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.

  • catreadingabook@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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!

    • yata@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • voluble@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.