Murder By Proxy should be more of a thing. You brought a kid into the world, you have a responsibility towards them at all times. It’s not like these shooters are just straight-up demons seeds, their own mothers and fathers are willingly equipping them with the arsenal.
We haven't passed any significant laws that will prevent these things. Parents can be a moron, and they can buy guns, but they're going to pay the price for being morons with their guns. I think we'll eventually see the desired effects of this, more care, more responsible storage, less violent attacks in schools. It's as good a compromise as gun owners can expect. What prosecutors are doing will reduce school violence, while not affecting the millions of people that already do gun ownership the right and responsible way.
Eh. I'd slow the roll on that shit. If the FBI comes to interview your kid, I'd expect them to tell you how to secure your weapons, to ensure this legal liability is closed. Is that hindsight, or just...like, realistic? Like, if the same kid got busted with liquor, the cops might tell the parents to store their shit differently, or install a camera or something, to prevent this from happening again, no? Teenagers aren't so easily controlled. The question isn't absolute, it's did the parents follow reasonable precautions to keep the kid from accessing a firearm. If there's a gun safe somewhere with a lock smashed to pieces, while the parents were at work...I'd say they did what they could be expected to, and the kid fucked them over. If they had guns laying around like a John Wick meets Weekend at Bernie's bender, off to jail you fucking fuck.
I still can't get over the fact that this kid's parents were contacted by the FBI about violent threats he made, and then they sat down and said "you know what Santa should bring little Timmy this year? An AR-15." Hall of Fame level terrible parenting.
That's the problem I have with the Perry, IA shooting. We still don't know how he accessed the guns. Did he break open a safe, or were they out and the family's influence over the community got it swept under the rug? It's been 8 months, release the fucking information.
This. If there's evidence they took meaningful steps to prevent the kid's access to firearms, this is overreach. Buying the kid an AR-15 after having a chat with the FBI about your kid making threatening online posts doesn't suggest he did. Now that said, I can see a logical line of reasoning where a parent might think agter that; let me get my kid involved in a shooting activity or hunting so the kid can learn safe firearms handling and see first hand what a bullet will do. I know my immediate response after a similiar discussion with LE would be changing the combo to my gun safe, changing the locks on my ammunition locker as well as probably adding trigger locks to every firearm in my house. Depending on how my kid is doing, moving it all out of the house to another secured location is probably my next step.
I see your line of logic, but I can't fathom ever buying a 14 y/o an AR15 style rifle under any circumstance. If you want him to get into shooting, I could see a lever or bolt action rifle. Gives you all the experience of shooting a rifle without the ability to cause max damage in a very short time.
This is a reasonable line of logic for a much younger kid, or a kid who has a much firmer grasp on the consequences of the FBI coming to speak to them. In no way is "Hey, the FBI talked to my kid about school shootings, the best thing to do is teach him more about guns" valid for someone this old. Especially considering the likelihood that the family already had guns and the kid likely knew gun safety, etc. prior to the FBI visit. It'd probably run counter to whatever guidance the agents provided as well. For someone who doesn't own guns, or someone who doesn't permit their kid to be around them, this is unfathomable. Your kid got in hot water with the F fucking B I, not a school principal or some local cop. That should be a very loud and clear signal that the kid knows too much about guns already, and the whole "smoke the whole pack" approach to discipline just doesn't fucking work here.
It's not the "smoke a whole pack" approach, that is not discipline, it's a punishment and yes there's a difference. If anything, it's an attempt to inform the potential serious outcomes to a set of behaviors. A more accurate analogy is the "tour a prison" to educate. How is it not? For some it might be, for others, it's the worst possible idea. The point is, it's a method to apply on a case by case basis. Something society keeps proving itself incapable of doing anymore. The current information is this kid made his comments in an online game forum. If it's something like CoD and that & movies is the only familiarity the kid has with firearms, I can see where somebody may think it's a good idea to take the kid to a range and see just how much damage a bullet can do. The problem is plinking cans & watermelons in the backyard or paper targets at a range don't really do a good job conveying that danger or finality. If your kid is riding a motorcycle dangerously, do you take the bike away? You could, or do you take actions to teach them how to ride better, and ensure they understand the consequences of riding unsafely? It's the same concept. Again, I am not defending giving the kid an AR, and it is not what I would've done (certainly not without multiple methods of securing it), but I can see a reasonable line of logic where the dad thought it would teach not enable. Plus as GTE said, an AR is the last firearm I'd use. If I went that route it's with a bolt action .22lr. I was taught with one, it's what I'll teach my kids with. Oh, and btw, at no time did the F fucking B I visit the kid or his family. The FBI picked up his online statements, and in turn passed them to the local sheriff's office to investigate further. The sheriff's office was unable to substantiate who made the online statements. It is quite possible the officer or detective who made the interview didn't share how they learned of the online posts. For those who think that sheriff's office was derelict in investigating, that isn't an uncommon outcome. You may prove it was typed on a specific computer, but out of eveone that might have access to it...can you prove who typed it?