First off there is the comment you all make lock step that it is "just an inanimate object." Well, so is a crack pipe. So why not allow crack pipes in a play area? It's "just an inanimate object." Do you think it will light itself?

Now as to your absurd knife comparison. In essence you are proving my point. Any responsible parent keeps the knives out of the area where kids are running around playing. Any parent that uses a knife in the same room where kids are running and playing is being irresponsible. There are appropriate and inappropriate spaces for any and all dangerous tools. Play areas are NOT areas where you cut vegetables if you are a responsible parent. Now the knife isn't going to jump out and attack anyone, right? But reasonable people know that kids running around is not an environment where knives are appropriate. Yet you don't seem to understand that. Yes...to me that is absurd. And irresponsible.

Now...each tool has a purpose. You don't use an axe to cut vegetables. And you don't use an axe OR a knife in the same area kids run around and play. In fact most areas where such activites are carried out are explicitly off limits to kids.

What is the purpose of a gun. You posit that it is appropriate to use it as a means to deter children (as young as 2 and 3 years old) from pilfering merchandise. That is the reason the store stated that the cop was there. I said that. That was the STATED purpose of the cop being there. You posit that it is appropriate for a gun to be a deterrent for children shoplifting. To me that is indeed absurd.

As to who was paying the cop: I don't know. But he was in uniform with his sidearm. He is thus representing the city at that moment. The city is thus responsible for his presence whoever is paying him and they are liable for whatever happens. It is important who is paying him (I don't have that answer) but is not fundamental.

Now, it is interesting that you claim you provided instances where people would want a gun around. Yet the "Bob S." personna did not give any such examples. You merely gave absurd statements like a hardcover book could hurt someone so that makes guns okay. That is what "Bob S" said. Yet now you seem to refer to the other people's statements (I assume you are referring to the hyserical claim that a maniac might be loose) as if you made them yourself. Are you admitting that you are the source for all of these very similar comments? Or is somehow your absurd and hysterical claim that hardcover books can be dangerous supposed to be an example of where you would want a gun around to defend against hardcover books. Just what hysterical and absurd example are you referring to?

And what if a maniac is around with a crowd of kids. Is the best option really to open fire? I know enough cops to know that is NOT the preferred method of dealing with a situation like that. It is recognized as irresponsible to escalate to gunfire in a crowded area. They are trained NOT to take that approach.

So once again, just why is a lethal weapon an appropriate deterrent to misbehavior by children? Are you advocating armed cops in every kindergarten and day care to enforce the rules? Are you willing to pay the taxes it would take to have that many cops patrolling the street?

Finally, why do you turn it into a right to bear arms discussion? No one discussed the right to bear arms. The question was the appropriateness of a gun as a deterrent to kids pilfering and whether a play area with kids running around is an appropraite environment for a gun, particularly in the open at the side of someone who is distracted by flirting with women. Yet you suddenly get hysterical and terrified that I am trying to take your precious gun away. It isn't about you. It is about responsibility and appropriate tools for appropriate situations. Your failure to recognize that is also absurd.

If you want a reasonable discussion I'm fine with that. I have had discussions with hundreds of people on dozens of issues with far more difficult disagreements (e.g. Israel/Palestine) with no problems. But if you make absurd arguements and non sequiters, I will call you on it no matter how many personas you take on.