Do you have kids? I do and my little kids and the friends play with nerf guns all the time. Just stop for a second and think about it, will you? If you don't get it, well, I really don't know about you.
1. So having kids is necessary for one to have an opinion about this? Or at least a possibly valid opinion? Explain why. By the way, I don't accept the "all kids of any age are too stupid to know what to do" (if they see a firearm or be able to distinguish a 'real" firearm from a "disguised" firearm) explanation. I'll accept the "my kids are mentally impaired and incapable of learning such things" explanation, in which case perhaps one oughtn't have any firearms of any kind, including "undisguised" anywhere those kids are.
2. Okay, second's up. Have you had any discussion/training with your "little kids and the friends" about firearms and what to do if they see one unattended by an adult? That would include ways to distinguish a real firearm from a "toy" firearm. That's your responsibility.
Do you think it would be a good idea to cerakote one of your real firearms the same color as your trainer firearm (blue)? Would you cerakote the handle of your real spyderco the same color as your trainer spyderco (blue)?
I don't like blue firearms, so no. I'm not going to tell someone else they "shouldn't" do that, or that they are "stupid" or "dumb" for doing so. But that's where you and I differ. I know, you "don't know about [me]". I can clearly see that. And that there are other things you don't get as well. That's fine.
As gun owners, we all sort of know by social conventions that an ORANGE TIP on the firearm means it's a toy. If I'd have to guess, the gun and the toy industries came up with that convention to help society differentiate between the two. When you see a red traffic sign that say "STOP", everyone knows that it means "STOP". But when you start messing with this socially agreed upon convention and start telling yourself that "Oh, that STOP sign actually means DRIVE 65 MPH!", what do you think would be the result?
Straw man argument. False analogy. Where have you seen the "stop signs" that mean "drive 65 mph"? What did the people do who came upon those signs, including the children? Was someone replacing the ordinary stop signs with the drive fast stop signs? Where? How many? One person did it in one place and it was removed by law enforcement? How many people were actually injured due to the one sign replacement? That's what I thought. You can make any imaginary scenario you want, but don't expect at least some people to buy into it as having anything to do with reality (see: bumpstock/"assault weapons"/standard magazine capacity/stun gun/CCW/etc. bans).
No. I don't believe in any of that at all. What do those even have to do with this?
Do you believe that bumpstocks should be banned because they will be used to kill people? Do you believe that no one but government agents should have handgun magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds because "civilians" will kill people with higher capacity mags? Do you believe that no non-government agents should be allowed to bear arms outside their home for the purpose of self-defense because it will turn Hawaii into the Wild West?
Because all those things are things, just like the "disguised" firearm, that a (large?) segment of the population believe are evil/dumb/stupid because they cause horrible violence to be reigned upon innocent people. At least there they have an argument based upon a (skewed) statistical analysis. What is the database of children using "disguised" guns, compared to children using "real" guns to cause harm? And what's the solution to children causing harm with undisguised guns? Banning guns, as some suggest? Ever thought about teaching children to "never point a gun at anything you don't want to destroy"? I know, where's the fun in that? It violates every principle of "kids should be able to have fun" ever conceived. When you do training with your toy blue gun, do you follow the rules of gun safety or not? I mean, it can't possibly hurt anyone or anything, right?
Boy, that's quite a narrow thought. The key point of this topic is this... being able to correctly identify if something is a real firearm or a toy one. When my child is outside playing with his toy guns, I make sure he isn't playing with anything without an orange tip or something that is obviously painted to look like a toy. I don't want a cop to shoot him mistakenly thinking he had a real firearm. On the counter-side, it will only take one bad guy or some stupid shithead using one of this to kill a cop, for cops to get quick on the trigger on kids playing with nerf guns. And of course, this makes the job of LEOs AND responsible adult gun owners just that more difficult.
I believe we're discussing one gun that was confiscated by the cops and there's no evidence it ever presented any threat to a child, right? Or do you have evidence that this is a common occurrence? We're back to the danger of bumpstocks/standard capacity magazines/public CCW: Is there a "real" problem or only one in the imaginations of people who are either ignorant or know their claims to be false but have an agenda? If someone wants to modify their firearm in some way that I or other people wouldn't ourselves choose to do, that's their business... as are the consequences of having done so. Is it my business to tell them they "shouldn't" or that they are dumb/stupid/evil for doing so? I don't think so. But if you do, that's your business... but I don't see how you can complain when people tell you that you can't have a bumpstock or a standard capacity magazine or may not bear arms in public for self defense. I mean, you
can complain, but you will be inconsistent in your conceptual principles. And of course you are free to be inconsistent. Go right ahead.