Hamish Macdonell: Toy pistols and Action Man dolls are not going to create a generation of gun-obsessives

Published on Monday 6 April 2009 21:42

OUR five-year-old son has a voice that can carry the length of the country's biggest supermarkets. He demonstrated this perfectly the other day when he saw one of the many publicity stands promoting Quantum of Solace on DVD.

"Look, Daddy, James Bond. That's what you want to be," he said, and I swear I could hear laughter rolling down at me all the way from the fish counter beyond aisle 21.

"No, I don't want to 'be' James Bond, I want to 'see' James Bond," I stressed, probably a little too loudly.

Now, if someone had asked me whether I wanted to be James Bond 30 years ago, that would have been very different.

Those were the days when boys could be boys, when they could dream about being action heroes and they had the dolls to prove it: Action Men – those fuzzy-haired, rubber-handed, eagle-eyed yet ever-so-slightly-unsteady military figures.

The original Action Man died out three years ago, a reaction, many in the industry believe, to the decision to move away from uniforms, knives and guns and instead bring in "non-offensive" accessories such as skates, water pistols and snowboards, which really didn't sell very well.

But Action Man is due to return early next month, and it has already proved to be controversial.

The new Action Man figures will come with authentic British military clothing and the whole project is being supported by the Ministry of Defence.

The figures will even come stamped "HM Forces Brand" and be equipped with weapons being used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, this is what Louise Rimmer, from the International Action Network on Small Arms, said about Action Man's latest manifestation: "The problem is they contribute to the idea that guns are normal in our society, and also that they are glamorous and desirable instead of being lethal machines that are designed to kill human beings."

And she added: "So, if you encourage a child to experience guns in this way, you are storing up problems for later when the child is an adolescent, and may well encounter a real firearm. In which case, the consequences can be devastating."

Oh really? I and all my male friends played with Action Men as children and none of us has shown the slightest inclination to grab a gun in later life. Of the friends from back then I still keep track of, one became a banker in London, one is a farmer, one works on the rigs, one studies birds and another is a charity worker in southern Africa.

Also, rather than inspiring me to obsess about guns, the single biggest emotion I can remember from my days with Action Men was envy.

This was particularly directed at the friend who now works on the rigs because he had a scuba diver's suit for his Action Man. This meant he could he put his diver into the small burn that ran down beside our Highland primary school while my Action Men were confined to dry land.

Maybe that helped push him towards a career in the North Sea, I don't know. But if it did, perhaps that wasn't such a bad thing either.

It is easy to see why people like Ms Rimmer have taken issue with this latest Action Man. The thing that really grates for them is the Ministry of Defence's involvement. This has given rise to all sorts of suspicions that somehow the Action Man is being used as a recruiting tool for the armed forces.

Again, this doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Every boy I knew had an Action Man, yet I don't know anybody who progressed from that into joining the forces.

But even if it were true, even in a subliminal way, that the new Action Man will promote a career in the forces, is that really so bad? Even in times of recession, the military has to compete in the market place for new recruits; it has to promote itself.

And is a career that teaches discipline, encourages self-sufficiency and offers training in a host of different skills such a bad idea?

However, my real objection to the doom-mongers who warn that Action Man will spawn a generation of gun-obsessive youngsters is that they seem to be ignoring all the good that toys such as these dolls do.

As the father of two children who probably already watch too much television and have yet to graduate on to video games, I would be delighted for them to take to any toys that actually make them use their imaginations.

Also, if there is a politically correct finger of blame being pointed on this issue, isn't the more worthy target the video games that glorify, not just guns, but shooting, maiming and killing?

Boys like military toys. They have done so since weapons were invented. Boys want to imitate their swashbuckling, male, role-model heroes, whether this means fashioning a sword from a piece of drift wood or playing with an Action Man.

We shouldn't suppress this; we should encourage it. I would much rather my children were outside, running about with toy swords or cap guns than bloating on the sofa, their arteries hardening as they did so.

Our younger son has a scale model of a Typhoon Eurofighter, complete with proper, RAF-sounding voices and spring-loaded missiles that can be fired at his brother. It is terrific and he loves it.

Does it encourage him to use his imagination? Yes. Is it turning him into a gun-obsessed lunatic? No. Will it act as a recruiting agent to get him into the RAF? Almost certainly not, but even if it does, I won't shed any tears – I can think of an awful lot worse for him as a career.

The problem with the hand-wringing and ultra-cautious attitude expressed by people like Ms Rimmer is that they are imposing their angst and fears on to children for whom nothing is really that complicated.

A toy is a toy, and children really do know that.

It is just a pity that more adults don't seem to realise that too.