It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Mom Sues Wal-Mart Over Daughters Shotgun Suicide

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 07:44 AM
link   

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]


You're relying on the "if" factor here...as well as changing your entire point. I'm not arguing the effectiveness or the right to own guns...or how professionals handle guns.

You said a gun was not meant to kill, and my point was it bloody well is. It may not be the users intention to kill with it, but it is a weapon/tool built to inflict harm...end of story.

If someone attacked me and I pulled out a gun and shot them, they may yet live...but that doesn't mean I didn't know exactly what I was doing at the time which was to put that person down, killing them if necessary. I'm well aware those shots will most likely kill them. If they live it's a bonus, but to assume a gun is not an instrument of death is rediculous.




posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Inflicting harm is not killing..... The only purpose that assures a gun is bought only for killing is if you buy one to hunt...this is a case when you are buying a weapon to surely kill, or if it is already in your mind that you are going to use any weapon to kill someone.... A gun, like any weapon can be used for killing.... But saying a gun's only purpose is for killing, it is the same as saying that the only purpose of powder, is for killing, yet we all know that explosives are used for other purposes.........

Explosives are a weapon...so are you saying explosives are made for killing?....


[edit on 22-12-2004 by Muaddib]

[edit on 22-12-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
That starts a dangerous, slippery slope, don't you think?


Yes it certainly is.

I think I should point out that the 'blacklist' idea I'm certainly not applying to this case, it was just this case that made me think about mental illness and guns in general. Wal-Mart shouldn't be getting sued and it seems this girl was pretty depressed.

My point is this...if someone was knowingly schizophrenic would you want them to be sold a gun? Of course they can use a knife, a spoon, a toothpick to inflict damage on others or themselves but it'll certainly cut down on chances if they don't have access to a gun.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Inflicting harm is not killing.....


It CAN be lol. If you want to harm someone and shoot them, then they die...that's killing.


...and again you're relying on the "if" factor, along the lines of "if you buy a gun it doesn't mean you're going to kill someone"...never said it did. Guns were made to inflict the the maximum amount of damage in the name of defence/attack possible, which is to kill. I'm not getting into how professionals can avoid this e.t.c. You said guns were not meant to kill, I'm saying they are regardless of how some can "avoid" it.

It's only because of huge strides in medical treatment that one can be shot and survive it. If...say...100 years ago...damn...even 50 years ago you were shot most likely you were finished, end of story.

...and...erm...not quite sure where you're going with that explosives comparison. Explosives are not just weapons, they can be used for many constructive functions that have aided humanity without ever the thought of using it as a weapon. A gun is only, and only ever will be, a weapon...unless you think it looks nice hanging on the wall but that's a personal preference.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Hey, JN...I'm just playing with ya concerning the doctor's note...I wasn't implying that's what you meant.

You know, personally, if this mom wants to make money of her daughter's suicide I think she should sue the people most responsible for protecting the daughter from herself. So the mom should sue:

1. The daughter's doctor.
2. Herself.
3. Her husband.

I'm sure she's got an homeowner's insurance policy she can grab some dough off of - assuming the girls blew her brains out in her mom's house.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 08:04 AM
link   

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.

Absurd. If walmart tracked customer purchases and shared pharmacy information with all store employees then they'd've made a terrible invasion of privacy. In fact, they'd probably be sued by more people than this woman.


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?

I agree entirely. I do think, however, that there can be a sensible way to work it out. If a person is on anti-depressives or anti-pyschotics, then a flag should be put into the gun check system, nationally. In either case, its not the responsibility of walmart itself, its a social issue that can only be addressed by society, not a particular retail chain.

It'd've been nice if they didn't sell a gun to a person that they knew was unstable, but did the gun seller in fact know this? Short of the woman being banned from the store for having gotten violent in it, how could they know?

If the person behind the gun counter knew she had a history of crazed violence tho, then yes, that particular person is responsible, but not the store. And beleive me, I am not trying to defend a store that sells the amount of crap that walmart sells.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 08:13 AM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 08:16 AM
link   
NADA, many people have collections of guns, yet they don't use them, others buy weapons to enter shooting contests, yet others buy weapons to hunt and surely kill, others buy weapons for defense without ever thinking on killing anyone... Many people, if not most, buy guns for defense, not for killing others. They might have to kill, or without wanting, they can kill someone, but guns are not made just for killing.



[edit on 22-12-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 08:20 AM
link   

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.

Someone accused me of being some kind of anti-gun person earlier on the first page....selarius....simply b/c I was making an arguement for the exact same thing Nygdan is making here....

Read it - it makes perfect sense - maybe more than what I said earlier.....As for the justification of a law suit - Naturally it's based off of greed, misplaced emotions, and ignorance....but hey - It's America....That's what we thrive on.....



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
So the mom should sue:

1. The daughter's doctor.
2. Herself.
3. Her husband.


You're absolutely right, but we could be wrong about this woman. I haven't seen nor heard her, so for all I know she could be some poor white trash trying to make a quick buck at the expense of her daughter.

However, as I stated much earlier, if this is a woman devastated by the loss of her daughter and is just looking for someone to blame to take the pain away then we shouldn't be condemning her...we don't know the details. It's very likely her lawyer could be exploiting her...



Hey, JN...I'm just playing with ya concerning the doctor's note...I wasn't implying that's what you meant.


Whoops! Sorry.

Mr Reactionary here



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 08:57 AM
link   

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.
...............


I said that guns only purpose is not killing, which is different....

I mentioned blackpowder, because the first use of blackpowder by the Chinese was to kill. It was made by accident, but after it's discovery, it's main purpose was to be used in battle, for killing. Later on it was used in fireworks, nowadays it is used for a wide variety of reasons.

Here is a link to the history of blackpowder.
en.wikipedia.org...

Just like the reason of blackpowder throughout history changed, the reasons for guns have changed, and they don't have just a purpose. Most guns are not used at all for killing, and the main reason why people buy them are not for killing, but self defense and other reasons which I named above. That is my point. If you buy a shotgun you can be certain that it will almost certainly kill someone. Now that is a weapon that is designed for maximum damage, except of course, if you use blanks. Some people have even used salt and other forms of ammunition in shotguns, and these don't kill.



[edit on 22-12-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Dec, 22 2004 @ 01:18 PM
link   

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]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join