'Cops don't kill kids--toy guns kill kids.'

[AlpineK]

No, they should be taught with the real thing.

 

i have 2 boys and i totaly agree with this. I am NOT a fan of toy guns. I think if someone wants to learn to shoot they should learn to shoot a real gun. Toy guns should be sticks. God knows my boys have had hours upon hours of entertainment plaing swords and guns with sticks they find in the back yard.

 

I may have had a water gun as a kid, but other than that it was sticks for guns and swords. I managed to have just as much fun that way. Guns were always real and always a serious thing.

 

This is a real

[mattp]

When I was a kid we played army with toy guns and I had a BB gun that was NOT for playing army but for shooting at trash cans and stuff like that and I learned how to shoot a 22. My parents were liberals, and certainly have supported most any gun control efforts but they weren't nuts about keeping toy guns out of the hands of their kids, they would gladly have sent me off hunting with uncle Joe if I had an uncle Joe. We didn't have strict rules based on some notion that "a gun is not a toy" so much as simple practical idea like: if you shoot a bb gun at your buddy you might shoot his eye out and if you point a real gun (even a bb gun) at your friends an accident is like to happen sooner or later. It seemed clear enough to me -- even at age 7.

[mattp]

With regard the discussion that started this thread, I wonder if we might talk about under what circumstance we might think it appropriate to hold a cop accountable if they shoot somebody who was unarmed and did not pose a threat. We've read here that "they do it all the time and are never held accountable" and that "they are adequately (or maybe overly) punished for such action" yet I haven't seen any evidence or even a suggestion that anybody has any statistics or other basis for such statements.

 

Statistics aside, there is a historical reason that we generally don't hold police officers and a variety of government representatives responsible for their actions in the same way we would a private party and it makes sense: we value what these folk do and they need to have the ability to do their job without undue fear of being personally punished for it or they would be less effective. However, there certainly are limits.

 

We read about the spectacular cases where police officers shoot unarmed civilians. Is this really a distortion based on sensationalism? Or does it reflect the reality that 1 in 10,000 encounters go bad? Are there cases where good cops are unfairly punished for an accident or something that maybe they didn't even cause to happen? What could be a reasonable inquiry other than what a cop saw/heard etc. and what they thought of it?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

With regard the discussion that started this thread, I wonder if we might talk about under what circumstance we might think it appropriate to hold a cop accountable if they shoot somebody who was unarmed and did not pose a threat. We've read here that "they do it all the time and are never held accountable" and that "they are adequately (or maybe overly) punished for such action" yet I haven't seen any evidence or even a suggestion that anybody has any statistics or other basis for such statements.

 

Statistics aside, there is a historical reason that we generally don't hold police officers and a variety of government representatives responsible for their actions in the same way we would a private party and it makes sense: we value what these folk do and they need to have the ability to do their job without undue fear of being personally punished for it or they would be less effective. However, there certainly are limits.

 

We read about the spectacular cases where police officers shoot unarmed civilians. Is this really a distortion based on sensationalism? Or does it reflect the reality that 1 in 10,000 encounters go bad? Are there cases where good cops are unfairly punished for an accident or something that maybe they didn't even cause to happen? What could be a reasonable inquiry other than what a cop saw/heard etc. and what they thought of it?

 

Isn't it SOP that whenever a cop uses a firearm in the line of duty, they are immediately put on administrative leave (or whatever you call it - they get paid but don't have a weapon or the same responsibilities) pending a full investigation, where they must fully account for their actions? And in the sensational cases, even if proved "justified" said cops often retire or encouraged to do so? I think cops are definitely accountable and really raked over the coals whenever they use their weapons in the line of duty.

 

[builder206]

No, they should be taught with the real thing.

 

 

[builder206]

ahhhh....

 

http://www.gunlawnews.org/Senate-Bills/sa4615.html

 

[ashw_justin]

With regard the discussion that started this thread, I wonder if we might talk about under what circumstance we might think it appropriate to hold a cop accountable if they shoot somebody who was unarmed and did not pose a threat. We've read here that "they do it all the time and are never held accountable" and that "they are adequately (or maybe overly) punished for such action" yet I haven't seen any evidence or even a suggestion that anybody has any statistics or other basis for such statements.

 

Statistics aside, there is a historical reason that we generally don't hold police officers and a variety of government representatives responsible for their actions in the same way we would a private party and it makes sense: we value what these folk do and they need to have the ability to do their job without undue fear of being personally punished for it or they would be less effective. However, there certainly are limits.

 

We read about the spectacular cases where police officers shoot unarmed civilians. Is this really a distortion based on sensationalism? Or does it reflect the reality that 1 in 10,000 encounters go bad? Are there cases where good cops are unfairly punished for an accident or something that maybe they didn't even cause to happen? What could be a reasonable inquiry other than what a cop saw/heard etc. and what they thought of it?

You're certainly describing some of my hysterical collateral damage, but I want to clarify again that what started this thread was not my personal views on the police, but the idea that we have to ban toy guns because kids could be killed for having them.

 

Using a toy gun that is indistinguishable from a real one, in a way that makes the police think that you are going to shoot someone, is the problem. This does not necessarily have anything to do with the sale, purchase, or possession of toy guns. We already have more direct and logical solutions to the real problem. Kids--don't point guns at people, period, and do exactly what the police tell you, while slowly putting your empty hands up. Parents--think hard before buying guns, toy or not, for your kids. Police--um, don't kill people unless you really have to.

 

I'm sorry, that's already just as good as it gets. Trying to ban harmless shit instead of focusing on the real problems/solutions is ridiculous.

[canyondweller]

Using a toy gun that is indistinguishable from a real one, in a way that makes the police think that you are going to shoot someone, is the problem. This does not necessarily have anything to do with the sale, purchase, or possession of toy guns. We already have more direct and logical solutions to the real problem. Kids--don't point guns at people, period, and do exactly what the police tell you, while slowly putting your empty hands up. Parents--think hard before buying guns, toy or not, for your kids.

 

I'm sorry, that's already just as good as it gets. Trying to ban harmless shit instead of focusing on the real problems/solutions is ridiculous.

 

The real problem is responsibility and education, then? I totally agree. We have been making that argument for years.

[rob]

I don't seen why it matters if they ban toy guns. I mean, cops will just go on killing anyone and everyone, for no reason, REGARDLESS OF CIRCUMSTANCES.

 

OMG THEY'RE OUT OF CONTROL!!!!

 

 

[STP]

I had an acquaintance who trained in Okinawan karate. Like usual he was told to use it at last resort, walk away from conflict. So he got his ass kicked several times before he got wise. Likewise with guns. Sure, I'm not advocating Bernard Goetz (what a putz) but if you obtain a gun for self-defense then be prepared for the eventuality of using it.

[STP]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004391165_fakeguns04.html

"It's important that a child cannot walk into one of these little convenience stores, plop down a dollar and walk out with something that can get him shot on the spot without question," Deberry said.

That's 'funny,' I didn't know you even needed a toy gun for the cops to shoot you on the spot without question.

Anything to avoid challenging a cop's right to murder out of fear and fear alone...

 

I had to bump this back up because I thought it was contradictory that some people made the comment about not ever pointing a gun, toy or real, at anyone yet there are video games such as Halo where you can kill with abandon.

 

Every action starts with an intention.