Traditional playground games such as cowboys and Indians in the heart of America's old wild west are facing high noon after a proposal to outlaw toy guns.
Alarmed by rising gun crime in Dallas, named the most dangerous city in America by the FBI, and by shootings nationwide by police of offenders carrying toy weapons, councillors have advanced a plan to ban replica firearms.
But some see the measure as a "criminalisation of nostalgia" in a city where guns and popular culture are inextricably linked, from the pistol-packing six-shooters in Texas-themed spaghetti westerns of old to one of the greatest television cliffhangers - who shot JR in the 1980s series Dallas?
Traditional playground games such as cowboys and Indians in the heart of America's old wild west are facing high noon after a proposal to outlaw toy guns.
"It's a loss of innocence and very sad," said Mike Belden, 57, manager of the Collectible Trains and Toys shop in Dallas. "My generation grew up on a steady diet of TV westerns and everybody wanted to be the cowboy. A toy gun was just part of the costume. If you wanted to be Superman, you had to have a cape, and if you were playing cowboys, the pistol was essential. And westerns taught us lessons. The good guys always won, the bad guys always lost and it was easy to tell who was who."
Others point to the "hypocrisy" of politicians wanting to ban toy weapons while continuing to use gun culture to market the city. Baseball caps and T-shirts bearing the slogan "Shoot JR in Dallas" were sold to try to persuade Hollywood producers to film the forthcoming Dallas movie remake there.
Despite a recent drop, murders in Dallas still run at four times the US average and its overall crime rate has been highest in the country for cities with a population of more than 1 million for eight successive years, according to the FBI.
The council will vote on the proposal from its public safety committee this month. If it is passed, Dallas would become the second city in America, after New York, with such stringent laws about the sale and possession of toy guns. Replicas painted in bright colours or made of translucent material to help distinguish them from real guns would be exempt.
"I would have liked to see the city absolutely outlaw replica guns, but to get anything progressive done in this part of the country is significant," Rev Peter Johnson, a community activist and supporter of the ban, told the Dallas Morning News.
He said an anonymous donor had offered to buy all the toy guns still on sale in Dallas shops to ensure that small business owners would not suffer financially.
But Mr Belden said shops have not carried realistic replicas for years and that the true victims will be collectors no longer able to trade in valuable cowboy-era nostalgia.
"Most of the stuff we see comes from people's attics and is pretty beat-up but every now and then you'll come across something in good condition, such as a Hopalong Cassidy in its box," he said.
Replicas painted in bright colours or made of translucent material to help distinguish them from real guns would be exempt.So, what's the problem? I think it is fair to ban real looking replicas, especially in cities of high crime rates. Of course it would be for the best to ban real guns as well, but americans won't go that far.
Replicas painted in bright colours or made of translucent material to help distinguish them from real guns would be exempt.So, what's the problem? I think it is fair to ban real looking replicas, especially in cities of high crime rates. Of course it would be for the best to ban real guns as well, but americans won't go that far.
Crikey. They really are going to introduce the 'Guns for Toys' programme, aren't they?Uh-oh, spaghettio!
If someone wants to get hold of a replica for illegal purposes, he can only blame himself for getting shot by cops or whatever.
...an anonymous donor had offered to buy all the toy guns still on sale in Dallas shops to ensure that small business owners would not suffer financially.Ok. Thoughtful. But what the hell would someone do with thousands of toys? Oh I know! It's got to be Santa! I'm finally gettin' me that .357 I always wanted. :)
I don't live in the 'States, but I agree with the above.
I just know people are going to try to pick holes in the argument that banning guns only takes them away from lawful owners. I note that Liberals especially claim that 'it makes it harder for criminals to acquire them' (at least, they say that here in the UK).
What it comes down to is this: who are you going to rely in for protection? Yourself, or the government? And do you really think the Authorities have time to hunt down every criminal? Of course not. The only way to deter the buggers is to raise (markedly) the probability that death is an immediate consequence of a crime. And that means arming the law-abiding majority.
RE sweet smokes, we had them down my way too, I bought them when i was no more than seven IIRC. And like any idiot seven year olds, my mates and i ate themIt was to prepare you for when you were old enough to smoke (or get hold of them), by that time you wouldn't know any better and would want a cigarette just because you used to have them.Spoiler:(they were just smoke shaped cheap nasty chocolate)with the paper still on....... :rolleyes:
I remember trying 'smoking' at a friends sleepover in primary 5 or 6. Thankfully, we smoked rolled up pieces of newspaper lit by the fire, which was enough to put any sane individual off for life.
In many cases, home gun ownership leads to accidental deaths or the gun being turned on the owner; both of which are IIRC more statistically likely than succesful use for defense.
*mostly proven to be tosh here*
In many cases, home gun ownership leads to accidental deaths or the gun being turned on the owner; both of which are IIRC more statistically likely than succesful use for defense...
The point I was making is that regardless of where you stand on the gun control argument this is a pretty stupid idea.Sorry about getting it somewhat off topic, and I agree, this is absolutly a stupid idea. Ranks right up there with "Clunker" laws.
Forty per cent of American households own guns, but those guns are 22 times more likely to be involved in an accidental shooting, or 11 times more likely to be used in a suicide, than in self-defence.
ME!(http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,35984.0.html)
I mean, I know in the US they've had a fair number of studies that have said privately owned guns are predominately used in familiar violence (accidental shootings of family members, suicide, murder of family). They found that the people arrested for non-traffic offenses were more likely to own weapons (37% versus 25% of general population, that the vast majority of purchased handguns had magazines of over 10 bullets (37% to 14%), and that 32% of all felons obtained weapons by stealing legally held guns (over 500,000 weapons in total).
Of course, you are far more likely (by about 5 times) to be killed in the commision of a robbery by a criminal armed with a gun, than one armed with a knife.
Additionally, a study on 743 gunshot deaths (Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48) found 84% occured due to altercations in the home, and of these only 2 were of an intruder, with only 9 found in court to be justified. The FBIs 1994-95 release of crime statistics revealed 24,526 murders, 13,980 with handguns, and only 251 of which were found to be justifiable homicide.
Research by Dr. Arthur Kellerman ("Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," The New England Journal of Medicine, October 7, 1993, pp. 1084-1091) identified that owning a gun carries a risk of murder in the home 2.7 times greater than not owning a gun.
Obviously this is all US figures, but english language details on Brazils' situation seem hard to come by. Nonetheless, I'd suggest a correlation.
(from later post in thread)
Another little statistic I remember; in America, 56% of gun owners have had some form of formal (military, police, NRA, etc) training. Yet this group were no more likely to store a gun safely (unloaded, locked away) than those without training (Hemenway, D., S.J. Solnick, and D. Azrael,
"Firearm Training and Storage," Journal of the
American Medical Association, 273(1):46-50, 1995*). This is especially true for handguns; which, of course, due to their size are more likely to be bought for 'self defense'.
*unfortunately, I've been unable to access beyond the abstract (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/273/1/46). I've seen a secondary citation that the most likely group to have an unsecured firearm are those who have bought it for self-defense, own a handgun, and have received formal training. This was a survey of 800 owners, 20% of whom kept a firearm unlocked and loaded at home. Bearing in mind that the majority of Americans bought a firearm for the purposes of recreation (i.e. hunting; so likely a rifle/shotgun); 46% buy it for self defense. Given that a handgun is primarily a self-defense weapon (rapid fire, concealable, somewhat inaccurate), it would seem to make sense that the 20% are primarily of this group.
....and another jump
What I did (just) find;
Apparently, a report by the government of the state of Rio de Janiero found that 72% of guns used in crime were once legally owned; specifically that 78% of armed theft, 67% of rapes at gunpoint, 58% of gun homicides and 32% of kidnappings at gunpoint used legally registered (at one point) guns.
I've also read a disarmament (guns for money) campaign last year led to the first drop in shooting deaths (by 8%) for the first time in 13 years.