265
There was a lot of poor choices working in concert to allow this accident to even happen, but based off the article there was nothing maliciously stupid, or grossly negligent in the context of rural southern AZ.
this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2023
265 points (97.8% liked)
News
23275 readers
3428 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What does that mean? Negligence is not a regional concept?
The difference between negligence and gross negligence is quite significant, and contextually dependent.
This family lives near the border in a rural desert, which is typically flat, open, and sparsely populated.
ATVs are a pretty common way to get around, even for younger kids, and so is target shooting.
Poor choices were clearly made (negligence), but nothing either party did was done with a reckless indifference and disregard for life or property (gross negligence). At least, assuming no other facts come out that significantly alter what was said in the article.
If this same incident occurred in the middle of an urban, or even suburban, city with a medium to high population density, then it would be grossly negligent to have kids on ATVs, or to shoot .22 caliber air rifles.
Context matters.
Not sure what op meant, but there's a lot of angles that I can see it being true. Having a shooting range on personal property is very different in rural Arizona than places with higher population density. The risk is objectively not as large. The space makes it unlikely to hit anything you wouldn't want to target, and it's very ingrained in gun culture to be smart about what direction you fire.
They may have also been referring to accepted risk vs freedoms. Gun people understand that there's a risk to owning guns, but it's an acceptable risk because they value guns, much like how people understand the risk of traveling by vehicle yet still choose to.
it’s very ingrained in gun culture to be smart about what direction you fire.
This is one of those things where 99% of people I see online say it, but like 10% of people I know in real life actually practice it.
Like wearing protective gear on a motorcycle
That's interesting, when I look online, most people seem to think all gun owners are totally careless. I say it because I've lived in that culture before, everyone where I'm from has their hunter's safety training and I've never been out shooting with anybody did it carelessly.
Is this your impression of friends/acquaintances of yours that shoot or have you taken part as well and seen it first hand?
When I'm in online conversations it's responsibility and gun safes and trigger discipline.
When my friends get drunk it's "let's go shoot rocks from my deck"
You know, whenever a kid gets accidentally shot, I think of all the other 359x359 directions the bullet could have gone and wonder how many millions of stray shots are flying around.
New years in some places are literally Russian roulette.
What do you mean?
I would assume he's referencing the number of celebratory gunfire incidents. There are a lot of holes in roofs, cars, and every now and again people from people shooting guns in the air for celebration. There is a non-zero chance that one of those bullets will have enough power to do serious bodily harm. Scary as hell bc it can be some idiot within 3 miles putting lives at risk
I feel like by the time the tide turns on gun control people will be so frustrated that repeal of the second will be on the table.
The article says it was actually an air rifle pellet, which is probably always going to be legal. They are quite powerful for some models.
This isn’t a gun control issue.
You are right, it is not a gun control issue, it is a gun culture problem.
Isn't it?
Where I live, this would be impossible because you wouldn't be allowed to shoot guns somewhere kids can ride through. That's gun control, and it includes air guns.
What I meant is that this incident didn’t really happen because of some sort of systemic gun control problem. Everyone was being responsible with regards to gun control, it’s just that some kids made a dumb decision and some parents weren’t around to intervene. It doesn’t matter how robust your gun control laws are; there will always be some tragedies. I’m all for stricter gun control laws in the U.S., but that’s not going to result in zero gun fatalities. I sin ppl y honk it’s worthwhile to accept it when shit happens despite everyone doing reasonable things to prevent it and not blaming every gun death on gun laws.
Everyone was being responsible with regards to gun control, it’s just that some kids made a dumb decision and some parents weren’t around to intervene.
Um, "everyone was being responsible" and "parents weren't around" are exclusionary statements. It's impossible to be both with guns (even air guns).
Except you prove the point.
- Everyone was being responsible.
- If gun control was incorporated, responsible people wouldn't have guns at this moment in time. (many irresponsible people wouldn't either by the laws of supply & demand but that's beside the point here)
- Thus, the child would be alive.
I think you could argue that any gun incident isn't the result of a "systemic gun control problem," gun control just prevents things. It's a little confusing to say, but a lack of gun control isn't a root cause of gun problems, it's just a solution to them (and an objectively good one imo).
While I understand your point, and think it's fair, I'd add that a part of gun control is the proper education of gun owners such that they have the thought patterns necessary to consider these sorts of possibilities, and to take action to prevent them. It's a big part of the system here, obtaining a gun licence involves training that fundamentally alters your view of responsible gun use.
That said, I'm not going to pretend that gun control would have prevented this, but it should reduce its likelihood.
Oh weird I thought a child was murdered with a gun
Not as long as parents like this are bringing sacrifices
Thank you for your contribution, Vaginal_blood_fart.
an air rifle can kill?? wtf kind of air rifle is this?
I'm sure a paint ball to the eye could potentially kill someone too.
If only she had a gun to defend herself with!