Mother Kills Son, Father Wants Gun Range to Pay

[RamboLiberal]

Source: ABC News

When police arrived at a Florida shooting range earlier this month, they found the dead body of Mitchell Moore with "a large amount of blood pooling under his head."

His mother, who moments earlier had walked up behind the 20-year-old man and shot him in the back of the head, was found with a self-inflicted bullet wound, slumped against a wall "gargling blood and moaning," according to the police report. She later died.

-----

Whether or not the owners of Shoot Straight knew Marie Moore was disturbed when they rented her a gun is the crux of a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Mitchell Moore's father against the shooting range.

The father, Charles Marvin Moore, believes the company knew his ex-wife, Marie Moore, was mentally ill, that it had previously banned her from the range, and failed to check its records before renting her a gun.

-----

Charles Marvin Moore told police his ex-wife had been banned from the range "after attempting to commit suicide there several years ago," according to the police report.



Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7365205&page=1

---

I think he has a good case on this one if he can find records they banned her previously.

[MichaelHarris]

1. I agree

if the records are there, especially at the range then I would think they are liable.

[hlthe2b]

2. Finally an instance where denying 2nd Amendment Rights...

might be acceptable? Just wondering, since it seems for some, they are absolutely inviolable.

[jmowreader]

6. The Second Amendment doesn't come into play here

It says "the right to KEEP and bear arms." When you rent guns, they don't let you keep them.

I think this falls under the old "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" statement that is so very handy in retail. Not even a Second Amendment absolutist would defend the "right" of someone who already attempted to kill themselves on the range from going back to try it again.

[hlthe2b]

31. Ahh, the irony would be funny, if this were not so tragic...

:eyes:

[RamboLiberal]

7. In this particular case it is not a 2nd amendment right

It is a private businesses right to determine who can and cannot rent a gun and who can and cannot shoot on their range if their is a safety issue.

I don't think you'd find many here who think it is a 2nd amendment right for a mentally ill person to have a gun.

[hlthe2b]

30. Then you've not spent much time in the Gungeon--fortunately

There are several whose "line in the sand" is absolute--consequences be damned.

[Paladin]

49. Oh, But Didn't "KEEP And Bear Arms".......

....have a completely different meaning back during the times of the Founding Fathers? That's the standard ploy that Gun Militants pull out just to prove the Second Amendment applies, all the time, every time......

[villager]

41. you mean "2nd Amendment Rights" as defined by the NRA...

... and ceded to by cowering politicians?

[Arctic Dave]

3. This is a bummer of a story. Sorry for his loses.

[Mojorabbit]

4. I shoot there every now and then.

It is a small indoor range run by a really nice family. The whole situation is a shame.

[rrneck]

5. Adios gun rentals. nt

[RamboLiberal]

8. I'm very surprised that ranges continue to rent guns

Its not that uncommon there are suicides by rental guns on ranges. But this may be the first case of a murder/suicide.

[baldguy]

9. If Florida had any rational gun laws, this wouldn't have happened.

She should have been required by the state to pass a background check to get a license, then required to present that license when buying or renting a gun.

Blame the RW front group called the NRA.

[imdjh]

10. If she had been in a mental institution it wouldn't have happened.

Yes, it has to be someone else's fault.

[X_Digger]

15. Yes, nobody EVER goes crazy AFTER they get a license..

Great idea, get everyone licenses, then they'll never need mental health care!

You do better at troofing.

[brentspeak]

18. So, therefore, we should just let anybody obtain a gun license

Look how well that's turned out.

[X_Digger]

19. That's one approach.. competent mental health care would be another.

Obviously disturbed mother, previous history at this range.. had she been treated, not only would we be lacking an emotional bone to fight over, but a father would have a son and wife to love!

But hey, if you need a whipping post to flail at, feel free.

[CLANG]

21. You can't force someone to get treatment unless you commit them.

Do you realize how many sick people are out there that don't realize they need mental health care? How many times have you heard, "He was such a normal person, a nice guy. A little quiet, but I never thought much about it."? Do you realize that the average IQ of an American is about 98? That means half of us are below that.

How do we identify these people, and do we commit them when they have no previous history?

On Edit: I am not inferring that a lower IQ has any bearing on mental health, just that these people are much more prone to believing untruths.

[X_Digger]

24. If we can destigmatize mental health care, make it accessible..

.. to all levels of society, not just the affluent- then we can start educating folks about more than just 'the warning signs' and start actually helping people rather than blaming this group, that person, X social pressure, Y means, etc.

re the 'normal guy' syndrome- I think folks just say that as a means of absolving themselves in the blame game, rather than admitting they didn't know / care about their neighbor / co-worker / etc.

"Of course I knew him well, and he was such a normal fellow." Riiiight.

[WriteDown]

36. And then your mental health evaluation goes...

on your permanent record for background checks? Think about that.

[X_Digger]

37. No, I'm fine leaving the line at involuntary committment..

But getting folks the help they need so that they never get to the point of undertaking murder / suicide? Hells yes, and twice on Tuesday.

[WriteDown]

38. No...

I'm talking about those that see a psychiatrist and are diagnosed with something like depression or bipolar disorder. Should this go into some sort of database to prevent those people from passing background checks and buying/renting guns?

[X_Digger]

39. Personally? No.

That would be a disincentive to seek help. If this woman had been treated for her bipolar disorder*, though, she would have had a less likely chance of doing what she did.

* eta: I think it was in another account of this story that it mentioned previous treatment for bipolar disorder, could be wrong.

[brentspeak]

52. LOL. The NRA: the great advocate for the mentally ill

Actually, the NRA: advocate for the mentally ill everywhere to get their hands on guns.

[X_Digger]

53. Your ignorance is showing..

The NRA backed the '68 Gun Control Act (GCA) that set up the 'prohibited persons' list that includes those adjuducated mentally incompetent. They supported the '94 provisions of the Brady Bill that set up the National Instant Check System (NICS), as well as the '03 and '07 expansions of that system.

However, it's not the NRA's problem to fix. Compare the two statements below-

The NRA is an advocacy organization for the protection of legal exercise of the second amendment.

It is not the NRAs responsibility to address psychos abusing the second amendment by shooting people.

versus

The ACLU is an advocacy organization for the protection of legal exercise of the first amendment.

It is not the ACLUs responsibility to address pedophiles abusing the first amendment by distributing child pornography.

I'm sure you would agree with the second, why not the first?

[brentspeak]

54. Why are you bringing up the ACLU?

A typical RW-mentality is the tin-foil helmeted fantasy that those who opposes the NRA are somehow ACLU supporters.

The NRA only "supported" the NICS when it gutted parts of the Brady Law background checks. How come you failed to highlight that bit of information? This is from one of the NRA's statements regarding mentally ill people and firearms:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=217&issue=018

The National Rifle Association has always supported including the records of individuals adjudicated mentally defective into the National Instant Background Check System...

...We continue to support legislative efforts that: ...Ensure that mentally defective adjudications are limited to adjudications following adversarial hearings only, not a solely administrative finding or short-term diagnosis from a doctor, as often occurs in cases of depression or post-traumatic stress disorder. Remove mental disability records from the NICS if a judge determines that the person is no longer a danger to himself or others, or no longer requires involuntary treatment

How come you failed to go out of your way to point out that very few mentally ill persons are ever brought to court for a legal determination of their illness? How come you didn't mention that it's a joke to disregard a doctor's diagnosis of mental illness? What's a "short-term" diagnosis? Your post is a classic example of NRA-propaganda: a mix of white lies, excluded information, and...lies.

[X_Digger]

55. I bring up the ACLU because..

It's just as wrong headed to blame the NRA for gun violence as it would be to blame the ACLU for child pornography.

I'm a member of the ACLU and while not a current member of the NRA, I have been in the past. You're seeing paper tigers.

The ACLU supports amendments #1-10 except #2 (and #3, but nobody's quartering soldiers these days). NRA covers #2.

So let me get this straight.. you want to remove rights for folks based not on law, but on a doctor's say so alone? Permanently? Ever been to a mental competency hearing? I used to volunteer for CASA, so I've seen my share.

Mental illness can be treated. Let's not brand them for life, shall we? How very progressive of you.

Exactly what statement that I made was a lie?

[Paladin]

57. If You're A DU Gun Militant, You Have No Standing To Rely On The ACLU.

Not after the way the ACLU gets routinely savaged down in the DU Gun Dungeon....

[X_Digger]

58. Have an example?

Only thing I remember is a general pissed-ness at not supporting the 2nd along with the other 9 amendments.

[primavera]

65. C'mon, X_Digger, that's a fallacious argument and you know it

No one ever said that vehicle licensing requirements prevented mentally ill people from operating vehicles entirely, but the checks conducted at the time of issuance catch a few, and checks conducted upon renewal each few years catch a few more, and, between them, they manage to prevent some percentage greater than zero from obtaining motor vehicle licenses. A measure does not, by itself, need to be 100% successful to be worthwhile: most measures are partial remedies which individually are just pieces of a larger regulatory effort.

[X_Digger]

66. Agreed, it was a flip response to the 'OMG no regulations!' BS from a troofer

But the assertion that if Florida had different regulations, this tragedy would have been prevented- are unprovable.

Playing 'what-if' can be a useful tool to brainstorm ideas to fix a problem, but you then have to take all the 'what-if's and evaluate them to see which ones are feasible, likely to succeed, be supported, constitutional, etc.

[brentspeak]

17. Exactly

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. Florida laws are fine...your scenario is flawed

No one should need a license to exercise a fundamental right. YOur NRA strawman is specious

[baldguy]

29. I see your mind has been poluted with RW propaganda.

Created by the NRA, bought & paid for by the GOP.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

33. Far from it...

Gun control has grown from its racist roots to be more of form of class discrimination these days, especially in the cites. Heller pretty well settled things, though bigots like Daley, Fenty and Bloomie have yet to have figured that out. Private ownership of weapons and other means to resist are populist and progressive. Limiting rights is a repuke thing. Your position places you in their corner.

[baldguy]

40. And that proves you've fallen for it.

Your pop-gun won't save you from an F22 or a cruise missile falling on you. It may allow you to murder your fellow citizens and law enforcement officers - but it won't do ANYTHING to preserve your freedom. Armed resistance to a govt duly elected in a free, fair & open election is called a rebellion and can only lead to anarchy. There is no liberty in anarchy.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

44. You ignore Heller and history in favor of your dogma

and until you realize that, you will remain in your ignorance and in the thrall of those who call the restriction of rights "freedom". Do you need a license or permit for free speech, publication, voting, abortion?

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

45. So violent felons, children, folks with mentally capacity issues should be able to have guns?

That's the logical conclusion you seem to be reaching. But what if one right infringes on another? Which should take precedence? Yelling fire in a theater may be an infringement on the 5th amendment property rights of the theater owner, and the "life" rights of patrons. Giving a loaded gun to a toddler or a convicted felon, especially a violent one may also infringe on that and others persons right to "life".

Also, you do need a permit to exercise your right to free speech when demonstrating. You do need to be registered to vote. You arguments aren't very good in that regard.

[X_Digger]

51. false dichotomy

It's often a response in this debate- something like 'What, you want to give guns to toddlers, criminals, and psychos' or 'Well, go get yourself an ICBM'..

A large majority of gun owners are fine leaving the line where it is- NICS check to make sure a purchaser isn't a prohibited person (felon, has a protective order against them, previous history of involuntary commitment); anything .51cal or larger for rifles, sound supressors, full automatic, or destructive device (grenade, etc) requiring FBI background check, fingerprinting, BATFE form 4, $200 tax stamp, local LEO sign-off.

[Joe Steel]

59. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't understand?

A large majority of gun owners are fine leaving the line where it is- NICS check to make sure a purchaser isn't a prohibited person (felon, has a protective order against them, previous history of involuntary commitment); anything .51cal or larger for rifles, sound supressors, full automatic, or destructive device (grenade, etc) requiring FBI background check, fingerprinting, BATFE form 4, $200 tax stamp, local LEO sign-off.

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't understand? The gun cult says their gun rights are god-given, absolute and inviolable. Don't you agree with that?

[X_Digger]

60. Valium is your friend..

Recent efforts at 'compromise' have ended up with the choice being between 'what the gun control advocates want' and 'what the cun control advocates can take'.

I'll fight to keep the line where it is, thankyouverramuch.

Go ahead, tell us again how there are no individual rights in the Bill of Rights, and how guns are evil. Pfft.

[Joe Steel]

61. Just answer the question.

Just answer the question. Can you "Second Amendment rights" be infringed or can't they?

[X_Digger]

62. False dichotomy, as you well know.

The line between infringement and regulation is not static. Never has been.

[Joe Steel]

63. Are you saying your "Second Amendment rights" are negotiable?

The line between infringement and regulation is not static. Never has been.

Are you saying your "Second Amendment rights" are negotiable? That they may be taken, reduced or limited by legislatures?

[X_Digger]

64. edit: not worth the trouble.

self-edit: Anyone who thinks that we only have individual rights because of 'activist judges' isn't worth serious discussion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x197785#198184

[Joe Steel]

67. Only for those who can't make a case.

edit: not worth the trouble.

self-edit: Anyone who thinks that we only have individual rights because of 'activist judges' isn't worth serious discussion:

Only for those who can't make a case.

Can you?

Do you have an argument founded on something other than gun cult delusions, semi-literate analyses or shameless misrepresentations?

[Joe Steel]

46. You've hit on the most curious of things...

I see your mind has been poluted with RW propaganda.

Created by the NRA, bought & paid for by the GOP.

You've hit on the most curious of things; gun cultists who claim to be progressives. Typical Progressives include in their political philosophy a focus for the welfare of the community. Gun cultists place their own individual welfare above the welfare of the community. I don't see how any gun cultist can be a Democrat. They're really Republicans or Libertarians.

[shagsak]

11. truly a tragic story

I hope he can somehow find some closure

[imdjh]

12. The part that fascinates me

... is that the father knew that the ex-wife was whacko, but apparently didn't know that the son was going to a firing range with her. And the son was what? Out of the loop on mom's condition?

At 20, my dad probably would have known if I was going to a firing range and I would have known that my mom had a history with the place. So it seems like something is missing here.

[Mythsaje]

20. At 20?

I don't even think my father knew what state I was in.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

13. No such thing ...................

The idea of "closure" is a lie.

Nothing ever ends. Nothing .....................

[shagsak]

14. losing your child,

you are probably right. I tend to be an optimist, I hope for his sake he finds it.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

16. All he'll ever have, for the rest of his life,

is the pain of his loss.

It never ends. I understand your optimism, and I hope nothing ever happens to change that.......................

[doctor jazz]

27. Actually, everything does...eventually.

:shrug:

[Tangerine LaBamba]

32. True, sort of ..................

I was only referring to the time while we're actually alive and sentient.

But, if you've ever looked at a family history, you will see that the tragedies and misfortunes of one generation always affect the next generation, and that group will pass on the lessons learned to their children, and finally, when the reasons for the behavior are no longer remembered or understood, its effects still linger.

So, I stand by my original statement - nothing ever ends............................

[buckrogers1965]

22. So getting a wad of cash from the gun rental place

will make everything alright?

[RamboLiberal]

23. No it doesn't but it is the only recourse we have when

a harm is done to someone because of negliegence. In this case he is saying the range had barred his wife but failed to check their records before renting her a gun that can be used for murder and/or suicide.

Not everyone who sues is looking to win "a lottery".

[LisaL]

26. From reading the article, doesn't seem like he got evidence of that,

since he is looking for witnesses or documents.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

34. How does that she failed to honor her PNG status make the range responsible?

[Joe Steel]

47. Not everything...

So getting a wad of cash from the gun rental place

will make everything alright?

Not everything but something. The money he takes for the shooting range will fill the father's to memorialize his son. In the annals of human affairs, the son's death will not slip-away without incident. It will have consequences.

[tomm2thumbs]

28. sounds like a case - won't bring him back but it'll keep it from happening again

and these things do happen if she was back another time and got in

[Joe Steel]

48. Maybe but probably not...

sounds like a case - won't bring him back but it'll keep it from happening again

and these things do happen if she was back another time and got in

Maybe but probably not. At most it would raise the cost bureaucratic error (not checking the paperwork) but almost certainly it would not eliminate it. Errors happen because humans are flawed and we can never hope to find every error in the implementation of the processes we create. Perfection is not in our nature. That's why "gun control" is an impossible dream. Every process we create to control guns will be no better than our capacity to implement it. The only way to end the killing is to eliminate the guns.

[aquart]

35. She tried to kill herself the last time she was there?

So THEY GAVE HER A GUN?

Bankrupt their idiot asses. This man lost a son because they didn't realize guns can kill.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

42. Why in the hell did she kill her son?

I can understand why people commit suicide, but I'll never figure out why they feel the need to take their loved ones' lives as well. :(

[FudaFuda]

43. Maybe to strengthen her husband's lawsuit. nt

[marshall]

56. Most problems between parents and children of that age involve money

Maybe he wouldn't get a job or move out of the house.

I'm sure she was mentally disturbed, but there could have been actual issues at play that pushed her over the edge.