U have raised many interesting questions,
(BTW, I love Fireflies; we used to call them Lightning Bugs
U r very welcome in my backyard, in the summer)
some of which are complex to so great an extreme
that I am daunted in endeavoring to answer.
I 'll take a shot at it:
So, all children should be armed against their parents, OmSigDAVID?
Every person, of every age,
needs to be able to preserve his life
in a predatory emergency, regardless of the identity of the predator.
For example, when Joel Steinberg was beating
his adopted daughter to death, ideally, it woud have been better
if she had the means to kill her tormentor. In the absence of those
means, she was tortured to death. I don t believe that is acceptable.
When Andrea Yates' oldest boy (7) discovered what his mom
was doing in the bathroom, he fled. He was unarmed.
She followed, ran him down and drowned him.
I wish that he was armed and alive now. I think the rong side prevailed.
Then there was when David Rothenberg 's dad
tried to burn him to death, in bed,
because he had a tiff with his wife.
That did not work out very well, in my opinion. Remember that ?
I recall a singularly horrible example from TV:
a 7 year old boy was riding his bike, after dinner,
when a pervert grabbed him off of it, cut his throat to murder him,
and cut off his penis; then left him for dead. The victim survived.
I wish he 'd had the means of self defense; I truly do.
It was a predatory emergency, based upon a contest of power.
I think the rong side prevailed.
I respect your right to your opinion.
Would that have prevented this family tragedy?
Possibly, probably; for instance,
if a child sees that Dad has just taken out Grandma, opened up on Mommy,
then took out Sis and Rover, at some point it might occur to him
that he must turn his hand to his own defenses.
With luck, he might flank the predator, while he is engaging elsewhere.
In any case, if the victims were all well armed,
then when the victims see the primary attack against them begin,
thay can immediately begin a dispositive counterattack,
and that is the end of that
I think its better if the bad guy LOSES.
Most children who are sexually abused, physically abused,
and murdered are the victims of parents, family members,
or family friends.
Should we protect all children by giving them firearms?
That question is so extremely complex (factually)
as to make it almost impossible for me to answer; here goes:
I doubt that much physical abuse will take place
(slugging him, burning him, jamming his hand down the garbage grinder
in the sink) if the victim is well armed, with a handgun.
As to sexual abuse ? We have problems with definitions.
The victim 'd have to erect his own ad hoc definitions.
If Granny kisses him on the cheek ?
If his brother playfully swats him on the butt ?
If his friend, the child from across the street,
suggests thay play "doctor" ?
One of Cuban Elian Gonzalez' grandmothers
said on Cuban TV that thay opened up his pants
and went in there, inquiring after his penis.
Shoud he open up on them ?
Not in MY
If a pervert grabs him off of his bike and slices at him with a knife ?
Yes: I think that 's a good time for defensive firepower.
No point teaching firearms proficiency in the schools if we don't
give the children guns--
the proficiency won't protect them without the guns.
(I got my OWN
guns; its not impossible.)
My school told us all that we 'd not be able to graduate
if we did not know how to swim. Shoud we apply the same filosofy ?
In the 1990s, I saw on Peter Jennings World News (ABC)
that there was a school in a Northwestern state,
wherein all the students had to arrive armed in school.
Apparently, thay 'd lost some students to the local fauna.
Thay interviewed a small group of students aged 8 to 12.
Every day thay arrived, put their coats on the coatrack,
their hats on the hatrack and their guns on the gunrack,
studied arithmetic n geografy (no fonetic spelling ?)
and at the end of the day thay took their stuff and went home: no trouble.
Should the schools supply the guns if parents refuse to do so?
That s like asking whether the schools shud supply
pens, paper n shoes, if parents refuse to.
The schools ALREADY HAVE
supplied the guns
for their own gunnery teams. Around the First World War,
Congress created the Director of Civilian Marksmanship Program,
which promoted Civilian Marksmanship. Many schools had their own
gunnery teams. I was not sufficiently accurate to qualify.
I bought a mint .30 caliber M-1 Carbine from the Director of Civilian Marksmanship
for only $20 plus shipping and a .45 caliber pistol for $12.
At what age should we arm them. 6? 8? 12?
I armed myself at age 8; a matter of luck.
Age depends upon the individual, in my opinion.
I had one of my tenants recently ask me to help him get a gun.
I have yet to respond.
Should they carry their guns with them to school?
Thay have no need of guns in school, if NO students have ever
been attacked nor shot while in class in America.
Respectfully, that is like asking whether thay shoud have
health insurance in effect when thay go to school, or anywhere.
Its better to HAVE
a gun and not NEED
than it is to NEED
a gun and not HAVE
Is there anyone who shouldn't be carrying a gun?
According to WHOSE
If some no-good, dirty bum were on his way
to the corner to get a sandwich,
possibly, he might think that his personal safety
requires his being able to defend himself from the violence of man or beast.
No matter WHO
if he is beset with a predatory emergency,
he will need the means to handle it.
From the point of vu
of others who don 't care much about his well being,
I suppose there IS
" anyone who shouldn't be carrying a gun ".
On the other hand,
if I had a child, and I CARED
that he shoud be able
then I 'd certainly desire that he 'd possess anything
that was necessary for his survival to an old age. Call me sentimental.
I 'd not be in a hurry to put a submachinegun
into the hands of a chimpanzee or a lunatic of ANY
but I know that if the lunatic cares sufficiently about arming
himself, then he will succeed, if he is not paralyzed,
the same as anyone can get marijuana or heroin.
Remember when Bush Sr. showed us a plastic bag
full of white powdered drugs sold a block from the White House ?
Supreme Law of the Land is the Law of Supply n Demand.