A Michigan man whose 2-year-old daughter shot herself in the head with his revolver last week pleaded not guilty after becoming the first person charged under the state’s new law requiring safe storage of guns.

Michael Tolbert, 44, of Flint, was arraigned Monday on nine felony charges including single counts of first-degree child abuse and violation of Michigan’s gun storage law, said John Potbury, Genesee County’s deputy chief assistant prosecuting attorney.

Tolbert’s daughter remained hospitalized Wednesday in critical condition from the Feb. 14 shooting, Potbury said. The youngster shot herself the day after Michigan’s new safe storage gun law took effect.

  • boogetyboo@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    I do not understand how a parent can be so irresponsible as to keep a weapon designed only to maim or kill in their house with their children.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      The farther you get from America, the more woefully absurd it sounds. But, right in the middle of America, it’s a very different place.

      And at this point in time, gun fetishism has gone meta-static and is afflicting many different states.

      And it’s not the possession of guns alone: I’ve seen the exposé where Switzerland’s gun culture is compared, and questions are asked about how they can have one gun per adult and still suffer an almost non-existent rate of accidents and murders. A lot of it resembles the 1950s where kids would be part of a school .22 target rifle team, store their guns and ammo on the premises and still no one got hurt.

      I really think it’s the worship of guns, where Meal Team 6 tries to emulate cowboys of old, and fails on every level.

      • adhdplantdev@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Honestly I just think it’s irresponsible people. No proof but I have a hunch that Americans tend to be more laid-back with things like firearms than people in Switzerland might be. We used to be more careful but we got far too comfortable with them.

    • adhdplantdev@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      I mean you can make the same argument about items like a bow and arrow, crossbows, and swords. There are valid reasons to have weapons in the house however they should be locked up so that they aren’t accessible normally.

        • adhdplantdev@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Target practice. Inherited heirlooms. Defense while camping. People find them cool. People keep guns for the same reason people keep swords. I understand that it is a tool designed for killing but at the end of the day it is still a tool. Don’t get me wrong I’m still all for gun control but I do understand why people would want to keep a gun in their home. You don’t have to agree with it but you shouldn’t punish people who responsibly own firearms.

          • boogetyboo@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            That’s the problem. I don’t think it’s possible to be responsible and own a firearm.

            I wouldn’t keep a tiger in my house. I don’t care if dad bequeathed it to me, or I totally have a lock on the door, or it’s ok, I’ve done a tiger training course. Why invite the risk? Because I really fucking like tigers? Fuck everyone else, I like tigers.

                • EtherWhack@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  So, no disinfectants (chemicals intended to kill, just really small things) either?

                  How about pets? A cat’s teeth and claws were designed to kill, as are a dog’s fangs …err canines

            • adhdplantdev@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              Okay that’s interesting thought. See the difference in your example is that a tiger is a sentient being but you have no control over. If I got bequeathed a tiger I probably surrender that too. A gun is a tool which is easily contained. What’s the difference between keeping a firearm and a sword or a bow and arrow when there are also tools initially designed to kill/maime?

              • boogetyboo@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                10 months ago

                The control in both these examples comes from the human. Who should be smart enough not to keep weapons or tigers in a house. That decision is available to everyone. Unless your intention is to maim or kill. Then it makes sense.

                • adhdplantdev@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  I see your mind is made up on this topic. You also haven’t addressed anything I have said. Good talk.

                • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  This is just flat out dumb, none of my firearms have ever been used for violence. They’re in a safe, and not loaded, and all my ammo is in another part of the house. Just because you can’t fathom how it’s possible to be safe with something that’s dangerous, doesn’t mean they’re automatically dangerous by themselves. Do you lock up your kitchen knives? Or make sure your matches are separate from the box they come in?