644
4-Year-Old Fatally Shot By Woman Who Was Teaching Her 'Firearm Safety,' Authorities Say
(www.huffpost.com)
this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
644 points (96.3% liked)
News
23387 readers
3184 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That is a firearms issue.
Untrained, irresponsible people are getting access to guns.
I fully agree irresponsible people are getting access, but this goes beyond firearms and training. There is irresponsible ownership and use, and then there is putting a firearm in the chest of a child, right after removing a loaded mag and pulling the trigger. Using my car analogy - there is irresponsible not wearing a seat belt, and then there is putting a kid on the roof and going off roading. First one - training, laziness, responsibility and access issue, second one is straight up murder.
You understand this is simply another example of "people who should never have access to guns because they're too immature/angry/stupid" which is all anybody is asking.
There are a lot of crazy rednecks out there who are not safe with guns, we need a way to stop them specifically from having them.
And this enraged the gun lobby because many of them know that sometimes, they're that moron.
I say this as an extremely responsible gun owner.
Without taking a stance myself - I doubt anyone disagrees with the principle, but rather on the implementation. How do we know who's responsible enough; can we write a law that accounts for:
• A 50-year-old woman who committed robbery in a moment of desperation as a 16-year-old and has since shown remorse, attended therapy, and held a stable job,
• A 40-year-old businessman who's never been convicted of anything, seemed okay when he saw a therapist once last year, but privately he gets into vicious screaming matches with his wife and has really inappropriate temper tantrums when he's drunk, and
• A 21-year-old college graduate who seems smart and stable enough, but their social media page is full of harsh criticisms of the government, projections of what would happen if various officials were theoretically assassinated, and more than a few references to "hoping for another civil war"?
While balancing that with the idea that the government isn't supposed to protect something as a "right" while also preemptively taking that right away from people they think might be dangerous, if they can't point to highly credible evidence. (Otherwise, it becomes possible to arrest people for 'thought crimes.')
Idk the solution personally. Seems impossible to balance.
'No Way to Prevent This', Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens'
Solutions already exists in all other countries in the world. It is an incredibly myopic attitude to think you have to somehow invent a completely new concept in order to have gun regulations in your country.
In the context of the States, I don't see how any new legislative intervention can deal with the 400 million existing guns in the nation. No country in the history of humanity has had to deal with that. My question is, can it even be dealt with?
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's misplaced cynicism. But, seems to me, the vast existing supply of firearms leads to a permanent condition where, a person who wants to do something bad with a gun, will find access one way or another. I genuinely have no idea how that situation gets fixed. "Do what Japan does" - which I've heard sincerely spoken aloud - is naive and would not be effective there.
I don't live in the States, so it's not my place to navigate the moral issues or make judgements. I just don't understand how new gun control measures patterned on other countries in very different situations of supply could be effective, and properly target shitbags like the murderer in the OP article, in advance of a killing.
While balancing that with the idea that the government isn't supposed to protect something as a "right" while also preemptively taking that right away from people they think *might* be dangerous, if they can't point to highly credible evidence. (Otherwise, it becomes possible to arrest people for 'thought crimes.')Amendments mean that it's possible to amend the Constitution.
Solution: Amend the Constitution and don't make it a right to own weapons
Ta-fucking-da!
Tl;dr - "we can't solve everything, and the partial solutions inconvenience me so we must do nothing"
You just like guns, you can admit it, it's not a crime, I think they're cool too.
But a good portion of gun owners absolutely should not have them.
You're so terrified someone will report you for something and you'll lose your guns, maybe thats a sign you need to look at.
You are reading too much into their comment. It's OK to ask how you would implement it.
I've never owned a gun and still agree with them. There are certainly people who shouldn't have guns but the vast majority haven't yet had an incident to get them taken away by any hypothetical law.
You can't prevent every gun death. It's certainly worth preventing the ones we can, but this particular story has no indications that these ladies had previously given cause for taking them away. They were at least seen by the state as responsible enough to foster children.
So to come to this particular story to advocate taking guns away from folks under circumstances that wouldn't have changed the outcome feels more like grandstanding than conversation.
Unfortunately, no matter how responsible you may be the rules apply to all. The only way to make meaningful changes is for the responsible gun owners to limit their own access via licences, vetting, restrictions and quality registration systems and to push government to apply it to everyone. It is a culture problem, and needs those on the right side of the rules to bring everyone's standards up.
You completely misunderstand me.
We need many more restrictions, many, many more, there are far too many insane idiots out there with guns.
I think I do understand - just elaborating in how to implement it.
Then we agree, the problem is so many pro-gun types have a sociopathic mindset and try to work from there: society is potentially their enemy, so I need to be armed for when it decides to come for me.
(TW)
Yeah typically I'm not on board with the "guns don't kill people" argument but in this particular case, the adult in charge was already (allegedly, potentially) criminally abusive. If not a gun, it would have been 'teaching her to chop vegetables with a knife,' or 'teaching her to hold her breath underwater,' or so on.
As stated in my top comment - I fully agree America is dangerously obsessed with firearms, and first look at the article was "same old story". But Jesus, the straight up actions they took means this isn't a firearm problem. If you want to get change, attack the negligence, manufacturers and law makers for the actions they take - but this wasn't on them.
I understand what you're saying but this person obviously has a history of abuse. You escalate up to shooting a kid, you don't start there. In the same morning she'd shoe-slapped the kids (4 and 7) for not waking her (!?!) and eating food! Not having laws (or not enforcing them) prohibiting abusive people from owning firearms is a firearms issue. Obviously the "teaching" excuse is bullshit, it was murder, but not having a gun in the house could have at least forced her to use a less-certain method.
I fully agree with history of abuse and escalated considerably. It doesn't mean its a firearm issue as the escalation would have happened with whatever is on hand.
I discussed the second part (access and less certain method) with another commenter - this is a full on America culture obsession and issue. The only way to make any change is for those who are responsible to push for restrictions, licenses, and honesty some common sense around America laws - and then force the law makers to enact it. Firearm ownership should never be a right - its a responsibility and a privilege. Damn, you have two hands, why do you need dozens of firearms?
?? We don't disagree on this.
Sorry, bad tone. I'm agreeing with you, just adding we should attack the right event.
I think the point they are trying to make is that in this situation, the perpetrator would have said she tripped and stabbed her with a knife if she didn't have access to a gun. It's not a gun issue, this person just genuinely wanted to murder a child that got on her nerves.
You have no way of knowing that. We do however know that she did murder the child with a gun she should never have had access to.
That's not what this was. This wasn't a lack of training, this wasn't irresponsible behavior, this goes way beyond neglect or ignorance. This was murder, full on. Not an accident.
It's both.
Nah, neglect is simply not giving a shit. Pressing a gun barrel into a 4 year old and pulling the trigger while you called another kid over to watch isn't anything other than premeditated murder.
It's a firearms issue as well.
It's an intent issue far more than it is a firearms issue. It wouldn't have been any harder to use a knife in this scenario. Any advantage offered by a firearm is completely offset by the circumstances surrounding it, and offers disadvantages and complications that the knife does not.
All the training in the world wouldn't have stopped this. They wanted that kid dead.
Yes but removing access to guns would have certainly gone a long way.
It would change the headline to "4 year old fatally stabbed by woman who was teaching her 'kitchen knife safety '".
Again, they wanted this kid dead. Removing guns from this particular equation wouldn't change much.
But it most likely wouldn't, or at least that would have been a more unlikely story. Guns make killing trivially easy, a knife is at least a little harder.
Versus
What's the added difficulty here? Yes, in general you are correct but in this scenario it really wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference. A 4 year old's capacity for self defence against an adult is basically zero, this one's chances of getting to safety was basically zero. Even if you removed both guns and knives from the equation, they would have just used something else.
You really don't see how shooting someone (yes, even a small child) is a much, much easier and quicker way to kill them?
That's the thing, in this particular scenario, the way they did it, a gun wasn't any easier or quicker at all. If anything it was the worse option because of noise and damage from bullet ricochet.
There are many other scenarios where your assertions are perfectly valid but right here, for this scenario...it doesn't apply, and you're missing the point in trying to make it apply.
It's not about it being an easier or quicker death, it's about it being easier and quicker for the perpetrator. It's much easier to pull a trigger than to stab someone. She had the same opportunity for both, but the gun was easier.
There's also a good chance she thought she could play it off as an accident. Obviously that won't be the case with all the witness statements, but it would have been much harder to claim a fatal knife wound was an accident, and also less likely that an accidental knife wound would be fatal.
But that's exactly what I'm talking about.
So in this particular scenario, the gun is actually not the easier option. Any particular advantage offered by the firearm is completely offset by the scenario, like the fact that there was only one target who was under their complete control.
I mean, she didn't do a particularly good job playing off the gun as an accident either. If she were using the knife, she could say she was working in the kitchen, the kids were playing under her, she tripped, fell forward and plunged the knife into the kids neck. It'd be more believable than the gun safety story, as it relies a lot less on the adult being a completely clueless moron.
True, depending on how the genuine accident happens. Unless you're stabbing someone 37 times in the chest, it is still perfectly possible to do a cover-up though.
You have no way of knowing that. Removing the gun from the equation would certainly have removed the gun death from it though.
It is actually quite sad and a little bit scary how eager you are to concoct fictitious scenarios in order to remove the gun issue from this story.
Yes I do. Starting with the fact that the story about teaching gun safety is obviously bullshit and there was a history of abuse in the household. You don't have to know shit about guns to know that pressing the gun barrel against a child and pulling the trigger is an attempt at premeditated murder.
So, now we've established that it's premeditated murder, if a gun wasn't in the equation, another weapon would be. The next most obvious choice would be a knife.
It's more scary how eager you are to not use your brain before opening your mouth. There are indeed plenty of scenarios where removing guns would indeed limit or prevent damage. This wasn't one of them because of the circumstances surrounding it.
...the fact that this was blatantly fucking murder? Use your common sense.
In what world is pressing the barrel of a gun against the chest of a 4 year old, never mind pulling the fucking trigger, supposed to be about teaching gun safety? How is that anything other than premeditated murder?
Given the history of abuse in that household, I don't buy the idiocy angle. The other child watching knew what was happening and turned away so as to not watch it, for god's sake.
There was clearly an intent to maim or kill, perhaps to intimidate the other child. If it wasn't a gun in use, it would either be another weapon or a bare-fisted beat down.