It might be reasonable to say that the kiddie colors and cartoon characters seem to imply less danger which is not the right message. It would be an ignorant parent that fell into this trap but ignorant parents aren't too hard to find these days.

I don't know why so many people are throwing out comments about legislation. The best way to take care of companies doing irresponsible things is via individuals' economic pressure. Legislation is a blunt instrument at best, and it should always be a last resort.

Saturday Night Live - Irwin Mainway Season: 2 - Video

perhaps a background & permission slip is needed..
before folks start breeding..


T..
because folks are using this accident..
and other tragedies to further their game plan....
no last resort legislation coming from them..
first shot fired (pardon) ...registration/ handicap../
and BAN everything short of rocks..


Rika

Just as all camels are not bad... only those that specifically market cigarettes to 9-year-olds, not all cartoon characters with guns are bad.

Elmer Fudd hunting down wascally wabbits isn't marketing lethal weapons to 5-year-olds, cute little videos featuring cricket cartoon characters, that show children begging their parents to buy a multicolor gun that looks like a toy - that is marketing specifically to children.

If Keystone took the 'high road' and marketed the gun to parents who wanted to instill a sense of responsibility and gun safety to their young children, that would be one thing, but they didn't. They took the typical low approach, knowing that parents give into their children, and marketed the weapon to children. Cute pink guns with cute little cartoon characters aren't aimed to get parents to buy the guns, they are aimed at children to bug their parents to buy the guns. Videos showing little Johnny wanting to be like his neighbor Tommy who has a multicolor Crickett and taking the sad-eye approach to his folks "Can I have a Crickett like Johnny has?" isn't the responsible way to market weapons to anyone, let alone 5-year-olds.

Guns aren't a tonka truck, guns aren't a barbie doll, guns aren't a video game, guns are designed to kill, even little crickett guns can easily kill. Obviously gun manufacturers want to sell as many guns as possible, and marketing to children is a great way to sell guns, just like marketing cigarettes to 9-year-olds makes sure that you sell lots and lots of your product in the future. But, since it isn't a responsible way to sell product, we legislate, because capitalism isn't great at self-regulation, capitalism is great at making money.

Again you undermine your own argument... "Parents give in to their children". This once again places the responsibility right back on the parents. The manufacturer isnt liable for a lack of determination on the part of the parents.

You are correct, guns are not tonka trucks and I wouldnt feel the need to closely supervise my children if they were "playing" with a tonka truck. You don't "play" with guns regardless of their color. A responsible parent would never allow a child unsupervised access to a gun.

So, matt - marketing cigarettes to small children would be alright as well? Just like with rifles, a small child can't buy either, their parents or other older person would have to buy them, but marketing a gun, that looks like a toy, with toy-like marketing ploys, removes the 'lethality' aspect of the weapon when children see those videos. Maybe a nice shot of the 2-year-old girl with a bullet hole in her chest on the Crickett box would be an appropriate warning label, instead of the cute cartoon figure.

Again, the onus is on parents, but since the damage is to society when parents make bad decisions regarding guns and 5-year-olds, how about removing advertising that makes the weapons look like a toy, and targets the children?

Maybe marketing Jack to 12-year-olds is OK with you, because you expect all parents to do the right thing.

I guess we should give free reign to irresponsible manufacturers then. Remove all legislation having to do with marketing.

30 second cartoon character spots for Bud Light, Marlboro Reds (those lights are for puzzies) during a Sponge Bob episode.

Consider that the majority here seems to be advocating a one sided solution of parental responsibility. I wonder how many of those marketing whizzes who are pandering weapons to children are considered responsible parents?

Evidently, their sense of responsibility to their community is overridden by the dollars.

Really people, when you take the side of this manufacturer (apparantly because of what they make) then you have to let go of any criticism of other industries..

The video gaming industry for example.

I've seen adults on the pistol range point their loaded pistols at their faces when their weapons jam and they're trying to clear the round. People sometimes just don't think - it's impulse sometimes, a natural reaction. Doesn't matter how accomplished a shooter or gun enthusiast you are, or how careful you are with teaching your kids gun safety either. A rifle in the hands of a 5-year old puts that child unnecessarily at risk. This nonsense about the parents are idiots, irresponsible, etc., for leaving the child unsupervised, is just that, nonsense. A 5-year-old could have a momentary lapse of judgment with the parent right there, and a tragedy can occur. Sure, many of you shot since this age, I'd say you too were put unnecessarily at risk, even though I'm sure that wasn't the intent. And I'm not against guns either. I do draw the line where children are involved - they rely on the adults to keep them safe.

If you have to start the conversation with your 5-year-old, "Okay, listen closely, because what I'm about to teach you can kill you or hurt you or someone else really bad..." I'd find something else to do with the kid.

It's the age-old problem of encouraging stupid behavior on the part of people with diminished cognitive ability. The libertarian/objectivist type says let them screw up and pay the price. But the "price" is not equally distributed. Random third parties get shot. Sometimes the responsible parent feels guilt. And if they do, what's the result? Often these geniuses will resort to drugs or alcohol to numb themselves. And then they're a problem again (still).

So yeah, I want to discourage all manufacturers from marketing things to bad parents that are likely to result in death or injury without an offsetting benefit. And i'd prefer to do it via social pressure.

yep.
 

And the sad thing is, there are folks I would not trust to walk my dog. These folks have kids and guns.... you know who they are. To write it off to Darwinism is to neglect the responsibilities that come with living in a community large than oneself.

Unless the 5 year old is watching some pretty obscure networks then they are not very likely to see any firearm commercials... When was the last time you saw a firearm advertised on a major network?

The arguments you are making about regulating everything is what leads to stuff like the NYC ban of soda pop containes larger than 16 oz. The big government needs to protect all of us from ourselves... Sorry but I prefer personal choice and personal responsibility.

This entire thread is a ****ing joke.

huh...
 

Really? So everything you disagree with is a *** joke? Or just this particular topic/thread?

So....then you would rather avoid legislation to have your goals met.

Then what's the problem? Go off and start your sob-sister group, like "Dads Opposing Outrageous Shooting Sports Handbills", and be done with it.

Techweenie's point is clear here: So yeah, I want to discourage all manufacturers from marketing things to bad parents that are likely to result in death or injury without an offsetting benefit. And i'd prefer to do it via social pressure.

What's not understood about his stance? What's the problem with it? And what's not clear? He doesn't want legislation since it probably won't happen - he'd rather enact change through other means ("social pressure"). Everyone has a right to their own views. Why does it have to be "sob sister" group if he doesn't want to put toy-like rifles in the hands of pre-schoolers, that could, in turn, lead to possible harm to themselves or others? I find his stance clear and not in any way extreme. Quite the contrary, actually.

I love how people state that "guns are made to kill" which would qualify the statement that knives are made to spread cream cheese on a bagel. Even CA in it's attempt to ban everything under the sun has exeptions for guns used in the Olympics. If they are made to kill I bet there aren't too many repeat non-medal winners in the olympics, though it probably makes culling the team pretty easy.

But this is from a guy who has let his children sit on his lap and drive a car on our property. So far we have only run over 3 dogs, 16 cats, a bunny and a small tree. They never make it over the large trees. :)

Your apparent problem with alcohol is no ****ing joke.:(

Sorry but, it's not a 2A issue.

Believe me if the audience wasn't there they wouldn't be wasting money on it. Any PR/Margeting guy will tell you this.. Ad campaigns are not created without a target audience and the placement of those ads are given the same consideration.

When was the last time you saw a toy commercial on the History Channel at 11PM?

Guns aren't sold only in stores that sell only guns.

Given that Wal-Mart is the largest seller of rifles in the US it's pretty obvious that guns aren't sold only in stores that sell only guns. They are behind a counter and locked in a cabinet.

I do understand the difference between marketing and advertising. The point is that a young child will likely see a Chipmunk rifle for the first time when they go to the store to buy it.

So yes the manufacturer (Keystone Sporting Arms) did designe the rifle for a child (made it smaller) they further targeted both boys and girls by offering several colors. For the life of me I can't see how this is wrong. They recognized a market, developed/produced a product and offered it to the public. These little rifles are not heavily advertised though.

For me the fault still remains with the parents on this one.

Yep, again, a 5 year old can't go out and buy a gun in a store, so the marketing excuse is BS:mad:

Funny, homosexual behavior is still the number 1 cause of aids, which results in death in many cases, yet liberals want to teach kids that it is ok & normal in schools, but at the same time are against teaching about the 2nd Amendment and safe gun handling:mad:

Once again, people are not being held responsible for their actions and choosing to blame anyone but the irresponsible party:eek:
If a conservative doesn't like something, they don't buy it, liberals want to ban it because they don't think people are smart enough NOT to do stupid crap.

It is clear from some of the post here that liberals don't think the Average American is capable of taking care of them selves and thinking for themselves, course, after the last election, and with their control over the education system, it may just end up that way..

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1367612771.jpg

Assuming there's a parent involved and watching over things, what's wrong with a kid that age shooting at the range? What's wrong with a .22 sized so a child can use it? The point is though that a parent should be involved.

As for your Slate link, it seems to include suicides. Certainly conflating suicides with murders isn't a good way to analyze the problem. At very least, in my state, guns aren't the major means of suicide, especially with women (yes, I've studied this). I bet it also includes criminals shot by cops. Once again, not intellectually honest.

Regarding the stats, here's a good example of what the gun control side never tells you. They often cite the UK as an example of a place with no guns and a low murder rate. Well, they do have few guns and the murder rate is lower than the US. However, they've had the same murder rate since 1920 or so, and that rate is between 1 and 2 per 100k. If you plot when they introduced major gun control laws, you'll find that the murder rate didn't go down as a result. In fact, the murder rate in some cases actually went up. Further, they have the highest violent crime rate in the EU.

My point, if you're going to cite stats, you better truly understand them.

Yep, and a 5-year-old can't go out and buy a Transformer either - but that doesn't stop Hasbro from sinking millions into advertising aimed directly at that 5-year-old.

If the advertising didn't work - they wouldn't do it. If the various marketing tools that Keystone uses to market Cricketts to small children didn't work, there wouldn't be any marketing aimed at small children.

If you want to go to the range with your 5-year-old and hand him a loaded rifle, well, one, I would leave the range, but I would not make it law that you couldn't enjoy firearms with your children.... however as EMJ stated quite eloquently:

If you have to start the conversation with your 5-year-old, "Okay, listen closely, because what I'm about to teach you can kill you or hurt you or someone else really bad..." I'd find something else to do with the kid.

5-year-olds have almost no concept of what you are handing them. If it is a crickett, it looks like the toy gun their uncle gave them when they were 3. 5-year-olds can't remember to tie their shoes, and you are giving them a lethal weapon with a list of 'rules' a mile long for safe usage? If you expect them to understand the difference, and to make some conscious, rational decisions based on life and death, then I would have to wonder about your conscious, rational decisions.

You should give kids what they can handle. A 5 year old kid should not be handling guns by him or herself unless an adult's hand is "on gun" at all times.

These stories of kid deaths would be expanded upon circa 1912 media. Ie, parents would be exposed as drunkards who couldn't care less about their kid's safety. Today they might be known as "parents caring about the planet...what's a few less people?" libs.

I am unaware of that law. My daughter has broken that law. Sort of as it was a different toy she purchased in a separate transaction at the store with her own money at that age on more than one occasion.

I should stop posting as the feds are going to get me, I let my kids drive, purchase toys illegally...

So, without adult assistance (i.e. driving them to the toy store - giving them the money - instructing them on how you pay for the toy) 5-year-olds are wandering around walmart on their own with no adults present, buying toys?

However, I should have added that is was 'unlikely on their own' to make it more clear, and not imply that it is illegal for children to buy toys....

Yep, and a 5-year-old can't go out (unlikely on their own) and buy a Transformer either

You said nothing about driving to the store, you said"a 5-year-old can't go out and buy a Transformer either".

She went through the line with her own money and paid as a separate transaction. Granted, kids don't know how to make change but the clerks are pretty good about it. Who said anything about Wal-Mart?

And here I thought that Commiefornia had outlawed all private ownership of any firearm capable of firing a projectile by combustion, leaving the law abiding citizen to defend themselves with air rifles.

Got my sons this for their first LiveLeak.com - Scale Model .50-Cal Machinegun (Fires Real .22 Cal bullets)

Now that I own 4 I'm thinking of a RC P40 warhawk with them wing mounted

I don't think there is a single person on this thread that disagrees with you on this.

What we are really discussing here is not what a manufacturer can do, it is if they should do....

That is by far the coolest thing I've seen so far this year!

A bit weird if you ask me
http://db2.stb.s-msn.com/i/20/898D62...D992D576A9.jpg

Gotta wonder how average American's would manage their guns if there was a law that said...

"Should any gun you own wind up being used in a crime, you are to be tried as an accomplice to that crime. Minimum punishment, $10,000 fine and 30 days in jail".

Would that alter the behaviour of irresponsible gun owners? I tend to think so. Would that help advance the use of finger-print confirmation activation of the weapon? I think so. Would that have more guns in verifyiable locked gun safes with ammunition locked up elsewhere? Especially if such secure storage could be documented and provide the only considerable evidence in the owners defense?....I think so.

Until responsibility requirements match the potential for mishandling, this dialogue will never end. No need to hide behind the 2nd ammendment or compare to pointed sticks. Gun ownership is a great thing and a freedom that many have fought and died for. But accountability and responsibility must be real. Problem solved!

Wow. That's actually surprisingly informative. And without going to any real effort, it's obvious that there's a correlation (though not necessarily a causation) between the big liberal places and gun deaths. DC, Baltimore, Philly, Detroit, Chicago ... I'm sure that's not what they were trying to illustrate, but that's a pretty clear takeaway.

Why should they be accountable for guns, they aren't accountable for anything else?

When I looked yesterday 6 of the first 40 were Police shootings.

A big chunk appeared to be gang related or robberies.

Unbeleivable irresposibility on the part of the parents. They should be liable as if they pulled the trigger themselves. Leaving a loaded gun for a kid that age to find is like setting a trap.

The FIRST rule of gun responsibilty is that you check to see if the thing is loaded.....EVERY time it changes hands. You assume the prior person handling it is a maroon....

Pound that into every brain and the accidents tend to reduce in occurences. If you can't open the breech or cylinder you assume it is loaded.

Bad analogy with the smoking campaign, Fox. Smoking, when practiced using the manufacturer's recommendations, results in harm to the child. Shooting a weapon, using manufacturer's recommendations, under parental supervision, results in no harm to the child, or anyone else, only gasps from the nearest liberal.

Face it, you'll never make a logical case for infringing on law abiding citizens to attempt to prevent tragedy.