Names and pictures of mass killers should never be released...

The names and pictures of mass killers and shooters should never be released. They should stay anonymous. Never give them the sick glory and fame they seek.

What are other ideas you all have to decrease or stop these mass killers.

Better control of who can own a gun.

Militarized ammunition should not be sold to the public.

Parents of underage shooter-killers should also be held responsible and prosecuted. The minor is their responsibility.

Let the FBI control the nationwide database of guns owned, registered, etc.

Gin shows must be held to the same standard as gun shops.

Make any gun not made of metal illegal. With serious prison time for possessing one.

Let's hear your ideas.

Quote by Buz

The names and pictures of mass killers and shooters should never be released. They should stay anonymous. Never give them the sick glory and fame they seek.

What are other ideas you all have to decrease or stop these mass killers.

Better control of who can own a gun.

Militarized ammunition should not be sold to the public.

Parents of underage shooter-killers should also be held responsible and prosecuted. The minor is their responsibility.

Let the FBI control the nationwide database of guns owned, registered, etc.

Gin shows must be held to the same standard as gun shops.

Make any gun not made of metal illegal. With serious prison time for possessing one.

Let's hear your ideas.

I love this idea. I don't know if it's possible, practical, or even legal, but not only shouldn't the name be released, but their social media should also be deleted. Disappear the shooter.

Quote by ElCoco

The sins of the son are visited on the father?

I'm a gun owner. If I didn't secure my guns and my son walked out of the house with a weapon that he later used to kill someone, that's my sin, too.

Quote by AngelEthics

I'm a gun owner. If I didn't secure my guns and my son walked out of the house with a weapon that he later used to kill someone, that's my sin, too.

Yes. Parents should be held responsible.

Quote by ElCoco

That's an interesting line of thought. Should parents be jailed when their children are convicted of robbing stores or other people?

Depends, but they should be investigated to see if they are partially to blame for the crime, committed by the kid they are responsible for.

Quote by ElCoco

If, like the Columbine killers, a son used a weapon not owned by or from his parents, would you still think the same?

Yes. Like noll, I think they should still be investigated. In the case of Dylan Klebold, I suspect the parents would be found to have minimal responsibility. I don't know about Eric Harris; his parents don't really speak about it.

Quote by ElCoco

That's an interesting line of thought. Should parents be jailed when their children are convicted of robbing stores or other people?

Absolutely yes if they use a parent's gun to rob a store.

Quote by ElCoco

If, like the Columbine killers, a son used a weapon not owned by or from his parents, would you still think the same?

The kid is a minor, so the parents have a duty to know, keep watch, and raise them right.

Absolutely hold parents responsible.

Quote by Ironic

If the child isn't under the control of the parent or guardian, then no. There are 17-year-olds here that have been arrested for robbery, assault and B&E. They're in no way "under the control" of their parents. If it's a situation like the one where the boy in Virginia shot his teacher, then yes, since she was irresponsible and left it where her son could get to it.

No! The 17 year old is still a minor under the parents supervision. Parents should do their job or pay the consequences with the child that is violent against other people and a criminal.

Quote by Ironic

I can't agree with you about that. 17-year-olds who have been arrested for assault and battery or breaking and entering or assault with a dangerous weapon are obviously not under the control of their parent or guardian.

If the parent can't control the 17 year old minor, they raised them badly. But they should let law enforcement know the kid is out of control and they can no longer be responsible for them.

If the 17 year old child possesses guns, the parents need to inform police. If they know and do not, they should be held responsible.

By far most 17 year olds still answer to their parents. They are still minors until 18.

Quote by ElCoco

That's an interesting line of thought. Should parents be jailed when their children are convicted of robbing stores or other people?

Underage? Yes. Children under the age of 18 are the parents responsibility. If the parent hasn't tried anything to help the child then the parent and child should suffer the same consequences. A few days for the parent in jail and juvie for the child until they're 18 yrs old. Parents didn't want to do something about it so might as well let the state handle. Yes, taxpayers money, blah blah.

In some states, parents can face fines and prison time if their children are truant. It makes no sense to me that you can hold parents responsible for school absenteeism, but not if your child shoots someone.

Quote by AngelEthics

In some states, parents can face fines and prison time if their children are truant. It makes no sense to me that you can hold parents responsible for school absenteeism, but not if your child shoots someone.

Too true.

Quote by ElCoco

Laws can be weird, that's for sure. A parent can be criminally negligent and face the consequences for that, but I doubt one can be prosecuted as an accessory to armed robbery unless he or she facilitated it.

I think I could make the argument that you facilitated it if you owned a gun, didn't keep it secure, and your child used it to commit a crime.

Quote by ElCoco

What if the parent has tried? How much trying is enough to protect a parent or guardian against being prosecuted for a crime committed by somebody else?

I'd say that's for the court to decide.

Quote by ElCoco

What if the parent has tried? How much trying is enough to protect a parent or guardian against being prosecuted for a crime committed by somebody else?

Quote by noll

I'd say that's for the court to decide.

Yes.

Eventually parents gotta throw in the towel and just forget about kid.

Can you hand these "troubled" children over to state?

--

Thank Dear Lord Satan I'm not a parent cause if my child acted out, oohhh. No police needed.

Quote by ElCoco

See my post to AE above.

Kinda backwards, no?

Quote by ElCoco

Let's see

.

If I owned a gun, and

If I didn't keep it secure, and

If my child used it to commit a crime,

Then an assistant DA could make your argument.

.

And that irresponsible nitwit in Virginia whose son shot the teacher is a good example.

And she's being prosecuted.

.

Let's continue this argument, but tweak it slightly.

If you owned a set of steak knives, and

If you didn't keep it secure, and

If your child used it to commit a crime,

Would you expect to be prosecuted?

No, and here's why. A gun is one of those unique items that is ONLY a weapon. Tons of things can be weapons that are also tools: a car, a knife, a plane, a nail, etc. They don't regulate buying nails even though I can do a bit of damage with one because, usually, it's a tool, like a knife.

So I ask my child, "Why do you need a knife for school today?" He says, "We have a cake for Ms. BlahBlah's birthday/retirement/new baby. I told them I'd bring the knife to cut it."

Now, see if there's any reasonable explanation for: "Where are you going with that gun?"

Quote by Buz

If the 17 year old child possesses guns, the parents need to inform police. If they know and do not, they should be held responsible.

In theory this works, sure, but not in reality. In cases where parents are aware that their children are a threat to society, but they do nothing about it, then yeah, this is feasible. That's why when criminal charges against parents are pursued in this regard, it's successful. But blanketing it in the way you're presenting removes nuance, and once that happens, it runs the risk of it all being done away with, even when it's appropriate. And feeling as if your child is a threat, either to you as the parent or society as a whole, doesn't grant parents any protections from their child, only responsibility when things go awry.

There exists countless cases of parents (mostly mothers) being severely physically assaulted by their teenaged children, and having them arrested and pressing charges and everything, only to be called from the police station and told "Your child is being released. Don't really care if they're a threat to you, but if you don't come get them, you'll be arrested for neglect and/or child abandonment." And in such cases when parents are battered by their own children, the parents face legal repercussions if they defend themselves. It's a no-win situation.

The way I see it, when it's a clear case of overlooking on the parents' part when their children commit violent crimes, including mass shootings, there already exists a precedent for holding parents accountable. But there is no precedent for protecting parents from their violent children. And btw, it's a very outdated way of thinking that parents are the creator of these "monsters." Don't get me wrong, they often are when it comes to abuse/neglect, enabling, and otherwise lack of accountability, but even when these things aren't present and parents do what they're supposed to do, children still end up being whoever they want to be, and making the choices they make.

Quote by ElCoco

You changed the discussion when you introduced the conversation between the parent and the child.

Until then, the parent didn’t know of the child’s action.

.

If the parent doesn’t know that the child took the took (gun or steak knife), and

If the child commits a crime (shooting or stabbing somebody) with something the parent didn’t secure, and

In both cases, the child used something the parent owned and didn't secure as a weapon.

.

If it’s a gun, you expect to be prosecuted.

If it’s a steak knife, you expect you won’t be prosecuted.

.

Correct?

The conversation changes nothing. It just demonstrates what someone could do in court to absolve a parent from responsibility. You can have a reasonable expectation that a knife would be used as a tool. We don't require that people lock up tools. However, the only expectation around guns is that it's going to be used to put a hole in something, be it a target, an animal, or a human.

That's probably why you don't need a background check and a waiting period to buy a steak knife.

So, yes, if you don't secure your weapons, you should be prosecuted if they're used for a crime, because causing destruction is the point of a weapon. If you don't secure your tools, I would say that there's a higher burden of proof needed to implicate the parents.

Quote by Ironic

Weapons are used for defense as well as offense,

What's Fatboy Slims, Weapon of Choice.

Quote by ElCoco

Who else did you have in mind?

Quote by Dani

In theory this works, sure, but not in reality. In cases where parents are aware that their children are a threat to society, but they do nothing about it, then yeah, this is feasible. That's why when criminal charges against parents are pursued in this regard, it's successful. But blanketing it in the way you're presenting removes nuance, and once that happens, it runs the risk of it all being done away with, even when it's appropriate. And feeling as if your child is a threat, either to you as the parent or society as a whole, doesn't grant parents any protections from their child, only responsibility when things go awry.

There exists countless cases of parents (mostly mothers) being severely physically assaulted by their teenaged children, and having them arrested and pressing charges and everything, only to be called from the police station and told "Your child is being released. Don't really care if they're a threat to you, but if you don't come get them, you'll be arrested for neglect and/or child abandonment." And in such cases when parents are battered by their own children, the parents face legal repercussions of they defend themselves. It's a no-win situation.

The way I see it, when it's a clear case of overlooking on the parents' part when their children commit violent crimes, including mass shootings, there already exists a precedent for holding parents accountable. But there is no precedent for protecting parents from their violent children. And btw, it's a very outdated way of thinking that parents are the creator of these "mothnsters." Don't get me wrong, they often are when it comes to abuse/neglect, enabling, and otherwise lack of accountability, but even when these things aren't present and parents do what they're supposed to do, children still end up being whoever they want to be, and making the choices they make.

Those are very good points, Dani. District Attorneys should make any decision to prosecute only on strong evidence of severe neglect, wilful neglect, or parents that encourage violence, promote it, or raised the kid in a violent household, etc

Quote by ElCoco

I disagree with you.

If my example demonstrates what someone could do in court to absolve a parent from responsibility, it also serves to show that parental responsibility ("And WHY didn't you check what your child was taking to school?") isn't absolute.

The refugee who knifed the children in France yesterday wasn't using a tool. He was using a weapon.

.

As Ironic mentioned, a weapon (steak knife or handgun) can be planned to be used in defense from, for example, bullies. Dani's piece expresses thoughts largely parallel to mine, and Buz agrees.

.

This isn't to say our disagreement is absolute, but rather by case, where the nitwit in Virginia is getting the justice she deserves, as do the unprosecuted single working mothers whose sons are delinquents.

The responsibility isn't about checking on what a child is bringing to school, in the case of guns. The responsibility is knowing that your gun(s) is secure and that nobody, including your child, can access it without you, whether they're going to school, a friend's house, a movie, or whatever. That safeguard isn't in place for knives, wrenches, shovels, corkscrews, or pens, all of which have been murder weapons. I'm sure we all understand why.

If there's a police investigation, every instance is going to be a case-by-case situation.

Quote by ElCoco

If you check what's in your child's backpack and discover something that your child shouldn't be taking to school, replacing the steak knife with a butter knife, the tool won't be used as a weapon.

.

We agree about the case-by-case issue.

Gun security in your house isn't just about not making sure gun doesn't end up in a backpack. Security starts further back than that. As in, not only shouldn't one end up in a backpack, but one also shouldn't show up on your kitchen table unless you put it there.

My point is that prosecuting parents isn't about their ability to control their children, which, if you're a parent, you know can be challenging. It's about the parent's ability to control the guns they purchased.

Quote by ElCoco

Now we know who else you had in mind.

No. Nono. lol

Quote by ElCoco

That's what it looked like to me.

At least you managed to make me laugh.

Quote by ElCoco

Good! Now if the politicos could move forward on reducing the number of mass shootings, that would be even better!

If only.

Quote by ElCoco

I agree, and I agree! That's why the lady from Virginia will soon have a federal weapons charge added to her CV.

.

I think most people agree that everybody who owns weapons should own them responsibly.

then how come the GOP and the NRA are so deadset against laws that ask just that?

Quote by ElCoco

You're assuming what you think is responsibly is what everybody else should think is responsibly.

So let's work that angle. What do you think is "responsibly"?

Since you're the only one who has used that word in this thread, it makes more sense if you'd explain what you meant by it.

Quote by ElCoco
And what do you think sprite was talking about?

Whatever you were talking about. That's why it's so weird that you want her to explain it to you.