Police responded to reports of gunfire at store in town of Scottsbluff, and found the culprit to be a dog
  • _stranger_@lemmy.worldEnglish
    3·
    1 day ago

    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.

  • Gammelfisch@lemmy.worldEnglish
    24·
    2 days ago

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

  • sploosh@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11·
    2 days ago

    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.

  • Dryad@lemmy.worldEnglish
    30·
    2 days ago

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

    • bss03@infosec.pubEnglish
      611·
      3 days ago

      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.

      • Marshezezz@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        37·
        3 days ago

        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

        • ouRKaoS@lemmy.todayEnglish
          14·
          3 days ago

          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

          • Marshezezz@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
            6·
            2 days ago

            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.

        • Rooskie91@discuss.onlineEnglish
          281·
          3 days ago

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

        • bss03@infosec.pubEnglish
          6·
          3 days ago

          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.

          • brbposting@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            4·
            3 days ago

            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.

            • bss03@infosec.pubEnglish
              2·
              3 days ago

              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.

              • SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.worldEnglish
                21·
                3 days ago

                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.

        • RobotToaster@mander.xyzEnglish
          42·
          3 days ago

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

        • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          32·
          3 days ago

          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.

          • Virtvirt588@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            2 days ago

            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.

      • LePoisson@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        2 days ago

        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.

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          2·
          2 days ago

          Negligent as fuck. This person should not own firearms.

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

      • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
        5·
        3 days ago

        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.

      • Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        2·
        2 days ago

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

        • bss03@infosec.pubEnglish
          2·
          2 days ago

          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.

      • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        4·
        3 days ago

        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.)

        • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.worldEnglish
          71·
          3 days ago

          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.

          • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            1·
            2 days ago

            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.

              • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                2·
                2 days ago

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

                • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  2·
                  2 days ago

                  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.)