this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
647 points (96.3% liked)

News

23402 readers
4334 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
 

Warning: Article has detailed accounts of the shooting

Breanna Gayle Devall Runions, 25, was charged with first-degree murder and aggravated child abuse in the death of Evangaline Gunter.

The child’s parents, Adam and Josie Gunter, told ABC affiliate WATE that Evangaline had been in temporary custody at a home in Rockwood, which Runions shared with girlfriend Christina Daniels and another child, a 7-year-old girl.

Before the shooting, Evangaline and the older girl were being punished that morning by Runions for not waking up the women and for eating Daniels’ food without permission, according to the warrant and a statement from Russell Johnson, district attorney general for Tennessee’s 9th Judicial District. Runions struck both girls with a sandal before forcing them to stand in different corners of the women’s bedroom, authorities said the older girl told them.

After the shooting, the women drove Evangaline to a nearby Walmart location to meet an ambulance, Roane County Medical Examiner Dr. Thomas Boduch told the Roane County News, and the vehicle transported the girl to a hospital where she was pronounced dead. Boduch could not immediately be reached by HuffPost.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HappycamperNZ 95 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Look, I'm one of the first to say Americans are dangerously obsessed with firearms, but this wasn't a firearms issue - it was straight up murder. This wasn't an attempt to teach with any sort of responsibility or following any safety at all. If anyone tried to teach my kids firearm safety by sticking the barrel in their chest they would be decked.

First rule - every firearm is loaded. Every. Fucking. Firearm. Is. Loaded.

[–] Kittengineer 112 points 1 year ago (4 children)

That is a firearms issue.

Untrained, irresponsible people are getting access to guns.

[–] HappycamperNZ 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] InverseParallax 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

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 unless gun access legally becomes a privilege to qualify for, rather than a right to be restricted from. But that would put the power into states' hands, and then states would have the power to decide that no one can have guns except the police.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] InverseParallax 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

You are reading too much into their comment. It's OK to ask how you would implement it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] HappycamperNZ 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] InverseParallax 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You completely misunderstand me.

We need many more restrictions, many, many more, there are far too many insane idiots out there with guns.

[–] HappycamperNZ 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think I do understand - just elaborating in how to implement it.

[–] InverseParallax 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

(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.

[–] HappycamperNZ 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

?? We don't disagree on this.

[–] HappycamperNZ 2 points 1 year ago

Sorry, bad tone. I'm agreeing with you, just adding we should attack the right event.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Red_October 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] tider06 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] tider06 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's a firearms issue as well.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

All the training in the world wouldn't have stopped this. They wanted that kid dead.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (11 children)

Yes but removing access to guns would have certainly gone a long way.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] ProIsh 44 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not a firearm issue? Wtf killed her?

No wonder we'll never solve this issue. Idiots

[–] HappycamperNZ 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

This is like saying its a car issue because I tried to teach a 4 year old road safety by speeding at them and slamming on the brakes. Its not the car thats the issue.

[–] yggdar 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Cars are not weapons. They are dangerous, but they haven't been invented to kill. You also need to do an exam before you're allowed to drive a car.

[–] HappycamperNZ 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Oh, im still surprised you don't need a course and license like every other country in the world.

Firearms are tools and serve a purpose, and must be treated the same as every other tool... you know, like years to get a drivers license?

And fir the record - vehicles have absolutely been used as weapons as everything from vehicular assault to IEDs.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You missed the point. 2 actually

1 you need a license and pass an exam to get to drive a car

2 guns have only one use,kill things. Cars main point is not to kill things.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That… is a car issue in the rest of the world, considering some idiot who thinks it’s okay to do that has access to, and probably the privilege of operating such a machine.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah... that would be a lifetime driving ban, alongside any other ramifications.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Given the psychological effect of owning a gun, or having access to one has on a person, I honestly feel like we're in the same mental health territory as any behavioral antagonist, like leaving an addictive substance around an addict. You take a gun and put everything it means in a person's hands - the power, the mythology, the kind of baggage it comes with in this country - and it's gonna have some kind of effect.

I don't know about you, but I've witnessed, and am aware of many cases where drivers of certain kinds of cars - big, fast, whatever - do stupid, reckless, dangerous, even murderous things because of the feeling of power and control their vehicle gives them. It's the psychology of the damn things that makes people crazy.

We have a phrase for it, oddly enough: "it's like leaving a loaded gun on the table"

[–] useralreadyexists 21 points 1 year ago

Exactly. It was murder and its pissing me off the news is making it about firearm safety gone wrong. And the poor kids sound like they were abused in this foster care setting.. This girl was shot point blank in the chest. Hope there is some justice.This poor child.

[–] FlyingSquid 21 points 1 year ago

I agree with your points, but I also think that if firearms were more regulated, this woman may not have even gotten a gun in the first place. We don't know her history, but if she did something like this, I wouldn't be shocked if she didn't have the cleanest of records.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

In a civilised country this person would not have had access to a firearm, so it is most definitely a gun issue.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

Second rule, don't point that shit at anything you don't want to destroy.