an an analogy - we have photos of two of my kids and I shooting each other with water guns in the street. It was fine. Dad was there, and understood it was safe at this time on this day. Just like Sarah was there with Trig and the dog, and clearly, if there was a problem, she would have taken Trig off the dog instead of taking pictures of it.
Now, do we “teach our kids to play in the street?” NO. Do our kids generally play in the street? NO. With a parent on the scene, I think we should assume things are OKAY instead of assuming there is a problem or there is a bad example being given.
See, you are making an assumption that I said she wasn’t parenting correctly. Without repeating myself, that is the exact opposite of what I am saying.
But, there is nothing wrong with saying - in general - kids should be taught xyz.
In your example, I am positive that your Dad taught you there are real world, deadly consequences to mishandling real guns. And taught you the difference between play and real guns?
So if someone said after looking at your picture - kids should be taught xyz about guns, you would know that is true and take it as is.
But, if someone said: your dad should be locked up for letting you play so recklessly with guns - that is nannyism. Big difference.
In another case, if my child stepped on a dog and was bit, I would take that as a failure on my part for correctly parenting him. But we don’t live in that world anymore. Someone is going to sue someone. Regardless of the failure for boundaries being taught and respected.