Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Thank God Crickett Rifle Company can’t be sued, NOT.

Posted 1 year ago on May 2, 2013, 6:14 a.m. EST by factsrfun (6475) from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Here is a story of a five year old that shot his two year old sister with his birthday gun while mom was having a smoke.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/kentucky-accidential-shooting/index.html

Here’s story about just how common it has become for 4, 5 and 6 year old children to shoot people.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/24/health/kids-guns-study/index.html

Here’s a link to Crickett Rifle Company the main supplier of guns for kids.

http://www.crickett.com/crickett_kidscorner.php

Here’s a link to Cornell Law describing the findings of Congress to support protecting the gun manufactures from the people of the United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/7901

This is more bad law made possible by the Republicans, here in the vote totals we see that this law protecting gun manufactures would not have passed if Democrats had their way. The first step in making America better is removing Republicans from office.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/109-2005/s219

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/109-2005/h534

Update: Crickett rifle has taken down their website but it looks like the sleeping giant has awakened, at least for a bit:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/youth-gun-marketing-debate-ignited-latest-child-death/story?id=19086960#.UYQ7j6KG18E

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/02/18014902-guns-made-for-kids-how-young-is-too-young-to-shoot?lite

Here’s a story about their attempt to scrub the web of their child gun porn:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/03/my-first-rifle-gunmaker-tries-to-scrub-away-web-presence-after-5-year-old-shots-and-kills-sister/

74 Comments

74 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by Shule (2239) 1 year ago

What about Jarts?

Why did they take such a wonderful toy like that off the market?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6475) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Is that another word for lawn darts?

[-] 3 points by Shule (2239) 1 year ago

Yes. You know that family fun game one can play at picnics, and if one is not careful can kill somebody. They took that off the market.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6475) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I'm not surprised, lawn darts are dangerous, you could put an eye out.

[-] 2 points by Shule (2239) 1 year ago

Not any more dangerous than a gun......

[-] 2 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

This is a tragedy to be sure. But how in the hell is the gun manufactures fault? On what grounds would a law suit against them be based?

[-] -3 points by factsrfun (6475) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I wonder why the NRA felt it was needed to press Congress into passing special protection for the gun makers? odd hmm?

[-] 2 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

In any case. How is the gun company responsible?

[-] -3 points by factsrfun (6475) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Perhaps we should repeal this stupid law and let some folks with legal training hash it out.

[-] 3 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

What the hell are you talking about? You infer the gun company is somehow complicite in this tragedy, but can't say how. The gun company is in no way responsible; and I suspect you know that.

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (6475) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

And yet they felt it was needed to get this special law passed I think they think they are responsible.

[-] 3 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

I'm not familiar with the law you're talking about. But it was probably needed to stop frivolous lawsuits.

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (6475) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

It is linked to in the post to which you are replying I must be mistaken in thinking you knew anything about which you are commenting. So you don't trust twelve average citizens to be fair so much as the politicians?

[-] -3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

What's a frivolous lawsuit?

[-] 2 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

Look it up. It's used a lot.

[-] -3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Nope.

You made the idiotic politicized statement, as if it meant something to the subject at hand.

It's up to you to provide the frivolity and make the correlation, not me.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

You forgot to blame media.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6475) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Of course there's no one to blame except the five year old, after all guns don't kill babies toddlers do.

Speaking of media ever wonder why the country that inspired Kill Bill has so much lower violent death rate, whither by suicide, or accident or on purpose.

[-] -1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Media conditioned the parents, they gave the gun.

And no, media does not have depict the act of giving, it taught the entire society.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6475) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Can you be certain that Crickett employs no "media" people? Do you always attempt to divert responsibility away from those that actually do something, like say make a gun toward those that say stuff, it's almost as if you fear ideals. I guess by your thinking those that provide the actual object of destruction are blameless, well yours and Congress.

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Media programming makes guns a part of fantasy.

I refer to 60 years of that, and it' only been a couple of decades that cig and alcohol ads are banned. The entire society is conditioned by media.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6475) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Alcohol ads have been banned for decades?

"I did not know that!"

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

It is not totally banned like tobacco, but so heavily regulated it does not look like an advertisement.

There are a number of things on TV that lead to huge societal problems that parent groups and others have not been able to remove in 40 years of effort.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6475) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I'll pay close attention the next time I watch a sporting event and see if I can tell What the Hell you are talking about?

(you really are incapable of admitting a mistake, you should not revel so much of yourself so easily, it spoils the game)

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

My point is media has such powerful conditioning, if you aren't aware of it, that the FCC was compelled to remove those two addictive substances from advertising.

With free speech unabridged, people can correct their living practices.

For example: Daily transportation is about 90% unneeded if a community is set up well. People are addicted to driving and TV keeps them doing it. Corps make $.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6475) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Your grasp of reality is a marvel of nonexistence. In exact opposite proportion to the obtuseness of your mind.

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

I know it's over your head, but that is no reason to take things wrong.

It is about your future.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6475) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

your lies are simple enough you claim that alcohol has been banned from advertising and instead of saying oops you dig your heels in, it really tells me all I need know of you, but everything you have said is in keeping with that level of knowledge and reason

[-] -1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Alcohol is banned from general TV ads. They do sponsor sporting events and get their label displayed.

Media has tremendous power over us given the long term.

This is why we need free speech back. We need access to our own society.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6475) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

0 points by redandbluestripedpill (510) 22 hours ago Hmmm, I haven't watched TV at all for over 10 years, so I'm working from scraps I catch here and there. The point is that media has tremendous influence and in order to have free speech within the intent of the constitution we need to revise the First Amendment.

I think the point is your a stupid jerk that don't know shit about what you're talking about...

[-] -1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Are you saying we do not need free speech?

If you didn't watch so much TV you would know about ART5. Try going out and doing some public speaking about things you are passionate about. Then you will see how the bogus attitudes you encounter are from media.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6475) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

so the Bub Bowel was an illusion? or that dude who don't do much, but when he does do it, he's sauced on Dos Equis, and I know those Vodka ads look like their selling perfume but I'm pretty sure the shit don't go behind the ears. anyway you're a HOOT

[-] -1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Hmmm, I haven't watched TV at all for over 10 years, so I'm working from scraps I catch here and there.

The point is that media has tremendous influence and in order to have free speech within the intent of the constitution we need to revise the First Amendment.

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Your words do not cognit. Setting up a community, requires community involvement. Again, we are talking a need for free speech.

Human needs are limited, wants are infinite. When people cooperate in meeting needs it creates culture. Today, if local TV actually served the needs, we would see it working to reduce energy consumption by rearranging the community as its members see fit.

After the needs, then the wants.

Our most compelling wants are for relationships. TV today acts to determine who we want to relate to, not enable us to locate or develop community that allows relationships to develop naturally in an environment which is truly progressive.

Energy helps us to live, to meet our needs. Squandering it following media hints about what we want is counter productive to what we need.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6475) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

and the sky is blue, if only there was a point...

you throw words about; hoping something will hit but your understanding is reveled to any who can read, so your efforts are futile, must suck being you

[-] -1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Curious how you cannot support that America have robust enough free speech to dominate over the infiltration it suffers from and shake off the coroporatism.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6475) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

yet it is not the least bit interesting how you are completely incapable of forming a cohesive thought

(but it is funny as hell)

[-] -2 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

At least I know what a cognitive distortion is and only use them to help people to understand.

Preparatory amendment is easy to understand. And the preparation for ART5 prevents any serious problems from occurring.

[-] -1 points by Stormcrow2 (-184) 1 year ago

This is another example of just how irresponsible the X and Y generation are when it comes to responsiblilty.

Can't blame them though, blame someone else because of their stupidity.

Just like the Boston incident - there were several people who knew who the bombers but didn't report it to authorities. Another example of just how "out of touch this generation is" when it comes to being responsible.

A disposable society with no values - no respect for themselves, their wifes, children or others.

That's why we have a hugh "anger" problem with the youth in this country- they don't give a shit about anyone but themselves.

And when they are confronted they become angry and place blame - just like these stupid parents tried to do because of their stupid actions.

I grew up around firearms and not once did I ever take it upon myself to take one of those weapons, load it, point it at someone and pull the trigger.

I guess my parents were responsible in ensuring that I knew my boundaries - not so with todays parents -

If the X and Y generation don't get their shit together you can be sure there will be more mass shootings, kids being killed by firearms and a host of other deaths that will be blamed on someone else.

Stupid is as stupid does and I have to say the X, Y and melinimum generation is not far from being just that.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6475) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I think the problem is that Congress protects gun makers for selling dangerous toys for children instead of protecting our children.

[-] -2 points by Stormcrow2 (-184) 1 year ago

So what you are saying is that it's someone elses fault because a child gets shot down with a firearm they aren't supposed to be using without adult supervision.

Typical response - blame someone else - that always solves the problem.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6475) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Yeah what's up with that? The kids loved my bags of broken glass, which were perfectly safe when handed properly, till the government made me quit selling them.

[-] 0 points by Stormcrow2 (-184) 1 year ago

Like your way of thinking - just like those parents whose children pulled the trigger because they decided not to "parent properly"

Keep thinking that way.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6475) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

same for my little razorhead doll, she was so cute with her shiny blade bangs

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (6475) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Review the votes above, now explain to me how there is no difference again?

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6475) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Did you check out the "kidsconner" above?

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

They've apparently taken it down, or it was overloaded.

I get a 404 error.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6475) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago
[-] -2 points by factsrfun (6475) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

It was working when I posted this wish I'd taken a snapshot this working dead-end link http://www.crickett.com/ it seems their own site is down

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

4 year old's with access to their own guns!!!!!

What could possibly go wrong?

It promotes "safety", has a mild recoil and everything.

[-] 1 points by Jamblack21 (-5) 1 year ago

It's not the company's fault that the kids idiot parents let their kids have access to the gun.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

There's reason's why we're not supposed to market certain things to children.

That's all this corporation does.

Along with those assholes at the NRA.

Marketing pro gun death.

Not enough children shooting each other?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/04/1964091/nra-guns-kids-room/

Make sure they have access to more fire power.

Bullet tipped bras?

Of course.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/04/1963461/women-nra-convention/

Crayons and a glock?

No problem.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/03/1961871/after-child-shooting-nra-conference-peddles-guns-for-kids/

In the world of gun corporations and the NRA kids are supposed to shoot each other.

Elect a bigot?

Is there any other way?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/03/1958961/incoming-nra-president-calls-civil-war-the-war-of-northern-aggression/

Don't forget to send in a clown car full of lies.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/glenn-beck-nra-rally-freedom-mankind-stake/story?id=19111583&google_editors_picks=true#.UYZ0tJwVdEM

Why limit yourself to just ONE clown?

There's plenty more where that one came from.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017116593

So if you ask me?

Based on reality, the entire corporate wall of lies is to blame in each and every one of these tragedies.

[-] 1 points by Jamblack21 (-5) 1 year ago

Again, its not the companies fault that the kid had access to the gun. There is nothing wrong with young children learning to use a .22. It's the parents responsibility to teach the kid safety and respect for the weapon. Besides the whole marketing to kids thing, the kids don't buy the gun, if the parent wants to get their kid a gun then is their responsibly.

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Still ignoring the HUGE body of evidence?

There is very much something wrong with 4 year old's having access to DEATH machines.

Perhaps we should give them cars at 3?

Let them buy booze at 2?

If they advertize them for KIDS then yes, they bear at least some responsibility to the damage caused, up to and including the death of their siblings and the life time of therapy the DEATH dealing child will need..

[-] 1 points by Jamblack21 (-5) 1 year ago

KIDS DON'T BUY THE GUNS, why is that so hard to understand. There is something very wrong with a 4 year old having access to the weapon that is loaded in the house, that is the parents fault. You say idiotic things like "DEATH machines", guns are used for things other than killing. Their is nothing wrong with a parent getting their child a .22 and learning to safely use it.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

there is something very wrong with parents buying death machines for the very young children. It show a complete lack of morals.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/05/06/another-toddler-dies-from-self-inflicted-gun-shot-this-time-three-year-old-in-az-videos/

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/06/florida-13-year-old-shoots-6-year-old-sister-playing-hide-and-seek/

That's just some of the latest.

Perhaps we should sell them M80s and lighters too!!!

Yes dear friends, guns ARE death machines. It's their primary design parameter.

I guess you should have bought them a BB gun.

[-] -1 points by Jamblack21 (-5) 1 year ago

It's not the guns fault that the horribly stupid parents if these kids did not have the gun locked away. Cars are death machines to, they kill tons of people a year.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

So then, how do we ban "incredibly stupid parents"?

As an adjunct, how do we also ban incredibly stupid posters, like yourself?

You know, those who constantly parrot NRA talking points ad nauseum?

Meanwhile children are still killing with those incredibly stupid guns that are all over the place thanks to the INCREDIBLY STUPID people that hang on every word for those assholes at the NRA.

[-] 0 points by Jamblack21 (-5) 1 year ago

Naturally gun owners won't respond well to you're ideas because you want gun bans or the repeal of the second Ammendment

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

They have no ideas at all, beyond the continuance of their pro gun death stance, dead kids and all.

From 9 months ago, before the invasion of the gun nutters.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-monitary-gun-solution/

[-] 0 points by Jamblack21 (-5) 1 year ago

Of course it won't, I don't see you dishing out ideas on how to solve this problem. You act like you know everything but in reality you just post links and type words in all caps t get you're point across. I didn't suggest an all out gun ban, besides we have pretty much moved away from parents buying their children a.22 to kids getting ahold of their parents weapons.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Yes, actually I did, You just weren't here under your current name plate.

The problem as usual, was the gun nutters refusal to respond properly to reason.

So more children are now dead, with more gun death on the way.

This why I refer to people like that as "pro gun death", as that's exactly what they are.

[-] 0 points by Jamblack21 (-5) 1 year ago

The problem is STUPIDITY, that is the cause of all if these children's death. Unfortunately for everyone there really isn't much you can do to fix this problem, other than an all out gun ban.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

That knowledge will not save a single child's life.

Not one.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/09/2-year-old-texas-boy-shoots-himself-in-the-head-with-fathers-handgun/

Just remember, YOU suggested an "all out gun ban", not me.

[-] 0 points by Jamblack21 (-5) 1 year ago

What workable cure would you propose? You can't ban people from being stupid and you can't ban them form buying guns. It is just like car deaths, it is horrible but in reality unless you ban guns you can't do much about it

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You answer first.

I'm sick of you gun nutters and your lead poisoned thought processes.

The FACT is, you don't care about all those dead children, or you would have demanded something be done a long time ago.

[-] 0 points by Jamblack21 (-5) 1 year ago

Not every gun owner latches on to everything the NRA says. You say "children are still killing" like they are purposely shooting each other. You have this zealous hatred of guns of any kind and you obviusly don't know what you are talking about. Irresponsible jackasses like all of these parents are the small minority of gun owners.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

It happens almost every day.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/3-year-old-boy-shot-and-wounded-near-tampa/2119745

So my guess would be it's the gun nutters that have no idea what they're talking about.

All the honest gun users in the World haven't stopped a single one of these tragedies.

Nor have they offered a single, workable cure, that would save these lives.

[-] -3 points by factsrfun (6475) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

It's cool if you guys don't want to chat I'm cool with that, I might be the sort you don't want to have around, I just call and write elected officials and for damn sure vote and i let them know i do, I'm not so much for sitting in bank lobbies harassing employees so maybe OWS doesn't really care about reaching people like me.

(this sounds a lot more personal than it is trust me)