C&P Revolers are toys?

S

SigP6Carry

New member
I've been looking around and I've found a much more relaxed state of affairs concerning firearms that are C&P in the community. I've even heard/seen them called toys multiple times.

I was wondering what you guys think led to the point of them being referred as toys. Is it the proclivity of them being a piece of American history? The fact that in many states they don't fall under the term of "firearms?" The amount of work that it takes to load them?

To me, it seems odd that a weapon that is just as volatile as any other weapon on the market is considered a "toy" by so many people and that it falls under completely differant laws than many other firearms.

I'm not meaning to start a debate about whether or not they're as dangerous/more dangerous/should be regulated/licensing and all that, I'm just wondering why others think they get pushed around the bottom rung of firearms laws and myths as less dangerous.
 
No psychologist but

People own firearms for many reasons.

I think there is a segment of the firearm owning populous which chooses to own firearms because of the sense of power they get from it. I don't have a good feel for the demographics because as a person who is untrained in psycholgy (Even though I do teach one psyc course) I can't even say for sure that the statement is correct. It may be more correct to say that everyone who owns or even handles a firearm feels a power rush to some extent. I know that I do. I have not read all the literature and I have not done any tests so I can't swear it is true but I am pretty sure I am right.

These statements may originate in that segment of the firearm owning populous which includes people who only feel important or empowered when they are handling, shooting, demonstrating, or speaking about firearms....for whom this sensation is very strong. Therefore it forms the primary motivation to own the weapon. I have met these kinds of people in my life time and so, I am sure, have you. They are the type of people whose ego would not permit them to admit it but I am sure that in at least some I have met, it is true.

So this same need for power which is partially remedied by what amounts to literal or virtual brandishing (the use of a firearm to obtain and assert power over others) might also be the motivation for the belittling of others including others in the firearm owning population. What I am saying is that some firearm owners own firearms because it puts them in a population of "tough guys". In an attempt to keep the Tough-Guy group small, giving the impression that tough guys belong to a very exclusive club (I am being sarcastic here) they pooh pooh other firearm owners. I am describing a character flaw.

I happened to be in the Navy at the time when the Master-at-Arms rate ("rate" means "job") was first formed. It is the Navy equivalent of the Army's Military Police. Obviously in the beginning, the rate started with zero manning and had to fill the ranks quickly. Conversion to the rate from other rates offered immediate promotion in some cases, easy promotion in all cases, and unfortunately the screening of those who sought to convert to the rate was not carefully executed. My observation was that those who applied for conversion to the rate fell into three categories.

1) People who were genuinely interested in police and security work. Good reason.
2) Those who saw it as a road to quick promotion. Okay reason
3) Those who wanted the power rush of police work. Bad reason (These people were ineffective and dangerous)

I cite this example because it demonstrates the same character flaw (category 3) as I was trying to describe above. The MA rate has now been in existence for about thirty five years. I am confident that manning is at or near where the Navy needs it to be. I am also confident that the same tools the Navy uses to put the right people into other rates is also working well for the MA rate.

Thomme, I went the long way around the barn to say that I think the people you are describing are crazy.
 
I like what you had to say Doc. I am a psychologist, though I also am not familiar with research on the subject. However, your hypothesis is sound. While all of us have a need to feel that we have some sense of control over our lives, some of us have a bigger need for that. It becomes more than just a need for control - it becomes a need for omnipotence. When a person with a need for omnipotence is interested in firearms, then I can certainly see them being more likely to denigrate others' firearms in attempts to bolster their own sense of power.

Also, I think that there is a general sense in the shooting community that "old" guns are not "real" guns anymore. I shoot my flintlock a lot, and most of the time I'm the only one shooting black powder. When I first joined my shooting club and brought it out, many people would look at it, ask questions, and then tell their friends standing there all kinds of weird "facts" about it that weren't true, but seemed to say that no serious shooter uses those anymore.

I think blackpowder guns are just seen as "play-things" because of the myth that they're inaccurate and unreliable. They think that if it doesn't use a cartridge and scope, or shoot hundreds of rounds a minute, it isn't for serious marksmanship and is just for tinkering around.
 
Term of Affection

When my friends come over, we talk about our toys. In this case, we are referring to our guns. A toy to me is something you do not need, but really want.
After I retired, I did a little bit of work as a mechanic, I never referred to my tools as toys. They had a job to do (Make me money).
My vehicles have a purpose, to get me from point A to point B. Farm work, doctors appointments, visiting friends. My vehicles have a purpose.
My guns are not needed (MAYBE one pistol, one shotgun and one rifle would be sufficient), but are used for recreational purposes. They are my toys, I play with them (Target shooting mostly).

When the word 'toy' is used to describe a gun or guns, by people who own said toy, I do not have a problem with it. I figure they mean they have something to play with. It is not a tool, or a necessity, but something fun to do.
 
Well just to take this discussion to the next level, how many of you know gun owners even those who shoot quite a bit that don't really know anything about guns. I have met folks in my life that hunt and shoot every year and have never cleaned their gun. I have met people who were interested enough to learn to handload but always load as hot as possible and never develop loads for accuracy .Go look at the newsstand and see how many mags there are devoted to combat arms "Tactical" weapons and accessories and the latest multishot,plastic wonder guns. Heck it's hard to find articles on such nifty stuff as modern revolvers much less a "toy" like a cap and ball pistol.
 
I like my 'toy' guns and the fact i can drop them in the mail to ship across country, with a few exceptions. No logging in my black book when I buy or sell one.

They are just as deadly as any modern revolver I own but do take longer to reload, and you can work around that if you want.
 
To MCB

Precisely....

and....

Wouldn't it be even better if all firearms could be sent through the mail?

My first purchased rifle was a 7.62 Russian which I bought for $14.95 from Sears and Roebuck mail order. It was not blued it was painted. The first round I fired through it (Military surplus steel jacket) expanded so badly I had to use a ramrod to drive the expended case out of the rifle. My uncle (RIP) gave me some modern ammunition (.308?) and my shooting proceeded without incident. The rifle was among three stolen from me during a move from PA to my first duty station. (1971)

But....I digress.
 
Mainly, legislators and bureaucrats are ignorant and they are the reason percussion revolvers are not restricted like cartridge guns. A few have caught on and there have been efforts to treat them like "real guns" but none have been successful... yet.
 
What does 'C&P' mean?

In my experience the OP's thesis is incorrect. I do not find black powder guns referred to as 'toys', or in a casual manner suggesting they are not deadly weapons, in any greater instance than smokeless powder guns.

There is certainly a community of gun users that use the term 'toys' in referring to their guns in an affectionate manner. In my experience the percentage of people who do so in reference to smokeless powder guns equals the percentage of people who do so in reference to black powder guns, the basis for the percentage being the total number of users in each category.
 
In addition to what Doc Hoy stated, there's at least one other potential contributor. Testosterone. Studies show that it causes aggression and competitiveness. Although some people compete in terms of skill, workmanship, creativity or things like that, many compete in the "lowest common denominator." That might equate to brute strength, brute speed or even to the newest or the one made with the most fancy buttons, lights, and switches.

Yep, many of the modern arms can put out a whole lot more lead in a shorter time, but that's not what I value (although I doubt I'd turn down an AR-15 if it was given to me). I've long outgrown the need to prove that "my manhood is bigger than yours," whether that state of mind is prompted by insecurity or testosterone.

As far as the law, it seems to me that one of their concerns is public safety. Since C & B revolvers and muskets aren't as quickly loaded for use, it may be that they're perceived as less likely to be used to create public un-safety. Also it may be that they're perceived as something desired by a small demographic who happen to be less likely to engage in naughty things. After all, when's the last time any of us have heard of some member of a gang doing a drive-by shooting with an 1860 Colt replica?
 
sorry, I frequently refer to them as c&p instead of c&b. For me, it's more of a "cap and powder" than a "cap and ball," given the existence of conical bullets and frequency of the mini-bols. It's a strange bit of vernacular, I know, but it's not something that makes it impossible to communicate. I guess you and I run in different circles and take note of different things, Mykeal. I respect your observations, but they're not congruous with mine.
 
The reference to cap-n-ball or similar black powder firearms as "toys", in my opinion, has much to do with the perceived practicality or usefulness of them to the user.

toy (toi)
n.

1. An object for children to play with.
2. Something of little importance; a trifle.
3. An amusement; a pastime:

I don't think anyone using the term "toy" in any seriousness consider them to fall into definition 1. However, I can see those who would believe definition 2 or 3 apply. In fact I do know people who look down on black powder firearms and call them "toys" as defined in definition 2. Personally, to me, they are a form of amusement and a pastime and thus fit definition 3 even though I don't refer to them as toys.

To answer the OP my best guess would be that the toy designation, for those who use it, comes from the realization that there are much more practical, reliable, and efficient means of getting "the job" done; whatever that may be. Thus the widespread availability and acceptance of modern cartridge firearms have relegated cap-n-ball firearms to the category of "toy" by many.

Here is an example that demonstrates my point.

My girlfriend asks me to repair something that requires a hammer. I ask her if she has a hammer. She says she has a hammer in her toolbox, reaches in the toolbox, and pulls out a tiny hammer that looks like it was made for a smurf. My response to her: "That isn't a hammer. That's a toy or something used to repair pocket watches and is not a real hammer used to do real work.
 
Last edited:
Re; Clembert's post:

And his girlfriend immediately posts a "poor me" video on youtube claiming that he's emotionally abusing her and threatened her with a hammer.

<grin>
 
C&B Toys??

I'll be quite happy for leftists to continue considering cap and ball and flintlock rifles and pistols "toys." These anti-2nd amendment, gun grabbers have trampled enough of our rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top