Could be very bad for freedom?

[ghosthunter]

My son now 40 had his own shotgun at 10 years old when he completed Hunters Ed.

I let him have the shotgun  in his room hanging on the wall. He did not have access to ammo.
The gun did have trigger lock on it.

He could freely handle in his room as long as obeyed all handling rules.

I was of the belief that if there was no mystery about a firearm and if firearms were normal around the home, that my children would not see them as a object to play with.

One day a 11 year old from the neighborhood was over playing with my son in his room.
I would check on them from time to time. I over heard the visitor ask my son.

“is that a real gun”?

Son-  “yes it’s a 20 ga shotgun and it’s mine”

Visitor- “ Can we handle it”?

Son- “ Nah , let’s play with these  cards “

And that was the end of it. They just moved on and ignored the gun.


The only down side was that my kids were so accustomed to firearms and that I would let them handle anything I had and answer all their questions. That when they became adults they really did not have an interest in firearms. They own them and on occasion hut with me but for the most part just don’t have an interest.

It was easier times than.

[chukardogs]

Boy, if ever there was a time to use, that was then, this is now. I was given my first 22 at around 7 or 8 years old. An old Winchester model 69. The safety was so hard to put on and take off that my father said, when I was physically able to work the safety, I could use it. Took a year or so but eventually every Grouse in the Chiwawa river drainage was scared and headed for the Entiat.
 This specific issue has little or nothing to do with a gun. This was parents that proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt that not everyone should be allowed to breed. With parents like that, of course there were mental health issues. The fact that anyone in the family was given a gun should have been considered a criminal act. I'm sorry, giving a complete and utter fool a loaded gun, should be criminal. The complete and utter fool then giving the gun to a mentally ill kid, well...... In the world we live in today, it's only fitting and fair that society tries to hold the parents responsible for the acts of their kids under a specific age.
 Who else would be responsible, the village?
 

[hdshot]

In this case it’s doesn’t seem like the mom was found guilty of being a bad parent but guilty as a gun owner.  Tragedy is tragedy whether accidental or willful.  So my example of a family member buying a shotgun for me to go hunting is now responsible for even a possible mishap that could cause injury or death. 

After this verdict wouldn’t blame a parent for not letting their kids under 18 hunt alone like I did or with friends without parents with firearms in today’s world. 

[chukardogs]

The jury found her guilty on 4 counts of manslaughter, basically saying she was a co-conspirator in the crime. Not as guilty as the individual that pulled the trigger but not just negligent either.
 If a  parent puts a gun (assault style rifle that the kid asked for) in the hands of a kid that has serious mental issues, that parent should be held responsible. And if it gives other parents pause, so be it, parents should have pause. I gave my step son a 243 when he was old enough to pass his hunting safety course. If I had seen anything that told me he was a threat to himself and/or others, he wouldn't have been given a gun. If some see this situation as a slippery slope, it's a slippery slope that I'm willing to walk out on to every time. I see society having a bunch of slippery slopes coming and in my mind, a slippery slope is a whole lot better than a cliff. At least with a slippery slope, you may be able to navigate yourself back off. A cliff is a little too permanent for my taste.

[hdshot]

The jury found her guilty on 4 counts of manslaughter, basically saying she was a co-conspirator in the crime. Not as guilty as the individual that pulled the trigger but not just negligent either.
 If a  parent puts a gun (assault style rifle that the kid asked for) in the hands of a kid that has serious mental issues, that parent should be held responsible. And if it gives other parents pause, so be it, parents should have pause. I gave my step son a 243 when he was old enough to pass his hunting safety course. If I had seen anything that told me he was a threat to himself and/or others, he wouldn't have been given a gun. If some see this situation as a slippery slope, it's a slippery slope that I'm willing to walk out on to every time. I see society having a bunch of slippery slopes coming and in my mind, a slippery slope is a whole lot better than a cliff. At least with a slippery slope, you may be able to navigate yourself back off. A cliff is a little too permanent for my taste.

Unfortunately accidents happen to anyone and that is my concern when it comes for gun ownership especially giving or lending to the under 18 crowd. Dead and the law doesn’t care and could be more risky now for owners letting others use their guns. 

Man it just doesn’t stop when it comes towards the threat our shooting sports!
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/leading-house-republican-announces-retirement-congress-privilege-my-life.amp

[chukardogs]

I'll just start this off with an I'm sorry. Am I supposed to believe that the public as a whole couldn't or wouldn't differentiate between a father taking his son and a friend out hunting when an accident happens and a mother going along with her husband giving her mentally ill son, an assault rifle, ammunition and then turning the kid loose to use it to kill four class mates? Really, I guess I haven't gotten that far down the rabbit hole. Don't get me wrong, I'm fully aware that there are whack jobs out there that will use whatever they can to make their points. I guess my thing is so be it, let em? There were nut jobs before, there are nut jobs now and there will be nut jobs in the future. I'm not going to change who I am because there are people that don't like something I do or something I believe. If an argument is worth making today, it's worth making tomorrow and any day afterwards. Just my thoughts......

[baldopepper]

I'll just start this off with an I'm sorry. Am I supposed to believe that the public as a whole couldn't or wouldn't differentiate between a father taking his son and a friend out hunting when an accident happens and a mother going along with her husband giving her mentally ill son, an assault rifle, ammunition and then turning the kid loose to use it to kill four class mates? Really, I guess I haven't gotten that far down the rabbit hole. Don't get me wrong, I'm fully aware that there are whack jobs out there that will use whatever they can to make their points. I guess my thing is so be it, let em? There were nut jobs before, there are nut jobs now and there will be nut jobs in the future. I'm not going to change who I am because there are people that don't like something I do or something I believe. If an argument is worth making today, it's worth making tomorrow and any day afterwards. Just my thoughts......

Just for clarification, it wasn't an assault rifle. He had a sig-saur 9mm handgun.

[jrebel]

I'll just start this off with an I'm sorry. Am I supposed to believe that the public as a whole couldn't or wouldn't differentiate between a father taking his son and a friend out hunting when an accident happens and a mother going along with her husband giving her mentally ill son, an assault rifle, ammunition and then turning the kid loose to use it to kill four class mates? Really, I guess I haven't gotten that far down the rabbit hole. Don't get me wrong, I'm fully aware that there are whack jobs out there that will use whatever they can to make their points. I guess my thing is so be it, let em? There were nut jobs before, there are nut jobs now and there will be nut jobs in the future. I'm not going to change who I am because there are people that don't like something I do or something I believe. If an argument is worth making today, it's worth making tomorrow and any day afterwards. Just my thoughts......

This is the same argument I made very early on in.  I can't draw any similarities in the two scenarios.  I won't accept the notion that deadbeat parents that make bad decisions set precedent for good parents the do everything right and an accident occurs.  Apples to Oranges and you can't change my mind.  Intent to commit a crime vs. accidental / negligent discharge. 

[WAcoueshunter]

It was easier times than.

It was.  And then Columbine happened, and "going postal", and all the internet and media coverage...and unfortunately now disgruntled young men think it's a good outcome to take a gun to their school and shoot the place up.  I'm 49.  I think back on all the kids I grew up with that had something a little wrong, maybe got picked on some (or a lot)...and in this day and age, would any of them have shot up our school?  That just wasn't on the radar then, but it certainly is now. 

[baldopepper]

So, everytime I read or see news of a kid under 18 (often only 13 or 14)  out at 2-3 in the morning involved  in sometimes terrible crimes I think the parents should be held resonsible. We can't keep guns out these kids hands it seems and we can't keep them off the streets, but their parents can.  Maybe with the thought they might be held criminally responsible maybe some of these parents might keep better aware of what their kids are up to. The parents of this kid, knowing he had behavioral problems, bought him a hand gun and made no real attempt to secure it or limit his access to it. This issue goes beyond just the gun, to me its more about forcing parents (if that's what it takes) to face the responsibilities of being a parent.


 

[Humptulips]

Very slippery slope IMO. This will definitely be used against gun owners. It will because there is a search on for something now that they have lost at SCOTUS on 2nd amendment cases. I don't see what stops them from charging parents of teens that go bad beyond guns either.
Pretty good editorial: https://humanevents.com/2024/02/08/libby-emmons-will-all-parents-of-violent-teens-be-punished-for-their-childrens-actions-or-just-white-moms-who-should-have-known-better

[hdshot]

Shooting sports could die because only law abiding parents will follow the law if parents are responsible.  I just feel the ice has been broken now for much less in the future.

[chukardogs]

If not the parents, who? I totally get the concern, I just don't understand what the other alternatives could or would be. It's just not feasible to think that anyone is going to accept that a kid of 15 years old is solely responsible for his or her own actions when the parents were involved the whole way. I don't necessarily agree in all cases but in this specific situation, it isn't hard to see where the blame lies. I read about the two teenagers in North Seattle recently, 13-15 year olds that stole a car and ran into a couple of pedestrians on purpose. Posted about it on Twitter for fun. Some may think the teenagers are solely responsible, being they stole the car. One glaring problem with that theory. Who's gonna make the two victims that have medical bills and such whole if not the parents of the two teenagers. You shouldn't be able to bring a child into the world if you can't raise and cover whatever it is that child does until they're 18 years old or whatever age society deems them to be an adult. I sure don't want to live in a world where a parent isn't responsible for their child's actions until they're adults.

[metlhead]

Many of you fail to see the attack on parental rights. Some believe that the family unit is being attacked by stripping parental rights. How then can you raise children as you feel is right. Even very good parents who try their best have dbag kids that are uncontrollable. Would they be held liable?

[Humptulips]

If not the parents, who? I totally get the concern, I just don't understand what the other alternatives could or would be. It's just not feasible to think that anyone is going to accept that a kid of 15 years old is solely responsible for his or her own actions when the parents were involved the whole way. I don't necessarily agree in all cases but in this specific situation, it isn't hard to see where the blame lies. I read about the two teenagers in North Seattle recently, 13-15 year olds that stole a car and ran into a couple of pedestrians on purpose. Posted about it on Twitter for fun. Some may think the teenagers are solely responsible, being they stole the car. One glaring problem with that theory. Who's gonna make the two victims that have medical bills and such whole if not the parents of the two teenagers. You shouldn't be able to bring a child into the world if you can't raise and cover whatever it is that child does until they're 18 years old or whatever age society deems them to be an adult. I sure don't want to live in a world where a parent isn't responsible for their child's actions until they're adults.

I might be able to agree with you on civil responsibility. Being held criminally responsible is another thing. Even if you look at the lowest standard of criminal responsibility, negligence, it is easy to say yes looking back but at the time not as clear. If it was so clear than maybe the school officials should be prosecuted too.
The gun grabbers will take this back to the time of purchase and no matter what happens going forward you will be deemed negligent when the gun was purchased even though it might have seemed reasonable at the time. For that matter if your child takes your gun without permission, you were negligent because you didn't have it secured well enough.