« the man can't keep me down! | Main | steak, spies and self-linking »

do you have any grey poupon?

(I had posted this at my temp site this morning. Sorry for those who left comments there, because I don't feel like copying and pasting them all over here)

Today is (in addition to being the first day of summer and my sister Lisa's birthday) National Ask Day.

The ASK (Asking Saves Kids) Campaign, created by PAX/Real Solutions to Gun Violence in partnership with the American Academy of Pediatrics, urges parents to ASK if there are guns in the homes where their children play. ASK Day has been created to help parents and others spread this important message in neighborhoods and communities across America

Hey, why stop at guns?

Gather your kiddies around, give them an ASK sticker to wear, and then turn them on your neighbors with a list of questions:

Do you have any old copies of Penthouse Letters hidden under your mattress?
Do you have any steaks in the freezer?
Do you have own any movies that feature naked women in exotic positions on the cover?
Is there a stash of pot hidden anywhere in your home office?
Do you have Wu Tang CDs?

If your neighbor has answered yes to any of the above questions that your kids ask, do the right thing. Invite them to your next party.

Then send your kids off to the shooting range with Rachel Lucas, where she will school them in how to handle a gun properly, rather than just telling them not to touch it.

I mean, streets are busy, right? Cars, trucks, motorcyles and what have you. Do you teach your kids how to properly cross the street safely or do you just keep them fenced in your yard until they are in high school?


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference do you have any grey poupon?:

» National Ass Day? from Inoperable Terran
Today's the day when doctors are supposed to ask kids if there are guns in their house, and report their parents to Janet Reno if so. Michele has a bit of a different idea, of course. UPDATE: that link was... [Read More]


Hey, and don't forget those dangerous power tools, kitchen knives, and other life threatening appliances such as blenders and garbage disposals.

Heaven forbid they go near the stove!

Any of these items are likely to take on a life of their own, jump out of closets, safes, and drawers and attack you wtihout warning.

Steaks? Aw damn!

In what a strange world do you live where a gun is as important and unavoidable than a street to cross? Over here in the Olde Europe one migh have the impression that John Wyne is really riding through your streets,

He is Lilli. He's chasing after Wyatt Erp.

How do you avoid intentional gun violence? You teach your child to never, EVER think about picking up a gun just because they're mad at someone.

How do you avoid accidental gun violence? You teach your child how to properly handle guns.

This is an issue where folks who have no interest in guns find it easy to suggest that the solution to America's violence problem is to simply do away with guns. The same people who (rightly) object to Ashcroft's power-play for all sorts of insidious new powers are completely unconcerned about the loss of liberty that banning guns would represent.

Conservatives are no better, however. They cheer every Ashcroft request for decreased transparency and increased unilateral power as essential to fighting terrorism, at the same time they (rightly) reject new gun laws as an abomination on our freedom.

The bottom line is that people have a tendency to be concerned about freedoms that affect them, and unconcerned about freedoms that don't. Everyone would do well think about protecting ALL our freedoms - the other guy's freedom that gets taken away today could well be your freedom that goes by the wayside tomorrow.

What you say is true, MikeR, but it's much easier to protect your rights when you can actually do something to defend them.

Having the second amendment makes having the others easier to keep.

It seems to me that the people that villify the second amendment would do well to remember that historically they come for your guns first. After that, they can take what they want. I'll leave it up to you to fill in the "they".

My family is filled with hunters. I grew up in a house and neighborhood filled with weapons -- hand guns, rifles, muzzle-loaders, bows -- which were not locked up. Nobody in my family was ever killed or injured due to handling any of these weapons. Nor did I, my brother, cousins, friends, etc., ever show them off to be 'cool.' We were taught the proper way to handle these weapons and how to use them if we were serious enough. And to this day, nobody from that neighborhood has met with an untimely end or injury due to firearms. Thanks to responsible parents who cared enough to not just say "Don't you dare touch that gun!"

I'm sure this is going to open a can of worms, but the problems this country has with guns start with irresponsible owners, and not that the guns simply exist. Get your gun, but take a safety class and some target practice first.

And just to confuse people, I also believe that certain types of firearms should not be available to the public. Like semi-automatic weapons and armor peircing bullets.

Aimee, even you are falling for the lie. There is nothing inherently more dangerous about semi-automatic weapons. Think about it...what exactly is there about a "semi-automatic" that makes so much worse than anything else? Pump and lever rifles can be operated nearly as quickly as a semiauto; pump shotguns can be operated faster. Semiautos have no more inherent killing capacity than other guns.

My father grew up hunting with his father, sometimes in the hills west of Napa(cf Ambrose Bierce's story about Mr. Frayser). He once told me that because of his training on how to handle and use guns, he wasn't sure that he could deliberately shoot a fellow human being, even if he had to do so.
I, on the other hand, having some familiarity with guns, but not much hunting experience, probably could find it easy to use a gun on someone who was a serious menace to my life, though I hope I never have to be in such a position in the first place.

There is a growing mentality in this country that if something is put away or hidden, it will never become a problem. Michele, do you remember those PS commercials on what kids are suppose to do if they find blasting caps out in the open? That was a more sensible approach than the above nonsense.

Not sure what "lie" you're talking about, Ken. I'm not a member of the NRA, nor am I a preachy, hot-headed soccer mom who latches onto the 'Topic of the Day.' I've formed my views on personal experience (as someone who can capably handle weapons and being the child of a police officer) and independent thinking.

My views on semi-automatic weapons have nothing to do with how fast you can fire them. There is just no need to have them, leave them on the battlefields for which they were designed. Yes, if you are properly trained, you can operate any gun just as quickly--which you wouldn't need to do if you took lessons and could drop whatever you're shooting at with the first round.

And if you can't drop someone/thing with the first round from a shotgun, you have bigger problems than a gun can help you with.

Aimee, I'm talking about the demonization of them. "Just no need to have them" is not a reason to ban them. Unless you can demonstrate that they are a particular evil (for lack of a better word), and that banning them will be effective (as in lowering the murder rate, not just disarming civilians), then they should not be banned.

BTW, I own or have access to several semi-automatic rifles and pistols. Not one was "designed for the battlefield".

And about "dropping someone with the first round" is reasonable only for one stationary attacker in the open at a short distance. Multiple attackers, a partly hidden attacker, a moving attacker, an attacker over a few feet away (especially one shooting back) are all reasons follow-up shots may be necessary. As the child of a police officer, you should know how many rounds are typically fired before an opponent is brought down (there are usually dozens of rounds fired for every hit, and every hit does not bring him down).

> There is just no need to have them, leave them on the battlefields for which they were designed.

They weren't designed for battlefields. Several models were designed to LOOK like guns that are used on battlefields, but that's a very different thing.

Interestingly enough, the "designed for battlefields" standard damns bolt action rifles, several antibiotics, and lots of other technologies. Is "designed for battlefields" a general rule, or just an excuse with no factual basis?

Semi-automatic is just one way to make a gun go boom each time you pull the trigger. It wasn't the first way, so it's unclear why it's special.