My son is a freshman in high school and has recently become obsessed with Nerf and airsoft guns. He wants to upgrade his arsenal with a new “rifle” for $250. I’m a pacifist and am horrified by his love of playing war with his friends in the neighborhood while there are two actual wars going on in Gaza and Ukraine, not to mention the threat of mass shootings at schools and elsewhere. Also, the pew-pew-pew that might seem cute in a little kid wielding a neon orange toy gun is very different in an almost-6-foot male wearing camo and eye protection and putting orange tape on the muzzle of the rifle to keep it from looking like a real weapon.
At the same time, this game-playing has gotten him and the neighborhood kids outdoors, which, given the lure of screen time and the isolating effects of the pandemic, feels like a gift. He is also creative and makes holsters and other things to give to his friends for the holidays, so there’s definitely an element of love and skill to his interest in these types of guns.
But the symbolism and his incessant requests that we bankroll a bigger, faster, more expensive version of these “rifles” is making me sick. I don’t know how to handle it. I have talked to him about wars and mass shootings and what these guns mean to me and other people in society. But I’m his mom, and as a teenager, he especially doesn’t want to listen to me. He says he understands, but then only days later, he is showing me a listing for the new model he wants for Christmas. (He enlisted the help of a friend to buy him his first toy rifle because he was too afraid to ask me.)
I really don’t want to encourage this type of role-playing, but how do I keep him outdoors and around kids he loves? I feel as if I’m walking a fine line between enabling a love of violence and overreacting. I wish he could be obsessed with something innocuous like hiking or origami. — Barb
From the Ethicist:
Secular culture, like religious culture, has its totems and taboos. For all of us, objects — a crucifix, a wedding ring, a sports car — take on meanings beyond their physical reality. So it makes sense that, for you, toy guns symbolize the harms you associate with real guns: the desire to exert control over others through intimidation or lethal force, the prospect of injury and death.
That’s not to say that there aren’t any risks associated with these toys in themselves. For one thing, their projectiles — even the softer, slower Nerf ones — can damage your eyes if you are hit and aren’t wearing protective glasses. There’s also the risk that these toys can be mistaken for real weapons. Though look-alikes are required to have an orange tip, that measure may not suffice, and replicas are banned in some jurisdictions. In 2016, two years after a police officer killed Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old boy who was playing with an airsoft replica handgun, a Washington Post analysis found that 43 people with toy guns were killed by the police in the previous year. Forty-three people a year is, of course, 43 too many. But given that millions of people use toy guns (Nerf said it sold 40 million blasters in 2020), and given that your son, with his eye protection, seems to be safety-conscious, his being physically injured by his war games probably shouldn’t be high on your list of things to worry about.
Then there’s the concern that these activities enable “a love of violence,” as you say. I won’t try to summarize the literature on whether playing violent games, either onscreen or in real life, encourages violent behavior. This is a much-disputed question. We know that in the years after young people started playing violent video games, rates of actual youth violence dropped; in Japan, where, granted, it’s difficult to own a gun, actual gun violence is extremely rare, and kids routinely play war games with toy guns. So it’s hard to draw a straight line between play violence and actual bloodshed.
Most teenagers, like most adults, do seem able to distinguish between make-believe and real life. Playing a killer doesn’t incline you to become one. A good thing, too. A nephew of mine is an actor, and often enough, when I catch him on TV, he’s holding a weapon or facing down one. (He seems a gentle soul off set.) If you did somehow get your son to stop these outdoor pursuits, I bet he would be devoting that time to first-person-shooter games, and this wouldn’t have the advantages of building local friendships in the open air.
Which brings us back to those totems and taboos. Part of what is at stake in your conflict with your son is, as you say, symbolism: Guns are at the center of the great partisan divide in our society. The Second Amendment has become a shibboleth of conservatives, just as gun control is a shibboleth of progressives. Our country has many more guns than people, with ownership concentrated in the hands of about a third of the population. Rational discussion of how to mitigate the dangers of all those firearms has been difficult.
As this political battle rages, I hope you’ll continue to stand up for your values and continue to explain your views about violence and warfare. Nor should you feel obliged to buy merchandise that fills you with abhorrence. But just as your son’s feelings about real guns are unlikely to be determined by his feelings about fake ones, your feelings about fake guns needn’t be shaped by your feelings about real ones.
Readers Respond
Last week’s question was from a reader who had question about expectations of public educators. This person wrote: “One of our friends is a principal at a charter high school for underprivileged kids. My youngest son goes to public school with a wonderful principal. Between the two principals, they have five children. All five of these children go to private high school. I have never asked the principals to explain their reasoning, but it seems hypocritical. It’s fine for them to work there, but not fine enough to send their children there?”
In his response, the Ethicist noted: “I can see why their choices raise awkward questions. But don’t assume it’s a vote of no confidence in public education. There can be all sorts of reasons that they think the specific schools their kids are attending are a better fit for them, and you’re not acquainted with the particular circumstances, priorities and needs within each family. … If you’re curious, though, why not ask? As school leaders, they won’t be surprised to be questioned about their choices. There’s a broader conversation to be had, of course, about the resource gap between public and private schools. But people who help run public schools don’t lose their rights as parents to make the decisions they believe are best for their children.” (Reread the full question and answer here.)
⬥
I think it is morally wrong for public school employees to send their children to private schools. Without the existence of private schools, public schools in major cities would be so much better funded. If politicians worldwide did not have access to private education for their children, imagine how much more funding we would see in public schools, and institutions in general. — Kate
⬥
I strongly agree with the Ethicist’s assertion that “people who help run public schools don’t lose their rights as parents to make the decisions they believe are best for their children.” While I understand the letter writer’s concern that public school principals send their kids to private schools, the principals’ primary duty is to their children, whose needs may not be met, even in the best public schools. It’s reasonable that parents may want their children to attend schools with a particular philosophy (e.g. Montessori or Waldorf) that isn’t offered in public schools. It’s also possible that their kids require learning support or specialists that private schools are more equipped to offer. Or it may simply be that the principals recognize that it will take time to improve the public schools where they serve, and are committed to ensuring their children receive a quality education now. While it may be unfair that these choices are not available to all, not all public schools are created equal either. I know a parent who lives in an affluent suburb where her children enjoy the excellent public schools, yet she chooses to work as a principal in an under-resourced public school in the city. I would rather commend her efforts to improve a less successful school than criticize her choice to send her children to a school that is already successful. — Amy
⬥
As a public school principal who is making the very fraught choice to send my oldest to a private high school next year, I appreciate your answer. I do feel like a hypocrite! I am a firm believer in public education and have spent my career helping students grow and succeed. That said, I have been very open with my staff about why my daughter will no longer be attending our school, and those that have taught her understand the choice. I would welcome the same discussion with any parent! — Freya
⬥
If principals wish to send their children to private schools, it’s their business. For what it’s worth, Thurgood Marshall, architect of the Brown v. Board of Education case which outlawed segregated public schools, sent his children to the private Dalton School rather than the public schools in Harlem near their home. When asked why his children were enrolled at Dalton, Marshall replied, “I think they should have the best education I can afford.” — John
⬥
As a retired teacher I feel qualified to weigh in. I made the decision to work on the front lines, in a high poverty school, as an adult. My daughter didn’t need to be subjected to the daily traumas that can, but certainly don’t always, occur in schools with high needs. This was my life’s work. I also wanted to make sure that her needs were met. They wouldn’t have been in the schools where I taught. I gave my students and my daughter the best resources I could possibly afford them. — Teresa
The post I’m Horrified by My Kid’s Obsession With Toy Guns. What to Do? appeared first on New York Times.