Please explain to me "My first gun."

[matt711]

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.

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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

Once again, people are not being held responsible for their actions and choosing to blame anyone but the irresponsible party
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..

[PabloX]

Originally Posted by techweenie

LOL. All the usual knee jerk responses.

I'm not one of those people who values the lives of children over adults. The whole point of the original post was that children as young as 4 are not an appropriate target for gun marketing.

The inevitable happens. And this is far from an isolated incident. At least three times in the past 6 weeks a small child has shot and killed another small child.

My problem is with 'gun nuts' that give access to guns to small children. It's bad enough when its carelessness and it's -- IMO -- worse when its a company's policy to put guns in the hands of 4, 5, 6 or 7 year olds.

Sure, there are kids who are mature at 8 or 9 or 10. There are plenty here who aren't mature in their 30s and 40s.

How many children do you know who are 4-7 years old who should be handling a weapon of any kind?

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.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by Racerbvd

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

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.

[manbridge 74]

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.

[flipper35]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

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.

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...

[foxpaws]

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

[flipper35]

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?

[K9Torro]

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.

[Jim Bremner]

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

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by matt711

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

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....

[techweenie]

Originally Posted by Jim Bremner

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

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

[polo classic]

A bit weird if you ask me

[Chocaholic]

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!

[djmcmath]

Originally Posted by techweenie

In case anyone is interested, Slate has been keeping a tally since Sandy Hook...

Gun-death tally: Every American gun death since Newtown Sandy Hook shooting (INTERACTIVE). - Slate Magazine

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.

[widgeon13]

Originally Posted by Chocaholic

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 must must be real. Problem solved! Ha.

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

[stomachmonkey]

Quote de techweenie

In case anyone is interested, Slate has been keeping a tally since Sandy Hook...



Gun-death tally: Every American gun death since Newtown Sandy Hook shooting (INTERACTIVE). - Slate Magazine

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.

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

A big chunk appeared to be gang related or robberies.

[cstreit]

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.

[Joe Bob]

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.

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

I agree with the it is a parenting not gun issue - but I do also add it is a marketing issue. The Crickett has a little cartoon character they use in marketing, they make the guns appealing to children (pink stocks, multicolor stocks), if you watch their videos they have little children bugging their parents - "I want a Crickett - Johnny has one, why can't I have one?" parent gives in. Those marketing ploys aren't aimed at adults.

Just like eventually we caught on that Camel was using marketing to attract younger and younger smokers, fostering the idea that smoking 'cool' to youth (everyone here says well, 4-year-olds can't buy guns, well 9-year-olds can't buy cigarettes, but it didn't stop RJ Reynolds from marketing to them), marketing firearms to children by Keystone is just as wrong.

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.