Today’s gun question:

Should we be complete morons and force our 6 year old children, by state law, to become gun nuts?

Here’s one view:

Here’s another view (trigger warning):

Comments

  1. #1 ron
    February 3, 2013

    Are you admitting that public school curriculum is “forced” learning?

    Funny how reproduction and relational intimacy is “better” if taught in public schools, but education about weapons…blasphemy!

  2. #2 Greg Laden
    February 3, 2013

    ron, you are making a rather perverted assumption here. Most people engage in relational intimacy, only a few people are gun nuts.

    Perhaps you have mainly had the reverse experience.

  3. #3 BobFromLI
    Long Island, NY
    February 4, 2013

    First, as a victim of gun violence, I note that this is the only antisocial behavior ‘sanctioned’ by the Constitution. Nut is an accurate term, those who obsess about guns, ‘stopping power’, magazines and the rest are compensating for something. Let’s talk about love, ron. Let’s talk about something that is constructive. Please.

  4. #4 ron
    February 4, 2013

    How loving is it for an adult to physically protect a child from attack?
    How loving is it to defend a life?
    How loving is it to teach someone how to physically protect themselves?

    Taking the other side of the argument: How loving is it to teach people to fear inanimate tools that can can be used for self protection? How loving is it to throw a 6 year old out of school for having a “bubble gun”? How loving is it to take the tools from people that can be used to physically defend them?

    Of course, we must determine what is and what is loving based on an objective standard Bob. What is your objective standard for love and what is its basis in history?

  5. #5 ron
    February 4, 2013

    http://tinyurl.com/auwrktn

    Here’s a story of a 15 year old male using dad’s AR-15 to defend his 12 year old sister from 2 assailants.

    Bob, there is love in this story!

  6. #6 Deron
    February 4, 2013

    Anyone who thinks that a shotgun is insufficient to defend his home against intruders is a looney.

    Anyone who thinks that he is going to defeat the U.S. Army in a firefight is a paranoid looney.

  7. #7 Jarod Morris
    United States
    February 18, 2013

    Deron,

    I’d agree with you if you find someone that thinks a shotgun is insufficient. I don’t think most people are going to say that though. I think this is a choice of good or better.

    Bob from LI, what anti-social behavior are you saying is sanctioned by the constitution? When you say “this” it makes me think you are referring to your prior reference to gun violence. The right to bear arms is not a right to be violent against innocent citizens with those guns. I’m truly interested in hearing what you have to say about what you mean to be sanctioned by the constitution. If it is merely the ownership of guns, I’m not sure how ownership of anything is anti-social. Some objects can be used in an anti-social way, but that is on the owner who chose to be anti-social and then chose his/her instrument to be anti-social.

    Jarod

  8. #8 Roger
    March 25, 2013

    I don’t by the “good vs better” argument. Assault rifles are farm from ideal for home defense (unless you tend to defend your home from 300 meters or more). They’re designed to be long-range accurate weapons (which is why, yes, some hunters do like AR-15s).

    An assault rifle, with assault rifle rounds, is far more likely to penetrate a wall and kill an innocent bystander than it is to be more “useful” in a home defense scenario than a shotgun, or even a much more mobile handgun (you do realize that the M4 variant was developed specifically because the M16 was too long and cumbersome to use in confined spaces and jungles, right?).

    Bottom line: home defense is not a valid argument. Grenades and land mines will serve to defend your home, too; they are not required, nor are they the best tool for the job.

Current ye@r *