Prosecutors charge parents of Michigan school shooting suspect

that would be a civil liability, not criminal

the school was aware too, yet they placed the child in a classroom

 

According to the parents' attorney, the weapon was "locked". They didn't "provide" it to Ethan. He apparently stole it from them, without their knowledge. Do you see the difference?

 

The school found it that alarming that they made the parents come to school immediately and when they showed up that they, they told them right there that their kid needed counselling WITHIN 48 hours. There aren't "plenty of people out there" who get that after they got caught with a drawing, now it it?

If they were handing their kid the explosives, while knew they kid is highly unstable with fantasies about blowing up people: of course that makes them responsible.

 

The school wasn't aware that the parents gave their kid a gun.
And I fail to see how letting a kid who openly fantasizes about people being shot during class have a gun is a civil liability.

I add to this, that the school found the open fantasies of the kid so exceptionally disturbed that they made the parents come immediately over and talk about that and told them he needs counselling within 48 hours. That shows the school was exceptionally worried about the kid, and the parents just let the kid have it's gun without a care in the world.

 

Better yet! How many Mothers of Ghetto gang bangers KNOW they and their friend's have illegal firearms? So should they all be accessory to whatever and all crime they are committing and may commit

 

Ya we gathered that from all your Kyle Nazi nonsense Clearly you have no respect for the rule of law, that's obvious..

 

Well it's just like we say here, disarm the law abiding gunowners and only the illegal will have firearms..

And that was five years ago But thanks for proving the claim, it helps us win in court LMAO

 

I just sourced that my opinion is founded. And all you can mutter now that it's "nonsense" without any kind of argument and drag in Kyle Rittenhouse that has nothing to do with it. Bravo.

 

Why your negative narrative and biased OPINION is common in every post you make!

 

I just sourced that my opinion is founded and all you do is enter your own unfounded bias opinion without a source.

 

Your opinion is sourced from a prosecutor whose job it is to push their narrative. From here: https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/04/us/michigan-oxford-high-school-shooting-saturday/index.html

Parents' attorney says 'the gun was locked,' and son didn't have free access

Hmm, seems like it is one word against another... Even beyond that, you can secure a handgun in an unlocked drawer with a trigger or cable lock. You know just like the kind that is sold with all new SIG Sauer hand guns. And to add even more, according to your source, the gun was in a drawer in the parents bedroom. You call that unfettered access? I call that putting it somewhere where the kid is supposed to ask for it. Unfettered access would be giving it to the kid to keep wherever he wanted. But regardless of all that, it isn't illegal to buy a minor a gun in MI, nor is it illegal to keep a gun unsecured in your home in MI. The prosecutor is pushing an agenda here.

 

I don't care if it is politically motivated and maybe it should have happened after Columbine and every school shooting after.

 

Oh get real. Your opinion is founded on culprits who ran from the law with a massive bounty on their head, took 1000's of bucks from their bankaccount and turned off their cellphones, and according to your source still claim they weren't trying to fleeing. Yeah. You sure know how to pick a trustworthy source.

And it's not as if the prosecutor don't don't know it's not illegal to have an unsecured gun. The thing is that the school made them come to over the day they busted the kid making a drawing about people who got shot, and told them the kid needs counseling within 48 hours. That is a red flag a mile high about their kid who according to their own social media posted, received a gun from them. And they did just kicked back and watched it all fall apart. And it was even the 2nd red flag they received.

 

Isn't the question here to what degree were the parents accomplices and how should the parents treated for making the choices that they made?

I would never transfer a firearm to someone I knew was in any way unstable or irresponsible and would expect to be held in some way responsible if it were misused like this one.

 

Slippery slope prosecuting anyone associated. Of course it would be a left wing dream to put innocent people in jail based on feelings.

 

Go to the AAP website I linked to earlier - this point is addressed there. Those programs do not work and in fact may ENCOURAGE poor decision making

 

Hmmm. Yes, it can be refuted. I just did. More guns CAN mean more gun deaths, but not in all circumstances. The only universally correct statements would be “without guns there can be no gun deaths” or “the existence of guns makes gun deaths possible “. The statement more guns=more more gun deaths is often false. This is why I included examples like concealed carriers committing less (gun as well as other) crime than the general population. I do not know of exact figures but I’m quite certain concealed carries would own firearms at very near a 100% rate whereas for the general population the rate is somewhere between 22 and 40%. If the statement “more guns=more gun deaths” were accurate, we would see far more gun violence from concealed carriers than the general population. I’m sure you will want to know there is no conclusive evidence concealed carriers increase rates of gun suicide or accidents either. The few studies that exist are inconclusive and somewhat flawed.

Same for states like Vermont. They would have higher than average gun deaths to go along with higher than average gun ownership rates if gun numbers or availability directly resulted in more gun deaths. More examples include countries like Greenland that have 4-5 times fewer civilian owned guns per capita than the US, but have 2.5 times higher rates of gun deaths.

If a person believes all firearms should (and more importantly can) be removed from the planet, the more guns equals more gun deaths argument has limited value. In any other case it just highlights the fact it’s animates, not in-animates that are responsible for events resulting in harm.

Furthermore, I’m not as concerned with gun deaths as I am violent death specifically. As firearms have proliferated globally, violent death rates have plummeted drastically to the lowest rates in known human history. I believe this is due to the fact no weapon before the firearm allowed widespread democracy because it was the first weapon to equalize the power disparity between the brute and the intellectual or between the authoritarian and individualist (depending on what labels one prefers).

Well, I do consider my position sensible because it’s based on evidence. I can agree in some cases more guns results in more gun death because there is evidence to support that. I also maintain there is a preponderance of evidence showing in other cases more guns does not result in more gun death. It is true some “gun advocates” can’t acknowledge in some cases more guns are correlated with more gun deaths. There are also many anti gun folk who can’t accept the fact there is also inverse correlation. And few from either side want to look hard at causation.

Yes, culture is a huge factor. The “culture” of gun owners where I live is diametrical to that of “cultures” committing the disproportionate amount of firearm violence and experiencing disproportionate amounts of firearm accidental death. And the correlation of ownership rates to violent and accidental harm within those cultures is negative.

I actually know many people with automatic weapons. The guy I hire to do a lot of water line trenching and center pivot irrigation work is one. Every automatic firearm owner I know is upper middle class or above. Some also own new automatic weapons. Any law abiding citizen can if they can afford it. If I had the desire, I could legally manufacture and own all the automatic weapons I wanted to for a $1000 annual fee. I would just have to notify the ATF within a day of manufacture and keep records of inventory. If I wanted an automatic weapon for nefarious purposes and didn’t care about legality I can purchase auto sears illegally online delivered to my home for mere dollars.

The main barrier to automatic weapons in the US is economic and basic desire to own. I’ve thought about it, but at this point in my life I’m only interested in practical firearms. If I were to advocate for broader access to automatic firearms it would be on a socio-economic fairness basis because I don’t believe economic status should provide preferential treatment. Same for firearm suppressors. The barrier to entry is purely economic and I believe that is morally wrong. I don’t believe my animals should be protected from harm or stress due to gunshot reports because I can afford it but someone else’s animals must suffer because they don’t have the same economic circumstances. Sorry, I’m getting into “rights” territory, but I think we both believe in Democracy and human/animal rights so it’s going to be difficult to completely avoid. I also have a soft spot for all critters, so the semiautomatic ban in Australia has always upset me because of it’s negative effects on things like ethical kangaroo control. Different subject….

Agree. I limited my previous comments to diet because of laziness and because it’s a relatively new area of research that is often neglected in my opinion. Diet/sedentary lifestyle is killing Americans hand over fist in so many ways from violence, to chronic disease, to acute infections, and even accidental death and 99% of Americans don’t even realize it’s happening. Doctors tell them being obese or having diabetes shortens their life due to cardiovascular effects or other organ failure, but never mention how diet is involved heavily in automobile accidents, influenza deaths and non fatal cardiac events caused by influenza infection, workplace accidents, violence and crime deaths/injury, etc.etc. But yes, education is huge in relation to violence. Population density is definitely a factor in aggression and violence in ALL species, humans included. Pollution is one I’m not well versed in but I do know it’s a factor. There are probably two dozen more we could come up with. Substance abuse, especially alcohol is huge. I can’t remember stats off the top of my head, but a large percentage of firearm crime and suicide involves alcohol. Some are third rails that can’t be discussed. Like abortion. The evidence shows it has been a factor in decreasing violence by eliminating those with the most propensity (or exposure to things like poor diet, overcrowding, pollution, that predispose one to violence if that sounds more PC) to violence. But it’s effects on the conscious and subconscious mind in relation to intrinsic value of human life has had negative consequences as well.

No, I’m not aware of controlled for diet or parenting studies comparing US and Canadian gun homicides. I do know US diet is on average worse. Our obesity rates are higher, etc. Single parent rate in Canada is about 16% and about 23% in the US. There are also huge racial/cultural statistical differences. Closely related to the racial/cultural differences is gang violence differences. Even though gang violence is rising fast in Canada, it’s traditionally been much lower than US.

That’s a good question though. As far as I know nobody controls for diet or parenting specifically. I know some control for socio-economic status so that would in most cases indirectly control for diet and parenting, at least partially. But confounding variables between economic status of the two countries would further complicate things. I’m not a mathematician, so regression analysis isn’t my forte. I can only look at statistical trends like I’ve done in the preceding paragraph to draw conclusions. I’m certainly open to research or analysis by others.

 

Have you read the studies? They are behind pay walls. You do realize your source (a lobbying group similar to the NRA) neglects to include studies in its opinion pieces showing in-situ training IS effective at training children to react correctly to encountering a firearm?

 

Oh indeed. You would think the parents are getting a lesser charge. And isn't this what is happening? I though so.

 

Ok, I (broadly) accept that. Other factors are at play: urban, rural, state-by-state and culture. A combination of these factors probably explains why Australia has 1/4 the gun ownership per capita of the US, but only a fraction of the gun deaths.

And gun type I imagine would have an influence. We pretty much can only access bolt action rifles and shotguns.

So, rephrasing more succinctly. then: there is a positive correlation overall between more guns and more gun deaths but not a linear relationship. There may also be a ceiling beyond which more guns don't equate to more deaths.

Is this reasonable?

Point taken. Might I suggest that Greenland with something like a dozen or so gun deaths each year is not the best example for comparison?

Sure. Well, obviously I'm not arguing that. [Just in case you might think I'm suggesting that point]. Actually, I am simply really happy with Australian (and UK) gun laws. No semis and handguns. International interest in US gun laws comes from our absolute conviction that we don't want the same laws in our countries that the US has. No criticism of what you do there. I'd love to have a bit of fun at a shooting range in the US. But a theoretical increase of more dangerous guns in my immediate vicinity at home in Australia and the allowance to carry them in our pockets does not make me feel more safe. (this opinion is shared by my countrymen).

Very interesting. p.s. Just pointing out that you can't infer a causal r/ship between A and B purely because they correlate. I'm sure you know that, however you did put them in one sentence. (sorry to pick on you. It's my pet peeve e.g. news headline: "Dollar stores proliferate as inflation bites." And nothing in the damned article about why. But you do back up your suggestion with a theory. )

It's an interesting proposition, but I can think of a dozen other things that have ushered in a more peaceful world. Is it the ability to have a gun under my bed if I wanted to that keeps me safe or is it education, technology, law, wealth distribution - and my favourite: restoration of human consciousness to its full dignity - that enables me to safely go for a walk in my 'burb? Also, obviously Australian democracy is far less related to gun ownership than in the US. However, perhaps antecedently your argument has some value in the preamble to modern civilization - the average peon has access to the equivalent of a knights armour and sword - however, the average peon also now has access to the equivalent of royal living quarters (aircon), servants (gadgets) a fine set of steeds (the car) and the best carrier pigeon service in the world - with dancing girls and live musicians thrown in (internet). Your argument would be bolstered further if the transition from pre-civilization to civilization was also accompanied by increased gun ownership.

I didn't realise that guns were that expensive.

Perhaps we are a better aim (j/k j/k) Yes, it would be easier with a semi-auto.

I would humbly say that psychological trauma (and neglect/indifference) are by far the major contributors towards serious pathology and violence. But I agree that diet is a major factor in the pursuit of good mental health - and dare I say, even happiness. And poor diet also potentially exacerbates predisposition towards violence and the maintenance of violent habits.

Thanks for that.

Watch this space!

 

Wow, you really like to insult don't you? My opinion is that the prosecution is overreaching here. I'm leaving my feelings out of it because the parents in the this case are in my opinion, definitely of the pos quality. I don't agree with what the parents did, I wouldn't want them as friends, and yes, what they did was awful for their kids sake. But I don't think they broke the law. Millions of parents across the US are horrible parents, yet they are not being prosecuted for it.

Now with that I'm done. I don't like talking/writing to people who talk down to me. I am very purposeful in my posts to make sure I do not speak down to people and try my best to treat those with whom I am debating with respect. So have a good day.

 

I think that you're right in that the parents are getting a lesser charge as they should be charged for their role in this tragedy.

 

Definitely many factors in play. The numbers of firearms in physical proximity to whatever demographic we describe being the most minor factor. Near zero in most cases.

Just some fun facts. The firearm death rate in the US 1979– 14.7/100,000. The firearm ownership (households) rate US 1980–45%. The firearm death rate in US 2018– 11.9% The firearm ownership (household) rate in US 2018– 43%. In 1979-80, the revolver was still the handgun of choice. The plastic fantastic semiautomatic Glock didn’t begin to revolutionize US handgun ownership until 1988. To a lesser extent the US military adoption of the Beretta 92FS as it’s sidearm in 1985 and portrayals of it in movies also popularized semiautomatic handguns. In the late 1960’s through the ‘70’s the AR-15 was available in the civilian market but was not commonly owned until the 1980’s.

My point is the rates of firearm deaths are lower today in the US with semiautomatic pistols and rifles being the norm than death rates before such weapons were commonplace.

In Australia, from 1980 to 1995, 63.2% of total firearm deaths were from hunting rifles and 30.2% were from shotguns. Only 5.3% involved handguns and a mere 1.3% involved military style firearms. You now still have access to firearms historically involved in 93% of firearm deaths before semiautomatic weapons were removed. I’m having a hard time accepting semiautomatic and automatic weapons are the problem.

To me it’s only reasonable if we discard the evidence from places like Vermont or South Dakota. Or evidence like the US has higher ownership rates than Mexico (or Venezuela) but lower firearm death rates.

Brazil works just as well. Substitute Brazil for Greenland.

Yeh, I didn’t think that was the direction you were headed. Just trying to clarify my position on that argument. I don’t mind criticism. I understand how the media portrays the US and guns would turn people off. Things I read in our own domestic media about the US sound like reporting from another country to me. Life here is nothing like it’s portrayed in the media. I’m a bit flummoxed by your aversion to semiautomatics and handguns given the statistics I provided above on Australia. I guess it’s no different than how many in the US view guns like AR-15’s. They are used in a very small percentage of deaths but are the most feared/hated type.

Don’t go to a range. Ranges are no fun. I’ll take you out in the pasture where there is flora and fauna and nobody to bother you while shooting.

I remember reading some things about groups in Australia working to loosen firearm restrictions. Do you know what percentage fall in that category?

Is my statement that different than the statement: More guns=more gun deaths is undeniable truth? Are you not inferring any causality with that statement? Perhaps I’m completely misunderstanding your point then of introducing that statement into our conversation? I assumed you were inferring causality because that’s the standard I’m used to encountering. If you aren’t implying any causality we are in agreement—causality is a function of sentient beings.

I do agree I should be more concise about when causality is present or not and why I believe it is causality.

At the end of the day, it’s the equalization of power firearms provide that allows more peaceful civilization. Can you imagine trying to defend that royal living arrangement, car, technology, education, etc. from your Chinese neighbors with a sword and some tin can armor? What percentage of the population of Australia would be under arms at any given time if this were the case? What would the casualty rate be if you had to use that sword and armor to keep all those wonderful consumer items? I understand Australian law enforcement carries semiautomatic firearms. Why? If firearms are not necessary for you to have all those things unmolested, isn’t the cop with the gun just part of the more guns=more gun deaths problem? Why does the Australian military use firearms? They say cops in the UK don’t carry firearms—except in Northern Ireland. But why there? To cause more gun deaths?

As far as civilization, I guess you would have to define that. Firearms helped bring about the end of the Dark (Middle) Ages. I know tyrannical monarchy and feudalism is considered “civilization”, but not to me. I’d rather live in a cave and turn sabertooth cats into steak with a sharp stick.

I don’t think the free societies we see today would exist without the equalization of power provided by firearms. Human nature hasn’t changed. The difference is the physically weak can demand equality when firearms became common because they have the ability to bargain from a position of strength. On American gun culture specifically, I believe it was a decisive factor in saving global democracy twice between 1900 and 1950.

There are two (basic) ways to own automatic weapons in the US. You can pay a $200 tax to the federal government that allows you to possess a weapon manufactured before 1986. The gun will cost between $15,000 and $50,000 for something like an M-16. The more affordable route but more hassle is to pay a $1000 annual tax/fee for a manufacturer license. Then you can build any automatic you want without the pre 1986 restriction.

LOL.

For me semiauto is an ethical decision more than anything. I’m a good shot but not expert. Your roo hunters leave a lot of wounded animals to bleed out or live maimed because you don’t allow semiautomatics. Sometimes it doesn’t matter how good of a shot you are if an animal moves unpredictably. I’ve laid out my reasons for semiautomatics and standard magazines before on PF. Links if you are interested.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1072239538/

I agree. But a lot of that psychological trauma is caused by behaviors affected by what is and isn’t put into the body of the one meting out the trauma. A malnourished child will grow into an adult that has severely compromised intelligence, socialization skills, and inhibitions. Thus ensuring the next generation gets at least the psychological trauma if not more than they did from their parent(s). I’ve known a couple people with fetal alcohol syndrome. One was a terrible parent (absent) and died driving drunk at age 43. The other was a pretty good father with some anger and impulse control problems that died of a heart attack at age 45 and left two girls completely fatherless. The worst part of this cycle is it’s getting worse with each generation.

This is just my opinion based on the very recent discoveries we’ve made in human biological pursuits, but I’m coming to believe much of the behavioral issues we’ve dealt with in the past without understanding have concrete physiological causes. I mentioned one earlier—the effect of gut microbiota on everything from immune function to mental development. We see hints of things like immune dysfunction associated with schizophrenia and bipolar. The positive in these discoveries is it gives us more opportunities to treat with targeted intent instead of just applying shotgun therapy and going with what seems to have positive effects. In theory we may be on the cusp of being able to mitigate some of this cycle of dysfunctional families negatively impacting society. I don’t think treatment is ever as efficacious as prevention, but prevention seems to be off the table for most of society at this point. Covid has proven that. Everyone wants a pill or shot instead of improving their own health. It’s bizarre because it negatively affects the ability of vaccines to protect them but I better not get off on that tangent.

Will do.

 

I'm not scrolling through 12 pages of comments to look for your link. So programs that promote safe handling of firearms encourage bad decisions?
Honestly, what brings you to this forum and drives your continous interjection on this issue? You live in a country who has laws you approve of, and are completely unaffected by the gun laws here. You also have no firsthand knowledge of our culture or our fierce independence.
Are you bored? Is there not issues for you in your home country? Or are you simply of the belief that you're so much smarter and well informed than us that we will eventually see the light? Honest question....
By past comments you work in the nursing field and are an ardent abortion supporter. A lot of us hold the sincere conviction that abortion is the murder of innocent children. Zygotes, embryos, whatever you name them, they are a human soul.
Honestly, is it your aim to reduce unnecessary deaths, or to limit freedoms we enjoy that others do not?
If its to limit deaths, that seems at odds with your stance on the other issue.
If its to limit our freedoms, is that from hatred, or jealosy?
I see your posts on every gun control topic, and i shake my head at your tenacity, and youre complete unwillingness to accept that
1. We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
2. We arent giving it up.
3. We dont give a damn how Australia does it.
4. The more people like you object to our constitutional rights and liberties, the harder we will fight to protect them.

Honest questions all.....

 

Yes, the whole welfare baby thing. Not the way to go and mostly won't end well.

Oh, that's tough. Yes I agree that there are broader social factors at place that reach beyond access to guns.

I believe there are solutions. It's just a matter of leaning in the right direction. Too much segregation due to varying financial situations can be a problem. Sadly, some parents don't know how to do it.

I actually don't think that it's so much teaching 15 year olds that life is precious - as it is providing a good general learning environment for the child's brain to develop properly. Then they will naturally have the sensitivity as well as the general coping and self-regulatory skillset to avoid maladaptive behaviours that include topping your classmates. But yes, life lessons from a trusted mentor would scaffold this process.

Possibly - although we have the same violent TV in Australia yet relatively lower gun deaths despite restrictions on firearms. I think the largest influence will be parents. I would suggest that non-gun culture from peers and parents will have more of an off-putting effect towards gun use, but not sure about stigmatizing and unnecessarily forbidding. Do you think there is a move in the US away from gun glorification over time or towards it?

And interesting related test case would be in New Zealand. Starting in 2023, they will make buying cigarettes illegal for anyone under age 15.