Trying to take a page from the Canadian Firearm Act are we?

[Gun Nut]

Suspect’s parents charged in Michigan school shooting


"Parents in the U.S. are rarely charged in school shootings involving their children, even as most minors get guns from a parent or relative’s house, according to experts.
There’s no Michigan law that requires gun owners keep weapons locked away from children. McDonald, however, suggested there's more to build a case on."


You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

[trimmer21]

That would normally be true if a kid stole the gun from home,but,the parents bought it for him knowing he was psychotic. When confronted by the school,they refused to act. That makes them criminally neglegent. That's a huge difference. Those two mutts for "parents" need to do hard time. They'll get ZERO sympathy from me.

[Gun Nut]

That would normally be true if a kid stole the gun from home,but,the parents bought it for him knowing he was psychotic. When confronted by the school,they refused to act. That makes them criminally neglegent. That's a huge difference. Those two mutts for "parents" need to do hard time. They'll get ZERO sympathy from me.

Interesting comment although I have to wonder, how many time this has happens, Sand Hook did not appear that much further afield than what happen here. Kid goes home picks up gun, goes to a school and does mass murder, only difference as I recall it, the school wasn't necessarily the one attended by the suspect. Again there may not have been as many clues for the mother to pick up on. In this case the mother, judging from her comments was attempting to shield the kid and deal with his psychosis on her own. I have to wonder if it all does comes down, in the use U.S., to the lack of government support for parents having to deal with children in a such crisis

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

[FishHog]

That would normally be true if a kid stole the gun from home,but,the parents bought it for him knowing he was psychotic. When confronted by the school,they refused to act. That makes them criminally neglegent. That's a huge difference. Those two mutts for "parents" need to do hard time. They'll get ZERO sympathy from me.

Initially I my gut reaction was to agree with Gun Nut, but when I read more I fully agree, these parents get zero sympathy from me either, and on top of all that, they ran thinking somehow they could get away in the US with such a public case. Not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

[fishfood]

Was the kid aloud to own a gun ? Did he have a permit?

Sent from my CLT-L04 using Tapatalk

[Gun Nut]

Initially I my gut reaction was to agree with Gun Nut, but when I read more I fully agree, these parents get zero sympathy from me either, and on top of all that, they ran thinking somehow they could get away in the US with such a public case. Not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

Don't necessary disagree that the parents had some degree of complicity in what happen. I am saying that in many of the other shooting, there may well have been similar levels of complicity that simply got ignored. Now they have decide to go after third parties. like our Firearm Act dictates. It doesn't address the problem, it ignores the problem to seek for retribution. Why are people like the suspect in this case not receiving help to deal with their psychosis. In this case the mother seems to be encouraging her son to hide it. She appeared to be trying to deal with it on her own. Why? Couldn't the parents afford to see about treatment. These shootings it would appear are calls for help, by the individuals who carry them out, to which society as a whole would prefer to turn a deaf ear to rather than deal with. We don't appear to want to waste resources on being progressive in dealing with for some reason. Well now they will get the opportunity to waste plenty of resources in hind sight. Medical resource dealing with the wounded, the trials for the suspect and parents, help for the families that have lost love one, counselling for the kids that survived the ordeal, etc. The big question that always pops up after events such as this is the WHY. We like to look for things like, he was bullied, perhaps he was for all i know. But the deeper cause might be untreated mental instability.

You don't stop hunting because we grow old. We grow old because we stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

[Gun Nut]

Was the kid aloud to own a gun ? Did he have a permit?

Sent from my CLT-L04 using Tapatalk

It was the father's gun, it would seem the mother passed it off as a gift to her son to maybe shoot at the range. It would appear it was a vane effort on her part to provide affirmation to her son, that he was an okay person. You wouldn't deny a gun to an okay person?
The parents did not give the gun and tell him to go have fun shooting up the school. He took the gun from where the father had it in his bedside table secretly put in his school bag and took it to school it's not clear where he came up with the ammunition, although one of the teacher apparently caught him searching for ammunition on -line. The father likely purchase some when purchased the gun, although that was mention. If someone else sold him the ammunition maybe they should charge him well It will be interesting to see how this all plays out as far as third party responsibility is concern, that is the subject the interest me.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow o0ld because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut.

[Gilroy]

That would normally be true if a kid stole the gun from home,but,the parents bought it for him knowing he was psychotic. When confronted by the school,they refused to act. That makes them criminally neglegent. That's a huge difference. Those two mutts for "parents" need to do hard time. They'll get ZERO sympathy from me.

One look at the parents and you know why the kid has problems. They will likely get convicted and rightly so, they are probably fortunate this son never shot them, he looks pretty out of whack.

[fishfood]

It was the father's gun, it would seem the mother passed it off as a gift to her son to maybe shoot at the range. It would appear it was a vane effort on her part to provide affirmation to her son, that he was an okay person. You wouldn't deny a gun to an okay person?
The parents did not give the gun and tell him to go have fun shooting up the school. He took the gun from where the father had it in his bedside table secretly put in his school bag and took it to school it's not clear where he came up with the ammunition, although one of the teacher apparently caught him searching for ammunition on -line. The father likely purchase some when purchased the gun, although that was mention. If someone else sold him the ammunition maybe they should charge him well It will be interesting to see how this all plays out as far as third party responsibility is concern, that is the subject the interest me.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow o0ld because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut.

Thanks for the info

I'm still on the fence if the parents should be held responsible. It was the kids who took it school and shot it up not the parents.


Sent from my CLT-L04 using Tapatalk

[Gun Nut]

One look at the parents and you know why the kid has problems. They will likely get convicted and rightly so, they are probably fortunate this son never shot them, he looks pretty out of whack.

So the son remove the gun from his fathers bedside cabinet, and hind it in his school bag and went to school with it. I have to wonder, given the kids mental condition, if the charges are likely to stick, although he may well end up with time in a mental institution where he probably should have been, before the sequence of events at the school. As for the parents if they are really guilty of anything, it would be not seeking professional care for their son. Now what about the gun? The parents were called to the school, and had no wish to take their son home, I suspect the mother had something to do that, it may have been her way of affirming to her son that he was okay. However, the father at one point, realized the gun was missing. It is not clear, if it was before the interview at the school or after it. It would seem to me if it was before the school interview, he might have want to speak to his son about it, while they were there, otherwise it would certainly make him complicity in the events that follow, upon leaving the school. If he realized it was missing after he return home from the school interview, and tried to contact his son about it. To me that would suggest something quite different. By that time, the situation was beyond his control and the deed had been done. What do you think?

You don’t stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop huntin.
- Gun Nut.