Well 4 year olds arent marketed to or allowed to drive

SOB

KJT1981 wrote on May 4^th, 2013 at 6:30am:


Numberplate, we have already dealt with that stupid argument which is raised by imbeciles like yourself.

I realise the gin makes it hard for you to think clearly, but do try, there's a dear.

KJT1981 wrote on May 4^th, 2013 at 7:13am:


Oh so you disagree? Car ads are targeted @ 4 year olds? a 4 year old can drive? Where is your evidence?

SOB

Chard wrote on May 4^th, 2013 at 2:08am:


over 500 children die in the US each year from gun accidents. Do you think thats acceptable?

Look, we get that the parents are responsible - no one is disputing that. But like what Peter Freedman said:

Peter Freedman wrote on May 4^th, 2013 at 6:26am:


In a nutshell. 5 year olds are not capable of handling a rifle on their own - fact. I would go even further and say 5 year olds can't be trusted to handle a rifle even with the tightest parental supervision possible. They simply don't have the physical strength, motor neuron development or mental capacity to be trusted holding a rifle. For that reason, it is irresponsible for manufacturers to market and sell rifle's specifically for children as young as 5.

Or to take a slightly different angle, consider another aspect of the manufacturer's responsibility. As I understand it, whenever adults purchase a gun, the seller is obliged to perform a background check to ensure guns don't fall into the wrong hands right? So what happens when parents buy guns for their 5 year old kids? Does the seller have to perform any checks to ensure the parents will be responsible supervisors? Somehow I doubt it. Likely they perform a criminal background check on the parents, but not on whether they will supervise responsibly. Can't imagine how that could be done anyway. So basically, companys like Cricketts sell guns to parents, to be used by their small children - knowing full well that they can only be safely used by the strictest of parental supervision, without having any idea whether the parents will or can be that responsible.

In short, Cricketts is grossly negligent in marketing and selling guns specifically for small children as young as 5.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 4^th, 2013 at 9:01am:


And in almost every single case the failure point in gun safety was at the parents end. How smacking hard is it for you to understand that if you choose to store or operate a product in an unsafe manner, especially in ways the manufacturer is specifically warning you against, then it isn't the manufacturers fault that you are an idiot.


Quote:


Which part of "Stephanie Sparks let a child play with a loaded rifle as if it were a toy and pissed off to do housework" are you not getting?


Quote:


Cricket's responsibility ended the second Stephanie Sparks gave a firearm to a five year old as a toy, failed to clear the weapon or left ammunition laying about where said child could find it, and then left that child unattended. There are three completely seperate instances of negligence on her part. The Manufacturer speciffically warned against all three of the things she did, yet she did them, not the manufacturer.

Three seperate instances of negligence, Stephanie Sparks might as well have pulled the trigger her self.

Chard wrote on May 3^rd, 2013 at 6:51pm:



The manufacturer is making guns specifically for kids.



It's the manufacturer's responsibility to not make guns for children.

You seem to be having trouble understanding this simple point.

The responsibility for this begins with the manufacturer, and ends with the parents.

Chard wrote on May 4^th, 2013 at 11:24am:



Really?
Those guys in Compton, Inglewood and Watts aren't reading the instructions correctly?