• Pacmanlives@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Current report is the gun accidentally went off. Dude deserves the books thrown at him though. Kids where already off his property and honestly where not a threat in the first place. This is like that one story where the dude shot at a car turning around in his driveway.

    As someone who owns multiple guns both for sport and hunting these are the people that should not ever own one!!!

    • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Gun owner here.

      1. Treat all guns as if they are always loaded - Followed
      2. Never let the muzzle point at anything that you are not willing to destroy - Violated
      3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made the decision to shoot - Violated
      4. Be sure of your target and what is behind it - Violated

      This shooter violated three of the four fundamental gun safety rules. That’s not an accident. It’s attempted murder.

    • Etterra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      2 months ago

      Rule#1 of responsible gun ownership: always assume the gun is loaded

      Also

      Rule#1 of responsible gun ownership: never point a gun barrel at somebody unless you intend to kill them.

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        never point a gun barrel at somebody unless you intend to kill them.

        In the infantry it was “don’t point the loud end at friends”

        • Klear@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          2 months ago

          But you can have two number 9s, a number 9 large, a number 6 with extra dip, a number 7, two number 45s, one with cheese, and a large soda.

        • Etterra@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Clearly you have neither spoken to a veteran at length, not are you one yourself. But here, I’ll explain it. The reason you call multiple rules/laws “the first” is because they’re all both equally and critically important.

          Ask multiple veterans what the 1st rule of warfare is, you’ll get multiple different answers. If you then reply with “I thought this other one was the first rule of warfare” they will reply to the effect of “yeah, it is.”

          Because firearms are dangerous tools that serve the singular purpose of killing or destroying a target, any target, and have been from inception to the modern day, every safety rule is just as important as all the others. Ergo, multiple first rules of firearmb safety.

            • bastion@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              It’s called personal responsibility. You should learn to accept that some subjects are going to be taken seriously, because they are (literally) life and death circumstances. If you don’t, they’ll just be taken seriously anyways, and you’re the asshole.

              If I had to trust some internet rando with my life, I’d have no qualms choosing @Etterra@lemmy.world .

              • Disgracefulone@discuss.online
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                Attacking my sense of personal responsibility because I said “can’t have 2 rule number 1’s”?

                It’s not me that looks like the ass but go off, hole!

                • bastion@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  No. Not at all. That’s not the comment I replied to.

                  Hey bro? Calm down, it was a joke. It’s not that serious. Did you skip your meds today pal?

                  Supporting the person who does take it seriously, though, when you make fun of him with that dull take? Absolutely.

                  • Disgracefulone@discuss.online
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    I’d hardly call what I said making fun of him. If you’re that sensitive though, like I said - go off. You won’t hurt my feelings fella.

                    There’s nothing wrong with me saying what I said in my original comment. It was lighthearted poking. That’s all.

                    Mr serious decided to jump in with the 99 rules of gun safety that I’m an idiot for not nodding along solemnly to.

                    Why wouldn’t I jab back? If I were trying to be rude I would have been rude. lol.

                    You should take my previous advice and chill. It’s not that serious - once again.

                    You’re clearly the dull one here.

    • Microw@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      Not his property. His gf’s property. Dude has no legal right whatsoever to guard property that isn’t his own, does he?

        • Microw@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 months ago

          Well if he “drove over to her property”, he might not even be an occupant

          • capital@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            If you drive to your friend’s house for dinner, you’re a legal occupant of their house.

      • capital@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        That’s not entirely true.

        When I took my concealed carry class in Tx there was a section on this.

        It depends heavily on the relationship between you and the owner of the property. The example given in the class was a good neighbor relationship and suggested talking about this before something happened.

        I would expect that if the shooter and the owner are in contact during the event to weigh heavily on it.

        The gist is, it depends state-to-state but I would expect that their relationship would make an otherwise LEGAL use of a firearm OK. (I’m really not sure if this is a legal use…)