Sorry, I just find this attitude hard to take. I won’t do it again.
If all they wantd was to make the gun look like a toy they could have patterned it after a squirt gun and we would have never heard about them. That however, was not what they were aiming for.
I guess it depends on how you define arrested mental development but it’s probably a very similar logic to this XKCD.
According to the company, they wanted to send the message that “guns are for everyone”. Stop and think about that for a few moments: Exactly who is the “everyone” that they’re referring to, here? Who would think, before this gun, that guns weren’t for them, but would now think that they are?
The company themselves are saying that guns are for five-year-olds. If parents buy this gun and keep it away from their children, they are going against the design intent of the manufacturer.
Millions of gun owners keep hundreds of millions of guns out of the hands of kids. Doesn’t matter what the gun looks like. Either someone is a responsible adult or they are not. Doesn’t matter what the dangerous item looks like or if the item is a firearm or a detergent pod that looks like gooey candy.
What legitimate reason does a woman need a vibrating dildo that looks like a bunny rabbit? What legitimate reason does someone need those absurd looking rims on cars some are driving around with? What legitimate reason does someone need a steel booger pierced on the side of their schnoz? We could argue tastes all day long but the conclusion would always be the same: nobody needs to justify anything to you!
If I go full lassiez faire mode, I guess this would be fine as like a custom job. For those lego loving gun enthusiasts? All six of them…
It makes for an effective publicity stunt, though.
~Max
My first reaction was “If I owned a Glock product, I’d go out to the garage and cut it into pieces.” Not because of the gun, but because of Glock’s attitude.
If you want to make generally harmless thing look like another generally harmless thing, IMO you don’t need a reason. But making a potentially lethal thing (a gun for example) look like a harmless toy, you should have a good reason.
Why? And who do they need to prove the reason to? You? Who are you?
A person owns a firearm that looks like a toy and owns it responsibly what does it matter what it looks like? A gun is a gun is a gun. If someone doesn’t own or treat their firearms in a responsible manner it doesn’t matter what the gun looks like.
If you live in the U.S. chances are at some point you passed someone in a Walmart that was carrying a pink colored pistol that looks like a toy in a purse or holster. How did the color of that pistol matter in any way? People are getting their undies in a bunch over something that’s existed for a long time.
“I like it” seems like more than enough reason to me.
If I had money to throw around like some people do, I might’ve bought one of those immediately as soon as I heard of them, for no other reason than it being obvious they would stop producing them very quickly after a controversy, and thus I would have a very rare thing on my hands.
I find this interesting, though, from that BBC article linked in the OP:
It is illegal in the US to produce a children’s toy that precisely resembles a real gun, but the laws do not explicitly prevent manufacturers from making a gun that resembles a toy.
If it’s illegal to make a toy that precisely resembles a gun but not a gun that resembles a toy, what does that legally do to the manufacturer of the toy gun that now has…a toy that precisely resembles a gun, but only because the gun manufacturer made one to resemble the toy? That’s just a random detail that caught my curiosity, but I thought it interesting to wonder about.
The only really unique thing I notice about toy guns is that they have the orange circle on the end of the barrel. Are there any laws that would prohibit a gun manufacturer or owner putting a similar orange ring on a real gun? Toy gun manufacturers are required to put it on their guns, but I’m not sure if real gun manufacturers are prevented from also putting it on their guns.
I wonder if criminals ever put the orange ring on their real guns with the hope that cops may mistakenly think they are toy guns?
Given that the police sometimes shoot people who aren’t even armed I don’t know if that’d be such a wise choice. And I’ve seen some revolvers with a bit of orange on the front site that one might think vaguely resembles a toy gun.
Just out of curiosity, what is Glocks attitude?
When I was a kid I had a Johnny Eagle. Had realistic bullets that even loaded into the magazine like a real gun. Had to cycle the action and everything. Nobody had a conniption over it at the time. This country has gone goofy. I could never figure out what happened to that magnificent toy. I think my Ma sold it at one of her stupid rummage sales.
I wonder if he means “Glock: Perfection” 
DocCathode answered this perfectly, but your answer is unfortunately a typical example of the debating trick of taking absurd examples that are not even comparable.
This happened in a Wal-Mart.
Do we really need to create the perception in police officers’ minds that toys might be real guns?
That in no way is the same as someone having a pink pistol concealed on their person, or in a holster, in their home, or on the range.
And it has nothing to do with my previous point. A person having their gun all dolled up to look like a toy, a phone, or a bologna sandwich isn’t causing any harm as long as they are treating it as the real firearm it is and being responsible with it like they would any other gun.
No, it’s not the same. But it’s not completely unrelated, either.
My point is that permitting guns to be dressed up so that they appear to be toys will, over time, create the perception in the minds of police officers (and others) that something that looks like a toy in someone’s hands might, in fact, be a gun, and must be treated as such. That is harmful.
And, for all the talk of “responsible” gun owners, the fact is that there were nearly 20,000 deaths by gunshot last year, excluding suicides.* Clearly a lot of guns are owned by people who aren’t responsible gun owners.
* Although I don’t know why we should, at least not all of them. I’m willing to bet a non-trivial portion of gun suicides were committed with guns left too easily available by a not-so-responsible gun owner.
Your post was asking what possible reason people would have to object to guns that look like toys. And one reason is that, if society allows guns that look like toys, then police officers will be able to justify shooting people with toys because they could be real guns.
Another is the statement of the company. If your message is “guns are for everyone,” and you make guns that look like toys for children, you’re inherently communicating that guns are for children. And people have a reason to oppose that.
Then there’s the fear that the owners won’t be responsible, and kids will see it and think it’s a toy. They may be warned not to touch real guns, but if they think it’s a toy, they might play with it–with bad results.
Finally, there’s the basic part about this being a trademark issue, where the consumer might think Lego actually sponsored this device, which could harm their business reputation.
As for pink guns? I don’t have a problem with them as long as other colors are offered, and it’s not pushed as “pink == girl.” But that’s just my not liking targeting women as caring more about form than function. I would not make them illegal.
But guns that look like toys? Yeah, I see an argument for why they shouldn’t be allowed. It’s similar to why you shouldn’t be able to make toys that look like guns.
If someone does want one just for show, then it needn’t be a working gun.