So, how much marketing has Toyota done showing 6-year-olds driving?

Or how much marketing has Budweiser done aimed at 5-year-olds, made grape flavored beer, and then packaged it in a Mickey Mouse decorated can? According to the logic here - that would be OK, responsible adults wouldn't buy grape beer for their children who begged for their folks to buy it, so they can be like Tommy next door, or at least let them have access to it when they aren't around (but if they are around - throwing back a cold one with dad would be OK) however, in 29 states it is legal for parents to buy kids booze and for kids to drink with parent's consent, just like it is OK for parents to buy 5-year-olds guns.

We don't allow booze to be marketed to children, not just because they can't buy it (but they can use it - just like guns - can't buy, but can use), but because it just is a bad idea. We have decided, even if it is OK for parents to buy them liquor, and for them to drink liquor (at private locations that don't sell booze with parental consent), we don't market or create liquor products that are appealing to 5-year-olds.

Just like we shouldn't be marketing or creating firearms that are appealing to 5-year-olds.

Well, so we agree the status quo sucks. Do we just throw up our hands and do nothing? (With 300 million guns in private hands, that's actually a valid choice.)

I don't have the answer, but we should be able to improve the situation.

This guy got a gun because someone helped him:

N.Y. man who shot dead 2 firefighters killed grandmother in 1980 - CNN.com

Children get guns because they find (primarily) family weapons. Things are bad enough without making toy versions that confuse children... [Yes, I know all Pelican parents are perfect. But not all parents are.]

There's a stat on the Internet that may be valid or maybe not (I've heard sometimes things on the Internet aren't true.) that from 1979 to 2010, 111K children were killed by gunshots. If true, that's more than all US soldiers in 60 years of war. Accidental gun deaths are not 'isolated incidents.' Adding to the rate of death just seems dumb to me.

It's not incumbent on me to prove you are FOS. You made the statement, support it with facts.

When was the last time you were at a gun show?

How is teaching a child to properly use and respect a firearm adding to the death rate? And how many of the 111k had been taught?

And more BS.

NRA-ILA | Don't Believe Everything You Read

First of all, you're not on trial here, so I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm merely interpreting your comments and forming my opinion - you've clarified your stance, and we're just having a debate. Secondly, let's not key in on the awful drowning scenario, you stated that a kid who dies in a "bike, drowning, car, or any other type of accident is the same as a preschooler dying in a shooting accident, and to this I again say, it is absolutely preposterous. Perhaps, I again misunderstood, but I don't think so. The risk level of a kid riding along his driveway is exponentially less than a 5-year-old shooting a rifle. Mom and dad taking a 5-year-old for ice cream in their mini-van, buckled in, is not the same as that parent putting a rifle in that same kid's hands. If you don't know the perceived level of risk of the parents in these two scenarios, you're still obviously missing the point.

In the drowning scenario, sadly, any miscalculation by the child and/or the supervising parent can result in instant tragedy. But again, you'll be hard pressed to convince the population that these two fall into the same risk category (5 year old shooting a rifle, 5 year old swimming). I guess I'm further perplexed by this notion of "irresponsible" parents are to blame for these accidents with rifles, drownings, etc. I guess what it seems you're not considering, and it's been stated by several posters, is that participating in high risk activities with children, such as shooting rifles at 5, increases the risk for danger if an ACCIDENT should occur, even when parents are responsible and diligent. Which is why we are saying mitigate the risk and an issue (tragedy) won't happen. That's it. We will agree to disagree.

How many 5-year-olds have accidentally drowned their brother, sister, father, neighbor, etc with a filled swimming pool left on the kitchen table?

Ed, I think you are unfairly raising the risk level of having a rifle in the hands of a child with proper parental supervision. The stats simply do not support your position. Stated as a percentage of actual participants in these various activities, the shooting sports enjoy a lower child accident/mortality rate than swimming, bicycling, or any number of other "safer" activities. Far lower.

So, as far as your "risk catagories", the shooting sports are actually far lower on that scale than many other common recreational activities that we thing nothing of letting our kids enjoy. Guns add an element to the equation that nothing else does - emotion. Looking at the cold, hard statistics, though, shows the shooting sports as one of the most risk-free any child can undertake.

My god, you can't really be this stupid, maybe you aren't a good parent and allow your kids to dictate your life and buy them what ever they want.

Do you have source on that (and I would appreciate source that isn't biased) - hours biked-fatalities - hours spent shooting-fatalities. You have to take into account when the sports equipment is in the home, not being used for sporting activities. Bikes may be more lethal per hour enjoyed, but when the bike is hanging in the garage, compared to when the gun is at home, I would imagine that the scales then get tipped to the lethal attributes of the weapon. You have to take into account the '24 hour' aspect of the problem as well as 'when the equipment is actually in use' part of the equation.

You still don't get marketing do you racer - marketing responsibly to children is something many in advertising take very seriously. People in the liquor and tobacco industries take it very seriously, they go out of their way not to cross the legislative line that has been hoisted in front of them. They don't market to children. They market to age appropriate audiences. Why did Crickett not go down that same road - they didn't market to adults - they marketed lethal weapons to 5-year-old children, children young enough to not only not have much comprehension of the lethal nature of the weapon they are holding and aiming at their sister, but probably not able to distinguish it from a toy gun in their toy box.

Then you should provide statistics showing the casualties of children who were not trained in the proper use/respect for the firearm vs those who were. If you are serious about protecting the children, you should support teaching them. You support sex-education of children, right?

I could counter with how many of those biking children were trained in proper road and safety use/respect. As I was trying to point out to Jeff, statistics usually just show a small window to the problem, and rarely give a clear picture of all of the aspects of a particular issue.

I certainly think that before any Crickett is sold the parents and children should attend a 20 hour training course regarding all safety/hazard aspects of the weapon, that is what you are advocating - right Zoa?

Nope, I'm advocating that a law abiding parent should be allowed to teach their children about guns. The government (nanny) has no business being involved.

You could counter with how many of the kids on bikes were trained? Really? Which government-sponsored bicycle training program would that be?

Did I say the government had to be involved - you are assuming a lot here zoa.

So, do you get the point that your statement regarding training and proper use is an impossible thing to factor in when looking at the statistics regarding children on bicycles/fatalities vs children with guns/fatalities?

I have made my living with it, but you don't understand Personal Responsability, or the fact that kids can't buy the guns, an adult is still the one who has to buy the gun & ammo, no matter who it is marketed towards. I have put. A lot of miles in the past few weeks to track events, but I didn't see one billboard, TV or radio comorcial for a Crickett child's weapon, now that I think about it, I have never seen one, and I have put a lot of miles all over the country for racing. And for someone who claims to know about guns, while one may be pink, there is a difference in weight, and again, it is back on the parents to keep the guns secured and to TEACH the child proper weapon handling and the difference between a toy gun and a real one. Market all you want to kids, but it still requires an adult to make the purchase. Most 5 year olds don't have a couple hundred dollars in their pocket to drive to Wally World to buy a gun, and IF someone at the store "did" sell a 5 year old a gun, well, they would go to jail, just as a bartender would go to jail for serving a minor. Personal Responsability and good parenting are the key to keeping kids safe..

I understand a whole lot about personal responsibility - and why we place very little value in it.

We could say - you are personally responsible for driving at a safe speed. Ha, how high would the fatality rate be on the roads today if that were the case. Or in the case of corporate America - you are personally responsible for not dumping pollutants into this lake... if that were the case, and we had responsible corporate citizens, Lake Michigan wouldn't have caught on fire.

So, when it comes to children, who are dependent upon the 'personal responsibility' of others, we usually err on the side of caution. We as a society understand that unfortunately far too often parents are sadly lacking in the 'personal responsibility' aspect of parenting, but, should we place children, and almost uniquely others when it comes to firearms (irresponsible parents who let their children have access to guns place many others at risk, not just their families) at increased risk because of parental irresponsibility? Again, we usually err on the side of caution. We don't market booze to children, even though it is legal in most states for children to have a drink with their parents. Don't you think it would be perhaps a little more responsible for gun manufacturers not to market guns to children, even though it is legal for children to use firearms?

I can't believe you have missed three months of national discussion over universal background checks. And I guess your Google is broken, so here you go:

Background:
The Case Against Gun Background Checks - ABC News

Background checks for guns: What you need to know - U.S. News

The most recent bill:
Bill Summary & Status - 113th Congress (2013 - 2014) - S.649 - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

:rolleyes:

When is the last time you were at a gun show?

So, deflection.

I guess you didn't like losing.