Airsoft takes out an eye
 

Joy

http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpo...5a6f88&k=82595


right down in our area too (actually, closer to Bloodsport's stomping grounds)

A few things wrong with the whole thing

9 year old involved
Apparently no supervision
Obviously no eye protection

10 to 1 says this was crapsoft from Canadian Tire or Walmart, but who knows.

I guess the old "incapable of causing injury" issue is a non-starter now.

Phew, all things considered, that was a balanced article. More flak at the parents than anything else.

Retarded parents.... "Hey Johnny, remember to wear protection glasses now, mmmmkay? Otherwise, I'm going to send you to your room."

Seriously, how stupid can you be letting 9 yrs old running around shooting each other without physically supervising?

It’s a shame when something like this happens, but is it not the parent’s responsibility to watch over their children and make sure they play safe. This is an example of why children should not play with such things. Part of the reason I got into airsoft was because paintball fields were allowing 12 year olds to play and the parents would just sign the waiver and leave letting other people supervise their kids. WRONG. Also, I don't believe, and this is my opinion, that the shooting glasses are safe and think that full mask systems should be used.

But people will only focus on the basic, not on details...

With all that stuff going on concerning guns and war, killing spree in school... and stuff like that... people don't want anymore guns around them... They only see airsoft = guns = something bad.

That's the same thing for anything bad happen in some kind of sport... extreme or dangerous... people who don't know really what they are talking about only sees bad things, not good things.

My two cent.

Do kids not watch "Christmas Story" anymore?

I agree that the article was fair.

I'm just shaking my head again at the stupidity of parents. I'm a parent as well, and take my kids shooting with me and have been trying to instill the basics of safety and respect for the items (both airsoft and the real thing).

Ok, I've been drilling it into them harshly hehehe. I'll be honest.

It seems to work...my 6 yo daughter always gives me the look and the lecture when I point a "finger gun" in her direction :)

This has nothing to do with airsoft and everything to do with bad parenting.

One, the kids didn't listen to their parents when they were told to wear eye protection.

Two, the parents of any of those children were clearly not supervising the activity.

Three, the parents bought the guns (most likely Canadian Tire clearsoft) for their kids, when the kids are way too young to be allowed to use them.

I honestly don't understand why these younger kids don't start at laser tag when they're young, move up to paintball, and then move up to airsoft from there. That's what I did.

Had to happen sooner or later, like a million monkeys banging away on a typewritter will eventually output Shakespeare.

Idiot parents didn't help the odds.

I actually read an article where somebody calculated the odds of that. Something like a billion monkeys would come up with one line, but the sun would go supernova long before it ever happened.

HAHAHA, loved that movie.

As Russell Peters would say, "white parents ... PLEASE beat your kids"

Typical 9 years old comes home from school,
Mother- "Ryan! Go clean your room"
Ryan - "FCUK U BITCH!"
Mother - "What am I going to do with him?"

:P

Played with chinasoft when i was that age. Had block on block wars with them. Stop with the "think of the children11111" crap already.

Actually YES IT IS. That's called being a parent.

...his first reply says "is it not the parent's responsibility...?"
not "it is not the parent's responsibility."

funny how switching those two words around can change the entire meaning of the sentance. Shows how closely some people read.

Like others said, it was a fair article. its not demonizing airsoft in anyway, just acknowledging its existance and how its sharing the same 'growwing pains' that paintball did back in the day.

Interestingly enough, tragic as this accident is I wonder if it could be used as evidence against the government's ruling that airsoft causes bodily injury at 407 fps and higher.

OMG, you can't read properly.

Please don't ever have children :P

Hey 9 year old punk, welcome to my world!

It's actually much worse than that. I read in Dawkins the Blind Watchmaker that to do something even close to that would require more the the age of the Universe to date and the likely age at its demise, by a few orders of magnitude.

Back to your regularly scheduled program.

LD

Please learn to read

Man that has got to suck he will never drive a car he wont ever play airsoft again ....
as my parents allways said

its all fun and games until someone looses an eye
then its a fucking bloodsport

-Phill

Here is the kicker

and


Regina isn't a huge metropolis, maybe 1/4 of a million people, so it may be safe to assume that in bigger centers like Edmonton or Vancouver these cases have grown into the hundreds. What kind of impact are these cases going to have on the organized sport side of it is difficult if not impossible to say, but it is definitely a concern.

%100 parents fault IMO, I doubt they would have let the kids out of the house had they been using a Daisy or a Crossman gun, and yet some of the Crossman Airsoft guns using Co2 can fire at a pretty good velocity.

Don't know why but kids become retarded when you put an airsoft gun in their hands. Even there, it's all about maturity cause I already saw two 19 years old guy shooting themselves without goggles or any kind of protection...But my 10 years old cousin always wear his goggle before taking his gun. Clearsoft sales should be a lot more strict than it is now. The Canadian tire and wall-Mart of my town are not verifying the ages and It's not unusual to see 10 years old Kids buying clearsoft guns and saying: Wow I'll shoot my neighbor's car and cat with it! Of course the parents have to be more responsable of what their kids do with their clearsoft guns.

No, because they would have to be measurable and repeatable results to have any scientific merit. They would argue that they could not guage temperature, wind, the BB weight (they didn't witness what precisely was used), the gun, distance to target, angle of incidence, etc., etc.. All they could say was "We didn't test it in our lab, so your results or opinions don't matter", and scientifically, they would be right.

The only way it would work would be to shoot one of the scientists in the eye in his lab during an experiment. How likely would that be to happen?

Dammit. Clearly I didn't have enough coffee this morning. My bad.

i hope this story gets lots of media attention on some levels since it is a good little bit if influence for the public out there to know that these are not kids toys. the other day i saw some jr. high aged kid with a 1911 springer (orange tipped and all) standing in a parking lot with a bunch of other kids shooting at a bird with it. the kid stuffed it in his belt and walked off... its the attitude on parents part that oh its sold at walmart its just a toy that needs to change. little johnny is not old enough at 10 or 12 or even 14 to really understand the dangers of an airsoft.

Actually there are a number of standard values for the amount of energy that must be applied to certain body parts to cause injury used in the fields of Human Kinetics and Engineering. I just don't think anyone has done the work.

LD

Your gunna shoot your eye out:smack:

Looking at the bb in the picture, I'd say you're right.

This could absolutely be leveraged against the various rulings. This is not theoretical damage, this is an actual injury, and, as Arnisdaor said, I'm willing to bet it was done with one of the uber-gutless guns too.

Well, maybe Sprawl-Mart and Crappy Tire will catch some flak for this. I think the best we could hope for is they're forced to take the no sales to under 18 seriously.

Sad to read this. Parents really gotta be careful with this stuff. Canadian Tire and Walmart should seriously have an ACTUAL age restriction. On one occasion, ive gone to a Canadain Tire and seen a 12 year-old buy one.. like jeez...

Ever the idiot. I drive a car just fine. Hell, I have more driving certifications now than I did when I lost my eye. The only certification I lost when I lost my eye was air brakes for some weird reason. And all I had to do to get it back was run down to the motor vehicle office and rewrite the exam, which I did a couple weeks later.
I also play airsoft just fine with the one eye. I don't have to worry about closing the bad one, which actually makes shooting much easier. Even my range scores at work went up, and I have to fire backwards to what I'm used to now. You live, you learn, you move on.
Sure it's tragic to hear this kid's down an eye now. Hopefully this will serve as a warning to others, and with any luck cause some sort of regulation to be enacted. The parents however should be beaten profusely.

It could be a case of inappropriate marketing. Clearsoft has the appearance of being a toy yet it evidently outputs enough muzzle energy to cause ocular damage. They're cheap and they come in bright glossy boxes which aren't always behind lock and key.

Back in my day, spring powered guns which shot rubber darts or pellets were so underpowered they wouldn't pierce bond paper consistently at point blank.
They were pretty useless for skirmishing, but they were safe for players who weren't thoughtful enough to wear eye protection.

Evidently 9yr olds are not typically responsible enough to protect their eyes. They do not have the consistent capacity to understand that the eye is much more vulnerable to damage than the rest of the body which is why even paintball is not marketed to 9yr olds.

Someone made a mistake marketing clearsoft to children. When eye damaging incedents become frequent you can easily blame the parents, but at some point you have to accept the situation that parents may not be fully aware of what their offspring do and protect the end user directly. Manufacturers and distributers have a duty of care in protecting a wide range of society. Not just the 80 percentile of people writing the responsibility test of life.

Bullshit. It's a parent's job to be aware of what their children are doing.

I'm not saying that it's ok for parents to be irresponsible. I'm pointing out that when a problem becomes common, a company has to take steps to protect their consumer.

For instance, green gas cans are not DOT certified. They do not meet the requirements for the safe storage of propane. DOT regs require that disposable containers meet rigorous structural standards so they can do things like not blow up if you forget them in the trunk of your car on a hot summer day.

Notionally we can say it's stupid to leave a can of propane in a hot car trunk, but the fact remains that we transport stuff frequently in car trunks in the summer and that it's not hard to forget stuff in the trunk of your car. Therefore it becomes upon the onus of the gas bottler to contain their products in containers which can withstand a forseeable amount of abuse in order to protect society when practical. DOT cans can generally handle a hot car trunk. Green gas cans can't. If you blow up a can of gas in your hot car trunk, it's your fault for forgetting to store your gas properly. It's also the bottlers fault for not protecting their customer from a reasonably forseeable situation especially when it's quite possible to do so (i.e. steel can with overpressure relief valve).

In extension, it is important for airsoft marketers to market their product appropriately and clearly advise the the buyers of their product.

Ha ha. Were you testing and anilizing stuff back then too Karl?

Well, play with something that has the potential to harm after being warned and leaving children unsupervised = poor ass parenting. Blame mom not the the tool. Probably was mom who bought the damn thing to stop little jonny from squealing in the store.

No sympathy here...

i work as a canadian tire as a cashier and ever time i see a crap-shof i ask to see ID. no matter what.

the kid in the picture is holding a green crapBB so it's probably from there

i love how there is a buyairsoft.ca google add right underneth the article

Hmm. After reading that I kinda blame the parents and the kids, for the following reasons:
A: The parent was stupid or ignorent enough to buy a VERY young child an airsoft gun. And did not make sure he wore goggles.
B:The kid didn't put on goggles like an idiot, maybe he thought for some reason tiny pellets couldn't be worse than paintballs.

I dunno it just seems very stupid in my opinion. Seems like one of those things where it could have been prevented by not buying the gun for a minor in the first place.

This is true. It is also black and white. They gray area here which is also worth consideration, using your avatar as an example - Is the Fast Food restaurant responsible for making the kid fat? Not on a meal for meal basis. But, if restaurants that trade in food high in fats are going to advertise that their food is all you need to eat for breakfast, lunch and supper (and that its a great place for kids) then at some point it becomes that restaurants responsibility to accept their role in a nation of fat kids. We've seen MacD's and others accept their roles by modifying the types of foods and cooking ingredients used. Not everyone reads the label to make sure what they eat is good for them, its sad, but its true.

In concluding and to tie it back up with airsoft - is it Canadian Tires or Crossmans fault Billy lost an eye? Not on a case for case basis. But, if these potentially dangerous items are made to look like toys, distributed all too often to children and these injuries become commonplace enough that optamologists band together, there needs to be a rethink on the part of the producer on how these items are marketed and distributed so that they are more highly respected by the consumer for what can become of them if used improperly.

Er, no. Next you're going to tell us that pencils cause spelling mistakes.

May be, but it boils down to the individual's responsibility to take care of themselves. McDonalds doesn't make you fat. YOU make you fat...

I have to agree with Ibby. It's the consumer's responsibility to look out for his/her own self provided the retailer (be it crapsoft or fast food or whatever) has taken all necessary measures to warn the user of the potential consequences.

I understand what you're saying Pirate, but by that logic it's not a stretch to say it's Chrysler's fault when buddy in his Cirrus doesn't buckle up because Chrylser made it so the car can be driven with the seatbelt unbuckled.

I call accidents like these a tax on stupidity. Unfortunetly in this case it was the child that had to pay for the parent's lack of mental processing ability.

<accidental double post>

Gah... I have to call you out on the cliche. Its better suited to the gun crimes in which it has been referenced several times in here alone.

Besides, its not just my opinion. What I had stated with regards to the fast food chains is in fact the reality of the situation currently. To relate it to your cliche - each hamburger is a 'spelling mistake' from a health stand point. Eaten in conjunction with a healthy diet - a hamburger here and there is not a problem, but not everyone understands this. Along with vast profits comes with the burden of the health decline they cause when overconsumed. Its why cars have seatbelts. The car doesn't crash, people crash, but they crash like that only in cars. Pencils don't make mistakes, people make mistakes, thats why pencil manufacturers take the responsibility of putting an eraser on the back. Hamburgers actually make people fat though, and McDonalds can't put a seatbelt or an eraser on it, so they need to tell the fat kid its bad for you, or at least tell him that maybe a salad would be a better side choice than the fries because the kid eats there everyday and they know that - they told him too.

Heres the cliche that I will use - the fleet only sails as fast as its slowest ship.

Eventually, the dumbest kid ever will hold an airsoft gun and I don't think its happened yet. It'll be like that moment when an ape first weilded a bone as a tool. I can hear the orchestra swelling. Imagine the wonders of legal trauma one really dumb kid and a full metal M4 AEG could cause. I want to know that when the legal ramifications of his grave failure to understand the point are sifted through, it wasn't that he got it so easily with no checks though an online retailer. You know the rest. I'm simply saying there is a responsibility to do things right. Allow me to continue:

I haven't purchased a Crossman product lately. What they should be doing is securing the gun in such a way that it is difficult to remove from the packaging without first being exposed to a clear warning as to the serious consequences of thier misuse. Then, they should be sold behind the gun counter, where a sales associate would who is properly educated to inform and verify the consumer, does so. This removes any doubt that you are dealing with a harmless toy. THEN, if Billy shoots out his eye, we as a nation of responsible users can't really be held accountable for how those who wander upon the sport misuse it. It really is mom and dads fault now, they are responsible and they were warned. Every possible measure of safety was taken. Its like a handrail on a bridge - you need to have it by law, but it still doesn't stop everyone from falling over, but you still need the rail. Lets make sure those who sell and distribute this sport at least put up the rail is all I'm saying. Hell, I'd like to see Airsoft distributed this way, if I knew it would be adhered to.



(ps have you seen 'Supersize Me'? ...classic)

Yep, I use it a lot in different cases. Why? It works in each one.

No, each hamburger is a pencil.

Er, not everyone understand quantum physics. But in this day and age, if an individual can't figure out that an unhealthy diet is keeping them out of that swimsuit they want to wear, they probably also won't understand that they're likely to eventually be getting a Darwin award.

I think it has. Did you and I not read the same article?

Er, to quote you: Perhaps I don't. That's a pretty big assumtion.

Yes, you're right. But the retail industry isn't to blame in this case. Parents are. They bought the gun, not the 9 year old kid. They're responsible for the child, and his safety. I think there was a pretty big failure on the part of the parents. The retail industry isn't there to spood feed consumers about every little safety aspect of what it is they're buying. I went and bought a bag of sandblasting sand last week. The bag didn't have any "don't point the sandblaster nozzle at your face" warnings. The guy at the counter didn't ask me for ID or give me a safety brief. It's assumed I know what I'm doing with the item at hand, which I do. If I didn't, there's all sorts of training out there.

Er, we're not as a nation of responsible users held accountable as it is. Is a nation of responsible users accountable for every retard that gets nailed for DUI? Lots of folks misuse alcohol. It's not the "nation's" or the brewer's/distiller's fault.

Yes, and I've also seen another documentary done the same way, where a female doctor goes on the same diet. The name of it escapes me offhand. She manages to lose weight, and remain rather healthy from eating McDonald's. Why did the other dude balloon up? Remember, he said "yes" to every "would you like to supersize that?" That's a lot of spelling mistakes. The doctor didn't. She picked her meals a bit more carefully, and ended up much better off.

It'll be interesting to see what comes of this case though, regarding the kid with the damaged eye. If this were the US, you can bet that the parents would be blaming everyone but themselves. There'd likely be lawsuits to the store, the gun manufacturer, etc. But here in Canada we generally don't have our own Stella Awards (look them up, and shake your head in disbelief). Although it seems to me we're headed in that direction, we don't need tort reform just yet up here. Why? I'd like to think it's because we have a bit of common sense, and can handle being responsible for our actions. But like I mentioned, due to people south of the border directing blame elsewhere, and the media who seems to extol the virtues of multi-million dollar lawsuits, we seem to be headed in that direction as well.

Trying to be as neutral as possible here. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but you are saying everyone should be smart enough to never do anything dumb and if they hurt themselves in the course of excersing dumb, then its their fault alone. I'll will agree so far as the dumb only hurts itself and at no point becomes a burden to me. If Billy shoots out his own eye and not my kids.

I quoted you above to outline how very much so, brewers and the nation are held accountable for the actions of those who abuse alcohol everyday. There are warnings on the product, limitations upon whom its sold and trained staff that are _supposed_ to cut you off at the bar. The police to whom we as a nation pay taxes to afford are trained to watch out for the dumb once it tries to drive itself home drunk when it doesn't get cut-off, and to setup checkstops to catch it before it gets us hurt. This is what I'm advocating for Crossman if indeed the problem is as rampant as the article would have us believe.

At the risk of repeating myself, there needs to be a more reliable system in place to help limit the possibility of careless injury. Mostly its just a need to educate the public so Billys parents aren't as careless to begin with. Parents would do a better job mitigating risks they understood. Better packaging and distribution as outlined above is all I'm suggesting. Dumb must be accounted for or it hurts itself *and others*. If I sell you the risk, its my job to properly prepare you for it. Thats my view and I'm entitled to it!

:) :) Dont take this as escalation :) :) - If you still disagree, thats ok, but please don't isolate specific instances of my terminology to distract from the point (hamburger = pencil, et al). Thats just flame fuel. Thanks.

And that, I believe, is the main issue here. Is this not another reason we don't let those under 18 have airsoft guns? Kids are stupid. They don't have the mental capacity to understand what it is they're doing. It's the parents' job to do it for them, not the retailers.

Who's job is it to educate the parents?

I don't disagree, but I think there's plenty of warning labels and such already. I was at both Walmart and Canadian Tire today. At both places, the crapsoft is clearly labelled as being sold to 18+ people only. Clue #1. in the packaging of even the shittiest crapsoft (I bought an absolute stain of a gun from San Deigo's, just for fun) are all sorts of warnings not to shoot it at people, or in your eye, or at your pets. There was even a little pamphlet inside the box with the same warnings. How many more does society need? If the parents missed all this, then yes, they're at fault and should clearly roast as a result. If you thin there should be more, you're going to have a tough time lobbying for it to happen.

And yes, the hamburger is still a pencil. The person eating it is making a spelling mistake ;)

It's the parents' job to ensure they're aware of everything they need to be aware of. It's the retailer's job to ensure that this information is readily available. It's not a car dealer's job to make sure customers read the car's owner's manual, but simply to make sure that manual is available.

Something is bothering me about where the blame is landing in this thread.

When I was nine I knew how to read. I might have had some trouble with Shakespeare, or Bible passages, but things like "Danger", "Warning" and "Caution" were all words I understood. I also listened when my parents told me something like "Be careful", "Don't touch that", or "Go put your goggles on before you go out and play with your friends and the bb-guns".

We don't have the whole story here, but everyone's cast the parents in a horrible light. It wasn't like the Mom just handed her Son a loaded gun, turned around and thought about what colour to paint her bed-room.

Are the parents free of guilt in this situation? Certainly not, but they shouldn't bear the whole blame, and neither should the companies manufacturing and selling the guns.

Parental responsibility can only go so far. Could she have forced her son to wear the goggles, sure, but at some point the child has a judgement-call to make. 'Mom told me to wear them, but I don't like them, they get foggy and itch, so I'm not gonna' Doesn't matter when that call is made, before he goes out or after he's already out there playing, and once he takes them off it's his own damned fault. He was told.

Now you could argue that in that case he shouldn't have been playing airsoft at all, and I agree with you. If the child isn't going to follow the rules, then he or she shouldn't be playing, but you can't pin that all on the parents. I know plently of people that ignore rules they're told explicitly on fields, and all of them are over the age of majority. What does that make them? Morons. What does that make the kid? The same. Is it the parent's fault? Partly, but I don't think it's time to break out the cross and nails for them just yet.

I'm leaning towards the parents mistake side, as the first page in this thread someone mentioned Russel Peters " White people please beat your kids" When I was a kid I had a pellet gun, my dad told me to only shoot cans and wear the goggles that came with it. Of course I didn't wear the goggles, my dad came out and gave me a couple good smacks and took the gun away. Wasn't allowed to use it for a month and then only under supervision of my dad and wearing goggles. The point is ... Beat your kids seriously. After those smacks I never really dis-obeyed my dad again until I hit my teen years.

These kids were using toys designed for 18 year-olds. They never should have had them in the first place. Parents' fault there. This kid made a calll not to wear his goggles and paid for it dearly, but that choice never should have been up to him.

I think the point some people are trying to bring up is that yes, while these "toys" are *supposed* (read - supposed) to and intended for 18+ use - they are often not and ARE in fact, marketed towards the young teenage adolescent age-group. I'm sure plenty of us have seen it in stores just lying around on the rack; while some stores may have it under lock and key, most do not. I've seen kids that I think are 13 or 14 buy it with no problem, and no one says a thing to them. While parents do take a certain responsibility over the kids, so does everyone up the chain with them - they need to put in the proper safeguards to REDUCE the amount of accidents/danger that the end consumer is exposed to. It's not fair, it's not 'right', but unfortunately it's the way it is...

There's a reason why there's so much "health-conscious" food being advertised today and why beer ads always display 'Don't drink and drive' and 'Use alcohol responsibly'...

I just got in and skipped about half the posts but here's by oppinion;

The blame spreads all over and not just on the kid who lost his eye, the parents, and the kid's friends. The parents didn't watch the kid, the kid didn't listen to his parents, older kids at the kids school present a bad example, a lot of TV shows present a bad example, TV and Videogames say "You get killed you comeback to life at a save point. You get hurt you cast a spell and heal yourself."

.... I belive one asked "Who's job is it to educate the parents?" um... parent counselor, parenting classes, Dr.Phil (he's good), other parents give advice .............. the kids do so very well THEY TEACH THE PARENTS HOW TO BE MANIPULATED!!!! "Mommy, I need new shoes."..."Daddy, I need a moter bike."..."I hate you!!!" The kids say I hate you and most parents try to make the kid happy even if it means giving in

I put the blame solely and completely on the friend's parents.

It is their responsibility to monitor the children, as they have accepted the position of caregiver. In the legal world, it's known as "in loco parentis", or "in the place of the (absent) parent.

It is their responsibility to check to make sure the toys they buy their children to play with (and to play with other children) are safe.

It is their responsibility to monitor the children to ensure they play safely.

You can't give a 9 year old kid something like a bb gun/sharp stick/cattle prod/lighter and say "Now make sure you play safe" and walk away, absolving yourself of responsibility.

It's the fault of the parents. End of statement.

Debate THAT with Prince Charles! Heard last month (or earlier this month) he was advocating the banning of McDonalds from the UK (bet the Scots were pissed that history is repeating itself........... oops, wrong topic).

Ok I get the point, but even when I was 7 I had the common sence of knowing what I should do and what I shoulden't didn't the 9 year old kid have that gut feeling saying "This can get me hurt, I should try to avoid it." kinda thing? My little brother and I avoid the bad stuf and we are fine, but many other kids hang with the bad stuff and I know of a few that have lost everything - house, life, friend, sight, an arm, a leg, teeth ect.
I have two brothers one is fine and dandy but the other has broken a leg twice, chipped the side of his foot, cracked his head open 3-5 times, brain dammage I'm sure. The only diff I see is the people we hang with, the TV shows we watch, the games we play... none of them deal with the parents - much - but more the kid's choises in life and the things around the kid.

+1

Common sense isn't shared. I wouldn't play frogger on the highway either, but I know people who do that...

That is and will be my oppinion and my point of view no changes (I know it's in difrent words each time but I hate repeating) ;) The parents WERE stupid to not be with the kids while they were playing airsoft in the house and even LETTING the kids play with the -how the kids see them- toys. But, that's over and done with, it's happend, we can't change it, the past not the present or teh future.
The things kids watch, play, and do people can change and make better. By not letting kids play sertain games, watch sertain shows ect... you can erase most if not at loeast some of the thoughts of going around with some sort of firearm shooting people.
It's not just airsoft eather that can cause eye injuries, just last night my cousin got shot in the eye with a nerf. (he had gogles but took them off for a few secs to rub his eye)

PS: I'm not saying all games are bad if that's what you are getting but the age limits of shows that kids watch and games that kids play should be enforced more.

I think a large problem is that the law enforcers are blaming the companies that sell them and the manufacturers when it is solely the parents fault in the first place. Theres nothing really that we can do. Complaining will not help anything. Ever, in fact, it may ruin it.

I may not have much of a position on this matter but here it goes anyway.

It is the parents responsibility to ensure that their children are playing safe, and staying out of trouble. If the parent isn't doing that, than it doesn't matter if they had a stick to depict a gun, they'll still get hurt.

If a parent is too lazy to make sure that their children have the required safety equipment to play a certain activity, than again its their fault, not the item, or in this case the dealers fault. If a kid was soccer without shin pads, they would get hurt.

Even if the parents said 'wear glasses kids', I bet it would be regular safety glasses that they would use, and still would not have done anything to protect their eyes or face.

In the end, it was the parents fault, and not the dealers nor the actual device (airsoft gun) that caused this.