Four years ago, I wrote a column on the controversy over boys and toy guns. In my column today in USA Today I return to the issue to discuss some recent research in the area.
Four years ago, I was publicly identified as a danger to children. As the doting father of four, it was a bit of a surprise, but my “outing” occurred after my boys and I built an authentic Conestoga wagon to ride in our Northern Virginia neighborhood’s “Wheel Day.” Mid-parade, an irate mother confronted me after spotting toy guns in the covered wagon — objecting to my instilling violent values in my boys. I later received an e-mail from another parent that this covered wagon was no “innocent fantasy” since I must be aware “what guns were used for in the Old West?” It turns out that my kids were apparently rehearsing the genocidal massacre of Native Americans.
Truth be known, I actually did not view the wagon as a tribute to ethnic cleansing. But the real issue was not Western fantasies or phobias. It was guns.
I let my boys play with toy guns and swords. With many parents and schools enforcing a zero-tolerance policies toward toy guns, such toys are producing an increasing divide on playgrounds and play dates.
Early this year, a 7-year-old in Oklahoma City was suspended from school for pointing his finger like a gun and shooting at a wall. He is not the first “finger-gun” suspension — part of zero-tolerance policy in schools that recently have led to the suspension of kids for everything from drawing stick figures with guns to wearing a hat with an image of an armed soldier on it. In December, Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch organized an annual “bashing” of toy guns at which parents bring their children to destroy toy guns in exchange for non-violent toys such as puzzles. In January, Hawaii legislators sought, but ultimately failed, to make it a crime to sell a toy gun to anyone younger than 18. While the crackdown on toy guns has continued to grow, this debate has been remarkably detached from developmental studies and seems to be more about parents than their kids.
Toys and gender
As someone on the nature side of this debate, a new study in Current Biology magazine caught my eye. After 14 years of observing young chimpanzees in Uganda, leading researchers found that they shared the same innate preferences in toys and games as human children. Males and females were found to gravitate toward what are called “biological predilections” in toys. The researchers found that females tended to treat sticks like dolls to mimic their mothers while males used sticks as weapons. Most interesting, when Richard Wrangham of Harvard University and co-author Sonya Kahlenberg of Bates College gave juvenile monkeys sex-stereotyped human toys, the females tended to play with the dolls while the males are more apt to play with “boys’ toys,” such as trucks.
Joyce Benenson, associate professor of psychology at Emmanuel College, told Discovery News that this study reinforces her own research that “biological mechanisms (underlie) children’s toy preferences” and “suggests … a biological basis for human sex differences.”
Of course, who needs a Uganda chimp research center? I had Madie. Surrounded by brothers (now 12, 10 and 8), Madie (now 5) grew up in a house overflowing with boys and boy toys. Madie is certainly competent with every model of Nerf weapon. However, she primarily maintains a legion of dolls with enough clothes to outfit an Army division.
Psychologist and author Glen David Skoler has argued that games involving toy guns and swords most often occur as boys are transitioning from the “amoral, self-centered, and unsocialized” world of toddlers. He calls this an “intermediary level of moral functioning,” where boys experiment with “games of good guys vs. bad guys and epic struggles between good and evil.” Child psychologist Penny Holland reached the same conclusion in her book We Don’t Play with Guns Here, saying that toy gun play is often “part of … timeless themes of the struggle between good and evil.”
Potsdam vs. pirates
In truth, my kids are not obsessed with guns and show no signs of being nascent Hannibal Lecters graduating to higher and higher forms of carnage. Ironically, I grew up in a zero-tolerance household, where my mother destroyed any toy guns that she found. We became obsessed with secretly hiding squirt guns around the house like adolescent drug users.
What is astonishing to me is how detached the zero-tolerance movement is not just from research but also from reality. One Mothering magazine article advised mothers on how to respond to their boys found playing with guns or swords. The writer suggested that parents take their boys aside and “emphasize healing” and show their boys how to make “magical medicines.” The magazine also advised that parents could also “transform guns into magical wands” and “channel energy into other games.” My personal favorite, however, was that parents should stop such games and have the kids play “peacemaking” by creating “a roundtable with a mediator and write a peace accord.”
Perhaps Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could pull off the peace accord game, but I doubt that most kids would find re-enacting the Potsdam Conference of World War II to be a good substitute for a pirate war.
Toy guns are no more the cause of violence than toy kitchen sets are the cause of obesity. Hundreds of millions of men grew up with toy guns and never turned to a life of spasmodic violence. On this issue, kids seem a lot more sophisticated than their parents. They know it’s just a game.
Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors.
March 8, 2011
Gyges:
“If KV is right, and guns are the great equalizer, there will be data that proves it. Lord knows, there have been enough studies. All I’m asking is that he provides some. So far, he’s misrepresented one study (and then when he got called on it says “oh well it doesn’t matter anyway), and told me a story about something that happened to his friend.”
That study was from 94. Last time I checked, ALL of the gun studies have been partisan in some respect. You have the idiots at Mayors against Illegal Guns and the Brady Bunch at one end with the idiots at the GOA and the NRA at the other end of the spectrum.
But let me go back and respond to your two quotes that I missed earlier:
“For example, in only a small fraction of rape and robbery attempts do victims use guns in self-defense. It does
not make sense, then, that the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in which a woman defended herself with a gun was more than the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS”
First of all, how do they know this? Secondly, if you’re being attacked and defend yourself with a firearm, it’s a DGU. You might think it was rape when it wasn’t. It could’ve been something else. Who knows? All the person knows is that he/she defended him/herself AND they thought it would’ve led to rape if they hadn’t.
“NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals are wounded or killed by civilian gun defenders. That number also appears completely out of line with other, more reliable statistics on the number of gunshot cases.”
Entirely possible. Reported firearm related deaths and injuries are under 100k in the year of 2009.
Here’s an interesting section that shows the problem with the NCVS numbers:
The key explanation for the difference between the
108,000 NCVS estimate for the annual number of DGUs
and the several million from the surveys discussed
earlier is that NCVS avoids the false-positive
problem by limiting DGU questions to persons who
first reported that they were crime victims. Most
NCVS respondents never have a chance to answer the
DGU question, falsely or otherwise.
If you’ll notice in my anecdote, my coworker did not report the guy coming at him and his drawing of the firearm. The crime went unreported. How often do you think this happens? Secondly, NCVS asked about the location BEFORE they asked about defending yourself with a firearm. Back in 1994, the concealed carry laws were not as liberal as they are now. How many people didn’t mention they used a firearm because they didn’t want to tell a government official about it? They “might” have been breaking the law, depending on the location.
Blouise,
Spending money is one of my strengths as a press secretary!
AY,
You are Atty General and everybody else on the Cabinet is female … you’re welcome
Buddha will be Ambassador to every where … gotta keep him out of the country ….
rafflaw
1, March 8, 2011 at 11:07 pm
Blouse,
As your press secretary, I concur that public office is not a good idea!
===============================================
No first term means no second term. Now what in the hell am I going to do with all this Koch money?
Blouse,
As your press secretary, I concur that public office is not a good idea!
Hey Blouise…or should I say Madam President.. Is Buddha going to be the Secretary of War or State….either I am sure could and would become interchangeable… You would rename it to the Department of War would you not…we have not won any battles since it was termed the DoD…that was when they unified all of the branches under one command…sorta…You tell that to the CIA…Oh that’s right you feel the need that you are going to get shot…question…whats the difference between being shot and assassinated…. Your wardrobe issue is easy…You have 23 Velvet dresses….Cut the days down in each month to 23 take the rest and add it to the end of your term and let the next guy figure out what to do with them…
Chris: sorry about those sleepless nights, given your admission about Marine Corps service, I won’t give any admonishments about taking the time to do the training, and not just purchasing a gun as a talisman against evil. For others however, it’s a point to be heeded.
Mike S.:
I worked greater NYC for over a decade, in a variety of roles.
One night I provided some disincentive to two large fellows when getting on the subway in the vicinity of the South Street Seaport. I and the lady looked to be alone, fairly well dressed, and it was going on 10 pm. Quiet time. Just a slip from the pocket, a nod in their direction, some nods in my direction, two tokens later we were through the turnstile and everybody went about their business.
I’d say that was a “defensive gun use” as I didn’t get jumped by 400 combined pounds of manhood.
A couple of years earlier, we had some ruckus as Central and South Americans cut – literally – into what had been a largely American black and Jamaican drug trade. One fellow stabbed a Jamaican repeatedly in the abdomen, but a patrol car happened by, interrupted and gave foot pursuit after assessing injury.
EMS (me that night) arrived, we scooped and moved as the street was ugly with some unhappy people, normally unfriendly towards non-purchasing whites and all cops on good days.
Parked a block away with the back doors open so we could have three EMS people simultaneously work on the victim, we were joined (unannounced) by the assailant with his knife in his hand.
Having leapt in between the medic applying anti-shock trousers
and the door jamb, he lunged forward onto our patient.
Somehow, don’t ask me for precision, I went from intubation to pushing a fellow medic left onto the bench seat, to firing a Walther PPK .380 into the assailant’s head at contact distance, with the knife inches from my face.
I think he was either going to stab me, or cut/stab the Jamaican fellow in the neck.
One shot. Dead.
The Jamaican fellow would die a couple of hours later of severe internal trauma. Stabbed three times with a left-right repeated motion, his major arteries were cut in multiple places.
I’d rate that a defensive gun use. I was asked repeatedly, and the crew asked repeatedly to explain how I went from intubation to firing a gun in a couple of seconds at best.
I can’t tell you. I knew the situation was bad, I was phoned, paged and radio called from dinner… and I could hear the cop on the scene. Amped up on adrenaline is my only excuse.
Mr. Turley:
I will, unequivocally say that playing with a cap gun had less than zero to do with either incident.
I’m old enough to say that all 25 cent water pistols leaked upon purchase, or failed to squirt by end of day.
I predate Nerf and SuperSoakers by decades.
I’ll also say that perhaps being raised in an environment of guns didn’t hurt, though until employed, I had never been afforded access to handguns. Adult friends owned them, but they “weren’t for kids”.
Rifle and shotgun experience would have to do, and it more than sufficed as when I was alone at home one day (age 13) we had an attempted push-in. My dog detained the unhappy fellow, who threatened to “kill him” if I didn’t open the door and call off the dog. Sam gave me the moment to reach for an (unloaded) Winchester lever action. A .25-20 model ’92, it looked cowboy, and wouldn’t have felt good getting hit with it, but it was a small game to marginal deer caliber.
He – the fellow, felt that was good-enough, and didn’t pause to ask if it was loaded. The “snick=snack” of working the lever was good-enough.
Sam got a dog biscuit, and went back to digging a cool spot in the pachysandra. My mother, devout pacifist, had a blue shit fit. My father, after an earful called the town cops.
A Patrolman (friend of the family) and the oldest of the Detectives arrived 20 to 30 minutes later. Questions were asked. Description given: white, late 20s to 30, polyester leisure suit, claimed to be the vacuum repairman. The cops admitted that this fellow, in the VW combi (bus) had been doing this sort of thing for about 2 months.
Perhaps an enquiry about dog bite victims would help determine who it was. The Detective said as he was leaving: “Shoot the bastard next time… save me the extra trouble of catching him.” That was over 4 decades ago, and the world consisted of whatever was written down, became the truth.
Shot in our driveway may have read shot in the kitchen.
Luckily, I didn’t have to find out.
Defensive gun use? I’d give credit to the Sam the dog.
He prevented the push-in, I merely provided the emphatic.
Mom required dad to lock-up all the guns after that, and she gave the Detective a dirty look at every opportunity.
I got scripture: “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
Lotta,
Wanna be VP? I think it’s only fair to warn you … the CIA will assassinate us.
Blouise, This is the bumper sticker “I own 23 black velvet dresses” and the 1st plank in your platform “No more than 4 utensils for any place-setting”. 🙂
You can win this thing, I’d vote for you in a heartbeat!
rafflaw
1, March 8, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Blouise,
You are much too important in Ohio to run for National office!
============================================================
I have three useless degrees, 1 speeding ticket (in my 20’s or 30’s – can’t remember), never did any drugs, drink moderately, and never had an extramarital affair. I’ve never been charged with a crime and I own 23 black velvet dresses.
I’m a shoe-in. However, I will only do it if you agree to be my Press Secy. … and therein lies the problem … I say what I think and I favor the word, asshole … as in The Republican Speaker of the House is an asshole. Your job would be a nightmare.
Plus, my husband gets mad if there are more than 4 pieces of silverware at his place-setting removing all additional pieces and putting them in the middle of the table.
Nah, it wouldn’t work.
rcampbell sez: “What number of senseless deaths would make you give a damn about the victims?”
*********************************
Pretty damn presumptuous there, Sport. You do not have a clue as to what I care about and what I don’t care about. I just spent the afternoon today in a small concrete room with a fellow covered with tattoos. You do not really want to know what he is charged with. I have seen more dead bodies than you can imagine. Nope, you do not have any idea what it means to me to see the body of somebody who was living only a short time ago. I just know that such a tiny percentage of them are due to firearms that it is tilting at windmills to try to enact gun control legislation. That kind of legislation is going to go nowhere. We have a Second Amendment that has been vetted by the SCOTUS as to what it mean to ordinary citizens and any serious attempt to confiscate guns would be found unconstitutional . If we want to elect effective congresscritters, the worst thing they can do is run on a gun control platform. Guaranteed loser. Fix the things we actually CAN fix.
And I repeat. Please do not inform me what I give a damn about.
Blouise,
You are much too important in Ohio to run for National office!
Blouise,
“I’m a pretty good tracker too and I sure as hell don’t go stompin’ through the forest.
Maybe I should run for office ….”
Lol . . . A woman of many talents – excellent!
National office? I’d work on your campaign!
Stamford Liberal
1, March 8, 2011 at 10:03 am
Blouise,
“I learned to hunt with a bow and arrow.”
You Amazon, you! And a humorous one at that! 🙂
===================================================
I’m a pretty good tracker too and I sure as hell don’t go stompin’ through the forest.
Maybe I should run for office ….
As a conservative I am rather shocked, pleasantly I might add, that those here are not screaming to high heaven about the evil of guns.
It seems that you have a fairly similar belief as to how the 2nd amendment should be interpreted. I have only read 1 or 2 posters who would not be in line with what me and my friends say when we get together and the subject comes up.
Seems like the NRA and groups like the Brady’s have a financial gain in keeping the rhetoric hot and heavy. I will say some of our more vocal proponents (on the conservative side) are bat shit crazy on this subject. I think grenade launchers and 50 cal. machine guns and sniper rifles belong in the hands of the military. Although blasting an unsuspecting pumpkin or watermelon with a 50 cal. is fun but rather expensive-$3-5$ per round. So we only cul the heard, we don’t wipe them out.
Gyges,
I was in now way invalidating your opinion, just that it might be different had you been a victim of a violent crime. I’ve had a lot of experience with guns of all sort being that I was in the Marine Corps, but I never saw the need to own one until the indecent I described above.
I stated that I didn’t know whether a gun would have prevented what happened, and as traumatic as it was, in the end I am grateful that nothing worse happened to my wife. Even though the guns presence may not change anything, it does make my wife and I feel more safe.
PSA:
dont keep the pistol under your pillow.
http://www.gunguys.com/?p=2234
I’ve stated many times that I do believe that the people have the right to bear arms, even though I’ve never owned a gun and/or rifle, except for a Daisy. However, those who feel it gives them protection from attack are perhaps too optimistic in their belief.
The problem with having a gun and being confronted with a criminal is that of drawing it in the first place. Sure you can learn to quick draw, even from a shoulder holster, but then you run the risk of shooting someone who intended no harm. If you don’t draw quickly, however, you may find yourself looking down a seemingly huge barrel, as happened to me one day trying to prevent a subway mugging of an old man. Now you can get around this scenario by walking around with your gun in your hand, but I doubt that’s a good solution.
Now in the home invasion situation it is a different matter.
However, there to many people are confronted while asleep in bed,
so the gun under the pillow might not help. While it may help one to feel better, it probably won’t save yo in too many instances. For me, not owning a weapon doesn’t mean that I have gone over in my minds ways to protect myself indifferent scenarios, I’m far too paranoid to not have done and keep doing it. I just think the gun would protect me very much and I know from target experience I’m a pretty good shot. There are other, safer ways, but if having one around gives you peace more power to you, but perhaps you should explore why are so afraid. I spent many years walking alone in some of the highest crime areas of NYC and except for that subway incident, in a gentrified area, I’ve never had to use any self defense.
Chris,
I have a sleeping disorder. Every so often (the frequency depends on a few factors), I wake up unable to move. The majority of the time that this happens, something horrible is happening right outside my field of vision. Alien abductions, the rape and murder of my wife, that sort of thing.
Well that’s what I experience anyway, what actually happens is that my wiring is a little mixed up, and sometimes my system doesn’t boot up in the right order. It’s called Sleep paralysis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis#Symptoms_and_characteristics
Now, what does any of that have to do with gun ownership? Well, it goes a long way toward explaining why I distrust anecdotes, and why I’m going to just say “my having experienced a violent crime in no way effects the validity of my position.” Reality in no way hinges on what has or hasn’t happened to you or me. There are always outliers, and feeling more secure doesn’t mean you are more secure.
If KV is right, and guns are the great equalizer, there will be data that proves it. Lord knows, there have been enough studies. All I’m asking is that he provides some. So far, he’s misrepresented one study (and then when he got called on it says “oh well it doesn’t matter anyway), and told me a story about something that happened to his friend.
rcampbell,
There are many reasons to own and use firearms. Self defense is only one of them.
Apparently you didn’t see this in my other comment: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/01/12/683055/-Gun-Used-Wisely-(or-It-does-happen-in-small-towns-too)?showAll=yes
I’ve not been a driver in a car accident that requires a seatbelt. Yet I still wear mine.