Guns in the Toy Department: The Incipient Police State

I never said ANYTHING about whether cops should carry guns or not. You are either completely misreading my diary or intentionally setting up a strawman arguement.

We are talking about a play area in a bookstore on a regular afternoon. No emergency call was placed to the police. No maniac was anywhere nearby. It was a normal day in a quiet neighborhood. The presence of a gun where children play, run around, grab things, push, etc. seems a.) unreasonble b.) overkill given the situation. The store needs a basic security guard in the play area, not a gun carrying cop. Seems to me cops have better things to do and guns should not be in a play area.

Now chill out and stop arguing against things no one even said.

Mole,

What exactly are you afraid of the gun doing? You never answered on what you expected the gun to do or why it upset you. If your child had been hurt by a criminal in the store, wouldn't you have been yelling the store didn't do enough to protect you?

The officer had probably been hired to work security for the store. Most cities allow their police to work as security while wearing their uniforms.

You say no maniac was near by, how do you know this? Maybe there was one, but the presence of the cop prevented a kidnapping or worse. That is why security is effective, why concealed and open carry of firearms is effective, It prevents problems from occurring.

The officer was probably walking around the entire store and when he saw people in an area, he went to check them out. Isn't that the job of security?

Please tell us how having a gun is overkilling and unreasonable? Designating a place as a gun free zone is not a good idea. Just ask the kids at Columbine, Virginia Tech, the Cleveland High School.
Would you be willing to do violence to protect your son? If so, how is it different if you are willing to use your fist, the ax in your picture, or the cop carrying a gun?

This amazes me. You assume this is about fear of guns. I suspect you are really the one afraid, afraid that somehow a discussion of appropriate or inappropriate places for guns will infringe on the right to bear arms. This is where so many go wrong in their advocacy of the right to bear arms...they forget their own major talking point that with any right comes responsibility.

I am not letting you walk away from your earlier statements. You have taken my concerns to suggest taking guns away from cops, a position I never took. Why did you jump to such a foolish conclusion? Why jump off in a non sequiter when I expressed concern? All I can assume is that you interpreat ANY concern about guns as an attack on all guns. A kind of "if you're not for us your against us" arguement.

And then there is the lockstep phrase you and all others who jumped in to comment within minutes of eachother: inanimate object. You call a gun an inanimate object. An accurate description. So is a nuclear warhead. A nuke, of course, has far more effective safety devices on it than a gun. And boy are people going to be walking on egg shells if a nuke is around, right? So why not install a nuke in each toy store. It's just an inanimate object...and one with really, really effective safety mechanisms, so all is well, right?

You know, a crack pipe is just an inanimate object. So is a syringe. So why not have them strewn all over the place?

You try to divorce the purpose of an object from that object. A gun is desiged to deliver a high velocity object into a target. What is the purpose of having this in a play area? That is the question you fail to address in a sane manner. What is the purpose of bringing in a device specifically designed to deliver a high velocity objecy into a target into a play area? Given any risk vs. benefit analysis, how is bringing a deadly weapon into a play area going to give a benefit that outweighs the risk? Why is it there?

If you want a deterrent to shoplifting, put a security guard in place, not a taxpayer funded, armed cop. The idea of putting an armed cop into a play area to deter shoplifting is absurd.

And now what are you doing? You are arguing for an armed cop standing at each and every spot people frequent just in case a maniac is around. And yet that had nothing to do with why the cop was there. Nothing what so ever. Are you willing to pay the tax money to put that many cops on the street to patrol every store, every block 24 hours a day just in case a maniac is there? Well, why not just have the army patrol the streets. A tank on each street corner. Wouldn't that help deter crime?

Now, all you are doing is justifying the anti-gun stand that gun advocates have no sense of responsibility and proportion. Gun advocates always talk about the responsibilities that go along with rights, but when push comes to shove, they forget those very responsibilities. There are appropriate and inappropriate situations for guns. There are responsibile and irresponsible uses for guns. That is lesson one the NRA delivers regarding gun safety. Yet you advocate the presence of a gun at all times in all places just in case a maniac is around. That abandons all sense of appropriate and inappropriate situations and responsible and irresponsibe uses of guns. When I ask why a gun is needed in a play area you give a hysterical fear that maniacs are all over so we need armed guards patrolling everywhere at every moment of our lives. That's silly! That is nothing but hysterical paranoia and a demand to increase taxes to pay for all that added firepower on the streets.

A gun was brought into a play area in a safe neighborhood with the express purpose of deterring shoplifting. That is the situation. Not any of the hysterical scenarios you present. Once again, I ask you: why do you need a gun in a play area to deter children from shoplifting? Shall we put an armed cop in every kindergarten and day care to enforce nap time? Get real!

Interesting how three very similarly worded comments come in almost simultaneously, all of them referring to an "inanimate object" and exaggerating the fear.

Look. No one is criticizing cops or their need for guns. To suggest I was doing so is just plain stupid. In fact much of what you say is so absurd it almost is not worth responding.

But when you have a store with a play area with kids running around, playing and all, it is NO PLACE FOR A GUN. Period. What the store needs is a plain old security guard in the play area, not an armed cop paid for by our tax money. If you are unable to see that, then I think you need to think about the situation a bit more.

Mole,

You've stated several times that a gun in a children's area is wrong, but you haven't explained why. I'm willing to change my mind if you can convince me why it is wrong. Stating it over and over again doesn't make it true or explain it.

You have knives in your home where your child lives and plays, but you aren't getting hysterical about them, what is the difference?

Again, did you ask the store if they were paying the cop as security or if he was on duty as a police?

We are trying to have a reasonable discussion of the issues, but calling our views and comments absurd doesn't help. We are trying to understand.
You are the one saying the gun is unneeded and I for one pointed out some instances of where most people would want a gun handy.
Personally, I want armed people around me and wouldn't move to a city where I couldn't legally carry to protect myself.

Unless the gun is left laying on the carpet or shelf where children can get to it, I don't understand the problem. Can you state why you object to it, not just repeat that you do?

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.

Do you guys read off a script? You don't really read the diary from what I can tell.

First off, to address your second point first: No one is saying cops should not have guns. Jumping to that conclusion shows how irrationally you react to anyone concerned about guns.

Now, your third point. Here is where I don't get gun advocates. They claim they are all for responsibility when it comes to guns, but then they see any concern over responsibility as some kind of attack on gun ownership. Why are you so obsessed with your phallic symbol that you have to advocate for a gun to be everywhere at all times? You are advocating LESS responsibility regarding guns than say for a knife.

You also are making the same absurd "it's just an inanimate object" arguement that everyone else makes. Well, as has already been pointed out, a crack pipe or syringe are also just inanimaate objects that are only dangerous when used. A crack pipe doesn't light up by itself. A syringe doesnt just jump up and inject people on their own do they? Knives don't cut people, people cut people.

And yet these are objects that all responsible parents keep out of the areas where their children play. And yet we shouldn't show the same kind of responsibility, keeping an inanimate object with the potential to cause severe bodily harm, away from an area where kids are playing. You state, contrary to what I said in the diary, that the gun was in "not-even-really-significant proximity " of a child. That shows how your view of the situation is so affected by your irrational obsession with an inanimate object. The gun was in the area where kids run and play, sometimes in great number. It was very much in proximity of kids. That is kind of the point.

So, I will say that I have talked to many other parents. They all felt as uncomfortable as I did, and many far less comfortable than I. You seem to feel that New Yorkers live in some constant fear of guns and have some desire to take your precious, phallic inanimate object away from you. That just isn't so. But we do believe people should be responsible with guns and we believe that there are appropriate and inappropriate things in a play area. Knives are not things you keep in a play area (despite what another nearly identical comment upthread said). Neither is a gun. There is no real excuse.

Finally, no one, or should I say not one of your screen names, has told me whhat purpose a gun has preventing children from pilfering. Because despite all your hysterical fear of maniacs and criminals, the stated purpose of the presence of that armed cop was to prevent kids from pilfering. Can you explain to me how the presence of that gun is a reasonable solution to preventing 4 year olds from shoplifting? Because that is really the fundamental question, not your fetish and right to fondle guns or the need for cops to be armed to deal with maniacs.

You are right in that responsible parents keep items that may be harmful to the kids under control. The police officer had complete control over his weapon. You don't seem to recognize that point. You scream how inappropriate merely having a gun near a child is

But you missed the point earlier about knives in the house. Of course responsible people insure that children will be out of the way when knives are being used, but every household leaves knives where they are accessible to children. How many knives do you have in your kitchen that your children can get to?

Do you really think that it's four year olds that are shoplifting? Isn't it more likely the parents, teenagers and other adults stealing the trains? If it isn't the adults stealing, then they are either allowing their children to steal or not paying attention to their children.

I don't see any comments on responsibility as an attack, what I do see is unreasoning and unreasonable comments as an attack. You've stated that merely having a gun in a child's area of a book store is unreasonable, but isn't that where the crimes are being committed?

Can you identify who will be a maniac, who will be committing the next crime? I can't, neither can the police, that is why they are always armed. You seem to want to give amazing powers to the gun, wanting to know how it is going to stop pilfering. Isn't it really the armed officer, with the emphasis on the officer that will stop the crime?

Once again you are bringing up the armed cop being there to deal with an unidentified maniac. Again, that is advocating putting an armed cop in every store, on every street corner in every town in America 24 hours a day just in case a maniac appears. Whose going to pay for that? Isn't THAT an absurd and hysterical thing to advocate? Oh my, there are MANIACS out there! Saturate every inch of America with cops!

Sorry. That a.) has NOTHING to do with the situation being discussed (which has to do with pilfering in bookstores) and b.) is one of the most unreasonable and paranoid suggestions I have heard in a long, long while. So stop bringing up your phobia that maniacs are lurking in every store in America and let's talk about the real situation. If this is what you are resorting to you clearly have left the realm of the real world.

Now, knives. Your comment about the knives did NOT discuss keeping them out of the area where kids are playing. In fact you asked me if I didn't use knives where kids play and my response was that I did not and would consider it irresponsible to do so. Have you ever heard of keeping things out of reach of children particularly in the chaos of dozens of kids running and playing? That is the responsible thing to do my friend and yet you are not recognizing that responsible action.

Now, let's get back to the fundamental question you keep avoiding. How does having a gun there deter shoplifting by children? You think 4 year olds don't grab things? Clearly you have never been around kids much! "Mine" is one of their favorite words and I have seen parents realizing halfway to the door that their kid is carrying a train that belongs to the store. Now...why is it appropriate to address this situation with a gun? THAT is the fundamental point you keep dodging in some kind of terror that recognizing reasonable and unreasonable applications of guns is somehow threatening the 2nd Amendment (an issue that has no bearing on this discussion what so ever).

So, let's get this straight: we are NOT talking about maniacs unless you really are suggesting having a cop covering every square inch of America with vigilance 24 hours a day. We are NOT talking 2nd Amendment here or your fetish with guns. Those two things are irrelavent to the discussion no matter how strongly you are terrified of random maniacs and how fondly you fondle you gun. Nor is it relavent that the gun is "an inanimate object" because all objects have a designed purpose and that object's purpose cannot be divorced from the object itself. A gun is NOT a glorified paperweight because paperweights have far less potential to cause bodily harm. Nor are we talking about whether or not hardcover books can hurt people. A silly point to make in the first place which again divorces the object from its designed purpose.

The issue is how a store should respond to children misbehaving and pilfering in their play area. Does the presence of a deadly weapon of ANY sort in a play area constitute a reasonable response to a child's misbehaving and stealing? Is there ANY application of that gun to stop children from pilfering? Is that gun the proper tool to use to deter children? Not maniacs, if you can put aside your phobia for a moment. Children pilfering. Not teens! Preteens at the oldest in that area. There are children from birth to about 12 years old, with their care takers, playing, reading and bonding with their parents/caregivers/eachother. In this context of children and preteens having fun but there being a pilfering problem, what is the purpose of introducing a gun into the situation? So far you have cited no reason to do so other than maniac hysteria and fear of hardcover books.

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.

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?

He was stationed in that area. I specifically stated that the management said he was there to deter the pilfering in that area. A cop was stationed specifically to deter children from shoplifting. To me that is completely unreasonable. He was not on patrol.

So, this is how the others could have approached the issue. Instead they lept into a "stop the maniacs" and "don't take my gun" attitude.

The fundamental purpose of a gun is to inflict bodily harm or threaten that infliction. That is its designed purpose.

The store already has security guards. Yet now we have an armed cop instead of store security guarding the kids' play area. Why? What is the purpose of this? The stated purpose is to deter pilfering by children (toddler to preteen). Why choose an armed guard over an unarmed security guard for this purpose?

An armed guard brings in the threat of bodily harm. Is this the way we teach children right from wrong? Is the threat or reality of a gun how we deal with pilfering by toddler to preteen age kids?

To me this is a horrific message! You need someone to keep watch, not the threat of bodily harm. Since NO ONE who has commented here suggests that cops should be patrolling stores on a routine basis (except maybe for those who are so terrified of maniacs that they call for armed guards on every square foot of American soil to ease their terror), one has to assume there is a specific reason to place an armed cop in that play area rather than an unarmed security guard, which the store already has available.

A gun is designed to cause bodily harm. It is NOT merely a paper weight. It has a certain danger factor and a psychological factor associated with it. When dealing with children, how does a gun help the situation rather than introduce an unnecessary threat?

So, what purpose does that gun have over the unarmed guard in the context of children pilfering? Does that make sense to you? Others feel that their fear of random maniacs or hardcover books hurting kids justifies the presence of a gun in an area designated for children playing. But to me, there is no reason for that gun to be there. A cop can go wherever is appropropriate and should have his gun whre appropriate. But when the primary goal is to interact with children and their caregivers, why is a gun an asset rather than an unneccessary threat?

You are the first who phrased the question reasonably. Thank you for taking the reasonable rather than the hysterical approach of so many others.

You are advocating some pretty demented things here if I am reading you right. Now remember, the situation I described and reiterated many times is the pilfering of merchandise from a store by 2-5 year olds (the ones who play with the trains). You are suggesting arrest as one way to deal with these children, as far as I can tell. I don't think too many people will agree with your suggestion that a cop with a gun needs to be there to stop children from pilfering because he can arrest them. Of course I don't actually think they DO have arrest powers over 2-5 year olds.

Then after you suggest arrest as a way of dealing with misbehaving children in a play area, you then advocate the threat of bodily harm in disciplining children. If that is really what you are advocating, cops may have to arrest you because that would be child abuse. Bodily harm is lasting harm done to the body of a living human being. THAT is what you are advocating as a discipline technique for children. By the way, causing injury or other contact upon the person of another in a manner likely to cause bodily harm is the legal definition of battery. You are suggesting that this is an appropriate way of treating children. If that is REALLY what you are advocating, you are one sick puppy.

So let me be clear: if you think arresting a child or threatening them with a gun or committing battery on that child (all of which you do suggest in your comment) are appropriate, you are a genuine sociopath.

If however you are merely being extremely careless in your wording, and I hope that is true, then I assume you are discussing spanking. Now, the fact that spanking is generally considered a relatively ineffective way of teaching a child right from wrong (yeah, it works, but other methods are considered far more effective long term) is beside the point. For what it's worth we are pretty strict with our kids, never spank, and they turn out just fine. The main question I have for you is what does spanking have to do with guns? Unless we assume you are somehow conflating pistol whipping and corporal punishment, what the hell does spanking have to do with guns? As far as I can see this is a non sequiter.

Now a gun is a tool, agreed. I have no problem with that. Tools have purposes. What aspect of a gun's purpose is applicable to disiplining children? THAT is, FOR ABOUT THE TENTH TIME, the question none of your gun fetishists have been able to answer. Are you so obesessed with guns that you have to believe guns solve every possible problem including misbehavior by children? Get over it! Guns are NOT appropriate means of disciplining children!

And let me reiterate: if you are seriously threatening your kids with bodily harm or causing bodily harm you are committing a crime and should be arrested. Bodily harm is severe, lasting damage to a person's body. I certainly hope that is NOT what you understood it to mean when you discussed it in the context of spanking.

So, why does he need a gun in order to discipline children? He wasn't there to protect from a school shooting. It wasn't even at a school!

Let me try to wade through your disjointed arguement. Are you suggesting the bookstore needs a cop in the play area to stop a maniac who wants to shoot up the place? Someone already tried that arguement. It is absurd and hysterical. Know why? Because a.) his purpose at that bookstore was to prevent children from pilfering, so no maniacs involved, and b.) if you are suggesting that cops should be placed in every store and on every street corner just in case a maniac shows up, how do you propose to pay for all those cops? It would be impossible, not to mention absolutely paranoid and unnecessary.

How uncertain is YOUR neighborhood? Here in NYC pretty much the vast majority of us never encounter a dangerous maniac. Maybe you live in one of those places where school shootings are starting to seem normal, but not in my neighborhood. Maybe your area DOES need cops on every street corner and in every store because you have so many maniacs that it makes sense. Around here we don't have that much trouble so I don't think we need your suggested saturation strategy for law enforcement. As to terrorist incidents, I don't know about you but while I have never been face to face with a maniac, I HAVE experienced terrorism. Yep, 9/11 happened to my city and there I was in Manhattan when it happened. You know what? No cop on the ground and no gun owner on the ground had any ability to deal with the terrorists. You want to know how to deal with terrorism? Talk to El Al. They do it effectively. We do not. But that isn't the point. The point is, what the hell does terrorism have to do with children pilfering in a bookstore?

This is what amazes me about all you gun fetishist (as opposed to responsible gun owners). You are somehow so obessed with your guns that when someone suggests that bringing in an armed guard is NOT the way to deal with small children pilfering toy trains, you suddenly yell and scream about maniacs, terrorists and all sorts of other non sequiters. And yet not one of you have given me any explanation as to why an armed guard is the right way to deter children from pilfering. What is the purpose of calling in firepower to deal with children? See...nothing in this has anything to do with maniacs or terrorists or the right to bear arms. It has to do with stopping young children from stealing. So why do you all jump right into some bizarre mix of calling guns paper weights, stopping maniacs and discussion of gun ownership. NONE OF THAT APPLIES TO THE SITUATION I DESCRIBE.

I hope you guys can read a gun manual better than you can read a blog entry.

A reasonable one at last! Thank you.

You understand that what I am getting at is appropriatea and inappropriate tools for a particular job. Each tool (all of which are inanimate objects) has its designed purpose. A gun is NOT a paperweight and most responsible gun owners I know would be appalled at that suggestion. And, contrary to what so many others assumed, guns are not some alien object to New Yorkers...or Los Angeles residents (which I formerly was). I know many New Yorkers who served in the American, Russian, Chinese or Israeli armies. Some have seen combat. My step father (who, by the way, was solidly anti-gun in civilian life, a stand I do not take) served in WW II and Korea, retired a Lt. Colonel and taught at West Point. In fact, most veterans I know are pretty anti-gun in civilian life, perhaps because of what their associations are with guns. I have known cops and civilian gun owners. Personally guns don't interest me, but I certainly have seen guns and know gun owners. Yet most of the others commenting here make wild assumptions and foolish accusations regarding New Yorkers in general.

So after all of those wild assumptions, foolish accusations, hysterical references to maniacs, etc. I find it refreshing to read your comment.

Now...yes it was the presence of the gun in the given context. First off, the gun was within reach (even if holstered) of children and honestly the cop was very inattentive, leaning with both arms resting on a bookshelf mostly observing the attributes of young female sales staff. I think that bothered me somewhat because this is an area with children running around, grabbing, pushing, etc. But, that was a lower level concern than the basic fact that deploying an armed guard to deal with pilfering by children is, as you put it, overkill. But more than overkill, it is inappropriate. The presence of a cop with a gun to deal with a crime implies threat of arrest and/or bodily harm by shooting. Neither is in any way a reasonable way of dealing with the situation.

I also want to emphasize that I have since polled many parents in the area. Each and every one of them were far more horrified than I was, my wife included. And they all focused on the gun primarily because of what seems to be a complete incongruity of the idea of children pilfering and any need for a gun to deal with the situation. The question that is rhetorically asked over and over is, "what, do they plan on SHOOTING them!" The question focuses on the absurdity of a gun being used to stop children. The designed purpose of that gun is completely divorced from the disciplining of children. I will also note that most who have read this diary on another blog had the same reaction I did, considering the presence of a gun there to be absurd.

I am shocked that so many commenting here seemed to jump right to some kind of 2nd Amendment kind of position or started talking about maniacs running around. These seemed so far from the situation described that I can only assume that they are having a knee jerk reaction to what they perceive as someone questioning their precious gun. It seemed like a caricature of someone with a fetish about guns. You, I should emphasize, did not do that. Frankly people who consider guns to be paperweights worry me. People who come off like you do not, gun or no gun.

And as to that picture with the axe...well that was for a wedding. Seriously, it was!

Mole 333,
Glad to hear you are not anti gun. Keep the focus on having a police officer in the bookstore to control theft by children, is overkill for security. I hope that you reread your diary and see that the focus seemed to be the objection to having a gun there , rather than an armed police officer. The gun comes with the police officer. So the problem, is having the B &N using a police officer for security is bad management. Many others also agreed that it was bad resource management to have a cop in the B &N.

I would hope that the cop had good awareness of his gun and not allow the opportunity for a child or a stupid thief take his gun away.

I disagree on one your previous posts about corporal punishment, but that was not the issue here.

Making a guess that B & N was tired of the theft problem and put the cop as a deterent for parents allowing their children to steal. Even if kids assert ownership of a toy at a store, still parents make the child put it down when they leave. I doubt that small children make the connection of the cops are there to prevent small kids from stealing. That is the parents job. The cop was there to give a message to the parents.

I am against the assumption by retailers that their customers are theives and that they need to be so blunt about it. I agree that a cop stationed at a book store in the kids section is wrong.

I think your discomfort is about that message that cops are there to intimidate parents and children to prevent stealing. If that is true, then I think we all agree. But you seemed to talk mostly about the fact the cop was armed. I object to having a cop there, not about whether he is armed.

I would like to hear about the wedding. Was it at a Renaiisance Faire?

Folks, the guy is not a hoplaphobe, he is not unreasonably scared of guns. He may not like conceal carry and the implied message that our society is not safe. I don't like the idea that we all need to armed, but I am not against citizens carrying weapons if they wish. There are people out there that are criminal and prey on others and we need to protect against that, and cops are not the answer. I do not think a cop is needed to prevent theft in a retail establishment. It is a bad message and does scare off customers, who then worry if a cop is there as a guard, maybe there is a bad problem with dangerous criminals. Young children are not criminals and I would resent the implication that a cop is needed to prevent young kids from stealing. That would be my job as a parent.

An B &N employee stationed should be sufficent to prevent pilfering and to inform parents that they need to control their children. If that is not sufficent security then B & N should take away the toys that the kids steal. Take away the enticement and the problem should go away.

Mole 333, since you live in NYC it is unlikely you own any guns in your home. Most responsible gun owners teach our children not to touch our guns and keep them away to prevent the temptation of curious hands to play with. Children need to learn that guns are not toys and not to be touched unless under strict supervision until the child is responsible enough to handle a gun.

I do believe that that teaching children how to handle weapons is needed because there are times that things go bad and a weapon may be a necessity. But 4 years old is a little young for that and impulse control is difficult for that young of a child. My son was exposed to guns early and taught not to touch unless allowed. He got his BB gun at 8-9 , rifle at 11, shotgun at 12 and is now a good shot with rifle or shotgun. He does not play nor allow any friends to touch any weapons. He prefers paintball.

I am sure we will disagree on many details (and that is probably part of why you and I might disagree on the original presentation) but we agree on the broad brush strokes and I am more than satisfied with that. I have never been the kind of liberal (and I am proudly liberal on most issues) that required 99% agreement with others on issues. I am satisfied with common ground to work from and an understanding of our different perspectives.

The wedding was not at a Ren Faire, but it was a good friend who requested the wedding party wear Ren wear type of outfits. I interpreted that broadly and chose an anachroistic Viking outfit (definitely NOT Ren wear per se, but close enough for most people...and I got to carry a replica Viking axe). Another friend went all out and had someone design a hand embroidered period Spanish outfit that she chose to undercharge him for because he let her do whatever she wanted as long as it was authentic. The wedding was quite fun, though we seemed to make another wedding party awfully nervous.

By the way. Some people do own guns in NYC. I think the rules are quite strict but keep in mind we live in cramped quarters and everyone is tenser here than most places. I think it is harder to find a save level of gun ownership here given the tensions. Again, I am pro-2nd Amendment rights because I am civil libertarian on all issues. But I also know that much as I like NYC, I was a much calmer person when I lived in far less crowded and tense Los Angeles and even my wife notices the difference when we visit LA. Not too many people are comfortable with guns around in NYC (cops aside, mind you) simply because a great deal of energy is spent by New Yorkers keeping things calm in overcrowded situations. I think that is why you will find even Republicans here are even more anti-gun than I am. But again, New Yorkers probably on average have more experience with guns than most people realize it. I know several gun owners and I know many veterans of several of the world's armies who have obviously handled guns.

Mole 333,

Thanks for the nice reply. Good to see someone of a libertarian bent in NYC. The common impression is that people in NYC are so liberal they don't even run into anybody with a different opinion.

However I think NYC keeps a pretty common sense attitude, since it is a target for terrorism and several attempts have been made other than The World Trade Center Buildings. I was really impressed last spring when the guerilla advertising of Aqua Teen Hungerforce and the light brites that were set up in Manhattan. The authorities did not freak out and just removed them. There were a lot more Lite Brites set up, than were in Boston and the idiots in Boston totally freaked out. Some Boston residents justified that reaction, because the are over sensitive due the the fact some of the planes left Logan that were in 9/11. But since it was NYC that was attacked and NYC authorities did not freak out, I got a really good impression of NYC security.

New Yorkers seem to be really resilient. Too crowded of a city for my tastes though.

I would recommend that you really get a bunch of fellow B &N customers to present written complaints about the prescence of the armed cop in the store. Tell them you find it insulting the assuption that you are criminals and would refuse to shop there until they are removed.

Incidentally if you are a book reader you might want to check out BAEN books. They have an excellant website and a free e library. Not young children fair. A lot of authors appeal to libertarian types. Website is baen.com .

I regret so many assumed that you were anti- gun. Have a nice day.

Good point about the cops being overused to protect property versus protect people. In fact, racial tensions have led to cops harming innocent (probably) unarmed (definitely) people needlessly in their effort to protect property.

As for teaching my son, it is fortunate that children absorb general themes before they absorb subtleties. So it is easy to teach him to feel positive towards cops in general, though I made it clear to him that I thought the cop with the gun was not appropriate in the toy area and that was why we talked to the manager and left. He's a smart kid and we explain things to him and he understands most things very well. I am sure he will understand even the subtleties when the time comes.

As to visiting the boondocks, been all over the country, including very rural Virginia (the people we were visiting in their directions commented "yes...you ARE now in the middle of nowhere".) I have also traveled to the boondocks in other countries (Japan, Turkey, Finland, Latvia, Samoa...) No place has scared me. From Harlem to the South Pacific island of Savai'i to central Anatolia, people are people. WalMart scares me for what it does around the world and what they do to mom-and-pop businesses, not for their creepy smiles.

While I appreciate your perspective, I don't buy your explanation for two reasons. First, the store manager linked the presence of the cop to the shoplifting problems. Second, we cannot have cops acting as security for each and every store in the US just in case a crime happenes. That is impossible! Besides, how many kidnappings happen in Barnes and Noble each year? Certainly none in my local store! Crime is quite low in my neighborhood and so the idea of having a cop in every store to prevent kidnappings seems ludicrous to me.

I will point out that the cop is no longer in the store. When the cop was there, almost no one was in the kid's section, though the rest of the store was normal. Now that the cop is gone, there is again a normal crowd in the kid's section. I don't know if this is coincidence, but I think the message given to the customers if there is a cop there is NOT one of safety but of concern. People wonder why a cop has to be there and will wonder if your store is having problems. Parents I talked to in my community did not like the idea of a cop in the store as a security guard. My community is NOT anti-cop by any means. But we don't think they should be used for routine security in our local stores.

Thanks for commenting, and I know that running a store is not easy. But the answer is not using cops in every store as private security, but perhaps the solution President Clinton advocated: more beat cops on the streets. That in essence does for a whole community what you want them to do for your store without making them private security guards. (By the way, I am not objecting to cops moonlighting as security guards...I am talking about uniformed, armed cops on guard in the store).