🚀 go-pugleaf

Mary Ann,

It seems like we anti-gun control people are always having to give you 
anti-gun people  some sort of anology so that you can *UNDERSTAND* that 
an  *OBJECT* like a gun does not get up an kill or do harm to others all  
by its self.  So here goes again:

Mary Ann, immagine you are a school teacher monitoring a playground full 
of school children at recess.  All of a sudden a very angry child picks 
up a rock and for his own angry reason starts to throw rocks at the other 
children.  Upon observing this you have several obtions.

1.  Do you demand  that the child drop the rock and then order the 
school  custodian to pick up and remove all rocks from the playground.  
Pat the angry child on the head and say "bad boy" don't do that again.

2.  Remove the child from the playground.

3.  Turn and look in the other direction hoping that the situation will 
not get worse.

As you would expect, I will now offer my notions:

the first option is impractical since there are already a billion rocks 
on the playground and IF they could remove all of the rocks the angry 
child would find someting else to hurt the other children like a sharp 
pencil or a baseball bat or a fist.  Maybe the angry child hid a bunch of 
rocks that the custodian could not find.  Besides many of the children 
use the rocks on the playground for things other than violence.  The 
little girls use them in marking their hop-scotch.  Some of the little 
boys like to compete amoung themselves to see how far they can throw a 
rock or two.

The second option seems the most logical.  It is certainly the most 
practical. It is swift and surly the most just.  I would think that most 
people of prudence would choose that option.

But it seem that in our society many want to choose the third option.  
They want to mark time on the problem.  Look the other way and maybe it 
will go away.  Many want to do the first option.  Leave the angry child 
on the playground and have someone pick up all of the rocks.  God forbid 
we would not want to remove the angry child for fear of getting him more 
up set.  In fact we will offer the angry child candy and tell him he will 
not have to do homework like the other children as an inducement to 
hopefully make him stop being angry.

When we look at this more we realize that we can never make the 
playground safe enough.  When certain children get angry enough they 
will find a violent and viscous way of hurting the other child.  Push 
him down, hit him with a fist etc.  Sure all children get angry.  Yet, 
some can not control their anger.  i would suggest that if you owned 
a pre-school and that you had certain problem children that can not 
control their anger that you send them home and tell their parent 
that you can not afford to have them at your school.

What is the point.  As I have said before.  You can debate the gun 
(rocks) control situation until you are blue in the face.  It will 
not change anything.  The problem is the violet person *NOT* a gun 
(or a rock).  

Our society (just like a pre-school) should be one that we eject 
angry problem children that refuse to conform to the school rules 
and whose parents could care less about doing something.  Notice 
that the verb eject here is really doing something 
after-the-fact.  Ejecting the angry problem child from our school 
is just a cure to an on going problem.  What we need is 
prevention.  Prevention is better than the cure.  We need to do 
something before-the-fact.  We need to find a way that makes the 
probability that a angry problem child does not get into our 
school (society) in the first place.  That way we have greater 
peace of mind, don't have a lot of janitors picking up rocks on 
the playground, and the peacefull children can grow and learn 
better because they do not fear for being harmed.

Don't you think that is would be a lot better to put most of our 
efforts into finding a way to keep angry problem people out of 
our society than going around picking up guns from the 
innocent.

Mary Ann, does this help you to understand?