Father of Georgia Shooting Suspect Arrested, Charged with Involuntary Manslaughter, 2nd Degree Murder
- Thread starter PatMiles
- Start date
5.56 has minimal recoil nice try jumping to .50 BMG(seen small children shoot it with a huge smile) and turning into more of an old man with your comments. You also proved my comment correct you think teens can’t handle small caliber recoil(see women can only handle a revolver example it’s very similar as far as stupid opinions go).
I actually started with a .30-06 at 4-5 so I guess I am manlier than you, but wouldn’t recommend it if you must know. Still a far cry from .223/5.56 which is almost nothing.
“I know what works”
I was a shooting instructor I’ve taught thousands of people to shoot everything from shotguns, rimfire, handguns, rifle, and full auto. Plenty of people have even shot full auto for their first time touching a firearm with zero issue and a competent instructor. You just don’t allow retards to do it.
Edit- @sloporsche fixed it for you BB
, no homo
Last edited:
I agree with this... BUT... until a child reaches the age of majority (used to be 18...,) the parents are liable. Or traditionally have been responsible for the actions of their children. Car accidents... drinking and supplying alcohol, other stuff. If a kid cannot be held responsible for their actions as a juvenile, then who is accountable? The parents.
But there is a dangerous precedent to holding parents responsible for actions of a juvenile who is bent on murder.
That said... how many hood rat parents are held responsible for their gangbanger children? For decades... gangs have used under-age kids as their mules, dealers, hitters and such to do heinous things. Partly because a kid has fewer moral apprehensions. Partly because they know that they get charged as juveniles and may get a light or nothing sentence for carrying out major crimes.
When have parents of hood rats ever been charged?
I don't have answers here... it's a shit sandwich. And the downside of having a lot of freedom endowed upon us through an amazing 'idea' for government.
So... is a parent completey un-touchable for the actions of a child? Or is there a tipping point at which one says the action of the parent is ultimately so negligent that they do bear some responsibility?
I don't like the potential case law. But at the same time, without 'role models' (of parents punished or facing responsibility) what stops any of this.
Just pondering.
Sirhr
no...you are just a putz who reads too fast without comprehension ...slo yo roll fudd
Unlike our forefathers I don’t drink.
Gun laws have never stopped a shooting or kept firearms from criminals.
Now you're starting to get over the target.
It's not about recoil, it's about being mature enough to accept and handle the responsibility. Maturity isn't necessarily connected to an age.
I also agree with many of your points, and yeah, in some cases, I would also tend toward parent responsibility. But I've also seen too often how government works and it will continually overreach and that reason alone puts me right back to the square: "No." Yeah, it sucks as there is definitely nuance and if proper discernment were always exercised, then it makes sense. But we know government will not exercise discernment and will weaponize the law whenever it can.
I’ve been over the target, you’re the one one with opinions rather than facts lol.
A .22lr can kill someone same as a .223/5.56 will. Deadly is deadly
And we aren’t talking the bouncing around in your body/skull bs
To me, this has nothing to do with gun control, but everything to do with responsible parenting. This kid had problems that were out in the open. There had already been an interaction with law enforcement over potential threats of violence. I bet if the dad had been paying attention to the kid’s internet and social media usage he would have known something was brewing.
I don’t see how you hold the parents fully responsible when the law doesn’t let parents do parenting how they believe is best.
Accountability is fine, so long as it’s equal on both sides of the equation.
Feel bad for him..,ex wife was a drug addict which affected his kid, kid killed people in his community, and now he’s going to jail
Yeah i mean I get it, but then again, I'd bet none of those gang banger parents gave their kid a gun either. Knowingly giving a powerful rifle to a kid who's just threatened to kill people at school is unbelievably stupid. Also, I've heard that this kids druggy mother locked him out of the house at night and such as that. I'm sure there's much more to this tragic ending that we don't yet know but if the fbi comes to my house one day and tells me my kid made a threat like that you can be sure I won't be giving him a rifle to keep in his room.
I had several guns in my room at that age but this whole school shooting phenomenon changed a lot and at this point, ESPECIALLY if you have some weirdo kid who gets picked on and is troubled, you don't let him have unsupervised access to a gun.
It's a crazy world we've allowed to become reality.
Well I'm glad you understand that at least.
But the FACT remains that a .223 is considerably more lethal than a .22 rimfire.
I always struggle with the definition of child, per the law and when the rezponsibilty for crime ends for a parent.
For instance, if the kid was 17 years and 364 days old, parent is responsible? What if 17 and 265 days old. We all know 1 day or 100 days doesnt amount to shit. At 14 kids know what they doing. They understand crime and responsibilties that come with those crimes. If the kid was 8 or 10. I MIGHT think differently.
The verdict on this will set a standard moving forward. I hope not guilty, but poor people take plea deals.
I think all of us agree that bullets entering the body can do crazy shit. Remember the Curtis Reeves trial? The old guy who killed the younger guy in the movie theater with either a .32ACP or .380ACP? Bullet blew off the finger of the younger guy's wife and still had the momentum to kill the guy in just one shot. And then there's times where someone will get mag dumped and not suffer any life threatening injuries.
It won't set a standard. Depending on the jurisdiction's location, they will charge whatever they want and go for it.
See Trump. . .
Similar threads
