You're not wrong, but there's no legal avenue to require men to become "responsible" fathers when there's little agreement what "responsible" would even mean. As an alternative, we need to expand legal liability for enabler parents who allow adult children to live with them while buying and storing guns and ammunition obviously not intended for self-protection or hunting.
This is not entirely a new idea. In most places, parents are already liable for acts of their children up to a certain age that varies by locale:
Parental liability for the actions of their children, whether it's for civil actions or criminal acts, varies by jurisdiction and by situation. Learn about this and more at FindLaw's Family Law Center.
www.findlaw.com
Under that kind of statute, the parents' liability usually does not depend whether they actually knew their 13-year-old was getting ready to throw a cinder block through a plate glass window or to spraypaint graffiti on a house. They are liable nonetheless.
But for some reason, the law seems to leave parents of adult children in the clear, even when they know their adult child is disturbed but they still allow him to collect firearms and ammunition for storage in
their house while they ignore the dangers to themselves and the public.
Parental love is important, but parents should still be legally liable when their offspring opens fire on the public and they could have prevented it. Parents should not have legal immunity in these cases. They should not have any legal rights to either (1) keep their assets, or (2) pass their assets through inheritance to their other adult children, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews or other zygotes. Period.
Need an example?
en.m.wikipedia.org
Lanza was known by his parents to have "depression, anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder." His parents' assets should go to Lanza's victims, not to his relatives.