Upthread, I noted explicitly that I was not calling for regulation. I was calling for investigation and what is essentially an advisory. There’s evidence that this is a problem: one death will do that. (Also, while I applaud your digging up the CDI data, recall that its reporting of accidental gun deaths is somewhat biased - we discussed the NYT article some years back. This doesn’t make the data useless: it just means it needs to be inspected with care. I see no reason why it would affect the pattern over time for example.)
Toddlers are attracted to colorful items. Really remarkable that this sort of thing is questioned or ignored, but here’s a citation from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, p. 13 “They are attracted to bright and vibrant colors, especially yellows and reds, and to objects with high-contrast patterns like black and white spirals… Mobiles or images with bright, highly contrasting colors and patterns are appealing”.
Yes, this recurring movie certainly is tiresome. You didn’t say explicitly that kids aren’t attracted to brightly colored objects. Nor did you argue against a layered defense strategy. Instead, like most gun nuts, you took a rather narrow view on acceptable evidence. When basically I was calling for a private sector investigation of brightly colored firearms which a) toddlers tend to be attracted to and b) have been implicated in at least one death (two additional deaths if you include toy guns that look like real ones, from news reports).
Here’s a typical rah-rah gunnut claim: [indent]“The 4 rules of gun safety were put in place to ensure that no accidents happen. If these rules are followed 100% of the time, you can rest assured that you will never have an accident with your firearms.” The 4 Rules Of Gun Safety | Concealed Nation [/indent] Which of course is horseshit. It ignores ricochets. It ignores third parties. It ignores guns exploding in hands. It ignores secure storage of weaponry; implicitly third parties don’t exist in this world. Nor I suppose does alcohol or controlled substances. Most importantly, it ignores human error and -yes- the importance of layered defense.
But they never said that drunkeness isn’t a problem! No, they didn’t, but it’s implicit when you make such unqualified claims about the 4 rules (or whatever number: actually it varies).
So yeah Bone. When I read unqualified claims by gun nuts, I’m going to call them on it. In another thread folks were talking about how critical it was for women to own guns and when I pointed out that they weren’t helpless, you accused me of straw manning. No, Bone. I was attacking an implication of the gunnut worldview. If you want to put space between yourself and that, well god bless. But so far I haven’t seen it.
Gun owners should care most about the safe handling of firearms. Layered defense should be part of their mantra. But it’s clear that too many are far more interested in protecting a worldview than in protecting their lives or families. Responsible gun owners deserve a responsible and pro-science gun enthusiast organization.
Whoops, that quote applied to the birth to 3 month set. Not a group known for their grip strength. That said, bright colors are popular among toddlers, though pastels become more attractive as the kids get to be around 2-3 years old.
Well when you find examples of folks you know, on this board that can actually respond, doing the things you suggest, then by all means call them out. Otherwise it’s just tilting at windmills and knocking down strawmen.
Who said kids aren’t attracted to bright colors? I surely didn’t. I have kids and it’s pretty obvious that this is true. That being said, you seem to completely ignore that this could be a feature. As I mentioned, anything that gets kids more passionate about something is a good thing if directed properly. Again, have you concluded that the potential cost of colored firearms outweighs the potential benefits? How have you done that?
And what exactly was the narrow view on evidence? You see, I presented evidence. Data actually. Kimstu on the other hand - nothing. Hard to take a narrow view of nothing. You seem fine to question 35 years of data by the CDC, yet when Kimstu makes claims with literally no support, what, crickets? And as if your anecdote is even in the same league much less the same sport as the CDC data, well, that’s funny.
Given the rate of accidental death and injury by firearm is dramatically lower than it has been over the last 20 years, I’d say that gun owners are doing a better job now regarding safe handling of firearms than they have in the past without your artificial concern. We can protect a worldview and the lives of families at the same time!
Its a well known fact that the gun industry is misogynistic and the marketing of pink guns is a clear example of the gun industry’s misogyny. If that is proven stupid and wrong then the gun industry is well known to be absolutely indifferent to dead children and their marketing of pink guns us a clear example of that depraved indifference to the lives of children. If that is ALSO proven stupid and wrong then pink guns are a clear example of how supporters of gun rights have gone off the rails because the “old” NRA would have put a stop to that immediately.
Its just another case of anti-gun outrage looking for a justification for channeling its outrage at guns.
Not straw. Not when I can point to this commonplace perception, backed by links. And again, I reference implications.
Glad you brought this up again. I actually thought it was a decent point as originally stated. If a kid wanted a gun with bright colors, I’d probably cut them some slack provided the gun didn’t look too much like a toy.
You seem to think that guns that look like toys are ok. I mean you haven’t expressed concern about it. Despite the example I showed of a kid dying because of it. You see anecdotes can be data, depending upon what the claim is. A single example will suffice for some claims.
This is pretty core to our disagreement. I think the evidence is sufficient to advise parents not to own guns that look like toys or toys that look like guns. You can have colorful guns (or toys) without that problem.
Some events are sufficiently rare that they don’t show in statistics. That doesn’t mean they are not actionable. I mean c’mon. Do you really think that greater numbers of pink guns are going to effect the aggregate data in obvious ways? Especially when you don’t have a measure of pink gun incidence?
There’s not a lot of data regarding the advisability of smoking while one’s pants are saturated with kerosene. That doesn’t make it safe.
Keeping guns that look like toys in a house with toddlers is a bad idea. Unless you think you have 100% confidence in your ability to keep the guns away from the kids at all times. In which case you are rejecting the concept of a layered defense. These aren’t straw man arguments I’m making. I’m directly addressing and characterizing your stance on this issue.
Saturation in extremist literature has warped your worldview. Damuri Ajashi So… do you think guns that look like toys are ok? Toys that look like guns? I’m not saying they should be regulated. I’m saying that the issue should be investigated and an advisory made by a private entity with expertise on the issue.
I see absolutely no problem here. If they’ve got their market wrong then pink guns won’t sell and they’ll be withdrawn. As for gun security that’s a bogus issue. So a loaded black gun left lying around where children have access is somehow safer than a pink one? That’s BS: all guns should be secured, all are equally dangerous.
That was well put and worth posting.
I still say guns shouldn’t look like toys though. And toys shouldn’t look like guns. Because when the 2 are confused tragedy can occur. Cops should be able to tell at a glance whether a gun is a toy or not. So should other people. Yes, yes, it’s wrong when cops shoot first and ask questions later. But it’s best to have a layered defense. So University of Michigan Health Systems recommends that, toy guns should have bright colors. And I say real guns should have obviously different markings. UMHS notes that, “Police officers may mistake a toy gun in your child’s hand for a real gun.” It makes their job harder if there are real guns that look like toys. Though again, I’m not claiming that all pink guns look like toys.
I’m not calling for regulation. I’m saying that bona fide gun safety organizations should issue advisories and call for research. I applaud University of Michigan Health Systems.
That’s only true if there are no women who actually WANT pink guns. The fact that some women buy pink guns proves that at least some want them.
My larger point, though, was that YOU are being mysogynist if you think that only “masculine” guns are the good ones. Why can’t women define what a gun is, and make them pink if they want? Who said the only good gun is a black or gray one?
If you want ton investigate the effects of guns that look like toys and toys that look like guns on the rate at which children kill themselves or others, I won’t object. But so far I have not seen anything that indicates that there is any sort of connection between the two.
black guns look too scary and pink guns don’t look scary enough. Gun aesthetics are apparently another one of those areas where we need to achieve a balance between looking scary enough so that kids aren’t tempted to play with guns but scary enough that we aren’t being misosgynistically patronizing towards women.
And yet you didn’t reference anyone doing what you said. Convenient. The implication is that you can’t.
This is rich. When you find an anecdote of something that aligns with your worldview, that’s sufficient data to draw your conclusions. That would be like me saying that becauseCarol Browne was killed while waiting for her gun permit, that is sufficient to conclude that waiting periods for gun permits are unacceptable!
I personally don’t think guns that I own should look like toys. There are however lots of toys that look like guns though - Nerf? Of course, what you think looks like a toy could be literally anything and that’s why those types of statements are meaningless. I mean, guns can be like toys for adults and there is really nothing wrong with that.
There’s no evidence whatsoever, and there is even evidence that contradicts the point being made, but I just know it in my heart of hearts! I see this similar to faith based reasoning. Violent video games make kids violent, I just know it! Rock and roll is the devil’s music, I just know it! Pornography makes people go out and rape other people, I just know it!
I have 100% confidence in my ability to keep my guns away from my kids at all times. If I didn’t, then I wouldn’t own them.
If I truly believed you supported the right to arms, and were actually concerned about the scourge or colored firearms, I might take you seriously. But since I don’t, then I don’t. This type of fake concern is transparent and worthless. Just another instance of anti-gun folks looking for ways to be outraged.
I don’t believe you could accurately characterize my stance if you tried.
