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.

    • Wogi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      60
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s literally gun fetishism. Full stop.

      The people who will angrily defend 2a are perfectly happy watching children die if it means they get to keep their guns. They’ll give you all kinds of excuses, they’ll come up with all manner of justifications, but the truth is, they just like feeling powerful and are willing to sacrifice innocent lives for it.

      • atp2112@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Don’t forget the racism. The NRA’s perfectly fine with throwing away gun rights if it means making sure only white people are armed. For example, even as Harlon Carter was ramping up his crusade to turn the NRA from a sportsman’s organization into the gun lobby, the NRA still supported the Mulford Act, because at least that was taking guns away from those damn ni- I mean, “violent extremists”. They were dead silent when a legal, responsible gun owner like Philando Castile was killed. They never said anything when the textbook definition of a “good guy with a gun”, Emantic Bradford, was killed. And we all know damn well why.

        The Harlon Carter school of gun rights comes with a major caveat present in many strains of conservatism: no restrictions as long as you’re part of the right group.

        I will say this though, the issue is still pretty complicated, because basically both sides have some history of racism (gun control first started as ways to assuage fears of black uprisings, plus the aforementioned Mulford Act), but then, what part of American society isn’t in some way permeated by our racist history?

    • djsoren19@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I dunno, it sounds like you understand it perfectly. A large contingent of the U.S. has decided guns are more important than children’s lives, and that’s why they have more rights.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      The Supreme Court has ruled that you’re allowed “bearable arms”, so essentially anything that can be carried, for self defense. And that requiring a weapon be kept locked up defeats the purpose of self defense.

      Oregon has a law that requires guns be locked up, but dodges the self defense aspect by allowing an exception for guns under the direct control of the owner.

      So if I’m home and in direct control of my guns, they don’t have to be secured. If I leave home or am not otherwise present, they do.

    • smut@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      Just look at it through the lens of “would this increase or decrease the profits of the gun lobby?” and everything falls into place.

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        Safe storage? Tbh probably increase, who do you think sells gun safes? They’re in the “gunniverse” too it isn’t just Colt.

      • Malfeasant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Eh, if my in-laws hadn’t bought me a gun safe before my daughter was born, I probably would have given up my guns, because I wouldn’t want to spend the money on a safe, but I also wouldn’t want unsecured guns in the house… But I’m probably not the typical gun owner so what do I know.

        • smut@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          They got your money. They don’t care where you store them. They don’t even care if they kill your daughter. They only oppose safe storage because they know the extra upfront cost will lose them sales.

    • AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      I just don’t understand the US and the 2nd.

      It is complicated and a lot of people are ignorant.

      • Nudding@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s been made complicated by bad faith actors and years of propaganda. Fascinating really.