Honestly though

His parents should be charged as accessories.

Agreed

Not accessories, unless they were aware of the intent. What they should be charged with is criminal negligence. And the guns used in this shooting aren't those that are ever going to get banned, no chance.

In a house with minors guns are required to be locked up. His dad really screwed the pooch cause I really doubt a minor could be a savant lock breaker. This is just another reason all minors should be in counseling.

A 17 year old could easily get into a gun safe, especially if they knew the combination or where the key is. He was 17, not 7.

Why the fuck would you give a minor your safe combo.

Circumventing the law by letting them know the combination or know the location of the key is a sign of a shitty parent and is still the parents fault for letting them get ahold of it.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? A) I didn't say his parents weren't at fault, at least partially. B) I also didn't say they gave him the combo, I just disputed that bad to be some kind of cat burglar to gain access. He could have easily figured it out in a number of ways, not the least of which is if he'd just watched his father open it. Teenagers are idiots, they tend to be incredibly resourceful when they want to. And no, that isn't a sign of a shitty parent. The guy was 17 years old, almost a legal adult. Also, just in case you are unaware, in Texas 17 isn't considered a minor when it comes to having access to guns. That doesn't mean they can own them, but parents aren't necessarily liable for them getting ahold of one in the home.

Unless it's a really shitty safe it'll have a good enough lock on it that watching someone open it wouldn't give you the combo. 4 digit locks are exceptionally easy to get into even without seeing it opened and aren't used in quality safes. It'll usually either a quality dial lock or a key lock with 2 sets of pins. If a 17 year old could break into that without previously being told the combo or having the key there's definitely a problem somewhere else in their life.

Again I say, legally he could have access to the gun because he is 17. Hell, he could have bought one himself with a note from his parents. One of the main reasons for having guns in a home is self defense, so why wouldn't you tell your LEGAL AGE son how to get the gun in case of an emergency? But AGAIN, we don't know the circumstances in the home, we don't how he got the guns or how they were secured.

98% of mass shootings are in gun free zones. Maybe we should consider doing something about that before anything else

Despite what you think you know a minor cannot legally purchase a firearm in any state. It can be gifted by parents but access should still be restricted until 18.

Obviously you are the one uninformed. Read up on the laws in Texas.
FYI, concealed carry/carrying a gun isn't the same as purchasing a gun. It is also dependent on the type of gun.

FEDERAL law requires a NICS check for firearms purchase and requires purchasers to be 18 or older. This is enforced by the BATFE. Texas State law does require purchasers to be 18 and holds parents accountable if minors acquire their firearms.
https://gun.laws.com/state-gun-laws/texas-gun-laws
And I’m a concealed carry permit holder, a trap league shooter and used to be a 3 gun league shooter.

Whomever told you you could purchase firearms as a minor in Texas likely has an agenda and knowingly bent the truth.

Did you read the article you posted?
"Minors may also purchase weapons if they can provide for written permission by their parent or legal guardian." Its right there.
FYI, my brother is a federal attorney, that's where I get my information from.

The way my federal agent brothers explained it is that a minor cannot sign a contract and cannot complete form 4473 and therefore cannot purchase a firearm the ATF doesn’t accept a note from mommy. If the parents are there they can sign the form to purchase for their kid. I don’t believe that Texas law can supersede the NICS process.

I specifically said they had to have parents permission and the parents had to give signed consent. How does that differ from what you just said? The point being that a 17 year old can own a firearm. And, returning to the original point of this thread, parents aren't culpable for keeping guns away from a 17 year old. That law is specifically for anyone younger that 17.

Any child can legally own a firearm if it's gifted to them. Federal law still requires it be locked away from them. Whether or not any state law exists if a federal law says a home with a minor requires all weapons to be safely locked away then the parents are at fault in federal court. Federal always supersedes local.

Not necessarily because states have autonomy, just as some states have legalized marijuana and prostitution. It depends on the specific strictures by state, such as what the legal age is per state. A federal law is more like an outline and states determine the specifics of what defines that law.

When I was a teenager my mom had a dial safe with 100 digits.. It took me awhile, but eventually I cracked it. I got the last digit when she didn't lock the safe once, the middle digit when I asked her to get something out of it and peaked, and then just tried for the first digit until I got it.

Why do you think Colorado pot shops don’t take credit cards? The feds could seize the funds. Some states need to be crushed by the feds for some violations (ie sanctuary cities)

No, it has more to do with not risking fraud, as well as customer privacy because while it is legal there is still a stigma. The dispensaries in NV aren't cash only.

http://www.governing.com/topics/finance/sl-marijuana-businesses.html?AMP

Okay, I was misinformed one that one because I'm not really involved. That in no way changes, or has anything to do with the gun ownership/access facts. It's apples and oranges. One is a state reversing a federal law, the other is a state defining a federal law. States have autonomy in that, it was why we had the civil war.