An Upside Down World

[Mr. Brooks]

Yeah I agree guns are the main issue here... But I'm open to alternatives as well since that is a huge issue to tackle. There isn't a simple solution to this complex problem.

 

It breaks my heart the path kids are going down, and I'm not that far removed from school. We had one "lock down" in my school life through high school. And that was a false alarm... It's sad that 10 years later this is the first solution kids think of when they're having issues.

Correct. One of the saddest days of my life so far, was when I realized how frequently my kids do lockdown drills at school.

They asked me how they did them when I went to school, and I had to explain to them that they didn't exist when I went to school, because this didn't happen then.

I'm glad they do them, but I'm saddened, disgusted, and embarrassed that they have to.

[biggentleben]

I had an officer last weekend come in on Saturday after yet another issue with our teenage foster child, this time out of town. The responding officer there praised my patience and was reportedly effusive in his praise of how calm and collected I was in what was otherwise a possibly volatile situation. The local officer took the report, knew me, and swung by my work to take a walk with me, finishing off the walk with a hug and a reminder of how much we're doing to try to get the help that the child needs. The system, however, has made us hold a child who needs to be in a care facility with 4 other young children in the home because there is an order their end of things has to follow in order for things to be done right, along with a wait time for a spot at any group facility. If things were to escalate, and my nail gun was taken from the garage in the meantime, am I the one at blame?

 

Once the shoe is on a different foot working with a troubled child (especially with multiple children in the household), there's nary a comment about neglect as an initial diagnosis as is so often thrown around by talking heads...and sadly, now on TD.

[Mr. Brooks]

I had an officer last weekend come in on Saturday after yet another issue with our teenage foster child, this time out of town. The responding officer there praised my patience and was reportedly effusive in his praise of how calm and collected I was in what was otherwise a possibly volatile situation. The local officer took the report, knew me, and swung by my work to take a walk with me, finishing off the walk with a hug and a reminder of how much we're doing to try to get the help that the child needs. The system, however, has made us hold a child who needs to be in a care facility with 4 other young children in the home because there is an order their end of things has to follow in order for things to be done right, along with a wait time for a spot at any group facility. If things were to escalate, and my nail gun was taken from the garage in the meantime, am I the one at blame?

 

Once the shoe is on a different foot working with a troubled child (especially with multiple children in the household), there's nary a comment about neglect as an initial diagnosis as is so often thrown around by talking heads...and sadly, now on TD.

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be purposely obtuse, but I really have no idea what you are trying to say here.

A nail gun? What is the relevance to a nail gun to what's been discussed?

[TheLeviathan]

 

It's very disturbing the hero culture that this country has built around guns.
The vast majority of the population can roll their eyes and shrug their shoulders at that idolization of guns. But, when one of those people who have a violent psychological tendency are consumed by that aura, it's easy to see how they could think that lashing out with those guns that are seemingly universally glorified in this country is an okay, or even proper thing to do when a situation arises where they think they've been wronged.

 

Your distinction is correct and I should've chosen my phrasing better.  It isn't gun ownership we need to treat like smoking...but the gun culture.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be purposely obtuse, but I really have no idea what you are trying to say here.
A nail gun? What is the relevance to a nail gun to what's been discussed?

 

I take away from it my concern as well - parents are now liable for any act of their child.  There are times where that may be appropriate, but it is largely out of their control.

 

Stepping down the path to making parents guilty in these cases sets a dangerous course on a possible slippery slope. 

[Mr. Brooks]

I take away from it my concern as well - parents are now liable for any act of their child. There are times where that may be appropriate, but it is largely out of their control.

 

Stepping down the path to making parents guilty in these cases sets a dangerous course on a possible slippery slope.

Ok, yeah, and I agree with that as well.

But that's completely different than the responsibility that should come with guns in particular, or should I emphasize firearms, not nail guns.

People should have a responsibility, if they are going to own something that is intended to kill things, to keep that secured. It will be impossible to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, if the people who can have them don't take reasonable steps to ensure that someone who can't doesn't use theirs.

[TheLeviathan]

I think the problem is that many adults purposefully train their children with their guns and give them access to those guns for a host of reasons that are largely well-intentioned.

[Mr. Brooks]

I think the problem is that many adults purposefully train their children with their guns and give them access to those guns for a host of reasons that are largely well-intentioned.

Well, I have two thoughts on that:

 

1) There is no reason why they can't train their kids to shoot, and hunt with them, while still locking them away at all other times.

 

2) That's fine if a person is certain their kid isn't a threat.

I refuse to believe these kids exhibit zero warning signs before they act.

In fact we nearly always find out that the red flags were everywhere.

If your child shows those warning signs, you have a responsibility not only to the child, but to everyone in society that child could harm, to get them help and to secure any firearms in the home.

 

I'm not saying every case should result in liability, but sometimes it's there.

We recently had one of these shootings (sadly there are so many that I can't recall which one it was), where the police took the shooters guns away, but gave them to the father. The father assured police he'd keep them secure from his son, but not only failed to secure them, he actively returned them to his son.

 

Now tell me how any possible measure to keep guns out of the hands of violent or disturbed people has any chance of working if there is no liability for someone else giving them access to, or downright giving them guns?

[Mike Sixel]

If a parent buys alcohol for a minor, and something bad happens, they are accountable.

 

I think, but am not sure.....but if a parent has guns that aren't locked up, they might need to be accountable for what happens if they are taken by their children. I think. I'm not sure. Probably not.

 

It's a tough call, really. On the one hand, the biggest hand, it's not the parent's that do this, and people (mostly) are not accountable for what others do......but on the smaller hand, sometimes they are. Hate speech for example, that is acted on, is a crime. (edit: I had more here, but my stupid computer moved teh cursor up here and I lost it. Hate this computer so much. So very much.)

 

My issue with holding the parent accountable is that we just don't know, in most cases, and I'd rather a few guilty people go free, than any innocent people go to jail. 

 

So, ya, unless there is evidence the parent enabled them, or used hate speech, or something....I can't hold them accountable.

 

And,yes, guns are the issue here. Other nations have the same underlying issues, but they don't have ease of access to guns.

[Vanimal46]

Well, I have two thoughts on that:

 

1) There is no reason why they can't train their kids to shoot, and hunt with them, while still locking them away at all other times.

 

2) That's fine if a person is certain their kid isn't a threat.

I refuse to believe these kids exhibit zero warning signs before they act.

In fact we nearly always find out that the red flags were everywhere.

If your child shows those warning signs, you have a responsibility not only to the child, but to everyone in society that child could harm, to get them help and to secure any firearms in the home.

 

I'm not saying every case should result in liability, but sometimes it's there.

We recently had one of these shootings (sadly there are so many that I can't recall which one it was), where the police took the shooters guns away, but gave them to the father. The father assured police he'd keep them secure from his son, but not only failed to secure them, he actively returned them to his son.

 

Now tell me how any possible measure to keep guns out of the hands of violent or disturbed people has any chance of working if there is no liability for someone else giving them access to, or downright giving them guns?

I agree with all of this. In regards to the Santa Fe, TX shooter his father provided the guns used in the shooting to his son. I also refuse to believe he was a "good boy" that displayed zero red flags prior to this. Teenagers aren't that hard to read. They may not be willing to have difficult conversations what's truly bothering them, but that responsibility is on the parents to get their kids help if they need it.

[PseudoSABR]

I think people are conflating strict liability (always accountable no matter the circumstances) and negligence (liability when a person fails to enact a standard of care).   If a parent doesn't lock up their guns, and there kids get to them, that's probably negligent.   If a parent locks up their guns and the kids break in and get them, that's probably not negligent.  

 

In any case, I think this is the context of civil liability not criminal liability.  That the parents could be sued by the victims families, not necessarily face prosecution.

[TheLeviathan]

I guess I'm not sure on the answer to this, are the suggestions to hold parents liable about negligence or more than that?

 

From the bits and pieces I have heard, it seemed to be more.

[biggentleben]

 

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be purposely obtuse, but I really have no idea what you are trying to say here.
A nail gun? What is the relevance to a nail gun to what's been discussed?

 

Well, frankly, my guns are not in the house. They're at the farm for hunting purposes, so the only thing in my home that could be used in a "mass injury" sort of manner is a battery-powered nail gun...sadly, that's something I've had to consider.

[biggentleben]

 

I agree with all of this. In regards to the Santa Fe, TX shooter his father provided the guns used in the shooting to his son. I also refuse to believe he was a "good boy" that displayed zero red flags prior to this. Teenagers aren't that hard to read. They may not be willing to have difficult conversations what's truly bothering them, but that responsibility is on the parents to get their kids help if they need it.

 

Being willing to get the help needed and actually getting that help are two very, very different things.

[biggentleben]

 

I guess I'm not sure on the answer to this, are the suggestions to hold parents liable about negligence or more than that?

 

From the bits and pieces I have heard, it seemed to be more.

 

That's where I'm at as well. Discussion of even having the guns in the house, no matter how well locked up, making a parent liable for their child's actions is something that's quite frequently thrown out there.

 

That line of thinking only indicates stronger to me that there is little to no understanding of the system that has been put into place to get help for young people. It's much easier to put the burden on the parents than to truly provide the help needed, but then again, that's the same case we're in with mental health.

[ashbury]

I agree with all of this. In regards to the Santa Fe, TX shooter his father provided the guns used in the shooting to his son. I also refuse to believe he was a "good boy" that displayed zero red flags prior to this. Teenagers aren't that hard to read. They may not be willing to have difficult conversations what's truly bothering them, but that responsibility is on the parents to get their kids help if they need it.

Got kids? Been through teen years in particular? I'm in agreement with most of the thoughts expressed here and above if the words "try to" are sprinkled here and there, but there's a limit to how much responsibility I would hold any parent to. My three kids never gave me trouble, but, there but for the grace of God go I.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Got kids? Been through teen years in particular? I'm in agreement with most of the thoughts expressed here and above if the words "try to" are sprinkled here and there, but there's a limit to how much responsibility I would hold any parent to. My three kids never gave me trouble, but, there but for the grace of God go I.

 

Yeah, it was hard not to read your quote there Vanimal and think you and I have very different impressions of working with kids.  And of parenting.  

 

Part of the problem, IMO, is that we are at a point where seemingly stable kids can go completely off the deep end in rapid fashion.  What was once just crushing to us for an hour, or a day, or a weekend (like a rejection or a fall out with a friend) is now so catastrophic for a number of reasons that kids have equally catastrophic reactions.  I wouldn't call that a parenting problem as much as a cultural one and you can only insulate your kid from the culture so much.

[Mr. Brooks]

I guess I'm not sure on the answer to this, are the suggestions to hold parents liable about negligence or more than that?

 

From the bits and pieces I have heard, it seemed to be more.

Negligence, for me.

I took Van to be speaking about more.

For me, I'm not just saying parents. Although they are often the ones with the accessible guns in these cases, it could be anyone.

If you don't reasonably secure your guns, and someone takes them and kills someone (or accidentally kills themselves), you should be criminally liable, IMO.

[Mr. Brooks]

Well, frankly, my guns are not in the house. They're at the farm for hunting purposes, so the only thing in my home that could be used in a "mass injury" sort of manner is a battery-powered nail gun...sadly, that's something I've had to consider.

Well we all have hundreds if not thousands of items in our homes that "could" be used to kill someone. None of them except firearms are designed specifically to kill things. Therefore firearms should be held to a higher standard of liability, IMO.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Negligence, for me.
I took Van to be speaking about more.
For me, I'm not just saying parents. Although they are often the ones with the accessible guns in these cases, it could be anyone.
If you don't reasonably secure your guns, and someone takes them and kills someone (or accidentally kills themselves), you should be criminally liable, IMO.

 

I'm on board with that.  I just would be curious to see how many times that has been part of the lead up to one of these situations.

 

Not that it matters, there is no freaking way that ever gets by the NRA.  Though I kind of find it funny to hear hard right-wingers pushing it.

[biggentleben]

 

Well we all have hundreds if not thousands of items in our homes that "could" be used to kill someone. None of them except firearms are designed specifically to kill things. Therefore firearms should be held to a higher standard of liability, IMO.

 

100% agree. My issue is when something that could be used is used and it's not a gun, then we have the NRA drip-lips pointing and saying, "see it's not just guns!" Quite frankly, I know in our case, anything would be a viable issue, but I can't lock up anything and everything in the house that could be used in a multi-person attack. Plenty of comments I've seen would have me liable if my child were to utilize one of those dozens of items.

 

And that is exactly where we then get off the rails. Instead of addressing a culture that worships at the altar of the almighty trigger, we get sidelined on nearly every single other thing. Should mental health in this country be addressed? Hell yes! Should getting help for those young people that need it be less bureaucratic for all involved? Absolutely! Does moving our focus to things like this EVERY SINGLE TIME something happens pull us from addressing the real issue at hand? Of course, and that's exactly what Ollie North and his buddies want.

[Mr. Brooks]

100% agree. My issue is when something that could be used is used and it's not a gun, then we have the NRA drip-lips pointing and saying, "see it's not just guns!" Quite frankly, I know in our case, anything would be a viable issue, but I can't lock up anything and everything in the house that could be used in a multi-person attack. Plenty of comments I've seen would have me liable if my child were to utilize one of those dozens of items.

 

And that is exactly where we then get off the rails. Instead of addressing a culture that worships at the altar of the almighty trigger, we get sidelined on nearly every single other thing. Should mental health in this country be addressed? Hell yes! Should getting help for those young people that need it be less bureaucratic for all involved? Absolutely! Does moving our focus to things like this EVERY SINGLE TIME something happens pull us from addressing the real issue at hand? Of course, and that's exactly what Ollie North and his buddies want.

Well said.

[D. Hocking]

Wow...(in full disclosure - I did not listen to all of the NRA video that was with this tweet, it could be that it was well thought out and balanced).

 

NRATV
‏@NRATV
Follow Follow @NRATV
"It's time to put an end to this glorification of carnage in pursuit of ratings because it's killing our kids. It's time for Congress to step up and pass legislation putting common sense limitations on #MSM's ability to report on these school shootings." –@MrColionNoir #MSMsense

[Mr. Brooks]

I actually agree that the media should not publish the shooter's name, if that's what they are getting at with that tweet.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I actually agree that the media should not publish the shooter's name, if that's what they are getting at with that tweet.

 

I'm playing devil's advocate here.....would that actually be better?  I have gone back and forth on this issue about glorifying the shooter.

 

Perhaps a different approach back when Columbine happened that would've changed things, but now I worry if the mainstream media pushes his name out of the headlines it will only embolden those that would appreciate his glorification to make an even more profound martyr out of the shooter.  That they'll revere and emulate the shooter even more because society has once again shunned him.

 

I guess I look at this Incel phenomenon and wonder if we're already past the point where this helps.

[Vanimal46]

Yeah, it was hard not to read your quote there Vanimal and think you and I have very different impressions of working with kids. And of parenting.

 

Part of the problem, IMO, is that we are at a point where seemingly stable kids can go completely off the deep end in rapid fashion. What was once just crushing to us for an hour, or a day, or a weekend (like a rejection or a fall out with a friend) is now so catastrophic for a number of reasons that kids have equally catastrophic reactions. I wouldn't call that a parenting problem as much as a cultural one and you can only insulate your kid from the culture so much.

I'm not a parent yet and I can only go off of my time as a teenager which wasn't that long ago...

 

I guess times have changed that much in 10 years. Of course there were situations that were embarrassing, lost friends, all of the normal teenage stuff.

 

The big "killer" during my teenage years was suicide. One friend of mine took his own life for very stupid reasons, because a girl rejected him.

 

I don't understand the disconnect today where kids take it to the next level... shooting people that embarrassed them or they don't like and taking their own life. How did this become part of school culture in such a small amount of time?

[Vanimal46]

Negligence, for me.

I took Van to be speaking about more.

For me, I'm not just saying parents. Although they are often the ones with the accessible guns in these cases, it could be anyone.

If you don't reasonably secure your guns, and someone takes them and kills someone (or accidentally kills themselves), you should be criminally liable, IMO.

You said it better than me.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm not a parent yet and I can only go off of my time as a teenager which wasn't that long ago...

I guess times have changed that much in 10 years. Of course there were situations that were embarrassing, lost friends, all of the normal teenage stuff.

The big "killer" during my teenage years was suicide. One friend of mine took his own life for very stupid reasons, because a girl rejected him.

I don't understand the disconnect today where kids take it to the next level... shooting people that embarrassed them or they don't like and taking their own life. How did this become part of school culture in such a small amount of time?

 

Suicide remains an issue too unfortunately.  The world has changed a lot since many of us were kids.  When I was in high school things like Napster and being able to play 4 players on Bond was a marvel of technology.

 

Now 9 year olds think nothing of playing with dozens of people across the world on FortNite.  Kids can be in an intense social encounter without another human in the same room as them.  Parenting is a problem, but it's also ridiculously more difficult than ever and many good, attentive, well-meaning parents end up with kids that make terrible decisions.

[Vanimal46]

As much as I want to be a parent one day, challenges like this give me pause... My age group in their late 20s was the last generation that could ride their bikes to the park and play with their friends until dinner time without adult supervision.

 

/end rant now get off my lawn.

[Mr. Brooks]

I'm playing devil's advocate here.....would that actually be better? I have gone back and forth on this issue about glorifying the shooter.

 

Perhaps a different approach back when Columbine happened that would've changed things, but now I worry if the mainstream media pushes his name out of the headlines it will only embolden those that would appreciate his glorification to make an even more profound martyr out of the shooter. That they'll revere and emulate the shooter even more because society has once again shunned him.

 

I guess I look at this Incel phenomenon and wonder if we're already past the point where this helps.

Perhaps. But I think more often some (not all) of these mass killers want to go down in infamy. The Aurora theater shooter, for one.