Quote:


Thats not the point and you know it. This sort of negligence will only ever affect a minority of customers, but it is a minority that the manufacturer should be acutely aware exists.

Chard wrote on May 4^th, 2013 at 1:24pm:


No I got that loud and clear. The point you are missing is that the incredibly high risk of a child and/or their parent not heeding this warning - because the design of the rifle (toy sized, coloured a pretty pink etc) misleads them into thinking the rifle is not as deadly as they should - wouldn't be an issue if the damned thing wasn't invented, marketed and sold in the first place.

Also show some respect and stop the ad-homs. I won't stoop to that level, and neither should you.

Peter Freedman wrote on May 4^th, 2013 at 4:28pm:


Show evidence that the retailer knew that Stephanie Sparks would give a loaded rifle to her son and then walk away, you dishonest poo.


Quote:


Show evidence that the advertising agency knew that Stephanie Sparks would give a loaded rifle to her son and walk away, you dishonest poo.


Quote:


Show evidence that Cricket knew Stephanie Sparks would ignore all manfacturers warnings that it was not a toy and required adult supervision at all times. Then show the same for the manufacturer of the ammunition used, you dishonest poo.


Quote:


And you're an eadilly butthurt, pathalogically dishonest shithead.

Chard you wont be able to do here what you did on my forum because they already tolerate that crap.
In fact they encourage it.

SOB

polite_gandalf wrote on May 5^th, 2013 at 8:33am:


Absolutely.   His entire "argument" seems to be "I like guns and anybody who says something bad about them is a poo head".   

polite_gandalf wrote on May 5^th, 2013 at 8:33am:


Absolutely.  That's the point he seems incapable of understanding.

Of course the parents are ultimately responsible here, however, the responsibility started with the gun manufacturer: they've completely failed society by manufacturing guns specifically designed for children.  Frankly, I don't know how those people sleep at night.

Tragedy caused by stupidity.  But let's face it, this isn't going to change anybodys mind on guns. 

Back to your bickering.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 5^th, 2013 at 8:33am:


Then maybe try not being dishonest when arguing with me. So far all I'm seeing is you endlessly repeating that a manufacturer is somehow responsible not only when you use their products in an unsafe manner, but they should magically know who will use their procts safely before their product is even purchased. For example, this nxt bit of stupidity...


Quote:


Right here is a perfect example of you making a dishonest argument.

They're not marketing or selling them to young children. They're marketing them to parents who want to teach their children marksmanship, and offer a rifle sized such that a child can operate it, and the manufacturer warns that it's not a toy and requires afult sipervision. The kind of parent that would buy this product is also likely to be an experience shooter themselves, which means they should be familiar with the four laws of gun safety. You say it's unsafe for a child to learn to shoot and then ignore that thousands of parents teach their children to shoot without incident.

Stephanie Sparks is the one that considered a rifle a childs toy, despite a manufacturer warning to the contrary. Stephanie Sparks also failed to make sure the rifle wasn't loaded (first law of gun safety is all guns are always loaded). Stephanie Sparks then left her choldren unattended violating manufacturers warning calling for adult supervision.

The manufacturer did everything they are legally responsible for. Stephanie Sparks did everything she was legally not supposed to do. Your continued insistence that Cricket is at all responsible flies in the face of US Law, basic fidearms safety protocol, and firearms death statistics that all say you are wrong, and you continuing to ignore that is the greatest bit of dishonesty you've displayed.

So pardon the bugger out of me for taking offense when someone continues to be a dishonest prick to me. You want reasonable then you can goddamn well be reasonable yourself and cease being intellectually dishonest.

Chard wrote on May 5^th, 2013 at 11:04am:



The manufacturer is responsible because they are the ones who designed a gun specifically for children in the first place.

You failure to grasp this fundamental fact is, quite frankly, alarming.

Responsibility for this tragedy starts with the gun manufacturer, and ends with the parents.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 5^th, 2013 at 11:10am:


No, they created a product in response to a consumer demand. You ciuld keep insisting that theyvre guilty for filling that demand but youvd be ignoring the face that Cricket has sold tens of thousands of rifles and so far Stephanie Sparks is the only documented case of someone missusing their product. Worse, youvre still ignoring that under US law if you operate a product in a manner that the manufacturer warns you is unsafe then you are the one responsible, not the manufacturer.

Here's an example. McDonald's coffee has a label on the side of the cup warning that the contents are extremely hot. You, for some reason, decide to intentionally pour that coffee on your crotch. Who is responsible? Is it McDonalds for makint piping hot coffee od is the fault yours for ignoring the warning label and pouring scaling hot coffee on you junk?

Under your logic McDonalds would be responsible for you ignoring their warning.

You failure to grasp this fundamental fact is, quite frankly, alarming.


Quote:


Wrong. Under our laws if you ignore the manufacturet and opetate their product unsafely the only petson you have to hlame is yourself. Stop blaming other parties, responsibility for that two year olds death began and ended with the person that let her tive year old brother play with a loaded gun.