Should realistic toy guns be banned?

[Chris Rhines]

Nothing should be banned.

- Chris

 

[Autolite]

mete ... "paint real guns to look like toys"?

No need to. They already have real guns that look like toys. I don't recall the make, but I've seen pistols with purple frames and yellow and pink grips. Obviously it must be some type of marketing ploy but the purpose eludes me. It sort of makes any scheme using cosmetics to try and differentiate between a toy gun and a real gun moot ...

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Nope.

 

[Dorian]

Sure. Let's make even more law abiding people into criminals.

 

[GEM]

No - I had many realistic toy guns and I became a respectable member of society.

One thing, I bought my daughter a realistic electric Beretta 92 water gun about 15 years ago. We used to chase each other around the parking lot of our apartment complex in those days, shooting each other. Lucky, I wasn't killed by some vigilante!!

I did hear a presentation by a UK criminologist that they had lots of crimes with replica guns. They want to ban them. Good role model for the RKBA.

 

[saltydog452]

'Ban'..

About a year or so ago, the police in Shreveport/ Bossier City, La. shot a guy who, they said, pointed a gun at them. In fact, they shot him a lot. When commanded to 'drop the gun', he pointed it at them. They responded. The guy was hit a bunch of times.

The 'gun' turned out to be a cell phone.

The point is, that foolish behavior can get you shot just as easily whether or not your using a ball-point pen, a cell phone, a plastic AK, or the real thing.

I was working out of state at the time, so I don't remember how the story finally ended. Maybe a THR member around Bossier Parrish can bring us up to speed on the final outcome.

salty.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

I'm still waiting on some BG to spray paint the end of his gun orange and manage to kill some LEO because the cop thought it was a toy and hesitated just long enough to get killed.

 

[Missourigunner]

Should realistic toy guns be banned

Speaking of Realistic. has anyone looked at the line of CO2, Pellet and BB pistols and Rifles lately? Now there are some realistic looking guns. No I don't thiink we shoulld ban realistic toy guns, just some careful shopping when you buy your child a toy.

 

[cpileri]

should realistic americans be banned?

That is, someone who outwardly looks like he/she could be a real american, but inside actually is not. I say ban them!

Seriously, I had lots of realistic looking toy guns, as well as some totally fake looking ones, as a kid. of course, the neighbors knew the difference and the cops didn't shoot kids for that back then: 'mistaking' a bunch of kids running through the neighborhood yelling 'bang!" "I got you first" "no you didn't" for kids having a real firearm and drawing down on the dangerous gradeshcooler.

C-

 

[Outbacker]

I propose banning dihydrogen monoxide (aka hydrogen hydroxide). Kids are always playing with it and spraying the dangerous chemical (kills more people accidentally than firearms) on random and unsuspecting people all the time.

I agree! There is far too much of this stuff in our environment already!!! Why worry about trivial things like banning toy guns when we are literally bathed in this compound every single day of our lives.

BAN DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE NOW!

The dangers, uses and potential threats posed by this chemical, Dihydrogen Monoxide, are widespread, and some feel, terrifying. Here is just a small taste of what Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is:

* Some call Dihydrogen Monoxide the "Invisible Killer"
* Others think dihydrogen monoxide should be Banned
* Dihydrogen Monoxide is linked to gun violence
* Dihydrogen monoxide was found at every recent school shooting
* Athletes use DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE, or DHMO, to enhance performance
* Dihydrogen Monoxide has been found in our rivers, lakes, oceans and streams
* Dihydrogen Monoxide is a major component of acid rain
* Thousands die each year after inhaling dihydrogen monoxide
* Dihydrogen Monoxide can be deadly

DHMO...

* is also known as hydroxl acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
* contributes to the "greenhouse effect."
* may cause severe burns.
* contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
* accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
* may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
* has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

Despite the danger, Dihydrogen Monoxide is often used:

* as an industrial solvent and coolant.
* in nuclear power plants.
* in the production of styrofoam.
* as a fire retardant.
* in many forms of cruel animal research.
* in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
* as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.

 

[enfield303]

OK, I'll bite

I know I'm gonna regret this, but *** is Dihydrogen Monoxide?

 

[Outbacker]

H20.

Also known as "water".

 

[Hkmp5sd]

- - - -

Date: Friday, April 12, 1996

Source: Mike Royko.

Section: NEWS

Copyright Chicago Tribune

OSHA MANAGES TO KEEP SPIGOT OF PAPERWORK OPEN

Most businessmen aren't fond of the federal agency known as OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

It's OSHA's job to make sure that people have safe working conditions. Which is good.

But businesses say that OSHA's bureaucrats sometimes get carried away and bombard them with silly paperwork.

A small Northwest Side manufacturer recently received a set of instructions from OSHA on how to safely handle a certain type of fluid.

It is known as a MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet), and the owner of the company said: "Thought you might enjoy seeing this. Having dealt recently with the rather overzealous characters at OSHA, it does not surprise me that there is a MSDS for water."

That's right: water, the stuff that comes out of the kitchen faucet, the shower, and flushes down the toilet.

Space doesn't permit me to print the entire OSHA guideline for water. And some of it was such technical gibberish that only the most dedicated water freak could possibly appreciate it.

But here are some of the highlights.

- - -

MSDS for Water

Product name: Water

Formula: H2O

Formula Wt: 18.00

Cas No.: 07732-18-5

Niosh/rtecs No.: ZC0110000

Common Synonyms: Dihydrogen Oxide

Product Codes: 4218,4219

Effective: 05/30/86

Revision 01

Baker Saf-T-Data (TM) System:

Health - 0 None

Flammability - 0 None

Reactivity - 1 Slight

Contact - 0 None

Hazard Ratings are 0 TO 4 (0 = No Hazard; 4 = Extreme Hazard)

Laboratory Protective Equipment: Safety Glasses; Lab Coat

Storage: Keep in tightly closed container

Physical Data:

Boiling Point: 100 C (212 F)

Vapor Pressure(MM HG): 17.5

Melting Point: 0 C (32 F)

Vapor Density (Air=1): N/A

Specific Gravity: 1.00

Evaporation Rate: N/A

Appearance & Odor: Odorless, clear colorless liquid

Fire and Explosion Hazard Data: Flash Point (Closed Cup) N/A

Flammable Limits: Upper - N/A; Lower - N/A

Fire Extinguishing Media: Use extinguishing media appropriate for surrounding fire.

Health Hazard Data:

Effects of Overexposure: No effects of overexposure were documented.

Target Organs: None Identified

Medical conditions generally aggravated by exposure: None identified

Reactivity Data:

Stability: Stable

Hazardous Polymerization: Will not occur

Conditions to Avoid: None documented

Spill and Disposal Procedures: Dispose in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local environmental regulations.

Respiratory Protection: None Required

Special Precautions: Keep container tightly closed. Suitable for any general chemical storage area.

Water is considered a non-regulated product, but may react vigorously with some specific materials. Avoid contact with all materials until investigation shows substance is compatible. Protect from freezing.

- - -


There was much more, twice as long, including information on how to transport water. You simply transport it, as any restaurant bus boy could tell them, although the bureaucrats made it sound like a major project.

But I have noticed a few flaws in OSHA's guidelines.

For example, under Health Hazard Data, the bureaucrats said: "Effects of Overexposure: No effects of overexposure were documented."

Well, these bureaucrats must lead sheltered lives. Obviously, they've never been around when the cops pull what is known as a "floater" out of the Chicago River or Lake Michigan.

A floater is someone who jumped, was pushed or stumbled into the water and was "overexposed" for a few hours, days or weeks. I've seen it, and the effects of "overexposure" are not something you want to chat about over breakfast.

And the bureaucrats also said: "Conditions to Avoid: None documented."

Nonsense. Among the conditions to avoid are these: Don't make the potentially deadly mistake of stepping into a cold shower when you expect the water to be warm.

And you don't mix water with gin, vodka, rum, beer, wine and many other beverages, although it's permissible and even advisable with bourbon, scotch, or (this is open to debate) fine Irish whiskey.

The owner of that small company also said: "We have even received MSDS' for `Hand Cleaner' used in our shop."

See? There was a time when people knew how to use soap and water to wash their hands when they went to the washroom.

Now the federal government gives us guidelines.

We've come a long way, booby.

----------

Keywords: FEDERAL AGENCY

Document ID: S610312c

===============================================================

Date: Thursday, April 25, 1996

Source: Mike Royko.

Section: NEWS

Copyright Chicago Tribune

BLAMING BUREAUCRATS FOR SILLY DOCUMENT DOESN'T HOLD WATER

The federal officials at the Occupald me it was legitimate.

So I did a column about it, because it struck me as being kind of silly for a federal agency to be telling people about what water can and can't do.

A few days later, I got a call from a spokesperson for OSHA who said: "OSHA does not issue MSDS's for water. There is no such thing as an MSDS for water.

"We can understand people spoofing OSHA. We've had a whole year of this. When we deserve it, we deserve it, but here we don't. It goes against what OSHA stands for.

"Yes, there have been situations where overzealous OSHA inspectors have said someone needs an MSDS when they don't and a citation is issued, but they are extremely rare, given the tens of thousands of inspections we do."

I checked back with the businessman who had given me the MSDS, and I realized that I had goofed. From what he had said originally, I had assumed that he had received the MSDS from OSHA.

But it turned out he hadn't. Instead, he had been browsing through a university database that contains a voluminous listing of MSDS documents. And he had come across the one for water. So he got a copy of it and decided to pass it along to me.

"So I've been duped by a spoof," I said.

"No," he said, "I know an MSDS when I see one, and this one is legitimate."

So I started trying to track down the source of the water MSDS. But before I finished, there was another call from the OSHA spokesperson.

"Yes, the MSDS for water does exist. A company in New Jersey did an MSDS for every substance under the sun. We aren't the people who devised it. A lot of consultants advise companies on making MSDS's, telling them they need them for everything known to man. They make a lot of money doing that."

Then the spokesperson said that as a result of my column, some congressmen had just introduced a whimsical amendment withholding funds for any MSDS's on water, and the spokesperson bemoaned the anti-bureaucratic raps that OSHA endures.

"When this Congress started out, they were saying all sorts of things, like we killed the tooth fairy because we wouldn't let dentists give patients back their extracted teeth. Or that we think sand is poison. Or that we think chalk is poison. It has been endless.

"The standard that OSHA has is that if someone works with hazardous material, he has the right to know what is in it and the potential side effects. I talked about the consultants, but society is so lawsuit happy that manufacturers include (the MSDS's) with all substances to protect themselves.

"I've heard of MSDS's for bricks and that OSHA thought bricks and sand were poison and that we required them for lumber.

"Lumber in another form can be hazardous--wood dust can be hazardous if you breathe it. If you use sand for blasting, it becomes so fine that it can cause silicosis, which is cancer. But they said we think beaches are hazardous.

"It's a question of which criticism OSHA deserves and what we don't deserve."

Which is only fair, and in this case, OSHA didn't deserve the criticism and I apologize for my carelessness.

As for the water MSDS, a spokesman for the New Jersey firm that created it said:

"We're not the only company that has one of these on file. No, OSHA doesn't require an MSDS for water. But some customers want everything coming into their plants to have an MSDS. They want every last thing documented. "To meet that requirement, we make the MSDS, and we developed an MSDS for water.

"It gets to be a point where you say, `If that's what you want as a customer, we will do it for you.' "

So although OSHA wasn't at fault, the fact that some businesses actually pay consultants to create documents on the uses of water just shows how nervous the government and its regulations have made them.

Oh, well, I guess it creates employment. If you are a consultant.

http://www.loganact.com/tips/royko.htm

 

[Warren]

First: My friends and I played with toy guns when we were young. We came up with rules, not many but enough to make it interesting, and we called our game "Guns".

We were all over peoples' yards running through shubbery, running down the street hiding behind walls and cars and never once had a problem.

These days a group of kids does that and cops would be swarming the place. It is too bad.


Second: I don't let my girls have realistic looking toy guns, though colorful dart guns or water guns are fine. The reason is that the only realistic guns I want my kids handling are REAL guns. I let them handle unloaded firearms whenever they ask. In fact the other day my youngest wanted to see if she could field strip my P220.

Toy guns IMO trivialize gun safety and handling. I may buy pellet guns in the future for them to practice with but I see no upside in toy guns.


Third: I have no interest in prohibition and that includes realistic toy guns.

 

[4RHeritage]

Education is key

Kids shouldn't play with toy guns. Kids should be taught that guns are not toys. Kids should be taught to respect guns. Kids should be taught the safe handling of REAL guns.

These measures should be a mandatory part of every childs upbringing.

So yes, all toy guns should be banned, as they send the wrong message about guns to kids.

 

[sm]

Hell No.

I propose we spray paint the whiners who want everything "banned" to fix what they percieve to be "ills of society"....how about yellow-bellied YELLOW ?

At least we could better ID them when educating folks about their kind.

 

[OF]

I have a question for those with kids (we don't...yet): When I was a kid, we played with toy guns alot. Pretty much constantly. But I don't remember ever having a problem with repecting real firearms or telling the difference between them and the toys.

Do people have experience with children who have been shown the difference between a real weapon and a toy who then have trouble around real firearms, confusing them with toys or having their 'playtime' habits transfer over into a lack of respect for the real guns?

- Gabe