I hope he has made it clear to his loved ones that he is not willing to harm a would-be murderer in order to protect them.

May the fragrance of Hoppe's part the fog in this guy's head. :)

Perhaps people this naïve are put on earth to amuse us and to serve as warnings to children.

It would be interesting to know—and we can’t ask McKnight directly because we would not get an honest answer—if I happened upon McKnight’s wife in a desperate moment with a predator in a dark alley, would he prefer I practice my sense of justice or his.

The people who whine the most about injustice are the most conspicuous enablers of it.

Take it from me, who worked street patrol 10 years in a first-ring suburb of Minneapolis. When you have an intruder in your home, you're on your own. By the time the cops can show, all they can do is take the report.

If folks think they can lock their bedroom door and be safe till the cops show up, they might test their theory by giving their bedroom door a good kick. It's never taken me more than one kick, myself.

McKnight & Friends are terminally naïve. “Store your gun in a ‘governmentally-based location’”!

And what in tarnation izzat?! I wonder if it’s anything like an eschaton.

Parents ought to gather all the children and show them a door, the itty-bitty screws that hold in the striker plate and the tiny piece of wood it is attached to. Then the parent says to the children, “Even if we had doors made out of three-inch titanium, this is all that keeps murderers, perverts and thieves out of our own home. That is why we have this. It was made to stop automobiles; it will certainly stop invaders.”

Then the parent pulls out a .357 and a box of cartridges.

“And that is why this Saturday we will be going to the rifle range to learn a bit about the only form of gun control you’ll ever need to know.”

And for all you emergent pansies out there, this view comports with the law of the land and the unambiguous statement of the Supreme Court. And we know you won’t change that—as with Roe v. Wade—by “turning back the clock”.

Awww, Diss, surely you mean "a box" each? :)

Heheheheh.

I think children should learn to share.

I agree about teaching this to our children. Last Saturday I helped my 12-year-old perfect his Weaver stance as he shot my .45. Eventually I'll teach him about shot placement in the human being, use of cover and concealment, recognition of threat areas, etc.

I elaborate on this only so that my next statement will not be dismissed.

My son is forbidden to engage in "cops and robbers" or "cowboys and indians" games in which he delights in pretending to shoot and kill. He is also forbidden to play paintball, a favored Fundagelical "youth group" activity. (We might use it for training someday, though I much prefer Simunitions.)

I want my son to become adept at killing. I don't want him to develop an inordinate affection for it.

I should hasten to say (since numbered among us are some “gun nuts” and the conversation has become somewhat more technical) that a .357 is not the best choice for home protection unless your neighbor’s house is also being invaded and you are engrossed in a prelude and fugue. (This is why I like to keep a large bore weapon over my harpsichord.)

Your poor kid, Todd. It sounds like he's slotted to grow up a prissy dead-shot. It's ingrained in human nature to learn things by playing them. That's why cops and robbers was invented. Knowing to aim for the head is great, but having the nerve to do it when the time comes...well that's why God made kids the way he did. Being driven to play at doing when they are boys what they may really have to do when they are men. Animals are the same way, actually. My favorite game as a twelve-year old was to simulate being a spy, boys against girls. I really don't think it made me a person who delighted in dishonesty and subterfuge. But it gave me steadier nerves - and a rippin' good time.

Now Grand Theft Auto, that's a different story. But what good is it if your kid can't appreciate the moral difference between Grand Theft Auto and cops and robbers? Or worse yet, if he figured it out three years ago but sees that you haven't?

Yeah...none of my business. But hey, you put it out there. Dang, I wouldn't be a PK for worlds.

Years ago, a buddy of mine was putting his son (2 years old at the time) to bed. The son had his tiny plastic hand gun in bed with him.

Dad: Why do need your gun?

Son: Monsters.

Dad: Are you afraid of monsters?

Son: [with irritated tone] No, I have my gun.

What is the moral difference between Grand Theft Auto and "cops and robbers," AR?

Point of view, IMO. Both are role-playing games, which means they are based on a storyline. In traditional cops and robbers, at least as we played it, it was assumed that the robbers were the bad guys. You had to take turns getting to be the cops. In Grand Theft Auto, from what I've seen, the POV is from a theiving murdering main character.

When I was a Use of Force Instructor, I found the introduction of role-playing to be the single best way of training officers to gain subject compliance throughout the use of force continuum. When we introduced this stuff:

http://www.simunition.com/cartridges/fx_training_en.php

it changed the way we trained. I can't say enough good stuff about role-playing in training.

But at no time was it offered or taken as amusement. If one of the cops thought it was amusing, we would have sent him to Dr. Vessey, our head-shrinker.

Yikes. Well I could go on about making distinctions between one kind of thing and another but I guess I understand private moralism too well for it to feel like anything but pointless.

So I'll just restrain my passions over here, and pray your kid grows up with some sense of proportion.

A thoughtful approach to the moral imagination is always unpopular. Few are willing to give up the amusements so dear to their hearts.

Yes, and the lofty generalization is a style of put-down to which I am thankfully immune, Mr. Mitchell.

Go, have a good day, love your son, and forget about me and my childhood memories. We will not understand one another better for some time to come.

Lest there be any misunderstanding, AR, please know that I did not mean that to be an insult.

Simply consider the possibility that sentimental attachments to such childish games (and a plethora of other amusements) might cloud one's judgment, and affection for such amusements might preclude a thoughtful approach to the moral imagination.

Cops and robbers dear to anybody's heart!

lol, do you really think that is the case?

Yes, in the case of AR and in the case of my son and his friends.

By the way, “cops and robbers” was never invented to teach kids how to use guns. When I grew up my proficiency with a gun was (and continues to be) honed through target practice and hunting. Those who failed to develop their aim through actual use generally gave up hunting or went to a game farm—the answer wasn't more cops and robbers simulation.

I wish “cops and robbers” was the simple thing it used to be. When we played cops and robbers or “Army” sticks were the guns and apples were the grenades (the more rotten apple the better). And many of the times the “robbers” or “other army” happened to be invisible—when we didn't have enough people to play with. At no time did I shoulder my oak branch and specifically aim for my opponents head. It was enough that I pointed it in the general direction and said “bang.” And like all good play time an argument ensued over whether or not I had hit my target with my “bang.”

Cops and Robbers, as played by kids today, is an entirely different story. Many (but not all) kids have replica guns, for one thing (And I doubt I need to post a story or two about some kid getting shot by a police officer because the kid pointed a very-real looking fake gun at a police officer). There is an immense difference between pointing a wooden gun and a replica at a person. For one, it could get you killed. Two, any young person back in my day who pointed a gun in a bad direction was made very aware, through very drastic ways, that it was not acceptable. Why is there an obsession to get as close as possible, to be as realistic as possible about killing someone? In addition, sadly, few adults and therefore few kids can properly handle a gun themselves—they've never been taught.

Also, I think AR missed a key word in one of Todd's original posts: delight. Todd objects to developing a delight for killing. And it is the kind of delight for killing many kids are developing—just do a YouTube search and you'll find kids boasting of their kills on their favorite game. They think it's cool that they zoomed in (007 Style) and shot the guy right between the eyes—that is world's apart, my friend, from the bang, bang of cops and robbers OS (Old Style). I don't think you object to this point at all. Even as a hunter I do not find killing a delight. There is nothing delightful about it in the least. The fact of the matter is that Cops and Robbers is not a gun safety program. And I know, AR, that you are not claiming it as one. But what you and I grew up with is a whole lot different than today.

Cops and Robbers came about because kids wanted to imitate what they saw on a TV screen (kind of like how places in my house became wrestling rings after my brothers and I watched WWF on Saturday mornings. And I must admit, it was fun practicing the “razor's edge” on my little brothers. Thank God I never paralyzed one of them). But the images on the screen these days due to graphic, special effects are a long way gone from the “Lone Ranger.”
Having just finished A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier by Ishmael Beah (a former boy soldier in Sierra Leone) I am more inclined to side with Todd. Would you believe that between killing raids these drugged up teen boys and veteran soldiers alike watched Rambo to inspire them to more violence.

“Because of this raid Alhaji acquired the name, 'Little Rambo,' and he did all he could in other raids
to live up to that name.” A Long Way Gone, 143-144. (In this particular raid it happened to be
sneaking up on guards and slitting their throats).

Of course, in order the discredit me I anticipate someone coming back with something like: “So, you think watching Rambo makes people mass murders, eh?”--or some other “war” movie. What a dumb reply that would be, as if I was arguing for that. [Oddly enough, why is it that soldiers who have actually been in war really don't like war movies? For some reason I've never found a WWII vet that relished bayoneting a Jap or shooting a Kamikaze out of the sky. Generally they try not to relive those days. And what they want to forget we drink up in the comfort of our home on a TV or computer.]

All I mean to say is that nurturing a delight in killing is not what I want myself or anyone else to be spending their free time on. I'm not sure I'd want anyone to practice “killing” (virtual or not) so they could “do it when the time comes.” Personally, I train with my concealed weapon so that if I have to defend myself or family I will have the physical skills to do so. I train like I'll have to do it, and pray that I never will. Shooting a human being is not a skill I ever want to be adept at. If I can easily pull a trigger while pointing a weapon at a human there is something wrong with me. If it came to defending my life or my wife's, I would very quickly (and sadly) do it.

Finally, I happen to be a PK--and I wouldn't trade it for worlds (real or virtual).

p.s. The command against murder (which Jesus said could be committed in deed OR thought) is not a private moralism. And it is certainly not pointless to talk about it.