No one is telling this kid he has to invite all of his classmates; the problem is that he was openly inconsiderate of the two kids he didn't invite. (Imagine being one of the two who didn't get invited – in front of the whole class. That's a brutal thing to go through at that age.) Had he passed out the invitations privately, there wouldn't have been any fuss.

What's remarkable about the story is that the father, rather than thinking, "Oh yeah, I guess we could have handled that better," took the issue to PARLIAMENT. What a ridiculous response to a tiny issue.

Is it really necessary to point out that Mythbusters science isn't actually science? That's a bit like calling attention to the fact that reality TV isn't real. And clinton labombard says "don't dare rely on it"; thanks, hopefully I'll recall your sage advice before staking my life on a sausage-powered rocket.

The thing is, it doesn't matter if it's really scientifically rigorous or not. The best thing about the show is that it teaches kids (and adults too) about interesting physical concepts in an engaging way. They could be held to a higher scientific process, sure, but it would be a lousy show to watch.

Oh, good eye, Locke -- that sure does look like blood!

I posted that because I think it demonstrated my original point that people can't be expected to maintain vigilance over a weapon while going about their daily lives. A moment's inattention is all it takes for a tragedy occur, and that fact doesn't change whether one is a judge or a janitor or an astronaut or whatever.

And you're probably right, having the gun holstered would have been considerably safer, but it would have been far, far safer for her to keep it locked up at home. The simple fact is that carrying a gun creates exponentially more opportunities for these kinds of accidents to occur.

You know, Ray, it's not all-or-nothing, and it never has been. That's a nonsense argument: I can value the First Amendment, for example, without valuing the Second. That sort of reductive thinking is completely meaningless.

Today, a four-year-old girl in South Carolina shot herself in the chest with a gun that her grandmother carried into a Sam's Club. The gun was legal, and permitted.

Luckily, the girl survived, and I can only I imagine the grandmother is regretting her decision to carry the gun.

"Be brave like us! Carry guns!" (Huh?)

Several commenters have mentioned how hard it is to pull a gun out of another person's holster. I grew up around guns and I know a little about them, and I'm sorry -- it's just not that hard. Unless the holster has some sort of retention system beyond a simple thumb-break (and most don't), you just have to pull in the right direction and the gun comes out. That's how holsters work.

@Mr.2ndA:

It isn't a choice between carrying a gun and living in fear. I do neither. And I'm hardly a "victim in waiting": instead of confronting the problem with the threat of violence, though, I confront it by being involved in my neighborhood, my government, and my community.

I don’t particularly worry about criminals – that’s why I don’t feel a need to own or carry a gun. If you were to ask me who’s living in their “own little world of fear,” I’d say it’s the guy who’s sleeping with a gun next to his bed, not me.

Personally, I choose not to expose my family to the real dangers of firearms in order to feel secure against some perceived, minor threat. Yes, you can be a responsible gun owner, of course, and if you want to keep guns in your own house, I won’t object. I think it’s silly, and careless, but I won’t object. I will object, though, if you decide to have a gun in the presence of my family. You want me to start taking care of myself and my family? Ok, I’ll start by asking you not to carry incredibly dangerous objects around my children.

But to get to the heart of the matter: the reason why we have more gun-related crime in this country than most (all?) other developed nations is not because we have more guns, or different laws. It’s because our culture is simultaneously infatuated with violence, and paranoid. We won’t make any progress on this issue until we affect change in both areas – and toting guns around in public is a move in the wrong direction on both counts.

It’s impossible to effectively argue logic with the gun fetishists, because as soon as you do, they invoke the Second Amendment. And you know what? The Second Amendment is nonsense. Maybe it was an important document when it was written, but it’s neither necessary nor effective today. You need some means of controlling the government? My friends, this is a democracy: you ARE the government. Try exercising that right and responsibility in a more meaningful way than strutting around town with a killing machine stuck to your hip. The only thing you accomplish by wearing a gun in public is promoting a culture of paranoia – and endangering innocent lives in the process.

@sam:

Rather than lecture me on the definition of "logical fallacy," maybe you should re-read my comment. I stated that as the number of guns increase, so will the number of stolen guns and gun-related accidents and injuries. There are no fallacies there. In order for my statement to be untrue, the percentage of open-carry guns that are stolen or involved in accidents would have to decrease -- and there's no reasonable expectation for that to happen.

It simply isn't reasonable to expect any of these people to remain vigilant against criminals or kids or the mentally disturbed or anyone else who might want to make a grab for a gun. The more guns that are carried around in public, the more guns will get stolen and passed to the wrong hands, the more guns that will be fired accidentally, and the more innocent folks will be hurt. It's not a complicated equation.

I'd be willing to wager that the first person to be injured or killed by one of these fetishists' guns will be a family member or bystander, rather than someone representing one of their imagined fears.

Mr. Jensen thinks the man's belief that guns are unsafe is "irrational." Show me another object you can wear on your belt that can kill eight people in as many seconds.

I once used my shoelaces to rescue a rat from a sewer grate to the soundtrack of Phil Collin's "Against All Odds."

In order for this to happen as described, the liquid would have to be pumped out under significant pressure, no? If you simply opened up the bottom of the tank to let the liquid out, it wouldn't implode even if it wasn't vented -- the liquid would stop flowing if air couldn't get in to take its place.

(@Kent, Nice explanation, thanks -- but do you mean you mean bulkhead rather than bulwark? A bulwark is a defensive wall, like a fortification; a bulkhead is a partition, usually inside a boat or submarine, that strengthens it and prevents leaks or fires from spreading.)