Pleased that parents may be liable for school shootings

[Tvflguy]

Finally, irresponsible parent(s) are being held liable and charged. Hopefully this may affect these horrible shootings by troubled kids.

BTW Dr Phil had a wonderful episode on this topic. He, and other leaders may have an impact to alleviate these shootings. His stats show that 94% of these shooters had told other students or posted their plans.

[ThirdOfFive]

Finally, irresponsible parent(s) are being held liable and charged. Hopefully this may affect these horrible shootings by troubled kids.

BTW Dr Phil had a wonderful episode on this topic. He, and other leaders may have an impact to alleviate these shootings. His stats show that 94% of these shooters had told other students or posted their plans.
Absolutely. The reason that kids under 18 cannot PURCHASE firearms is because (IMO) the law believes that they haven't yet developed, or have been taught, the sense of responsibility to OWN (or at least to have unfettered access to) firearms.

Unfortunately firearm possession and handling is far from the only area that irresponsible parenting is causing others to suffer from that irresponsibility.

[Taltarzac725]

Finally, irresponsible parent(s) are being held liable and charged. Hopefully this may affect these horrible shootings by troubled kids.

BTW Dr Phil had a wonderful episode on this topic. He, and other leaders may have an impact to alleviate these shootings. His stats show that 94% of these shooters had told other students or posted their plans.

We need to approach this terrible problem from every angle and get local communities very much involved in preventing them. My Villages' former neighbors lost their 14 year old granddaughter in the Parkland shooting. They moved from the Villages but it is now like almost everyone knows someone who has loved ones involved in these tragedies.

We need to encourage our younger generation members to befriend the loners and misfits so that these kids do not resort to violence.

[retiredguy123]

I would just point out that thousands of murders with firearms are committed every day by teens, and the parents are almost never charged with any crime. There should be a more consistent application of the laws.

[Chellybean]

We need to approach this terrible problem from every angle and get local communities very much involved in preventing them. My Villages' former neighbors lost their 14 year old granddaughter in the Parkland shooting. They moved from the Villages but it is now like almost everyone knows someone who has loved ones involved in these tragedies.

Although i agree with this, it is also becoming dangerous to our 2nd amendment, if they start holding gun manufactures liable as well.
They are chipping away of our rights as legal gun owners!

[Taltarzac725]

Although i agree with this, it is also becoming dangerous to our 2nd amendment, if they start holding gun manufactures liable as well.
They are chipping away of our rights as legal gun owners!

I do not see any practical reason to own the kind of gun used in the Georgia shooting. But there are so many of these weapons out there that it would be impractical to remove them. Criminals would sell them as well, etc.

[Taltarzac725]

2nd Amendment says right to a well armed militia and not the individual's right to own military style weapons.

[Rainger99]

2nd Amendment says right to a well armed militia and not the individual's right to own military style weapons.

It says that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State and then goes on to state that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It doesn't say anything about the right to a well armed militia.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Militia and Minute Men of 1775 - Minute Man National Historical Park (U.S. National Park Service) (https://www.nps.gov/mima/learn/historyculture/the-militia-and-minute-men-of-1775.htm)

[Bill14564]

Finally, irresponsible parent(s) are being held liable and charged. Hopefully this may affect these horrible shootings by troubled kids.

...

That slippery slope ought to be very frightening.

1. If parents can be held responsible for the actions of their children when committing firearm violations then what else can they be held responsible for? If a child gets into a fight can the parents be charged with assault? If the 16 year old has an accident and someone is killed, can the parents be charged too? There should be consistency in holding parents accountable - watch out for unintended consequences.

2. If a parent comes into a gun store with their child to purchased a firearm and the child then uses it to commit a crime, can the store owner now be charged? He should have known the there was a chance the child would get their hands on the weapon that he provided.

3. If the theory is the parent should have reasonably expected the child might commit a crime if provided a weapon and is therefore responsible for providing the weapon then is the manufacturer any less responsible for producing and providing the #1 weapon used in these crimes?

Once the mob picks up the pitchforks they are hard to put down again.

[manaboutown]

2nd amendment says right to a well armed militia and not the individual's right to own military style weapons.

Wrong!

[Bill14564]

It says that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State and then goes on to state that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It doesn't say anything about the right to a well armed militia.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Militia and Minute Men of 1775 - Minute Man National Historical Park (U.S. National Park Service) (https://www.nps.gov/mima/learn/historyculture/the-militia-and-minute-men-of-1775.htm)

You can't completely isolate the first half of the sentence from the second. The sentence was written as a single thought.

Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people who will be part of that militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because those armed people will be part of the well regulated militia that is necessary to the security of a free state.

Volumes have been written on this subject, it isn't going to be settled here.

[Bill14564]

Wrong!

Well forget the volumes I mentioned in the last post, this simple exclamation certainly puts the subject to rest.

[scubawva]

I do not see any practical reason to own the kind of gun used in the Georgia shooting. But there are so many of these weapons out there that it would be impractical to remove them. Criminals would sell them as well, etc.

Do you know the type of gun? It’s common, used often in competitions, many home owners. It’s not an automatic weapon.

No kid should bring any gun to school, automatic or AR or hand gun.

[phylt]

That slippery slope ought to be very frightening.

1. If parents can be held responsible for the actions of their children when committing firearm violations then what else can they be held responsible for? If a child gets into a fight can the parents be charged with assault? If the 16 year old has an accident and someone is killed, can the parents be charged too? There should be consistency in holding parents accountable - watch out for unintended consequences.

2. If a parent comes into a gun store with their child to purchased a firearm and the child then uses it to commit a crime, can the store owner now be charged? He should have known the there was a chance the child would get their hands on the weapon that he provided.

3. If the theory is the parent should have reasonably expected the child might commit a crime if provided a weapon and is therefore responsible for providing the weapon then is the manufacturer any less responsible for producing and providing the #1 weapon used in these crimes?

Once the mob picks up the pitchforks they are hard to put down again.

--------------------

Sorry - I am a Conservative and see the validity of the Second Amendment.

But - enough is enough - we MUST act in this country, despite the 'slippery slope'. We MUST hold parents responsible - especially in the case of the last two shootings (MI & GA). In MI the parents were convicted, and the recent GA case is pretty cut and dry. Parents MUST accept responsibility. Even for minor offenses such as robbery, driving, etc. The buck must stop somewhere. Kids AND parents must be RESPONSIBLE for their actions.

[ThirdOfFive]

This discussion is about parental responsibility regarding guns. To allow it to degenerate into partisan flag-waving accomplishes only one thing.

Reuters, in a recent article, states: "Lankford's study found that the "deadliest" shootings comprised 25% of mass public shootings from 1966 to 2009, but from 2010 to 2019 had increased to 50% of mass public shootings, in which there was "direct evidence that perpetrator was influenced by another specific attacker or attackers." (''Copycat' mass shootings becoming deadlier, experts warn after New York attack", Tim Reid and Kanishka Singh, reuters dot com, May 15, 2022)

In other words, there are few if any ways to assure the continuity of such shootings, than rancorous public discussions, especially that which concerns "military style" weapons. It doesn't take much to tip an unsocialized kid over the edge, than the guarantee that his name will be national news AND associated with an AR-style weapon.

Is it really worth more shootings, to have such discussions?

[Rainger99]

--------------------

Sorry - I am a Conservative and see the validity of the Second Amendment.

But - enough is enough - we MUST act in this country, despite the 'slippery slope'. We MUST hold parents responsible - especially in the case of the last two shootings (MI & GA). In MI the parents were convicted, and the recent GA case is pretty cut and dry. Parents MUST accept responsibility. Even for minor offenses such as robbery, driving, etc. The buck must stop somewhere. Kids AND parents must be RESPONSIBLE for their actions.

At what age are parents no longer responsible for their kid's actions?

In Michigan, the parents were convicted of involuntary manslaughter. In Georgia, the father is being charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter, two counts of second-degree murder (I don't understand which two were second degree murder).

As far as I can tell, they only go after the parents in a school shooting. Have they gone after parents when the kid kills someone while robbing a gas station or shoots another person on the street? Or just mugs someone?

Juvenile offenders were involved in about 1,122 murders in the U.S. in 2020, representing about 8% of all known murder offenders.

I guess if the murder is a mass school shooting, the parents are also responsible. If it isn't, the kids are responsible.

[Caymus]

Times have changed. My High School had a rifle team which practiced on site with live ammo.

[tophcfa]

Guns have been around forever, but the problem at hand has grown very bad much more recently. Connect the dots, these shootings have increased exponentially along with the growth of social media.

[Chellybean]

That slippery slope ought to be very frightening.

1. If parents can be held responsible for the actions of their children when committing firearm violations then what else can they be held responsible for? If a child gets into a fight can the parents be charged with assault? If the 16 year old has an accident and someone is killed, can the parents be charged too? There should be consistency in holding parents accountable - watch out for unintended consequences.

2. If a parent comes into a gun store with their child to purchased a firearm and the child then uses it to commit a crime, can the store owner now be charged? He should have known the there was a chance the child would get their hands on the weapon that he provided.

3. If the theory is the parent should have reasonably expected the child might commit a crime if provided a weapon and is therefore responsible for providing the weapon then is the manufacturer any less responsible for producing and providing the #1 weapon used in these crimes?

Once the mob picks up the pitchforks they are hard to put down again.

Very well said my exact point!

[Rainger99]

I just heard on television that the judge told the shooter that he faced the death penalty or life in prison. Apparently the judge didn't know the law. He had to bring the shooter back into the courtroom and tell him that he was not facing the death penalty.

Judge Mingledorff initially told the suspected shooter that he could face the death penalty as a result of his actions. He later called Gray back into the court room to clarify that, as a minor, he is not eligible for the death penalty.

I would think a judge that is on national tv would know that in 2005 the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that people who are under 18 at the time of the crime can't be executed for their crimes.

https://cfsy.org/wp-content/uploads/Roper-v.-Simmons-Opinion.pdf

Not sure if the court needed 87 pages to write the decision.

[mraines]

We need to approach this terrible problem from every angle and get local communities very much involved in preventing them. My Villages' former neighbors lost their 14 year old granddaughter in the Parkland shooting. They moved from the Villages but it is now like almost everyone knows someone who has loved ones involved in these tragedies.

We need to encourage our younger generation members to befriend the loners and misfits so that these kids do not resort to violence.

We need more gun control. Allowing all these guns is ridiculous and being able to buy one at a yard sale even more so. This is an American problem. We need to fix it. If this comment is allowed, I will probably tick off some people but it is what I believe.

[Chellybean]

I just heard on television that the judge told the shooter that he faced the death penalty or life in prison. Apparently the judge didn't know the law. He had to bring the shooter back into the courtroom and tell him that he was not facing the death penalty.

Judge Mingledorff initially told the suspected shooter that he could face the death penalty as a result of his actions. He later called Gray back into the court room to clarify that, as a minor, he is not eligible for the death penalty.

I would think a judge that is on national tv would know that in 2005 the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that people who are under 18 at the time of the crime can't be executed for their crimes.

https://cfsy.org/wp-content/uploads/Roper-v.-Simmons-Opinion.pdf

Not sure if the court need 87 pages to write the decision.

Our whole legal system is up side down. Unbelievable. If he is tried as a adult I wonder if that still applies. I personally think It should!

[Pugchief]

As far as I can tell, they only go after the parents in a school shooting. Have they gone after parents when the kid kills someone while robbing a gas station or shoots another person on the street? Or just mugs someone?



Excellent point. Charging the parents of gangbangers would go a long way to reducing inner city violence.

Many cities have chosen the alternate option: charge and prosecute no one. How's that working?

[Rainger99]

Our whole legal system is up side down. Unbelievable. If he is tried as an adult I wonder if that still applies. I personally think It should!

It doesn’t matter if you are tried as adult. If you were under 18 at the time of the crime, you can’t be executed.

[manaboutown]

Excellent point. Charging the parents of gangbangers would go a long way to reducing inner city violence.

Many cities have chosen the alternate option: charge and prosecute no one. How's that working?

This is an ideal test case because the father is the perfect target as he is not a member of a protected minority. It will be used by the antigun crowd to argue for confiscating guns from responsible citizens.

IMHO the father should not have bought his obviously deranged 14 year old son a gun and so bears some responsibility. If the boy had acquired a gun on his own, say on the street, and the parents were unaware he had one it would be a different story.

Somewhat analogously, If a mentally disturbed boy was older and of driving age perhaps a parent should not allow him to drive as he could drive a vehicle through a crowd, killing and maiming people.

The problem is the boy is mentally disturbed and a parent provided him with a means to murder.

[retiredguy123]

Excellent point. Charging the parents of gangbangers would go a long way to reducing inner city violence.

Many cities have chosen the alternate option: charge and prosecute no one. How's that working?
I agree. If a teenage gangbanger commits a murder with a firearm, and his mother doesn't even know who the father is, or where her son is most of the time, or when he last attended school, law enforcement doesn't even consider any criminal charges against the mother. But, in this case, the father is being charged with murder. If this isn't selective law enforcement, I don't know what is. Our laws should be evenly enforced.

[Byte1]

I would just point out that thousands of murders with firearms are committed every day by teens, and the parents are almost never charged with any crime. There should be a more consistent application of the laws.

TOTALLY agree. Charging a parent with murder for something a high school student is guilty of, seems a bit extreme though. It is legal for these kids to operate a motor vehicle, so if they are guilty of DUI, does that mean that the parents are responsible and should lose their license to drive? I agree totally that parents allowing children to handle guns should be responsible to a certain extent, but MURDER? Why are the parents of kids that commit murder in the ghetto treated so lenient? Just saying. Not disagreeing with parents being held responsible. When the powers that be decide that parents are not allowed to discipline their children, it certainly makes it a bit difficult to monitor their kids' actions.

[Byte1]

Times have changed. My High School had a rifle team which practiced on site with live ammo.

We had a rifle safety and target shooting club after school in Junior High/Middle school. Not one accident ever and none of us were even old enough to drive or even get a learner's permit. Society dictates how much violent crime occurs. And that says something of today's violence in society.

[phylt]

We were very "fortunate" that the MI & GA mass shooters were cowards. Rather than being killed by cop, they gave up. That's very good and very rare. Upon investigation and interviews, we are finding that the parents WERE in fact culpable. They KNEW their teen was troubled. They KNEW he was bullied and troubled at school. They provided access to the weapons.

At some point in time WE (the public) MUST point blame to parents - especially when the evidence is so clear.

I'm a Conservative, but SOMETHING MUST BE DONE. I believe that WE CAN abate some of these shootings without impacting the 2nd Amendment. Let's use common sense. I can't imagine our kids having to live (and learn) be concerned that another shooting may happen to their school. And YES - apply these same standards and new laws to "regular" shootings or violence as well...

[Byte1]

2nd Amendment says right to a well armed militia and not the individual's right to own military style weapons.

The 2nd does not prohibit the right to own a military style weapon either. Unfortunately, most NON-gun citizens do not know the difference between a military weapon and a non-military weapon. When the 2nd was written, the same weapons for self defense and hunting were used in combat. We can argue all day regarding what weapons should be allowed or disallowed, but it makes no difference when it comes to mass killings. four folks killed in a school can be killed with the average hunting rifle, knife, hatchet, bow and arrow, or a simple 22cal rifle.
This subject is not about type of weapon used, but the fact that the parent was charged with the crime, along with his son.

[Normal]

If a student stabs someone, do you go after the parents because a knife was left out? All would say, “absurd!”


Seems like some just hate guns?

Perhaps the cause is more important. How many are desensitized to killing through gun shooting video games. You know, the one’s parents use as rewards and as a babysitter.

[Number 10 GI]

Yes, let's do like the North Korean government, jail the entire family for what one family member does. It is the "guilt by association" system that punishes relatives of the perpetrator, even if they did not commit the crime. This punishment can extend up to 3 generations.
If your alcoholic, black sheep uncle robs a bank, you as his nephew/niece will accompany him in jail also. Even a child born in prison to a woman sentenced under this system can possibly stay in prison for it's entire life.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

It says that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State and then goes on to state that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It doesn't say anything about the right to a well armed militia.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Militia and Minute Men of 1775 - Minute Man National Historical Park (U.S. National Park Service) (https://www.nps.gov/mima/learn/historyculture/the-militia-and-minute-men-of-1775.htm)

It also doesn't specify what kinds of arms the people have the right to keep and bear. That means the government can clarify, and it wouldn't violate the constitution.

The government can say "you can have pellet guns, cap guns, crossbows, longbows, muskets, and any Smith and Wesson manufactured prior to 1947. Those are all the arms you have the right to keep and bear."

The government can also say "yes you can keep and bear arms. And we can impose a National universal background check that spans all 50 states and all US territories. If you fail the check - you can keep and bear a cap gun and a shortbow, with no more than 10 arrows."

That'd satisfy the Constitutional amendment. But I'm guessing no one really cares about the law, they just care about their freedoms. If they really cared about the law, they'd try for restrictions (not banning) of who can and cannot keep and bear arms, what kinds of arms they can and cannot keep and bear, and how they may acquire those arms that they have the right to keep and bear.

No civilian needs semi-automatic weapons, unless they're hoping to shoot a lot of people. That is the purpose of semi-automatic weapons. They aren't for hunting, they're not for self-defense. They are for attacks. And if you need to fire a whole clip to hit the target, then you need to just give up and try darts for awhile. So no - it's not even for target practice.

[Caymus]

Yes, let's do like the North Korean government, jail the entire family for what one family member does. It is the "guilt by association" system that punishes relatives of the perpetrator, even if they did not commit the crime. This punishment can extend up to 3 generations.
If your alcoholic, black sheep uncle robs a bank, you as his nephew/niece will accompany him in jail also. Even a child born in prison to a woman sentenced under this system can possibly stay in prison for it's entire life.

Also, not a good place to be a government bureaucrat.

North Korea Executes Dozens of Officials - Reports - Newsweek (https://www.newsweek.com/north-korea-executed-officials-floods-landslides-1948070)

[Byte1]

It also doesn't specify what kinds of arms the people have the right to keep and bear. That means the government can clarify, and it wouldn't violate the constitution.

The government can say "you can have pellet guns, cap guns, crossbows, longbows, muskets, and any Smith and Wesson manufactured prior to 1947. Those are all the arms you have the right to keep and bear."

The government can also say "yes you can keep and bear arms. And we can impose a National universal background check that spans all 50 states and all US territories. If you fail the check - you can keep and bear a cap gun and a shortbow, with no more than 10 arrows."

That'd satisfy the Constitutional amendment. But I'm guessing no one really cares about the law, they just care about their freedoms. If they really cared about the law, they'd try for restrictions (not banning) of who can and cannot keep and bear arms, what kinds of arms they can and cannot keep and bear, and how they may acquire those arms that they have the right to keep and bear.

No civilian needs semi-automatic weapons, unless they're hoping to shoot a lot of people. That is the purpose of semi-automatic weapons. They aren't for hunting, they're not for self-defense. They are for attacks. And if you need to fire a whole clip to hit the target, then you need to just give up and try darts for awhile. So no - it's not even for target practice.

The subject is not about type of weapons allowed by law.

[TheWarriors]

It also doesn't specify what kinds of arms the people have the right to keep and bear. That means the government can clarify, and it wouldn't violate the constitution.

The government can say "you can have pellet guns, cap guns, crossbows, longbows, muskets, and any Smith and Wesson manufactured prior to 1947. Those are all the arms you have the right to keep and bear."

The government can also say "yes you can keep and bear arms. And we can impose a National universal background check that spans all 50 states and all US territories. If you fail the check - you can keep and bear a cap gun and a shortbow, with no more than 10 arrows."



That'd satisfy the Constitutional amendment. But I'm guessing no one really cares about the law, they just care about their freedoms. If they really cared about the law, they'd try for restrictions (not banning) of who can and cannot keep and bear arms, what kinds of arms they can and cannot keep and bear, and how they may acquire those arms that they have the right to keep and bear.

No civilian needs semi-automatic weapons, unless they're hoping to shoot a lot of people. That is the purpose of semi-automatic weapons. They aren't for hunting, they're not for self-defense. They are for attacks. And if you need to fire a whole clip to hit the target, then you need to just give up and try darts for awhile. So no - it's not even for target practice.

I don’t think you quite understand why the Second Amendment exists. Perhaps you would like to apply the same logic to all the other Amendments?

[Normal]

I don’t think you quite understand why the Second Amendment exists. Perhaps you would like to apply the same logic to all the other Amendments?

The second amendment was adopted straight from the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Gee, what better place to get rules than from the country we just broke from.

[FredMitchell]

////

[JudyLife]

Exactly!!!!! Why don’t people understand this?!!!

[FredMitchell]

I would just point out that thousands of murders with firearms are committed every day by teens, and the parents are almost never charged with any crime. There should be a more consistent application of the laws.

Those numbers fail the back of a napkin test. We don't have over 365,000 murders by any age annually.

[retiredguy123]

Those numbers fail the back of a napkin test. We don't have over 365,000 murders by any age annually.
You are correct. My bad. I meant to say that a thousand or so murders are committed annually by teens. But the point is the same. Parents are almost never held accountable. In most cases, law enforcement doesn't even consider charging the parents unless there is some type of outside outrage.

[Rocksnap]

Raise of hands. Who here knows their child is bat sheet crazy and will be a school shooter?
Exactly…
Now on the other hand, a vast majority of these school shooters are “TRANSGENDER”.
And what is being totally pushed, in schools? From a young age. Lest we forget that some are wanting tampons available in the boys bathrooms.
Seems to me this social excercise in WTF is being manufactured by something we can’t talk about on here.
Don’t get me started.

[Life as I know it]

Although i agree with this, it is also becoming dangerous to our 2nd amendment, if they start holding gun manufactures liable as well.
They are chipping away of our rights as legal gun owners!

There is not one child who wants to die for your second amendment right. Not one.
You do not need an assault rifle to protect yourself…

[Susan1717]

Why is the father of Crooks, the attempted assassin of Trump not equally being held responsible?

[Girlcopper]

That slippery slope ought to be very frightening.

1. If parents can be held responsible for the actions of their children when committing firearm violations then what else can they be held responsible for? If a child gets into a fight can the parents be charged with assault? If the 16 year old has an accident and someone is killed, can the parents be charged too? There should be consistency in holding parents accountable - watch out for unintended consequences.

2. If a parent comes into a gun store with their child to purchased a firearm and the child then uses it to commit a crime, can the store owner now be charged? He should have known the there was a chance the child would get their hands on the weapon that he provided.

3. If the theory is the parent should have reasonably expected the child might commit a crime if provided a weapon and is therefore responsible for providing the weapon then is the manufacturer any less responsible for producing and providing the #1 weapon used in these crimes?

Once the mob picks up the pitchforks they are hard to put down again.
These examples are far fetched. Yes, parents should be responsible for their kids actions. You had the kid, raise them to be responsible and not street thugs

[GizmoWhiskers]

2nd Amendment says right to a well armed militia and not the individual's right to own military style weapons.
It would be nice if :

1. Msm didn't make SELECTIVE perps famous. No perps should be given any airtime.

2. MSM didn't educate people on how to become famous killers.

3. Msm would get it right on what weapons like the AR15 actually are. They miss classify and report constantly for the sole purpose of taking guns away from law abiding Constitutionally granted citizens.

[PugMom]

--------------------

Sorry - I am a Conservative and see the validity of the Second Amendment.

But - enough is enough - we MUST act in this country, despite the 'slippery slope'. We MUST hold parents responsible - especially in the case of the last two shootings (MI & GA). In MI the parents were convicted, and the recent GA case is pretty cut and dry. Parents MUST accept responsibility. Even for minor offenses such as robbery, driving, etc. The buck must stop somewhere. Kids AND parents must be RESPONSIBLE for their actions.

this conservative agrees with you in this case. the kid's family are a pack of nut jobs, -Mom a loser & Dad clueless. the father knew of some report that the son made violent threats, yet STILL bought a gun for him. the whole thing is insane from start to finish, the Dad must not be right in the head to do something as foolish as he did :rant-rave:

[PugMom]

Why is the father of Crooks, the attempted assassin of Trump not equally being held responsible?

we don't know anything yet, it's supposedly still under investigation-- give it time

[Davonu]

Parents being held responsible and having to pay some consequences is one thing. I totally agree.

But a parent charged with 2nd degree murder?!? I’m not quite sure about that.

[JRcorvette]

2nd Amendment says right to a well armed militia and not the individual's right to own military style weapons.

I knew that someone would say that but you are totally wrong. The problem these days is that parents are not raising their kids. The children of today are being raise by others since birth. It starts with Day Care some Mom and Dan can both work. then off to the Public schools which are mostly horrible. Modern day parents don’t spend much quality time with their kids. The 14 year old kid that did the shooting came from a messed up family with zero parenting skills. Sorry to tell you it is Not the Guns that are the problem it is society in general. We are living in troubled times. Hell even our government lies to us all the time. Go ask your kids how they are raising your grandchildren.

[JRcorvette]

Parents being held responsible and having to pay some consequences is one thing. I totally agree.

But a parent charged with 2nd degree murder?!? I’m not quite sure about that.

Not in all cases but in this particular case it might be justified! We only hear what the fake news tell us.

[airstreamingypsy]

Raise of hands. Who here knows their child is bat sheet crazy and will be a school shooter?
Exactly…
Now on the other hand, a vast majority of these school shooters are “TRANSGENDER”.
And what is being totally pushed, in schools? From a young age. Lest we forget that some are wanting tampons available in the boys bathrooms.
Seems to me this social excercise in WTF is being manufactured by something we can’t talk about on here.
Don’t get me started.

Oh boy, it's tin foil hat time. Transgender individuals represent less than 1 percent of perpetrators in all mass shootings over the past decade, and about 2 percent involved in school shootings specifically, according to The Gun Violence Archive (GVA).

[Rainger99]

Not in all cases but in this particular case it might be justified! We only hear what the fake news tell us.

So a kid who really hates his father can shoot up a school to get his father charged with murder?

[airstreamingypsy]

School shootings have two common denominators, the semi automatic weapon designed to kill people, and the shooter being bullied in school.

Since the weapon is out there, maybe the solution is for parents to raise kids not to be bullies.

[Caymus]

School shootings have two common denominators, the semi automatic weapon designed to kill people, and the shooter being bullied in school.

Since the weapon is out there, maybe the solution is for parents to raise kids not to be bullies.

And having a "Meth Head" for a mother doesn't help.

[Priebehouse]

Finally, irresponsible parent(s) are being held liable and charged. Hopefully this may affect these horrible shootings by troubled kids.

BTW Dr Phil had a wonderful episode on this topic. He, and other leaders may have an impact to alleviate these shootings. His stats show that 94% of these shooters had told other students or posted their plans.

It's clear that, just like the Crumbley's in Michigan, these parents did NOT "fail to recognize the signs of their child's mental health issues", they turned a blind eye to them. They should be held responsible. Unfortunate that today, hate and confusion drives negative actions not only of our children, but the adults as well. :sad:

[Rainger99]

The post seems to be focusing on the kid’s access to guns.

If you are determined to kill, you can find a way to do it.

The deadliest school attack in US did not involve guns.

If he used gasoline to start several fires, he probably could have killed more than 4 people. Going to a crowded football game with some gas could cause more deaths?

Or if he had gone to a local store and killed more people
would that make a difference?

Would people be as enraged if he had killed more people but hadn’t used an “assault” rifle?


Bath School disaster - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster)

[NoMo50]

2nd Amendment says right to a well armed militia and not the individual's right to own military style weapons.

So, it is your contention that modern sporting rifles are to be considered "military style" weapons? Just as a point of reference, a single shot musket was once a "military style" weapon; as were single action revolvers, pump action shotguns, bolt action rifles, and just about every other firearm type in existence. Do you really want to open that can of worms?

Also, are you aware that more homicides are committed in the US each year with blunt objects than rifles of any type? This includes things like hammers, tire irons, and yes...even golf clubs. The taking of a human life by any means is horrific and tragic. But, we cannot go about banning inanimate objects simply because they were used to facilitate a crime. A fully loaded weapon can be laid upon a table and left there for a hundred years, and it will not hurt anyone until it is manipulated by a human being. Would you favor confiscation of your favorite Ping irons just because some fool used a 9-iron to kill his neighbor?

As is normal, this topic has deviated from its original premise. The issue of gun control is a hot button topic that will never be settled on this forum, but it is far from "settled science."

[Zincbemi]

Finally, irresponsible parent(s) are being held liable and charged. Hopefully this may affect these horrible shootings by troubled kids.

BTW Dr Phil had a wonderful episode on this topic. He, and other leaders may have an impact to alleviate these shootings. His stats show that 94% of these shooters had told other students or posted their plans.



A question: You are a neighbor and the child Nextdoor takes your gun without your permission and commits a school shooting. Are you responsible?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

That slippery slope ought to be very frightening.

1. If parents can be held responsible for the actions of their children when committing firearm violations then what else can they be held responsible for? If a child gets into a fight can the parents be charged with assault? If the 16 year old has an accident and someone is killed, can the parents be charged too? There should be consistency in holding parents accountable - watch out for unintended consequences.

2. If a parent comes into a gun store with their child to purchased a firearm and the child then uses it to commit a crime, can the store owner now be charged? He should have known the there was a chance the child would get their hands on the weapon that he provided.

3. If the theory is the parent should have reasonably expected the child might commit a crime if provided a weapon and is therefore responsible for providing the weapon then is the manufacturer any less responsible for producing and providing the #1 weapon used in these crimes?

Once the mob picks up the pitchforks they are hard to put down again.

There is no slippery slope. Children are allowed to have fists. 16-year-olds are allowed to drive cars. 16 year olds are not allowed to buy weapons.

In Florida:

A minor under 18 can possess a firearm at home if it is unloaded and they are participating in legal activities. These activities include hunting and sporting events under the supervision of a parent, guardian, or certified instructor.

So if the kid is NOT being supervised by a parent, guardian, or certified instructor, then the kid is NOT allowed to possess the firearm.

You also have to be 21 in order to buy one in Florida.

Your parents are responsible for you until you turn 18. If the kid got their gun from their home, either they had the supervision of their parent/guardian - in which case the parent/guardian is guilty of aiding and abetting the kid's crime - or they didn't have that supervision - in which case the parent is guilty of negligence.

[johnblackwell]

Finally, irresponsible parent(s) are being held liable and charged. Hopefully this may affect these horrible shootings by troubled kids.

BTW Dr Phil had a wonderful episode on this topic. He, and other leaders may have an impact to alleviate these shootings. His stats show that 94% of these shooters had told other students or posted their plans.

How about charging the grandparents for raising irresponsible parents?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I don’t think you quite understand why the Second Amendment exists. Perhaps you would like to apply the same logic to all the other Amendments?

I sure do understand it. Seems a lot of people don't though.

The "why" isn't "why do we still have 2a" or "why wasn't 2a better clarified?" It's "why does it exist?"

It exists because at the time of the founding of this country, we didn't have the National Guard. Our country wasn't a "United" states of America, it was individual states working together to ensure freedom from Britain and a tyrannical government. So when it came time to fight Britain, the people (also known as We The People) rose up together, formed our militias, and brought our own weapons to the fight. We didn't have armories that provided arms for us. We had to use our own. But carrying a firearm in public was ILLEGAL at the time. And so - the right of THE PEOPLE...to keep and bear arms - was adopted.

That is the reason the 2nd Amendment exists.

[dewilson58]

A question: You are a neighbor and the child Nextdoor takes your gun without your permission and commits a school shooting. Are you responsible?

Was the house locked??

Was the child allowed to enter the house in the past??

Was the child trespassing??

[Bill14564]

There is no slippery slope. Children are allowed to have fists. 16-year-olds are allowed to drive cars. 16 year olds are not allowed to buy weapons.

In Florida:

A minor under 18 can possess a firearm at home if it is unloaded and they are participating in legal activities. These activities include hunting and sporting events under the supervision of a parent, guardian, or certified instructor.

So if the kid is NOT being supervised by a parent, guardian, or certified instructor, then the kid is NOT allowed to possess the firearm.

You also have to be 21 in order to buy one in Florida.

Your parents are responsible for you until you turn 18. If the kid got their gun from their home, either they had the supervision of their parent/guardian - in which case the parent/guardian is guilty of aiding and abetting the kid's crime - or they didn't have that supervision - in which case the parent is guilty of negligence.

That parents are being charged at all proves there is a slope and your last paragraph describes how slippery it is.

This seems like the equivalent of looking for deep pockets in a lawsuit. If the person committing the crime is a minor then you can also go after the parents for your pound of flesh.

I'm sure there are some cases where the parents truly were negligent and should face some repercussions. Maybe thus is one of those cases. But charging parents ought to be the rars exception and not the new standard.

[graciegirl]

2nd Amendment says right to a well armed militia and not the individual's right to own military style weapons.

What YOU just posted and what is constantly the refrain following any shooting event dances all around the issue and any solution to the issue. Laws will not and CANNOT keep people who SHOULD not have guns from getting them. They can steal them and they do. If they are in certain groups they know just how to get them for sure.

[SaucyJim]

--------------------

Sorry - I am a Conservative and see the validity of the Second Amendment.

But - enough is enough - we MUST act in this country, despite the 'slippery slope'. We MUST hold parents responsible - especially in the case of the last two shootings (MI & GA). In MI the parents were convicted, and the recent GA case is pretty cut and dry. Parents MUST accept responsibility. Even for minor offenses such as robbery, driving, etc. The buck must stop somewhere. Kids AND parents must be RESPONSIBLE for their actions.

Are you saying that if you are a descendant of slave owners that you should pay a price for their sins?

The knife could cut both ways.

[graciegirl]

That parents are being charged at all proves there is a slope and your last paragraph describes how slippery it is.

This seems like the equivalent of looking for deep pockets in a lawsuit. If the person committing the crime is a minor then you can also go after the parents for your pound of flesh.

I'm sure there are some cases where the parents truly were negligent and should face some repercussions. Maybe thus is one of those cases. But charging parents ought to be the exception and not an acceptable knee jerk reaction.

There have been only two cases that I am aware of, of the parents being charged...The shooting in Michigan where both parents were in fact convicted and now this one and I believe this father is indeed culpable and should be charged.

[SaucyJim]

The 2nd does not prohibit the right to own a military style weapon either. Unfortunately, most NON-gun citizens do not know the difference between a military weapon and a non-military weapon. When the 2nd was written, the same weapons for self defense and hunting were used in combat. We can argue all day regarding what weapons should be allowed or disallowed, but it makes no difference when it comes to mass killings. four folks killed in a school can be killed with the average hunting rifle, knife, hatchet, bow and arrow, or a simple 22cal rifle.
This subject is not about type of weapon used, but the fact that the parent was charged with the crime, along with his son.

Correct me if I’m wrong here. A military style weapon is not a military weapon. A military weapon is fully automatic. You can have the same firepower out of a non-military style weapon that is a semi automatic. I always wonder why we want to treat a weapon differently because it looks different.

[retiredguy123]

This case reminds me of the guy who is given a speeding ticket for going 65 mph in a 60 mph zone when every other driver is going 85 mph. I don't mind holding parents responsible if all parents are prosecuted equally. That is the duty of law enforcement, including the District Attorney.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

What YOU just posted and what is constantly the refrain following any shooting event dances all around the issue and any solution to the issue. Laws will not and CANNOT keep people who SHOULD not have guns from getting them. They can steal them and they do. If they are in certain groups they know just how to get them for sure.

That is the logic that says "get rid of all laws, because if people are in certain groups they'll know just how to break them anyway."

The reason we have laws, rather than no laws, is so that there can be consequences for our actions.

Yes, you can break a law that says "you shouldn't have a gun" and have one anyway, and then use it to kill someone.

But when you do that, you're now breaking TWO laws. The one where you killed someone AND the one that said you weren't supposed to have the gun in the first place. When this happens, it's easier to convict the criminal, AND it results in a stiffer penalty - imprisonment, fines, community service, parole - whatever it is, it's harsher because you broke that "you shouldn't have that gun" law.

Guns don't kill people. Only people kill people. So stop letting people have the guns? The guns won't shoot themselves if they're just sitting in a lockbox in a warehouse of a gun factory, afterall. That would be the logical conclusion to that argument.

The pro-2a rhetoric is to hold onto their firearms no matter what, for no reason other than they read on a 200+year-old piece of paper that they had the right to hold onto it, and the NRA has pushed their agenda to ensure they don't go bankrupt. They need sycophants and followers even more now than ever.

If someone wants a pistol in their home for self-defense, or a rifle for their farm to keep the coyotes away from their chickens, or a hunting rifle to shoot for their supper, I'm all for it. 100% pro-gun.

But there is no reason for any civilian to bring a firearm to a school, unless you plan on killing people with it. There is no reason for any civilian to bring a firearm to a church, unless you plan on killing people with it. There is no reason for any civilian to bring a semi-automatic rifle anywhere, public or private other than the shooting range, unless you are planning on killing people with it.

Guns are the tools of death. Unlike a knife, a gun can't gut a fish. Unlike an ice pick, a gun won't cleanly cut a chunk of ice off a block for your mai tai. Unlike a car, a gun won't get you from point A to point B. All of these things can be used as weapons. But of this list, only the gun was designed specifically to kill.

If you're not planning on using it for its specific function, then you shouldn't be in possession of it at all.

[SaucyJim]

I knew that someone would say that but you are totally wrong. The problem these days is that parents are not raising their kids. The children of today are being raise by others since birth. It starts with Day Care some Mom and Dan can both work. then off to the Public schools which are mostly horrible. Modern day parents don’t spend much quality time with their kids. The 14 year old kid that did the shooting came from a messed up family with zero parenting skills. Sorry to tell you it is Not the Guns that are the problem it is society in general. We are living in troubled times. Hell even our government lies to us all the time. Go ask your kids how they are raising your grandchildren.

And let’s not forget the elephant in the room: a society that has, for the most part, removed God from the civil society.

[ken.yotz]

Are you a psychiatrist who can perform a diagnosis without even talking with the person? Did you consider that the problem may well be the parents?

This is an ideal test case because the father is the perfect target as he is not a member of a protected minority. It will be used by the antigun crowd to argue for confiscating guns from responsible citizens.

IMHO the father should not have bought his obviously deranged 14 year old son a gun and so bears some responsibility. If the boy had acquired a gun on his own, say on the street, and the parents were unaware he had one it would be a different story.

Somewhat analogously, If a mentally disturbed boy was older and of driving age perhaps a parent should not allow him to drive as he could drive a vehicle through a crowd, killing and maiming people.

The problem is the boy is mentally disturbed and a parent provided him with a means to murder.

[Ptmcbriz]

Although i agree with this, it is also becoming dangerous to our 2nd amendment, if they start holding gun manufactures liable as well.
They are chipping away of our rights as legal gun owners!

A person’s life is far more valuable than anything else. There is nothing more valuable. Please stop putting an inanimate object valued above a person’s life/soul.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

And let’s not forget the elephant in the room: a society that has, for the most part, removed God from the civil society.

And - do you not live in The Villages? There's a new church being built every year here. God didn't invent guns. God didn't order Moses to bring down an 11th commandment "thou shalt keep and bear arms." God didn't instruct Jesus to teach his disciples how to shoot an AR-15 with a bump stock. God didn't say to Eve, "This is Eden. Enjoy all the guns, but don't eat the apple."

God has nothing to do with any of this.

[Aces4]

And - do you not live in The Villages? There's a new church being built every year here. God didn't invent guns. God didn't order Moses to bring down an 11th commandment "thou shalt keep and bear arms." God didn't instruct Jesus to teach his disciples how to shoot an AR-15 with a bump stock. God didn't say to Eve, "This is Eden. Enjoy all the guns, but don't eat the apple."

God has nothing to do with any of this.

God has everything to do with this. Bullying is the culprit in so many of these shootings and how many parents are teaching the loving one another precepts of the Bible anymore? Why isn't bullying being addressed with strong punishments?

Are you aware how many criminal gangs have moved into this country recently, are infiltrating societies and cities and are now coming to light and beginning to use their tactics?

If you think the local National Guard has the resources to control these growing forces in communities, I believe you are sadly mistaken. Gangs recruit and grow members constantly and they are vicious. You are welcome to keep a lady-like pistol for protection, most of us are interested in keeping a weapon capable of destroying any planned attacks to harm our families and dismantle Western Civilization.

[Normal]

That parents are being charged at all proves there is a slope and your last paragraph describes how slippery it is.

This seems like the equivalent of looking for deep pockets in a lawsuit. If the person committing the crime is a minor then you can also go after the parents for your pound of flesh.

I'm sure there are some cases where the parents truly were negligent and should face some repercussions. Maybe thus is one of those cases. But charging parents ought to be the rars exception and not the new standard.

It’s a slippery slope and meanders into the weeds quickly. The premise is faulty. Of course we live in an irresponsible society now? Accountability is now only for the weakest link.

[Chellybean]

A person’s life is far more valuable than anything else. There is nothing more valuable. Please stop putting an inanimate object valued above a person’s life/soul.

OMG that's not even close to the point, its about our connotational rights that are being taken away slowly and that's how it starts with slippery slopes! JMHO

[Switter]

Guns have been around forever, but the problem at hand has grown very bad much more recently. Connect the dots, these shootings have increased exponentially along with the growth of social media.

^^^This. There has been a significant increase in mental health problems amongst teens (and the general population as well). A normal, mentally stable person will never (or extremely rarely) just go out and kill people.

I don't recall the article but the author stated that teens today, because of social media, spend an exorbitant amount of time maintaining their identities than past generations. It used to be kids would only have to maintain their identity during the 7–8 hours they were in school. Now, it is almost 24/7. The level of anxiety this produces is enormous and one wrong post, picture, or video can haunt a kid for a very long time. In someways, I empathize with them because I didn't have to deal with that when I was a teenager.

This problem with identity stems from what Charles Taylor, the Canadian philosopher, called "expressive individualism". It's the idea that you are what you feel on the inside and that society or culture cannot place boundaries on individual expression. It's no longer "individual liberty" but "individual sovereignty". It's the water we swim in today and why we are so fragmented and so full of anxiety.

It would take me too long to connect the dots in this post but they are connected...

[CybrSage]

I do not see any practical reason to own the kind of gun used in the Georgia shooting. But there are so many of these weapons out there that it would be impractical to remove them. Criminals would sell them as well, etc.

That is why it is the Bill of Rights and not the Bill of Practical Reasons.

[Byte1]

There is not one child who wants to die for your second amendment right. Not one.
You do not need an assault rifle to protect yourself…

Hardly any "assault rifles" are owned by private citizens. You must have a federal permit to own an "assault rifle" if you are referring to a military weapon, aka automatic. Just because a rifle LOOKS like a military rifle, does not make one a military rifle. Kind of like a cross dresser. Just because the guy looks like a gal, does not make him a female.
If the powers that be insist on making decisions on HOW a child is raised, we should not hold the parent responsible, since they have their hands tied behind their backs when it comes to discipline. PERIOD.

[CybrSage]

I sure do understand it. Seems a lot of people don't though.

The "why" isn't "why do we still have 2a" or "why wasn't 2a better clarified?" It's "why does it exist?"

It exists because at the time of the founding of this country, we didn't have the National Guard. Our country wasn't a "United" states of America, it was individual states working together to ensure freedom from Britain and a tyrannical government. So when it came time to fight Britain, the people (also known as We The People) rose up together, formed our militias, and brought our own weapons to the fight. We didn't have armories that provided arms for us. We had to use our own. But carrying a firearm in public was ILLEGAL at the time. And so - the right of THE PEOPLE...to keep and bear arms - was adopted.

That is the reason the 2nd Amendment exists.

The why we have free speech was so we could complain about having a king.
We no longer have a king, time to get rid of free speech.

The reason we have freedom of religion was so people did not have to be in the church of the king.
We no longer have a king and there is no Church of America. Time to get rid of freedom of religion.

Reduction to absurdity, a favorite of Aristotle.

I would demand your money back from wherever you got your Constitutional Law degree, they taught you some very, very wrong information. So wrong, I am sure you can sue them over it.

[Byte1]

Are you saying that if you are a descendant of slave owners that you should pay a price for their sins?

The knife could cut both ways.

Kind of off subject, but you brought up a thought. "They" want those that did not own slaves to pay those that were never slaves...........for what reason? Just a thought and not requiring an answer.

[Rainger99]

A person’s life is far more valuable than anything else. There is nothing more valuable.

If that were truly the case, we wasted a lot of lives defending freedom and liberty!

I just saw A Man For All Seasons on TMC recently. Surely he thought there were more important things than living.

[CybrSage]

That means the government can clarify, and it wouldn't violate the constitution.

This logic also says the government can clarify what types of free speech you can have and it wouldn't violate the constitution.

They could say you can use a quill and ink on parchment, a printing press, or a specific place in a town squares but nothing modern like a forum called TOTV, email, TV, paper, etc.

The Supreme Court exists to stop people from imposing such obviously violations of our rights.

For example, to create a limit on the second amendment, a government wishing to place restrictions on firearm ownership must “affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.”

Your desired violations clearly do not meet that standard.

[jimbomaybe]

A person’s life is far more valuable than anything else. There is nothing more valuable. Please stop putting an inanimate object valued above a person’s life/soul.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” B Franklin, yes that is out of context but still has merit. The constitution was to protect you from the, government, the right to bear arms was to help keep government from too much power, yes an armed uprising is a little far fetched these days. I don't think many would argue that the framers could not anticipate a day when society could not protect it self from its own citizens. It is within living memory when things were very different, gun sales through the mail , mass shooting just about unheard of . Much more personal freedom and we have the other side of the coin.

[Aces4]

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” B Franklin, yes that is out of context but still has merit. The constitution was to protect you from the, government, the right to bear arms was to help keep government from too much power, yes an armed uprising is a little far fetched these days. I don't think many would argue that the framers could not anticipate a day when society could not protect it self from its own citizens. It is within living memory when things were very different, gun sales through the mail , mass shooting just about unheard of . Much more personal freedom and we have the other side of the coin.

You realize a gun is a gun, it's the minds of people and the culture that changed.

[nn0wheremann]

Finally, irresponsible parent(s) are being held liable and charged. Hopefully this may affect these horrible shootings by troubled kids.

BTW Dr Phil had a wonderful episode on this topic. He, and other leaders may have an impact to alleviate these shootings. His stats show that 94% of these shooters had told other students or posted their plans.
I agree, but then I remember how my father secured the rifle and shotgun in our home, and how easily I and an older brother could defeat his efforts. We had a rifle target range in the basement, and I was probably in kindergarten or first grade when I learned how to shoot, how to care for, and to respect firearms for what they were and what they could do. Maybe that contributed to keeping me from shooting anything I shouldn’t. There was no fascination or fantasy factor with firearms.

[jimbomaybe]

This logic also says the government can clarify what types of free speech you can have and it wouldn't violate the constitution.

They could say you can use a quill and ink on parchment, a printing press, or a specific place in a town squares but nothing modern like a forum called TOTV, email, TV, paper, etc.

The Supreme Court exists to stop people from imposing such obviously violations of our rights.

For example, to create a limit on the second amendment, a government wishing to place restrictions on firearm ownership must “affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.”

Your desired violations clearly do not meet that standard.
Hey, you can have a small Cal muzzle loader anything else has military potential , stop complaining , background checks , Ok , but we need to make some adjustments to standards as to who can own a firearm.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

God has everything to do with this. Bullying is the culprit in so many of these shootings and how many parents are teaching the loving one another precepts of the Bible anymore? Why isn't bullying being addressed with strong punishments?

Are you aware how many criminal gangs have moved into this country recently, are infiltrating societies and cities and are now coming to light and beginning to use their tactics?

If you think the local National Guard has the resources to control these growing forces in communities, I believe you are sadly mistaken. Gangs recruit and grow members constantly and they are vicious. You are welcome to keep a lady-like pistol for protection, most of us are interested in keeping a weapon capable of destroying any planned attacks to harm our families and dismantle Western Civilization.

I don't keep any pistol at all. I don't allow guns in my house. I have no problem with other people allowing guns in their houses. I don't approve of guns. But I live in a country where guns are allowed, and as an American, I accept that.

Guns are not allowed to be used to attack other people, however. No weapon is allowed to be used to attack other people. But the #1 tool used to kill people - is a gun. A gun can kill more people in a short period of time than a knife, or car, or ice pick, or your fists.

God didn't create guns, god didn't create idiots who reject accountability and responsibility. God didn't create people who blame god for bad things, offer thoughts and prayers instead of taking steps to prevent bad things from happening again, and god didn't create people who - instead of acknowledging that bad things happen when bad people have guns - focus on their rights to have guns. That wasn't god. That was 100% man-made conspiracy, manipulation, influence of the NRA, which also was not created by god.

God did, however, order the first-born male to be slaughtered. God also ordered Abraham to murder his son. God has a lot to say about a lot of things:

Proverbs 30:17 states, "The eye that mocks a father and scorns to obey a mother will be picked out by the ravens of the valley and eaten by the vultures".

I'd suggest a careful and thorough read of the Book of Deuteronomy if you want to know what God thinks about most behaviors.

As for Jesus - he died for the sins of the past. It was basically a pardon for crimes committed, not for future crimes.

As for the evangelicals who only abide the New Testament - they are very quick to remind us about the Ten Commandments. But those were written for the Old Testament, which their Jesus said they could disregard since he died for their sins.

God - has no place in discussion about Constitutional rights. At all. We even have an amendment about that, the whole separation of church and state thing. It's the amendment that comes right before the right to keep and bear arms.

[Aces4]

I don't keep any pistol at all. I don't allow guns in my house. I have no problem with other people allowing guns in their houses. I don't approve of guns. But I live in a country where guns are allowed, and as an American, I accept that.

Guns are not allowed to be used to attack other people, however. No weapon is allowed to be used to attack other people. But the #1 tool used to kill people - is a gun. A gun can kill more people in a short period of time than a knife, or car, or ice pick, or your fists.

God didn't create guns, god didn't create idiots who reject accountability and responsibility. God didn't create people who blame god for bad things, offer thoughts and prayers instead of taking steps to prevent bad things from happening again, and god didn't create people who - instead of acknowledging that bad things happen when bad people have guns - focus on their rights to have guns. That wasn't god. That was 100% man-made conspiracy, manipulation, influence of the NRA, which also was not created by god.

God did, however, order the first-born male to be slaughtered. God also ordered Abraham to murder his son. God has a lot to say about a lot of things:

Proverbs 30:17 states, "The eye that mocks a father and scorns to obey a mother will be picked out by the ravens of the valley and eaten by the vultures".

I'd suggest a careful and thorough read of the Book of Deuteronomy if you want to know what God thinks about most behaviors.

As for Jesus - he died for the sins of the past. It was basically a pardon for crimes committed, not for future crimes.

As for the evangelicals who only abide the New Testament - they are very quick to remind us about the Ten Commandments. But those were written for the Old Testament, which their Jesus said they could disregard since he died for their sins.

God - has no place in discussion about Constitutional rights. At all. We even have an amendment about that, the whole separation of church and state thing. It's the amendment that comes right before the right to keep and bear arms.


In reading comprehension, one would understand that you cannot ban people from their belief in God and how the lack of faith and condemnation of God is the discussion here. It absolutely belongs in this discussion. It is my belief, no matter how hard you stomp your foot, that the loss of faith, the every man for himself and hate in this world are the step stones to violence, crime and lead to the need for self-protection.

The right to bear arms is for everyone's freedom to protect themselves and their family against the vile, godless actions of the evil prowling the earth.

[Byte1]

I don't keep any pistol at all. I don't allow guns in my house. I have no problem with other people allowing guns in their houses. I don't approve of guns. But I live in a country where guns are allowed, and as an American, I accept that.

Guns are not allowed to be used to attack other people, however. No weapon is allowed to be used to attack other people. But the #1 tool used to kill people - is a gun. A gun can kill more people in a short period of time than a knife, or car, or ice pick, or your fists.

God didn't create guns, god didn't create idiots who reject accountability and responsibility. God didn't create people who blame god for bad things, offer thoughts and prayers instead of taking steps to prevent bad things from happening again, and god didn't create people who - instead of acknowledging that bad things happen when bad people have guns - focus on their rights to have guns. That wasn't god. That was 100% man-made conspiracy, manipulation, influence of the NRA, which also was not created by god.

God did, however, order the first-born male to be slaughtered. God also ordered Abraham to murder his son. God has a lot to say about a lot of things:

Proverbs 30:17 states, "The eye that mocks a father and scorns to obey a mother will be picked out by the ravens of the valley and eaten by the vultures".

I'd suggest a careful and thorough read of the Book of Deuteronomy if you want to know what God thinks about most behaviors.

As for Jesus - he died for the sins of the past. It was basically a pardon for crimes committed, not for future crimes.

As for the evangelicals who only abide the New Testament - they are very quick to remind us about the Ten Commandments. But those were written for the Old Testament, which their Jesus said they could disregard since he died for their sins.

God - has no place in discussion about Constitutional rights. At all. We even have an amendment about that, the whole separation of church and state thing. It's the amendment that comes right before the right to keep and bear arms.

Everyone has their "opinion" even if it might be distorted. Interesting how someone can take a very simple quote and bend it to fit their agenda. Since this thread is NOT about religion or the 2nd Amendment, I am not going to argue the Bible or how one allows their opinion to be presented as fact.
The subject is a reflection on the perpetrator's father being held responsible for his son's actions.
I believe (my humble opinion) that making the parent's responsible for the child's actions, merely tells the child that it's not his/her fault, but the parent's fault. If a child is charged with adult violations, ie. charges with murder and tried as an adult, then the parents should not be held responsible. Even if they ARE held responsible, it should be of a lesser violations, such as child neglect or maybe even contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Unless there is a conspiracy where the parent is involved in such heinous act perpetrated, the parent is not guilty of the principle charge, such as murder.

[Boomer]

Geez. There is a pattern in this thread indicating that because this monstrous idiot of a father has been hauled in, some here are convinced parents could be held responsible for everything terrible their spawn does.

That is a ridiculous extrapolation, a false equivalency, apples to oranges.

Why?

In May of '23 the kid was accused of making threats to shoot up a school. The police followed through and talked to the kid and his father.

The kid lied and said he would never make such threats, even as a joke.

The father said he had hunting guns but they were kept locked up. Lots of people have locked up guns for hunting, so this was not an unusual statement. The kid lied and the father's answer was within what a responsible gun owner might own and have locked up. Both the father and the son must have been smooth talkers. The police had to accept the situation. They had done what they could. Parental rights and all that.

BUT that father knew his kid had issues. He and the meth head mother had wrecked their offspring. (I think I read that the kid changed schools after that -- but I need to fact-check myself on that part.)

THEN came Christmas '23. And what does this pos father give his mentally messed up, young teenage son? AN ASSAULT WEAPON! And that 14 year-old took his Christmas present and killed those innocent people.

Connect the dots.

The father in this case must be held accountable.

I don't know what the charges should be. But there needs to be some serious prison time for the father. Stupid denial and neglect and stoking the kid's mental issues by giving him a Christmas present designed for fast killing. Not exactly a Norman Rockwell Christmas card image is it.

As I read this thread and saw the weird false equivalence pattern emerging, I had to wonder where this apples to oranges leap is coming from. It smells like one of those diversionary tactics that are so prevalently spewed from sources that bank on the susceptibility of those who fall for constant and well-planned distraction from the real issues.

Why is it so easy for some people to check their critical thinking skills at the door to their screen of choice and get all caught up in ridiculous "Yeah, Buts" that make no sense? Nobody is going to hold all parents responsible for what their kids do. But this time, it is a clear connection to the murders.

Boomer

[Boomer]

Geez. There is a pattern in this thread indicating that because this monstrous idiot of a father has been hauled in, some here are convinced parents could be held responsible for everything terrible their spawn does.

That is a ridiculous extrapolation, a false equivalency, apples to oranges.

Why?

In May of '23 the kid was accused of making threats to shoot up a school. The police followed through and talked to the kid and his father.

The kid lied and said he would never make such threats, even as a joke.

The father said he had hunting guns but they were kept locked up. Lots of people have locked up guns for hunting, so this was not an unusual statement. The kid lied and the father's answer was within what a responsible gun owner might own and have locked up. Both the father and the son must have been smooth talkers. The police had to accept the situation. They had done what they could. Parental rights and all that.

BUT that father knew his kid had issues. He and the meth head mother had wrecked their offspring. (I think I read that the kid changed schools after that -- but I need to fact-check myself on that part.)

THEN came Christmas '23. And what does this pos father give his mentally messed up son? AN ASSAULT WEAPON! And that 14 year-old took his Christmas present and killed those innocent people.

Connect the dots.

The father in this case must be held accountable.

I don't know what the charges should be. But there needs to be some serious prison time for the father. Stupid denial and neglect and stoking the kid's mental issues by giving him a Christmas present designed for fast killing. Not exactly a Norman Rockwell Christmas card image is it.

As I read this thread and saw the weird false equivalence pattern emerging, I had to wonder where this apples to oranges leap is coming from. It smells like one of those diversionary tactics that are so prevalently spewed from sources that bank on the susceptibility of those who fall for constant and well-planned distraction from the real issues.

Why is it so easy for some people to check their critical thinking skills at the door to their screen of choice and get all caught up in ridiculous "Yeah, Buts" that make no sense? Nobody is going to hold all parents responsible for what their kids do. But this time, it is a clear connection to the murders.

Boomer

[TheWatcher]

I would just point out that thousands of murders with firearms are committed every day by teens, and the parents are almost never charged with any crime. There should be a more consistent application of the laws.

From the CDC most recent data:

"The overall increase in U.S. gun deaths since the beginning of the pandemic includes an especially stark rise in such fatalities among children and teens under the age of 18. Gun deaths among children and teens rose 50% in just two years, from 1,732 in 2019 to 2,590 in 2021."

54% of overall US gun deaths are from suicide.

Here is the over incidence of shootings for US population:

U.S. gun suicide and gun murder rates reached near-record highs in 2021 | Pew Research Center (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ft_23-04-20_gundeathsupdate_3-png)

"Older children and teens are much more likely than younger kids to be killed in gun-related incidents. Those ages 12 to 17 accounted for 86% of all gun deaths among children and teens in 2021, while those 6 to 11 accounted for 7% of the total, as did those 5 and under. Still, there were 179 gun deaths among children ages 6 to 11 and 184 among those 5 and under in 2021."

(There is a correction acknowleged but it helps to know the statistics)

[FredMitchell]

Raise of hands. Who here knows their child is bat sheet crazy and will be a school shooter?
Exactly…
Now on the other hand, a vast majority of these school shooters are “TRANSGENDER”.
And what is being totally pushed, in schools?
Don’t get me started.

To avoid "Liar liar pants on fire" fact check, support this seemingly absurd statement with evidence.

[MaryMS]

If it’s your child, grandchild, or spouse that is murdered, your opinion is likely to change about owning military style weapons.

[dsgreen3]

Excellent point. Charging the parents of gangbangers would go a long way to reducing inner city violence.

Many cities have chosen the alternate option: charge and prosecute no one. How's that working?

Many "gangbangers" don't know who their daddy is!

[FredMitchell]

If it’s your child, grandchild, or spouse that is murdered, your opinion is likely to change about owning military style weapons.

Off topic^ Reread the title of the post.

Also very shallow thinking. Spouse murdered in vehicular homicide - outlaw guns?, cars? Murdered by knife. guns or knifes? Murdered with single shot shotgun, military style weapons?

Weak conclusion due to shallow thought process.

[manaboutown]

If it’s your child, grandchild, or spouse that is murdered, your opinion is likely to change about owning military style weapons.

That is a non sequitur as you failed to mention a murder weapon. In the proposed case what was used to commit the murder? It might or might not be a "military style" weapon whatever that is.

What if someone close to me was murdered by a vehicle, knife, ax, hammer, arrow from a bow or crossbow, a rock from a sling, suffocation with a plastic garbage bag or even a chainsaw? How would that change my opinion about owning one of them? It might or it might not. If a steak knife was used should I not use one to cut my steak?

[Marine1974]

Although i agree with this, it is also becoming dangerous to our 2nd amendment, if they start holding gun manufactures liable as well.
They are chipping away of our rights as legal gun owners!
An AR -15 although not fully automatic, should not be sold to civilians. It purpose is for mass killings. The manufacturers should be banned from selling weapons like these and banned from making anymore ammunition. There are plenty of other weapons to choose from
that will satisfy your rights . How much more slaughter of innocent children can you endure ? Only
My opinion as a former US Marine trained as a lethal tool .

[Bonanza]

Finally, irresponsible parent(s) are being held liable and charged. Hopefully this may affect these horrible shootings by troubled kids.

BTW Dr Phil had a wonderful episode on this topic. He, and other leaders may have an impact to alleviate these shootings. His stats show that 94% of these shooters had told other students or posted their plans.

Word has a way of getting around in school of the kids who talk or brag about hate crimes, weapons, killings, etc.
It's time for the kids who hear these things, true or not, to report them to law enforcement or at least their parents.
Somewhere down the line, there has to be some type of follow up which is not an easy thing to do.

The slogan "If you hear something, say something" applies to children, also.

[fdpaq0580]

Raise of hands. Who here knows their child is bat sheet crazy and will be a school shooter?
Exactly…
Now on the other hand, a vast majority of these school shooters are “TRANSGENDER”.
And what is being totally pushed, in schools? From a young age. Lest we forget that some are wanting tampons available in the boys bathrooms.
Seems to me this social excercise in WTF is being manufactured by something we can’t talk about on here.
Don’t get me started.

Too late! You've self started.

[Marine1974]

I agree and you can’t let a 14 year old
who murders in cold blood should never be let out in society to repeat .

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Everyone has their "opinion" even if it might be distorted. Interesting how someone can take a very simple quote and bend it to fit their agenda. Since this thread is NOT about religion or the 2nd Amendment, I am not going to argue the Bible or how one allows their opinion to be presented as fact.
The subject is a reflection on the perpetrator's father being held responsible for his son's actions.
I believe (my humble opinion) that making the parent's responsible for the child's actions, merely tells the child that it's not his/her fault, but the parent's fault. If a child is charged with adult violations, ie. charges with murder and tried as an adult, then the parents should not be held responsible. Even if they ARE held responsible, it should be of a lesser violations, such as child neglect or maybe even contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Unless there is a conspiracy where the parent is involved in such heinous act perpetrated, the parent is not guilty of the principle charge, such as murder.

The parent isn't being held responsible for the child's actions. The parent is being held responsible for their own actions, which created the opportunity for the child to commit the crime. The child is also being held responsible for his own actions and will be tried as an adult.

The child was 14 years old. He should not have had access to any firearm, and at age 14 his parents ARE responsible for their children, 24/7. Colin Grey, the father, KNOWINGLY allowed his son to possess a gun.

This is only the second time in the history of this country that a parent was charged in connection with a crime committed by their minor child.

Colt Gray, the kid, was charged with 4 counts of murder. Colin Gray, the father, was charged with involuntary manslaughter and 2nd degree murder. So yes - the father is being charged with lesser crimes. Dad put the gun in the kid's hand. The kid pulled the trigger. All is as it should be, with regards to who is being charged for what.

When it's your own grandchild who dies, would you prefer thoughts first, or prayers first? Or - will you want to punish the father who admitted to giving his 14-year-old kid a semi-automatic weapon AND the 14-year-old kid who chose to use it to kill your grandchild?

[fdpaq0580]

Many "gangbangers" don't know who their daddy is!

Daddy may be a gangsta also. Or not.

[fdpaq0580]

General George Patton wore either Colt 45 or SW 357 revolvers during war. That was good enough for him. Should be more than enough fire power for any gun loving civilian, imho.

[Aces4]

General George Patton wore either Colt 45 or SW 357 revolvers during war. That was good enough for him. Should be more than enough fire power for any gun loving civilian, imho.

Righttt! Would you volunteer, please, to inform all the criminals, gang members and so forth that they are limited to weapons used by George Patton in the 1930's and 1940's?:clap2:

[fdpaq0580]

Off topic^ Reread the title of the post.

Also very shallow thinking. Spouse murdered in vehicular homicide - outlaw guns?, cars? Murdered by knife. guns or knifes? Murdered with single shot shotgun, military style weapons?

Weak conclusion due to shallow thought process.

Likely an emotional response rather than logical, fact based.

[Aces4]

The parent isn't being held responsible for the child's actions. The parent is being held responsible for their own actions, which created the opportunity for the child to commit the crime. The child is also being held responsible for his own actions and will be tried as an adult.

The child was 14 years old. He should not have had access to any firearm, and at age 14 his parents ARE responsible for their children, 24/7. Colin Grey, the father, KNOWINGLY allowed his son to possess a gun.

This is only the second time in the history of this country that a parent was charged in connection with a crime committed by their minor child.

Colt Gray, the kid, was charged with 4 counts of murder. Colin Gray, the father, was charged with involuntary manslaughter and 2nd degree murder. So yes - the father is being charged with lesser crimes. Dad put the gun in the kid's hand. The kid pulled the trigger. All is as it should be, with regards to who is being charged for what.

When it's your own grandchild who dies, would you prefer thoughts first, or prayers first? Or - will you want to punish the father who admitted to giving his 14-year-old kid a semi-automatic weapon AND the 14-year-old kid who chose to use it to kill your grandchild?

I would like an end to bullying and for mental health care and facilities provided to the mentally ill and children removed from homes where care is minimal and caretakers are drug addicted and demented. Let us use the financial resources of this country for it's people first.

The anti-faith jabs are getting very annoying.

[nn0wheremann]

2nd Amendment says right to a well armed militia and not the individual's right to own military style weapons.
The second amendment specifies the necessity of a well REGULATED militia, not a well armed militia. the amendment also specifies a means to that regulation of the militia, in that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[fdpaq0580]

To avoid "Liar liar pants on fire" fact check, support this seemingly absurd statement with evidence.

3 transgender and 1 non-binary in the last several years. Or, about 1.3% of mass shooters. Hardly an epidemic.
LGBTQ... haters propaganda. Yes! Propaganda, or lies, if you prefer.

[Pugchief]

Many "gangbangers" don't know who their daddy is!

True, but the threat of putting Momma in prison over their action would be quite a deterrent. Gangbangers assume they will be dead or in prison by 30, so they don't care. But if the penalty was their beloved mother serving 10 years, they would think twice prior to committing a felony.

[Topspinmo]

Absolutely. The reason that kids under 18 cannot PURCHASE firearms is because (IMO) the law believes that they haven't yet developed, or have been taught, the sense of responsibility to OWN (or at least to have unfettered access to) firearms.

Unfortunately firearm possession and handling is far from the only area that irresponsible parenting is causing others to suffer from that irresponsibility.

Noways it should be 30. The warped brains can’t get off iPhone games long enough to make intelligent decisions. :duck:

[Topspinmo]

True, but the threat of putting Momma in prison over their action would be quite a deterrent. Gangbangers assume they will be dead or in prison by 30, so they don't care. But if the penalty was their beloved mother serving 10 years, they would think twice prior to committing a felony.

Who kidding they’re not going to prison.

[Topspinmo]

I would like an end to bullying and for mental health care and facilities provided to the mentally ill and children removed from homes where care is minimal and caretakers are drug addicted and demented. Let us use the financial resources of this country for it's people first.

The anti-faith jabs are getting very annoying.

Then have to take them away for half the parents.

[Topspinmo]

General George Patton wore either Colt 45 or SW 357 revolvers during war. That was good enough for him. Should be more than enough fire power for any gun loving civilian, imho.

That’s cause there was no Tec 9s

[blueash]

This evening we have an ongoing situation on I-75 where a person is randomly shooting at cars. Person of interest is a white male in his 30s who today bought an AR 15 and 2000 rounds of ammo. Only in America. Thank you Clarence Thomas, Thank you Federalist Society, Thank you NRA. Thoughts and prayers for everybody. A hunting gun, for hunting humans.

[fdpaq0580]

That’s cause there was no Tec 9s

George had his choice of everything that was available. He chose what he chose and I see no reason to guess he would have traded his faves in for a Tec9.
Now, my weapons of choice is water balloons. I like the squishy feel of them. 🙂🙃🫠😉

[Aces4]

This evening we have an ongoing situation on I-75 where a person is randomly shooting at cars. Person of interest is a white male in his 30s who today bought an AR 15 and 2000 rounds of ammo. Only in America. Thank you Clarence Thomas, Thank you Federalist Society, Thank you NRA. Thoughts and prayers for everybody. A hunting gun, for hunting humans.

But you have no thoughts for the people in those apartments in Colorado where armed gang members were breaking in doors... Disarm the decent members of society so the evil ones can have their way. And not one word about the untreated mentally ill in this nation. I guess that is picking your battles..

[Vickim]

Finally, irresponsible parent(s) are being held liable and charged. Hopefully this may affect these horrible shootings by troubled kids.

BTW Dr Phil had a wonderful episode on this topic. He, and other leaders may have an impact to alleviate these shootings. His stats show that 94% of these shooters had told other students or posted their plans.

Is that also going to include the parents in Chicago and Baltimore &DC ? or we doing selective prosecutions? If so, we are going to need to build more prisons. While I don’t disagree with it I’m afraid the gun isn’t the problem as more people die from hands, fist and feet than guns according to FBI. Honestly , I am sick and tired of the FBI dropping the ball. This kid was allowed to deny he posted anything about a shooting and they let it go without monitoring him or getting psychological help ! The aunt stated the kid had reached out to every adult in his life and the neighbors said there was neglect and abuse, “kids locked out of house crying to get in” and a drug addicted mother.
I thought the schools were suppose to be picking up on abuse “ first line of defense” when a child comes to school dirty, hungry and obviously not looked after???
Seems like everyone of these “someone should have said something” because the SEE something was glaring! ALL the adults in this kids life failed AGAIN ! Probably too busy on their phones !

[DeLunatics]

General George Patton wore either Colt 45 or SW 357 revolvers during war. That was good enough for him. Should be more than enough fire power for any gun loving civilian, imho.



I mean, you understand, that he had an armored division at his command, right?

[Byte1]

An AR -15 although not fully automatic, should not be sold to civilians. It purpose is for mass killings. The manufacturers should be banned from selling weapons like these and banned from making anymore ammunition. There are plenty of other weapons to choose from
that will satisfy your rights . How much more slaughter of innocent children can you endure ? Only
My opinion as a former US Marine trained as a lethal tool .

I am also a former USMC, but I know the difference between an "assault weapon" and other weapons. I also know the difference between an "automatic weapon" and a semi-automatic weapon. According to the ignorant (uninformed) citizenry, anything that "LOOKS" like a military weapon, must be deemed a military weapon. Apparently, some folks feel that citizens should only be able to own muzzle loading, cap and ball and flintlock guns, since that is all the founders of the Constitution had. Of course, those were the original "assault weapons" but some uninformed folks don't take that into consideration.
Of course, any subject that is related to violence in America must be diverted to the anti-gun argument. The OP did not suggest that this is a 2nd Amendment situation. The OP mentioned that the parent of a violent juvenile is being charged with a felony due to the actions of his son. If the son had used a knife, ax or baseball bat and the father was charged, would there still be a debate regarding what the weapon "looked like?"
By the way, I have a 22cal semi-automatic rifle that resembles a military rifle. I enjoy shooting paper targets with it. Perhaps, my rifle should be banned because someone might get scared because it is a "military style" weapon? It was originally a standard, wood stock rifle that I converted with a plastic stock. It still operates exactly like it did before, but just looks different. The other day, I saw a golf cart that looked like on old WWII army jeep. Did that make it a "military style" vehicle? When someone says "well, you don't NEED a semi-auto weapon" it makes me wonder if they also tell people that they "don't need that high performance auto" or you don't need that big screen TV. Just because one does not "need" something, doesn't mean that it should be banned. Like someone else said, just because a parent is negligent or has poor parenting skills, does not mean that all parents with juvenile delinquents are bad parents and charged with felonies.
Everyone has an opinion and this is mine as a "former Marine."