Please explain to me "My first gun."

[techweenie]

You're very confused. If you read my post as suggesting states rights trump federal laws, that would make me a 10th-er.

You can't have it both ways.

I could care less if responsible people have guns. Not that my actual views influence your assumptions about me in any way.

But you are free to let your fears run wild around giant conspiracies to take your guns.

I've had my fun poking the ants nest, believe it or not, most people (even most here, I bet) don't support marketing weapons to tots.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally Posted by techweenie

I've had my fun poking the ants nest

Oh, so this was all just trolling? You should have said so in the first place.

[techweenie]

No, it's a real issue that pissed me off. But to assume real dialog and solutions would flow... no, not that naive.

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

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?

Nearly every post you make includes the phrase "society has decided", so the obvious inference is that you would legislate just about every facet of our lives.

My statement regarding the training of kids is specifically aimed at your use of the statistics regarding children killed by gunfire. If you are serious about protecting them, training them and teaching them respect for firearms surely is a priority. Or do you think that if kids are never exposed to guns they will be less likely to hurt themselves if they happen to come in contact with one?

I would assert that you could fill a room with school kids, and place a loaded gun on a table, and the kids who have been taught about them will be the least likely to do something stupid with it. The more likely scenario would be that a curios kid without a healthy respect for the gun would be most likely to play with it.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by winders

I'm still waiting for any intelligence response to this from those thinking the marketing is an issue:

"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."

The bottom line is that the guns, guns laws, and the gun marketing are not the problem here. Children killing children with guns in play time accidents is purely a problem with the adults that should be locking up these guns or supervising their appropriate use.

Scott

The problem is that irresponsible adults exist - and their actions not only affect their children, but their actions have very real consequences when it comes to others. Again - we all seem to think that the legislation that doesn't allow breweries to market liquor to children (even though they can drink when supervised by parents) is a pretty good idea, but the idea that guns shouldn't be marketed to children is a terrible 'restricting gun rights' issue?

So, what is the difference scott? Do you believe Budweiser should be able to market kiddy cocktails to children using pretty colors and cute cartoon characters? There isn't any difference, other than the drink is far less lethal than a .22 rifle. The kids can't buy the drinks - but they can consume them legally. Just like kids can't buy a gun, but they can use them legally.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by ZOA NOM

Nearly every post you make includes the phrase "society has decided", so the obvious inference is that you would legislate just about every facet of our lives.

I very specifically didn't use a government tie-in into the education part of guns - if I meant that there should be a government forced education system I certainly would have stated that zoa. Don't 'infer' anything it will get you in trouble every time. You could apologize for inferring incorrectly, assuming that I meant something other than what I typed, but wow - that would mean you were culpable for your statements - wouldn't want to go down that road.

My statement regarding the training of kids is specifically aimed at your use of the statistics regarding children killed by gunfire. If you are serious about protecting them, training them and teaching them respect for firearms surely is a priority. Or do you think that if kids are never exposed to guns they will be less likely to hurt themselves if they happen to come in contact with one?

As I said - I think every child that is given a crickett should have lots and lots of training and teaching about guns - I truly believe that - I very clearly stated that before. Again - can you read?

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?

I would assert that you could fill a room with school kids, and place a loaded gun on a table, and the kids who have been taught about them will be the least likely to do something stupid with it. The more likely scenario would be that a curios kid without a healthy respect for the gun would be most likely to play with it.

And I would say anyone doing that should be instantly hauled away for endangering a child. Why in the world would anyone place a loaded gun anywhere near unsupervised kindergarteners, I don't care if a 5-year-old has had 100 hours of gun safety, 5-year-olds can't make a good decision regarding if they need socks today, let alone decisions regarding loaded guns.

[john70t]

Fox- In my youth, I shot .22s at a summer camp. It was a YMCA or state.
All of them had archery as well.

Should any sport using a potential weapon be restricted from children? (careful now...)

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by john70t

Fox- In my youth, I shot .22s at a summer camp. It was a YMCA or state.
All of them had archery as well.

Should any sport using a potential weapon be restricted from children? (careful now...)

Again - I am not saying we should restrict guns from children, we should restrict marketing those weapons to small children, just like we restrict marketing booze to small children.

So, was the archery unsupervised?

[winders]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

The problem is that irresponsible adults exist - and their actions not only affect their children, but their actions have very real consequences when it comes to others. Again - we all seem to think that the legislation that doesn't allow breweries to market liquor to children (even though they can drink when supervised by parents) is a pretty good idea, but the idea that guns shouldn't be marketed to children is a terrible 'restricting gun rights' issue?

So, what is the difference scott? Do you believe Budweiser should be able to market kiddy cocktails to children using pretty colors and cute cartoon characters? There isn't any difference, other than the drink is far less lethal than a .22 rifle. The kids can't buy the drinks - but they can consume them legally. Just like kids can't buy a gun, but they can use them legally.

Are you really going to compare alcohol-related deaths to gun-related deaths? Talking about shooting yourself in the foot.....

Scott

[winders]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

Again - I am not saying we should restrict guns from children, we should restrict marketing those weapons to small children, just like we restrict marketing booze to small children.

Provide examples of firearm marketing to small children. Real examples of where the firearms are marketed to children. An ad showing guns suitable for use children is not the same as marketing to children.

Scott

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by winders

Are you really going to compare alcohol-related deaths to gun-related deaths? Talking about shooting yourself in the foot.....

Scott

I am comparing marketing scott - read the post.

Why is marketing guns to small children OK but marketing booze to small children not OK? Or do you think Budweiser should be allowed to market booze to small children scott?

However, if I had to chose between a can of Budweiser on a table in front of 10 5-year-olds and a loaded .44, I think I know which one I would chose - which one would you chose?

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by winders

Provide examples of firearm marketing to small children. Real examples of where the firearms are marketed to children. An ad showing guns suitable for use children is not the same as marketing to children.

Scott

Scott - marketing includes a whole lot of things, including making the item extraordinarily appealing to children, the use of cartoon characters, showing other children who get to have the item (they get to have xxxx, why can't I), all very common marketing ploys when marketing anything to children, not just guns.

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

I very specifically didn't use a government tie-in into the education part of guns - if I meant that there should be a government forced education system I certainly would have stated that zoa. Don't 'infer' anything it will get you in trouble every time. You could apologize for inferring incorrectly, assuming that I meant something other than what I typed, but wow - that would mean you were culpable for your statements - wouldn't want to go down that road.


As I said - I think every child that is given a crickett should have lots and lots of training and teaching about guns - I truly believe that - I very clearly stated that before. Again - can you read?

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?

And I would say anyone doing that should be instantly hauled away for endangering a child. Why in the world would anyone place a loaded gun anywhere near unsupervised kindergarteners, I don't care if a 5-year-old has had 100 hours of gun safety, 5-year-olds can't make a good decision regarding if they need socks today, let alone decisions regarding loaded guns.

Nice dodge... so you believe teaching 5-year olds is fruitless? Do you believe this is only applicable to certain subjects, or only subjects that you choose?

As for the 20 hour training course, who would you say should create and administer the course, the parent, or some official entity?

apology? when you quit answering simple questions out of the side of your mouth, maybe

[john70t]

On marketing:
1). Automobiles kill a lot of teenagers each year due to inattention.
Shouldn't advertisements for distraction features such as networking and entertainment be banned or have parental lock-outs?

2). Media represents children in a variety of dangerous or violent situations. A lot of children have been injured or killed trying to recreate stunts in movies, and just look at the recent release Hunger Games where teenagers go around killing one another.
Should violence be presented as entertainment to children at all?

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by john70t

On marketing:
1). Automobiles kill a lot of teenagers each year due to inattention.
Shouldn't advertisements for distraction features such as networking and entertainment be banned or have parental lock-outs?

2). Media represents children in a variety of dangerous or violent situations. A lot of children have been injured or killed trying to recreate stunts in movies, and just look at the recent release Hunger Games where teenagers go around killing one another.
Should violence be presented as entertainment to children at all?

I don't believe I have seen that Verizon video that promotes teens (or anyone for that matter) texting while operating a vehicle, with adult supervision, got link john?

I also haven't seen the Lionsgate ad that is promoting that teenagers play the 'game' for real, while their parents watch and closely monitor their child's progress.

However I have seen the keystone video that promotes putting a loaded weapon in the hands of a 5-year-old, with proper supervision.

[ZOA NOM]

What's all the fuss about anyway. Gun crimes have plummeted, not that the media knows.

Gun crime has plunged, but Americans think it's up, says study - latimes.com

[winders]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

Scott - marketing includes a whole lot of things, including making the item extraordinarily appealing to children, the use of cartoon characters, showing other children who get to have the item (they get to have xxxx, why can't I), all very common marketing ploys when marketing anything to children, not just guns.

You're arguments are terrible and your position is unreasonable.

You can't produce a single example of guns being marketed to children in way that should be made illegal, can you?

Scott

[KevinTodd]

Originally Posted by ZOA NOM

What's all the fuss about anyway. Gun crimes have plummeted, not that the media knows.

Gun crime has plunged, but Americans think it's up, says study - latimes.com

Excellent article. Not surprised it has been buried by the media.

[Hoots]

Originally Posted by john70t

On marketing:
1). Automobiles kill a lot of teenagers each year due to inattention. yadda yadda yadda

2). Media represents children in a variety of dangerous or violent situations. A lot of children have been injured or killed trying to recreate stunts in movies, yadda yadda yadda

Each year more kids are killed by swimming pools than by firearms, but you don't hear anyone screaming for the banishment of deadly assault pools.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by winders

You're arguments are terrible and your position is unreasonable.

You can't produce a single example of guns being marketed to children in way that should be made illegal, can you?

Scott

Again Scott - I can only state this so many times - The cartoon character on the packaging and in other marketing material - the beanie baby toy tie-ins - the child appealing product (use of color in this case) - the video that shows children whining to get guns from their folks.

Again - if Budweiser marketed grape flavored beer to children using an appealing product (sweet grape flavored beer), packaged it in a can with a cute cartoon character on it, sold cute beanie babies that promoted the product and ran videos that showed 5-year-olds begging their parents to buy grape flavored beer, I think most people would be rather offended. But, that won't happen because Budweiser can't market their product to children, by using any of those same marketing ploys that Keystone uses to market their product to children, even though, in 29 states, parents can buy the product and let their kids drink it legally.

Firearms should not be marketed to appeal to 5-year-olds.