Please explain to me "My first gun."

[berettafan]

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.

[techweenie]

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

[Rikao4]

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

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

So are all cartoon characters with firearms bad, or just those from Keystone?

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.

[matt711]

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.

[foxpaws]

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.

[70SATMan]

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.

[EMJ]

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.

[techweenie]

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.

[yazhound]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

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.

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.

[matt711]

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.

[slakjaw]

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

[yazhound]

Originally Posted by slakjaw

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

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

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally Posted by techweenie

And i'd prefer to do it via social pressure.

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.

[EMJ]

Originally Posted by BlueSkyJaunte

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.

[widebody911]

[flipper35]

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.

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by slakjaw

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

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

[70SATMan]

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

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by matt711

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?

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.