139
Georgia shooting: father of teen suspect charged with second-degree murder
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024
139 points (98.6% liked)
News
23641 readers
3422 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It does matter. The teenager was the owner. Even if the gun was secure it would have been accessible to the teenager. The gun was gifted to the teenager and that is the problem. The teenager should not have position of a fire arm, that we both agree on. Stating that the gun should have been secure completely ignores the actual scenario here.
The contention is that a 14 yo is not a capable owner of a gun. They're a child. The parent owns everything they have, in actuality. Both their possessions and their responsibilities/consequences.
It doesn't matter who did or didn't lock it, it's the parents lack of a lock, parent's lack of supervision, Parents gun, parent's everything
Oh bullshit. I bought my son a rifle when he was a minor. You know where "his" rifle was when we weren't actually using it? Locked up in my fucking gun safe.
Was the teenager the owner? Can a 14 year old legally possess a firearm like that independent of their parent(s)?
I always imagined it was similar to when a parent buys a car and “gifts” it to the child. The car still belongs to the parent, at least until the kid is old enough to take ownership of it.
id put money on the fact that teen did not buy an AR. The human killing remains the responsibility of the purchaser.
had the gift been to another adult, you might have an argument.
you should in absolutely no capacity be able to gift an AR to a 14 year old and claim no responsibility.
But that's why the father is being prosecuted. Because he ultimately gifted the firearm to his teenager. Your original statement was about unsecured firearms. I was pointing out this is not a case of "teenager breaks into house and gets a gun." This is about a father letting their 14 year old have a gun.
this is a failure to secure
Afaik there is no state where an underage person is allowed to handle assault style fully automatic weapons without the supervision of a parent or legal guardian. So even if it is his gun, it falls under parental supervision until 18 years old.
Semi automatic or hunting rifle is a little more murky.
Anyway I think that your comment nailed it - a person under 18 was able to obtain and handle a gun without supervision is a failure to secure.
Not being pedantic to kneecap you but the language matters. An AR 15 is not fully automatic
I'm not saying this to minimize what happened, or the danger of an ar15, but to clarify that fully automatic weapons are much more rare, and much more dangerous.
The linked article doesn't say it was a AR-15 it says assault-style rifle and I would consider the specific model to be splitting hairs, since it hardly matters to the conversation.
But to be truly pedantic the article a little further down specifies it as an Assault style semi-automatic rifle, so fair enough.
Agreed. Still, semi-automatic assault style rifles pose a unique danger in that they could be "upgraded" to fire full auto, although it being illegal. Most of those are derived from regular fully automatic weapons and the layout allows them to be converted more easily. For example a SL08 with I think 4 parts switched can be operated like it's military counterpart, the G36.
Pretty much everything can be converted easily.
There is a huge issue with giggle switches and glock pistols right now in the inner cities. It being an AR pattern rifle doesn't magically make it easier to convert.
this is not pedantic... this is tone deaf to the epidemic. completely and totally irrelevant.
I clarified the relevance. The point is the weapons that are being used to do these things are common, and basic. They aren't special weapons of war, which are more regulated, more rare.
You just missed the critical thinking.
Ar 15s are common. Fully automatic assault rifles are far less so.
how fast the human killing device works, or its specific classification is irrelevant to the epidemic of human killing devices in the united states.
Absolutely untrue.
The point, is that the most common device to do this with is ubiquitous and easy to access.
Properly defining it, and clarifying what is being used is important to coherently discussing the issue.
only if you have an agenda to make some human killing devices ok and others not ok. i dont believe in such differentiation.
they should all be heavily regulated from your garden pshooter to any single shot hunting device to full on human killing weapons regardless of automatic status.
...but only if we want to be serious about the epidemic of the constant human deaths causes by all these devices, which is clearly almost none of us.
When you discuss the topic of regulation you have to address availability. Ignoring the difference in availability during your discussion highlights lack of attention for the challenge.
Calling all rifles automatic assault weapons is like saying you flew Denver to Newark on the space shuttle. It simply doesn't make sense, and devalues the important points
I think you're missing the point. Bringing in difficult to obtain weapons as part of the conversation muddies the conversation about controlling the currently ubiquitous weapons being used.
As an analogy, let's say someone blows something up and hurts people, using dynamite or homemade explosive using gun powder:
"Anyone who has access to the dynamite and RPGs and C-4 should be held responsible for what's done with it!"
"Wait, there was an RPG or C4? I'm pretty sure outside the military it's pretty difficult to get ahold of either of those. They're already heavily regulated."
"What difference does it make? They're explosives used to blow things up and kill people."
"Right, but, again, those are heavily regulated, while what happened was with dynamite, which is not."
"OH! So it's OKAY since the dynamite is not as regulated!"
"No, it's just a different conversation about RPGs and C4."
"Only if you have an agenda!"
Vs.
"Anyone who purchases dynamite should be responsible for what happens to it, unless they can show they've properly secured it and didn't give access to it to someone they shouldn't."
"Agreed, dynamite and gunpowder explosives are common and not as regulated as they should be."
The gun was not full auto.
No it is not.