The difference between negligence and gross negligence is quite significant, and contextually dependent.
This family lives near the border in a rural desert, which is typically flat, open, and sparsely populated.
ATVs are a pretty common way to get around, even for younger kids, and so is target shooting.
Poor choices were clearly made (negligence), but nothing either party did was done with a reckless indifference and disregard for life or property (gross negligence). At least, assuming no other facts come out that significantly alter what was said in the article.
If this same incident occurred in the middle of an urban, or even suburban, city with a medium to high population density, then it would be grossly negligent to have kids on ATVs, or to shoot .22 caliber air rifles.
Not sure what op meant, but there’s a lot of angles that I can see it being true. Having a shooting range on personal property is very different in rural Arizona than places with higher population density. The risk is objectively not as large. The space makes it unlikely to hit anything you wouldn’t want to target, and it’s very ingrained in gun culture to be smart about what direction you fire.
They may have also been referring to accepted risk vs freedoms. Gun people understand that there’s a risk to owning guns, but it’s an acceptable risk because they value guns, much like how people understand the risk of traveling by vehicle yet still choose to.
What does that mean? Negligence is not a regional concept?
The difference between negligence and gross negligence is quite significant, and contextually dependent.
This family lives near the border in a rural desert, which is typically flat, open, and sparsely populated.
ATVs are a pretty common way to get around, even for younger kids, and so is target shooting.
Poor choices were clearly made (negligence), but nothing either party did was done with a reckless indifference and disregard for life or property (gross negligence). At least, assuming no other facts come out that significantly alter what was said in the article.
If this same incident occurred in the middle of an urban, or even suburban, city with a medium to high population density, then it would be grossly negligent to have kids on ATVs, or to shoot .22 caliber air rifles.
Context matters.
Not sure what op meant, but there’s a lot of angles that I can see it being true. Having a shooting range on personal property is very different in rural Arizona than places with higher population density. The risk is objectively not as large. The space makes it unlikely to hit anything you wouldn’t want to target, and it’s very ingrained in gun culture to be smart about what direction you fire.
They may have also been referring to accepted risk vs freedoms. Gun people understand that there’s a risk to owning guns, but it’s an acceptable risk because they value guns, much like how people understand the risk of traveling by vehicle yet still choose to.