The author seeks to address the worrying issue of whether toy guns are harmful to the development of a child. He avoids scholarly jargons and includes a great deal of personal anecdotes in a systemic approach as he effectively dispels the notion that parents should deprive their child of this freedom to play with toy guns. Contrary to the view that most “zero-tolerance” parents have, the author advocates parents to give children the freedom to choose the toys they play with, as long as parents step in with “strict guidelines”. I agree that the author has effectively convinced many of his argument that children should have the liberty to choose, especially toy guns. However, the argument has several limitations, primarily due to the biased selection of evidence that solely supports his argument.
To contend his claim that children should be allowed to play with toy guns, the author portrays himself as a cautious father who is extremely mindful of the development of his children. The fact that he “(frets) over every detail and danger of child rearing” and confesses to being an “overly obsessive and doting parent”, implies that he is a paranoid parent. This allows parents who are wary of the negative effects that toys can have on their children to relate to him. With that, they are more likely to be convinced of the author’s argument to be a “gun-tolerant” parent. In addition, he questions the underlying assumption that toy guns are regarded as objects that “(encourage) aggressive behavior”, and highlights the danger that children who are restricted from playing with toy guns might become more violent. In the case of the author’s children, “the boys had commandeered the celery from the refrigerator to finish their epic battle” when his wife had removed all the swords. Through this, the author suggests that it might be detrimental for parents to restrict their children from playing with toy guns. This further reinstates his claim that playing with toy guns is not...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document