14-year-olds plot to take over America thwarted

chitoryu12 · Post by **chitoryu12** » 2007-10-12 03:32pm

Wouldn't the case of giving a gun to a teenager be more about the parent than the age? If the kid is given proper training by a professional and is considered to be extraordinarily responsible with it (IE he won't take it out to show it to his friends), then there is no danger. It becomes a problem to let a teenager use a gun if it's a teenager who has no idea about gun safety.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2007-10-12 03:56pm

Seems like the kid had some issues:

Posted on Fri, Oct. 12, 2007

Boy's arsenal, arrest a chilling reminder

Montco teen seemed to be preparing to act against bullies.

By Kathleen Brady Shea and Samantha Shepherd

Inquirer Staff Writers

It wasn't a typical 14-year-old's bedroom. There were three homemade grenades packed with black powder and BBs. There were 30 air-powered guns, modeled to look like real weapons. And there was a genuine 9mm weapon.

Their owner was alleged to be a troubled teen who had been bullied so much by other students that he had been home-schooled for the last 18 months, officials said.

"He may have believed that the world would be a better place without the bullies in it," Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce L. Castor Jr. said yesterday after the teenager was taken into custody and accused of planning a "Columbine-type" assault on Plymouth Whitemarsh High School.

Castor credited police and an "informant" - a high school student whom the teenager tried to recruit - for averting a potential disaster.

The teenager had no ammunition for the weapon, and Castor said there was no evidence an attack was imminent, but, nevertheless, fear gripped the high school after parents and students learned of the possible plot between 9:45 a.m. yesterday, when the school sent out 4,700 automated messages, and 10:45, when teachers made an announcement.

Although the school message emphasized that students were not in danger, many parents were not convinced. Within minutes the campus - already flooded with police cars and officers - became even more congested as parents arrived to pick up their children.

"It's pandemonium," said Maureen Bickings, the mother of Jamie Bickings, 15, and a resident of Plymouth Meeting. "They can't assure us he worked alone. . . . I think my daughter is safer at home."

Others agreed.

"He has to have backup at our school; it can't just be one person," said student Ashley Foley, 15.

Castor said it was the 14-year-old's attempt to recruit assistance that led to his apprehension Wednesday night. The boy he contacted informed his parents, who then alerted police.

"They're to be commended," said Castor.

Plymouth Township Police Chief Carmen D. Pettine said the incident was particularly disturbing "after what happened in Ohio." A day earlier, a 14-year-old in Cleveland shot four people at a high school there, and then killed himself.

School officials from the Colonial School District, which serves Plymouth and Whitemarsh Townships and Conshohocken Borough, declined to discuss their decision to keep the school open, or what security will be in place today. David Sherman, the district's community relations coordinator, referred questions to Castor, who said security would be stepped up.

Counselors will be available at the school today, officials said, and principal Monica Sullivan will address students about the incident.

Citing privacy laws, Castor declined to name the local juvenile or his family, though many students and neighbors believe they know the teenager's identity. Castor said he expected to make a decision within the next few days on whether to charge the teen as an adult. The teenager is in custody of juvenile authorities pending a court hearing.

Castor is also considering whether to file charges against the boy's parents.

Castor said the mother legally purchased the 9mm semiautomatic (which had a laser sight) at a gun show, but then gave it to the teenager, which is a potential violation of state law. He noted that the other items seized from the boy's room were in plain sight. "There is no way that one or both parents doesn't know this," Castor said.

The other items included 30 knives and other edged weapons, and the host of BB guns, designed to resemble genuine assault rifles and automatic weapons.

Police also seized DVDs of the Columbine shooting, notebooks detailing acts of violence, a hand-painted Nazi flag, and books such as The Anarchist Cookbook and a U.S. Army counterinsurgency operations handbook.

Castor said the youth, whose possessions suggested "a disturbed mind," had attended Plymouth schools until his parents started home-schooling him because he was being bullied by other students.

In front of the alarming display of BB guns and knives presented to the media, Castor added that it was difficult to ascertain exactly what acts the teenager might have been willing to undertake.

It could have simply been "big-talking by a student who thought he was bullied previously," Castor said.

On his MySpace site, the student listed his favorite weapons, deeming the AK-47 his top choice. The site is replete with references to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, and says one of his interests is their 1999 massacre in Columbine High School.

He sought to meet "chicks" or "followers willing to be my soldiers." His motto: "Mess with the best, Die like the rest."

"I am pretymuch," he wrote in a badly spelled post, "the posterboy for the person that rests upon the line between Geineus and Madman/Pycopath." The teenager last logged on in early September.

No one answered the door at the teenager's Plymouth Meeting ranch-style home, where a collection of wind chimes lining the front porch blew in the breeze along with an American flag and an Eagles banner. An earlier visitor had left a bouquet of fresh flowers and an envelope.

Beverly Ingram, who lives a couple of doors away, said her grandchildren used to love to play with the teenager five or six years ago.

"He had a menagerie: rabbits, ducks, a dog," she said. "He had everything; his parents got him whatever he wanted."

Ingram, who said she hadn't interacted with the youth in a couple of years, but said she had "thought he was the nicest kid," she said. "I'm totally amazed."

Another couple, who declined to be named, said they often saw the boy shooting BB guns in the backyard.

Across the street, neighbor Eric Olsen kept shaking his head, chilled by the close proximity of the weapons to his 7-month-old daughter.

"To me, he seemed like a normal kid," Olsen said. "I feel for the parents; I hope he gets the help he needs."

I'm not sure if this is the sort of individual who should have access to a gun, but...

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2007-10-12 04:20pm

In other words, he's a fucked up creepy little dweeb who decided that being known as a psychopath was better than not being known at all. Prison is just going to suck for him, though he'll probably end up in juvvie and get out at 18 to be a fucked up creepy adult dweeb.

chitoryu12 · Post by **chitoryu12** » 2007-10-12 05:12pm

Well, perhaps he really wasn't the kind of kid to have a gun after all.

Pulp Hero · Post by **Pulp Hero** » 2007-10-12 07:53pm

Yes, the fact that he went to the effort of building homemade explosive devices really means that this kid felt serious about acting, regardless of weather or not they were as deadly as he thought.

Andrew_Fireborn · Post by **Andrew_Fireborn** » 2007-10-12 08:18pm

Yes, kid's stupid. You don't get remembered for copy-cats, you get remembered for being the first, or being the worst. (And don't try to pretend that the there isn't a segement of society that, at the least, enshrines these types of folks as the worst of the worst. There're a good amount of material on these people who should be stricken from history.)

Illuminatus Primus wrote:"My mommy did it, so its okay!" We know you didn't kill yourself or others, that doesn't mean its intelligent to give lethal weapons to children who can't even drive legally.

The modern history of his country (and several others in the area) would disagree with your entire statement.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2007-10-12 08:24pm

Second that. My first trip to the range was at age 10 (late bloomer by some people's standards). Being taught proper weapon-handling and marksmanship made me safer to be around.

Well, unless you were a pop can, or a white-tail.

Temjin · Post by **Temjin** » 2007-10-12 09:42pm

I have to admit I'm having trouble understanding this.

Firearms are created with one purpose in mind: To end life. Whether it be human or animal is immaterial. It's a tool that puts the power to end life in the hands of common person.

Why are people insisting it's okay to give this power to someone who can't even drive yet? Because you feel they're responsible?

To push the driving analogy further, there are probably a lot of 12, 13, and 14 year olds who could drive very responsibly. But does that mean we should let them?

No, of course not. In fact, there's actually a large movement to get the minimum driving age increased, because it's thought that the average 16 year is old just isn't responsible enough.

But yet you think it's okay to hand them a gun, which can be far more dangerous?

Julhelm · Post by **Julhelm** » 2007-10-12 10:15pm

Why are people insisting it's okay to give this power to someone who can't even drive yet? Because you feel they're responsible?

Because driving is a hell of a lot more dangerous? Shootings are usually highly concious actions, while the majority of traffic accidents are down to people making mistakes. Kids are stupid, but they are still not as prone to shoot eachother (depending on what place we're talking about, obviously) as they are acting immature in traffic.

Temjin · Post by **Temjin** » 2007-10-12 10:32pm

Julhelm wrote:Because driving is a hell of a lot more dangerous? Shootings are usually highly concious actions, while the majority of traffic accidents are down to people making mistakes. Kids are stupid, but they are still not as prone to shoot eachother (depending on what place we're talking about, obviously) as they are acting immature in traffic.

I'm also worried about kids making mistakes with firearms. You admit right in your post that kids are stupid and make mistakes so shouldn't be allowed to drive, but it's perfectly fine to still hand them a damn gun.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2007-10-12 10:43pm

Temjin wrote:
Julhelm wrote:Because driving is a hell of a lot more dangerous? Shootings are usually highly concious actions, while the majority of traffic accidents are down to people making mistakes. Kids are stupid, but they are still not as prone to shoot eachother (depending on what place we're talking about, obviously) as they are acting immature in traffic.
I'm also worried about kids making mistakes with firearms. You admit right in your post that kids are stupid and make mistakes so shouldn't be allowed to drive, but it's perfectly fine to still hand them a damn gun.

It's fine under proper supervision and after proper training in gun handling.
I don't think even the most rabid progun posters here would advocate simply handing a 10 year old a loaded firearm and saying 'have at it' while walking off.

The kid in question obviously had 'issues', and his parents should have taken them into account before buying him anything more lethal than a squirt gun, but that doesn't mean that all kids are incapable of learning how to use firearms without becoming homicidal psychos.

Temjin · Post by **Temjin** » 2007-10-12 11:05pm

Glocksman wrote:It's fine under proper supervision and after proper training in gun handling.

Again, to push the driving analogy, would you be fine with 10 and 12 year olds driving as long as a parent is in the seat next to them?

As I said in a previous post, guns are made with one purpose: To End Life. Why should we be letting children handle them at all? I've yet to hear a good reason.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2007-10-12 11:47pm

Personally, if you could find 10 year olds who exhibit the maturity, physical ability, and the level of judgment necessary to drive under adult supervision, I'd have no problem with it.

Practically, the fact remains that's it's less risky to society at large to permit 10 year olds to shoot under proper supervision than it is to permit them to drive.

Unless the 10 year old is homicidal, teaching one how to properly handle a firearm is no more dangerous than teaching one how to handle a BB or Airsoft gun.

There are literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans who learned how to handle guns as a child from an early age and were given guns as gifts, yet the huge majority of us haven't gone on a rampage and slaughtered our classmates over bullying.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2007-10-12 11:49pm

To clarify, the qualification to the above is adequate adult supervision, which if the news stories are anything to go by, wasn't being exercised in this case.

Temjin · Post by **Temjin** » 2007-10-13 12:14am

Glocksman wrote:Practically, the fact remains that's it's less risky to society at large to permit 10 year olds to shoot under proper supervision than it is to permit them to drive.

Unless the 10 year old is homicidal, teaching one how to properly handle a firearm is no more dangerous than teaching one how to handle a BB or Airsoft gun.

Why? Why teach children how to fire a gun? Why can't it wait until 16 or 17. No one has answered this yet. Why?

There are literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans who learned how to handle guns as a child from an early age and were given guns as gifts, yet the huge majority of us haven't gone on a rampage and slaughtered our classmates over bullying.

This is the second time you've made a statement like this in this thread, and I'm getting tired of it. Where did I say that if you give a kid a gun, they'll immediately become a homicidal maniac? It's a damn Strawman.

What I have been saying, is that children have no need to learn how to use a gun. What I have been saying is that children tend to have more lapses in judgement and tend to make more mistakes than adults, so why take the risk? Even with adult supervision, mistakes can happen.

Honestly, I'm starting to think I'll never understand the whole gun culture in America.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-10-13 01:05am

Temjin wrote:Why? Why teach children how to fire a gun? Why can't it wait until 16 or 17. No one has answered this yet. Why?

Why not? What if daddy likes to hunt? He needs to teach junior how to behave around the weapon whether his dad is cleaning it or firing it. Learning about guns doesn't just include firing it, in fact that's the last thing you learn, the first is how to safely handle it and how to clean it.

This is the second time you've made a statement like this in this thread, and I'm getting tired of it. Where did I say that if you give a kid a gun, they'll immediately become a homicidal maniac? It's a damn Strawman.

You're saying guns are dangerous, his point is that the people who teach their children how to use a gun realize this and safety is the number one priority.

What I have been saying, is that children have no need to learn how to use a gun. What I have been saying is that children tend to have more lapses in judgement and tend to make more mistakes than adults, so why take the risk? Even with adult supervision, mistakes can happen.

I have a question, and I don't mean to strawman you, but it sounds like you think we just hand them a loaded gun and say that today we're learning about guns, only a moron would do this. The people who are teaching their children and do care about them, don't hand them a loaded weapon until they have safety and cleaning down.

Honestly, I'm starting to think I'll never understand the whole gun culture in America.

Gun culture in America? I wonder how you would feel about Sweden.

Temjin · Post by **Temjin** » 2007-10-13 01:24am

General Schatten wrote:Why not? What if daddy likes to hunt? He needs to teach junior how to behave around the weapon whether his dad is cleaning it or firing it. Learning about guns doesn't just include firing it, in fact that's the last thing you learn, the first is how to safely handle it and how to clean it.

Look at what I've been writing. I've not been saying it's a bad idea to teach gun safety, I've been saying that it's taking a needless risk to teach a child how to shoot. I don't care if it's the last thing they learn, I don't why they should learn it that early at all.

You're saying guns are dangerous, his point is that the people who teach their children how to use a gun realize this and safety is the number one priority.

Read the part I quoted. He's saying that guns don't automatically turn a child into a homicidal maniac, which no one in the thread has been saying. He didn't mention gun safety in that part at all.

I have a question, and I don't mean to strawman you, but it sounds like you think we just hand them a loaded gun and say that today we're learning about guns, only a moron would do this. The people who are teaching their children and do care about them, don't hand them a loaded weapon until they have safety and cleaning down.

Of course I know that. But children do often have lapses in judgment. It comes with the territory. Even a child that knows about gun safety can have a lapse in judgment, and it just takes one to result in a injury or death, whether or not an adult is supervising. Adults don't have instant reflexes.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2007-10-13 01:37am

I've been saying that it's taking a needless risk to teach a child how to shoot. I don't care if it's the last thing they learn, I don't why they should learn it that early at all.

Maybe it's not part of your culture, but the whole Father/Son (or in a lot of cases Father/Daughter) hunting/plinking/target shooting bit is part of the culture in large areas of the US.

You may not like it, but it exists nonetheless and other than 'I don't like it', you really haven't made a case as to why parents shouldn't be permitted to teach their offspring how to handle firearms.

And as far as the car analogy goes, AFAIK, in a lot of states it's not illegal to let a minor operate a motor vehicle on private property.

Temjin · Post by **Temjin** » 2007-10-13 01:46am

Glocksman wrote:Maybe it's not part of your culture, but the whole Father/Son (or in a lot of cases Father/Daughter) hunting/plinking/target shooting bit is part of the culture in large areas of the US.

You may not like it, but it exists nonetheless and other than 'I don't like it', you really haven't made a case as to why parents shouldn't be permitted to teach their offspring how to handle firearms.

Really? I haven't provided any other reason than "I don't like it"? Wow. I could have sworn I've spent the entire damn thread trying to explain that it's a needless risk. You know "risk," as in dangerous?

You, on the other hand, have repeatedly ignored my question on why you should teach a child how to fire a gun. I have yet to hear one good reason on why you should endanger the life of a child and those people around him to teach him to shoot.

Please, enlighten me.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2007-10-13 02:00am

You say it's a needless risk, but you aren't proving it.
Throw up numbers and prove that the risks of teaching minors how to handle firearms statistically outweighs the benefits (reduced accidents, familial bonding during shared experiences, and so on) of doing so.

As for the current state of affairs here where it is perfectly legal to instruct your kids on how to shoot, I don't have to defend it.
Those who would change the policy have to make the case, and you haven't done so.

Temjin · Post by **Temjin** » 2007-10-13 02:17am

Glocksman wrote:You say it's a needless risk, but you aren't proving it.
Throw up numbers and prove that the risks of teaching minors how to handle firearms statistically outweighs the benefits (reduced accidents, familial bonding during shared experiences, and so on) of doing so.

I'm sorry, I didn't know I had to prove something so fucking obvious. Of course handing a child a god damn gun and asking him to shoot it, no matter what he has been taught and what kind of supervision, is a risk. You can easily teach a child gun safety without having to teach him to fire it.

As for the current state of affairs here where it is perfectly legal to instruct your kids on how to shoot, I don't have to defend it.
Those who would change the policy have to make the case, and you haven't done so.

Because if it's legal, it must be right!

Legalism FTW!!!!

I'm not asking for much here. I'm not asking for numbers. I just want a good reason on why you should teach a child to fire a gun. I'm not talking about gun safety, I'm talking about actually teaching him to shoot. I don't why this should so complicated for you.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2007-10-13 02:21am

Temjin wrote:Honestly, I'm starting to think I'll never understand the whole gun culture in America.

Perhaps it is worthy of another thread, but until that happens, I wonder about the perception of the "gun culture" in the US.

A Harris Poll from 2001 reports that:

THE HARRIS POLL #25, May 30, 2001

Gun Ownership: Two in Five Americans Live in Gun-Owning Households

More prevalent among the affluent, Republicans and in the South
_______________________________________

by Humphrey Taylor

Two in every five adults (39%) live in households where one or more guns are owned. One in every six (16%) live in households with a rifle and a shotgun and a pistol. These are the results of The Harris Poll of 1,014 adults surveyed by telephone between April 26 and May 5.

The proportion of all adults who live in households with rifles (29%), shotguns (29%) or pistols (23%) has not changed significantly since 1996. However, gun ownership – the number of people living in gun-owning households – was higher in 1973 (48%) and 1980 (48%) than it is today (39%).

Other interesting findings in this poll include:

* While fewer people live in gun-owning households today than in 1973 or 1980, the number owning pistols, shotguns or rifles has not declined. This apparent anomaly is the result of gun-owning households being more likely to have two or three of these types of weapons than they were 20 to 30 years ago. However, today more people live in households with no guns.
* Gun ownership is lower (17%) among people in low-income households (less than $15,000 income) and higher in households with incomes between $35,000 and $50,000 (47%) and between $50,001 and $75,000 (51%).
* Gun ownership is higher among Republicans (49%) than among Democrats (28%) or Independents (41%).
* Gun ownership is lowest in the East (34%) and highest in the South (43%).
* People aged between 25 and 64 are more likely to own guns than those aged 18-24 or 65 and over. Only 19% of those aged 18-24 own guns.

Humphrey Taylor is the Chairman of The Harris Poll, Harris Interactive.

As an irrelevant anecdote, most of the (male) members of my mother's side of the family (who live near Scranton, PA, USA) owns or has owned guns for hunting purposes. None (as far as I'm aware) of the family members on my father's side (all of whom live in or very near to Philadelphia, PA) has ever used a gun, outside of military service or the rare hunting trip. The first and last time I handled a firearm was back in Boy Scout Summer camp (I'm 33 now, so however many years ago that was), a bolt-action .22 rifle.

There are parts of this state where children are actually given the day off from school for the first day of hunting season which is seen as perfectly normal and reasonable to some people, but utterly bizarre to others.

I've given some idle thought to taking up target shooting, but I doubt it would ever come to pass and quite frankly I would consider my life no less fulfilling if I never touch a gun again. Guns may be part of US "culture," but I guess it just comes down to how, and where, one grows up in this country.

Julhelm · Post by **Julhelm** » 2007-10-13 06:24am

Temjin wrote:I'm sorry, I didn't know I had to prove something so fucking obvious. Of course handing a child a god damn gun and asking him to shoot it, no matter what he has been taught and what kind of supervision, is a risk. You can easily teach a child gun safety without having to teach him to fire it.

No, you can't.

If you don't allow your kid to actually fire the gun himself and experience first hand it's awesome power, how are you going to teach him to respect the weapon?

Andrew_Fireborn · Post by **Andrew_Fireborn** » 2007-10-13 11:09am

Temjin, you realize that there are several countries in Europe in which virtually every single person has, effectively, an assualt rifle at home. Yet those very countries have less gun related crime and accidents than the United States.

The sooner someone knows how to behave around firearms, the better. Especially if they're kept in the immediate environment. It's not "Lil'Jimmy's first SAW and box magazine" that you seem to think we're advocating.

Besides, the only real large 'gun culture' in the USA is the usual fear culture. In which if there's a gun in the neighborhood, then every kid there-in is going to find it and pop themselves (or their friend, pet, parent, etc.) in the head.

Gaidin · Post by **Gaidin** » 2007-10-13 12:54pm

Temjin wrote:Why? Why teach children how to fire a gun? Why can't it wait until 16 or 17. No one has answered this yet. Why?

So that if they're in a house with firearms, they know what the fuck they're looking at and what the fuck it does. It sort of has the effect of getting burned by the stove if taught at a young age(brain imbalances aside). DON'T MESS WITH IT.

My step dad learned at four. When my mom married him there was pretty much an unspoken agreement between them. Get a gun locker big enough for all the rifles, and have me learn to shoot them asap(i was a freshman in high school). I mean sure, I knew enough not to mess with them from clear logical line of thought, but it's not quite the same as target shooting with the .357 or semi-auto AK.