Georgia shooting: father of teen suspect charged with second-degree murder
Georgia shooting: father of teen suspect charged with second-degree murder
Colin Gray faces four involuntary manslaughter, two second-degree murder and eight cruelty to children counts
The father of the teen suspected in the Georgia school shooting has been arrested, the Georgia bureau of investigation has said.
Colin Gray, 54, was arrested by the bureau in connection to the shooting at Apalachee high school. Colin is the father of Colt Gray, the 14-year-old who is suspected of fatally shooting two students and two teachers with an assault-style rifle at the high school on Wednesday.
He is charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter, two counts of second degree murder and eight counts of cruelty to children, the Georgia bureau said.
You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
but to clarify that fully automatic weapons are much more rare, and much more dangerous.
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.