Two-year-old Caroline Sparks killed by five-year-old brother

chickaree wrote: Those are not aimed at 5 year olds and you know it.

Arlen wrote:

chickaree wrote: Those are not aimed at 5 year olds and you know it.

You are being quite "picky" in order to prop up your argument. You would argue that they were invalid if it were proven that they were aimed toward 6 year olds and not 5 year olds. Surely liberals are honest enough to stand down whenever their arguments for product liability are proven to be weak.

Science Chic wrote:

Arlen wrote: Liberals want 'precedent', ANY precedent. Then they expand into areas that they previously held as absurd.

And conservatives do exact same thing. Just look at the abortion opponents who keep pushing for passing "personhood amendments" knowing that it would establish legal precedent to then take down Roe vs Wade.

The point is, there are laws already in place that prohibit the marketing of certain items to kids - take cigarettes for example. They had to pass those stupid laws because tobacco companies wouldn't do the right thing and end those marketing campaigns. It is absolutely wrong, morally and ethically, to market a product directly to children that is known to cause harm, especially one that they don't even have the right to even purchase on their own. Kids don't have the capacity to understand that the item they see on the shiny fun commercial is not safe for them, they just want it.

Now, do guns and cereal fall into that category? No, not really. They both have the potential to be harmful, but aren't automatically if they have responsible parents who lock the guns and ammunition up properly, supervise their children when they are using them, and teach them that a gun is to be respected and used responsibly. With cereal, it's harmful when parents only let them have the sugary sweet, lacking-in-nutritional-value crap all the time and don't enforce regular exercise to burn off the excess calories that they are allowing them to take in. I would rather see increased education and awareness so parents make the responsible choices, and you're damn right I'd like to see swift and unapologetic punishments whose irresponsible actions cause harm to their child(ren) - because they are responsible for their actions and there needs to be accountability or everyone will get away with murder. [/b][/i]

LadyJazzer wrote: Crickett’s Facebook page has disappeared, And now the Crickett website has disappeared too. And every other link to the Crickett website serves up the dreaded "404 Not Found."

Crickett, Keystone (the parent company) and the NRA know that if you pull down your Facebook page — standard practice for the NRA after any mass shooting — and you hide for a few days, a week or so, people move on, they forget, and then it’s just back to business as usual. Business as usual in this case is making guns for children and marketing them to children.

Amazing that we can ban cigarette manufacturers from marketing to kids but not gun manufacturers.

You would think for a few extra bucks they could integrate some sort of recessed trigger-lock mechanism into the stock with a special key for the parents, so the weapon could be locked until it was under parental supervision. A few extra bucks to the production costs?...Nah... "Stuff happens", and the company is shielded from liability, so what the heck... Wouldn't want to interfere with profits.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: Then you just condemned millions of poor families in this country who can't afford high priced, healthy food... who don't have the time to properly prepare meals because they are working more than one job, or it's a single parent household.

LadyJazzer wrote: You would think for a few extra bucks they could integrate some sort of recessed trigger-lock mechanism into the stock with a special key for the parents, so the weapon could be locked until it was under parental supervision.