First, I am not Bob S, or anyone else who has commented on your limpid post (besides the previous Linoge). In fact, I made my own weblog and email address available to you (or whoever can view such things on this weblog) in an effort to make that clear to you. Unfortunately, you are so afraid of your cute little post being attacked, you are attempting to nullify/negate our poignant responses to it by falling back on the, "You are all the same people, just using screen names, so obviously fewer people object to what I wrote," defense.

Sorry, but that don't fly. It is, however, quite illustrative as to your own character, though.

Second, I did not accuse you of saying that police should be disarmed. See the title of this particular comment. Instead, I was attempting to inquire as to the nature of your discomfort. Given the delay in comment-based conversations, I went ahead and responded to each of those questions myself, just to give you something to work with.

Third... Well, I am honestly not sure where to begin with your depraved and mindless rantings. To begin with, the police officer was acting responsibly. His firearm was holstered. I have no doubt that it was also set on "safe" (though I would not trust a firearm-ignorant individual such as yourself to notice that). Additionally, depending on his department's policies, it was either in condition 1, or condition 2. The former is magazine inserted, round in the chamber, safety on. The latter is magazine inserted, round not in the chamber, safety on. It is possible that he was carrying it around in condition 4 (magazine not inserted, round not in the chamber, safety on), but I find that somewhat dubious. Regardless, the firearm was secured, was under control, and the person carrying it was not acting irrationally. He was not waving it about. He was not leaving it where children could randomly pick it up and go on a shooting spree. Again, he was acting responsibly. Your "concern" about that responsibility is not what I am concerned about - it is about as limp as your spine. Instead, your rampaging ignorance is, and that is what I was, and unfortuantely still am, trying to address.

Do not even get me started on how hilarious your use of the word "phallic" is... if your stuff is L-shaped like that pistol... well, that would certainly explain your remarkably impotent fear.

It may come as a surprise to you, but I carry at least one knife everywhere. Well, not airports, but barring that, everywhere else. I find them to be quite useful at the most random of times, and having the utility of that device close at hand is not something I am going to give up simply because people like you are afraid of them. That said, the knife is always on my person unless I am using it, and in a manner that would make it exceptionally difficult for it to fall out or be taken by someone else. Also, my method of carry leaves it, by an large, concealed from view. Would people view me differently if I carried it in an exposed manner? Maybe. But why? The situation has not changed - I am carrying a knife whether you can see it or not. The problem is, as with the pistol in this situation, nothing more than irrational fear on the part of the observer. Furthermore, none of my knives have cut or wounded anyone but me, though, if I needed it, it might serve as an effective defensive device or deterrent. In fact, I advocate just as responsbile use of knives as I do with firearms. I would strongly suggest that you stop trying to speak for other people, lest you make a further fool of yourself.

And, sorry, but the fact that a firearm is inanimate is a remakably valid argument to the current situation. This should blow your mind, but I agree with you that both crack pipes and syringes are inanimate objects as well. But, if they were controlled in the same or similar manner as the police officer was controlling his firearm, they would be far from dangerous. That said, if you properly taught your child how to treat a crack pipe, syringe, or firearm, you might rest a little easier.

You say that my viewpoint is being irrationally affected by an inanimate object... Of course, I have absolutely no doubt that you have no clue whatsoever how ironically hypocritical that very statement was. You, my fine-feathered friend, are the one going ballistic over it. You are the one considering writing a pointless letter to a business over it. You are the one throwing the hissy fit. Me, I am just pointing out how entertainingly stupid all of it is.

Of course, I am relatively sure that you are not a student of history, otherwise you would have realized that children, even those single-digit-age, routinely handled and utilized firearms throughout the course of American history. Furthermore, they did so safely, and relatively effectively. Why? Because their parents cared enough to teach them - not just hide them away at the sight of one. Proper education is the key to these kinds of situations, not off-the-cuff, emotional, ohmygawd reactions, such as the one you displayed, and are continuing to display. What you had was the perfect opportunity to provide your child a healthy, safe, and secure educational experience, and you chose to make it an object lesson in fear. Maybe that is what you want to teach your progeny... some of us know better.

Finally, I already agreed with you concerning the unnecessary presence of the police officer. Of course, considering that all of your reactions and "arguments" thus far are completely emotionally-driven, I guess it is no wonder that you would simply skip over something that might weaken your tirade against me. Such is the life of those ruled by fear, I suppose.

So here I sign off, one of the many (and, yes, we are separate, distinct, and not-cloned people) individuals who disagrees with you. Also, one of the many whose arguments you have yet to address with anything more complicated than your standard emotional responses. Any time you want to get into a rational debate concerning your gut reactions, feel free to let us know.