It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Muaddib
Do you use yours to kill someone every night?.....have you killed anyone?.....do you know that many criminals would not even consider attacking you just by seeing that you have a gun?......they would run like rabbits, unless they also have a gun and would use it...
[edit on 22-12-2004 by Muaddib]
Originally posted by Gazrok
That starts a dangerous, slippery slope, don't you think?
Originally posted by Muaddib
Inflicting harm is not killing.....
Originally posted by FredT
A mother, whos manic-depressive and schizophrenic daughter purchased a shotgun at a local Wal-Mart and used it to commit suicide is suing the retailer. The 24 year old killed herself in 2003. The suicide came on the heels of her attacking another customer in the store for which she was arrested. An additional element in the case is the fact that her prescription for anti-psychotic medication was filled at the pharmacy in the store. Her mother claims that the employees of the store should have known based on her history as well as her prescription that they should have not sold her the gun.
The whole episode is a tragic on, but hardly the fault of Wal-Mart. The also did do a FBI background check on her and it came up clean. Where is the fault?
Originally posted by Nygdan
Inoticed some people have said that any item can be used to kill. But lets be serious for a moment, a person with a history of 'crazed violence' shouldn't be allowed to purchase gun. Cars don't require a waiting period and background check, our society has already agreed that guns require a background check.
Also, we wouldn't let someone on powerful medication work with heavy equipment, why let them use guns? I agree, it can quickly be taken too far, a person on anti-depressants could go to a gun store, be denied their gun, and then purchase a knife, even a kitchen knife, that requires no background check. But thats just the point, guns are an item that requires a background check in teh first place. Violent criminals and felons aren't allowed them. This woman should not have been sold a gun knowing the full history. Walmart can't be expected to share that information within or between stores of course.
Furthermore, if a person is on anti-depressants or anti-psychotics, and attempts to purchase a weapon, the seller should be required to notify the persons's psychiatric contact (which can simply be put into the data matrix along with criminal history and the medication information).
I think that thats entirely reasonable, and that anyone selling a gun to a person that they know is distraught is wrong. I just don't think that the seller knew what the deal was in this case.
Originally posted by Valhall
So the mom should sue:
1. The daughter's doctor.
3. Her husband.
Hey, JN...I'm just playing with ya concerning the doctor's note...I wasn't implying that's what you meant.
Originally posted by John Nada
You said guns were not meant to kill, I'm saying they are regardless of how some can "avoid" it.
Originally posted by Byrd
Actually, folks, the gun retailers are supposed to do a background check. If a person has a history of psychiatric illness or a prison record, they are NOT supposed to sell firearms to them.
(unless they repealed that law...) [quote/]
The story stated she lied on the form when she filled it out.
Stewart, who had been both committed to an institution and declared dangerously mentally ill by a judge, lied on that form, according to her mother's attorney's office.[quote/]
further down it states this
Also, Wal-Mart did a background check on Stewart, as required under federal law, but through no fault of its own, her name did not show up in the FBI database. The reason: The database contains no mental health records from Texas and 37 other states.
Texas does not submit mental health records because state law deems them confidential, said Paul Mascot, an attorney with the Texas Department of State Health Services. Other states have not computerized their record-keeping systems or do not store them in a central location for use by the FBI.[quote/]
As I see it Walmart did what was required by law. How on earth can one expect them to know she lied? They really should blame the state of texas for the way its own laws were written.
It would appear to me Texas law is the villian here not Walmart. Their laws prevented a proper background check as required by federal law.
I wonder if the lawyer named Texas as a co-defendant
[edit on 12/22/2004 by shots]