Pleased that parents may be liable for school shootings
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

Wrong!

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.

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

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.

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

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 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?