GLASNOST
Gold Member
I appreciate your thought on the matter, but let's face it "prone to violence" is a diagnosis after the fact. Providing violent stimulation through deadly-oriented toys cannot be a good thing for anyone - compounded by all of the variables you mention.Sorry, i overlooked your reply.I don't care how many children you have or if you are a developmental psychologist. I have 4 children, 3 of which are boys. I am not a psychologist but I do know that if you extend your statement to mean that playing with guns (weapons) does not affect the developing mind, then your professional worth is questionable.I have 2 grown kids, and I'm a developmental psychologist.
Police toys are NOT a problem.
If there's a problem, it's the way the parents raise their kids relative to their kid's age/understanding and the kid's temperament & motivations.
If you look at "play time with toy guns/weapons" as a single independent variable against "prone to violence" as a dependent variable, and you control for other factors (personality/temperament, parent influence, peers, cultural environment), i strongly doubt you will see a high correlation.
I myself played with toy/bb guns in my youth, and my son played violent/war video games in addition to toy guns/rifle, and neither of us would hurt any animal, let alone a human (other than self defense).
Intelligence & empathy have a LOT to do with that correlation.
As well as the environmental factors you mentioned in a previous post.
Why is it that we don't allow children to swear, but as adults we often swear as long as it's out of earshot of children? Deadly weapons (and similar, design-stimulating objects) ought to be treated in the same manner. And that brings right back to the (your) original starting point: the developing mind. We do know that sex and preference in the opposite (or even same) sex can often be traced back to that very stage in a child's life. Should we ignore all of that knowledge when it comes to other characteristics? But I suppose this is where we will never come to an agreement because I suspect that we are at opposite poles on what we consider the fundamental importance (and usage) of weapons.