A Targeted Gun Control

After the latest school shooting, there has been the usual round of pointless politicking by people who know perfectly well that there will be no global changes in our firearms regimen but who think they can profit from the tragedy. Likewise, there has been the usual pointing-out that the security systems knew about this threat perfectly well, and did nothing to stop it as is so often the case (the "known wolf" problem, which occurs both here and in the UK). 

What I haven't seen people discussing is that we have as a society arrived at, and indeed instituted, a novel form of gun control targeting these cases.
The father of Colt Gray, the teen suspect in the Apalachee High School shooting, was arrested, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation announced Thursday.

Colin Gray, 54, is being charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter, two counts of second-degree murder and eight counts of cruelty to children, the GBI said. The 14-year-old shooting suspect has been charged with four counts of felony murder.

GBI Director Chris Hosey said at a news conference Thursday night that the charges against Colin Gray stem from "knowingly allowing his son to possess a weapon." During a brief court hearing Friday morning, Judge Currie Mingledorff II told Colin Gray he faced up to 180 years in prison if he was convicted on all counts. The judge also advised him of his rights, and the father said, "Yes, sir," in response to some questions from the judge.

To my knowledge, this is only the second time this approach has been employed; to be effective, it will need to become a regular and expected thing. 

It's novel to charge people with murder when they never killed anyone nor tried to kill anyone. It may be pernicious to do so even if courts and juries agree to the approach.

However, it strikes me that it is a far more likely approach to achieve success at reducing the incidence of these shootings than the sort of global gun-control efforts that tend to be suggested. 

Statistically, AR-15s and similar rifles are used in almost no crime; the fact that the exceptions are spectacularly tragic doesn't change the fact that almost all such rifles are "in common use for lawful purposes." There are estimated to be around 20 million of them, but in 2022 rifles of all kinds accounted for only 541 of the ~8,000 firearm homicides. If we assumed for the sake of argument (without evidence, and as is in fact unlikely) that 500 of those were with ARs, and that each death used a separate AR, that would give you a rate of 0.0025%; that means that in a given year, 99.9975% of ARs are not used to murder anyone. Any attempt to solve the problem with global solutions is thus already way up against the point of diminishing returns. The effort required to reduce below 99.9975% is going to be huge and expensive. 

Raising the cost for parents who ought to know that their own particular kid is a risk, however, localizes the effort in places where there is a heightened risk. It addresses that 'known wolf' issue: the FBI and the local police knew this kid was a risk, and had in fact interviewed him and his father about it. The tool of holding the parent or guardian responsible gives them a tool they can use to encourage safer gun storage around dangerous youth, or even a decision by the parent to forgo having guns for a few years until the teenager moves on out to other things. 

I still have concerns about the morality of charging people for crimes they never even contemplated, let alone committed. Speaking merely about the effectiveness of the tactic, though, it seems like a better bet than other approaches people like to suggest. 

5 comments:

  1. Gringo1:24 PM

    As you point out, probably not fair, but probably effective. If parents realize they will be liable for any shootings their offspring commit, they will be much more rigorous in controlling access to firearms in their households.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous5:25 PM

    I'm of two minds. I agree with Grim that charging someone for being an accessory or accomplice to a crime that he himself did not commit seems excessive. Then I think back to other cases where a parent knew that a teen had mental problems, and did nothing. In one case, the parent used her position to conceal the records of the boy's mental problems and violent tendencies. Someone like that should be held partially culpable, in my opinion.

    I do not know where the line between the two should be drawn, or if it should be more of a sloped gradation than a hard line.

    LittleRed1

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is there any explanation of how the father is being charged with second-degree murder but the son who was the actual shooter is charged with FELONY murder? IANAL but it seems to me that somebody is taking a novel approach to charging in this case. My understanding is that felony murder is almost always a charge against an accomplice in the commission of a felony during which a murder occurs but who is not actively involved in the killing.

    I share some of the concerns as LittleRed, quite specifically where do you draw the line? If the kid gets a weapon from another source, are the parents liable if they tolerated his interest in guns but didn't have them in the house? How about if he doesn't use a gun? Are they liable for providing internet access if he finds out how to build a bomb online? How about the parents of a kid who drives drunk and kills someone? Are they similarly liable if they aren't teetotalers?

    If this is to become the norm then the mental health commitment and confinement procedures for minors have to be modified to support parents in their efforts to deal with this, not stand in their way.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In Georgia, “Felony Murder” is a capital crime in which a murder occurs during the commission of a felony. It is true that you can end up charged with it if you were an accomplice in the felony but not the murder; but you can also be charged with it if you committed the murder while also committing the felony.

    If you and your buddy commit armed robbery and he shoots a clerk dead, you could both be charged. Here the father didn’t participate in the felony (of which there are several attending the murders).

    ReplyDelete
  5. A firearm in a house should be secured such that minors have no unsupervised access to them. In some States, at least, there are laws to this effect. Giving a child a firearm is not and should not be a crime. But in this case letting this child have unfettered access to it seems like depraved indifference.

    ReplyDelete