Kids and guns at the NRA

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

I dont necessarily agree, but, then again, we dont have to agree. I have seen the NRA, in my lifetime, go from a true pro-rights group to a corporate interest group concerned, first and foremost, with money.

That’s true but who is fighting harder for our rights??

Name the group and I’ll pay dues!

You have a point there, and I do feel thats what we need. A true citizens 2nd amendment group, whose only purpose is to uphold the second amendment. No corporate influence. No lobbying.

I guess what really drove me to make this thread is that, from my point of view, it is becoming more and more of a question as to who the NRA are really trying to help.

reply to post by seabag


If I held a pro gun BBQ and shoot, and let's say HK showed up to sell guns, and Hornady showed up to sell ammo, then I would expect a cut to continue to fund my pro firearms event that brings manufacturers and enthusiastic customers together.

People have it in their mind that the NRA is somehow responsible for getting kids hooked on guns, when, in fact, far less credible and unaccountable sources like gang culture and Hollywood glorify violence and make it cool to them. But those people are cool...Just misunderstood.

So if the NRA steps in and says "hey if you want to have fun with guns please follow these rules so you're not hurting yourself or others..and oh by the way our friends over at HK have a neat rifle we would like to show you" then the reaction is "zomg the NRA is trying to kill our children!!!"

It's ridiculous.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Maybe you would be better represented by a gunowners association of some sort that didn't accept money or membership from the corporates?

Who are the corporates you speak of?

GE? If so I could share the displeasure.

It sucks that people are upset about companies like Crimson, Browning, Colt etc making money at pro-gun events and employing people.

I hope you see that that is not what bothers me, but rather the overall stigma that the NRA is pushing these days.

reply to post by projectvxn

So if the NRA steps in and says "hey if you want to have fun with guns please follow these rules so you're not hurting yourself or others..and oh by the way our friends over at HK have a neat rifle we would like to show you" then the reaction is "zomg the NRA is trying to kill our children!!!"

Is this what you think I am saying here? If it is, gosh, I really must not have illustrated my point very well.

reply to post by links234


I think that is a poor comparison. A gun's utility far surpasses tobacco's utility. Unless you farm it and then barter or sell it tobacco can't put food in your belly. However, both are quite useful at repelling people of certain political persuasions.

As far as the gun industry "getting them while young", so what. Every other industry no matter the product attempts to do that. I'd dare say that due to the limited venues which contain brand specific gun advertising/brand building, parents have more control over how much their children are exposed to than most other products vying for the "Mommy and Daddy I want......" dollars.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


The worry gun owners have from confiscation comes from the words and actions of anti gun zealots across the country. The NRA has finally realized, after the '94 debacle, that if they don't back the very premise of the right to bear arms, that if they give an inch, the anti gun crowd WILL strip the citizens of this country of their rights.

reply to post by jefwane

I'd dare say that due to the limited venues which contain brand specific gun advertising/brand building, parents have more control over how much their children are exposed to than most other products vying for the "Mommy and Daddy I want......" dollars.

Same challenge to you as I posed earlier to someone else:

Turn on your tv. How many channels do you have to flip through before you see a gun?

reply to post by projectvxn

The worry gun owners have from confiscation comes from the words and actions of anti gun zealots across the country. The NRA has finally realized, after the '94 debacle, that if they don't back the very premise of the right to bear arms, that if they give an inch, the anti gun crowd WILL strip the citizens of this country of their rights.

I certainly dont disagree that there are those that would absolutely take our guns if given the chance. From what i see, though, gun manufacturers are surely using the worry about that to their advantage, though.

I just dont know that the right answer is answering an extreme point of view (no guns!) with another extreme point of view (guns for everyone, even kids!).

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Im ok with kids having guns. Under certain circumstances and within reason.

Teaching gun safety to the children of gun owners doesn't advocate the fears your concern are based on. And I don't believe the NRA has a guns for everyone mentality. They have drawn a line in the sand. We have background checks, limits on design and capability of weapons, restrictions on felons and mentally ill. They are saying "this far, no further!" and Im happy to echo that sentiment.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by projectvxn

 

So if the NRA steps in and says "hey if you want to have fun with guns please follow these rules so you're not hurting yourself or others..and oh by the way our friends over at HK have a neat rifle we would like to show you" then the reaction is "zomg the NRA is trying to kill our children!!!"

Is this what you think I am saying here? If it is, gosh, I really must not have illustrated my point very well.

I had to go and find your last post. I wasn't even referencing your post. Just the attitude I believe is falsely inflated by hyperbole from the anti gun crowd

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Not many, but with the exception of some iconic brands and models it's not as specific of brand building as say kids see from Apple, Coke, cellphone makers, brewers,and other companies that attempt to "hook em young". I daresay that Beretta doesn't pay CSI to build into the story, " this guy was killed by a Beretta 9mm" like the cellphone companies do to get their logo on the phone that received the text message saying that. I have kids 7 and 3, and sometimes feel that I'm going explode if I see another Nickelodeon, Disney Junior, Boomerang, or Hub show, but I can't really remember seeing a S&W ad pop up during the commercial break during Dora.

reply to post by jefwane


It's not a comparison of firearm vs. tobacco. It's a comparison of business models.

The OP is making the point that gun manufacturers (the NRA in particular) shouldn't be pandering to children. There are laws that forbid the sale of firearms to minors. There are reasons for that. Society (through enacted laws) deems anyone under a certain age too irrespnsible to handle a firearm. This is regardless of how good you think your parenting is.

reply to post by projectvxn

Im ok with kids having guns. Under certain circumstances and within reason.

So am I. But I see a difference between kids having guns (if they are taught properly), and guns being marketed to kids.

Teaching gun safety to the children of gun owners doesn't advocate the fears your concern are based on.

What fears are those? Those pictures dont show the teaching of gun safety. They show the targeting of a child audience.

. And I don't believe the NRA has a guns for everyone mentality. They have drawn a line in the sand.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. While I know that not all members of the NRA hold the 'guns for everyone' belief, I have seen far too much of that sentiment from the organization, as a whole.

. We have background checks,

Which many in the NRA want eliminated, and many in the NRA refuse to widen background check laws (I dont know how effective they are anyway, but I do agree they should be there)

limits on design and capability of weapons

I have absolutely no concerns about this, in fact, I believe a wider array should be available for the public

, restrictions on felons and mentally ill.

Which, again, I am not so sure about, as blanket restrictions.

They are saying "this far, no further!" and Im happy to echo that sentiment.

Again, i just dont see it the same as you. I see them saying "well, if they are going to attempt to condition the next generation against guns, we are going to attempt to condition them in favor of guns)

reply to post by links234


The NRA is not a manufacturer.

They, like myself, believe that children who grow up with an understanding and healthy respect of guns are better off and typically learn to appreciate the right of the individual to posses firearms.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Maybe you would be better represented by a gunowners association of some sort that didn't accept money or membership from the corporates?

Who are the corporates you speak of?

GE? If so I could share the displeasure.

Corporate means nothing more than being part of a corporation - one of a group of companies - you might not like the gun manufacturing lobby being identified as "coporate" - but but is - it is big business, and it is multi-national - Browning is owned by FN, which also owns Winchester, Colt by Zilkha & Co - who "made their money" banking in the Mid East, Smith & Wesson is a public company traded on NASDAQ, bought in 2001 by the Safe-T Hammer corporation, now named the Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation.

Corporate does not actually have to be a snarl word - it can also just mean "business"

It sucks that people are upset about companies like Crimson, Browning, Colt etc making money at pro-gun events and employing people.

AFAIK no-one is upset at that at all.

reply to post by jefwane

Not many, but with the exception of some iconic brands and models it's not as specific of brand building as say kids see from Apple, Coke, cellphone makers, brewers,and other companies that attempt to "hook em young".

True, true, its not so much about brand recognition on tv, but the culture in general. I think any company that targets children is engaging in predatory behavior, to be quite honest.

I daresay that Beretta doesn't pay CSI to build into the story, " this guy was killed by a Beretta 9mm"

You better believe they do. Any brand name use on television shows has to be either based on permission granted, or a mutually beneficial deal. Its the reason, back in the day, you NEVER saw a namebrand soda can on shows, unless that show was sponsored by said brand. Product placement is HUGE business in the tv world.

like the cellphone companies do to get their logo on the phone that received the text message saying that.

Again, product placement. If you see a 'sprint' or 'AT&T' logo on a tv show, you can be assured that there is a contract in place between the production company and that brand.

I have kids 7 and 3, and sometimes feel that I'm going explode if I see another Nickelodeon, Disney Junior, Boomerang, or Hub show, but I can't really remember seeing a S&W ad pop up during the commercial break during Dora.

Im pretty sure gun companies arent allowed to run commercials at all. Could be wrong though.

reply to post by links234


There are no laws I'm aware of forbidding a non-prohibited adult from allowing their child to use firearms under supervision. In the society I live in, it's quite common for children to be taught safety, shooting, and hunting at a young age. Even if I didn't have guns in my home, I'd still be teaching those things because my children will at some point in their life be in a home that has them without me there.

I just don't get the outrage over the fact that the NRA and the vendors that sell to it's members and even support it financially might have a little something for the kids to do while trying to sell dad that $2k rifle. Hell, even Vegas figured out dad's more likely to blow junior's college fund on blackjack if junior is busy riding the roller coaster at the casino.

To me the answer is quite simple, don't want you kids to get some free safety training from the folks that work for Colt, don't take them to an NRA convention.

I'm pro-free speech but abti-people actually talking. Speaking freely isn't cool or hip or trendy. Kids shouldn't be taught that speaking their mind is cool.

And THAT is the same argument you made about guns. Only this is about he freedom of speech.

You don't want guns to seem "cool" or "hip." You want children to see them as tools of destruction. Something to be feared. Something they will never have the courage to even handle. Face the facts, guns are just as cool as computers and cars. They are a hobby. I have friends that could list off the specs of a computer just by looking at what's inside and I have friends who could pick out the right parts from a huge pile to properly put together the right gun....you know like, "here's a giant pile of gun parts! Now build a SIG P250 with all original parts!"

This gun culture you believe is so detrimental is actually quite healthy and a great hobby for young adults and something great to teach children (at least as far as proper handling and respect for the weapon).

Apple and Microsoft donate jillions of computer devices to grade schools. Why?---get 'em while their young.

My state mandates a hunter safety certificate before a young person can get their first license. Until Bass Pro followed home depot's lead and started offering Saturday morning clinics... you know how you got the certificate in Texas? That's right, the NRA.

There are only two programs in full swing in Texas that try to educate children about what to do if they find a gun on a school playground: The Boy Scouts, and the NRA. And the Boy Scouts program was developed by the NRA.

There is no corporate sponsorship, or wasn't for the course I saw; after all, what gun-maker wants to be associated with guns on a playground???

The NRA actually provides a lot of research, education and safety materials; but you'd actually have to spend time with them to know that. And flippant opinions nurtured by a climate of government-inculcated mistrust are not conducive to real knowledge.

The OP, bless his/her heart, is merely responding to the stimuli presented by the media overlords: Pictures of guns are EEWWWWW scary. Pictures of Kids and guns stop your heart. And the NRA is fat old ugly white men who are evil and rich.

With prejudice like that, what else is the OP going to do, but quiver in fear (and prejudice) at the very thought of the NRA...

Originally posted by jefwane
reply to post by links234

 

There are no laws I'm aware of forbidding a non-prohibited adult from allowing their child to use firearms under supervision.

At the same time there are some states that will allow minors to drink alcohol in their parents home under supervision. Take that however you'd like.

I just don't get the outrage...

It's not so much 'outrage' as it is dumbfoundedness.

Hell, even Vegas figured out dad's more likely to blow junior's college fund on blackjack if junior is busy riding the roller coaster at the casino.

The difference there is that the casino isn't teaching the kid to gamble.

To me the answer is quite simple, don't want you kids to get some free safety training from the folks that work for Colt, don't take them to an NRA convention.

To each their own I suppose.