Patch.com Sums Up Problem With America
In an opinion piece for Patch.com, titled “Kids and Toy Guns,” asked the question “Are water guns and foam dart guns OK toys for our kids?” The writer Ann Rubin responded to a question from a friend, writing:
“Recently, my friend Jennifer wrote me and said, ‘So, one thing I struggle with raising [two] boys is the fascination with guns, blasters, bombs, and other instruments of destruction. I am trying to raise children who want to save the planet, and they seem much more interested in blowing it up. Finding the right balance is a tricky one for me. Would love to see your thoughts and insights.’”
Can’t children just be children? Isn’t fighting make believe monsters or fending off an alien invasion the way that children try to “save the planet.” Yes, children are exposed to a lot of violence, but the truth is that the world is a dangerous and scary place.
There are revolutions in countries across the globe, uprisings, terrorist attacks and we have soldier on the ground in combat zones right now. We need to be realistic and understand that these problems won’t be solved by the time today’s children are adults.
No one wants to see their children grow up and go off to war, but we have to accept that we can’t bury our head in the sand, nor can we bury our children’s head in the sand either. We have to accept that children will see war and violence as exciting and it will become part of their playtime.
New York Times: Regulate Guns Like Toys
This week The New York Times offered an op-ed piece that suggested that guns should be regulated like toys. Seriously? We don’t recall there being a 1934 Federal Toy Act, or the Toy Control Act of 1968, and yet Nicholas D. Kristof suggests:
“To protect the public, we regulate cars and toys, medicines and mutual funds. So, simply as a public health matter, shouldn’t we take steps to reduce the toll from our domestic arms industry?”
Kristof offers some ways that this can be done, and we’ll respond one at a time:
“Limit gun purchases to one per month per person, to reduce gun trafficking. And just as the government has cracked down on retailers who sell cigarettes to minors, get tough on gun dealers who sell to traffickers.”
How does one per month really matter? The truth is that very few people buy more than one gun a month anyway. And there are those times when stores run specials, offer deals, etc. There are also times when someone might sell a collection or when a relative has passed away. Does this mean that as a collector I couldn’t buy my friends collection of antique pistols because of some waiting period?
“Push for more gun safes, and make serial numbers harder to erase.”
OK, good advice. Tell the criminals they need gun safes. Likewise, stolen and black market gun owners don’t care about serial numbers.
“Improve background checks and follow Canada in requiring a 28-day waiting period to buy a handgun. And ban oversize magazines, such as the 33-bullet magazine allegedly used in Tucson. If the shooter had had to reload after firing 10 bullets, he might have been tackled earlier. And invest in new technologies such as ‘smart guns,’ which can be fired only when near a separate wristband or after a fingerprint scan.”
The magazine wasn’t 33-bullets. Maybe reporters should do better fact checking. Likewise, what if the shooter decided that one gun wasn’t enough. What if he brought several guns instead? We can play that silly game all day.
As for the smart guns, that doesn’t do anything to the millions of guns in private hands – unless of course someone suggests those be turned in and destroyed? Likewise, who is going to pay for this “investment” in new technologies? Consumers don’t want it, and therefore the makers won’t pay for it.
The waiting period sounds good, but criminals don’t wait. And in the case of the shooter in Tucson, he bought the gun months ago anyway, so the point is somewhat moot.
In other words, there is safety in guns. The problem is calling on these measures only hurts the law abiding, not the criminal.
Tiny Gun Causes Child Big Trouble
While toy guns have evolved – devolved even – over the years, we sort of understand if these look realistic. Considering that police have enough to worry about we agree that realistic guns can be a problem. But is this about keeping guns safe, or really about teaching guns that all guns are bad. That’s a question we ask because of a story making the rounds this week on how a child in New York City was in trouble for a toy gun for an action figure. MSNBC notes this fact:
“Department of Education policy states that there can be no imitation guns on school property, and a representative said that the principal has ultimate discretion, and this one felt there was reason for ‘concern.’”
So why is a toy gun for an action figure a problem? Is this even an imitation gun? Imitations in our opinion at least would be replicas – as in full-size or approximate size to the real deal. A toy gun for an action figure or toy is just that – a toy. It isn’t an imitation. No one calls a Matchbox car an imitation toy. It is a scale replica, with scale being the key word.
But this is no surprise in New York City, where it is a crime to sell toy guns. Soon we might expect toy stores to ban action figures, or anything “violent,” regardless of whether it is historical. We assume this would mean no knights sold at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which has a fine gallery of arms and armor. And soon we might expect that the military planes need to be removed from the U.S.S. Intrepid, the World War II era aircraft carrier turned floating museum. But that’s New York City for you!
