Toaster Pastry Gun Freedom Act proposed in Maryland

[Obamanation]

Yeah, and playing violently should not be allowed. Maybe if we taught children from a young age that guns were bad, people wouldn't go around massacring each other in this country.

In a study of adults who committed violent crimes (including the Virginia Tech killer), it was noted that their childhoods were marked by a lack of play (including violent play). "Play can act as a powerful deterrent, even an antidote to prevent violence. Play is a powerful catalyst for positive socialization", according to psychiatrist Stuart Brown. The Lucy Daniels Center for Early Childhood encourages parents not to suppress aggressive play. "Children turn to play so that they can learn what they need to learn about aggression. We should become concerned about children's relationship to aggression only if they appear to be overly pre-occupied with aggression in their thoughts or actions outside the sphere of play." 60 to 80 percent of boys and 30 percent of girls played with aggressive toys (including toy guns) at home.

TL;DR: studiest have never shown any kind of link between playing with toy weapons in childhood and violence in adulthood, and there may actually be a link between a lack of play and violence.

Spuriously-reasoned study is spuriously reasoned.

All the evidence and all the experts are on one side of the issue. Do you have anything to bring up for the other side?

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

Also provide a link.

...Even if playing as a child reduces the risk of being a sociopath, why would you want to encourage violence in your kids by allowing violent play?

Because allowing violent play leads to less violence, is why. That's the point.

http://www.nifplay.org/whitman.html
http://www.lucydanielscenter.org/page/are-toy-guns-ever-ok
http://www.webmd.com/parenting/features/toy-guns-do-they-lead-real-life-violence

Sorry, but I don't buy those studies.

[Donerail]

Yeah, and playing violently should not be allowed. Maybe if we taught children from a young age that guns were bad, people wouldn't go around massacring each other in this country.

In a study of adults who committed violent crimes (including the Virginia Tech killer), it was noted that their childhoods were marked by a lack of play (including violent play). "Play can act as a powerful deterrent, even an antidote to prevent violence. Play is a powerful catalyst for positive socialization", according to psychiatrist Stuart Brown. The Lucy Daniels Center for Early Childhood encourages parents not to suppress aggressive play. "Children turn to play so that they can learn what they need to learn about aggression. We should become concerned about children's relationship to aggression only if they appear to be overly pre-occupied with aggression in their thoughts or actions outside the sphere of play." 60 to 80 percent of boys and 30 percent of girls played with aggressive toys (including toy guns) at home.

TL;DR: studiest have never shown any kind of link between playing with toy weapons in childhood and violence in adulthood, and there may actually be a link between a lack of play and violence.

Spuriously-reasoned study is spuriously reasoned.

All the evidence and all the experts are on one side of the issue. Do you have anything to bring up for the other side?

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

Also provide a link.

...Even if playing as a child reduces the risk of being a sociopath, why would you want to encourage violence in your kids by allowing violent play?

Because allowing violent play leads to less violence, is why. That's the point.

http://www.nifplay.org/whitman.html
http://www.lucydanielscenter.org/page/are-toy-guns-ever-ok
http://www.webmd.com/parenting/features/toy-guns-do-they-lead-real-life-violence

Sorry, but I don't buy those studies.

Occupation: ballet dancer

I'm assuming you don't have a doctorate in psychology?

[Vosem]

Yeah, and playing violently should not be allowed. Maybe if we taught children from a young age that guns were bad, people wouldn't go around massacring each other in this country.

In a study of adults who committed violent crimes (including the Virginia Tech killer), it was noted that their childhoods were marked by a lack of play (including violent play). "Play can act as a powerful deterrent, even an antidote to prevent violence. Play is a powerful catalyst for positive socialization", according to psychiatrist Stuart Brown. The Lucy Daniels Center for Early Childhood encourages parents not to suppress aggressive play. "Children turn to play so that they can learn what they need to learn about aggression. We should become concerned about children's relationship to aggression only if they appear to be overly pre-occupied with aggression in their thoughts or actions outside the sphere of play." 60 to 80 percent of boys and 30 percent of girls played with aggressive toys (including toy guns) at home.

TL;DR: studiest have never shown any kind of link between playing with toy weapons in childhood and violence in adulthood, and there may actually be a link between a lack of play and violence.

Spuriously-reasoned study is spuriously reasoned.

All the evidence and all the experts are on one side of the issue. Do you have anything to bring up for the other side?

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

Also provide a link.

...Even if playing as a child reduces the risk of being a sociopath, why would you want to encourage violence in your kids by allowing violent play?

Because allowing violent play leads to less violence, is why. That's the point.

http://www.nifplay.org/whitman.html
http://www.lucydanielscenter.org/page/are-toy-guns-ever-ok
http://www.webmd.com/parenting/features/toy-guns-do-they-lead-real-life-violence

Sorry, but I don't buy those studies.

Which, as I think I've noted in another thread, makes you just like the folks who unskewed polls to produce a Romney victory in 2012. You're effectively denying the data that is present to make up your own data to support the point you believe. 'Facts are biased' is your belief, to put it succinctly.

[Obamanation]

Yeah, and playing violently should not be allowed. Maybe if we taught children from a young age that guns were bad, people wouldn't go around massacring each other in this country.

In a study of adults who committed violent crimes (including the Virginia Tech killer), it was noted that their childhoods were marked by a lack of play (including violent play). "Play can act as a powerful deterrent, even an antidote to prevent violence. Play is a powerful catalyst for positive socialization", according to psychiatrist Stuart Brown. The Lucy Daniels Center for Early Childhood encourages parents not to suppress aggressive play. "Children turn to play so that they can learn what they need to learn about aggression. We should become concerned about children's relationship to aggression only if they appear to be overly pre-occupied with aggression in their thoughts or actions outside the sphere of play." 60 to 80 percent of boys and 30 percent of girls played with aggressive toys (including toy guns) at home.

TL;DR: studiest have never shown any kind of link between playing with toy weapons in childhood and violence in adulthood, and there may actually be a link between a lack of play and violence.

Spuriously-reasoned study is spuriously reasoned.

All the evidence and all the experts are on one side of the issue. Do you have anything to bring up for the other side?

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

Also provide a link.

...Even if playing as a child reduces the risk of being a sociopath, why would you want to encourage violence in your kids by allowing violent play?

Because allowing violent play leads to less violence, is why. That's the point.

http://www.nifplay.org/whitman.html
http://www.lucydanielscenter.org/page/are-toy-guns-ever-ok
http://www.webmd.com/parenting/features/toy-guns-do-they-lead-real-life-violence

Sorry, but I don't buy those studies.

Which, as I think I've noted in another thread, makes you just like the folks who unskewed polls to produce a Romney victory in 2012. You're effectively denying the data that is present to make up your own data to support the point you believe. 'Facts are biased' is your belief, to put it succinctly.

I'm not making up data, I'm just skeptical.

[Vosem]

Yeah, and playing violently should not be allowed. Maybe if we taught children from a young age that guns were bad, people wouldn't go around massacring each other in this country.

In a study of adults who committed violent crimes (including the Virginia Tech killer), it was noted that their childhoods were marked by a lack of play (including violent play). "Play can act as a powerful deterrent, even an antidote to prevent violence. Play is a powerful catalyst for positive socialization", according to psychiatrist Stuart Brown. The Lucy Daniels Center for Early Childhood encourages parents not to suppress aggressive play. "Children turn to play so that they can learn what they need to learn about aggression. We should become concerned about children's relationship to aggression only if they appear to be overly pre-occupied with aggression in their thoughts or actions outside the sphere of play." 60 to 80 percent of boys and 30 percent of girls played with aggressive toys (including toy guns) at home.

TL;DR: studiest have never shown any kind of link between playing with toy weapons in childhood and violence in adulthood, and there may actually be a link between a lack of play and violence.

Spuriously-reasoned study is spuriously reasoned.

All the evidence and all the experts are on one side of the issue. Do you have anything to bring up for the other side?

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

Also provide a link.

...Even if playing as a child reduces the risk of being a sociopath, why would you want to encourage violence in your kids by allowing violent play?

Because allowing violent play leads to less violence, is why. That's the point.

http://www.nifplay.org/whitman.html
http://www.lucydanielscenter.org/page/are-toy-guns-ever-ok
http://www.webmd.com/parenting/features/toy-guns-do-they-lead-real-life-violence

Sorry, but I don't buy those studies.

Which, as I think I've noted in another thread, makes you just like the folks who unskewed polls to produce a Romney victory in 2012. You're effectively denying the data that is present to make up your own data to support the point you believe. 'Facts are biased' is your belief, to put it succinctly.

I'm not making up data, I'm just skeptical.

You can be skeptical of one poll/study, but when they all show the same things you're not doing science a favor by remaining skeptical. Certainly, the effect of play on future development could be studied more, but I think certain things -- and what we're discussing is one of them -- have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (This also goes for your beliefs on public opinion about gun control -- SH provided gun control a bump, but the trend, since the 1990s, has been a very fast decrease in support for gun control, part of the general trend towards civil liberties, of which increased support for gay marriage over the same time-frame is also part).

[John Dibble]

The constitution gives me the right to sculpt toaster pastries into gun shaped objects with the first amendment and it gives me the right to bear them with the second. Anyone who doesn't agree is a communist.

[Obamanation]

The constitution gives me the right to sculpt toaster pastries into gun shaped objects with the first amendment and it gives me the right to bear them with the second. Anyone who doesn't agree is a communist.

And...