Read where they arrested the guys dad.

MMm ok.

Not a huge fan of law enforcement lashing out and arresting people willy-nilly

But, we'll see.

He's a big anti-gun liberal.

Danimal said:

---

Dad charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter, two counts of second degree murder and eight counts of cruelty to children.

Well deserved. Don't glorify guns around kids. And if the reporting is accurate that he bought his kid this gun and ignored some troubling signs, hope all the charges stick.

---

Do you feel the same about parents glorifying gang life?

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Read where they arrested the guys dad.

MMm ok.

Not a huge fan of law enforcement lashing out and arresting people willy-nilly

But, we'll see.

---

He bought his kid, a child questioned by law enforcement for making threats against his school, a gun for Christmas.

Not exactly willy-nilly. More like a solid arrest of a complete moron.

Old May Banker said:

---

Holding parents responsible can be quite the slippery slope. If this was a teenage gang banger in Chicago you'd feel the same?

---

If it could be proven that a Chicago parent had knowledge their kid was in possession of an illegal firearm and then that kid goes on to commit a crime with it, I'd have no problem with that parent being held responsible to some degree.

The extended family reported this kid was struggling with major mental health issues. The kid and family were questioned about threats to shoot up a school last year. Dad proceeds to buy kid an AR15 and fails to keep it locked away.

"Gang life" doesn't mean anything to me.

If a parent is promoting criminal behaviors though, and/or supplying the weapons or means to commit the crimes, then yes, I feel the parent should be held accountable.

lol. Guess you live a sheltered life if you don't understand gang life. Not shocked.

They ever end up arresting the dad in the Trump case?

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Read where they arrested the guys dad.

MMm ok.

Not a huge fan of law enforcement lashing out and arresting people willy-nilly

But, we'll see.

---

I was wondering if this would happen. Just like those Michigan parents who got arrested and then were convicted.

It isn't 'Willy nilly' He had a minor son who had known mental health issues, had been questioned in the past by law enforcement for making violent threats, and if he then goes out and buys that son a gun, doesn't make damn sure it is always secure, and the son shoots up his school killing people with the gun….well….you can certainly argue law enforcement has some cause to charge for criminal negligence.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

They ever end up arresting the dad in the Trump case?

---

No, and probably not unless they can show they knew his kid was going to try to kill Trump.

His son was an adult and legally allowed to possess a gun which is the big difference with the Collin Gray. He gave a mentally unstable child a semi-automatic rifle and allowed him unrestricted access to it.

What I don't understand is why an adult would think any kid (regardless of mental health) who just turned 14 should own an AR-15. I don't understand the logic.

backintexas2013 said:

---

lol. Guess you live a sheltered life if you don't understand gang life. Not shocked.

---

No I just don't play semantics. Getting me to make a judgment on something subjective is not gonna happen. That's why this country is so effed up right now. Red team uses memes to hate the blue team. And vice versa. We need to talk about specifics. That's all. And for the record, I've heard gunshots in the middle of the night and seen dead bodies on the street. Not sheltered in the least.

My kids owned them and didn't shoot anyone...

https://nypost.com/2024/09/05/us-news/georgia-school-shooting-suspect-colt-grays-broken-family/

Messed up "family"

AtticusMatlock said:

---

What I don't understand is why an adult would think any kid (regardless of mental health) who just turned 14 should own an AR-15. I don't understand the logic.

---

I owned a M1A at 13 and an AR at 16.

And FTR, I'm not excusing this dad's ****ty parenting as much as not wanting to allow the government to decide what's excusable / inexcusable ****ty parenting.

AtticusMatlock said:

---

What I don't understand is why an adult would think any kid (regardless of mental health) who just turned 14 should own an AR-15. I don't understand the logic.

---

Nothing wrong with a kid "owning" an AR-15, but he or she should never have unrestricted access to it.

It should remain locked up and only be given to the kid when mom or dad is taking him to the range to shoot it, or to clean it.

And not just because of the remotely slim chance of a school shooting, but because kids do dumb things, and all it would take is a split second for an innocent but bad decision to result in a tragedy.

If you have a minor kid who is mentally depressed and exhibiting clear signs of being a sociopath and thinking about shooting people…for example the cops had to bring you in for questioning about threats your kid made, or as in the Michigan case, the school asked you to come in because of violent drawings made by your kid…

At least wait until he's 18 before you buy your psychopath a gun. Unless the idea of yourself also being in jail appeals to you.

Quote:

---

What I don't understand is why an adult would think any kid (regardless of mental health) who just turned 14 should own an AR-15. I don't understand the logic.

---

Do you want them to learn about responsible gun ownership while they are in your house and under your supervision or when they are 18/19 and out of the house?

Now do a car that a 16 year old driver uses to run over someone. Or a parental provided cell phone they use to line up the commission of a rape or murder. Where do you allow the government to draw the line?

Keeping guns locked up around a 14 year old with mental health issues is responsible gun ownership. You don't teach your kid responsible gun ownerships by displaying irresponsible gun ownership.

sam callahan said:

---

Quote:

---

What I don't understand is why an adult would think any kid (regardless of mental health) who just turned 14 should own an AR-15. I don't understand the logic.

---

Do you want them to learn about responsible gun ownership while they are in your house and under your supervision or when they are 18/19 and out of the house?

---

If you have a minor who is a heavy drinker, do you give him the car keys to your car so he can learn how to drive drunk 'under your supervision'?

I really don't understand some folk's gun obsessed thought process. If you have a kid with clear signs of mental illness then that is the key thing to be focused on as a parent. Not guns.

I think this shit is crazy because its never applied to underage black gang members who kill far more people. https://t.co/SCBXuYzXYY

— Paul (@WomanDefiner) September 6, 2024

So we should expect this to start happening to parents of black or Hispanic gang members who murder people right?

Oh right, this will only happen to whites.

No I'm not defending the family or the kid just pointing out how this will never be applied equally.

You said regardless of mental health. I had access to guns since age 8. My grandfather made sure that I was taught responsible operation and ownership.

I am quite proficient with firearms to this day and earned a living with one until my late 30s.

I have done the same with my two children.

Quote:

---

If you have a minor who is a heavy drinker, do you give him the car keys to your car so he can learn how to drive drunk 'under your supervision'?

---

No. Terrible analogy. And if you don't see that, no one can explain it to you.

(And you said regardless of mental state. I was explaining why I would with a mentally stable kid. Not that you want a rational discussion)

Old May Banker said:

---

Now do a car that a 16 year old driver uses to run over someone. Or a parental provided cell phone they use to line up the commission of a rape or murder. Where do you allow the government to draw the line?

---

The possible 'car driving' analogy here is minor kid has been drinking alcohol that dad bought for him at home, dad is home and knows his son has been drinking, and then dad hands kid the car keys to his car and kid goes out intoxicated and kills someone.

Yes, that dad would be also f***-ed.

sam callahan said:

---

Quote:

---

If you have a minor who is a heavy drinker, do you give him the car keys to your car so he can learn how to drive drunk 'under your supervision'?

---

No. Terrible analogy. And if you don't see that, no one can explain it to you.

(And you said regardless of mental state. I was explaining why I would with a mentally stable kid. Not that you want a rational discussion)

---

You may have confused me with another post then. I don't remember saying anything about 'regardless of mental state'.

If you have a mentally stable kid who hasn't been showing signs he wants to shoot people, then sure. Supervised gun ownership is okay.

But if you have a mentally unstable kid who is showing signs of being violent, and that is clearly known to you, and you still for some reason think sticking a gun in his hand is a good idea, I got no problem with you getting criminally charged if your son kills someone. If charging those sort of parents reduces school shootings by even one incident because a parent got the message and made a better decision…it's worth it in my opinion.

So is the kid gonna be tried as an adult?

Old May Banker said:

---

So is the kid gonna be tried as an adult?

---

Looks like it. But so was the kid in Michigan whose parents are also now in jail for manslaughter.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Old May Banker said:

---

Now do a car that a 16 year old driver uses to run over someone. Or a parental provided cell phone they use to line up the commission of a rape or murder. Where do you allow the government to draw the line?

---

The possible 'car driving' analogy here is minor kid has been drinking alcohol that dad bought for him at home, dad is home and knows his son has been drinking, and then dad hands kid the car keys to his car and kid goes out intoxicated and kills someone.

Yes, that dad would be also f***-ed.

---

No... let's stick with mental issues. If a kid with mental issues used a car to run over someone, should the parent that bought it face murder charges?

BlueSmoke said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

Some of the early details on this make it seem less like a planned mass shooting and more of a dispute of some kind. Shooter being alive probably the biggest one.

---

I'll take "gang violence for a $1,000, Alex"

---

nope

Pumpkinhead said:

---

sam callahan said:

---

Quote:

---

If you have a minor who is a heavy drinker, do you give him the car keys to your car so he can learn how to drive drunk 'under your supervision'?

---

No. Terrible analogy. And if you don't see that, no one can explain it to you.

(And you said regardless of mental state. I was explaining why I would with a mentally stable kid. Not that you want a rational discussion)

---

You may have confused me with another post then. I don't remember saying anything about 'regardless of mental state'.

If you have a mentally stable kid who hasn't been showing signs he wants to shoot people, then sure. Supervised gun ownership is okay.

But if you have a mentally unstable kid who is showing signs of being violent, and that is clearly known to you, and you still for some reason think sticking a gun in his hand is a good idea, I got no problem with you getting criminally charged if your son kills someone. If charging those sort of parents reduces school shootings by even one incident because a parent got the message and made a better decision…it's worth it in my opinion.

---

You did say regardless of mental health and then edited.

Old May Banker said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Old May Banker said:

---

Now do a car that a 16 year old driver uses to run over someone. Or a parental provided cell phone they use to line up the commission of a rape or murder. Where do you allow the government to draw the line?

---

The possible 'car driving' analogy here is minor kid has been drinking alcohol that dad bought for him at home, dad is home and knows his son has been drinking, and then dad hands kid the car keys to his car and kid goes out intoxicated and kills someone.

Yes, that dad would be also f***-ed.

---

No... let's stick with mental issues. If a kid with mental issues used a car to run over someone, should the parent that bought it face murder charges?

---

Mental issues whereby the kid has been specifically making threats that he wants to kill classmates by running over them with a car, and then you buy him a car and he does what he had been threatening to do? Yep, I am probably okay with manslaughter charges.

You are right. It was another poster. But it was quoted in my post that you took issue with.

We agree - buying a gun or allowing access to a gun for a kid that has exhibited mental instability or violent tendencies is clearly negligent.

And we appear to agree that mentally healthy kids can reasonably be given supervised/monitored access.

The latter being the point of my post that you took issue with.

E Pluribus Unum