I’m a staunch proponent of the Second Amendment. I grew up around hunting and guns, have taken basic firearms training classes, and own firearms not for hunting but home protection. I believe in the statement, “if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”
This precept hasn’t been shaken by the horrors of school shootings, mass casualty shootings, and the assassinations and terrifying attempted assassinations that have occurred in my lifetime—JFK, RFK, MLK, John Lennon, and Ronald Reagan. The day of the attempted assassination of Donald Trump this summer was one of the worst—and at the same time best, because he survived—days of my life.
But I never blame the guns. I always factored that the leftist threat to gun ownership was more about gleaning power for a centralized, potentially totalitarian government than stopping crime. Still, I come down in support of authorities in Winder, GA who arrested Colin Gray, father of 14-year-old Colt Gray, alleged perpetrator of a school shooting that took the lives of two students and two teachers, and wounded nine others. Punitive ramifications for those who deliver firearms to demonstrably unstable individuals must carry weight as a means of sending a strong societal message.
While anyone can give a gun to a potential crackpot, the focus here is on incidents when parents or other family members, in the face of clear evidence that another family member suffers from a mental illness or propensity for violence, provides a weapon to them. The majority of shooters and the families of shooters, including Colt Gray and the Colin Gray family, come to national attention for tragic outcomes after an alarming history of threats, interventions, and red flags which have been documented but insufficiently addressed.
There will be legal nuances and requirements for the application of wise jurisprudence in cases where parents may or may not be held responsible for the actions of their children. In many instances, parents will not own guns themselves, and/or may have no knowledge that their disturbed child has obtained a weapon. Once an individual’s out of the parental nexus and acting as an independent adult, parents will generally be indemnified from responsibility for the perpetrator’s gun violence.
But as long as a family member lives at home, others, from grandparents down to siblings, must know that should they provide a firearm to someone in the family who’s presented mental problems, made credible threats etc., that a knock on the door from law enforcement may be forthcoming—for them as well as the offender.
Just as establishments that serve alcohol can be held liable for inebriated patrons who go on to perpetrate vehicular mayhem, the person who gives a gun to an unstable potential killer must face the consequences.
The sight of Mr. Gray sitting in court in prison garb, devastated by the knowledge of the act his troubled teenage son committed, and likely now pondering his own potential culpability, presents a tableau that we’ll unfortunately witness again. He’s charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter, two counts of second degree murder, eight counts of cruelty to children, and faces up to 180 years in prison. His legal representation may use arms bearing rights as prescribed by the Constitution to mitigate the severity of the charges against him, and possibly get those charges thrown out entirely.
In a nation where parents often send children to school with a vague sense of foreboding, it’ll be viewed by many as a positive development if some or all of the charges stick, and give pause to those who irresponsibly put firearms into the hands of troubled youth.