Spyke
bss03reply
infosec.pub

EDIT: There's no "rack" mentioned in the source. I assumed that. A loose loaded gun makes even less sense, tho.

Loaded while in a vehicle-mounted rack. Not just illegal, but also violates some fairly fundamental gun safety principles.

Heck, just "treat every gun a loaded" and "never point a gun at anything you don't want shot" means we should probably do away with most vehicle-mounted racks to being with. I suppose inside the metal toolbox in the truck bed would be okay; at least then the dog wouldn't fire it.

60
Marshezezzreply
lemmy.blahaj.zone

Yeah it’s really hard to find any justification for driving around with a loaded shotgun. Especially when handguns exist and can just sit on your waistband. It’s extremely negligent and stupid gun ownership. Not to mention really poor self defense practice because the handgun would be easier and quicker to draw in a self defense scenario. That cunt is driving around with a loaded shotgun to feel like they’re tough and intimidate people. They should not have firearms whatsoever and really have displayed that to a high degree

37
ouRKaoSreply
lemmy.today

How else am I supposed to poach deer by shooting them while they're blinded by my headlights if my shotgun isn't loaded?

/s

14

That’s like not even that far off from what it’s like talking to gun nuts. When I was doing research on firearms for a hand gun, the scenarios those morons were constantly going on about were so fucking ridiculous that it’s just obvious they’re cosplaying shit they’ve seen in movies and none of them should ever be allowed to have something with that much power.

6
lemmy.world

Headlights? You mean the giant truck-mounted spotlight right? No /s, these people really exist.

2

I’m not sure what entirely trying to say here …. At least then the dog would take the idiot out of the gene pool?

But seriously, this is exactly the reason people shouldn’t be allowed to carry weapons. They are more likely to harm or kill innocent people, more likely to escalate violence, than they are to defend themselves from inescapable violence. I get that many people claim the right, and have a foundational document to support it, but what about the victims?

1

Yeah, if only there were an example of insuring and licensing for some other kind of common deadly consumer product.

27
bss03reply
infosec.pub

I agree. Certainly while in public (e.g. public roads).

That said, I want to say that got proposed in the 90s and somehow the NRA not only defeated it at the federal level, but got congress to ban states from doing it. I could have just imagined that tho.

EDIT: https://sclawreview.org/article/gun-insurance-mandates-and-the-second-amendment/ (summary: there's a couple of laws [one state; one local], that will probably get SCOTUS review eventually, but are on the books for now; it's questionable whether insurance will cut down gun violence.)

I'd expect guns to be at least as regulated as vehicles, but I guess vehicles don't have their own amendment.

6
brbpostingreply
sh.itjust.works

I'm not a gun person, but I wonder if some pool of funds from insurance premiums could be made available for victims who wish to apply for restitution( or something).

This incident definitely will cost this woman money she would presumably only recover through a suit.

5
bss03reply
infosec.pub

Oh, insurance would probably help in this case. It would depend on the specifics of the law, and whether the gun owner was negligent / grossly negligent.

The main reason it wouldn't help in general is because most gun violence is intentional, and you generally can't insure against intentional acts, only accidents.

If the act was intentional or the result of (gross) negligence, the negligent/intentional person could (probably) be successfully sued for damages. Failing that, I doubt the victim will be able to recover her costs at all.

IANAL; TINLA.

2

Car insurance still covers your victims if you’re intentionally speeding or drunk driving so I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.

2

See the legal analysis linked earlier, in particular note 9.

1
mander.xyz

That would just discriminate against poor people and people that live in high crime areas.

1

Though using IDs for rights in the US has historically been seen as racist (voting,) so technically we shouldn't even be IDd for guns or we should get background checked to make sure felons don't vote.

Not that I agree we should actually do either of those things but y'know, consistancy applied and all.

1

What kind of idiot takes a gun into a high-crime area? Great way to end up mugged or killed for your gun.

4
lemmy.ca

There's no mention of a gun rack; I think she just had it loose in the back seat...

16
sh.itjust.works

The only woman in the story is the victim, who was standing outside the vehicle as it pulled up and the gun blew through the door.

It's interesting to me that nothing is mentioned about the driver/gun owner, and it's written in passive voice as if the vehicle, dog, and gun all acted by themselves. But SOMEONE not only drove to the store with a loaded unsecured shotgun, they also had their unsecured dog with it in the backseat.

Fortunately it appears the door took the brunt and the woman wasn't killed. Maybe the gun and dog should have aimed at the driver's seat.

33

nothing is mentioned about the driver/gun owner

Its simply the case that this wasnt written for you (or us in this case). This is simply a right wing attempt at victim blaming while hiding the real subject here. Now root cause analysis I've seen isnt everybody's suite, but right wingers really dismiss it the most.

2

A vertical mount should be better too. Rarely is there something above you that's going to be harmed if it fires. Still, having it locked up is the best option. Firearms are the most stolen item in the US. Having yours visible and unlocked in your vehicle is just inviting thieves. Even the most selfish gun owner should have their gun locked up for this reason alone.

6
LePoissonreply
lemmy.world

I don't even think it was in a rack. It sounds like it was just laying against the back seat, shell chambered with safety off, and the dog jumping around set it off.

Negligent as fuck. This person should not own firearms.

4

Negligent as fuck. This person should not own firearms.

Oh well. Guess there's literally nothing that anyone can do 🙄

2
sp3ctr4lreply
lemmy.dbzer0.com

Just want to chime in and say that, as best I can tell, in Nebraska, vehicular gun mounts/racks are legal, I cannot find any law specifically mandating or banning or regulating them, beyond uh...

https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-1204.04

Which says that if you're in a school zone, your vehicular gun must be unloaded and in a locked gun mount within the vehicle.

The most relevant law I can find says that shotguns in a vehicle can't be loaded, while said vehicle is on the highway.

https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=37-522

Class III Misdemeanor.

There does not appear to be a law that just says 'any gun in a vehicle must be unloaded', full stop.

So... if the driver was never on the highway...

No actual crime, as far as I can tell.

Maybe I missed something?

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/guns-in-vehicles-in-nebraska/

(Not that I think that is any kind of a sane approach to gun law, nor was this a sane demonstration of gun handling practices... just trying to lay out the facts as best as I can.)

4

Note that "highway" in US state law contexts is generally a legal term of art that more or less boils down to meaning "public road." They don't mean highway as in like specifically interstates with on and off ramps.

The intent is that you can bounce around dirt roads on your own farm or private property or possibly on game lands with your gun loaded dangling in your rear window, but not on public roads with other people on them.

7
sp3ctr4lreply
lemmy.dbzer0.com

Thats true, that is an important technicality.

From what I understand of various states road laws and... basically dialects... 'freeway' and 'highway' technically mean slightly different things, by state, and sometimes literally by county or city.

So... yeah. I'm not from Nebraska, you might be right.

But the... intent, that you're ascribing, to the law... I mean thats a factor in how a judge would rule, but... the actual texts of the relevant laws are factors as well.

1
sp3ctr4lreply
lemmy.dbzer0.com

Ah shit ok, you're right then, this 'highway' is pretty much just 'any publicly maintained road' in Nebrasaka.

2

Not just Nebraska but most, possibly all, US states. From what I've seen, anyhow. Hence my note about it being a term of art. In the law books it doesn't mean the same thing normal people think it ought to mean.

(Same thing with "assault," incidentally.)

2
SnarkoPoloreply
lemmy.world

You just never know when Moose Lambs are going to helicopter onto the highway, ready to implement Shakira Law!!!

4
Sylvartasreply
lemmy.dbzer0.com

If it were somewhat loose in that toolbox, depending on the model of shotgun, wouldn't there still be a risk of slam fire ?

2

I don't know enough to be sure, and i would imagine it would depends a lot of the year of manufacture and how well it had been maintained. It would probably still be illegal; guns really should be unloaded during transport.

But, even if it did fire, the toolbox is likely a bit more durable than the cab interior. It's meant to have potentially heavy, metal things banging around in there even when driving rough.

2
JennaR8rreply
lemmy.dbzer0.com

That dog is in training to seek vengeance upon Kristi Noem on behalf of the entire canine species.

37
discuss.tchncs.de
  1. Round chambered
  2. safety disabled
  3. Gun not secured

A lot of things have to go wrong. Yes, it’s illegal to drive with a loaded firearm, but this is basic firearm safety.

The person hit was a passerby.

100
discuss.tchncs.de

Well that’s the thing I’m trying to say. It shouldn't need to be enforced or checked (but yes, i support legislation) any more than putting pants on before going outside. But clearly, it’s fairly common behaviour to ignore basic rules.

22

It shouldn't need to be enforced or checked any more than putting pants on before going outside.

You get fined and put on a list if you go donaldducking around.

Saying that is a bit like expecting politicians won't be corrupt bcs of some decency & not because of consequences.

We pay taxes to get such things sorted out for us, so we don't have to assemble French street furniture every few years.

(But I'm not exactly saying I know how to police dog gun safety habits.)

21

Not in the states at least. I assure you in real nations you will get at the very least a smack upside the head for this level of stupidity.

3

I believe the government should have carte blanche to simply bypass constituonal rights that I deem inconvenient rather than following the established process to change them

-- bootlicking authoritarian idiots

1
MMLreply
sh.itjust.works

You can have a firearm loaded if you have a carry permit most places.

4

Oh I agree, even if it was one with manual safeties I never kept one in the chamber, if I don't have time to rack the slide I don't have time to pull safely.

5
lemmy.ca

How many other countries have "shot by babies" and "shot by animals" stats?

79

If you hunt in Europe then that means you’re rich, that’s why it’s even a debate

3

Well, at least this one wasn't just pinballing in the back seat. Seems like the guy should remember his saftey though.

3

One incident is not a "stat" though. In the people getting shot by animals and babies is occurring so often that keeping stats for it is necessary.

3

How the fuck did that journalist manage to get "Saint-Michel-de-Double" right, a random-ass town with 250 inhabitants, but fucked up Bordeaux, which is a major city with a far simpler name ?

2

I thought the dog was a good boy with a gun who shot a woman with a shotgun.

2
lemmy.ca

it's important that dogs be armed. Only a good dog with a gun can stop Kristi Noem.

47
lemmy.world

Its crazy how a dog can just buy a shotgun in the US with no background checks.

47

I see, when it's a dog we use the active voice but when it's a white nationalist we use the passive voice.

No but on a more serious note, why are people who are this unsafe with guns allowed to be gun owners in the US? It's okay though because next time a good guy with a gun will be there to kill the dog before it kills someone.

34

there is no test for 'safe gun owner'. most states don't even require a license if it's a shotgun. all you need is an state ID and a background check.

only five states require a gun license. 45 do not.

0
lemmy.world

This is no time to get political. Lots of thoughts and prayers. Remember, guns don’t kill people, people kill people /s/

31
Hawk5000reply
lemmy.ml

Guns don't kill people, dogs kill people.

22
lemmy.ca

I'm feeling so bad for the dog, it must be terrified

31

I could not relax with a ready-to-fire shotgun rattling around in my vehicle. Negligent gun owner bigtime.

29
lemmy.today

Or like you could read about the gross legal negligence and seemingly booby trap shit, but whatever, it aligns with your view it whatever.

Somehow, the dog had triggered the shotgun – which had a live round chambered – to fire, damaging the vehicle and striking a female passerby.

-5
feddit.org

Or like it's a very bad idea to have easy access to lethal firearms for basically everyone because "mistakes" like this are bound to happen again and again, but whatever...

6
lemmy.today

Accidental gun discharges are pretty rare. In the hundreds a year. And they are almost always with negligent gun owners storing a loaded gun not in a lock box.

It's not a mistake, it's willful ignorance by dumb ass fuck trumpets.

-3

Bro we're humans we're all negligent at some point, you are trying to distance yourself from these negligent gun owners but you actually can't because your human and you make mistakes too.

3
lemmy.today

.000625%(napkin math) of gun owners experience an accidental gun discharge each year.

It just doesn't happen that often without gross negligence 🤷‍♂️.

-1

Fair enough, but i guess yeah im scared of guns and i dont like having the right to carry one. Because any of the other 400 million Americans have the same right and they might be grossly negligent and then i end up the victim of someone's dog accidentally discharging a shotgun from the car in the lane next to me.

I like shooting guns i go a few times a year to the shooting range, it's always a good day and i feel good about knowing im ready to use one. I still just don't need one in my home and I don't think my neighbors need to be walking around with them either.

1

Hey you do you and we all feel how we feel. But are you that afraid of lightning? Because we're talking the same percentages.or kids drowning in a pool.

Gun violence sucks and it's dumb that we can't have any sort of middle ground on the conversation, but getting accidentally shot is so far down on that list of things that will kill you.

-1
prolereply
lemmy.blahaj.zone

Accidental gun discharges are pretty rare. In the hundreds a year

And I'm sure it's just as high in every other country, right? Right??

0
lemmy.today

iTs NoT tHe GuNs FaUlT iTs tHe PeOpLe 🙄🙄🙄

I'm not addressing that. You just want to argue against guns and are going on an unrelated tangent.

Legally, as in words mean something, it is negligence in the majority of cases and these people will face legal repercussions because they as a matter of law have been defined at fault.

-1

How is that unrelated lol. Desperate to ignore reality

Acting like hundreds of people dying a year is acceptable. Fuck off.

1

Or like, store them safely and not rig traps and keep them loaded under a dashboard. That would probably drive accidental deaths lower than the current number of ~.0000625% of gun owners involved in an accidental discharge to an even lower number.

0
lemmy.world

More like "Unqualified gun owners criminal neglect kills woman at convenience store."

26
sh.itjust.works

She wasn't killed but your point stands: The headline, while obviously being clickbaity and maybe even trying to be funny hides the underlying problem:

Somehow, the dog had triggered the shotgun – which had a live round chambered – to fire, damaging the vehicle and striking a female passerby.

[...]

It is illegal in Nebraska to drive with a loaded shotgun in your vehicle.

21

Every law follows a necessitating incident. Why are people so stupid? I have a shotgun, and while it is loaded, I never had an inclination to keep it chambered for any reason.

1
lemmy.world

there are no qualifications for gun ownership in Nebraska.

only a 5 states require a license for a shot gun, in the form of a Firearms ID. They require no coursework on training.

Typically you only need to take a gun safety class if you are buying a handgun, and even then only a dozen states require that.

4
lemmy.world

do you live in Nebraska? you are welcome to move there and participate in their politics and change the laws.

but I don't think you're interested in doing that.

1

Moving to Nebraska is a pretty high cost for trying to improve the life expectancy of people who don’t want that

1
AxExRxreply
lemmy.world

So everyone in Nebraska is an unqualified gun owner.

2
lemmy.world

Driving around locked, loaded and the safety off. The gun owner is a fucking idiot and should not be allowed to own firearms.

24
Zinkreply
programming.dev

That's our wonderful american culture for you.

iamverysmart + iamverybadass + iliveinconstantfear

=

et tu, dogé?

12

I thought of it as a Julius Caesar reference, but I'll take what I can get, lol.

2
titanicxreply
lemmy.zip

Wasn't the woman's truck, dog, or gun. But that'll teach her to live in Nebraska.

4

Getting shotgun blasted by a dog isn't even in the top ten worst things about living in Nebraska.

Source: I'm a Midwestern cultural refugee.

Good thing: potato salad.

4
lemmy.world

"Police responding to reports of a shotgun blast at a convenience store sounds like the opening of countless American crime movies[...]" No, it sounds like the beginning of a normal day in America.

19
Soulgreply
ani.social

Believe it or not, a convenience store having a dog fire a shotgun is still a very abnormal thing in america

3

The sentence I quoted and commented on didn't have anything do to with dogs.

2

How do they even know when to begin their day if the morning shotgun doesn't go off?

2
lemmy.world

Never a bad time to mention that besides killing almost 3 people per day american cops also shoot a huge number of dogs per year.

The Department of Justice estimates that American police officers shoot 10,000 pet dogs in the line of duty each year. It is impossible to ascertain a reliable number, however, because most law enforcement agencies do not maintain accurate records of animal killings. The tally may be substantially higher, and some suggest it could reach six figures.
...some animals have been deliberately shot and killed under questionable circumstances, including through doors or while tied, running away, or hiding. Studies show that some officers shoot pets unnecessarily, recklessly, or in retaliation, and that subsequent civilian complaints are investigated inadequately. Moreover, not every animal that police officers shoot is a large dog that may be more likely to pose a genuine risk to human safety—or even a dog at all. Police claiming a threat to human safety have shot puppies, Chihuahuas, Miniature Dachshunds, and domestic cats, among other pets. In some tragic cases, bullets missed their nonhuman targets and injured or even killed human bystanders instead.

15

There's a dog genocide going on conducted by america's police forces.

1
sh.itjust.works

Had to double-check the headline to make sure I didn't have a brain aneurysm

14
lemmy.world

The only thing that can stop a bad dog with a gun is a good dog with a gun, or a squirrel across the street.

11

Training takes time. Perhaps he needed to make sure she could see the liver treat to entice her to perform the command

3

Maybe one of the most literal instances of "Man Bites Dog" I've ever seen. There's even a dog involved!

10
prolereply
lemmy.blahaj.zone

Only because this is literally a thing that happened before (probably more than once). This country is a joke.

9

Except they didn't because I'm pretty sure they were parodying something that literally happened. Probably more than once.

1

...Make sure to take your pup for at least 2 walks a day, give him treats and tell him hes a good boy every so often, or he get depressed and decide to start blastin'

2
sh.itjust.works

It's the crossover mashup of John Wick and Cats vs Dogs that no-one asked for.

5
lemmy.dbzer0.com

In many "open carry" states, that's one of the only legal places you can put it without inadvertantly "concealing" it (the others being usually "on the dash" which is insane or "in the trunk" which technically is "transporting" not "carrying.") Pretty bad idea and is unsafe as hell, if you do that you shouldn't have a round chambered (or imo shouldn't do it at all, concealing it illegally is honestly safer), but y'know what are you gonna do.

Pretty sure this guy could be charged with criminal negligence for that since a bystander was hit btw, as to whether the DA will decide to bring charges we could never guess it's a coin toss, maybe they have already for all I know.

1
lemmy.zip

I can sort of understand leaving it in the passenger seat

I don't understand why it would be loaded

2

Well if you're carrying it for defense it has to be loaded by definition, the attacker never gives you time to load it lol, BUT:

A) Get a handgun and a proper holster, much easier. You can even get a trigger guard, so it's safe(r) if your state has dumb unsafe laws that tell you to leave a loaded gun unsecured flopping around a car, at least the trigger is blocked.

B) If you're married to the unsecured shotgun that then has to be loaded, you can't leave it chambered, or this could happen.

It's dumb either way, for sure, it's complete negligence on their part.

1

Capitalism can solve this.
There should be a market for gun holsters that attach to seatbelts.
The ads write themselves: "Stay safe! Protect yourself and your loved ones! BuckleUp™

1

At no point in that article is the driver even mentioned, let alone blamed.

as the vehicle had pulled up to the store

Apparently the vehicle has agency and it was indeed the vehicle that had to go to the store that day.

Foot note, it's illegal to drive with a loaded weapon in the vehicle, the last line of the article added seemingly as an afterthought. Im surprised they didn't say the dog was being investigated.

4

I burst out laughing at the article headline

This must be article of the year

3

i wonder if the ladies out there will now cross dogs and men off the list and just stick with bears ?

2