says:

            @MostlyHarmless: Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto – “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”

            Why would a Japanese admiral have any reason to say this if the question had not come up. Human history is about taking over others land. If the Japanese would have had the opportunity they would have taken it.

            • MostlyHarmless says:

              @sir_pantsalot: Ah yes, an actual quote indeed. And I note you said “one of the reasons”.

              Yup you are right about that. My bad.

            • Trai_Dep says:

              @sir_pantsalot: Ah geez. You really should avoid quotes that seem too good to be true. They often are.
              Yamamoto was a brilliant and principled man (for y’know, a mortal enemy), with many great quotes attributed to him.
              You should at least give him his due by putting only his own words in his mouth.

              • RandomZero says:

                @Trai_Dep: Arg, beaten to the punch. A tip of my invisible hat to you.

                • Trai_Dep says:

                  @RandomZero: Thanks!
                  Umm, try a bit softer of a tone though, huh? :)
                  Hey, all, if you haven’t read At Dawn We Slept, check it out at your local library. It’s an amazing book, one of the best I’ve read on The Pacific War. A good read, too.
                  To clarify Yamamoto’s position a bit, while as an Admiral, he had to obey orders and develop the Pearl Harbor plan. But he’s spent significant time in the US, and even liked us. He strenuously argued that there was no end-game that was likely to favor Imperial Japan, especially past one or two years.
                  In simple numbers, we’d win – guns or no guns, there was no way for Imperial Japan to occupy the US. The mismatch was so large that even if we only had weed-whackers, they’d still lose. And without the mainland under their control, they’d eventually lose control of The Pacific. He pointed this out, but was overruled, so he developed his brilliant battle plan.
                  They were in a tough spot – quite of their own making, but a tough spot. We’d cut off their oil flows so they were months from collapse. Their economy relied on Chinese conquest, or it’d collapse. Rock? Hard Place? Pick one.
                  So they attacked. But oh my gosh, they attacked so brilliantly.

            • ChuckECheese says:

              @sir_pantsalot: Just imagine how good the sushi would be.

            • RandomZero says:

              @sir_pantsalot: Aaaand this would be why I asked for citations. You, sir, are a liar and a fraud. In fact, while Yamamoto was against attacking the US, it was because he didn’t see a way to win if Pearl harbor failed. he explicitly stated that a mainland invasion was a necessary part of the Japanese battle plans. See? This is how it’s done.

              • MostlyHarmless says:

                @RandomZero: No need for name calling really. Point out that hes wrong, and it is enough.

                • Trai_Dep says:

                  @MostlyHarmless: Whoa.
                  Comparing my, and RandomZero’s comments, both containing the same point, even the same embedded links, is quite the contrast.
                  It’s a blogging version of Goofus & Gallant.
                  (Yup: Moms is so proud that her boy turns out to be Gallant!)
                  (And so, SO shocked!)

        • Jim Topoleski says:

          @sir_pantsalot: Um where the fuck did you make that shit up from?

          Japan never invaded the US because they had absolutely NO INTENTION of invading the US… EVER.

          They simply wanted to drive US interests out of the Pacific islands, in a attempted decisive victory at Pearl Harbor.

          They where hoping that if we where beaten soundly along with the complete destruction of our aircraft carriers (which happened to not be there) we would just give up the islands we had bases on which they could then exploit for resources.

          • MostlyHarmless says:

            @Jim Topoleski: He said it was /one/ of the reasons. Quite likely at the bottom of the “Top25 list of why Japan should not invade USA”, but quite apparently the admiral thought it was a factor.

            Now ofcourse, it might have been a purely academic observation, especially since they probably never wanted to invade anyways.

        • RandomZero says:

          @sir_pantsalot: Is… is this serious? You’re talking about the Japan that knew it didn’t have the resources for an extended war (which a US land war would have been by definition), correct? The Japan that got spanked thoroughly at sea, which rather precludes a naval invasion? You’re gonna have to provide a cite for this.

        • mrearly2 says:

          @sir_pantsalot:
          Unfortunately, we have become slaves, even WITH guns. Of course, those in charge want to make our slave status official, by taking away our firearms.

      • rewind says:

        @madog: The British may have been the threat at the time, but the right to arm yourself is a right to defend yourself against oppression. The founding fathers realized that the only way that the people of a nation truly have any power over their government is that they have the intrinsic right to rebel against it, and that right is secured in that we each have the right to own a weapon. As nice an idea it is that the nation will always act in our best interests, it is a power structure that breeds corruption, in that putting any individual in a position of power over another does the same.

        Of course, having the right to own a weapon, does not free you from the lawful and legal punishment of acting like an idiot, hence this prime example in the article.

        • Roy Hobbs says:

          @rewind: We are seeing the practical application of the right to bear arms being played out in Iran as we speak. Somehow I think that there might have been more progress towards a fair election had the ones who rigged the election not been the only ones with the guns.

          And yes, I know that given where our society is, we probably wouldn’t have a situation like this, but the fact that we got this far is that the founders realized that governments to expand their powers if not checked in some way.

        • madog says:

          @rewind: I was being fecicious, but do lean more towards the gun control side. At this point the circular logic will not end and guns will most likely be a part of this nation forever. However, as an effective method to rise against our government…. I don’t think that will ever happen, but if it did, judging from how the government has reacted to previous “threats” to our nation (hippies), then I don’t think we’d stand a chance.

          • nybiker says:

            @madog: I wasn’t sure what the word was supposed to be, but I believe you meant “facetious.” And I agree with you.

            /I am trying to be helpful, not the spelling police.

        • dlcole says:

          @rewind: Agreed. Stupid acts with a firearm and stupid in any culture. The woman was wrong in her actions and should be punished for them. However, don’t punish the thousands of law abiding citizens who legally own a firearm.

    • takes_so_little says:

      @MostlyHarmless: Cue the passive-aggressive person with deeply hurt feelings over having been disemvoweled.

    • Trai_Dep says:

      @MostlyHarmless: Considering that we used nukes (twice!) because we were concerned that freedom-loving* housewives armed with bamboo spears would result in too much US blood being shed liberating Japan, I think it’s only reasonable that the NRA should start standing tall for Home Depot nurseries.

      * Hey: eye of the beholder, right?

      • MostlyHarmless says:

        @Trai_Dep: I dont think our concern was bamboo dart guns :P

        It was the freakishly suicidal japanese army. The jihadists have no class against the japanese.

        On a side note, i have not read much about it recently, but till mid 2000s I kept on reading about mass suicides in japan, esp among the youth. wtf is with that.

        And the japanese admiral thought trigger happy real americans would be a problem too. I’ll take his word for it :P

    • Applekid ┬──┬ ノ( ã‚œ-゜ノ) says:

      @rewind: Hmm… good luck firing a few pot-shots at that M110 Howitzer with your S&W pistol.

      Unfortunately for the founding fathers, the destructive capabilities have far exceeded the limits of personal armament, and the constitution was not amended to keep up. It was much more relevant in those times because the great equalizer was the gun, but now government agents have the tools and the tactics to black-van you in the middle of the night and there’s nothing any personal firearm is going to do about it.

      • MostlyHarmless says:

        @Applekid: That and the inconvenient fact that a smallish unit of well trained soldiers can prettymuch slaughter a much larger motley group of people with guns and weapons knowledge, but little to non-existent tactical knowledge.

        • HiPwr says:

          @MostlyHarmless: I think the odds are very slim that I will ever have one of those stars by my name, but I’m still not taking your bait.

          • MostlyHarmless says:

            @HiPwr: Its not about stars. And I was just showing off anyways. And who is dishing out any bait to start with? The bait has been taken, and the line has been snapped.

      • Gokuhouse says:

        @Applekid: Well, all the more reason we should have larger and more power weapons at our disposal then. Isn’t that what you were trying to say?

      • rewind says:

        @Roy Hobbs: And before that, both the failure of the people in Tiananmen Square and the success of the rebels in Afghanistan against the Soviets.

        @Applekid: So because the abilities of the governments armaments far exceed what they “allow” us to have, means that we should roll over not give a damn? It’s not that even the purpose is to “retake” the nation if it were even to come to that. At that point it is just a matter of survival, until such point as enough people are effected enough to actually do something about the eventual dissolution of rights. Just because someone may “out-gun” me, does not automatically take away my right to defend myself. You going to tell that to a child… “just let him beat you up, he has 50 lbs on you and you won’t win” or are you going to get the kid some karate lessons?

        @madog: On gun-control, I believe that licensing, fingerprinting and registration, are perfectly acceptible control measures. But gun laws (as any other laws) are only followed by law abiding citizens.

    • silver-bolt says:

      @MostlyHarmless: You have no star, and did not stay out of the discussion. I can never believe anything you ever say again.

      • MostlyHarmless says:

        @silver-bolt: O.O

        Can someone please confirm what silverbolt just said? Cuz I am seeing a yellow star next to my nick.

        • katstermonster says:

          @MostlyHarmless: You have a yellow star, and I say rock on, yellow star!

          Methinks your yellow star was the reason you were able to predict the entire conversation with your first comment. Though I didn’t see the Japan references coming…wowee!

          • MostlyHarmless says:

            @katstermonster: No, no, thats the tea leaves. The reason i have a star is because i use the tea leaves. That, and I kinda sorta did some favors.

          • zentex says:

            @katstermonster: I see no star

            • katstermonster says:

              @zentex: Hmmm that’s bizarre. I don’t get what the deal is with stars, in that case. Just to be clear…I see a star by MostlyHarmless‘s name, not mine.

            • MostlyHarmless says:

              @zentex: @katstermonster: Its a bug apparently. Sometime I see no stars against my name in a thread, and when I post something, the new post has a star but the old ones do not. I think the software is still trying to come to terms with someone like me getting a star :P

              • Trai_Dep says:

                @MostlyHarmless: Yup.
                Next day, and you still gotta star!
                Do you also see the super-secret Rolling Stones Lips icon next to your name? It’ll summon Consumerist groupies to – ahem – initiate nonreciprocal carnal relations with you. That’s one of the best updates that Ben, Meg and Captain Duvel Moneycats (well, mainly CDM – he’s an unrepentant boy-whore) came up with. By far.

                • MostlyHarmless says:

                  @Trai_Dep: CDM says im still on “probation”. And he simply laughed evilly when I asked if it was really all that necessary for me to be on the probulator during the probation.

                • Trai_Dep says:

                  @Trai_Dep: Fair warning: 1 in 5 chance that, instead, you’ll get Keith Richards showing up wanting to share heroin with you. No matter what, don’t, no matter how tempting.
                  Sure, it’s sort of neat at first… Until he nods off on your couch and won’t leave for five days.

    • banmojo says:

      @MostlyHarmless: nah, star just means the powers that be think you think like them. I’ve been here for almost 2 years now, and I’ve written many comments, many great ones imho, plus I’ve sent emails with potential threats outlined (never published herein, of course) and becuase I’m deemed a radical right winger (nothing could be further from the truth however) I will NEVER receive a star. And I’m hurt. you basturds.

  6. LordofthePing says:

    Yikes, I’ll make sure never to shoot my mouth off inside a gun retailer.

    • temporaryerror says:

      @LordofthePing:
      Shops that deal only in guns and ammo, such as those attached to indoor shooting ranges probably have zero problems with theft and unruly customers. Each and every employee has a very visible large caliber handgun strapped to their hip, as well as having a door buzzer system.

  7. XTC46 says:

    Was this lady arrested? Sounds like assault with a deadly weapon to me…

  8. H3ion says:

    She probably thought she was at Target. (Rim shot)

  9. bloggerX says:

    Who pissed in her lemonade?

  10. ninabi says:

    I’m in a large circle of people, many of them hunters and who own handguns. And we all know somebody who is a loose cannon and ought not to be keeping a gun.

    It reminds me of when I see somebody operating a motor vehicle that can no longer see the road, straddles the lanes, sails through stop signs- are there any laws in place that can revoke privileges if someone’s behavior is erratic?

    One look at this scene and I would have fled to housewares.

    • rbb says:

      @ninabi: Housewares? Are you crazy? That’s where they keep the knives!

    • MostlyHarmless says:

      @ninabi: To get some throwing knives?

    • The Porkchop Express says:

      @ninabi: To talk to Ash? oh wait this wasn’t at S-Mart

    • deserter says:

      @ninabi: True story. When I was in boot camp, this guy was threatening suicide (admittedly, it was kind of known that he just wanted to go home to his girlfriend, but he was also kind of crazy) so they set up the usual safeguards. Took away his belt, shoelaces, 24-hour watch, that sort of thing. And, of course, he still had to accompany the platoon everywhere, but under no circumstances was he to touch a weapon, clean a weapon, load a weapon… it could have been unloaded and dismantled, the rules were the same.

      So they call our numbers and we run up to get our M16s. Afterward, we are given a potty break before heading out to the range. You can’t just leave a weapon lying on the ground, so everyone who had to go handed their weapon to someone else.

      What this leads to is the drill sergeant walking over and enquiring in no uncertain terms as to why Mr. Suicide Risk is holding one M16 in each arm. It wasn’t a fun day, even by boot camp standards.

      So, I guess, based on anecdotal evidence, my answer to your question is a resounding NO.

  11. bloggerX says:

    Janie’s got a gun…

  12. lasbrisas says:

    This is Consumerist.com after all. Aren’t we all so proud of this person for sticking up for herself as a consumer who has been wronged and putting it to the evil corporate menace? I bet she sure taught them a lesson!

    I believe we should all have the right to bear arms against corporate greed and Walmart’s screw the customer mentality. If somebody messes with me I say shoot em!

  13. Anonymous says:

    I am all for safe responsible gun ownership, this was neither. As for the assault with a deadly weapon it did not sound like she shot any one so there was no assault. The police probably charged the woman with brandishing a firearm which is not nearly severe enough in this situation I hope the judge sends this woman for a psyc eval.

  14. thej27 says:

    She should have just kept the ammo and resold it at double the price like almost everyone else is doing.

    • jeffbone says:

      @thej27: Good idea. Heck, I’m even surprised she found ammo to buy in a Wal-mart. The ammo shelves in the two nearest Wal-marts have been stripped clean of all centerfire ammo for months.

      /deliberately ignoring all the “we need more gun control!” posts in this thread…my BP is high enough already…

  15. JediJohn82 says:

    If there were more gun control, Walmart wouldn’t be in the business of selling guns/ammo thus this wouldn’t have happened.

  16. MostlyHarmless says:

    And we thought McDonalds customers were bad.

  17. Trai_Dep says:

    I’d have been much more impressed had she gone on a paper-cut frenzy in the parking lot, using only the tattered remains of her receipt.

  18. Cuban Embassy says:

    I think she’s lucky Wal-Mart refunded the ammo in the first place. That’s not something they do.

    As for me, I open the box of Ammo before swiping my card. Always be sure!

  19. Trai_Dep says:

    This would have turned out so much better if only the other patrons were also packing heat, as the concealed-and-carry folks strenuously proscribe.
    …Life sure would be a lot simpler and tranquil if only everyone were required to discuss their differences over an ice-cold Vodka Tonic with a wedge of lime rather than shouting over the acrid smell of cordite.

  20. halcyondays says:

    As a responsible gun owner, I hope they throw the book at her. For the gun-control people out there, I might remind you that prohibition, whether for alcohol, drugs, or guns won’t work. More gun control will lead to a larger black market.

    • XTC46 says:

      @halcyondays: I agree with you. I am all for responsible people owning guns, and think anyone who abuses that right (like this lady did) should be harshly punished.

    • dave_coder says:

      @halcyondays: I don’t need complete strangers owning rifles and handguns around kids and innocent people. I’m sure many gun owners are responsible and careful however it does not overrule the fact that guns are designed for one things only:

      To kill.

      Knifes cut celery, planes fly tourists, but guns only kill.

      • Con Seannery says:

        @dave_coder: But by killing they often protect! Even the THREAT of killing often protects and saves. If we outlaw guns, then you won’t have the responsible owners, just the loose canons and criminals. And because we aren’t in a police state here with a cop on every corner armed to the teeth, the responsible owners make people think twice about being irresponsible. It’s not ideal to rely on vigilante justice, but in MOST cases it works just fine.

      • kduhtoe says:

        @dave_coder: You obviously have not seen “Shoot ‘Em Up”. *bites carrot*

    • banmojo says:

      @halcyondays:
      “More gun control will lead to a larger black market.”

      Man, that’s just RACIST!!

  21. quirkyrachel says:

    I totally for the 2nd amendment, but please please tell me that they took her gun license away?

    • The_Gas_Man says:

      @quirkyrachel:
      How do you know she had a “gun license” in the first place? The article states her gun was in her car, so she may not have had a concealed carry permit for them to revoke.

      You don’t need a license to own a gun anywhere, and you don’t need one to transport an unloaded gun in your car in nearly all states.

      • Shawn Gould says:

        @The_Gas_Man:

        You don’t need a license to own a gun anywhere, and you don’t need one to transport an unloaded gun in your car in nearly all states.

        Im sorry you are mistaken. You most definitely need a firearm ID card which is obtained through the State police in NJ to even buy a BB gun.

        you fill out a form in quadruplet, submit yourself to fingerprinting and have three letters of reference sent in. mind you this is all for your Id card which allows the purchase of Rifles Shotguns and ammunition.

        Should you want to purchase a Handgun, you need a Permit to buy same thing fingerprinting etc etc, Then that permit is good for 6 months. Oh and when you buy ANY gun in NJ its registered with the police. and all handgun ammo is logged down on the books like your buying ephedrine cold medicine.

        you need your firearm ID card to transport any weapon in a locked case witht he ammo locked seperately and away from the gun case, IE: backseat and trunk.

        To transport your handgun from your house, legally you can only have it in the car with you going directly to or directly from a gun show, a gun store, a gun smith, or the firing range.

        Welcome to the Democratic republic of NJ.

        oh and you cant even buy your pistol out of state either and drive it home, they have to ship it to a federally licensed dealer in your state for you to take delivery of it.

        • deserter says:

          @Shawn Gould: So from your tone, I take it that you think handgun ammo should be LESS regulated than ephedrine cold medicine?

          • Shawn Gould says:

            @deserter:

            Not at all. I think it is a policy in place that doesnt really protect anyone, just another way for the govt to peer into our lives.

            for example, I buy a box of 50 S&W 40cal handgun ammo. The lot and box go down along with my SBI ID # into the ledger. I then shoot these bullets and collect the brass to reload them. what is this ledger going to prove? and fyi there is no law on the books about how much ammunition you can buy like there is ephedrine,

            two simple ways to get around it too is to buy online from cabelas or some other online dealer, pay $$$ for shipping, or travel over the border to Pa, NY, or De.

            Its Jersey takes only 2 hours to get out of the state max

            And Deserter I dont even mind the extra steps to obtain the credentials to buy these weapons. I just wish the state and people (mostly Dems in General) would not view me as a sociopath just waiting to snap because I prefer to own these tools.

            But dont Get me started on our “right to Carry laws”

  22. bobpence says:

    Charge her for the brandishing. Arguing with people is one thing, but no responsible gun owner would brandish a firearm without a real treat, and we want people who do so to not do so.

  23. admiral_stabbin says:

    It took less than this for K-Mart to stop selling ammo. As I’ve actually bought ammo at Wally World before, I do appreciate the convenience of them selling it. However, I don’t think it’s a critical line of business for them, and I understand if they decide to stop selling it.

    Either way, anyone waving a gun around at people needs to be off the streets for 30 days to (hopefully) change their ways.

  24. NotYou007 says:

    I have purchased plenty of 9mm and 40 Cal ammo at Walmart and each time I watch them pull the ammo out of the display case, scan it, then bag it. I purchase my range ammo at Walmart because it is cost less and I can purchase up to six boxes at a time. BTW, it is hard to find 9mm ammo at my local Walmat. They sell out as soon as they get it. Below is a link to show the obvious difference.

  25. RobertW.TX says:

    I would imagine the argument started because Walmart considers the sales of all guns and ammo final. I remember reading the signs when I bought my last pocket knife in the sporting section. Sounds like the store went out of their way by modifying their own policy to me.

    Regardless anyone who can walk out of a store with the wrong ammo should not own a gun. You do not rely on the person behind the counter to sell you the correct ammo. A responsible gun owner will know how to properly read the box.

    If you do something this irresponsible with a firearm there should be no argument. You should never again be allowed to own a firearm. If you are caught in possession of a firearm in defiance of the above you should go to jail for LIFE.

    I am not pro-gun control but any responsible gun owner knows you don’t point your weapon at someone unless there is a clear reason to use it. I’ll go so far as to say I won’t point my gun at someone until I am ready to fire. Private individuals are not properly trained to hold someone at gunpoint.

    My $0.02

    • Con Seannery says:

      @RobertW.TX: The way I’ve always told it and been told is to NEVER draw the weapon until you’re ready to fire it, and NEVER fire at something you don’t fully intend to kill.

      • NotYou007 says:

        @Con Seannery:

        I suggest you take a basic NRA gun safety course as your first suggestion is terrible advice. As someone who has taken that course and has a CCW permit I shall disregard your advice as I’m sure most others that have a CCW permit would.

        I also have more advanced training that just the basic NRA course but I’m sure as hell not going to leave my weapon concealed and holstered if my life is in danger.

        It is going to take me at least 3 to 5 seconds to become unconcealed, draw, get on target and then pull the trigger and that is with practice.

        • Con Seannery says:

          @NotYou007: The first suggestion was a little off of my usual phrasing, looking back at it. Also, the manner in which I phrase things, the kind of thing someone who knows me well enough for this to come up in conversation usually knows, might be throwing you off. It was more in the vein of “unless you intend to fire it,” my apologies, good sir. Fortunately, I don’t give this advice to people often. I might should have clarified these things, but I was pretty distracted when I hammered that gem out. However, I do agree that you should be doing whatever it takes when your life is in danger, the advice of a faceless internet stranger shouldn’t be taken as gospel.

  26. yevarechecha says:

    The problem is not the guns, it’s the nutjobs who are for some reason allowed to have them. I used to be strongly anti-gun, and I’m not sure when that changed, but now I’m more interested in the regulation. People should be able to own guns, the problem is that the laws are not well-enforced enough to keep the unstable Wal-Mart crazies and the Cho Seung Huis of the world from owning them. Criminals will find them somehow, but we should at least make it really, really hard for crazies.

    And the reason Israel has a higher gun-ownership rate but a lower death rate from them is probably because most of them know how to handle guns from their mandatory army service. We need nationally uniform standards for trigger guards and safety training courses and whatever so that we can reasonably reduce the risk that if you own a gun, no one in your household will be accidentally shot with it.

    • Rectilinear Propagation says:

      @yevarechecha: But we don’t know that they’re crazy until AFTER they’ve done something. Unless we start arresting people for future crimes I don’t think any legislation will fix that.

      The problem to fix there is the way we handle and treat mental health issues and the people who have them.

  27. SabreDC says:

    Anyone near her in the parking lot should have seen this coming. If you go to Walmart, you expect this. Being shocked about this is like being surprised that there is a drunk guy with a mullet at the NASCAR race. Or like being surprised that you need a package of Immodium after eating at KFC. I, personally, stay away from Walmart so I’m not really worried about this type of thing. I’m also not worried about being trampled to death on Black Friday.

  28. Patrick Floto says:

    I’m not going to get into the whole statistics battle, but I will say this.

    Here in the United States, most of us value liberty over safety. A society where the government is bound by law to allow its citizens access to small arms is a dangerous one, but a free one.

    Remember the words of our founding fathers:

    “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

    Benjamin Franklin

    and

    “Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” – Thomas Jefferson

    If you’re the timid type who would vote away their rights because you’re afraid of being victimized by gun crime, you should move to Europe and be a coward there because we don’t need nor want your type here.

    • kduhtoe says:

      @Patrick Floto: Well said, Patrick, except for the last part. We do need those timid types here. We need all types. If everyone thought exactly the same it wouldn’t exactly be a “tempestuous sea of liberty”. It would be more like a calm lake of liberty; that’s no fun!

    • SabreDC says:

      @Patrick Floto: So you’re suggesting that people who do not share your opinions should move to another country because they are not wanted in America? That’s not a very American way of thinking…

  29. lostalaska says:

    I’ve always found it weird for department stores like Walmart, K-Mart or Fred Meyers to be selling guns it just always struck me as bizarre. The few times I’ve bought ammo for going out to the target range with my dad I’ve always gone to one of the local gun shops. The guys there are generally fairly knowledgeable, just make sure you’re not in a hurry, because they’ll always have a story about one of the “Ones that got away”.

    As for the woman that went bonkers in the parking lot. Simple solution, if you pull a gun on people in a non life threatening situation and you’re not Law Enforcement, prepare to get yourself pistol whipped for being an ‘effing idiot.

    • morgasco says:

      @lostalaska: You know there was a time when you could order guns from the Sears catalog and have them shipped you. Gasp! Those were dangerous times… The local gun shops around me have outrageous mark up on ammo, so I opt for retail purchases.

    • kduhtoe says:

      @lostalaska: “Simple solution, if you pull a gun on people in a non life threatening situation and you’re not Law Enforcement, prepare to get yourself pistol whipped for being an ‘effing idiot.”

      Please do not justify law enforcement brandishing firearms in non-life threatening situations. Just because law enforcement officials have less education and shorter tempers than the general population does not mean they do not need to follow the rules of gun safety.

    • NotYou007 says:

      @lostalaska:

      If I visit the local gun store where I purchaed my firearms I am only allowed to purchase a single box of ammo per day and they charge at least five dollars more per box of ammo.

      Yes, I go to my local gun shop for my carry ammo. Walmart does not sell Gold Dot personal protection hollow points. A box of ammo I depend on my life for cost me 30 dollars for twenty rounds of 40 cal. hollow points. I’m happy to pay that.

  30. kraftmayo says:

    If the gun and ammo laws were less restrictive, I bet she could have grabbed her own box of ammo rather than have to stand behind a counter and be waited on. Problem avoided.

    • NotYou007 says:

      @kraftmayo:

      I can go to my local gun shop I can pick up as many range round boxes as I desire. They will only sell me one box but I can carry as many as I desire without help or asking for assistance.

      Now if I want a box of hollow points I have to wait for assistance. They don’t stick the good stuff out for anyone to grap at will.

      So the laws are not restrictive. I respect Walmart for locking up their ammo and asking for assistance to purchase it. They are not armed. In most local gun shops everyone that works there is armed.

  31. AD8BC says:

    @SMSDHubbard: When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away…

    • DH405 says:

      @AD8BC: Amen to that. During that situation the cops were called. After the would-be attacker had left, I sat outside while I ate my dinner. I was long-since done eating before a cop came out and said “Oh, well since it’s over already, I can’t do anything.”

  32. slickdealer says:

    Looks like after she is arrested, charged, and convicted of this felony, she won’t need to worry about buying the wrong ammo anymore.
    Win-Win!

  33. Christopher J Hoffman says:

    Pointing a gun at your fellow Walmart shopper? Why that’s just downright un-neighborly.

  34. Sian says:

    @undefined: @Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): Yeah, but.. Illinois. Last I checked it was one of the few states where violence in self defense was technically illegal. Grew up there. Not going back.

  35. keyz says:

    From the article, “Clallam County Undersheriff Ron Peregrin said Teresa Nadine Dumdie of Port Angeles threatened four other customers with a .22 caliber handgun at 4:54 p.m. Friday outside the store …”

    To paraphrase Gump, “Dumdie is as Dumdie does.”

    With a name like that, it’s just too easy.

  36. Winteridge2 says:

    But wait a minute, if the ammo she bought did not fit her weapon, and everyone knew it, how could she be a threat? Did she point the gun at them and demand the correct ammo for it? That is the whole secret of gun control, ya know, cut out the ammunition or price it too high to be affordable. Well, no, that didn’t work so well with cigarettes…

  37. Matt Wetta says:

    Banning “guns or dangerous items” only creates a fear culture and leads to lack of responsibility and skill. If guns were 100% allowed with no regulation, people would self regulate each other. Swimming pools kill 100′s of babies a year… do we ban simming pools… nope. How many things can kill you if used wrongly… hot water heater, a stove, fork, screwdriver… how bout we see how many people die from running and falling on a sharp object, well maybe lets ban running. People die, get over it, it’s life, the gov’t can’t keep you inside of a bubble… dumb dumbs