Despite the carnage, we seem to be paralyzed in controlling real firearms, but can't merchants at least take a stand against toy guns?

Here are reviews for another toy on Amazon: "We ordered two and our sons love them"; "7 yr old son LOVES. One of the best gifts yet." The product description reads: "Stimulating Imagination — Pretend play develops a child's motor, imaginative and understanding skills; additionally, it improves the child's self-esteem." The item is "LilPal's 27 inch AK-47 toy machine gun rifle, with Dazzling Light, Amazing Sound & Unique Action," recommended for kids 3 and up.

I find the sale of such toys repulsive. But let's say you're a parent who supports hunting, target shooting, even owning a gun for self-defense. Is it wise to buy your child — a 3-year-old no less — a realistic AK-47 toy to develop motor skills and improve self-esteem?

Divided as Americans are over regulating real firearms, they are also conflicted over how to handle pretend guns. Federal law requires toy guns to have bright orange tips on the barrels to distinguish them from actual weapons. Some places, such as New York City, go further, requiring that toy guns be made entirely in bright colors — pink, green, orange, etc. Naturally, it didn't take criminals long to realize that they'd fare better if they painted their real guns to look like toys. So, a few weeks ago, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed a measure prohibiting just that, leaving New York with one law that mandates toys not look too much like guns, and another requiring that real guns not masquerade as toys.

While lawmakers struggle with the issue, social scientists continue to differ widely about how imaginary violence affects child development. As long ago as 1968, Benjamin Spock revised his "Baby and Child Care" guide to advise, "Parents should firmly stop children's war play or other kind of play that degenerates into deliberate cruelty or meanness." At the other end of the spectrum is the widely held belief that gun play actually helps children learn to differentiate between real violence and make-believe. "Everyone has an informal causation theory that playing with guns leads to the use of guns in adulthood," writes child psychologist Michael Thompson in his book, "It's a Boy! Your Son's Development from Birth to Age 18." Thompson's bottom line: "There's no scientific evidence suggesting that playing war games in childhood leads to real-life aggression."

Perhaps a better question would be: Does playing with realistic weapons of war lead to lifelong indifference about gun violence? Amazon has a subcategory in its vast toy arsenal called "Toy guns for boys that look real," with over 1,000 entries, including Ferbixo's Military Combat Barrett Sniper Rifle that shoots soft bullets and is recommended for children 8 years and up.

The description: "It is suitable for fighting in the wild. It is a great toy for relatives and friends to interact with." There is too much in our nation's gun debate to unpack before Christmas, or maybe ever. But Amazon and other merchants should at least back off on the most realistic and daunting toy weapons. Maybe the long-term approach to modifying gun culture could start with kids and their toys.

For me, in "those thrilling days of yesteryear," I treasured my gleaming silver Lone Ranger pistol. But I also took note of what the masked man said to Tonto in the first TV episode: "If a man must die, it's up to the law to decide that, not the person behind the six-shooter."

(c) Peter Funt. This column originally appeared in The Washington Post.