Is the father to blame in the wake of the Marysville tragedy?

Who is responsible?

That’s the question being asked after a tragic event. And that was the case after Jaylen Fryberg walked into Marysville-Pilchuck High School and killed four teens, injured another, and then killed himself in October 2014.

Many turned to the Jaylen’s father and questioned how he had access to a gun. On Tuesday, Raymond Fryberg, Jaylen’s father, was found guilty of six counts of illegal possession of a firearm by a federal jury. It was discovered that a 2002 restraining order was in effect when he obtained many of his guns. He claimed he did not know of the order, however.

Related: Father of high school shooter found guilty of gun charges

The order was placed with the Tulalip Tribal Court, but never forwarded to state authorities. Fryberg passed at least a dozen background checks when he purchased his firearms in the years to follow.

But the ruling only compounds the sentiment that if Fryberg was prevented from obtaining a gun &#8212 as the restraining order should have done &#8212 his son, in turn, may not have had access to the firearm at the center of the Marysville tragedy.

Some people, such as KIRO Radio’s John Curley and Brian Moote, question whether the father is truly at fault.

Fryberg’s attorney argued that his client didn’t have anything to do with the shooting.

“He had nothing to do with the tragedy that happened at the school. He can’t even think about it without crying,” Fryberg’s attorney said.

John Curley: My heart breaks for the parents or anybody that knows the kids that lost their lives in this tragedy. They’re trying to find somebody. They are saying, “What’s the deal? Well, it looks like the guy had guns around the house and the kid got one of these guns. How did he get one of these guns? Dad got the guns. How did dad get the guns? He bought them at these stores. Then, oh, look at this, there was a restraining order filed against him in 2002. There’s a piece of paper that said he shouldn’t be able to get the guns. He should have put that down on the application. He either lied on the application, or forgot the restraining order was still in effect. He has the guns, so now we are going to go get him.”

Brian Moot: I understand our frustration for him breaking the law and the proximity for Jaylen to get access firearms when he had severe mental health problems. But I think we go too far. We end up vilifying a father. He did break the law, but he’s also hurting too. He lost a son.

JC: But the father is not seen as the victim here.

BM: He’s not. But do we not also consider him somewhat of a victim for losing a family member?

JC: I don’t know. I was reading a bunch about the folks from the Columbine tragedy in Colorado. And those parents &#8212 I think one has written a book about how it wasn’t their fault. But people still blame them. [They say] “You should have known. You should have done something. You should have seen it. You knew they were in their basement. You knew they were making pipe bombs. Why weren’t you more involved in your child’s life?” Maybe somebody doesn’t come out publicly and say that &#8212 although some of the parents from Columbine came out and tried to sue the parents &#8212 I think quietly they still think Fryberg’s father is somehow guilty. And they were able to find this one piece of paper that shows there was a breakdown in the system that would have stopped him from getting guns. So they feel like some justice is served. I think that’s the thing when someone takes a gun, shoots everybody, then turns it on themselves. You feel as if they robbed us of the ability to have them go through our system. And we get the final say, and we determine what your actions will reap for you.

BM: It’s a tricky situation … there’s no winners. There was never going to be a winner in this situation.