Unpopular Opinions - OP Updated with Threadban List 4/5/21

03-06-2020 5:22pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

In Dublin, it's mostly pronounced 'Sursha' whereas 'Seersha' seems predominant elsewhere.

So it's an either/or. That's fine so.

But aint Ronan a Carlovian?

She was good in "Hannah" though so I'll no longer bother with her real life affectations.

the beer revolu · 03-06-2020 5:23pm

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS! wrote: »

Much of the hardships and discrimination faced by members of the travelling community is because of their own actions.

Wrong thread.
That's a worryingly popular opinion.

03-06-2020 5:30pm

the beer revolu wrote: »

Wrong thread.
That's a worryingly popular opinion.

Not according to RTE or the many NGOs so one could be fooled into thinking it's an unpopular opinion even though it's not only popular it's also logically correct.

Better Than Christ · 03-06-2020 6:06pm

Deleted User wrote: »

But what has port-leesh or port-leesha got to do with Seer-sha?

Almost everyone who lives there pronounces it 'incorrectly'.

blinding · 03-06-2020 6:10pm

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS! wrote: »

Much of the hardships and discrimination faced by members of the travelling community is because of their own actions.

Thats probably an Under-Statement !

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 03-06-2020 6:23pm

Deleted User wrote: »

So it's an either/or. That's fine so.

But aint Ronan a Carlovian?

She was good in "Hannah" though so I'll no longer bother with her real life affectations.

She lived in Carlow for a while but her parents are Dubs and she was homeschooled a lot so they were her primary influence. I think she spent some of her teenage years in Dublin too.

One eyed Jack · 03-06-2020 6:57pm

Better Than Christ wrote: »

Almost everyone who lives there pronounces it 'incorrectly'.

Just out of interest, genuinely, how do you pronounce Portlaoise, that you think almost everyone who lives there pronounces it “incorrectly”?

I don’t know whether the inverted commas means in your opinion they’re pronouncing Portlaoise correctly or not, it’s very confusing tbh :pac:

gormdubhgorm · 03-06-2020 7:06pm

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

I despise the people who when they find out you dont vote because none of them are worth voting for cry "you have to vote, as people died for the right to vote",

The notion that people fought for the right to choose is lost on these people. If you are forced to vote for people you dont like, then those people that died for the right, died for nothing.

You could spoil your vote and write some witticism on it, which could be read out on the telly. Wouldn't that be Justin Credible Darts?

gormdubhgorm · 03-06-2020 7:12pm

hardybuck wrote: »

Saoirse Ronan is a fairly middle of the road actress with a fake Dublin accent.

What is a 'fake' accent though/ Considering she was raised in Howth in her teens.

Better Than Christ · 03-06-2020 7:28pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Just out of interest, genuinely, how do you pronounce Portlaoise, that you think almost everyone who lives there pronounces it “incorrectly”?

I don’t know whether the inverted commas means in your opinion they’re pronouncing Portlaoise correctly or not, it’s very confusing tbh :pac:

I pronounce it the same way as almost everyone who isn't an RTE newsreader. There are some who would regard that as 'incorrect'.

Mick McGraw · 03-06-2020 7:37pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Just out of interest, genuinely, how do you pronounce Portlaoise, that you think almost everyone who lives there pronounces it “incorrectly”?

I don’t know whether the inverted commas means in your opinion they’re pronouncing Portlaoise correctly or not, it’s very confusing tbh :pac:

The correct pronunciation is Portleix.

One eyed Jack · 03-06-2020 8:15pm

Better Than Christ wrote: »

I pronounce it the same way as almost everyone who isn't an RTE newsreader. There are some who would regard that as 'incorrect'.

I get you now, know exactly what you mean

Mick McGraw wrote: »

The correct pronunciation is Portleix.

Controversial :pac:

The site of the present town is referred to in the Annals of the Four Masters, written in the 1630s, as Port Laoighisi. The present town originated as a settlement around the old fort, "Fort of Leix" or "Fort Protector", the remains of which can still be seen in the town centre.

Wiki

Better Than Christ · 03-06-2020 8:15pm

Mick McGraw wrote: »

The correct pronunciation is Portleix.

Maryborough.

Mad_maxx · 03-06-2020 8:16pm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

What is a 'fake' accent though/ Considering she was raised in Howth in her teens.

That's not a howth accent

KiKi III · 03-06-2020 8:25pm

Mad_maxx wrote: »

That's not a howth accent

I spent my childhood in Dublin, my teens in the West, my early adulthood in Limerick and most of my 20s abroad. As a result I have a pretty unconventional, mixed up accent - doesn’t make it fake. It’s not that uncommon for someone who spends a lot of time in different places growing up.

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS! · 03-06-2020 9:12pm

Margaret Thatcher did some good apart from being a wicked witch who let Bobby Sands die, she stood up against public sector unions.
I wish we had that here.

hardybuck · 03-06-2020 10:36pm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

What is a 'fake' accent though/ Considering she was raised in Howth in her teens.

It just sounds like she's making an effort with it. She hasn't taken too much from her years growing up in Carlow that's for sure.

I'm more focused on her mediocre acting. Nothing against the girl, but I can't believe she got Oscar nominated so many times. Maybe she is that talented, maybe her PR team are.

Potential-Monke · 03-06-2020 11:47pm

castletownman wrote: »

The only true test is how you pronounce "scone"

Skon

UO: I'm already sick of all the Black Lives Matter bandwagoning. And that's all it is, bandwagoning.

Justin Credible Darts · 04-06-2020 12:09am

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Skon

UO: I'm already sick of all the Black Lives Matter bandwagoning. And that's all it is, bandwagoning.

mass hysteria, prompted by the media who are lapping this up

This whole black lives matter annoys me, I though all lives matter.

And if the black people truly believe the police are indeed corrupt and racist, then rioting is only going to make the police more likely to shoot them.

when the british had their "shoot to kill policy" in the north, the catholics did not riot and attack innocent protestants,

What happened to Floyd was wrong, without question but antagonizing the police wont solve the issue.
no "black lives matter" slogan will suddenly make a racist change his ways unfortunately.

Potential-Monke · 04-06-2020 12:19am

And the reaction to the riot cops is just summed up perfectly in this pic which I can't post so I'll describe it:

People: Riot
Police: Use riot tactics
People: Surprised Pikachu meme

Chris_Heilong · 04-06-2020 12:26am

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

mass hysteria, prompted by the media who are lapping this up

This whole black lives matter annoys me, I though all lives matter.

And if the black people truly believe the police are indeed corrupt and racist, then rioting is only going to make the police more likely to shoot them.

when the british had their "shoot to kill policy" in the north, the catholics did not riot and attack innocent protestants,

What happened to Floyd was wrong, without question but antagonizing the police wont solve the issue.
no "black lives matter" slogan will suddenly make a racist change his ways unfortunately.

This is both logic and truth, why are so many out there so unwilling to see it like it is?

Mad_maxx · 04-06-2020 8:16am

young people today lack independent mindedness

boombang · 04-06-2020 8:24am

If we don't maintain something horrible like direct provision, then there will be more economic migrants attempting to claim aslyum than Ireland can reasonably cope with.

Roger the cabin boy · 04-06-2020 8:24am

Donald Trump is the best President the US has had since JFK.

04-06-2020 8:35am

KiKi III wrote: »

You seem to have a well thought through opinion on the matter. I’d still hold the opinion that 9 is far too young to be introduced to a lethal weapon of any kind. I just don’t think there’s any need for it.

I think when I made the choice I had the opposite opinion. I can see that children take on certain concepts and behaviours like sponges to the point it becomes ingrained muscle memory. With older kids - and even adults - they are just gonna get off on the idea they have a weapon and it is harder to teach them respect for it.

Here is the video that first inspired me to go down that road actually.

If she wanted to be at this point she could _be_ a lethal weapon. Especially to other kids. She has been learning martial arts she was 5.

But instead we are ingraining into her this concept that violence itself - the weapon itself - deserves a lot of respect and is never something one reaches to except as a last resort in any interaction outside sport.

I find the worst person to reach for a weapon or rush into a fight - the person who causes the most damage, often to themselves or innocents other than their intended target - are the people who have never done it before. The adrenaline rush of inexperience can be pretty ugly.

It seems counter intuitive but I teach my kids to use weapons and violence so they never actually do.

KiKi III wrote: »

Five year olds do not have the mental capacity to understand gun safety. They do not understand life and death.

I think you should not underestimate what 5 year olds can or can not understand. They vary wildly in that capacity. As a parent one of my jobs is to see past the mere number of their age and gauge what _my_ child is or is not ready to understand.

That said though - with children often they are not required to understand the reasoning or meaning behind what you teach them.

With both gun use and martial arts use - I have worked hard to implant certain autonomic responses and muscle memory and reactions and behaviours. They do not _need_ to know yet why I have trained their body to automatically react in a certain way under certain conditions - that understanding can come later - they just need to learn it.

For example if I grab my daughter from behind when she is not expecting it - she now without thinking about it moves her arms and hands into a particular position. It's literally instinct to her now. I did not need her to understand violence or sex or rape or anything else to have her learn it or know why she was learning it.

KiKi III · 04-06-2020 9:00am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think when I made the choice I had the opposite opinion. I can see that children take on certain concepts and behaviours like sponges to the point it becomes ingrained muscle memory. With older kids - and even adults - they are just gonna get off on the idea they have a weapon and it is harder to teach them respect for it.

Here is the video that first inspired me to go down that road actually.

If she wanted to be at this point she could _be_ a lethal weapon. Especially to other kids. She has been learning martial arts she was 5.

But instead we are ingraining into her this concept that violence itself - the weapon itself - deserves a lot of respect and is never something one reaches to except as a last resort in any interaction outside sport.

I find the worst person to reach for a weapon or rush into a fight - the person who causes the most damage, often to themselves or innocents other than their intended target - are the people who have never done it before. The adrenaline rush of inexperience can be pretty ugly.

It seems counter intuitive but I teach my kids to use weapons and violence so they never actually do.

I think you should not underestimate what 5 year olds can or can not understand. They vary wildly in that capacity. As a parent one of my jobs is to see past the mere number of their age and gauge what _my_ child is or is not ready to understand.

That said though - with children often they are not required to understand the reasoning or meaning behind what you teach them.

With both gun use and martial arts use - I have worked hard to implant certain autonomic responses and muscle memory and reactions and behaviours. They do not _need_ to know yet why I have trained their body to automatically react in a certain way under certain conditions - that understanding can come later - they just need to learn it.

For example if I grab my daughter from behind when she is not expecting it - she now without thinking about it moves her arms and hands into a particular position. It's literally instinct to her now. I did not need her to understand violence or sex or rape or anything else to have her learn it or know why she was learning it.

I buried my grandmother over the weekend.
One of my seven year old cousins was brought to say goodbye to her in her last hours, he saw her laid out at the house and he saw the coffin go into the ground. Back at the house after he asked “how will we bring nanny back to life?” and “when will nanny come back”

It’s no surprise to me that he doesn’t understand the finality of death. Between video games where you die and come back to life and a priest talking about everlasting life i can easily see how he would be confused. He’s a smart kid, but he just turned 7, I wouldn’t expect him to know better than he does.

KiKi III · 04-06-2020 9:06am

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

This is both logic and truth, why are so many out there so unwilling to see it like it is?

Because it’s like going up to someone at a breast cancer event saying ALL CANCERS MATTER.

Or people at an event for the elderly saying ALL AGES MATTER.

Or telling a paramedic who’s giving someone CPR after a heart attack ALL HEARTS MATTER.

Or a fireman putting out a house that’s in flames ALL HOUSES MATTER.

Like yeah, that’s true. We’re just focused on the one that’s in trouble at the moment. The phrase Black Lives Matter is not intended to mean other lives don’t matter; and it’s pathetic to see white people trying to centre themselves in that narrative.

the beer revolu · 04-06-2020 9:32am

KiKi III wrote: »

Because it’s like going up to someone at a breast cancer event saying ALL CANCERS MATTER.

Or people at an event for the elderly saying ALL AGES MATTER.

Or telling a paramedic who’s giving someone CPR after a heart attack ALL HEARTS MATTER.

Or a fireman putting out a house that’s in flames ALL HOUSES MATTER.

Like yeah, that’s true. We’re just focused on the one that’s in trouble at the moment. The phrase Black Lives Matter is not intended to mean other lives don’t matter; and it’s pathetic to see white people trying to centre themselves in that narrative.

This is a brilliant analogy.

And going by many of the posts around here and on social media, generally, a truly unpopular opinion!

Bravo

Quazzie · 04-06-2020 9:36am

KiKi III wrote: »

Because it’s like going up to someone at a breast cancer event saying ALL CANCERS MATTER.

Or people at an event for the elderly saying ALL AGES MATTER.

Or telling a paramedic who’s giving someone CPR after a heart attack ALL HEARTS MATTER.

Or a fireman putting out a house that’s in flames ALL HOUSES MATTER.

Like yeah, that’s true. We’re just focused on the one that’s in trouble at the moment. The phrase Black Lives Matter is not intended to mean other lives don’t matter; and it’s pathetic to see white people trying to centre themselves in that narrative.

But the people in the breast cancer event are burning down restaurants and emptying shops.

the beer revolu · 04-06-2020 9:39am

KiKi III wrote: »

I buried my grandmother over the weekend.
One of my seven year old cousins was brought to say goodbye to her in her last hours, he saw her laid out at the house and he saw the coffin go into the ground. Back at the house after he asked “how will we bring nanny back to life?” and “when will nanny come back”

It’s no surprise to me that he doesn’t understand the finality of death. Between video games where you die and come back to life and a priest talking about everlasting life i can easily see how he would be confused. He’s a smart kid, but he just turned 7, I wouldn’t expect him to know better than he does.

I'm sorry about your grandmother. Strange times for bereavement.

Honestly, I think your nephew has been extremely sheltered if, as a smart kid, he hasn't grasped the finality of death at 7.

You might be arguing that taxAH's children are over exposed to life but I'd argue that your nephew has been over sheltered.

the beer revolu · 04-06-2020 9:42am

Quazzie wrote: »

But the people in the breast cancer event are burning down restaurants and emptying shops.

And who's condoning that?
I don't hear too many people.

KiKi III · 04-06-2020 9:44am

Quazzie wrote: »

But the people in the breast cancer event are burning down restaurants and emptying shops.

Most of the protesters aren’t either. It’s mentioned across the media that most of the protest has been peaceful but scenes of rioting and looting lead the news becAuse of the old maxim “if it bleeds, it leads”

the beer revolu · 04-06-2020 9:44am

Mad_maxx wrote: »

young people today lack independent mindedness

Perhaps it's because old people view them and treat them like a homogeneous group?

Do tell me that your line was actually a clever joke. It's rather like the, "we're all individuals", gag in The Life of Brian.

KiKi III · 04-06-2020 9:49am

the beer revolu wrote: »

I'm sorry about your grandmother. Strange times for bereavement.

Honestly, I think your nephew has been extremely sheltered if, as a smart kid, he hasn't grasped the finality of death at 7.

You might be arguing that taxAH's children are over exposed to life but I'd argue that your nephew has been over sheltered.

Maybe so. But I used to teach Grade 1 and 2 abroad and most of the Grade 1 kids wouldn’t have been able to tie their own shoes, had poor coordination (as in generally appropriate for their age but regularly tripping, slipping, spilling) and definitely did not have the emotional maturity or physical dexterity to fire a gun.

The idea that it’s easier to train a five year old to use a gun correctly than a 12 year old goes against everything we know about intelligence and maturity.

I’ll accept that for TaxAHCruel and the other guy it has worked out okay while still feeling it’s generally a bad idea.

And if a small child shoots and kills someone by accident I think the parent that put a gun in their hand should be charged with manslaughter.

the beer revolu · 04-06-2020 9:53am

KiKi III wrote: »

Maybe so. But I used to teach Grade 1 and 2 abroad and most of the Grade 1 kids wouldn’t have been able to tie their own shoes, had poor coordination (as in generally appropriate for their age but regularly tripping, slipping, spilling) and definitely did not have the emotional maturity or physical dexterity to fire a gun.

The idea that it’s easier to train a five year old to use a gun correctly than a 12 year old goes against everything we know about intelligence and maturity.

I’ll accept that for TaxAHCruel and the other guy it has worked out okay while still feeling it’s generally a bad idea.

And if a small child shoots and kills someone by accident I think the parent that put a gun in their hand should be charged with manslaughter.

But no one is giving a child a gun and sending them out to play with it. No one, not ever.

No one with a hint of an idea about guns would EVER leave a child unsupervised with a gun.

I assume Tax didn't spell this out as he took it as a given.

The Raging Bile Duct · 04-06-2020 9:54am

Quazzie wrote: »

But the people in the breast cancer event are burning down restaurants and emptying shops.

Breast cancer victims are hardly victims of systemic prejudice for decades/centuries.

KiKi III · 04-06-2020 9:59am

the beer revolu wrote: »

But no one is giving a child a gun and sending them out to play with it. No one, not ever.

No one with a hint of an idea about guns would EVER leave a child unsupervised with a gun.

I assume Tax didn't spell this out as he took it as a given.

You say that but it happens quite regularly in the US. Even a child who’s parent is three feet away monitoring them could accidentally shoot a sibling.

Five (or even nine) is too young for a lethal weapon. The danger far outweighs any potential benefits.

ohnonotgmail · 04-06-2020 10:01am

KiKi III wrote: »

Maybe so. But I used to teach Grade 1 and 2 abroad and most of the Grade 1 kids wouldn’t have been able to tie their own shoes, had poor coordination (as in generally appropriate for their age but regularly tripping, slipping, spilling) and definitely did not have the emotional maturity or physical dexterity to fire a gun.

The idea that it’s easier to train a five year old to use a gun correctly than a 12 year old goes against everything we know about intelligence and maturity.

I’ll accept that for TaxAHCruel and the other guy it has worked out okay while still feeling it’s generally a bad idea.

And if a small child shoots and kills someone by accident I think the parent that put a gun in their hand should be charged with manslaughter.

yeah you would think that but not in america. Remember the kid who killed an instructor on a range with an uzi? No charges against them or anybody for that matter.

the beer revolu · 04-06-2020 10:06am

KiKi III wrote: »

You say that but it happens quite regularly in the US. Even a child who’s parent is three feet away monitoring them could accidentally shoot a sibling.

Five (or even nine) is too young for a lethal weapon. The danger far outweighs any potential benefits.

This is more of an argument against gun ownership generally. A reasonable argument.

If a child shoots a sibling with a gun, they weren't properly supervised. No question. No child should be allowed near a gun without proper supervision - ever.

Imagine a scenario where a child, for some reason, comes across a loaded gun. Let's say under a bush in the park.
Would it be better if the child had an understanding of how dangerous and lethat a gun can be or would it be better that the child was clueless, picked up the gun and started pointing it at everyone around them?

In this situation, I'd rather Tax's 5 year old found the gun than the majority of other kids.

ohnonotgmail · 04-06-2020 10:10am

the beer revolu wrote: »

This is more of an argument against gun ownership generally. A reasonable argument.

If a child shoots a sibling with a gun, they weren't properly supervised. No question. No child should be allowed near a gun without proper supervision - ever.

Imagine a scenario where a child, for some reason, comes across a loaded gun. Let's say under a bush in the park.
Would it be better if the child had an understanding of how dangerous and lethat a gun can be or would it be better that the child was clueless, picked up the gun and started pointing it at everyone around them?

In this situation, I'd rather Tax's 5 year old found the gun than the majority of other kids.

no matter how well supervised you think a child there is still potential for them to kill somebody. see my example in the post before yours of a shooting instructor killed by a little girl with an uzi on a shootinf range. I dont think you can get more supervised than that.

The Raging Bile Duct · 04-06-2020 10:13am

I'm always finding loaded guns under a bush in the park. It's an awful pain in the hole...

Mad_maxx · 04-06-2020 10:15am

Roger the cabin boy wrote: »

Donald Trump is the best President the US has had since JFK.

JFK wasnt that amazing , ronald reagan was the best U.S president since FDR and the last great american president, thats not to say he was a great human being , good people dont get to become leaders of nations or at least nice people dont , reagan however had extrordinary popularity , he won everywhere on both occasions and no leader more truly embodied the american character like he did , his appeal didnt stretch beyond america as most people dont think like americans , im not saying thats a good or a bad thing BTW but the ideals of america were most accurately represented in ronald reagan , this absolute devotion to liberty and freedom was what changed the direction of the cold war and for that reagan alone is great , i know one man cannot win a war but the contrast between 1980 and 1989 in terms of soviet containment was incredible

trump isnt near as awful as many like to claim but hes hardly good either ?

KiKi III · 04-06-2020 10:15am

the beer revolu wrote: »

This is more of an argument against gun ownership generally. A reasonable argument.

If a child shoots a sibling with a gun, they weren't properly supervised. No question. No child should be allowed near a gun without proper supervision - ever.

Imagine a scenario where a child, for some reason, comes across a loaded gun. Let's say under a bush in the park.
Would it be better if the child had an understanding of how dangerous and lethat a gun can be or would it be better that the child was clueless, picked up the gun and started pointing it at everyone around them?

In this situation, I'd rather Tax's 5 year old found the gun than the majority of other kids.

So you think no parent leaves a child unsupervised with a gun, but gun owners regularly leave loaded guns lying around under bushes in parks?

Pretty far fetched I’d say.

the beer revolu · 04-06-2020 10:16am

KiKi III wrote: »

And if a small child shoots and kills someone by accident I think the parent that put a gun in their hand should be charged with manslaughter.

Totally agree.
And I'd imagine that most people who advocate for children being properly trained in using weapons would agree with you, too.

Look, I'm not saying that I think all children should be trained in safe weapon use (parhaps in the USA, they all should be) but I just don't see a problem with what TaxAH is doing.

the beer revolu · 04-06-2020 10:19am

KiKi III wrote: »

So you think no parent leaves a child unsupervised with a gun, but gun owners regularly leave loaded guns lying around under bushes in parks?

Pretty far fetched I’d say.

No parent should ever, ever leave a child unsupervised with a gun.
We can agree on that.

Gun owners do leave children unsupervised with guns.
We can agree on that.

I'm not going to respond to the last bit as I never said that.

the beer revolu · 04-06-2020 10:22am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

no matter how well supervised you think a child there is still potential for them to kill somebody. see my example in the post before yours of a shooting instructor killed by a little girl with an uzi on a shootinf range. I dont think you can get more supervised than that.

Proof is in the pudding.
The child was not adequately supervised.

KiKi III · 04-06-2020 10:24am

the beer revolu wrote: »

No parent should ever, ever leave a child unsupervised with a gun.
We can agree on that.

Gun owners do leave children unsupervised with guns.
We can agree on that.

I'm not going to respond to the last bit as I never said that.

It’s the scenario you outlined? I find it far more far fetched that a gun owner would leave a loaded gun in a park than a parent supervising a child with a gun getting distracted for a minute or two by another child or a phone ringing.

And you’ve changed from “no parent would ever” to “no parent should ever” in the space of two posts.

KiKi III · 04-06-2020 10:25am

the beer revolu wrote: »

Proof is in the pudding.
The child was not adequately supervised.

Right, and if the five year old was not adequately supervised but they were playing with LEGO or a football no one would die because those aren’t lethal weapons.

ohnonotgmail · 04-06-2020 10:26am

the beer revolu wrote: »

Proof is in the pudding.
The child was not adequately supervised.

supervised by a shooting instructor on a shooting range with her family close by. all those adults around and she still killed somebody. your post sounds like a ridiculous "no true scotsman" fallacy.

the beer revolu · 04-06-2020 10:38am

KiKi III wrote: »

It’s the scenario you outlined? I find it far more far fetched that a gun owner would leave a loaded gun in a park than a parent supervising a child with a gun getting distracted for a minute or two by another child or a phone ringing.

And you’ve changed from “no parent would ever” to “no parent should ever” in the space of two posts.

OK.
Let's imagine you are in the house of a gun owner (I'm not pro gun ownership, BTW).
Let's say that there are a bunch of kids there.

Now, obviously, a responsible gun owner would never leave his/her gun lying around, particularly loaded. But, as you say, it does happen.
It shouldn't. We agree. But it does and, in this scenario, it has happened that the incredibly irresponsible gun owner has done so.

I am in no way condoning this hypothetical situation. OK?

So the kids find the loaded gun.
Would you prefer that a child who has been trained in the safe use of a gun, one who understands that it can kill, finds it or would you prefer that a child who understands nothing about guns and thinks it's a toy finds it?

No bushes or parks.

Straight answer please.

Unpopular Opinions - OP Updated with Threadban List 4/5/21

Comments