Please explain to me "My first gun."

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by Racerbvd

I understand marketing, you don't understand good parenting, and there lies the problem.. Just because you and other liberals can't say no to your kids, doesn't mean everyone is a bad parent.

Well, the assumptions (amazingly, and constantly incorrect) continue to be stated by you.

I would imagine that the family involved in this tragedy isn't liberal, most posters here at least would define as being bad parents (at least by the consistent theme of 'it is the parents responsibility').

Guns that look like toys and are marketed to children too young to understand the difference is irresponsible corporate behavior at the least.

No amount of preaching to a 5-year-old that their pink 'barbie' gun is dangerous is going to sink in enough to make a difference if that child comes across the gun outside of a safe. It looks like a toy, has a cartoon character on it, and heck, they can point the GI Jane rifle at their little brother and nothing happened before... It is an irresponsible product, marketed irresponsibly.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by winders

Rifles are not cigarettes and comparing rifles to cigarettes is duplicitous and something only an unreasonable person would do. You are making the leap that rifles are bad just like cigarettes. That is not the case.

There is a difference between marketing a rifle designed for children to adults and children and marketing cigarettes to adults and children.

Rifles should used by children only under adult supervision. Children should never smoke cigarettes, adult supervision or not.

The bottom line here is that you think guns are evil.......so you viewpoint is tainted.

Scott

I own guns, have shot since I was 12, had a CWP since the time you had to have the local sheriff personally vouch for you...

You don't know me at all.

I am not comparing the actual item - I am comparing the marketing of the item. We do not market cigarettes to children (via legislation) because children are not able to make informed, rational decisions regarding cigarettes. We should not market guns to children because children are not able to make informed rational decisions regarding firearms.

[winders]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

I am not comparing the actual item - I am comparing the marketing of the item. We do not market cigarettes to children (via legislation) because children are not able to make informed, rational decisions regarding cigarettes. We should not market guns to children because children are not able to make informed rational decisions regarding firearms.

Children cannot buy guns. Only adults can. I see no problem with a child going up to dad or mom and saying that they want a rifle. The parent gets to make the call on if and when a rifle is purchased and, if purchased, how that rifle is used.

These rifle ads you despise so much are not on TV, the radio, local billboards, the local playground, etc.

There is no proper way to use cigarettes. They are always bad for you. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a properly used rifle.

Toys kill significantly more children than rifles do. Based on your logic, we should not market toys to children because children are not able to make informed rational decisions regarding toys.

Scott

[EMJ]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

You keep mentioning the "as a toy" angle. I can assure you, in a lifetime of immersion in the firearms world, I have never seen anyone present a firearm to a kid "as a toy". You are, again, speaking from a position of ignorance. I've asked you repeatedly for your personal experiences in this realm, and you have steadfastly avoided answering those inquiries. That, coupled with the rhetoric you have spewed on this thread, states very clearly that you have no experience in this regard. Your "as a toy" position is a fantasy of your own making. You have nothing to support that position. It is simply your opinion, arrived at to further demonize gun owners, and clearly has no basis in fact or actual experience. You are attempting to dramatize this.



Let's deconstruct this for a moment. How many parents, casually looking for your "toy" for their child, are going to go to a gun show to look for it? How many non-shooting, "toy" shopping parents, will even think of that, and then go to the trouble to track down a gun show and do that? Why on earth would they bother, when the WalMart on the corner stocks them? You are grasping at straws.

Your argument becomes extremely incongruous on this point. Nobody goes to a gun show to get in some "toy" shopping for their kids. The folks attending gun shows tend to be at least somewhat into, well, - guns. They are enthusiasts, with a bit more interest and knowledge than the John Q. Public that would be likely to view these rifles as your "toys". In other words, it is extremely unlikely that your ignorant, ill-informed public that may actually see these rifles as "toys" would ever stumble across a gun show, or think of searching out a gun show, at which to purchase them - that's way too much trouble when they are readily available at the local sporting goods store. Conversely, it is equally likely that anyone purchasing one at a gun show will know full well that it is no "toy".

As a related asside, any licensed dealer selling at any gun show in the land still sells under the same rules they do when in their shop. Same forms, same background checks. Now while I cannot vouch for all gun clubs, mine - the Washington Arms Collectors - conducts, as a requirement for membership, the very same background check required to purchase a fiream at a dealer. At our shows, we can only sell to or buy from other currently active members. We actually have people arrested that are caught violating this rule.

It is my understanding that many other clubs accross the nation follow these same rules. I have been to gun shows in virtually every western state, and many in the mid west. At each and every show I have ever attended, the hosting club has had the same "members only" rule on firearms sales and purchases. Those are my first hand experiences with this supposed "gun show loophole" - it is really no more than a media/political talking point, aimed at the ignorant and ill-informed. Like you. So, I'll ask you the same sort of question that has so far gone unanswered - what are your experiences with this? I think I already know the answer...

Tech, face it - you are arguing from a position of emotion and ignorance. I don't expect you will ever change that position, and you are certainly free to cling to it. The difference between you and I on this point, however, is that I have lived a lifetime immersed in the world of firearms. My opinions are based not only upon my own experiences, but also upon the collective experiences of a wonderful community - one quite unlike any other in this country, or anywhere else on earth. You can continue to chip at us from the outside looking in - everyone is entitled to their voice, their opinion. You need to understand, however, just how foolish you look, so stubbornly clinging to you emotionally based, ignorant opinions. That (and again, I understand you say it is not your intention), and do not try to change us. You don't have to understand us, you don't have to like us - but you have no right to try, in your emotional ignorance, to change us.

The irony of this post is that it seems very clear that you've not experienced, fortunately, an incident in which an accident has occurred with a child and a firearm, as you profess throughout. With all due respect, seems to me for someone who is calling anyone who disagrees with you ignorant, misinformed and emotional, you have absolutely no experience with the issue. How can you summarily dismiss the known statistics of the unfortunate accidents where children have actually killed other children or others when the parent was standing right there? A split second of inattention and a tragedy occurs. Because it hasn't happened to you or your circle, and hopefully it never does, it isn't an issue? I can respect and appreciate your view, but your experience of utopia around this issue is just not real world. Accidents happen all the time involving even the most diligent parents. For those who say this is the price of freedom, that is very sad.

Personally, I wouldn't put my little 5-year-old girl in the position of shooting weapons, and I, once upon a time, instructed hundreds of military personnel, and shot thousands of rounds in a multitude of weapons. I've seen the accidents ADULTs have, the odds are much greater for pre-schoolers. But again, I am open minded enough to understand that in some demographics, this simply is a way of life (Young children firing weapons). And with this, it is a riskier proposition for the children involved. To say it isn't is simply disengenuous, and I guess that's the issue that I have. If a child is blown away because a parent, responsible or not, put a gun in their hand, that's just one too many.

[EMJ]

Double post....

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

How would your cell phone know if you were driving or were a passenger on a bus or train?

It isn't as simple as you might think seahawk.

So, your need to text on a train is more valuable than the lives of teenagers (I'm arguing like a Progressive)? How dare you be so unthinking, so uncaring.

We must do something. Texting kills. The first person to design an app that figures out how to allow parents to block their kids texting while in a car (it is simple, btw, the tech exists) wins.

The train or bus can have a ten dollars sensor that allows all functionality.

This is not going to the moon, folks...think of the Newtown Massacre that happens every day because Progressives won't propose legislation because they need to text on a train! On a serious note, I followed a Ford Focus driving on rural roads today that was all over the white lines, back and forth, punctures the middle yellow lines as well. Ten miles of this. I finally caught up to her at a stop light. She had her phone in front of her grill, busily texting. This is serious stuff and absolutely needs to be addressed.

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by winders

Children cannot buy guns. Only adults can. I see no problem with a child going up to dad or mom and saying that they want a rifle. The parent gets to make the call on if and when a rifle is purchased and, if purchased, how that rifle is used.

These rifle ads you despise so much are not on TV, the radio, local billboards, the local playground, etc.

There is no proper way to use cigarettes. They are always bad for you. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a properly used rifle.

Toys kill significantly more children than rifles do. Based on your logic, we should not market toys to children because children are not able to make informed rational decisions regarding toys.

Scott

Scott,

She just doesn't seen to understand that kids can't buy guns. Aids kills a lot of gays, yet, people like her are pushing for homosexuality to be taught as normal in schools.
The fact that more children die from choking on things, like the Beenie Baby that she critizised the manufactor for having a "not for children under 3" than pink guns every year. Course, since she doesn't think people are smart enough to have common sense enough be responsible for their own actions and it is always someone else's fault.

[EMJ]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

The first person to design an app that figures out how to allow parents to block their kids texting while in a car (it is simple, btw, the tech exists) wins.

Sprint is offering this feature (Dale, Jr. ad).

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by EMJ

Sprint is offering this feature (Dale, Jr. ad).

Excellent. I didn't know it was available.

Seems like it costs $2 a month and is available on Android phones.

I propose that any parent who does not buy this service is negligent, and that any manufacturer, service provider who does not make this service available for free be held accountable. How can anyone charge for this service? It is racist and anti-poor: Why should poor families have to suffer?

This is clearly a known safety hazard with available solutions. Apple should be ashamed. If a child is killed because a parent or corporation, responsible or not, put a phone in their hand, that's just one too many.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally Posted by techweenie

As for the process to purchase a gun for a child, the majority of states waive any paperwork for gun show purchases. So it's really no different from buying an action figure.

And this is why attempting a conversation with you is pointless. You use outright lies as your talking points.

If you're willing to go that far, why should we believe what you say about your "background"?

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

So, your need to text on a train is more valuable than the lives of teenagers (I'm arguing like a Progressive)? How dare you be so unthinking, so uncaring.

We must do something. Texting kills. The first person to design an app that figures out how to allow parents to block their kids texting while in a car (it is simple, btw, the tech exists) wins.

The train or bus can have a ten dollars sensor that allows all functionality.

This is not going to the moon, folks...think of the Newtown Massacre that happens every day because Progressives won't propose legislation because they need to text on a train! On a serious note, I followed a Ford Focus driving on rural roads today that was all over the white lines, back and forth, punctures the middle yellow lines as well. Ten miles of this. I finally caught up to her at a stop light. She had her phone in front of her grill, busily texting. This is serious stuff and absolutely needs to be addressed.

AT&T or Samsung does not have marketing items such as videos and promo items that encourage children to text and drive - Keystone has marketing items such as videos and promo items that encourage 5-year-olds to shoot rifles.

Yes, texting and driving does need to be addressed - just like drinking and driving was addressed, just like marketing guns to 5-year-olds needs to be addressed.

[techweenie]

Originally Posted by BlueSkyJaunte

And this is why attempting a conversation with you is pointless. You use outright lies as your talking points.

If you're willing to go that far, why should we believe what you say about your "background"?

So, point out the 'outright lies,' please. Or do you just want to leave it vague?

[BlueSkyJaunte]

I already did. Look at the quoted text. Utter BS.

[techweenie]

What "quoted text" are you referring to?

[flipper35]

Just out of curiosity since I have not seen any of the ads, where does one find these ads in print or on TV? Highlightes? Nick Jr? PBS Kids? Hulu? Cable or OTA TV? I don't watch a lot of TV so I could be missing them somewehere.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by Racerbvd

Scott,

She just doesn't seen to understand that kids can't buy guns. Aids kills a lot of gays, yet, people like her are pushing for homosexuality to be taught as normal in schools.
The fact that more children die from choking on things, like the Beenie Baby that she critizised the manufactor for having a "not for children under 3" than pink guns every year. Course, since she doesn't think people are smart enough to have common sense enough be responsible for their own actions and it is always someone else's fault.

What you don't understand is you mitigate the deaths - you avoid marketing rifles to 5-year-olds.

Life is fatal - it will happen to all of us. However, marketing guns that look like toys, marketed like toys, however are not toys, to 5-year-olds are fatalities waiting to happen.

Apparently, according to you racer, the people who had this terrible tragedy happen to them aren't 'smart enough' or don't have enough 'common sense', and their family is suffering for their 'not enough' actions. But, who paid the price as well - society. We all lost a child, who knows what amazing things Caroline Sparks may have done...

Obviously you didn't read earlier - I think the parents, at the very least, should be charged with endangering a child. I think they should be held very responsible for their neglect.

[techweenie]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

AT&T or Samsung does not have marketing items such as videos and promo items that encourage children to text and drive - Keystone has marketing items such as videos and promo items that encourage 5-year-olds to shoot rifles.

Yes, texting and driving does need to be addressed - just like drinking and driving was addressed, just like marketing guns to 5-year-olds needs to be addressed.

Apparently there's an epidemic of 4-10 year olds texting and driving that I was unaware of.

[flipper35]

It is very common nowdays. How else are they supposed to send a pic of their first rifle hanging in the rack in the back window of the pickup while on the way to the range?

[matt711]

In much the same way that there is an epidemic of 4-10 year olds beating down the doors at Wal-Mart to purchase pink .22 rifles...

[techweenie]

Originally Posted by matt711

In much the same way that there is an epidemic of 4-10 year olds beating down the doors at Wal-Mart to purchase pink .22 rifles...

Too shay.