Gun control

lol you'd have to tie up your child until the age of 18 for that to work. The nuance is obvious - teenagers have enough independent agency to get into all kinds of trouble no matter how you parent them.

I really don’t get why it’s so difficult to believe that the dad should be punished while still recognizing that not every parent should be held liable for their kid’s actions. Both can be true at the same time and should be obvious.

It probably isn't difficult to believe that, it's just not my opinion.

It also "works" if you don't have children, which is my preference.

They say it takes a village. So when someone commits a crime, we should nuke their hometown from orbit.

There use to be a legal concept that an intervening criminal act cut off any responsibility for negligence of the non-actor, ie, the store owner wasn’t responsible if its employee assaults someone, if the assault wasn’t related to the employee’s job duties.

Most criminal acts require intent. , I don’t agree with prosecuting the kids father for negligence when the kid engages in criminal conduct- it an example for me of a society that is failing when instead of holding the one true party responsible we spread the blame among a larger group of people.

Responsible gun owners should securely store their guns so children cannot get a hold of them unsupervised.

So crim8nal charges against the owner are appropriate every time a child uses a gun unsupervised?

It would depend on state law but I think it's reasonable for states to have minimum requirements of how to securely store your guns. If it can be proven your gun wasn't stored correctly and it was used in a crime whether your kid or a thief, you should be eligible to have charges brought against you.

You may be taking it one step too far, but you bring up a great point which is if we are going to punish parents for a child's crime why stop there? Shouldn't we also punish other potential role models the kid looks up to like older siblings, grandparents, stepparents, uncles/aunts, neighbor, teacher or maybe an athlete the kid looks up to?

And why stop punishing parents when the kid turns 18 - shouldn't we also throw these people in the slammer if the person kills someone when they are 50 years old too?

So you want to punish the victim of theft? What if you leave your car keys on the counter and your teen takes your car and hit and run kills someone?

so how young before the parent does hold responsibly for their kids actions? 16? 14? 10? 5? never?

oh wait...we've already drawn that line. it is 18. if you don't like it, change that law.

lol ****ing idiot MAGA'Ts

also....I own more guns than you.

When I heard the news I wondered about the jury findings.

Per ABC:

Prosecutors accused Colin Gray of ignoring warning signs of his son's potential violence and allowing him access to the high-capacity weapon used at Apalachee High School. The panel in Barrow County found Colin Gray, 55, guilty of all charges, which included second-degree murder and cruelty to children, in connection with the Sept. 4, 2024, mass shooting at Apalachee High School in Winder. His son, Colt Gray, is charged with the shooting itself.

Per Justia:

Second-degree murder in Georgia is defined as causing the death of another person while committing second-degree cruelty to children. This type of murder does not require proof of malice, which distinguishes it from other murder charges.

In Georgia, cruelty to children is defined under O.C.G.A. § 16-5-70. The law categorizes this offense into three degrees, each addressing different types of conduct and levels of intent.
Degrees of Cruelty to Children
DEGREE DEFINITION PENALTIES
First Degree - Willfully depriving a child under 18 of necessary sustenance, jeopardizing their health or well-being. - Maliciously causing cruel or excessive physical or mental pain. - Imprisonment for 5 to 20 years.
Second Degree - Causing a child under 18 cruel or excessive physical or mental pain through criminal negligence. - Imprisonment for 1 to 10 years.
Third Degree - Intentionally allowing a child under 18 to witness a forcible felony or battery. - Committing a forcible felony in the presence of a child.

I don’t see the nexus between the argument and the legal finding of child cruelty here but do understand the emotional need to hold as many people as possible responsible for such a tragedy.

Basically 25 states (all red) don't have any laws about Safe Firearm Storage (SFS) or Child Access Prevention (CAP). There is only 1 state (VA) that has a SFS but no CAP law. 16 states have CAP only. And 10 states have both, including MI which is where the first conviction of a parent happened. [URL="https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/safe-firearm-storage/state-laws"]Here is an article that shows the map of all states and the gun laws
[/URL]

The problem in this case is that GA does not have any laws about the storage of guns. So its not about breaking a law that helps prevent school shootings.

What happened here is that the mother realized that her son was potentially going to murder people. Possibly because he was being bullied in school. But also possibly because her son had a picture of a prior school shooter on a wall in his bedroom. The mother pleaded with the father to restrict the AK-47 he owned from access to their son. And the father didn't do it because as he said under oath, he didn't believe his son was going to kill anybody.

The fact that a jury in a state that has no gun laws regarding restricting access to children, all believed that the father was negligent in how he handled this, is about preventing future school shootings of innocent children and teachers in GA (and potentially the other 24 red states that have no gun laws). It may also come into play that the 14 year old shooter here did not kill himself after killing 4 people in the school. If he had killed himself then the jury might not have been unanimous since the father would already be suffering for the rest of his life. But here the father raised a murderer and gave him access to a semi-automatic rifle. So no contest.

I doubt the SFS laws have anything to do with thieves. Because typically a thief who steals a gun could get a gun from anywhere. And if the theft occurred in the home and the gun was used to kill the homeowner or family member(s) then it would be tragic and unlikely the gun owner would end up being prosecuted.

Holding a parent responsible for murder for not seeing warning signs sounds a little too far but it must have been pretty blatant in this case as the jury only took 2hrs to deliberate.

Is kids stealing their parent's car and killing someone in a hit and run a problem in America? I'd argue school shootings are an issue and since gun control seems to be off the table why not have gun owners do at least the bare minimum to keep their guns out of their kid's hands?

What must have been pretty blatant?

Motor vehicles and guns kill about the same number of people each day in the us.

I would think cars should be much more, isn't it like 50,000 a year?
But we're taking about the comparison to kids taking their parents car keys and causing fatalities vs getting their parents guns and I'd think it'd be fair to add on the kids accidentally killing themselves with the guns.

That the parents ignored the warning signs their kid was showing.

So is it different if its their car that they co signed with a parent and they took it to school and hit someone because they were looking at their phone?

California has laws stating exactly that.

Are there pics of these kids holding the warning signs that the parents saw?

From the article:
"Prosecutors accused Colin Gray of ignoring warning signs of his son's potential violence and allowing him access to the high-capacity weapon used at Apalachee High School."

It's the first I've heard of blaming the parents for not seeing warning signs but the article mentions an earlier case in Michigan. I'm advocating for laws to make sure parents or really anyone in general to store their firearms securely, not report their kid because they are having a bad day or having a rough time at school.

I apologize, I skimmed and thought you were backing chillrobs legal preferences when he found an opening to punish people he hates. The guy looks to be found guilty and I'm pretty confident in my state that if I left a handgun laying around and my kid shot the neighbor, id be doing some serious time.

But obviously in a perfect world, we would treat each situation accordingly instead of some blanket hard line due to personal feels - we have too much of that already and this thread is notorious for that.

I just don’t know the facts well enough but that just sounds likes negligence to me. Not that I am opposed to stricter gun control in general to stop the senseless violence at schools and elsewhere or find it impossible to find a non shooter guilty of some crime given the facts. I heard the guy was facing 70-100+ years in jail for this school shooting, and the shooter hasn’t even been found guilty yet.

I think cars are a good comparison for reasonable restraints on use and ownership because a car is generally the most dangerous piece of machinery most people operate that can injure or kill others. Obviously, in terms of utility, cars have more value than just being used to kill people, yet we don’t require near the same amount of regulation for guns, which only have one purpose.

I have the sneaking suspicion that parents of a gang member who kills someone will never be convicted the same way a school shooters parents may.

we know. it's because you are a piece of ****

Hence why I called you out for setting up a gotcha. Fukk outta here with the indignant routine in your response to my post.

That is almost as moronic as charging the Democratic politicians for the murder of Charlie Kirk because they called our fascist government agents “Nazis”.