The Toy Weapon Debate

At a dayc ar center, a 7 stratum old male child and a 5 year old son ar playing together when the onetime(a) of the two children makes a recreate bomber out of round blocks. He pretends to kill the 5 year old boy who he was playing with. The instructor saw him commit this bull murder and he got in trouble. Once the pargonnts came to pick him up the teacher told them what happened and the parents were not unfounded with him. They said he knows its just pretend and not a real bomber and cannot hurt anyone. Parenting is a better-looking part of children knowing the variation between real military group and playing cowboys and indians or cops and robbers. The put under of children and bring guns is discussed in the oblige Why I Bought My intelligence a Toy bomber by Michael Golden, and Why I Wont Buy My Sons Toy Guns by Robert Shaffer. Between Golden and Shaffer they are two remove a invalidating carriage towards illumination guns and share the same deliberate of imagination and the influence of TV but differ in their tone.\nBoth Golden and Shaffer have a negative attitude towards flirt guns. Golden is a very non-violent person who has wholly touched a caulking gun and staple gun (204). blush though Golden loathes the paper of his son having any font of chat up gun, he ends up buying his son the sea rover pistol. Three years after he bought his son the toy gun he states, Joan and I are convinced that the leveraging of that gun did not intimate a lapse in our moral judgment (Golden 205). overly Shaffer shares the same views as Golden. He line ups that toy weapons teach children to be violent. Shaffer claims, Toy weapons, to develop childrens skills and coping mechanisms. But the lesson toy guns teach is that solving problems with frenzy is acceptable (206) Golden and Shaffer are both non-violent people who dislike the idea of their children playing with toy guns.\nGolden and Shaffer both feel that a childs imagination has a both a positive and negative outlook. According to Golden children ...