14-year-olds plot to take over America thwarted

[Kanastrous]

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.

That's basically a Lie.

There are entire classes of firearms made for the specific and sole purpose of target shooting. Which is both a sport and an art, like archery.

And used for the purpose of hunting, while the firearm is being used to end an animal's life, it simultaneously puts food on the hunter's table, thereby sustaining human life.

And used for the purpose of self-defense, a firearm - while being used to end an assailant's life, is simultaneously serving to protect and preserve the prospective victim's life.

Okay, I apologize for having described the statement as a lie, when given the benefit of the doubt, it's just plain ignorance.

Why should we let kids handle firearms, and teach them safe practice?

Because it de-mystifies and de-romanticizes guns, for a lot of people. Nothing is so tempting as forbidden fruit; if a kid is taught rigorous safety, accuracy and maintenance practice, they learn respect for what they're handling.

Because proper firearms instruction can help improve a kid's eye-hand coordination, and discipline. And it can be a lot of fun, something enjoyable for parents and kids to do, together.

Because it can be a useful tool for teaching responsibility and self-confidence. I remember when I was a kid and was first entrusted with a rifle to learn and maintain. It felt like I was being handed a grown-up responsibility, and a chance to prove myself competent to deserve having been entrusted, with that.

Because, frankly, it can demonstrate the destructive power of the weapons. Nothing made me more sick at the thought of shooting a human being, than seeing the effects of a .30-.30 slug on my first deer. Which, I suspect, is most people's response, if they think about it.

Because some kids will eventually go into the military, or law enforcement, and they will have an advantage in developing professional marksmanship skills, if they have a grounding in gun-handling, already.

Because - believe it or not - every year people with every right to defend their own safety, and/or their families, find that they have no protection available against criminal assault, but a firearm.

I suspect that you have heard all of these reasons before, and that it suits you to dismiss any of them as good reasons, because you proceed from the false assumption that guns are made with one purpose: To End Life, and anything that does not proceed from that false assumption will be incomprehensible to you.

Maybe I'm mistaken, and you're smarter than the average guns bad la la la can't hear anything to the contrary types.

If that's the case, then I'll apologize.

[FSTargetDrone]

Back to our OT for a moment, here's a bit more:

Posted on Sat, Oct. 13, 2007

OFF-TARGET LOVE

Mom and the 'social outcast' son for whom she bought guns face multiple charges

By WENDY RUDERMAN

rudermw@phillynews.com 215-854-2860

MICHELE COSSEY felt sorry for her only son, Dillon.

The pudgy, home-schooled teen was a "social outcast" - a super-smart misfit obsessed with guns and violence who was picked on by peers, authorities said.

Like most moms, Cossey just wanted to see her son happy.

But instead of taking him to a video arcade or buying him an Xbox, she fed his fixation with weaponry, police said.

Cossey was arrested yesterday on charges of illegally buying her son three guns: A Ruger .22 handgun, a single-shot .22 rifle and a 9 mm semiautomatic rifle with a laser scope to improve accuracy when shooting.

The love between mother and son was apparent yesterday morning. During Dillon's detention hearing in Norristown, she wept for her boy, an expression of anguish fixed on her face. As he was led away in shackles, Dillon turned to her and mouthed, "I love you." His father sat stone-faced beside his wife.

Police confiscated one of the three guns - the 9 mm rifle - from the Cosseys' Plymouth Meeting home.

Michele Cossey told police she purchased the 9 mm rifle for her son on Sept. 23 at the Valley Forge Gun Show in King of Prussia, court records show.

The two other guns, purchased by Cossey in 2005 when Dillon was about 12, were "stored" at the home of a family friend, John Diamond. Diamond met with Plymouth Township police on Thursday and turned over the Ruger and .22 rifle.

Diamond told police he believed that the guns were in Michele Cossey's name, but actually belonged to Dillon, the police criminal complaint says.

Prosecutors declined to provide details about Diamond or discuss how he knew the Cossey family. He was not charged with any crime, they said.

Though Michele Cossey allegedly helped her son amass his dream arsenal, she did not buy him any ammunition, police said.

She did, however, supply him with gun powder, which he used to fill at least three "live" grenades, said Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce L. Castor Jr.

In all, police found seven grenades, including three stashed in a duffel bag inside the family's home.

Seemingly - perhaps unbelievably - Michelle Cossey knew nothing about her 14-year-old son's alleged "Columbine-style" plot to execute teens who had ridiculed him at Plymouth-Whitemarsh High School, Castor said.

"I don't think she had anything to do with planning this attack, but by virtue of her indulgence, she enabled him to get into this position," Castor said. "This is not the best parenting I've ever seen, obviously, and she needs to be held accountable."

Cossey's attorney, Tim Woodward, said he hadn't had time to investigate the charges against his client and couldn't comment on their merits. Cossey is facing three third-degree felony charges that carry up to seven years in prison.

When pressed by reporters about his thoughts on parents' buying guns for a kid, Woodward replied, "I'm the wrong guy to talk to about guns. . . . I would outlaw every gun, quite frankly."

Meanwhile, Dillon's attorney, J. David Farrell, stressed that all but one of the weapons prosecutors put on display were pellet guns and air rifles - legal for minors to possess. He also pointed out that it's legal in Pennsylvania for juveniles to fire weapons under adult supervision.

"They're showing 30 guns on a desk that appear to be handguns and saying this was a Columbine in the making," Farrell said. "That's simply not borne out by the facts.

"I do not believe the students at Plymouth-Whitemarsh were ever in any real harm," Farrell said.

The matronly mom and her baby-faced teen hardly looked like threats to society at back-to-back court appearances yesterday morning.

Wearing a robin's-egg blue dress with flowers, Michele Cossey shuffled in and out of court using a walker. She suffers from diabetes and poor circulation. Because of her poor health, she was released on a $50,000 unsecured bail after an 11:30 a.m. preliminary arraignment in District Court in Conshohocken.

At a separate hearing earlier that morning, a Common Pleas judge ordered Dillon held at a juvenile-detention facility after determining the teen was a risk to himself and others.

Police arrested Dillon Wednesday and charged him with solicitation to commit terror and a slew of other terror-related offenses.

Typically, juvenile proceedings are closed to the public. Dillon's detention hearing was open because under Pennsylvania law an exception is made if the teen is 14 or older and charged with a felony.

Castor said he is still considering whether to file a motion arguing Dillon should be tried as an adult.

The judge also ordered Dillon to undergo psychological evaluations and tests to determine his intelligence level.

Castor described Dillon as a highly intelligent, "extremely emotionally disturbed" teen.

During a search of Dillon's home, police discovered 30 air and BB guns, grenades, knives, swords, videos of the Columbine shooting, Neo-Nazi reading materials and diaries in which the teen detailed violent acts. Most of the weaponry was in plain view in his bedroom, Castor said.

Inexplicibly, Dillon's parents seemed hell-bent on buying their son guns.

Michele Cossey bought the Ruger handgun and .22 rifle on May 27, 2005. Less than a month later, on June 22, 2005, Frank E. Cossey tried to buy a .22 rifle for his son at Dick's Sporting Goods in Plymouth Township. The gun was a gift for his son's birthday, he said.

But he lied on the gun application and got caught. He checked off on the application that he didn't have a criminal record. In fact, Frank Cossey had pleaded guilty to manslaughter in a fatal DUI collision in Oklahoma City in 1981 and was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

He is currently serving a 9-month house-arrest sentence for lying on the gun application. Prosecutors said they agreed to allow him to attend the court proceedings for his wife and son yesterday morning.

The 54-year-old father has not been charged with any crime in connection with his son's alleged massacre scheme.

Said Castor: "Other than bad parenting, I don't see any evidence of criminal conduct on behalf of the father."

[Julhelm]

Bad parenting is an understatement when the kid has neo-nazi litterature in plain sight in his room.

[ArcturusMengsk]

I'd not be so quick to blame this either exclusively on bad parenting or upon social pressure. There is a growing feeling among my generation (I'm only four years older than this boy) that something is innately wrong with this world. It's almost as though the clock were winding down on civilization. This is not in any sense meant to evoke a response of 'typical youthful rebellion'; our generation has become nearly apocalyptic in character. There is an almost morose romanticism rampant in today's youth that previous generational rebellions lacked.

[Kanastrous]

Just saw footage of the mother, on CNN.

She's a bloated wreck who apparently can't move around without leaning on a wheeled walker.

I'm not surprised she seems to be incapable of handling a teenage boy.

[Temjin]

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?

My stepfather owned a gun. He took me out shooting him one day. Now, I never actually shot the gun, but I saw what it did to a target. That, and his strong words, kept me from that gun.

So yeah. To use a tactic being used repeated against me, there are many homes where the child never got to fire the gun, but the child still knew not to touch it.

That's basically a Lie.

There are entire classes of firearms made for the specific and sole purpose of target shooting. Which is both a sport and an art, like archery.

Well, holy shit. I missed one. I am so god damn sorry.

Tell me, if you shoot one of these at a person, will it kill?

Why should we let kids handle firearms, and teach them safe practice?

When the fuck did I say you shouldn't teach a child gun safety? I've only been saying you shouldn't teach him to shoot.

Because it de-mystifies and de-romanticizes guns, for a lot of people. Nothing is so tempting as forbidden fruit; if a kid is taught rigorous safety, accuracy and maintenance practice, they learn respect for what they're handling.

Dealt with this above.

Because proper firearms instruction can help improve a kid's eye-hand coordination, and discipline. And it can be a lot of fun, something enjoyable for parents and kids to do, together.

Surely there are other things that will do all that and not endanger the child's life? Surely there are other parent/child bonding activities which are fun and safer? Surely a southern American household doesn't revolve around guns?

Because it can be a useful tool for teaching responsibility and self-confidence. I remember when I was a kid and was first entrusted with a rifle to learn and maintain. It felt like I was being handed a grown-up responsibility, and a chance to prove myself competent to deserve having been entrusted, with that.

There are no better ways to teach responsibility? Nothing safer than handing a child a gun?

I guess people who didn't grow up around guns are irresponsible as hell then, huh?

Because, frankly, it can demonstrate the destructive power of the weapons. Nothing made me more sick at the thought of shooting a human being, than seeing the effects of a .30-.30 slug on my first deer. Which, I suspect, is most people's response, if they think about it.

Morality is hardwired into most people, including the part about not killing. Most people who would shoot a person isn't going upset by shooting a deer.

Because - believe it or not - every year people with every right to defend their own safety, and/or their families, find that they have no protection available against criminal assault, but a firearm.

Now what the fuck does this have to do with anything? I'm not arguing gun control in this thread.

What? I don't want children firing a gun, so I automatically want to take away every gun?

I suspect that you have heard all of these reasons before, and that it suits you to dismiss any of them as good reasons, because you proceed from the false assumption that guns are made with one purpose: To End Life, and anything that does not proceed from that false assumption will be incomprehensible to you.

Maybe I'm mistaken, and you're smarter than the average guns bad la la la can't hear anything to the contrary types.

If that's the case, then I'll apologize.

What have guns been primarily used for since their invention? Killing. Why do most people own guns? For hunting (ending an animals) and home defense (to end an assailants life). I'm sorry if I missed a third category, but that doesn't change the fact that most guns (happy now?) purpose is to end life. And I am really scared of the idea that there are people handing this power to children.

[ArcturusMengsk]

This has nothing whatsoever to do with guns, parents, poverty, schools, etc. I have known many who have considered the same; as a pre-teen I myself wanted to form an army and invade our neighboring town. Any effort to de-psychologize it must inevitably fail to prevent it.

[Kanastrous]

Well, holy shit. I missed one. I am so god damn sorry.

As you should be.

Tell me, if you shoot one of these at a person, will it kill?

Possibly. You're weaseling now; the purpose of mentioning target-shooting instruments is to demonstrate that you're full of shit, pushing the blanket statement that the sole purpose of guns, is to kill. Since you acknowledge now that their purpose is not always to kill, there goes your position.

When the fuck did I say you shouldn't teach a child gun safety? I've only been saying you shouldn't teach him to shoot.

More ignorance. You're not teaching worthwhile firearms safety unless you are teaching your student how to handle and discharge and clear a loaded firearm, too. Any more than you're properly teaching safe driving, without ever permitting your student to operate a car.

Because proper firearms instruction can help improve a kid's eye-hand coordination, and discipline. And it can be a lot of fun, something enjoyable for parents and kids to do, together.

Surely there are other things that will do all that and not endanger the child's life?

Knew you'd sling that BS before you even posted. The issue is not whether something else can serve the same purpose, the issue you raised is the nonsensical statement that firearms can't serve any purpose but to kill. And, after I offered you that example of a non-killing application for firearms, demonstrating that you're plain wrong, you try to clumsily shift ground to well, something else could serve the purpose. Sure, other things can serve the purpose. That's not the point, and you damn well know it.

Surely there are other parent/child bonding activities which are fun and safer?

See above. The fact that there are other bonding, etc activities, does not obviate the fact that you're demonstrated wrong by the existence of shooting, as one of those activities.

Surely a southern American household doesn't revolve around guns?

I grew up in a Southern household that didn't. I learned to shoot up north. Which is an aside to asking, what does your question have to do with anything? The existence of alternatives, doesn't alter the fact that you're wrong about shooting's potential as a family/recreational/bonding activity.

Because it can be a useful tool for teaching responsibility and self-confidence. I remember when I was a kid and was first entrusted with a rifle to learn and maintain. It felt like I was being handed a grown-up responsibility, and a chance to prove myself competent to deserve having been entrusted, with that.

There are no better ways to teach responsibility? Nothing safer than handing a child a gun?

Once again, you're just dodging the fact that you've been proved wrong, by trying to shift the argument. We weren't discussing the existence of alternative pastimes. I was pointing out to you that gun use isn't the no-purpose-but-killing proposition with which you're obsessed. And you're too much of a punk to stand on your original ground and defend it; no, you're trying to weasel with this alternatives-bullshit.

I guess people who didn't grow up around guns are irresponsible as hell then, huh?

This doesn't deserve a response, but heck, you seem to need one.

Marksmanship, etc are not the only methods to help teach responsibility, and your implication that I said so paints you a clumsy, stupid liar who just can't bring him/her/itself to admit that you're wrong when you're shown that gun-handling can be one method.

Morality is hardwired into most people, including the part about not killing.

If that's what you've chosen to believe, that's very nice for you. And 100% irrelevant to the question of whether or not firearms can serve a purpose besides just killing.

Because - believe it or not - every year people with every right to defend their own safety, and/or their families, find that they have no protection available against criminal assault, but a firearm.

Now what the fuck does this have to do with anything? I'm not arguing gun control in this thread.

It's relevant because the kind of training that's useful in using a firearm for self-defense, is precisely the sort of thing we're talking about, when it comes to teaching young people how to handle the weapons. Hopefully it's a particular part of their training that they won't be called upon to use. Maybe someday it might save their lives.

And you have for some reason chosen to bring up gun control; I don't know why. Maybe you think that the observation that a gun can come in handy for self-defense, is automatically an intro to a gun-control debate.

What have guns been primarily used for since their invention? Killing.

Primarily? Exponentially more rounds of ammunition are expended on firing ranges, than hunting grounds, city streets, or private homes.

Why do most people own guns? For hunting (ending an animals) and home defense (to end an assailants life).

Didn't take long for target shooting to just slide right out your left ear, did it?

And, since your reading-comprehension is clearly sub-par, hunting ends the animal's life while feeding the hunter. You just conveniently forget that the purpose is to eat and the killing is a step toward the purpose of putting meat on the table. You also conveniently forget that the purpose of shooting an assailant is to save the potential victim's life and that the death of the assailant is a necessary consequence of that purpose.

I'm sorry if I missed a third category, but that doesn't change the fact that most guns (happy now?) purpose is to end life.

Except that most of the rounds fired every day in the US, are fired into paper targets and soda cans. That, plus the fact that you happened to miss a huge category of sport and recreational shooting, means that your foolish ignorant blanket statement about firearms having no purpose other than to end life, is just bullshit.

And I guess that I was right about you; you have your conclusion staked out and can go to any length of purposeful stupidity and dishonesty, to cling to it, even when presented with clear information demonstrating that your silly sweeping over-generalized no-thinking-or-experience-behind-it pablum is plain wrong.

[Julhelm]

So yeah. To use a tactic being used repeated against me, there are many homes where the child never got to fire the gun, but the child still knew not to touch it.

And because the kid never gets to fire it, he never gets to feel any responsibility, and the gun ends up being coveted forbidden fruit.

In other words: A retarded tactic that'll just backfire not if, but when.

Tell me, if you shoot one of these at a person, will it kill?

The problem with this kind of demagougery is that it totally ignores that almost any random object can be used to "end life" regardless of it's intended purpose:

If I smash your fucking head in with a hammer, will it kill? Will you then argue that the hammer is built for the sole purpose of ending life?

Don't think so.

When the fuck did I say you shouldn't teach a child gun safety? I've only been saying you shouldn't teach him to shoot.

Because you can't accurately teach someone gun safety without that person actually getting to use the gun. Just like you can't teach a person how to drive responsibly without letting them actually drive the vehicle at some point.

Dealt with this above.

You did?

Surely there are other things that will do all that and not endanger the child's life? Surely there are other parent/child bonding activities which are fun and safer? Surely a southern American household doesn't revolve around guns?

Oh, now it's the child's life we're concerned about? And all this time I though we were concerned about everybody else's lives, which by the way is the primary reason one cannot get a drivers license until the "mature" age of 18.

Tell me, how does it endanger the child's life to fire the gun after we've already taught him the A's and B's of responsible firearms handling?

Morality is hardwired into most people, including the part about not killing. Most people who would shoot a person isn't going upset by shooting a deer.

Then teaching your kid gun safety and allowing him/her to actually use the gun won't be dangerous since morality not to kill is hardwired into most people, right? Then why are you arguing so vehemently against it?

Now what the fuck does this have to do with anything? I'm not arguing gun control in this thread.

What? I don't want children firing a gun, so I automatically want to take away every gun?

You want to control what others do with their guns, which pretty much amounts to the same thing. If your neighbour takes his daughters out to practice skeet shooting every weekend, it's none of your damned business.

And I am really scared of the idea that there are people handing this power to children.

Then it really says more about your generalizing of children than it does about children who in reality come in all shapes and colors, some of which are perfectly able to take on the responsibility of handling a firearm.

[Temjin]

Possibly. You're weaseling now; the purpose of mentioning target-shooting instruments is to demonstrate that you're full of shit, pushing the blanket statement that the sole purpose of guns, is to kill. Since you acknowledge now that their purpose is not always to kill, there goes your position.

Fine. There goes my position that a firearms sole purpose is to end life. But their still too fucking dangerous to let a child handle them.

More ignorance. You're not teaching worthwhile firearms safety unless you are teaching your student how to handle and discharge and clear a loaded firearm, too. Any more than you're properly teaching safe driving, without ever permitting your student to operate a car.

When I took driver's ed, I learned how to drive safe while in a classroom. I learned how to drive in a car.

Knew you'd sling that BS before you even posted. The issue is not whether something else can serve the same purpose, the issue you raised is the nonsensical statement that firearms can't serve any purpose but to kill. And, after I offered you that example of a non-killing application for firearms, demonstrating that you're plain wrong, you try to clumsily shift ground to well, something else could serve the purpose. Sure, other things can serve the purpose. That's not the point, and you damn well know it.

Go back and read my posts. The original question you were answering was why you should take such a needless risk to teach a child how to shoot. That was the issue I raised. If it can be demonstrated that everything to be gained from it can be also be gained from other, safer, activities, it shows exactly how much of a needless risk it is.

Learn to fucking read.

See above. The fact that there are other bonding, etc activities, does not obviate the fact that you're demonstrated wrong by the existence of shooting, as one of those activities.

See above, where I point out how this is just pure bullshit. Stop trying to weasel out of it.

I grew up in a Southern household that didn't. I learned to shoot up north. Which is an aside to asking, what does your question have to do with anything? The existence of alternatives, doesn't alter the fact that you're wrong about shooting's potential as a family/recreational/bonding activity.

More BS.

Once again, you're just dodging the fact that you've been proved wrong, by trying to shift the argument. We weren't discussing the existence of alternative pastimes. I was pointing out to you that gun use isn't the no-purpose-but-killing proposition with which you're obsessed. And you're too much of a punk to stand on your original ground and defend it; no, you're trying to weasel with this alternatives-bullshit.

Project much?

My damn point all along is that a child does not need to know how to shoot a gun. That it's a needless risk. Again, if other activities provide the same benefit, then it actually hurts you position. Stop trying to weasel out.

But I do like how you're taking such a small part of my argument and turning into the central focus.

This doesn't deserve a response, but heck, you seem to need one.

Marksmanship, etc are not the only methods to help teach responsibility, and your implication that I said so paints you a clumsy, stupid liar who just can't bring him/her/itself to admit that you're wrong when you're shown that gun-handling can be one method.

More weaseling BS.

If that's what you've chosen to believe, that's very nice for you. And 100% irrelevant to the question of whether or not firearms can serve a purpose besides just killing.

It's actually the current scientific theory for why almost all societies had laws against murder.

It's relevant because the kind of training that's useful in using a firearm for self-defense, is precisely the sort of thing we're talking about, when it comes to teaching young people how to handle the weapons. Hopefully it's a particular part of their training that they won't be called upon to use. Maybe someday it might save their lives.

If you're a responsible parent, your guns should be locked up anyway. So how, if during a home invasion, is your child supposed to get the gun and save the day?

And you have for some reason chosen to bring up gun control; I don't know why. Maybe you think that the observation that a gun can come in handy for self-defense, is automatically an intro to a gun-control debate.

You were in fact the first person to bring this up. I didn't say shit about adults owning firearms. I've been talking about children shooting them.

Primarily? Exponentially more rounds of ammunition are expended on firing ranges, than hunting grounds, city streets, or private homes.

Fine.

Didn't take long for target shooting to just slide right out your left ear, did it?

So your saying most people own guns just for target shooting?

And, since your reading-comprehension is clearly sub-par, hunting ends the animal's life while feeding the hunter. You just conveniently forget that the purpose is to eat and the killing is a step toward the purpose of putting meat on the table. You also conveniently forget that the purpose of shooting an assailant is to save the potential victim's life and that the death of the assailant is a necessary consequence of that purpose.

Except that most of the rounds fired every day in the US, are fired into paper targets and soda cans. That, plus the fact that you happened to miss a huge category of sport and recreational shooting, means that your foolish ignorant blanket statement about firearms having no purpose other than to end life, is just bullshit.

I'm not going to get into a debate with you over something that was such a minor point in my argument.

And I guess that I was right about you; you have your conclusion staked out and can go to any length of purposeful stupidity and dishonesty, to cling to it, even when presented with clear information demonstrating that your silly sweeping over-generalized no-thinking-or-experience-behind-it pablum is plain wrong.

Oh shut the fuck up already. You've done nothing but dodge my main point and try to nibble away at it by concentraing on a minor one.

[Temjin]

And because the kid never gets to fire it, he never gets to feel any responsibility, and the gun ends up being coveted forbidden fruit.

In other words: A retarded tactic that'll just backfire not if, but when.

Wow. That's the same thought I'm towards your position.

Tell me, if you shoot one of these at a person, will it kill?If I smash your fucking head in with a hammer, will it kill? Will you then argue that the hammer is built for the sole purpose of ending life?

Don't think so.

Fine, you win this point. I'm not going dragged off the main point.

Because you can't accurately teach someone gun safety without that person actually getting to use the gun. Just like you can't teach a person how to drive responsibly without letting them actually drive the vehicle at some point.

You can teach a child safe driving habits without letting drive until their older. You can't do the same with guns?

Oh, now it's the child's life we're concerned about? And all this time I though we were concerned about everybody else's lives, which by the way is the primary reason one cannot get a drivers license until the "mature" age of 18.

Learn to fucking read. It's been the child's life, and everyone n range, I've been concerned about all along.

Tell me, how does it endanger the child's life to fire the gun after we've already taught him the A's and B's of responsible firearms handling?

Because it's a child? With all that comes with the territory, like mistakes and lapses of judgment.

Then teaching your kid gun safety and allowing him/her to actually use the gun won't be dangerous since morality not to kill is hardwired into most people, right? Then why are you arguing so vehemently against it?

How many times am I going to be fucking forced to say it. I'm not saying handing a gun to a child is going to turn into a homicidal maniac.

I'm getting tired of this strawman.

You want to control what others do with their guns, which pretty much amounts to the same thing. If your neighbour takes his daughters out to practice skeet shooting every weekend, it's none of your damned business.

Nice argument. It's so damn good, I'm going to use for other things too!

"You want to control what others do with their cars, which pretty much amounts to the same thing. If your neighbour takes his daughters out to practice driving every weekend, it's none of your damned business."

Well, shit. I guess it wasn't a good argument.

Then it really says more about your generalizing of children than it does about children who in reality come in all shapes and colors, some of which are perfectly able to take on the responsibility of handling a firearm.

But where is the need to take the risk?

[Julhelm]

Wow. That's the same thought I'm towards your position.

What in the fuck? Are you trying to go circular on me?

You can teach a child safe driving habits without letting drive until their older. You can't do the same with guns?

If that were true, there would be no need for practice driving since we could all learn safe driving without driving? Right? What the flying fuck?

Because it's a child? With all that comes with the territory, like mistakes and lapses of judgment.

You think a child can't figure out looking down the barrel to check if it's empty with the safety off is a bad idea if you've already taught it how the gun functions?

Here are news for you pal: Children are a fuckload more susceptible to learning compared to adults, and children who are taught rudimentary gun safety are more likely to behave responsibly to it compared to a middle age person.

How many times am I going to be fucking forced to say it. I'm not saying handing a gun to a child is going to turn into a homicidal maniac.

I'm getting tired of this strawman.

If you weren't trying to say it, why have you been screaming "guns are only made to kill" the entire time?

Nice argument. It's so damn good, I'm going to use for other things too!

"You want to control what others do with their cars, which pretty much amounts to the same thing. If your neighbour takes his daughters out to practice driving every weekend, it's none of your damned business."

Well, shit. I guess it wasn't a good argument.

Yes it is, since you totally failed to rebut it with your nice little driving analogy. It is still perfectly legal to practice driving with minors at any age as long as it is not on public roads!

But where is the need to take the risk?

If there's a risk, you've totally failed to prove it exists.

[Kanastrous]

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.

I offered you a number of good reasons, and the only counter you offered to any of them was the existence of alternate activites not involving firearms. The base assumption appearing to be that anything not involving firearms is preferable to anything that does.

Fine. There goes my position that a firearms sole purpose is to end life. But their still too fucking dangerous to let a child handle them.

Okay, admitting other applications opens the door to positive ends like recreational enjoyment, instilling responsibility and discipline and the rest.

There has to be a spectrum of judgment when it comes to the particular potentially dangerous thing, and the particular child.

It frankly doesn't fall to you or me, to make blanket statements about the suitability of firearms, safely handled under adult supervision, for all those kids out there about whom as individuals we basically know nothing.

[Temjin]

What in the fuck? Are you trying to go circular on me?

How the fuck is that circular? Show me.

If that were true, there would be no need for practice driving since we could all learn safe driving without driving? Right? What the flying fuck?

In my driver's ed class, we spent three hours in the classroom for every spent driving. In fact, our first two classroom sessions took place before we ever got behind the wheel.

You can easily teach a child the effects of a gun shot without letting him shoot. You can easily teach him not assume a gun is unloaded or to never point it at anybody without teaching him to shoot until later in life.

You think a child can't figure out looking down the barrel to check if it's empty with the safety off is a bad idea if you've already taught it how the gun functions?

Here are news for you pal: Children are a fuckload more susceptible to learning compared to adults, and children who are taught rudimentary gun safety are more likely to behave responsibly to it compared to a middle age person.

And as I've been saying, children often make mistakes and lapses of judgment. So why allow the chance of something going wrong?

If you weren't trying to say it, why have you been screaming "guns are only made to kill" the entire time?

What the fuck does have to do with anything?! I say "Guns are made to end life" and you immediately think I'm saying "RAR! GIVING GUNS TO CHILDREN MAKES THEM THIRST FOR HUMAN BLOOD!!!!" I never fucking said that. I never implied that.

Just drop the fucking strawman.

Yes it is, since you totally failed to rebut it with your nice little driving analogy. It is still perfectly legal to practice driving with minors at any age as long as it is not on public roads!

Fine. Put in the analogy of your choice. It's still fucking stupid.

All the damn time we're saying what a person can and can't do with the stuff they own. A person may own a pack of smokes, but he can't give those to minors.

But where is the need to take the risk?

If there's a risk, you've totally failed to prove it exists.[/quote] So you're saying there's absolutely no risk in a child firing a gun?

BULLSHIT.

There's a risk when adults fire guns. Accidental shooting deaths happen all the damn time.

But then you're going to tell me there's no risk in letting a child fire it?

[Temjin]

I offered you a number of good reasons, and the only counter you offered to any of them was the existence of alternate activites not involving firearms. The base assumption appearing to be that anything not involving firearms is preferable to anything that does.

Of course it's preferable for children not to handle firearms. Even you have to admit that taking little johnny out on a fishing trip for some male bonding is a lot safer than risking him accidentally blowing his head off or someone else's with a gun.

Okay, admitting other applications opens the door to positive ends like recreational enjoyment, instilling responsibility and discipline and the rest.

There has to be a spectrum of judgment when it comes to the particular potentially dangerous thing, and the particular child.

It frankly doesn't fall to you or me, to make blanket statements about the suitability of firearms, safely handled under adult supervision, for all those kids out there about whom as individuals we basically know nothing.

Why not? Anyone should able to see that children handling firearms is dangerous.

We don't let children do other dangerous activities. We don't let 12 year olds skydive. So why should we let them handle firearms? Especially considering all of the benefits can be achieved through safer means.

[Kanastrous]

When I took driver's ed, I learned how to drive safe while in a classroom. I learned how to drive in a car.

That's nonsense. Driving safely means the actual operation of the car, in real time, in a safe manner. What you learned in the classrom were rules-of-the-road. Why do you think insurance companies offer safe driver discounts, to people who have operated on the road, for extended periods of time? Why do you think that more experienced drivers have consistently safer performance on average, than inexperienced drivers?

The original question you were answering was why you should take such a needless risk to teach a child how to shoot. That was the issue I raised.

Sure, and you under-wrote that "needless risk" issue with this:

guns are made with one purpose: To End Life

which you found so important to your position, as to repeat it!

And that bullshit statement had to be addressed, before going anywhere else, because the assumption you made - and have now abandoned - excluded any possibility of a positive or beneficial use for a firearm.

Which brings us to

If it can be demonstrated that everything to be gained from it can be also be gained from other, safer, activities, it shows exactly how much of a needless risk it is.

Well, why don't you go ahead and detail a few alternate activities that have the specific combination of benefits that properly supervised recreational shooting can have, for someone who chooses to take the opportunity to explore those benefits with a kid?

Learn to fucking read.

Learn to fucking think.

My damn point all along is that a child does not need to know how to shoot a gun.

Or throw a ball. Or swing a bat. Or shoot a basket. Why, the list of potentially beneficial things a child doesn't need to do, is endless. The fact that a kid doesn't necessarily need to do a potentially beneficial activity, is no reason not to pursue it.

That it's a needless risk.

Well, this is kind of back to your no-purpose-but-ending-life bullshit, on which you already said you had given up. You are incapable of seeing a firearm in any aspect but the risk that it could pose. The pig-simple hammer analogy seemd to work for you, how about it being a needless risk to let a young carpenter swing a hammer, since the possibility of injury is so paralyzing, compared to the benefits of his doing some carpentry?

Again, if other activities provide the same benefit, then it actually hurts you position. Stop trying to weasel out.

I didn't say that "other activities provide the same benefit." I merely allowed as that there are other bonding activities. Which provide their own benefits.

But I do like how you're taking such a small part of my argument and turning into the central focus.

Your insistence - twice, in separate posts! - that guns have no function beyond killing, makes it pretty obvious that you thought you had a jim-dandy foundation for something...and now that it's been torn up and tossed in your face, and you have admitted it's a loser, you're just distancing yourself from it.

And of course once you lose the argument about 'guns having no other purpose,' you open the way for positive purposes.

If you're a responsible parent, your guns should be locked up anyway. So how, if during a home invasion, is your child supposed to get the gun and save the day?

The training may serve them when they're older, dimwit.

You were in fact the first person to bring this up. I didn't say shit about adults owning firearms. I've been talking about children shooting them.

Go back and find who first invoked "gun control." You will discover that it was you.

And I have been talking about children's supervised shooting of firearms, as a means to give them a foundation for safe gun-handling should they choose, as adults.

Do you truly fail to grasp something so blindingly simple as the advantage of instilling good training in children, with the intent that it will benefit them in adulthood?

I'm not going to get into a debate with you over something that was such a minor point in my argument.

Repeating twice, guns are made with one purpose: To End Life was an obvious effort to head off any possibility of debate. Now it's dead, it stinks, you admitted it, and you want to walk away from it. Fine, walk.

You've done nothing but dodge my main point and try to nibble away at it by concentraing on a minor one.

If your main point is that the potential hazards outweight the potential benefits in teaching children to shoot, you have a grotesquely exaggerated view of the hazards posed by range shooting under close adult supervision.

[Kanastrous]

Of course it's preferable for children not to handle firearms. Even you have to admit that taking little johnny out on a fishing trip for some male bonding is a lot safer than risking him accidentally blowing his head off or someone else's with a gun.

Little Johnny could fall out of the boat and drown. Little Johnny could cut himself on a fish hook and get tetanus. Little Johnny could be pissing against a tree on the shoreline, and get dragged away by a mountain lion.

There is very little you can do with Little Johnny beside cower under the bed together, that doesn't entail some varying degree of risk. And since you must have seen some stories recently, about kids on firing ranges blowing their own and others' heads off, now's the time for you to link to them.

Why not? Anyone should able to see that children handling firearms is dangerous.

Anyone should be able to see that a child unsafely handling firearms, is dangerous.

Unsafely meaning no competent adult supervision. Which, as you know, is not what I'm advocating.

We don't let children do other dangerous activities.

That's true. We don't let children swim in unsupervised lakes and rivers laden with potentially-deadly pathogens. We don't let children ride their bikes or skateboards on any public street. We don't let kids hang out by backyard pools with no lifeguards. We don't let kids ride horses. We don't let kids perform potentially-crippling gymnastics.

Oh, hang on...we do allow kids to do potentially dangerous activities. But for some reason this particular dangerous activity has you all wound up.

We don't let 12 year olds skydive.

We allow children of any age to tandem-jump, with a certified parachutist. Please don't flaunt your ignorance regarding activities that I'm into, myself.

So why should we let them handle firearms?

For all of the specific reasons I gave you, more than once.

Especially considering all of the benefits can be achieved through safer means.

Those safer means you're posting soon, right? Mayeb they're up already and I'll see them when I post this...looking forward already.

[Julhelm]

And as I've been saying, children often make mistakes and lapses of judgment. So why allow the chance of something going wrong?

It's a bunch of fucking bullshit. You just arbitrarily assume this is the case and base your argument on that. Do you have any statistics that show children are overrepresented in firearm accidents compared to adults?

What the fuck does have to do with anything?! I say "Guns are made to end life" and you immediately think I'm saying "RAR! GIVING GUNS TO CHILDREN MAKES THEM THIRST FOR HUMAN BLOOD!!!!" I never fucking said that. I never implied that.

Just drop the fucking strawman.

It has to do with your entire fucking argument. The only way one would say "guns are made to end life" is to appeal to emotion.

"They are made to end life (so they can't be any good)"

See?

Fine. Put in the analogy of your choice. It's still fucking stupid.

All the damn time we're saying what a person can and can't do with the stuff they own. A person may own a pack of smokes, but he can't give those to minors.

Because guns and cars are not substances that will severely damage a persons health with a 100% certainty, unlike smokes.

Learn to think.

So you're saying there's absolutely no risk in a child firing a gun?

BULLSHIT.

There's a risk when adults fire guns. Accidental shooting deaths happen all the damn time.

But then you're going to tell me there's no risk in letting a child fire it?

Like I said before, there's a lesser risk if anything because the child is more impressionable and will handle the firearm with respect if you teach him to.

[Temjin]

Kanastrous, Julhelm, I actually started to make a big huge reply to your posts, before it occurred to me I'm getting tired of this debate.

So, I'll make the concession that it might be okay for a young teen to shoot at a range under supervision of someone who's qualified in gun safety. I don't trust the average parent to be responsible.

Can we at least agree on that? Because I won't be able to go any further.

[Kanastrous]

Okey dokey.

[Julhelm]

Accepted, sir.