Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal the_mad_poster's Journal: Angry Mom Sues Wal-Mart for Not Being Psychic 16

Journal by the_mad_poster

Well, she's probably not so stupid as she is emotionally distraught, but emotional distress can make you act stupid, so close enough.

Let me get this straight. She wants to sue Wal-Mart for not doing a bunch of non-obvious things like saying "Why do you want this?" when her disturbed daughter purchased a shotgun from the store that she later used to kill herself?

Look, I'm sorry. I hate Wal-Mart with an overriding passion, and I'm real sorry for your loss (not really... I didn't kill anybody), but I fail to see how this is Wal-Mart's fault. If the girl had gone into the store and said "give me a shotgun so I can kill myself" we'd have a different situation here. However, all signs indicate this was a perfectly legitimate sale, and I don't understand how Wal-Mart can be held responsible.

Moreover, medical records are not and should not be accessible to gun retailers. There's no reason Henry needs to know the date of my last physical and my allergies and everything else he can find on confidential medical records. Releasing that sort of thing to additional people is just begging for trouble as we saw with the fiasco over the Indian outsourcing of medical work (an individual effectively held records hostage, threatening to release them if she didn't recieve, I believe it was, backpay the employer who hired her owed).

Perhaps a compromise could be reached whereby records could be flagged in certain manners and retailers of various sorts could check the flags, similar to the way potential problems are flagged on a driver's license. A doctor could, for example, flag a person as not being safe for owning a gun, or not being safe for flying or for anything else where mental of physical health might be a problem. As an added step, a court order could do the same without a doctor's consent. This would allow courts to flag violent offenders from having guns or other potentially destructive items when, in the court's opinion, there is a reasonable chance this person could commit violent crimes again. Gun retailers would have more effective background checks, and they wouldn't need to know why the person can't safely own a gun. Patients are still protected from abuses because, of course, they have access to their own medical records. If they feel the flagging is unfair, they could challenge it in court.

Regardless, however, Wal-Mart is not to blame here. Much as I wish they were, and much as I love to see them burn money (I'd loooove to see the top dogs at Wal Mart become penniless hobos), this is a crap lawsuit.

This discussion was created by the_mad_poster (640772) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Angry Mom Sues Wal-Mart for Not Being Psychic More

Angry Mom Sues Wal-Mart for Not Being Psychic

Comments Filter:
  • That woman's child killed herself because that woman was more likely than not a shithole parent.
  • walmart should sue the parents for not reporting to all local Walmarts that their daughter was mentally unstable thus enabling each store to post a picture of the daughter at each gun counter with the instructions ' Do not sell a gun to this person ' .

    my medical records had better not be released without my consent, that includes the medicine i may be taking or have taken in the past.

  • The real problem is that anyone, even a crackpot (especially a crackpot) can just go and buy a firearm.

    Gun control doesn't infringe on the constitutional "right to bear arms" for the purpose stated in the constitution - "militia". Nutbars don't have a constitutional right to bear arms, as they wouldn't be able to serve in the militia anyway.

    • US Justice Dept release a report dated last august that states that the right to bear arms is an individual right. Basically, court cases and legal decisions since the Constitution was signed were researched and it was determined by a panel of lawyers/judges that the original intent by the authors of the Constitution was to secure the individual person's right to own and bear arms, regardless of whether the individual was part of a militia.

      http://technocrat.net/article.pl?sid=04/12/19/2212 18&mode=t [technocrat.net]
      • IANAL, but it seems to me that Justice Department legal opinions are just that... opinions. They have little lasting value. Change administrations, change Justice Department opinions. Any crackpot who manages to get elected President can get their appointees to support nearly any position, no matter how assinine. (Admittedly, that represents a rather small pool of crackpots, but still.)

        The Second Amendment [findlaw.com] is not clearly written. We will probably never know the founder's intent without a seance, unless we
          • Wow. That's an interesting link. It is an oustanding example of the irrelevant appeal to authority: [skepdic.com]

            "The irrelevant appeal to authority is a type of genetic fallacy, attempting to judge a belief by its origin rather than by the arguments for and against the belief. If the belief originated with an authoritative person, then the belief is held to be true. However, even authoritative persons can hold false beliefs."

            He might be right, he might not... same as anyone else. Raise me the ghost of James Madison a
            • "It is an oustanding example of the irrelevant appeal to authority:"

              Heh. That's funny. You try to say that asking an expert on historical grammar what a historical document says is irrelevant when you're calling into question what the document says. I hate to tell you this, but that is very relevent. You claim it's unclear. I show evidence that it was perfectly clear to the people who wrote it, and show you what the people who wrote it said, and you say 'it's a logical fallacy to tell me what they sa

              • Heh. That's funny. You try to say that asking an expert on historical grammar what a historical document says is irrelevant [...]

                Well, yeah. You'll note that the expert himself said, "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment." If he's right in this statement, his expertise in the history of English is irrelevant to the matter at hand. If he's not right in this, he's useless as an expert on the history of Englis
    • I thought I should point this out directly [saf.org] unstead of leaving it down at the bottom of the thread. Gun control certainly infringes on the constitutionally protected (not granted: It's assumed to already exist) right to bear arms. The phrase with the militia comment is stating a reason the right is protected, not a qualification of when the right is 'ok' to use.
      • If the right existed before the constitution, then it's okay to have limits on it, since it it no longer a "constitutional" right, right?
        • No, because the constitution doesn't _grant_ any rights, it _protects_ them. All the rights 'granted' by the constitution are considered to be rights people have - the constitution merely makes it explicit. The constitution only allows the government to restrict some rights where it explicitly states that they may be restricted. It's not intended to be an enumeration of all our rights - just a clarification of the ones that are most important.

          Further, the constitution makes sure there AREN'T any limits

  • Asking someone why they want a gun is non-obvious? I'd have thought that it was part of the required package, for reasons totally unrelated to mental health.

    CUSTOMER: Hello, I'd like to purchase that shotgun, please.

    CLERK: OK. (starts opening up the case). What do you plan on doing it?

    CUSTOMER: I'm going to use it for home defense.

    CLERK: Ok. Have you ever used a gun before? Here, you'll want shot instead of slugs to minimze blow-thru in your walls. And while we recommend that you don't keep it lo
    • That still isn't going to protect against anybody but the most out in the open suicidal. The suicidal customer could just say they're going to a range to practice shooting. It isn't like customers are obliged to tell the truth, and even if there's law against lying about the gun's use, how do you prosecute somebody who just killed themselves?

      For the woman to expect her child would be alive if Wally-World would have asked a question is pretty dumb. You're also assuming that a Wal-Mart employee is going to ha

  • In today's America--Mom, Apple Pie, and the Chrisitan God of The Honorable George W. Bush--we have an 'ownership society.'

    What does that mean?

    It is quite simple: as a god-fearing, white, red-blooded American (living in a red state, naturally), you have the right to live your life in peace and safety. When something goes wrong, it is usually because the whiney Liberals (like Billary Clinton or John SKerry) allowed criminals to get out of jail, roam the streets and rape our white women. See, in real Ameri

Slashdot Top Deals

"The medium is the massage." -- Crazy Nigel

Close