'SUPER FUN': A gun covered in Legos to look like a toy sets off a furor

[mahatmakanejeeves]

I generally shy away from threads about gun control and the RKBA, but I'm having a hard time seeing how this could turn out well. If nothing else, Lego might take offense at what looks to me like an infringement of their trademark.

Social Issues

‘SUPER FUN’: A gun covered in Legos to look like a toy sets off a furor



This Glock handgun was customized by Culper Precision to model the appearance of Lego building blocks. (Culper Precision)

By John Woodrow Cox
July 13, 2021 | Updated today at 11:24 a.m. EDT

About a week ago, a company in Utah that makes custom modifications to firearms debuted what it described as a fun new product: a kit that encases Glock handguns in red, yellow and blue Lego blocks, refashioning lethal weapons to look exactly like children’s toys.

“We have been building guns out of blocks for the last 30 years and wanted to flip the script to aggravate Mom,” Provo-based Culper Precision explained on its website. It went on to argue that personal defense is a right granted by God and that gun ownership is protected by the Constitution before getting to the most important reason the company was selling “BLOCK19,” as the design was named, for $549 to $765, depending on the specifics.

“There is a satisfaction that can ONLY be found in the shooting sports and this is just one small way to break the rhetoric from Anti-Gun folks and draw attention to the fact that the shooting sports are SUPER FUN!” the site proclaimed, exuding a bravado that would prove to be short-lived. “Here’s the thing. Guns are fun. Shooting is fun. 30 rounds full auto is fun.”

[He said he was going to watch cartoons. Instead, he opened his dad’s gun safe.]

What’s not fun, and went unaddressed on the sales page, is the reality that thousands of children unintentionally shoot themselves or others each year because they find a gun and pull its trigger. Culper Precision’s customization arrived at a time when that problem is only getting worse and firearm sales are soaring. As word of the new product spread on the Internet late last week, the idea struck many people as so profoundly misguided that it would inevitably cost children their lives.

{snip}

By John Woodrow Cox
John Woodrow Cox is an enterprise reporter at The Washington Post. He is the author of Children Under Fire: An American Crisis (March 30, 2021) and was a finalist for the 2018 Pulitzer Prize in feature writing. Twitter https://twitter.com/JohnWoodrowCox

[sanatanadharma]

1. Now they are saying it outloud, an unfired gun is just no fun!

“There is a satisfaction that can ONLY be found in the shooting sports ... the shooting sports are SUPER FUN!”

Now we know they are seeking fun not security.
Guns cause insecurity (almost wrote 'insanity' and that is just not fun.

Why are shooting sports fun? Fun arises in satisfying one's desires.

Many activities can be fun and many provide the satisfaction of expertise. Lots of activities are eye hand coordination exercises.

With a few exceptions (TV show knife and sword pig-splitting), other activities are not based upon the use of a machine designed to kill, whether we are considering dinner, thugs, trap, skeet, pigeons paint balls or political enemies.

Asking again, what is it about shooting sports that provides a satisfaction existent "ONLY" in shooting sports?
A well drawn bow and arrow straight to target center is apparently at least 30 times less fun than full automatic.

[Dial H For Hero]

4. If one is participating in recreational shooting, that does neccesitate shooting firearms, yes?

[keithbvadu2]

2. A child would certainly want to play with it.

A child would certainly want to play with it.

[DashOneBravo]

3. Horrible idea

[sarisataka]

5. Poor reporting

The gun is not really covered in Legos but replacement parts molded to look like Legos.

Still it did get a reaction-

Lego tells US company to stop making guns look like its toys

Danish toymaker Lego is telling a Utah-based gun company to stop producing a product that makes a pistol look like it is covered with the famous multi-colored building brick. The company said Wednesday the gun maker has agreed to remove the product and not sell anything like it again. Representatives for the gun company posted on Instagram they wanted to highlight what they called the fun of shooting sports. Provo-based Culper Precision also insisted people have the right to customize their property, but also noted that responsible gun owners take measures to secure their firearms. The company did not immediately respond to messages seeking additional comment. 

https://wqow.com/2021/07/14/lego-tells-us-company-to-stop-making-guns-look-like-its-toys/

[mahatmakanejeeves]

6. Thank you for the update. NT

[Paladin]

7. No, extraordinarily poor judgment by a gun manufacturer.

But by all means, blame the media for this problem.

[sarisataka]

8. I blame the reporter

For his factually incorrect statements.

I don't see where I disagreed with the conclusion that it it a stupid piece of junk.

[Paladin]

9. You're making my day. Many thanks. (nt)

[Dial H For Hero]

11. As I discovered when discussing this story in GD, simply pointing out facts is cause for being

attacked on a personal basis. In my case, it appears I have no humanity.

[Paladin]

12. Big difference between pointing out facts and deflecting blame.

You're welcome.

[Dial H For Hero]

13. In that thread, I was asked what impact the "Lego gun" would have on shootings commited by toddlers.

I responded that given that at most only a handful of such guns had been sold, the likely impact would nil.

I answered the question directly. How is that "deflecting blame"?

[Paladin]

14. My comment was with regard to comments in this thread.

Not about anything you posted somewhere in GD.

[Dial H For Hero]

15. Fair enough. Regarding the comments in this thread, then: How does pointing out an inaccurate

headline deflect blame?

[Paladin]

16. Hang on to that "inaccurate headline" angle all you want.

That cease and desist document from the Lego folks settles the matter, from my standpoint. I'm glad I don't feel compelled to give aid and comfort to the manufacturers of such an item.

[Dial H For Hero]

17. I agree that the cease and desist letter made the manufacture of this kit moot. But nowhere have I

seen anyone giving "aid and comfort" to this company. Pointing out an inaccurate headline certainly doesn't qualify as such.

[Eugene]

10. Utah Company Suspends Lego Handgun Case Kits Sales After Cease And Desist

Source: FR24 News

Utah Company Suspends Lego Handgun Case Kits Sales After Cease And Desist

July 14, 2021

A Utah company has stopped selling a kit that encloses Glock handguns in Lego blocks, amid the uproar and after the Danish toy maker demanded it cease and desist.

Marketing ‘Block19? as’ a childhood dream come true ‘, Culper Precision featured it on Instagram, stating,’ We wanted the Second Amendment to be just too painful to go through, so there was only one. ‘just one logical solution. “

Red, yellow and blue blocks made the original weapon barely visible, disguising it as a child’s toy.

By selling the kits for between $ 549 and $ 765, the company has tricked adult gun users into purchasing the weapon “made from the Legos you got from Santa Claus.”

At the request of gun control activists, Lego sent the company a cease and desist letter, asking them to stop producing Block19.

-snip-

Read more: https://www.fr24news.com/a/2021/07/utah-company-suspends-lego-handgun-case-kits-sales-after-cease-and-desist.html

[EX500rider]

18. Does not bother me too much

Your firearms should be safely secured from children no matter what they look like.
They already have "Hello Kitty Glocks"

[AndyS]

19. I know. Not much bothers a gunner. No matter that 40-50 toddlers shoot themselves

or someone else every year with ugly guns that don't look like brightly colored toys.

It's the cost of freedom. My dead kid doesn't cancel your second amendment right to fun looking multi colored guns.

Fun fact: Most toddlers shoot themselves because they use their thumbs to pull the trigger which means the gun is pointed at their face or chest when it fires.

[EX500rider]

20. Fact: all firearms regardless of color should be safely secured around children

Your idea of a "fun fact" is not mine.

[AndyS]

21. So when you can convince your gunner comrades to

DO THAT come back to me and we can discuss the other myriad of issues that plague us.

[EX500rider]

22. I am only responsible for firearms I might own, strangers will do whatever they do.

[AndyS]

23. I see. While you don't see yourself as part of the problem

you take no action to be part of the solution . . .

[EX500rider]

24. Anymore then I feel responsible for strangers who DUI because I also own a car.

[AndyS]

25. Ok, let me lower the heat that I brought to this.

About DUI; do you know anyone who might occasionally drive 'buzzed'? If so have you commented that it's not a good idea? That is what MADD did. It changed the culture of drink and drive by making people aware. Woke is the new phraseology.

You are part of the gun culture. Others in that culture will respect what you say as a peer and a comrade. I'm a 'gun grabber' so none of the gun crowd will even hear what I say much less give it any credence. I'm asking those inside the culture to work at changing that culture to a more safety conscientious attitude. Proud of your newest gun? Great! When you talk about it do you show off the safe you store it in? Make gun safety a bigger part of gun culture than it is now, speak out with your authority as peer, marksman and responsible gun owner. You don't have to lecture, just identify with the safe handling part of gun ownership.

I am admittedly being a bit (?) heavy handed about it but I'm trying in my way to keep gun violence at the forefront of public attention. People like you can come at the issue from the opposite side, a place I'll never be able to come from.

[Dial H For Hero]

27. If I might jump in....

About DUI; do you know anyone who might occasionally drive 'buzzed'? If so have you commented that it's not a good idea? That is what MADD did. It changed the culture of drink and drive by making people aware. Woke is the new phraseology.

I know no one who does so at present, although one of my friends was convicted of DUI a couple of times, well over 20 years ago. At the time, we said any number of variations of "So. You're an idiot." to him.

You are part of the gun culture. Others in that culture will respect what you say as a peer and a comrade. I'm a 'gun grabber' so none of the gun crowd will even hear what I say much less give it any credence. I'm asking those inside the culture to work at changing that culture to a more safety conscientious attitude.

Here's the trick: I'm a 'gunner', so (almost) no one at DU will even hear what I say (on this issue), much less give it any credence. As evidence of this, I would simply point to the occasional thread in which you and I have interacted. I strive to be calm, polite, and respectful to those with whom I disagree. You self admittedly don't. Nor, for that matter, do most posters in GD when discussing firearms. Given that, what's the point of discussing gun safety with them?

Proud of your newest gun? Great! When you talk about it do you show off the safe you store it in? Make gun safety a bigger part of gun culture than it is now, speak out with your authority as peer, marksman and responsible gun owner. You don't have to lecture, just identify with the safe handling part of gun ownership.

I participate in a number of gun forums, and while I don't wax poetic on the subject of my gun safes (the contents are a lot more interesting), the subject of gun safety does come up on a regular basis, usually in the form of a story in which gun safety rules are broken, leading to everyone saying variations of "So. He's an idiot.".

Want more of this sort of thing on DU from the pro-gun rights contigent? I would humbly suggest that less heavy handed rhetoric directed towards those who simply disagree with you on the legislative aspects of this issue would be a good start.

[AndyS]

28. Thanks for that but you seem to have missed the point.

Here's the trick: I'm a 'gunner', so (almost) no one at DU will even hear what I say (on this issue), much less give it any credence.

It's not us on DU you need talk to. It's the guys who break the safety rules and get called idiots. After the fact it's a bit too late. It is up the those who support guns and gun rights to change the culture away from only the 'interesting stuff' into the weight of responsibility that should be at the forefront of gun ownership. Make them aware that they are fucking up long before an "accident" happens. That's what MADD did. That's what the NRA once did.

Change the culture so people like me don't want to go to war with it. The attitude that 500 is exhibiting; "I have no responsibility for anyone but ME and don't care", is irresponsible in the worst way. It makes people 'want to take your guns away'.

[Dial H For Hero]

29. What exactly are you asking for?

Gun safety has always been part of gun culture. Try Googling about the rules of gun safety, and you'll get hundreds of millions of hits. You brought up MADD as an analogy, but MADD isn't really a part of car culture, is it? When guys get together to talk about cars, the need to avoid alcohol while driving is a rather rare subject; the latest Corvette is far more interesting. This, in spite of people being killed by impaired drivers in numbers comparable to those dying by the use of firearms in accidents and homicides.

You're not going to see articles about the dangers of drunk driving featuring prominently in Car & Driver magazine on a regular basis (if at all), and Guns & Ammo magazine is never going feature articles about gun safes over those of the latest iteration of the AR-15.

Change the culture so people like me don't want to go to war with it. The attitude that 500 is exhibiting; "I have no responsibility for anyone but ME and don't care", is irresponsible in the worst way. It makes people 'want to take your guns away'.

Being irresponsible in the worst way would be leaving a loaded firearm somewhere accessible by a toddler. 500 isn't doing that; per his posts, all of his firearms are being stored properly. The worst you can say about about him is that he's indifferent to what other people do. Using you analogy again, if someone said that they never drove while impaired, but that they had no responsibility for other people's drinking and didn't care about it, it would be irrational to make people want to take alcohol and/or cars away from people who don't drive drunk.

This being the case, why in the world would someone who acts responsibly regarding firearms but expresses indifference regarding what others do make people 'want to take your guns away'?

Repeating my question: What are you asking for? Gun safety already features juat as prominently in gun culture as the need to not drive impaired does in car culture, if not more so.

[AndyS]

30. *Sigh* I've told you what I'm asking for.

I've been asking gun people the same thing for about 40 years.

Who is better prepared to discuss gun violence prevention than someone who knows guns and gun safety/responsibility?

Who is better prepared to design violence prevention programs?

I'm asking the gun culture and everyone in it to take part. I've been doing that for 40 years. For forty years I've gotten the same response I've gotten from 500 and from you: I'm okay and don't give a shit about your kids and Who, me?

I keep hearing that it's just the few irresponsible gun owners who are the problem. So tell me HOW IN HELL DO YOU PROPOSE TO STOP THAT FEW FROM GETTING THEIR HANDS ON GUNS? Any time someone suggests something it is met with 'only law abiding citizens . . .' So okay! Fuck the crooks! Save me and about 200,000 other Americans from 'law abiding citizens!

So if I've been terse in our past conversations, now you know why. I've heard everything you say more times than I can count over 4 decades and it just never changes. Lap up talking points, swallow, regurgitate and FOR GOD'S SAKE DON'T LISTEN TO ANYTHING THAT MAKES YOU UNCOMFORTABLE.

[Dial H For Hero]

31. Gun people are already discussing gun safety, and always have been.

I'm asking the gun culture and everyone in it to take part.

You're never going to get everyone (or even a large fraction) of those in gun culture activity to take part in safety programs, any more than you could get everyone (or even a large fraction) of those in car culture activity to take part in safety programs.

As an aside, why are you doing this on DU? As you pointed out yourself just a couple of posts ago, you have no credibility with 'gun people', so why bother?

For forty years I've gotten the same response I've gotten from 500 and from you: I'm okay and don't give a shit about your kids and Who, me?

Presuming you're speaking of our conversation regarding the "Lego gun" in which you asked me how many people would be shot by toddlers using it, I said:

"...given the miniscule number of these firearms which have been sold, I don't think it will likely increase or decrease the number in any way whatsoever."

I stand by that statement. How exactly does this equate to "not giving a shit about kids" or "who, me?"

So tell me HOW IN HELL DO YOU PROPOSE TO STOP THAT FEW FROM GETTING THEIR HANDS ON GUNS?

Please don't shout.

I know of no way to prevent at least a small fraction of gun owners from being irresponsible in their use of firearms that is simultaneously practical, legislatively feasible, and constitutional. The problem can be mitigated to a degree via safety programs, but I know of no way to eliminate such behavior entirely short of draconian gun control (which you and I both know isn't going to happen).

[AndyS]

32. Lather, rinse, repeat. After 40 years it gets tiring. Good day, sir.

[Dial H For Hero]

33. That's all you have?

Oh, well.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

35. If I might jump in...

...to some degree you are both talking past each other. BUT...
...you both have valid points. (I would address AndyS also but I'm being ignored, either with the DU feature or the old fashioned way.)

I'm "pro-gun" or at least pro-RKBA. I'd like to see those on both sides just accept what may be a small step in the right direction. I'd like to see individual sellers have a way to vet buyers via the NICS. Not something that comes with a mandatory jail sentence, registration and the mark of the beast just the ability to go to the local LE office with your buyer for a thumbs up. But that stuff doesn't happen. The "control" folks need to add on stuff to such legislation that mandates prison for not having firearm crime insurance and time in the stocks if you CC while technically off your property by 5 feet going to your mailbox.

I guess I'm guilty as well since I'm sure at some point someone has demanded something like 'ban all semi-autos' and my response was just simply good luck with that.

[Dial H For Hero]

36. I would certainly be open to private sellers having access to the NICS. Quite reasonable.

As for talking past each other, I think I've at least tried to engage AndyS rationally, but he so often attacks the character of anyone with whom he disagrees on this issue that a productive conversation is quite difficult.

[Decoy of Fenris]

37. The problem, Andy, is that the 'real' answers to violence aren't easy and we all know it.

Specifically focusing on -GUN- violence as opposed to 'violence' in general is your very first mistake, because at that point you're not looking for a solution to violence; you're looking for a solution to guns.

Violence, in all its forms, stems from a lack of needs or perceived needs, lack of opportunity, often lack of education, or indoctrination into violent philosophies (Right-wing militias, gangs, et cet.) Often, that indoctrination comes part and parcel with the lacking needs mentioned beforehand; If you truly want to reduce violence across the board, both gun and otherwise, we need to focus on pouring resources into social programs that will reduce the feelings of helplessness or powerlessness that many criminals feel. In time, perhaps a generation or two down the line, you'd see a steady drop in violence across the board.

But that's a tall order with no immediate tangible benefit, so it doesn't mesh well with the "DO SOMETHING NOW!" crowd. It'd take decades. It'd be hard work. It'd require a systemic overhaul the likes of which probably haven't been attempted since FDR, and "Raise people from poverty and criminality" doesn't draw campaign funds like "Ban guns". We know this, which is why it's patently laughable when people tout Gun Control as anything more than a masturbatory feel-good hobby.

Let's set that on the back burner for a moment though. If you want a dialogue about actual 'gun control' that may reduce gun violence, I can tell you now; There's no such thing. The most practical way to lower the amount of gun crime -on paper- would be a blanket ban on most modern handguns. But if you ban handguns, people will use something else; Shotguns. Ban shotguns, they'll use rifles. Ban rifles, and at that point you've banned literally every gun and those people will still make their own, 3d print them, or use pipe guns. Hell, there's very viable air-powered rifles out there right now, I guess we'd have to ban those, as well as airsoft or paintball guns that can be converted to fire lethal ammo. That isn't hyperbole, by the by; There's hundreds of non-firearm "Firearms" that can do just as good a job killing as conventional guns.

Andy, Gun Control was never the solution. It's a series of shitty band-aids for a systemic failing of society's most vulnerable, and until that failing is addressed and overcome, what you seek will never come to fruition. That's why it's so hard to have an honest dialogue about 'Gun Control'; Your fundamental premise, that 'Gun control' will stop crime/gun crime, is wrong. But you need to work with us. You say 'Who better than someone who knows guns'. This is someone who knows guns, who knows criminals, and knows that what you're trying to accomplish is noble but futile.



Now, gun safety and accidents, that's an -entirely- different kettle of fish. I can't speak for the millions of other gun owners out there, but if someone makes a display of gross mismanagement of a firearm around me, damn right they're getting called out on it. Twice I've experienced such; My ex-Mother In Law pointed a shotgun at me 'in jest' and I damn near ripped her a new one, calling her out. I think it's the first time anyone's spoken up to her like that, but she heeded, apologized, and stowed the gun in its safe.

Second time, my old man misfired a pistol in the house. We had a long sit down, highlighting the gravity of what just happened, and I calmly told him that if he couldn't safely manage his guns, then my daughter wouldn't be allowed to visit him. He then showed me his security for when my daughter visited; Gun locks on all guns, locked in a gun safe, in a locked closet.

Gun safety's no joke and I 100% feel that if your gun is capable of firing (Most of mine aren't), it should be locked away unless you're actively using it. I also think a program to subsidize high-quality gun safes by the government would be a positive step forward. Too many shitty knock-off gun safes can be broken into with a stick or a twig, but again, that's the price of 'gun control'; The shitty knockoffs technically meet the 'Gun safe' requirement by law, so rather than be safely stowed, a gun is instead put into the equivalent of a lunchbox. Don't legislate gun safes, incentivize them with tax breaks or subsidization.

[AndyS]

38. Ah yes, standard gun talking point #23 (or somewhere) on the list of well rehearsed

and shopworn gun industry diversions.

Allow me to shorten it for you:
It's not guns! Never is. It's all these social issues. We can't fix them. Problem solved.

Sorry to be abrupt but you're wrong.

There is a kernal of truth in the inequity around which you wrap the lie but it is a lie. I could cite facts, statistics, and evidence which everyone who isn't a gunner already knows but why waste my time? So I'll simply repeat, you are wrong and wish you a good day.

[AndyS]

26. Well allrighty then. From your silence and after re-reading the up-thread posts

I can only assume that you really don't care if people die, including children too small to pull a trigger with their index finger, as long as you didn't personally provide the gun.

Care to comment on this? I'd like to understand.

[EX500rider]

34. It's just not a cause I feel I could do much to change how strangers store their guns.

I also can't make strangers use seatbelts and child car seats or properly supervise their children around pools.

All I can do is wear my seatbelt and properly store my antique bolt action rifles and keep the pool gate shut at my community pool.

Children die in lots of sad ways that I personally can't do much about, it is a job for the parents of the children.