Shielding your kids, or endangering them?

[Glock 31]

I read this article on Keep and bear arms.com

Sword of Damocles or just a toy?
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
By Jeanne Jackson DeVoe
Family Matters

My 6-year-old emptied his piggy bank and then went hunting for the toy of his dreams. It would take his life savings (about $7), but he was willing to plunk down his whole bag of change for a long sword, a dagger and a bow and arrow with suction cup darts.

And here I am, the weapon-hating mom who has banned guns and confiscated water pistols. And here's my 6-year-old looking up at me with a light in his eyes. He's picturing himself a swashbuckling knight. He doesn't know that I'm envisioning the life of crime that could begin this very day. And yet, how can I say no to this boy with the shining eyes?

"You know mommy doesn't like weapons," I tell him. He nods his head solemnly, sensing my weakness. "You can pretend with these things but I don't want to see you using them against anyone," I tell him. "I'll shoot trees," he assures me. He sees I am folding like a piece of soggy cardboard and he jumps up and down with excitement.

Naturally, he couldn't resist showing off his new arsenal. He chooses two weapon-hating moms in the grocery store and unveils his new toy. He doesn't notice their obvious lack of enthusiasm or their questioning looks at me. I feel my face getting red.

"He spent his own allowance," I mutter. "He had his heart set on it."

Had I become one of those over-indulgent parents who throw principles out the window just to please her kids?

Maybe I'm just fooling myself but, in the end, I decided that swords are not the dangerous weapons that guns are to kids and our society.

There are many reasons toy guns aren't safe. They can be mistaken for real weapons, shoot pellets or other things that can injure a child, and confuse children about the danger of real guns. They also send a message that guns are OK. (They are not OK. They killed more than 30,000 people in 2002, according to the Centers for Disease Control.)

Yet, as the mother of two boys who were weaned on PBS and,until recently, never allowed even a water gun, I know children will turn sticks and fingers and Lego blocks into guns and swords. And part of me feels like boys have a natural inclination to play games that involve good guys and bad guys and battles. And this doesn't necessarily mean they're naturally more violent than girls. They just need some way to pretend they are strong and powerful. I'm reluctant to give them the message that their desire to do that is bad.

And too much political correctness can get silly. One mother I know objected to a group of children at our preschool carrying rifles when they acted out "Peter and the Wolf" in a preschool play. Well, those hunters are essential to the story of "Peter and the Wolf" and they bring back the wolf alive. When this woman suggested that her son pretend he was hunting vegetables instead of wolves, I felt sorry for that little boy.

Still, I can't deny that my 6-year-old's tiny bow and arrow, plastic dagger and swords are weapons. They represent real-world weapons that can kill people. I had already shown my weak will when I allowed my older son to go to a laser party in which the kids chased one another with light beams.

"I don't like the fact that it involves guns and you shoot each other," I objected feebly.

"It's not like a gun, it's like a gas pump and we shoot light," my son argued.

I let my older son have a neon-colored plastic gun when he was a policeman for Halloween. But that gun mysteriously disappeared after Halloween and, strangely enough, so has every other water pistol, super soaker and disc shooter in the house. They all went to gun heaven. The gun ban remains in effect despite tearful pleas from my children.

"Guns kill people," I tell them.

My sons know they have to resort to their fingers if they want to play cowboys or cops and robbers. I'm OK with that, but I still hate weapons.

In the end, I just couldn't bring myself to tell my son he couldn't spend every penny he had to transform himself into a knight in shining armor.

Jeanne Jackson DeVoe is a journalist who lives in Princeton. E-mail her at jeanne@devoecom.com.

[Glock 31]

This is what I emailed to her, let me know if what I wrote is what's appropriate in dealing with anti-gunners.

Dear Jeanne Jackson DeVoe,
I read an article you apparently wrote on-line. In it you describe your chagrin when your little boy buys a bow and arrow set. Since I'm sure you are familiar with what you wrote I'll get to the point.

I am an avid supporter of the second amendment. So when I read an article such as yours, I feel compelled to defend my beliefs against what I perceive as an attack on them.

Please be assured, I have no intention of telling you how to raise your family, nor do I have any intention of even trying to change your views on gun violence or what you believe causes it. I simply want to understand how your statement of "guns kill people" can be justified to you.

My belief is that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Which I'm sure you have heard many times before. But no matter how much it is repeated or plastered on bumper stickers and slogan banners, it is still true. A gun lying on a table cannot be any more dangerous than a bottle of Drano. It takes human intervention and influence to turn it into a deadly weapon. Whether that influence is that of a killer, a child, or a negligent parent, the basis is the same.

If a child gets a hold of a parents gun and injures or kills someone, God forbid, why are people so quick to blame the existence of the gun, and tend to ignore the absence of the parent?

Please explain to me how your son owning toys weapons will turn him to a life of crime. The behavior of children can only be explained directly by the parenting that child has received, not from some manufactured item. If you have taught your son that hurting other people is wrong, and that using weapons to inflict intentional pain is morally reprehensible, you should have no fear that your child will grow up to be an upstanding and shining example of that parenting.

I was allowed to play with many toy guns, swords, knifes, shields, all sorts of imitated implements of war when I was a child. I am from a family broken apart by divorce and didn't have a regular father figure in my life. But I was educated on the safety practices of guns, and to have morals and a conscience. And today, I have aspirations of becoming a police officer. I routinely carry a firearm with the intention that if a criminal has the idea to harm me, my family, or an innocent around me, I will use it to defend life. I am constantly aware of the consequences such a decision can bring, yet I refuse to be a victim. I also hold firm to the belief that, and I quote, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good people to do nothing" is as true in anytime and place in earth's history as it is today.

I also communicate these ideas to you because I fear that if you completely stifle a child's curiosity, in anything, they will find a way to satisfy it. I'm sure you keep track of your child's friends, and whose house he goes to. And I'm willing to bet that it's a good possibility that you keep no firearms in the house. But what about the houses of your child's friend's. If you don't teach your child the basic principles of firearm safety, assuming you haven't already, then if it ever comes to pass that your child comes in contact with a real firearm, the curiosity he has for them will come to the forefront of his mind, rather than any warning you have given him in the pass. Basically if you satisfy his curiosity in a controlled and safe method, you will equip him with tools for life that will increase his overall safety, tools too many children these don't have.

Again, I reiterate, I don't wish to lecture you on the wonders of firearms. Your beliefs are yours and you are fully entitled to them. Just as I am to mine. I simply wish to understand why so many people seem to blame the weapon, instead of the person holding it. Thank you for your time and patience.

Sincerely,
John

[Handy]

Seems reasonable, except dropping the part about CC is probably going to make her eyes glaze over. While normal to us, many people in the country don't fully believe CC is actually practiced by anyone but paranoids.


Making the case for guns sometimes involves baby steps. You might have offered her too much of a leap.

[Double Naught Spy]

My belief is that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Which I'm sure you have heard many times before. But no matter how much it is repeated or plastered on bumper stickers and slogan banners, it is still true.

Actually, it is rarely true. It is most often the ammunition impacting a person and causing physical damage that kills. It may be the shooter that is responsible for the death, but the death is caused by the projectile.

There is a reason you don't see a similar campaign from the auto industry that says, "Cars don't kill people. People kill people."

Not wearing safety belts, airbags, etc., don't kill people. People kill people.

The whole "Guns don't kill people. People kill people" campaign isn't copied for use in other areas largely because it does not make sense to non gun people. Plus, it is a campaign where the salient item being protected, guns, is placed in the context of that which gives guns a bad reputation, the death of people. It is not smart advertising to put the product in the context of an extremely negative aspect, the death of people.

Did Ford ever come out with campaigns like, "Pintos and Crown Vics don't kill people. People kill people."

It seems to be better to distance your product from the negative perception, not reinforce the negative perception by placing the product with it.

If a child gets a hold of a parents gun and injures or kills someone, God forbid, why are people so quick to blame the existence of the gun, and tend to ignore the absence of the parent?

If the parent doesn't want real or toy guns in the house, how can you blame her. She may know much better than you that she isn't present all the time, hence the risk, hence she doesn't like guns.

I would be willing to bet that since she does not like guns, even if she lets her kid have toy guns, she will end up not teaching gun safety to the child because the guns owned by the child are not actually guns, but toys and the fact that she probably knows close to zero about gun safety and gun handling. So you end up with a child who doesn't get some of the helpful instruction about gun safety that children of gun owners get often.

[Neal in GA]

Have you ever heard of someone suing Ford though because a criminal intentionally ran over a person in his Taurus?

[Eghad]

Now I wonder what is going to happen when her son and his buddies comes in contact with a real loaded handgun by accident?

[Glock 31]

Actually, it is rarely true. It is most often the ammunition impacting a person and causing physical damage that kills. It may be the shooter that is responsible for the death, but the death is caused by the projectile.

Just how many hairs are you trying to split here? The comment wasn't intended to focus on the technical and scientifical facts about projectiles and the resulting physical damage man, come on. It was focusing on the fact that had someone not pulled the trigger, or influenced the gun in some other way, it wouldn't have gone off. Thereby proving that humans, not the firearm, (or in this case the bullet as well) are responsible for the outcome of that gun going off. Are you saying we should put the bullet on trial?

And i'm not sure how non-gunners wouldn't understand the statement. You'd have to a special kind of stupid to not understand the point being made in, "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

There is a reason you don't see a similar campaign from the auto industry that says, "Cars don't kill people. People kill people."

Yeah, and the reason being cars were made to transport people from point A to point B. The fact that people die as a result of the motion involved in transfer is unfortunate, but irrelevant in this discussion. Guns were made for the simple purpose of killing things. Sure we use them for hunting or target practice, but their basic purpose is still the same. Thus the need for greater responsibility when handling guns. Unless your at a shooting range, the only reason someone would pull the trigger on a gun is to kill someone or something. Which is why my whole point on education of safety is so important.

I will however admit that since the lady in question here is so against guns, she probably knows squat as to gun safety. But hopefully the letter I sent gets it in her head that she needs to learn.

[O6nop]

I think the 'baby steps' approach is best as mentioned by Handy. But as an approach by the original author. It might be pointed out that she shouldn't feel she is compromising her principles, those are rights she can be proud of. But we are constantly learning and should be prepared to adapt for the sake of our children.
Here is the opportunity for her to instill responsibility and safety in the child's behavior, which apparently she does by saying not to use the "toy" against anyone. She obviously has principles in allowing her son to make his own decisions with his own money, along with a message of guidance and conditional use. She is allowing him to use his mind, and not be a sheep following only a path created by her.
Now, I would encourage her to participate in the activities with him. Show him how to use the "toy" properly, safely and appropriately, or find someone who can. She may find enjoyment herself, not only spending quality time with her son, but the maybe the discovery in learning and improving a skill that she would never experience by closing her eyes and mind. Now a toy sword and bow & arrow are at his level no where near using a gun but it opens doors.
You gotta have respect for her in many ways, she seems close-minded but I think she might come around to a more objective view. Maybe she'll move from a "gun-hater" to a gun "safety" advocate sometime in the future

[Glock 31]

+1 O6nop.

[azurefly]

Originally Posted by Eghad

Now I wonder what is going to happen when her son and his buddies comes in contact with a real loaded handgun by accident?

I'll bet it's people exactly like her who end up being the ones whose children accidentally kill themselves or a sibling or friend because they haven't been taught gun safety.

So I would suspect that she runs a very good chance of losing her son -- due 100% to her own hysterical and irrational fear of weapons, and the restrictions they cause her to put on her son's ability to learn about the world in which he lives, and the tools that exist in it.

So maybe some day she will be a broken, despondent woman, silently drinking herself to death and vacillating between blaming the gun that her son found for killing him, and blaming herself for not equipping him to survive a random encounter with a real firearm.

I can't say that I feel such willful stupidity and ignorance as hers does not deserve to suffer consequences. Too bad it's probably her son who will end up paying.

-azurefly

[Glock 31]

I can't say that I feel such willful stupidity and ignorance as hers does not deserve to suffer consequences. Too bad it's probably her son who will end up paying.

The only case worse than this would be that her son winds up killing someone else's kid while showing the gun off. Then, since her son would be fine, she would be more motivated to decry the gun to the victim's mother and family. Thus spreading the hysteria.

[azurefly]

She's an idiot, and what's more, she's an idiot who apparently is desperate to reinforce the reasons she feels she should be hysterically afraid of guns.

She can't be helped.

Lost cause.

Next!


-azurefly

[Glock 31]

She can't be helped.
Lost cause.
Next!

I would prefer to await the reply, if any, that I get from her before making this assumption.

[steelheart]

And the mental/emotional neutering of little boys continues.

I hope the little boy in the story grows up to be - oh, horror of horrors - a soldier! Mommie would wet herself.

[O6nop]

She can't be helped.

Lost cause.

Next!

I can't agree with this. There is a chance that with reasonable exchange of opinion and education and research that she could change... and maybe not. That's her right. She obviously wasn't afraid to publicly express her opinion, so she may be just as willing to listen to someone else's. Her unenlightened view of gun owners may be nothing more than visions of ruthless gangsters and toothless hicks with a "Deliverance" mentality. She and others like her need to be approached with feedback by sincere responsible gun advocates. Separate reality from Hollywood and the biased media. There's no need to jam our opinions down their throats and when they seem unrelenting, to just throw our arms in the air and say 'Hopeless!'.

[boofus]

Better take off his penis. Almost all rapists use a penis ya know. Lots of people get beaten to death too, so better amputate his arms. Bruce Lee could maim you with his kicks, so better take his legs off too. Can't have the evil eye either, it's not politically correct so poke those out.

So... in the end she makes her son an armless, legless, nutless freak worse than the guy in Johnny Got His Gun. At least Johnny had somewhat a fighting chance.