- cross-posted to:
- nottheonion@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- nottheonion@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
That dog didn’t shoot anyone the negligent gun owner did.
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.
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.
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.
Why have gun racks in 2026.
You just never know when Moose Lambs are going to helicopter onto the highway, ready to implement Shakira Law!!!
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
I’m not sure what entirely trying to say here …. At least then the dog would take the idiot out of the gene pool?
But seriously, this is exactly the reason people shouldn’t be allowed to carry weapons. They are more likely to harm or kill innocent people, more likely to escalate violence, than they are to defend themselves from inescapable violence. I get that many people claim the right, and have a foundational document to support it, but what about the victims?
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.)
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.
There’s no mention of a gun rack; I think she just had it loose in the back seat…
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.
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.
Gun owners should have to carry liability insurance for things like this.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Its crazy how a dog can just buy a shotgun in the US with no background checks.
Maybe he passed the sniff test
Kristi Noem absolutely shitting bricks right now
Why did the woman have a shotgun and what did the dog use to shoot her?
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.
Driving around locked, loaded and the safety off. The gun owner is a fucking idiot and should not be allowed to own firearms.
That’s our wonderful american culture for you.
iamverysmart + iamverybadass + iliveinconstantfear
=
et tu, dogé?
this is such a weird way to use an education in latin
I just figured he was a big fan of the Spin Doctors.
I don’t think she will make this mistake again.
Wasn’t the woman’s truck, dog, or gun. But that’ll teach her to live in Nebraska.
This is no time to get political. Lots of thoughts and prayers. Remember, guns don’t kill people, people kill people /s/
More like “Unqualified gun owners criminal neglect kills woman at convenience store.”
That’s what the dog wants you to think 🐕
She wasn’t killed but your point stands: The headline, while obviously being clickbaity and maybe even trying to be funny hides the underlying problem:
Somehow, the dog had triggered the shotgun – which had a live round chambered – to fire, damaging the vehicle and striking a female passerby.
[…]
It is illegal in Nebraska to drive with a loaded shotgun in your vehicle.
Found the dogs defense attorney
there are no qualifications for gun ownership in Nebraska.
only a 5 states require a license for a shot gun, in the form of a Firearms ID. They require no coursework on training.
Typically you only need to take a gun safety class if you are buying a handgun, and even then only a dozen states require that.
That is a big part of the American Problem.
do you live in Nebraska? you are welcome to move there and participate in their politics and change the laws.
but I don’t think you’re interested in doing that.
Moving to Nebraska is a pretty high cost for trying to improve the life expectancy of people who don’t want that
So everyone in Nebraska is an unqualified gun owner.
legally. they are qualified.
according to your feelings? i guess not.
“… The Big Bad Dog… BOUNNN.TAYYY HUNTERRRR!”
Let’s be clear here: The dog was not the real cause. The human with the loaded and unsecured shotgun in their front seat was the cause.
Was the dog black?
I’m not joking, this is the plot line to an episode of 30 Rock.
Never a bad time to mention that besides killing almost 3 people per day american cops also shoot a huge number of dogs per year.
The Department of Justice estimates that American police officers shoot 10,000 pet dogs in the line of duty each year. It is impossible to ascertain a reliable number, however, because most law enforcement agencies do not maintain accurate records of animal killings. The tally may be substantially higher, and some suggest it could reach six figures.
…some animals have been deliberately shot and killed under questionable circumstances, including through doors or while tied, running away, or hiding. Studies show that some officers shoot pets unnecessarily, recklessly, or in retaliation, and that subsequent civilian complaints are investigated inadequately. Moreover, not every animal that police officers shoot is a large dog that may be more likely to pose a genuine risk to human safety—or even a dog at all. Police claiming a threat to human safety have shot puppies, Chihuahuas, Miniature Dachshunds, and domestic cats, among other pets. In some tragic cases, bullets missed their nonhuman targets and injured or even killed human bystanders instead.I see, when it’s a dog we use the active voice but when it’s a white nationalist we use the passive voice.
No but on a more serious note, why are people who are this unsafe with guns allowed to be gun owners in the US? It’s okay though because next time a good guy with a gun will be there to kill the dog before it kills someone.
there is no test for ‘safe gun owner’. most states don’t even require a license if it’s a shotgun. all you need is an state ID and a background check.
only five states require a gun license. 45 do not.
This is the weirdest headline I’ve read for a long time, never expected a dog to be the shooter.
