What do you think of Airsoft?

[dismal]

Why is this a relevant distinction?

It is relevant because you are equating accidents while using the item (accidental gun deaths are not uncommon, accidents involving cyclists are not uncommon) verses accidents involving the mistaking of the item as a lethal weapon (has only happened once with a bicycle in a fictional account of a Duluth incident).

Why is that a relevant distinction?

Is a kid dying in a fall from a playground or drowning in a swimming pool somehow better than a kid accidentally shot because he has a toy gun?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is relevant because you are equating accidents while using the item (accidental gun deaths are not uncommon, accidents involving cyclists are not uncommon) verses accidents involving the mistaking of the item as a lethal weapon (has only happened once with a bicycle in a fictional account of a Duluth incident).

Why is that a relevant distinction?

Is a kid dying in a fall from a playground or drowning in a swimming pool somehow better than a kid accidentally shot because he has a toy gun?

You seem to be under the impression that the shooting was accidental. The officer who fired the gun, very well meant to fire the gun. The shooting wasn't an accident. It was bad judgment. That is the relevant distinction.

 

[Jarhyn]

It is relevant because you are equating accidents while using the item (accidental gun deaths are not uncommon, accidents involving cyclists are not uncommon) verses accidents involving the mistaking of the item as a lethal weapon (has only happened once with a bicycle in a fictional account of a Duluth incident).

Why is that a relevant distinction?

Is a kid dying in a fall from a playground or drowning in a swimming pool somehow better than a kid accidentally shot because he has a toy gun?

The death is no more or less bad in itself. They both suck. The difference is, if an action is right or wrong when taken rather then when results are known, then failing to educate kids not to do things which mess the heuristics of our energency murder prevention and response team, an activity which does not deprive them of important and meaningful social and personal skills , vs teaching them that playground equipment can kill them, an activity that isn't nearly as dangerous, and which depriving them of cripples them socially and physically...

Well, let's just say that I the equivalencies in the two scenarios are not important to the conclusion you try to draw.

There are such things as acceptable loss, particularly with pre-persons. Call me a monster, but I'd take a dead kid here and there if it meant many less obese and more adventurous children. I would not accept that same price when the result is a less capable crime intervention system.

 

[dismal]

Why is that a relevant distinction?

Is a kid dying in a fall from a playground or drowning in a swimming pool somehow better than a kid accidentally shot because he has a toy gun?

You seem to be under the impression that the shooting was accidental. The officer who fired the gun, very well meant to fire the gun. The shooting wasn't an accident. It was bad judgment. That is the relevant distinction.

It what way is that relevant?

Isn't the kid who drowns in a swimming pool or falls from a swing just as dead?

 

[dismal]

Why is that a relevant distinction?

Is a kid dying in a fall from a playground or drowning in a swimming pool somehow better than a kid accidentally shot because he has a toy gun?

The death is no more or less bad in itself. They both suck. The difference is, if an action is right or wrong when taken rather then when results are known, then failing to educate kids not to do things which mess the heuristics of our energency murder prevention and response team, an activity which does not deprive them of important and meaningful social and personal skills , vs teaching them that playground equipment can kill them, an activity that isn't nearly as dangerous, and which depriving them of cripples them socially and physically...

Well, let's just say that I the equivalencies in the two scenarios are not important to the conclusion you try to draw.

There are such things as acceptable loss, particularly with pre-persons. Call me a monster, but I'd take a dead kid here and there if it meant many less obese and more adventurous children. I would not accept that same price when the result is a less capable crime intervention system.

What evidence I was able to find suggests that playgrounds kill about 15 kids per year. Pools kill about 2 kids per day (well drowning does.) About 800 bicyclists die per year, but I don't see the breakout on kids there. Kids having bicycle accidents account for about 300,000 emergency room visits per year.

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Playground-Injuries/playgroundinjuries-factsheet.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Bicycle/index.html

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/index.html

So, we seem to accept this level of losses since these things have been killing kids for decades.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You seem to be under the impression that the shooting was accidental. The officer who fired the gun, very well meant to fire the gun. The shooting wasn't an accident. It was bad judgment. That is the relevant distinction.

It what way is that relevant?

Isn't the kid who drowns in a swimming pool or falls from a swing just as dead?

Relevant as in one thing is an accident (blame it on entropy) and the other is bad judgment (blame it on the shooter).

 

[dismal]

It what way is that relevant?

Isn't the kid who drowns in a swimming pool or falls from a swing just as dead?

Relevant as in one thing is an accident (blame it on entropy) and the other is bad judgment (blame it on the shooter).

And what does this have to do with the issue we are discussing?

I mean, there are lots of other differences between swimming pools and toy guns I can think of. Swimming pools are usually bigger. Swimming pools are often blue. Swimming pools contain water. People seldom pick up swimming pools and carry them about.

These differences are not particularly relevant to a discussion about the relative safety of a given a childhood recreational activity.

 

[ZiprHead]

Looks like an accidental justifiable homicide waiting to happen to me.

 

[Rhea]

What evidence I was able to find suggests that playgrounds kill about 15 kids per year. Pools kill about 2 kids per day (well drowning does.) About 800 bicyclists die per year, but I don't see the breakout on kids there. Kids having bicycle accidents account for about 300,000 emergency room visits per year.

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Playground-Injuries/playgroundinjuries-factsheet.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Bicycle/index.html

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/index.html

So, we seem to accept this level of losses since these things have been killing kids for decades.

As has been said before, we accept these losses in the pursuit of fitness and growth.
The pursuit of having really realistic-looking imitation guns has ZERO benefit over whimsical and obviously fake gun, and therefore the losses are not acceptable.

It's so simple.
Risk/benefit analysis. They have whole industries catering to the knowledge that this is a balance worth measuring.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Relevant as in one thing is an accident (blame it on entropy) and the other is bad judgment (blame it on the shooter).

And what does this have to do with the issue we are discussing?

Well what most of us are discussing, not actually you though.

I mean, there are lots of other differences between swimming pools and toy guns I can think of.

And there is the problem. We aren't talking about the differences between the two items, but the differences between the deaths caused by them. Swimming pools would be accidental, being shot because a cop thought someone else had a lethal weapon is not an accidental death. So trying to compare the two types of deaths is a red herring.

 

[dismal]

What evidence I was able to find suggests that playgrounds kill about 15 kids per year. Pools kill about 2 kids per day (well drowning does.) About 800 bicyclists die per year, but I don't see the breakout on kids there. Kids having bicycle accidents account for about 300,000 emergency room visits per year.

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Playground-Injuries/playgroundinjuries-factsheet.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Bicycle/index.html

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/index.html

So, we seem to accept this level of losses since these things have been killing kids for decades.

As has been said before, we accept these losses in the pursuit of fitness and growth.
The pursuit of having really realistic-looking imitation guns has ZERO benefit over whimsical and obviously fake gun, and therefore the losses are not acceptable.

It's so simple.
Risk/benefit analysis. They have whole industries catering to the knowledge that this is a balance worth measuring.

So if kids are out running around with air soft guns when they have air soft gun battles (which I have personally observed to be the case) it makes a few deaths OK?

 

[dismal]

And what does this have to do with the issue we are discussing?

Well what most of us are discussing, not actually you though.

I mean, there are lots of other differences between swimming pools and toy guns I can think of.

And there is the problem. We aren't talking about the differences between the two items, but the differences between the deaths caused by them. Swimming pools would be accidental, being shot because a cop thought someone else had a lethal weapon is not an accidental death. So trying to compare the two types of deaths is a red herring.

You seem to be doing nothing but drawing arbitrary distinctions. Others of us are having a discussion about the safety of children's toys.

 

[arkirk]

The answer to the problem is to ask ourselves what is wrong with promoting interest in something other than guns for young people?

There was a comic strip, When I Was Short, and the artist discussed this. He quoted someone who said if boys played with little toy pacifists, there would be no wars.
The strip shows two boys with their pacifist sets, competing about how many nukes they reduce from the stockpile.
"I take all my nukes out of Europe."
"Well, I take all my nukes out of Europe AND off of every ship afloat."
"Then I take all the nukes off of my ship, off of my planes, and weld half the silos shut so it'll take two hours to open them again."

In the last panel, the two boys both shout, "I LIED!" and launch preemptive attacks.
The caption: I don't think it'd matter much.



I would tend to agree. I think you'd need to retool human nature before retooling society. Or figure some way to make a handheld noise-maker so it's fun to run around pacifying at people.

I am not talking about playing pacifist. I am talking about promoting art, science, medicine, and the vast array of human activities that are not even related to war or killing. The pacifist sets missed the boat because they STARTED OUT WITH PILES OF NUKES THEY HAD TO GET RID OF. The erector sets we had did not have plans for tanks and missiles. Most of our adult lives we cannot spend at war. We need to make honest livings....well some of us anyway.

I am just saying we have nothing but violence for entertainment. Nothing but an orchestrated worship of military power. Have you ever noticed the reverence music and praying and great respect people have for soldiers? Not all of them protected our glorious freedom. Some of them blew women and children to pieces. It is absurd to see good in this. The little anecdote about the pacifist set only points to a preoccupation of most minds with aggression and fear of aggression.

 

[Jarhyn]

Relevant as in one thing is an accident (blame it on entropy) and the other is bad judgment (blame it on the shooter).

And what does this have to do with the issue we are discussing?

I mean, there are lots of other differences between swimming pools and toy guns I can think of. Swimming pools are usually bigger. Swimming pools are often blue. Swimming pools contain water. People seldom pick up swimming pools and carry them about.

These differences are not particularly relevant to a discussion about the relative safety of a given a childhood recreational activity.

Good thing we aren't talking about differences in safety but rather differences in preventability and relative benefit. We can't end the existence of standing water. We can end the existence of fake guns which confuse police.

 

[Jarhyn]

There was a comic strip, When I Was Short, and the artist discussed this. He quoted someone who said if boys played with little toy pacifists, there would be no wars.
The strip shows two boys with their pacifist sets, competing about how many nukes they reduce from the stockpile.
"I take all my nukes out of Europe."
"Well, I take all my nukes out of Europe AND off of every ship afloat."
"Then I take all the nukes off of my ship, off of my planes, and weld half the silos shut so it'll take two hours to open them again."

In the last panel, the two boys both shout, "I LIED!" and launch preemptive attacks.
The caption: I don't think it'd matter much.



I would tend to agree. I think you'd need to retool human nature before retooling society. Or figure some way to make a handheld noise-maker so it's fun to run around pacifying at people.

I am not talking about playing pacifist. I am talking about promoting art, science, medicine, and the vast array of human activities that are not even related to war or killing. The pacifist sets missed the boat because they STARTED OUT WITH PILES OF NUKES THEY HAD TO GET RID OF. The erector sets we had did not have plans for tanks and missiles. Most of our adult lives we cannot spend at war. We need to make honest livings....well some of us anyway.

I am just saying we have nothing but violence for entertainment. Nothing but an orchestrated worship of military power. Have you ever noticed the reverence music and praying and great respect people have for soldiers? Not all of them protected our glorious freedom. Some of them blew women and children to pieces. It is absurd to see good in this. The little anecdote about the pacifist set only points to a preoccupation of most minds with aggression and fear of aggression.

To be fair, the reverence driven by the patrons of arts and politics is the only way we can convince kids that going to a war on some rich asshole's whim is a good idea, at least long enough to get them pointed at the other guy with a rifle in some third world shithole.

 

[Underseer]

These things have been around a while.

Do you have some evidence this is big societal problem?

I have a suggestion! Make sure as many people as possible are armed. That way, you increase the likelihood that someone will mistaken it for a gun and kill whomever is holding the toy. After all, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun! Yee haw!

 

[dismal]

And what does this have to do with the issue we are discussing?

I mean, there are lots of other differences between swimming pools and toy guns I can think of. Swimming pools are usually bigger. Swimming pools are often blue. Swimming pools contain water. People seldom pick up swimming pools and carry them about.

These differences are not particularly relevant to a discussion about the relative safety of a given a childhood recreational activity.

Good thing we aren't talking about differences in safety but rather differences in preventability and relative benefit. We can't end the existence of standing water. We can end the existence of fake guns which confuse police.

We can certainly ban swimming pools, playground equipment and bicycles. We tolerate these despite the fact we have decades of evidence they kill and injure children.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yes. We can ban playing and man-powered transportation. And end up with a fat, lazy, disgusting and medically expensive population of sedentary depressed assholes.

So no, we probably shouldn't ban those things.

We can ban fake look-alike guns and have police able to do their job effectively. And end up with children who are not obsessed with having and carrying weapons, and avoid a generation that treats them like toys.

So yes, we probably should ban those things.

 

[dismal]

Yes. We can ban playing and man-powered transportation. And end up with a fat, lazy, disgusting and medically expensive population of sedentary depressed assholes.

So no, we probably shouldn't ban those things.

We can ban fake look-alike guns and have police able to do their job effectively. And end up with children who are not obsessed with having and carrying weapons, and avoid a generation that treats them like toys.

So yes, we probably should ban those things.

Have you ever participated in an airsoft gun battle (or paintball, which is similar)? I did a few times with my kids. It's far more intense exercise than swinging on a swing set or sitting in a swimming pool with a beer.

 

[Rhea]

As has been said before, we accept these losses in the pursuit of fitness and growth.
The pursuit of having really realistic-looking imitation guns has ZERO benefit over whimsical and obviously fake gun, and therefore the losses are not acceptable.

It's so simple.
Risk/benefit analysis. They have whole industries catering to the knowledge that this is a balance worth measuring.

So if kids are out running around with air soft guns when they have air soft gun battles (which I have personally observed to be the case) it makes a few deaths OK?

You missed my point completely.

Nothing about the fun exercise of a play gun battle requires realistic looking guns. Nothing. There is no inherent societal benefit when the guns look realistic.

We have tons of fun having fun gun battles at home with white and orange plastic water-guns. We have a great time. And not one person sits out because the guns don't look deadly enough. Not one.


My premise is that there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO VALUE IN REALISM OF PLAY GUNS. None. Zilch.
And there is a whole lot of detriment. Realistic looking toy guns lead to deaths while giving no benefit at all.

My kids can have a fun gun battle with pine cones and crooked cucumbers. They do not require realism to get their fitness. or fun.