Divorced dad’s attempt to bond with his daughter ended in tragedy… now legal experts say it could spark seismic shift in America’s gun laws
Jeffrey Rupnow, a divorced father from Wisconsin, gave his 15-year-old daughter Natalie a gun as a bonding gesture, only for her to use it to kill a classmate and a teacher before taking her own life at Abundant Life Christian School in Madison in December 2024. Rupnow has now been sentenced to prison after admitting he provided the weapon and access to it despite knowing his daughter's troubled mental state, and legal experts say the case could set an influential precedent for holding parents criminally liable for their children's gun violence, potentially reshaping how US courts and lawmakers approach firearm access and parental responsibility.
Prosecutors argued Rupnow ignored warning signs about his daughter's mental health and safety around firearms, allowing her unsupervised access to the weapon that was later used in the December 2024 shooting, which left a teacher and a student dead and several others injured before Natalie killed herself. His sentencing follows a wave of similar prosecutions of parents in the wake of US school shootings, and commentators say the case adds momentum to efforts to expand parental accountability laws and tighten rules around secure gun storage, particularly involving minors with known mental health concerns.
- Wisconsin father jailed after daughter used his gun in fatal school shooting
- Natalie Rupnow, 15, killed a teacher and student, then herself
- Case may drive US legal shift toward parental liability for gun access
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates for tighter restrictions argue that this tragedy exposes a genuine gap in the law: when a minor with known emotional difficulties can access a firearm that is then used to devastating effect, the law should hold responsible adults accountable and mandate safe storage or access controls. They contend that no bond-building exercise justifies the risk when a young person is already vulnerable, and that stronger liability rules or mandatory training and locking requirements would save lives without banning firearms outright, simply ensuring greater caution around who can reach them and when.
The case against
Those wary of new restrictions argue that teaching a child to handle firearms safely and responsibly is a long-standing, lawful parenting choice exercised by millions of families without incident, and that this father's intentions were loving rather than reckless. They caution against legislating from a single tragic case, warning that sweeping liability laws or access restrictions could criminalise ordinary responsible gun ownership, erode parental discretion and Second Amendment rights, and fail to address the underlying mental health factors that were the true cause of this outcome.