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.

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

    I do not understand how a parent can be so irresponsible as to leave a gun easily accessible in a house with children. Kids are really really resourceful. Its bit like keeping a hyper intelligent racoon inside with a drive to kill itself through curiosity. Guy definitely deserves charges

    • EdibleFriend@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Because a gun lock is liberal and gay and if you use one you basically are announcing to the world you just bought Beyoncé tickets.

      • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Man how fucked is this timeline that I had to scratch my head a bit over whether this was a sincere response or a caricature of a particular US demographic?

          • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            The sad thing is, in this timeline it isn’t out of place among the whackadoo things they’ve said.

            The hillbillies think Taylor Swift is part of a conspiracy to prevent electing their chosen dictator of all things. That’s where they are now. It isn’t like what you wrote is too far ahead on the road of crazy; more like it’s barely visible on the rearview.

    • boogetyboo@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 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.

      • adhdplantdev@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 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
            7 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
              ·
              7 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.

              • adhdplantdev@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                7 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
                  ·
                  7 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.

                  • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    7 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?