Why? The result is the same - the threat of violence is used against
people to manipulate/force them to do things - it's no different from
people "joking"/making crank calls about putting a bomb in a building.
Whether or not the gun is real, or is a toy that's made specifically (for
whatever reason, IMO there not being any) to *look* completely real, the
fact is that a crime is committed based upon the threat of harm - people
suffer, business suffers if it's a bank or store robbery, plus their
clients suffer, and huge amounts of taxpayer money ends up being spent
investigating, locating the goods, locating the perpetrator, and so on and
so forth. None of that harm disappears simply because the weapon is a
nonfunctioning replica that the victims took to be real.
My only concern with stiffer prosecution would be that simple jail terms
are just *more* of a financial drain - the felons should be put to work in
some way that will benefit the people (and society) they've harmed, not
just warehoused. If the rest of us have to pay for their stupidity and
lack of concern by having taxes stolen out of our paychecks, then it is not
"cruel and unusual punishment", or whatever other drivel some people
excrete from their orifices stating that felons should not have to work at
something reasonably constructive so as to relieve the added tax burdens
Good points, and I just had an idea of some intelligent psychotic inventing
a real gun that looked like a child's toy gun. I mean, they already make
real guns out of plastic don't they? Which begs the question: Can they
already make bullets out of plastic or stuff like ceramic, etc.?
I'd think you could make bullets out of anything that'd fit snugly into the
end of a shell casing, and leave enought room for the propellant. The
question is whether it will survive the trip down the barrel, and through
the air, so as to make it to the target. Another consideration is imapct
damage - if the bullet is so sleek and hard that it passes right through
the target, without flattening, breaking up, or at the least, tumbling,
then it's not very good as a bullet.
I don't recall whether there are plastic or ceramic bullets and, given the
current slimate, Im not about to Google it...
Anyway, now that I have you, I got the shipping container files, by the way,
but didn't realize that the program only referenced the container image
files rather than contained them, so I was left with only dimensions when I
deleted them! I found another shipping container in the neighborhood that
looks about the same, so I might go out and photograph it at similar angles
and then overlay the dimensions.
Ooooh, I just realized I made a decent typo - "today's slimate" rather than
"climate, heh ;)
Kidding about which...? Not sure, just asking.
If it's the ceramic/plastic bullet idea, I would have to check, it's just
something that crept out of the dusty, rusty back-room file cabinet are in
Dimensions are good. Mainly, the texture is the thing. Most seem to be
corrugated. I counted the corrugations off of a TV shot of some containers
(I assume you mean, cargo-vessel-type containers), but now Ihave to find
the scrap of paper... =:-o
That you would apparently police yourself like that.
I think I have the dimensions of everything we need to build a relatively
good model from, including the corrugations, save for maybe the bottom,
which just looks like some regularly-spaced metal "a-beams" under a floor
As you may know, once you have one set of corrugation dimensions, and the
dimensions of other areas of the container, you don't really need to know
how many corrugations there are in total if they're all the same size and
regularly repeating, like tiles.
It's one of those "can of worms" issues.
Personally, having been brought up with guns, I think it's kind of nuts to
give kids a convincingly-realistic model - the reason being that doing so
teaches the association of "gun" with "toy".
I do not think guns should be banned; there are the Constitutional reasons,
there are certain social reasons, and there are recreational reasons - to
me, shooting was very much like how I've heard a few people describe Zen
I was, however, taught from the time I could get around the house that the
guns were NOT toys. THey were dangerous items. Not dangerous in that they
're going to jump out of the cabinet and harm anyone (I know that sounds
stupid but I've come across peole who just about seem to beelive something
similar), but dangerous in that mishandling can lead to terrible incidents.
My objection to giving kids realistic toy guns is that, as with so many
other things, it blurs the line between what is fantasy/play, and what is
I think you're looking at this from a purely adult point of view, and not
taking psychology, especially child psychology, into account. It (is* true
that there are a lot of cases where "modern views" are far too
overprotective (such as the nanocephalic nonsense about not wanting to make
children fearful by teaching them to be wary of stragers and to not get
into cars with strangers). OTOH, it's also true that there are increasing
numbers of incidences where toys/games/etc. blur, and nearly erase, the
distinction between, as above, fantasy/play, and reality, especially the
reality of harming others. Certain games and toys are fine for adults, but
children are not little adults.
The whole point is that the "toys" *LOOK* real - no distinction can be made
by the victim. Therefore, the *threat* is identical, whether the thing is
a toy, or a functioning weapon.
In any event, though, asking whether one would "prefer" one or another
threat is meaningless. I don't want to be threatened at all. I know how
I've reacted to threats in the past and to be honest, if I "nuked" someone
and then found out later that the perceived weapon was actually a toy, I'd
go out of my mind. And sorry, but even in a civilian threat situation,
people can't just sit around pondering the appearance of a weapon to
determine it's level of functionality, as tho' they're watching some cutsey
Disney cartoon. A person sees a gun pulled, and that person reacts withing
seconds, and typically out of instinct. It's necessary, because a person
intent upon shooting others isn't going to just mosey around singing
national anthems of the world before doing something.
And if someone is going to wave a gun around in public, or something that
looks *exactly* like a functional gun, the plain fact is that he has to be
prepared for the consequences. IOW, that people *will* react instantly.
Because of that, Kids with these dumbass "toys" have been shot and killed.
That alone should be a good enough for people to not give the things to
kids. But people are stupid, and one sad fact about society is that there
is always an urge to try to protect people from their own stupidity.
Personally, I think that, when incedents occur because of kids with
realistic toy guns, the people who gave the things to the kids should be
presecuted. Even if it's the parents. It's a careless, uncaring,
neglectful, and IMO criminal act to give a kid something that is *highly*
likely, esp. in today's climate, to get the child killed. I'm personally
tired of people using stupidity as a synonym for innocence.
OTOH, peopole *do* and *will* give the things to kids, if the things are
available to purchase, so pulling them off the market, or at least, off the
general market, might at least be a stopgap measure.
IMO it would be acceptable to make the things avaialable on a limited basis
to adults who are capable of citing their awareness of the potential
consequences. They should *not* be sold at Toys'R'Us or any other store
that focuses on children's goods.
As for adults with bad intentions - the problem is that a person intent
upon crime will use whatever is at hand. Weapons make it far easier to
inflict lethal damage, and do so quickly, that much is unavoidably true.
But it'd be nothing more than hollow fantasy to claim that eliminating all
weapons would eliminate violence.
Definitely, and that would include people who do things like make weapons
easily available to their kids, people who peddle illegal weapons to
criminals, and other such enablers.
To be sure.
In this case, my Dad was very responsible in teaching me not only that guns
had to be handled safely, but also, that they require a human agent to
function - they don;'t just get up and start doing things on their own,
like some gangsta version of "The SOrcerer's Apprentice". The thing that
bothers me about a lot fo the "I hate guns" crowd is that they seem to
forget that second fact.
There ya go. My grandfather had been a Forest Warden in Czechoslovakia,
and when he retired (from whatever it was he did when he got to the US), he
moved into what as still rural/forested land in northern New Jersey. He
beleived store-bought meat was bad for you because it was too close to
being carrion/vulture food, and the only meat he ate was what he could go
out and hunt. Deer, woodchuck, squirrel, whatever. I ate some of the best
dang goulash ever at his place ;) , cooked over hardwood fires.
My Dad was a championship shooter; had all sorts of awards.
So, I didn't grow up with guns as a response to crime or paranoia, they
were just there, in the same way that your big kitchen knives would be
there, and your cast-iron skillet. Part of the household.
Very similar here, but the cabinet was in the den, then moved to the
basement after it was finished and sealed.
My mother wouldn't allow any of that, but I eventually learned to shoot and
continued doing so once I got out of there and on my own. The protection
aspect was always there, but I wouldn't have had handguns had i not also
enjoyed going to the range for target shooting. ((The challenge was to use
rifle targets with handguns and see how far out the targets could go and
still be hit with reasonable accuracy.))
Well, the town I grew up in did have violence because that was when race
riots started occurring, but it was kind of interresting in that it was the
kids themselves who dealt with it, not the proncipal or the school board of
any other gov.t entity. The kids figured out for themselves how to coexist
in a sort of uneasy peace, and eventually came to a sort of balance where
even frinedships eventually started forming.
Gov.t just seemed to increase divisiveness, where it intervened.
But at any rate, the point is, there were bullies, but they were not sucked
up to the way bullies seem to be now; three were "in groups", but I don't
remember kids suiciding over not being part of them - most just went off
and did their own things, formed their own groups. Thre were fights, there
was some violence, but all in all, it almost seems civilized in comparison
with the stuff I see on the news, and what I hear abut in general, as
regards the crap that goes on in the so-called "schools" now.
I've come close in a couple instances of self-defense, but that's as far as
it ever went. No matter how upset I ever got, the worst thing I did was
beat my mattrass with a tennis racket <LOL!> It irritates me when soem
people go on about how horrible gun owners supposedly are, because in all
honesty, I don't even like to stoop to being mean to people - forget
actually *harming* someone just because I was POed at something.
You're making the increasingly common error of confusing circumstances,
with individual and social attitudes towards those circumstances.
Had Lincoln been born ten years ago, even if he himself somehow preserved
the character traits that resulted in his becoming the US President, he
would have faced, not an indifferent society, but rather, one which, at
every turn, would be attempting to brainwash him into being nothing more
than a perpetual victim.
It is not circumstances that render one incapable of achievement. It is a
combination of innate character, and social influences/pressures which work
to enhance some character traits and thwart others.
If i remember correctly, you yourself had posted a listing of stages that
the original author proposed as a summary of the rise and fall of
civilizations. One of the stages on the "fall" side dealt with feeling
entitled to material wealth and psychoemotional coddling.
What, after all, is any civilization, but its people, and the society they
There have always been working mothers who didn't or couldn't stay at home
(a great many in my own town, back when and where I spent my childhood).
There have always been abusive parents - and I'd venture more so in the
past than there are in today's US. Although divorce rates are up, beleive
me, a horrid marriage that includes an abusive, self-obsessed parent is no
better (and I'd say, probably worse, based upon my own expereinces) than a
divorce. And so on, for every circumstance you cited above - in the end,
all of those circumstances, plus a passel of others you didn't specifically
list, are not "causes". Depending upon the attitudes/beliefs of the
individual, and that individual's social environment, one person's
challenge, and even inspiration, is another person's lame excuse. And this
excuse-making is taught, or maybe even passed along genetically for all I
know, to people's offspring, where the trait seems to end up becoming
amplified due to the material spoiling of children combined with parents
who are too busy whining about their idiotic so-called "inner child" to
have much, if any, emotional investment in, or emotional ties with, their
The problem is that current society - and by that, I mean, individuals
behaving as a collective - places a *far* higher value upon verbiage than
on action, a *far* higher value upon the mere appearance of wealth,
achievement, action, *and* personal responsibility, than upon the
actualities of any of those things.
There are a great many people who achieved things *despite* external
attempts to turn them into inept, unproductive whiners. The thing is that
they don't sit around, well, whining about their own tragedies - that is
not how one achieves anything. One achieves by *doing*. So what we end up
hearing is all the whiners.
As above. America de-evolved from "the land of the brave" to "the land of
the blobs". People *talk* a lot about rights and freedoms, but in the end,
it seems to mostly have shriveled down to one's "right" to be acble to
choose to buy obscenely-huge road hogging vehicles and one's "freedom"
shovel food into one's mouth until one can't even get out of bed to go to
the fridge (or toilet or bathtub).
Increasingly, it's all about excuses and blither and having stuff (earned
or stolen doesn't matter any more), rather than "unimpressive" things like
personal character and ethics. You can make you list of circumstances as
long as you like, but in the end, as above, the list means nothing, because
it's one's attitudes/beliefs that makes one see those circumstances either
as challenges to overcome (even opportunities!), or as excuses for doing as
little as one possibly can get away with.
And, BTW, that is *far* different from recognizing the fact that there *is*
a lot of bad sh*t that happens and sometimes people do need help learning
to get around it and be happier and more productive. Been there, done
that. But it is also a fact that nobody can *make* another person well and
happy - treatment is futile if the person doesn't want to improve.
IMO, it's time that society/culture/people in general spent less time
suckling those who *choose* to be permanent infants, and do more to help
people who want to overcome adversity - and give more respect to those who
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.