4-Year-Old Fatally Shot By Woman Who Was Teaching Her 'Firearm Safety,' Authorities Say
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.
Any time a young child is in trouble for eating someone's food, it is a huge red flag.
Any time a child is responsible for an adult's schedule, it is a huge red flag.
This article is about child abuse that lead to murder.
Tragic
The headline really fucking buried the lede. This is not a story about a firearms instructor accidentally shooting someone. This is a story about extreme child abuse.
Remember that story recently with the teenage girl who ran away from her abusive parents after 16 years to save her (also abused) siblings? One of the things she talked about was getting punished for the same
Did you miss the part where it described the actual abuse? Like, you don't need to do much guessing to find out they were being abused.
Why was she
what does that even mean?? It makes it sound like she was being held there without consent, but she's a child and no kidnapping is mentioned, so who put here there? What relation was the killer to the child? Where were her parents?
The full article mentions the child had been placed there by a "court decision" so it sounds like the parents may have temporarily lost custody.
I appreciate the info, thanks.
That raises so many other questions though, none will help make this case any less horrible, but it just feels like so many people failed this poor child in her short life (potentially her parents, but also whoever placed her in this situation and failed to ensure her safety), but probably only one will pay (as she should, of course, in case that wasn't clear)..
If you want a deeper look into just how child protection systems can fail so egregiously, have a watch of The Trials of Gabriel Fernandez. I work in child protection myself and it was eye-opening.
The whole article describes a strange situation. The "adults" where mad at the kids for not waking them and eating their food. Like what is even going on over here?
Shitty people who are criminally bad at regulating their emotions.
Eh... It could simply be that they were keeping her for the week while the parents weren't available or something, no need to panic...
A child was murdered and I'm asking for clarification.
Who the fuck is panicking? Why even respond that way, how is it helpful?
Do I really need to quote your reply I was replying to or you're able to scroll up a bit?
Lol, the post is literally just asking questions, questions which I know many here want to be answered. No indication of panicking was ever in there.
"makes it sound like she was being held without her consent"
That's the first thing you think about when seeing "temporary custody"? Having custody of someone means you're the person who has the responsibility of taking care of them. OP even used the word kidnapping in their post.
Heck, a babysitter has temporary custody of the kids she's taking care of, why would OP not think about that first?
Moral of the story: Don't have children just to have them.
They were fostering the children, I thought. But yes.
This was a murder.
yeah it's 100% just a murder. probably she thinks by saying it's an "accident" she can either skate or get a manslaughter conviction instead of murder.
people do forget about the chambered round all the time.
But. I ain't holding my breath, either.
And this is why the rule is every time you pick up/are handed a gun you check the chamber. Even if you just watched your buddy do it. Also, firearm safety for a four year old is "Stop, don't touch, tell an adult."
Yeah reaks of bullshit. I'd bet she was threatening the girl with what she thought was an unloaded gun, but surprise there is one in the chamber.
That's a bingo. Probably not murder cuz of intent but manslaughter 5-10 is appropriate here imo ianal
Fortunately for this monster and unfortunately for people who have the sense not to point guns at children, if she thought the gun was unloaded then she doesn't have the premeditation needed to make the first degree murder charge stick.
all the time?? And y'all still are having debates on whether it might be time to maybe start looking at how you may act on the issue? America seems fucking crazy from the outside looking in...
Yup. All the time.
And yes, I’m all for gun control. The sad thing is these people vote.
They do. Which is why you never point a gun at someone, let alone pull the trigger. It's an entirely implausible excuse because what she did has nothing to do with teaching gun safety.
It may or may not have been an acccident but it happened because she was bullying the child. Whether proving that level of intent is enough to prove murder (in the US), I don't know. But at the very least it is an extremely serious form of manslaughter so the difference is probably negligible in terms of conviction and sentencing (unless they can prove that it was an entirely deliberate and intentional murder).
There is no doubt that she was fundamentally responsible for that kids death. And I'm not holding my breath out that it was an "accident". But people are absolutely that dumb. Either way... she should have the book thrown at her.
Yes, what the hell kind of gun safety lesson was that? Here is exactly what NOT to ever do.
"Here kid, don't do exactly this or you'll Alec Baldwin someone."
Tries to "teach gun safety" by breaking all 4 major gun safety rules at once
Yeah, not buying her story lol.
You could say her gun safety knowledge was a little bit...
...Rusty...
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.
That is a firearms issue.
Untrained, irresponsible people are getting access to guns.
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.
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.
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.
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!
'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.
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.
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.
You are reading too much into their comment. It's OK to ask how you would implement it.
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.
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.
You completely misunderstand me.
We need many more restrictions, many, many more, there are far too many insane idiots out there with guns.
I think I do understand - just elaborating in how to implement it.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
I fully agree with history of abuse and escalated considerably. It doesn't mean its a firearm issue as the escalation would have happened with whatever is on hand.
I discussed the second part (access and less certain method) with another commenter - this is a full on America culture obsession and issue. The only way to make any change is for those who are responsible to push for restrictions, licenses, and honesty some common sense around America laws - and then force the law makers to enact it. Firearm ownership should never be a right - its a responsibility and a privilege. Damn, you have two hands, why do you need dozens of firearms?
?? We don't disagree on this.
Sorry, bad tone. I'm agreeing with you, just adding we should attack the right event.
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.
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.
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.
It's both.
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.
It's a firearms issue as well.
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.
All the training in the world wouldn't have stopped this. They wanted that kid dead.
Yes but removing access to guns would have certainly gone a long way.
It would change the headline to "4 year old fatally stabbed by woman who was teaching her 'kitchen knife safety '".
Again, they wanted this kid dead. Removing guns from this particular equation wouldn't change much.
But it most likely wouldn't, or at least that would have been a more unlikely story. Guns make killing trivially easy, a knife is at least a little harder.
Versus
What's the added difficulty here? Yes, in general you are correct but in this scenario it really wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference. A 4 year old's capacity for self defence against an adult is basically zero, this one's chances of getting to safety was basically zero. Even if you removed both guns and knives from the equation, they would have just used something else.
You really don't see how shooting someone (yes, even a small child) is a much, much easier and quicker way to kill them?
That's the thing, in this particular scenario, the way they did it, a gun wasn't any easier or quicker at all. If anything it was the worse option because of noise and damage from bullet ricochet.
There are many other scenarios where your assertions are perfectly valid but right here, for this scenario...it doesn't apply, and you're missing the point in trying to make it apply.
It's not about it being an easier or quicker death, it's about it being easier and quicker for the perpetrator. It's much easier to pull a trigger than to stab someone. She had the same opportunity for both, but the gun was easier.
There's also a good chance she thought she could play it off as an accident. Obviously that won't be the case with all the witness statements, but it would have been much harder to claim a fatal knife wound was an accident, and also less likely that an accidental knife wound would be fatal.
But that's exactly what I'm talking about.
So in this particular scenario, the gun is actually not the easier option. Any particular advantage offered by the firearm is completely offset by the scenario, like the fact that there was only one target who was under their complete control.
I mean, she didn't do a particularly good job playing off the gun as an accident either. If she were using the knife, she could say she was working in the kitchen, the kids were playing under her, she tripped, fell forward and plunged the knife into the kids neck. It'd be more believable than the gun safety story, as it relies a lot less on the adult being a completely clueless moron.
True, depending on how the genuine accident happens. Unless you're stabbing someone 37 times in the chest, it is still perfectly possible to do a cover-up though.
You have no way of knowing that. Removing the gun from the equation would certainly have removed the gun death from it though.
It is actually quite sad and a little bit scary how eager you are to concoct fictitious scenarios in order to remove the gun issue from this story.
Yes I do. Starting with the fact that the story about teaching gun safety is obviously bullshit and there was a history of abuse in the household. You don't have to know shit about guns to know that pressing the gun barrel against a child and pulling the trigger is an attempt at premeditated murder.
So, now we've established that it's premeditated murder, if a gun wasn't in the equation, another weapon would be. The next most obvious choice would be a knife.
It's more scary how eager you are to not use your brain before opening your mouth. There are indeed plenty of scenarios where removing guns would indeed limit or prevent damage. This wasn't one of them because of the circumstances surrounding it.
Not a firearm issue? Wtf killed her?
No wonder we'll never solve this issue. Idiots
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.
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.
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.
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.
Didn't miss first one - literally my first sentence.
Firearms have multiple purposes - pretty sure the main one right now is to display your own insecurities. Admittedly most of their uses are killing things or the threat of killing things, but sport, target shooting, providing and home defense are all uses. I could argue vehicles are used to show off and as a status symbol more than anything else otherwise we would all be in small efficient cars, people movers and public transport.
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"
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.
Yeah... that would be a lifetime driving ban, alongside any other ramifications.
Yes, person would be banned from driving.
But we wouldn't be banning cars, looking at stricter licenses, or improved regulation. We don't review after ever drunk driver kills someone because its not the car, or the access to cars that is the problem.
Yeah, except the US isn’t really doing any of those things. You can still own guns here in the Netherlands, you just have to be a member of a sporting organisation and be licensed and stuff. We don’t have school shootings here.
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.
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.
In a civilised country this person would not have had access to a firearm, so it is most definitely a gun issue.
Second rule, don't point that shit at anything you don't want to destroy.
Why is it next to impossible for people to get approved to adopt, but any asshole can become a foster parent? I think you need more in-depth screenings to adopt from pet rescues. If the US is going to force pregnancy on people, then they really need to get a handle on the foster system. Because it's always about "protecting the children," right?
Went through the foster care/guardianship in Oregon for us. These kinda stories make me Soo mad. I have a lot of First hand experience with the Oregon foster system.. I am adopted myself. I Was in 97 to a single woman in her late 50s (I loved my mom, make no mistake she was great and may she RIP) but it was super easy for her to adopt me.. like really easy...
THAT SAID... My husband and I also had to get custody of my nephew from my sister. It was a terrible experience and I almost warn people who are interested in being a foster because of our experience..
My husband and I went through hell and back in Oregon to be become foster parents just so we could take our nephew out of foster care. As we went through the process, We got accused of only wanting him for money by a foster care certifier. (mind you the amount they pay is pennies a month for a kid) God that woman was outrageous and we had to complain to my nephews case worker, that her co-worker was sabotaging our nephews chance at permanent placement and almost backed out because she made us look so bad for asking questions and curious about how to afford this child. Very relevant question to ask, wouldn't you say? (This foster certifier was very Catholic made it very know to me and my husband. She got upset with us when we told her we are not religious and had to tell us about all the Catholic churches and schools he should be in.... and at the time, we were also not married. (Gasp I know!!)
So she put in her report, that she was suspicious of us and our reasons for being interested in this child for suspicious reasons. This was my nephew!! I was there when he was born and everyday since till he went to foster care. My mom died.in 2020 and my sister couldn't parent without her support.. I wanted him home.. it was that simple!! But this worker made It a fucking nightmare and I was sooooo angry.
Thanks to his case worker appealing for us and showing the judge the errors the certifier was claiming we finally got the foster parent certification and are now full fledged guardians of him and have yearly check ins.. it was a headache and almost impossible with how long it took...
So when I see stories like this and someone who got be a foster who clearly shouldn't be, INFURIATINES ME!!! we had to work so hard and show everything (not that it was a problem for us, we expected it) but to see those who didn't get held to the same standards and a kid gets hurt through negligence pisses me off!!
It's almost like a terribly under funded government system with horrible pay that can be soul crushing doesn't attract the best possible employees. I'm sure they know that woman is a horrible zealot who they'd love to replace. There's no one that wants that job though.
Social services in America are embarrassing. Like it's strait up shameful how bad our systems that are required for a functional society are ran. Reagan successfully demonized government spending as "wasteful" on anything a perfect American nuclear family wouldn't need. Now everything is shit and the answer to needing government assistance for anything is good luck.
So much this!! And I am definitely a victim of it myself as a child growing up.. at least I was able to save my nephew
They'll just put the group homes on the coal mine's property. Boom, two birds with one stone. Like the ol "company store" days almost.
I just watched the "Three Slaps" episode of Atlanta and it was tense and terrifying.
Just another reason why not every idiot and his uncle should be allowed to own a firearm.
The key thing here is that most people who think themselves to be smart and that it won't impact them... Tend to be idiots as well.
The problem is idiots and crazy don't know they are.
Dunning Kruger effect - they're too stupid to know that they're stupid.
I mean, even without the firearm this was going to go south. You did read this, right? The kids were struck with sandals because they did not wake fully grown adults up and "ate their food without permission".
It does sound like an abusive situation that the kids needed to be removed from.
However, it wasn't the sandal that killed the child.
You can very easily beat a four year old to death with very little force.
And I could hit anyone with my car!
But what happened in this case was, a child was killed with a gun.
The car argument doesn't help because we should also be getting rid of cars.
You can kill the child with a necktie and use the excuse "I didn't know it was too tight, I was showing her how to tie a necktie!"
Why would a 4 year old girl need to know how to tie a necktie? Similarly, why would a 4 year old girl need to know "gun safety" especially when it is clearly not gun safety because you pressed a firearm (all should be treated as loaded) against her chest? Even without the gun, she could have taught "knife safety", "blunt weapon safety".
I'm telling you this is not done out of ignorance, NOBODY is that ignorant about firearms except for children themselves, this was done intentionally. If you have firearms in the house, you should teach your children to respect them in their presence because of the power they hold, but you shouldn't even keep them in a place where they can access them, let alone handling one in personal proximity of one.
Even if she didn't intentionally kill the child, she intentionally held the gun up to the child's chest which was without a doubt something she would have done to scar the child. You people are arguing "she should have never had a gun because then she couldn't hurt that child!" when the gun was just a tool. The root of the problem is that she should have never had the children in her house to BEGIN with.
Well if they beat the children, they would be full of bruises. Which would notify authorities and they would have been taken away again.
Now, that chance has passed.
Plenty of people have come up with ways to beat their kids without leaving bruises. Like using sandals, for example.
Chancleta never killed anyone, ya knob
I survived the chancla as a kid. Guns though...
For people who, like me, saw the gap between "teaching firearm safety" and first degree murder, the method outlined in the article for teaching firearm safety seemed to involve putting the barrel of the gun to the child's chest and pulling the trigger. The witness, the other child living in the home, says that the killer did pull the magazine before the 'safety lesson' though. Technically this might make premeditation difficult to prove and could hinder a first degree murder conviction but I also think that a jury will figure out some way to make this monster go away forever regardless of what the letter of the law says.
I mean, IANAL but I think it's pretty easy to argue that anyone with the bare minimum knowledge of firearms and intent to teach safety would know that:
You presume the gun is always loaded.
You check the chamber, even after pulling the mag. And then still treat the gun as loaded.
You don't start the lesson by putting the barrel of the gun to anyone's chest and pulling the trigger. Because you don't do that when treating a gun as if its loaded.
With those three points, which again, I would argue constitutes the bare minimum to anyone attempting to teach firearm safety, a skilled prosecutor could argue there was some sort of intent. She would have known those things, yet didn't do those things, and so behaved in a way that indicates other intent. Easier to argue manslaughter, of course, but it's just so egregious I can see why they'd push for 1st degree.
The standard for first degree murder is higher than the mens rea required for most crime. It's not just an intent to kill, it's a premeditated plan to kill.
I think they pushed for first degree because most people see murdering a child as the most bad murder you can do and first degree murder as the most bad murder charge you can convict someone of. To do any less would invite political attacks for being "soft on crime" but I think it's a lot to try to argue that this person must have intended to kill this child because no one could possibly be that stupid. Any time I've ever thought "no one could possibly be that stupid and cruel" I've been unpleasantly surprised.
Yeah, honestly I think first degree might be a mistake and she may go free for it. If they have other evidence, fine. It just seems like a stupid person who maybe has anger and self control issues. They probably shouldn't have access to a firearm in the first place though with good mental health evaluations. This girl didn't need to die.
Doesn't matter to me if you're anal but what did that have to do with anything?
Just in case you are new to the internet. IANAL = I am not a lawyer
IANAL stands for "I am not a lawyer"
I do, but that's neither here nor there unless you want to buy me a drink first
What I don't is have a license to practice law anywhere in the English-speaking world.
Wtf...i knew it was going to be bad, but immediately ignoring one of the primary rules of firearm safety (always treat a firearm as if it is loaded) was not what I expected.
I figured it was going to be an accidental discharge while unloading.
This is reason #9,278 why conservatives should not be allowed near children.
And reason #53759742269743 why guns should be extremely restricted.
Wtf does this article have to do with conservatives? Liberals and swing voters own guns too, you know.
The difference is most liberals don't want dumb people to have guns. This person might be a liberal, but if other liberals had their way, the girl would still be alive.
While I don't disagree with you on the gun issue. This particular instance just looks like intended murder. I have a feeling this child would have been killed regardless of the gun. You don't just accidentally put a gun to a child's chest and shoot.
Perhaps liberals would be less likely to show off firearms, much less teach how to use them, to a four years old.
Liberals have guns, but liberals aren't stupid enough to point a gun at a child. It's extremely obvious to everyone except conservatives that this woman is a conservative.
Cause there are no stupid liberals....
You really need to
touch grassmeet a few people. Stupidity spans both sides and all political spectrums.While you're technically right why don't we all go look up the lowest iq states in the USA and see how they consistently vote,shall we?
You fail to realise that this isn't a matter of liberals vs. conservatives, it's the fact that guns themselves are stupid and legislation rewarding that is archaic and dangerous in the U.S.
This is the kind of lazy comment I would expect to see here. It makes me want to go back to Reddit. What are you, 14?
And this is coming from a liberal
Yes, no liberal has ever murdered a child.
Oh, wait...
The fact alone that this woman is gay goes against your "muh conservative" argument, considering the fact that LGBT is not a conservative concept in the slightest.
It's not stupid when you do something intentionally. You say "liberals aren't stupid enough to point a gun at a child" like this was an accident. She literally pressed the gun up against the child's chest after hitting them with fucking sandals, due to the children failing to wake up fully grown adults and the 4 year old "eating food without permission".
Motherfucker not every damn thing in the news is about politics, this has nothing to do with politics and you have no idea what her political alignment is whatsoever.
Strange, because there are gay conservative groups.
They recently said the GOP convention shouldn't be held in Texas because of the anti-gay laws.
Those people are very confused. Just because they are gay does not mean that lgbt is a conservative concept. You'd have to be either a dumbass or a masochist to vote for the conservatives if you are LGBT.
There is a serious issue with child abuse here.
But, if you can correctly guess the country where this occurred before reading the locale in the article, then it's a telling point about how famous the idiots+guns connection is in exactly one affluent country while still being a tangent.
Was the gun bit, not obvious enough?
Just by reading some of the names I can guess which country it is.
I'm guessing Texas?
They haven't gotten their way yet, I'd guess the country is USA USA USA
I'm unfortunately very familiar with this town. It's an industrial wasteland with no real job market and drugs are rampant.
This story is unfortunately not at all surprising.
Don't blame it on the town. It's not a small town problem. It's a USA problem.
Just providing context. Not "blaming it on the town."
Very upsetting story. This young girl was failed by every adult in her life.
You wanna teach firearm safety to a four year old, keep your guns safely locked up and practice using a hose pipe. If that murderer beams you with the hose, don't let them have your gloc because they gunna Bury you.
"I know it's only been a few months since you stopped using sippy cups, but I think you're ready for this 9mm Glock."
Do not begrudge getting older...so few get the opportunity.
4 year old wiped off this world because a 25 year old woman shot her in an attempt to intimidate and scare her. there was no firearms safety class being taught; if my mother wanted to "show me something" it was always to rub my nose in the proverbial piss of some mistake i had made in her eyes. That is what i see here for this "gun class"
These fucking backward degenerates should not be allowed to touch guns.
This is the world’s opinion of all Americans.
Immigration trends would beg to differ.
Every gun owner thinks they're a responsible gun owner.
Can't argue, she is responsible for this.
😅
Kind of like every dog owner. Except that most dogs have redeeming value.
You didn't even read the article, taking a gun and putting it to a child's chest and pulling the trigger is not practicing gun safety, this child was deliberately killed.
She took out the magazine, so it's quite arguable that she's just a fucking idiot and did not intent to kill the child. That being the case would make this a "responsible gun owner" discussion.
Also possible she is lying to try to pretend she made a mistake.
Witnesses stated she removed the mag.
She didn't rack the chamber. You can argue that she intentionally made it look like an accident.
You can also argue that it genuinely was an accident (albeit one that very much could have been anticipated and prevented).
It wasn't an accident because she intentionally put a gun against a child's chest. That isn't an accident.
Yes I did. It did not change my opinion. Every gun owner thinks they're a responsible gun owner. Too few are right.
She pulled out a firearm and pointed it at child's chest. If you take a firearm, and point it at someone, it is ALWAYS with malicious intent, loaded or not.
People can downvote me all they want but I don't give a shit, this is the truth, this is why she is getting charged with first degree murder ffs. This was not an accident.
Whatever you need to tell yourself to continue believing that you are a responsible gun owner.
I keep my firearms locked in a safe. I have no children in my household. The firearms stay clean and they only come out when I go to practice or in a life or death situation. The firearm travels totally unloaded with the slide removed in a hard case. It is assembled and disassembled on site, and I clean it when I come home, which is done about once a month, if a little less.
If that's not responsible gun ownership, then you can't have responsible car ownership either. Simply looking in any direction besides right in front of you can kill someone! That includes checking the mirrors, but wait, shouldn't you sometimes check the mirrors to make sure you aren't in a dangerous position as well?
Almost seems like something we use every day is more dangerous than an unloaded, disassembled firearm. But I don't handle my firearms responsibly, nope.
What was even your point in that statement? Did you even think before you wrote that? You totally missed the point of the article because you got starry eyes from the headline.
Every gun owner, regardless of how responsible or irresponsible they are, thinks they're a responsible gun owner.
Some are right. Too many are wrong.
You can continue to ignore this and go on for paragraph after angry paragraph about why you think you're one of the responsible ones. It doesn't matter. Soon there will be another victim of the malice or negligence of someone who thought they were a Responsible Gun Owner.
Every car owner thinks they're a responsible car owner as well. As you are no doubt aware, many of them are also wrong. Not sure how you thought your analogy negated my statement.
What policies do you imagine I'm advocating for here?
Your tone is implying that you think I am somehow an irresponsible gun owner, but that doesn't matter because the argument is not about me to begin with. Let's not get sidetracked here.
Also angry? If I were angry I wouldn't waste my time continuing this debate. If you are going into this debate with anger and a closed mind then not only are you wasting your own time, you are wasting my time too and I do not appreciate that.
My analogy negates your statement because nobody is rallying for the ban of cars, only guns. This is because cars at the moment are a necessity for medium distance travel because public transportation is ass and no business wants people to work from home. We also do not grow our own food and as such, have to drive in order to buy a week or two of groceries.
Conversely, guns are a necessity in a country where they are within every nook and cranny, they weave in and out between the cracks. Just like how every country has a nuclear stockpile and an army as a deterrent to others invading and waging war on them, you need firearms in a place that is full of people who use them maliciously. Not everyone needs a firearm, but all it takes is to have ONE PERSON with a concealed firearm in a public place to stop a threat.
I have no problem with licensing firearms whatsoever, and as a matter of fact, many places require you to register for conceal carry which is how you should carry a firearm in public to begin with. Would I rather this not have to be the solution? In a perfect world, yes, but in a perfect world we wouldn't need self defense either.
Again, removing the gun in this situation would have stopped nothing. This wasn't a public shooting, this woman had intent to kill in close proximity. Restricting all firearms based on this alone would be extremely naive, and it is not the solution to this problem. There was nothing indicating she wanted to kill people, it is all on this one singular child.
CPS needs better screening, kids in temporary custody get abused fairly often. If the government felt the need to remove this child from her parents, she should have went to a better home. This woman is to blame, but the government is as well. Their job was to protect and they ultimately failed. You can restrict firearms all you want, but if kids keep going to houses like this, they are going to continue to get hurt and damaged for life. That's the point of this argument and article, not fucking guns like everyone likes to point the finger at.
I didn't start out thinking it, but now I'm certain.
Cut the shit dude.
Responsible gun owners don't get all defensive when people point out that irresponsible gun owners think they're responsible.
If that bothers you, I'm glad you don't know where I live.
Where did I get defensive?
You are once again branching off into another discussion. You're doing this because you know your logic falls to mine and you have no leg to stand on.
Also, that is the dumbest fucking logic I've ever heard, "oh, if you were actually something that you said you were, you wouldn't defend yourself". I can see why you demonize firearms now. Defending yourself is apparently a bad thing now I guess, since you know, armed robbery is a common thing where I live and I've had two break-ins in the past.
But nope, MY life doesn't matter, the criminal in front of me at 2 in the morning, trying to rob me of my shit, AND my life if I try to do anything about it besides shoot his ass in a non-lethal manner, HIS is the one that matters.
Are you this blissfully unaware that a gunshot doesn't have to be fatal? It can be, but that's the risk you take when you break into someone's home threatening violence. That guy is still alive today by the way, I shot him in the knee, chest, and arm, and called the cops. He was a convicted felon, he had a remington 870, and if you don't know, that is a fucking scary ass gun that will blow a hole in your chest the size of a watermelon. If you would rather comply with someone who you have no idea the intentions of, holding one of these, then you have never been in one of these situations because you would feel very differently.
He's in prison now, but without that firearm, I could have been killed, my lady friend at the time could have been raped, kidnapped, killed.
Live in the real world FFS, the world is not some make believe place where nobody is bad unless they have a gun in their hand. Bad people actively seek out weapons to do evil and they don't give a shit if it is obtained illegally or not, often times they don't legally have the right to own one themselves. You realize most gangsters are felons themselves right?
Holy shit dude, you are retarded buddy. I'm not continuing this conversation with you. If you don't want me to shoot you, then do not break into my house and threaten my life with a firearm in hand. I'd think that would be pretty easy to do, no?
Maybe you're a responsible gun owner, but somebody isn't.
You're right, someone isn't a responsible gun owner.
Someone isn't a responsible car driver.
Someone isn't responsible with alcohol.
Someone isn't responsible with the internet, spreading misinformation online.
What do you suppose we do with these people? Do you need a license to drink? A license to free speech? Maybe we should just mercy kill anyone who isn't a 100% responsible human being since we can't allow them to have anything due to the fact that pretty much anything you can do can potentially impede on other people's freedoms if done in excess or unresponsibly.
Yes, people make mistakes. This wasn't a mistake and it has nothing to do with an irresponsible gun owner. Irresponsible gun owners leave firearms where anyone can get them, they flag people down by accident because they don't know proper gun etiquette.
It doesn't take room temperature IQ to understand you shouldn't press a firearm against anyone's chest under any circumstances other than with intent to take one's life.
It's even crueler for the child that witnessed the murder. At least the girl who was killed doesn't have to continue to suffer. The 7-year-old who had to see it is old enough to remember that trauma for fucking forever. She's going to need so much therapy to overcome this incident and our system won't provide it for free.
Fuck anyone who brings out a gun around children.
Everyone is a responsible gun owner until they aren’t.
"this never happened before!"
They'll take away guns from women before they'll restrict access to the main school shooter demographic.
And then someone is dead.
what a piece of shit headline. the girl was being punished or the lady was trying to scare her and the gun went off. the 7 year old said that they were being punished for waking someone up and eating food?! this is probably a foster parent situation. I sure as fuck hope that 7 year old is placed in a new home!
showing someone gun safety is the killers excuse, thats not what happened here at all.
AND FUCKING 4 YEAR OLDS CANT EVEN TIE THEIR SHOES! WHY WOULD YOU GIVE THEM GUN SAFETY?
FUCKING HORRIBLE
Yup, sounds like she was trying to scare the girl. She was mad at the kids and wacking them before this. Jackass didn't even check to see if there was a round in the chamber not that they should be aiming guns at people and pulling the trigger.
I wonder if there were powder burns and a muzzle imprint on the kid, that would show if the gun was pressed against her. I wouldn't trust anything they say at this point anyway.
The other methhead and the 7yo both say they saw the muzzle against her chest so it seems likely
This was a murder, plain and simple. She put a gun up to the girl's chest and pulled the trigger.
The gun safety lesson here being "see what happens when two meth heads with children in the house are allowed to have a gun"...
Which a certain political party and a certain organization will defend under any circumstance.
Was gonna come in here to say "The first rule of gun safety is your gun is always loaded, even if you cleared it and the safety is on, so barrels don't get pointed at anything you don't want to die".
This still applies here, but the situation had nothing to do with teaching a kid. Now that kid is dead. So fucked...
WTF
That is like teaching fire safety by pouring gasoline on someone and waving a lit match.
There is no lesson. Just a sociopath murdering a child.
I hate headlines like this that use quotes that diminish how serious it is. How can a journalist,in good faith, write what they did about the incident, things like putting the gun against her chest, and then still have a headline like that. You just know a bunch of people are just going to read the headline and think it's another accident when this had far more malice.
It is too easy to get a driver's license in the US and sure is hell way too easy to get a gun. Some people can't be trusted with a toothbrush.
wtf
As a parent, EVERY kid feels like your kid. This made me cry.
The US is seriously self-destructing in so many ways.
I learned gun safety at 6, on a bb gun, killed my first deer at 10. Trying to teach a 4 year old who probably isnt even sentient at this point on a real loaded firearm is the stupidest thing you can do. Firearms safety isnt a hard thing to teach, it should be taught in schools along with the home imo. Shooting sports used to be a big part of the american school system.
for my kids @ 4 I taught them if you see a gun, don't touch it...go get an adult. @ 7 started BB gun and had to show muzzle / Triger discipline and recite the rules of firearm safety EVERY time we went out to shoot it.
What was that about four-year-olds not being sentient?
Ironic...
Many of the comments in this thread are sickening. A child was blatantly murdered and the headline is bullshit, there is no mention of firearm safety training whatsoever. She literally pressed a firearm against a child's chest and pulled the trigger after she abused them for not doing something young children should have to do.
If you can somehow screech out "muh conservatives shouldn't have gunz!" then you didn't even read this shit or you are dickbrained. Nothing about this woman speaks conservative and some of it is contrary to that claim if anything.
How about “Only licensed, trained, competent owners should be allowed to have guns?”
She obviously was none of the 3
I'd have no problem with that whatsoever. That still doesn't break my point away that she should have never had the children in the first place. She struck children who were not even hers, she wanted an excuse to kill is all.
However, you can narrow it down to licensed and competent. You aren't getting a license in anything without training.
If it makes you feel better, she cannot legally own a firearm now that she is a convicted felon. Don't you even dare think that is going to stop her from being able to kill again. Felons can't have firearms, but remember that firearms are not the only ranged weapons out there.
Haha what. We taking bets? White abusive woman from Tennessee playing with guns...
Also, "no mention of firearm safety"? Straight from the article:
Of course it's a bullshit excuse and this lady is batshit crazy. It's almost like it should be harder for the average dumbass to get a gun..
Remember, prejudices are bad unless theyre against a whole race of ppl!
I'll put $20 on conservative please
White abusive woman from Tennessee playing with guns doesn't have anything politically backing it whatsoever. Way to feed into stereotypes by the way, as if liberals don't exist in the deep south or anything.
I guarantee you that she did not say that because that is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard. She said that to POLICE but it isn't what happened.
Maybe.
But it does tie into the notion that mentally ill people shouldn't be allowed to own guns.
Cases like this make it seem that way, but my issue is "define mentally ill."
Exactly. Plus it just further stigmatizes people with actual mental illnesses by constantly associating them with the absolute worst dregs of society. Why is it so hard for people to understand that there's a wealth of sadistic, selfish, and unfathomably stupid people out there in the world, and none of those things automatically equate to mental illness.
That's a really good point, I didn't even think of that. Thanks for the addition!
People who are in danger of themself and those around them already cannot legally own firearms.
If you are suicidal or have a history of violence related to mental illness, you legally cannot have one already.
I actually agree with the other guy quite a lot. It is something that would be abused rather than followed.
That's what I was getting at too, he just expounded on the stigmatization of "mentally ill" being related to stuff like this, which I hadn't considered. We all three agree though it seems, imo it's one of those "I mean yeah it sounds good on the surface but it doesn't hold up to scruitanty" things.
She would've found some other way to kill the child, like suffocation.
Takes a lot more effort and intent. Guns take all that away with a single finger pull.
Conservatives are the reason she was allowed to have guns.
Will you liberals shut the fuck up about the fucking conservatives for a second? Not everything is about mUh CoNsErVaTiVeS and politics. Who is to say she legally obtained the firearm huh? The article doesn't even say what kind of firearm it is, for all we know it could be a 3d printed ghost gun?
I swear every bit of news I see, liberals use it as an excuse to bitch about conservatives. A child died by first degree murder from a caretaker because of the awful CPS that we have, guns are not the focal point here buddy.
Your comment is so absurd that I thought it was satirical at first.
Half the posts here are satirical as well. A deranged individual gets custody of children not hers and everyone screeches "gUnZ!" like a bag of cats. What do you honestly think would have happened had she not had a gun? Tell me!
Do you honestly think the situation where she didn't have a gun would have been better than the situation where the kids never went to a home where the custodians were clearly not fit to have custody of CPS children?
Mean while kids getting shot everyday in strict gun law Chicago and no one cares. Accidents happen. Kids die taking swimming lessons. Statistically this is a non issue.
You know, for a while now, I've just been ignoring the absence of a downvote button on this website because it never seemed that important to use one. But now I have to ask; WHY IS THERE NO DOWNVOTE BUTTON?