I Think

Once some years ago, I was in a building where the alarm went wild (not my fault) and the police came. I think the first guy's gun was drawn, but that part is a slightly faded memory - anyway, the police were in serious mode.

Some years after that I was working a deadline, left the building for a quick snack, and came back in, now the only one in the building. I did something wrong with the alarm, and just as I got upstairs to our design studio, all hell broke loose with major noise. I froze. Looking out the window, the black night was foreboding. I went downstairs rehearsing what I would say to the police. Somehow the noise stopped (me? or the mechanism?) but it had been on for quite a while. No police. I went back to work.

But after those first and second experiences, I'm chary of me and alarms.

I can see osso made a reply but I can't get it to display.

Okay. Can see now.

I had no previous experience with an alarm like that. It must be hell to be tethered to such a system 24.7. It informs the owner of every slight variation.

I had taken to resting up after work these past several days. Today I feel rejuvenated to the point where I want to complete unfinished tasks and get on with new ones.

I am still trying to wrap my head around the story of a five year old given a gun made specifically for people in his age group. He killed his sister with it. Turns out there are lots of these weapons being sold. How unbalanced is your mind to push gun ownership to that level?

Have humans evolved to a point where upward evolutionary growth is no longer possible? Is that why we are turning to machines, to make new development happen?

There are statistics to show that more guns only means more of those kinds of "accidents." There are laws that one cannot drink until the age of 18 in most states, but no laws that a child of five can own a gun that can kill.

What's wrong with this picture?

Nothing. The self defence argument applies to kids. And think of the vast untapped market.

Business principles have no concern for the slaughter except insofar as it might be turned to account at the second remove.

You miss the whole point. I guess it's because of your regular visit to the local pub, your brain has calcified!

By your reasoning, it's okay for children from age five to carry weapons - to school - to protect themselves.

That is what all those "bump" posts are about. The "bump" allows the first post of a new page to show up (under certain conditions)...only instead of using "bump"...you used "I can't see Osso's new post."

I didn't say anything about it being okay. If the self defence argument has any validity then the kids have the same right as adults.

You miss the point because you are too busy claiming others are doing so. Kids have just as much right to be scared of people as adults have and to take matters into their own hands if nobody else can. And they can't fight an attacker like these hairy-arsed blokes who want guns to protect themselves can.

Are you one of those who say kids should be seen and not heard? People who you can foist your idiotic ideas on without losing votes eh?

Anybody gives a five year old kid a gun ought to be the kid's first target.

Perfect response.

It's not at all. It misses the point. Or doesn't want to go near it.

Get real--defend the self-defence argument not applying to kids.

I have to say, this is the dumbest thing you could have started, spendi. Little kids are to be protected by adults. It is an unfortunate circumstance that when adults fail their children, it is up to other adults to rescue them. Any idiot ought to know a five year old cannot make enough correct decisions to be put in charge of his own security. He is not big enough or seasoned enough. I have to think you are yanking someone's leg here.

He's yanking his own leg with one hand, while with the other hand holding a pint.

I'm getting weirded out here.

spendi is a ignorant bloke who doesn't understand that most five year olds don't know much about anything, and they're more apt to kill somebody in their own family than to protect them.

I never mentioned "five-year olds. I said kids. Is that below 16 or 18?

A gun nut wrote--



Why does that not apply to kids? You're "five-year old" drivel is concocted to save your argument.

Kids can't vote so you just ignore them. They have been disarmed and you old twats have not. End of story.

I bet plenty of kids had guns when the 2nd was passed.

You're pretty ignorant bloke. Back in those days, they didn't have the kinds of weapons we have today.