Now who thought this was a good idea?

http://digitaledition.pilotonline.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=b2819727-9f7f-42e7-8da6-74fa63b99cb3

We have already had tragedies of too realistic toy guns. We also have needless deaths from children playing with real guns.

So now we had the manufacturing of a real gun make to look like a Lego toy. I understand we are a bit gun crazy but I now think we might just be crazy.

17 thoughts on “Now who thought this was a good idea?

  1. This is a colossally stupid idea and I don’t think you will find any group more outraged than the 2nd Amendment Lobby.

    Guns should be identifiable as guns and toys should be obviously toys. Never the twain should meet.

    The NRA was a big supporter of the requirement that toy guns have the orange muzzle extension, but the first thing kids do when they get one is to look for a black Marks-a-lot.

    Parents have to parent.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. A small orange muzzle extension is ludicrous on its own. Police often can’t tell the difference between a cell phone and a pistol, a bit of orange on a realistic looking gun is beyond stupid.

      Sorry, but the idea of giving children very realistic toy guns in today’s society where guns are worshiped and police are jumpy is kinda stupid.

      True, when I grew up I had 6 shooter cap pistols, but then we had not fully saturated the streets with firearms.

      Why not make fake needles so children can play “addict”.

      Yes parenting is critical. So lets make wages high enough to keep one of them home. Or in single parent household, high enough to not need 2 or 3 jobs to pay rent.

      Family friendly is more than just a bumper sticker.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Nope, it really isn’t anything more than a bumper sticker.

        Any policy that mandates wages exceeding wealth creation is doomed to fail. The books gotta balance. I know accuracy in math is racist now, but it is what it is.

        That orange extender on the toy gun might not be a perfect defense but it is a hell of a lot better than nothing, and parents who allow their children to override that safety precaution might as well paint a target on the kid.

        Like

        1. “I know accuracy in math is racist now, but it is what it is.”

          Why do you immediately bring out the racism victim card?
          Len was talking about ALL families but you jump to black families?

          By the way, the books balance just fine if the CEO makes “only” 100x of the average worker instead of say 300x as is the case today.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. If a man can make 2 widgets a day with ordinary tools, and an investor provides a machine that lets him make 20 widgets a day, to whom do the extra 18 widgets belong?

            Like

          2. Depends upon the deal between the investor and the business owner. Is there a buyout on the machine after an agreed amount of time?

            Is there an exclusive on the machine? Or can the owner comparison shop? Is tha machine available to the competition?

            Does the owner have a choice or is it part of a hostile buyout?

            Can the owner afford a lawsuit from others promised the machine?

            Point being that modern capitalism is fraught with business factors other than simple free market pressures.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. Note that in none of your needless complications is any of the increased production owned by the worker.

            Complications aside, the increased production belongs to the owner, or investor. It is his part to negotiate salary for workers and administrators. That negotiation will be based on supply and demand. The skill required to operate the machine will play a part as will the skill involved in managing the company.

            Like

          4. ” The skill required to operate the machine will play a part as will the skill involved in managing the company.”

            Two different skill sets. Which one is more important: The skill to operate the machinery the manager doesn’t even see in action? Or the manager who sips martini’s with representatives to sell the widgets to?

            Like

          5. And again, supply and demand.

            If a worker can be trained to run the machine in a day, he won’t be able to demand too much. while if the CEO regularly sips martinis with the people who can make the product move, he will be able to demand more.

            We don’t know those details and neither does the government, which is why it is best left to the investor whose money is at risk.

            Like

          6. You mentioned only two parties. The maker of widgets which I assumed to be the owner. The investor who I assume had the machine.

            Workers were not in my equation.

            Confusion reigns supreme.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. As always, you show very little knowledge of real world corporate governance. There is no non-corrupt arms length bargaining behind CEOs getting 300x the pay of their workers. I know from first hand experience. The fix is in. Almost always. The Main Street cobbler, baker or whatever other miniature model you lift from the 19th century does not begin to represent modern corporate reality. IMHO.

            Liked by 2 people

          8. RE: “If a man can make 2 widgets a day with ordinary tools, and an investor provides a machine that lets him make 20 widgets a day, to whom do the extra 18 widgets belong?”

            Excellent question. It shows that worker demands to participate in the owner’s monetary gains are arbitrary and irrelevant. Basically, workers have no claim on suplus value beyond their negotiated employment contract.

            On the other hand, it is generally better for workers to work for profitable employers than unprofitable ones.

            Like

        2. “If a man can make 2 widgets a day with ordinary tools, and an investor provides a machine that lets him make 20 widgets a day, to whom do the extra 18 widgets belong?”

          All 20 belong to the inventor. With a machine that makes widgets, he fires the man who made them by hand, and corners the market.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. RE: “All 20 belong to the inventor.”

            How so? Don’t rights of ownership transfer with the purchase of the machine?

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s