I once saw an old Free Press editorial cartoon titled “Teenage punks on the loose,” showing a spoiled teenager with rolled-up denims and chukka boots, playing with a gun, whistling, as a chauffeur held the door of a limousine open, waiting for the kid to get in. The editorial cartoon reminded me of a famous photo of a young Rodrigo R. Duterte, dressed in the same rolled-up denims and chukka boots, glaring at the camera as he posed by his father’s gubernatorial car.

The menace of Baby Boomers taking to handguns and hooliganism, upper-class style, was a preoccupation of the early to mid ‘60s, as the editorial cartoon indicates. It was most famously—and chillingly—explored in Nick Joaquin’s crime reportage from the era. In the only conversation I ever had with him (I was asking his permission to include his work in the Free Press’ centennial book), he told me to make sure to include his crime reportage because he considered it his best work.

Someone who belongs to this elite generation—and thus a cohort of President Marcos, who also belongs to this generation—once told me something that struck me. I’ve quoted this before, but it bears remembering again: “In the late ’50s and ’60s, people forget we were getting quite violent, every kid had a knife, and guns were popular. What saved us was rock ‘n’ roll, flower power, free love, and pot. If we hadn’t become hippies, we would have become violent killers with a total sense of impunity.”

It seems every generation reaches a point where acts of spectacular violence lead to the inescapable conclusion that the young have been watching and learning: either from the violence and impunity of their elders, or the twisted, homicidal alienation of their peers, elsewhere, or both.

At present, we are all still piecing together what happened—and why—in Tacloban. There is still much to learn. But it hasn’t been too early for the speculation online to start, whether with regard to a possible fascination with the Columbine shootings or alleged discussions among the suspects suggesting they considered themselves untouchable based on their impressions of the law.

Sen. Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan, for his part, is getting hate comments because of the reforms he sponsored (Sen. Robinhood Padilla, on the other hand, believes justice is best served by lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 10: surprisingly, this is an age that many nations and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child set as the minimum). In a statement, he pointed out that the juvenile justice law says suspects cannot be released just because they’re minors. Furthermore, under the law, the parents of the suspects bear responsibility if they have been negligent; and the Department of Social Welfare and Development is mandated to provide support to the victims and their families.

The mother of one of the victims has publicly demanded that the owners of the guns be charged. This early on, we know the origins of the guns used. One of the guns is Philippine National Police property issued to a policewoman who is an aunt of one of the suspects; the other is registered to a security agency in Cebu.

Pangilinan’s reforms and the devastated mother’s demand all point to the modern trend of holding parents criminally liable for school shootings by their minor children. This gained significant momentum in 2022–2023, notably after the Oxford High School shooting in Michigan (Nov. 30, 2021). Though isolated cases existed earlier, the Oxford case marked a turning point as prosecutors aggressively pursued parents under existing child endangerment and negligence laws. This has accelerated in the United States, with more cases in 2023–2025.

The legal reasoning behind this has four planks. The first is negligence/child endangerment: if parents knowingly or recklessly provided access to firearms, failed to secure weapons, ignored warning signs (e.g., threats, mental health issues), or failed in their duty of care.

The second is accessory/aiding and abetting: in cases where parents helped conceal evidence or encouraged the act.

The third is precedent: building on existing laws holding parents responsible for their children’s gross negligence (e.g., drunk driving by minors, providing alcohol to minors).

And fourth, moral reasoning: the belief is that school shootings are preventable through parental responsibility. Parents have a fundamental duty to secure firearms and monitor high-risk behavior. Holding parents accountable deters negligence and sends a message that “thoughts and prayers” are not enough.

I don’t know if this can be a gun control issue when it’s clearly a case of people who are authorized to have guns being careless with them. Proposals to amend the law won’t affect the outcome of this case; here, an anguished mother’s demand carries great weight—more than posturing politicians’ opinions. But no politician would posture without an audience to pander to, and public anger also betrays public fear: we all know how badly the laws are upheld, how poorly–meaning hardly, if at all—regulations apply to the already-armed; and how easily the impressionable can find their darkest fixations satisfied online. And most feel powerless to do anything about it: hence the demands for legislation and its counterpart in street justice—lynchings.