What a load of crap. The almost identical wording of most of the commenters and the fact that the first three commented within minutes of eachother raised my suspicions. I could check your IP addresses if I felt like it but what difference does it make. If I did track you all to the same IP I would merely have to ban that IP address for rules violations. Kind of prefer not to do that. And if you are all separate, it sure sounds like you are working from the same script.

Now, as to your attacks. There is nothing rational about your rant. And NONE of you have been able to address the basic issue: How does a gun help deter children from pilfering? Other comments in this thread refer to the need to have that gun there in case some maniac goes on a rampage. Well, if someone has to justify it that way they are well outside the real world because they are advocating saturation of every sq. foot of America with armed guards (cops, armed security or vigilantes) simply as a deterrent to maniacs. And they are positing this in response to a question as to the appropriateness of a gun as a way of stopping theft by children.

You say you didn't accuse me of wanting to disarm cops. Yet re-readng your original comment, it sure seems like that is what you are saying. Why else do you say:

I would consider a police officer, in uniform, without a firearm to be either somewhat lacking in common sense, hamstrung by an idiotic government, or both. Seeing a police officer, and then going ballistic that he or she is armed, is... well, to put it quite simply, rather stupid. Granted, officers of the peace have far from stellar histories concerning the use of their firearms, and I will be among the first to point that out, but considering how often these individuals put themselves on the line (especially in NYC), a firearm on their side could very well mean the difference between life and death. Theirs, that is.

Why else did you bring up a disarmed police officer? I never brought up such a thing. I questioned the need for an armed, uniformed cop in the play area as a way of deterring misbehavior of children. Then you (in a very similar fashion to others who commented) pull out the absurdity of disarming cops. Now you deny you said it?

And then in your first post you jumped to irrational attacks and stereotyping. You want a rational discussion? Start from a rational point of view and a rational style of discourse. Looking over your initial post I am once again astonished by the similarity of your arguements to those of other commenters and you utter ignorance of the big bad big city of New York. You come on and immediately make accusations and throw around insults then you expect I treat you with respect? Sorry, I that don't fly either, bub.

Funny thing is, had you stopped after your first paragraph in your first post you'd have come off far more reasonable. Instead you went on into a basically irrational rant making all kinds of assumptions about people you don't even know and inaccurately presenting the situation described. No wonder I saw no need to treat you with more respect than you treated me. Is that how your mother taught you to initiate a discussion?

It amazes me how irresponsible gun owners run on such knee jerk reactions. All responsible gun owners I know have a much more responsible and careful attitude towards guns, recognizing both their usefulness and their limitations. And most responsible gun owners I know keep guns away from areas where kids are playing. But others feel guns solve all problems at all times and are kind of the ultimate Swiss-army tool for life. They assume that any questioning of the presence of a gun is some kind of attack by a big city liberal on their rights. Yet responsible gun owners recognize guns are not mere paperweights, are more dangerous than hardcover books and are to be treated with respect, not as inert objects like a paperweight. The idea of treating a gun as if it is a paperweight is absurd. You act as if an object has no purpose. A gun has a designed purpose. How does that designed purpose relate to keeping children from shoplifting? That is the core of my discomfort (as I have said several times now). There is no clear reason why an armed cop is an appropriate response to just about anything a bunch of toddlers and little kids might be doing. There is no sane application for a gun in this situation. And nothing you nor anyone else has said suggests otherwise. All you do is refer to guns as paperweights and talk about how awful it would be if cops didn't have guns and how much you love your "finely crafted metal." And you wonder why I assume you have a fetish about it.

I have yet to see a reasoned arguement come from any of the commenters who appear to be reading from the same script. The arguements presented by you have no bearing on the situation which is deterring misbehavior by children. How is the presence of the gun helping the situation?