Toy Guns

[Nutjob]

Something someone said on the 'Boy's Toy's' thread about their ds playing with Action Men (minus guns)struck a chord with me, but rather than hijack the thread I thought I'd start a new one, so here goes!!

The other day whilst out shopping my ds dragged dh and me into a toy shop as he wanted a blow-up Spiderman, dh picked up a toy gun and suggested we get him that too. I said I didn't want him playing with guns, toy or otherwise, and he said that I was being silly and overly PC and what was the difference between that and his Light Sabre? Anyway, we didn't get it but what do you think was I being daft or do you agree?

Don't most kids go round shooting with their finger? My ds1 did when he was younger (he's now 3.5) but the novelty has worn off. Back then he would shout bang and burst into giggles as dh keeled over. I think it was harmless and that he knew it was a game. I don't thnk he'll turn into a Rambo.
We are always very clear to him about the diffences between playing any sort of rough game and physically hurting some-one. He is very gentle with his little brother and towards the cat and we have never had a problem with any violent behaviour such as kicking, hitting or biting.

Like many others, I played with toy guns as a child, however that didn't stop me growing up into an adult who hates wars and aggression. Like Tigermoth, I couldn't stop the irresistable flow of toy guns into the house, they are currently my sons' favourite toys along with plastic swords, knives etc and anything else which they feel represents a challenge to authority. And yes, my ds made a gun from duplo too. My sons are currently pre-school, and are too young to understand the meaning of death. I am confident that they will grow up into responsible and caring adults, and rest assured, as soon as they get their hands on a real gun or knife (for hunting food), they'll be taught proper safety measures.

I would challenge the assertion made here by some people that violence is unnacceptable. Violence is unfortunately, part of our lives. Sometimes you have to be violent to stop unpleasant people from getting away with being violent towards yourself or others. I think the British squeamishness towards any form of violence in our day to day lives is very unhealthy, and can lead to unpleasant people getting away with bullying others, because they aren't afraid of any physical consequences. What we should be teaching our children is not that all violence is unnacceptable, but that they should never start violence, or use it irresponsibly.

But SML, self defence is a completely separate issue in terms of violence. Would you really advocate to your child that they use violence to deal with a bully in a way that goes above and beyong self defence?

Croppy, I always understood that non-violent meant exactly that, so I don't see that violence in self-defence is suddenly acceptable if you've been telling your child that ALL violence is unacceptable.
If you're dealing with a bully the questions are "What's the minimum amount of violence I need to use to stop myself from being injured?" and secondly "What's the minimum amount of violence I need to use to prevent an attack like this from happening again?" And in that case, yes, I would use the minimum amount of violence necessary to put the bully off attacking me (or whoever is the CURRENT victim (not any unknown future victim)) again, and I'd teach my children the same.

By the way, who is defining the issues anyway? I am talking about what mothers tell their children, not how these things are defined in court! (not meant to sound annoyed)

I would never suggest to my son that he should use violence except only to stop further physical damage being done to him. So, if a child slapped or bit him, I would encourage him to walk away. If however, a child launched a sustained attack on him, if hitting back would make this attack stop, then I would encourage him to do so.

So I guess that in this sense I would follow the view of the courts i.e. use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defencee of oneself against the immediate use of unlawful force!!. But remember the key aspect of self defence is that a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

I wonder whether violence would make a bully desist?

On most occasions (although I grant not all) I think a bully would carry on hitting until the victim decided to hit back. I know a child near me is a bully towards girls and those younger than him and until they stand up to him he actually carries on hurting them.

It was my experience on 2 occasions when I was a kid that one-off violence as an immediate response to bullying by a group of other kids was excellently effective to put a stop to it totally. It has also been my experience as an adult at university and at work that when someone tries to bully you verbally, if you immediately present them with a tough no-nonsense response, they will leave you alone, but if you give a timid impression, they will carry on targeting you. For these reasons, I want ds to grow up physically confident and strong and capable of swearing and hitting someone who, say, was trying to mug him. I did a women's self defence class as a student, and the main thing they tried to get across to us was that if you swear, shout and act aggressive, an attacker is likely to run away, rather than persist. Having said that, I teach ds not to respond to violence with violence, but with assertively loudly saying to the other child, "Don't you hit/ bite/ push me. How would you like it if I did that to you? Hitting me is wrong, and you cannot do it again" and if the other person chases him, to push them away and make a scene, calling the teacher etc.

It was my experience on 2 occasions when I was a kid that one-off violence as an immediate response to bullying by a group of other kids was excellently effective to put a stop to it totally. It has also been my experience as an adult at university and at work that when someone tries to bully you verbally, if you immediately present them with a tough no-nonsense response, they will leave you alone, but if you give a timid impression, they will carry on targeting you. For these reasons, I want ds to grow up physically confident and strong and capable of swearing and hitting someone who, say, was trying to mug him. I did a women's self defence class as a student, and the main thing they tried to get across to us was that if you swear, shout and act aggressive, an attacker is likely to run away, rather than persist. Having said that, I teach ds not to respond to violence with violence, but with assertively loudly saying to the other child, "Don't you hit/ bite/ push me. How would you like it if I did that to you? Hitting me is wrong, and you cannot do it again" and if the other person chases him, to push them away and make a scene, calling the teacher etc.

I don't think that you could ever stop children playing at guns. Even if you ban toy guns they will make them with their fingers. It's only natural, in African tribes the children play with sticks pretending that they are spears and so on. Guns have been around for years now, no-one had a problem with them when John Wayne was shooting Indians with his, but now they have become a little more real, we want to protect our kids from them. Sorry but I just don't think that will ever work. Do you also ban light sabres from Star Wars? Toy swords? Hammers? Screwdrivers? Anything could be made into a weapon, it's not just guns. This is a violent society and shielding our kids from toy guns won't make it any better, that just increases their attractiveness in my experience.

My brothers all had toy guns and none of them have gone on to do anything remotely criminal. It's just an overreaction that will not work.

Maybe I don't understand what you mean, but surely the "Indians" had a big problem with it and the native americans were practically wiped out by wild west genocide? I would be disgusted to see ds playing a game about that type of violence, as I can't see how it could be interpreted innocently, or why it is necessary for him to learn about how to be the aggressor. Surely games involving violence can only ever be OK if you make your child learn that he should never be the one to strike the first blow? Obviously, if neither child wants to strike the first blow, the violent games never get going, ie this is the same as having banned it. It is very easy to make a distinction between something which is designed as a weapon and something which has a useful purpose (eg a sword and a ploughshare) and easy to make a distinction between a toy weapon and a toy of something with a useful purpose. Therefore, most nurseries find it very easy to implement a no-war-toys policy, which means yes, they do ban light sabres and swords, but, no they don't ban toys of hammers and screwdrivers.

Surely then it is easy to make a distinction between what is merely a game and what happens in "real life". Children will only learn about play guns etc when they get to infant or junior school and be using sticks etc as weapons so surely its better to educate them that toy weapons are just that. Does that mean that water pistols and puimp action water guns are banned as well? I think a child is going to be more interested in something that arent allowed in the first place.

I agree temptress, that is why I went for the pop gun. Ban them and they become the forbidden fruit. Now he has a pop gun , Ds has little interest in it.

Cityfreak, I agree about cowboys and indians, that is one game I just cannot stand my children playing!

I give my DS a kitchen to play with because when he grows up I would like him to cook, he plays with cars, I would like him to drive, I give him other toys to explore his imagination and help him to believe that he can be anything he wants to be (at the moment a bin lorry driver), bearing in mind that just because he has a kitchen or toy cars he may not cook or drive but I will not give him a gun as I do not wish him to have desires to own a gun or be a soldier. This may be a very naive view and yes he does turn his finger or a stick into a gun but I believe that this is very different from having a toy gun.

I can see what you're getting at, demented, but what about the goodies and the baddies theme? I think all sorts of imaginative play contains this and often my sons will swap roles regularly, so no one gets typecast as it were. When my sons have light sabres, they can be Luke Skywalker or darth Vadar, when they have their swords, they can be Frodo or an Orc, when they have stick wands, they can be Harry Potter or Lucious Malfoy, when they have their guns they can be explorers shooting a monster, or James Bond, or a law enforcer. I admit I try to keep a closer eye on them when the guns are out and would stop a game, say, of soldiers killing civilians. But IME the games are far more fantasy based.

I can see what you're getting at, demented, but what about the goodies and the baddies theme? I think all sorts of imaginative play contains this and often my sons will swap roles regularly, so no one gets typecast as it were. When my sons have light sabres, they can be Luke Skywalker or darth Vadar, when they have their swords, they can be Frodo or an Orc, when they have stick wands, they can be Harry Potter or Lucious Malfoy, when they have their guns they can be explorers shooting a monster, or James Bond, or a law enforcer. I admit I try to keep a closer eye on them when the guns are out and would stop a game, say, of soldiers killing civilians. But IME the games are far more fantasy based.

Well put demented. Couldn't agree more

anais

I would not buy my kids guns to play with but remember the following.
When I was about 7 an old lady friend of the family gave my two sisters wee dollies for Christmas and gave me a gun. I have no idea why. It was made of red and yellow coloured tin and made a TRRRRR noise. I have never seen one like it before or since.
I absolutely loved it and remember it over and above all the Christmas presents I was ever given as a child. (the plastic shopping trolley was pretty fantastic as well)

I don't think the rise in gun crime can be attributed to kids having toy guns. Back in the days when political correctness wasn't invented, cowboys and indians was seen as a harmless kids game, my brother had a full set of horses, wagons, trailers, indians and cowboys. I don't think our parents saw it as a 'war game' and in our innocence, we didn't interpret it to mean that indians were there solely for cowboys to shoot! Maybe it was naive of us all, considering what the Americans did to the native Indians, but naivety isn't a crime.

I agree with Temptress when she talks of the forbidden fruit. I had countless hours of fun with a water pistol when I was a kid, and I'm sure lots of you did too, bet none of you related that to killing people though did you? If you have managed to grow up with the sense to separate fiction from fact, then so will your kids. Banning anything, like banning a violent movie, will do no good as it will only make it more desirable. That's why it is considered good in the music and film industry to have something banned as it will actually sell more!

I think we should be looking more at how we are bringing our children up rather than what toys we give them to play with.

I am someone else who doesn't feel there is any link between gun crime and toy guns. Everyone had one when I was growing up - pop guns,cap guns, cowboys and Indians guns, space guns with whirring red bits. I think children's imagination is huge and can be totally based in fantasy. My grandad's plastic floor mat, in the garden, was definitely a flying carpet! I don't think I'd particularly encourage my ds to love guns, but I wouldn't make a big deal out of it either. What about swords? Knights and forts? Pirate ships? Toy soldiers? My stepdaughter's favourite game with her dad for ages and ages was swordfighting - I can't imagine her growing up to run amok with a cutlass!

I think young children get their values from the real relationships they see around them - mostly in their family. I think the people involved in gun crime in London (& I like near Peckham, where people get shot every week) didn't play cowboys and indians as children. But they did grow up in violent, chaotic homes surrounded by drugs (& half the time in Jamaica, where I don't suppose Cowboys & Indians is a popular pastime!).

Spot on, Aloha. The problem is the real violence that these children see, not a bit of plastic. Growing up in poverty, chaos, with drugs is the issue, not toys.

My problem with ds not playing with toy guns is not that I think it's going to turn him into a mass murderer or anything. It's just I don't think it is a particularly nice item to be made into a plaything. As someone else has already mentioned it's hardly likely that he is going to use one in later life, so there is no need for it in role-playing games unlike hammers, screwdrivers etc., and as for imaginative play, well he can just use his imagination on something else, like galloping along on a horse, or discovering a goblins cave. I am afraid I am still not swayed into getting him one.

rhubarb, why are you separating how we are bringing our children up from the toys we are giving them to play with? in my mind, the toys we give them to play with are an intrinsic part of how we are bringing them up!