Wow 222 school shootings in 2021 alone !!! In comparison, another source said this "Canada has had a total of 19 school shootings between 1884 and 2016.". Even factoring that the US has 9 times as many people, this disparity is ridiculous. Is the US breeding bad kids, or is it the guns ?
Should school kids be issued guns in America?
- Thread starter UsualName
- Start date
Wow 222 school shootings in 2021 alone !!! In comparison, another source said this "Canada has had a total of 19 school shootings between 1884 and 2016.". Even factoring that the US has 9 times as many people, this disparity is ridiculous. Is the US breeding bad kids, or is it the guns ?
I see and understand the irresponsibility that Parents have about gun ownership when their children share the same home with them...it is shown here at Elitetrader.com by those that bitch / complain about shootings or high murder rates in the innercity of large cities in the United States that they carefully refer to as Democratic state, Democratic governor or Democratic mayor...
At the same time advocating their own right to own firearms while in the same locations.
- They don't understand the connection of their own hypocrisy nor understand the results it has on our children.
- Hence, we now have a growing (escalating) school shooting problem because we have forgotten to hold parents responsible for their parenting skills and irresponsible gun ownership.
Gun ownership is an important issue in our family to defend ourselves against foreign threats going all the way back to the Revolutionary War and Seven Years' War...all the way back to the Plains of Abraham between the French/British here in Québec, Canada that my ancestors fought in the battle.
- The threats back then and the right to gun ownership are much different today in which we've failed to adjust like other countries.
I will never be able to understand why other countries can better manage gun control than the United States especially involving our children. I'm not saying other countries are perfect because they have shootings too but not like the United States of America.
Many falsely believe this is only a problem in the innercity but my spouse at the time saw this as a growing problem in suburbs and rural areas too. One day if this growing problem is not fixed...
We're going to be hearing regularly about school shootings in the suburbs and rural areas too. I can see the current number 2x or 3x more within the next 10 years.
wrbtrader
Last edited:
I didn't follow any of that, but Tree's courtroom analysis always seems to be on point and certainly worth the read. His record speaks for itself on many topics here.
Crumbley parents charges 'absolutely warranted,' each could face 15 years, former US attorney says
The former Assistant United States Attorney said while the charges are rare, they're 'absolutely warranted'
https://www.foxnews.com/us/crumbley...h-could-face-15-years-former-us-attorney-says
The former Assistant United States Attorney said while the charges are rare, they're 'absolutely warranted'
https://www.foxnews.com/us/crumbley...h-could-face-15-years-former-us-attorney-says
Here's a question... so if they blame the parents, how can they charge the kid as an adult?
If 3 adults share a living space, and one of them is whacko, takes another one's gun, goes out and murders someone, are the other two guilty of manslaughter? Even if they knew the person was unstable, they can always say "but we never thought he'd harm anyone."
The case being made against the parents dont negate culpability of the kid. They are criminal negligence that contributed.
Kids attorney can plead insanity and mental issues but this was not a heat of passion crime...there were statements and indications made well before and the kid took the time to get the gun AND pretend he was a cop outside the door of one classroom if i recall that video.
Kid can plead insanity but it will not get him out of prison. The only reason kids attorney will plead not guilty is because they will try the insanity defense to.avoid life in prison.
Good question.
The key is level of culpability.
Kid being charged with first degree murder.
Parents being charged with involuntary manslaughter.
Both charges can exist because it is.2 different trials and parents are being charged for the contribution not the cause of the main crime. Kid definitely.killed people and shot up the school and is charged to be held accountable.
Parents CONTRIBUTED but also had a means to stop the crime possibly from occurring.
If.I drive drunk.from a party and.kill.someone.my defense is NOT that the host gave me the keys even though i was clearly drunk. The host has his own criminal and civil liability apart from my actions.
For a conviction you have to show a reckless disregard for consequences that a reasonable person could foresee as beng highly possible- just as a general statement - but more specifically whatever other elements must be met in the state statues as well.
And all of that depends on the background circumstances and who had knowledge of what and who had knowledge of past behavior and events immediately leading up to the fateful day. That is why I emphasized a couple times yesterday we need to see who is saying what in their defense just a bit more to flesh it out. Some of it is beginning to come out which is to be expected.
As that article stated, these cases are hard to prove that is why there are not many. On the other hand, this case does seem to present the highly egregious circumstances where the parents are in deep doo doo. If you have a kid who you know is having emotional problems and he somehow finds your gun or you have one in the house that you have had for years then you can prosecute but you have your work cut out for you. Just because their was a risk that your kid having emotional problems might use a gun in the house is not reckless disregard legally even if morally it is. At least, prosecutors have trouble with juries on that set of facts alone.
But this case is another step up from that. It appears that the kid's emotional problems were ramping up, the father had knowledge, and decided that this would be a great time to buy him a gun. Uh oh. He is falling into reckless disregard and affirmatively and had knowledge of the kid's problems (I believe but would need to see more) Jury is not going to like that. I know as a gun owner, it gets nowhere with me.
Indeed, and as I said yesterday. It is arguably going to be 3 trials very soon.
I don't see the parents hanging together on this one. The prosecution will give them different "offers" along the way. And the defense will want it too.
You have problems with testimony and marital privilege and all of that on the horizon too.
Last edited:
I know that I am repetitive on this point but I keep saying I need to see more.
For example, I saw some pundits, including psychiatrists on the tube affirmatively stating that a teacher caught the kid looking at ammo on his phone and his mother knew that and it was an enormous red flag. Nope. Not really. I understand that from the view of people who think that just being interested in guns is evidence of being a mass shooter- but a defense team can successfully and rightfully argue "no, the kid was in a family that had just bought a new gun and he knew that he would be shooting it and school is boring as hell and what kid in his right mind would not be googling around about it. My desk at school always looked like a library of hunting and fishing and gun magazines.
But if you mix other information in with it, if, for example, you tell me that the teacher was highly alarmed because she was aware of other utterances and behavior of the kid then I can get there very easily as far as it being a red flag.
More info needed before I automatically conclude, as the pundits are, that looking up info on ammo is red flag. It is only in conjunction with other knowledge.
For example, I saw some pundits, including psychiatrists on the tube affirmatively stating that a teacher caught the kid looking at ammo on his phone and his mother knew that and it was an enormous red flag. Nope. Not really. I understand that from the view of people who think that just being interested in guns is evidence of being a mass shooter- but a defense team can successfully and rightfully argue "no, the kid was in a family that had just bought a new gun and he knew that he would be shooting it and school is boring as hell and what kid in his right mind would not be googling around about it. My desk at school always looked like a library of hunting and fishing and gun magazines.
But if you mix other information in with it, if, for example, you tell me that the teacher was highly alarmed because she was aware of other utterances and behavior of the kid then I can get there very easily as far as it being a red flag.
More info needed before I automatically conclude, as the pundits are, that looking up info on ammo is red flag. It is only in conjunction with other knowledge.