In its efforts to hook kids on guns, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is following a trail blazed by the tobacco industry according to a new Violence Policy Center (VPC) study conducted with the Global Survival Network. The 144-page study, Joe Camel with Feathers: How the NRA with Gun and Tobacco Industry Dollars Uses its Eddie Eagle Program to Market Guns to Kids, was released on Wednesday, November 19th at a 10:00 AM press conference in the Lisagor Room at the National Press Club located at 14th and F Streets, NW in Washington, DC.Does that sound reasonable to you? Do you think the NRA and the gun manufacturers of America would actually do something like this? If the answer is yes, is it any worse than the other brain-washing types of advertising we live with every day?The study takes a hard look at the NRA's Eddie Eagle "gun safety" program which the organization has aggressively promoted as an alternative to gun safety measures such as child access prevention (CAP) laws (which require that adults store their firearms safely and inaccessible to children) and legislation mandating the use of trigger locks.
The study finds that the primary goal of the Eddie Eagle program is not to safeguard children, but to protect the financial and political interests of the NRA and the firearms industry. The program makes firearms more palatable to children and youth, helping to recruit them into America's gun culture. The Eddie Eagle program employs strategies similar to those used by the tobacco industry from youth "educational" programs that are in fact marketing tools to appealing cartoon characters that put a friendly face on a hazardous product. While the tobacco industry denies that it is marketing to children, the NRA and the gun industry openly admit that they are.
Another way to question it is if guns are so good for us, why would gun rights folks react so strongly to criticism like this? Why don't they just admit this is what it's all about and it's for our own good?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.Other key findings of the study include:
Study co-author VPC Health Policy Analyst Sue Glick adds, "The real purpose of Eddie Eagle is not to keep children safe from guns, but safe with guns. Eddie Eagle flies in the face of everything public health experts teach to prevent injury from dangerous consumer products. The NRA expects kids to be responsible for their own safety essentially guns don't kill, kids do."
- NRA staff describe the Eddie Eagle program as the "clean-up committee" to help burnish the NRA's public image after gun control battles.
- The NRA uses Eddie Eagle as a lobbying tool in its efforts to derail the passage of child access prevention (CAP) and mandatory trigger lock laws.
- In its attempts to use the credibility of other organizations to promote the Eddie Eagle program, the NRA has misrepresented awards granted to the program by the National Safety Council, which has issued a series of sharp rebukes to the NRA. The NRA has also erroneously claimed endorsement by D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) and the Black United Fund, Inc.
- Rather than recognizing the inherent danger firearms in the home pose to children, and the often irresponsible firearms storage behavior of adults, the Eddie Eagle program places the onus of safety and responsibility on the children themselves.
- Public health researchers have found that "gun safety" programs like Eddie Eagle are ineffective in preventing unintentional death and injury from firearms. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that "[b]ecause even the most well-behaved children are curious by nature and will eagerly explore their environment, the safest thing is to not keep a gun at home."
If Eddie Eagle sells guns to kids, then Smokey the Bear is selling them matches and McGruff the Crime Dog is selling them drugs.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who would make such claims has either never looked at the Eddie Eagle materials and program or is a bald faced liar.
ReplyDeleteI find it hard to believe that the ass hats at VPC have not looked at the Eddie Eagle Program.
Have you ever looked at the Eddie Eagle materials? I wonder why someone would put up a blog post like this without educating themselves first. I can see why the VPC spreads lies about the program. Their main purpose is to discredit the NRA. Of course they will come up with a "study" that shows that. But what is your motivation is spreading this misinformation? You like to talk a lot about "shared responsibility" on this blog. Gun safety is now not being taught in a lot of schools, solely because of certain group's blind hatred of the NRA. It's likely that such programs would save lives. Do you feel personally responsible for acting against the implementation of these programs?
ReplyDeleteEddie says “Don’t touch”. Not, “Don’t touch…the trigger until you are ready to shoot”.
ReplyDeleteDo you think somewhere in their 144 page study it explains how they make this connection, or is it 144 pages of “they market guns to children because we say so”.
Nevermind that the NRA is not in anyway affiliated with manufacturers and/or product advertising.
ReplyDeleteGun manufacturers have their own lobby.
Actually, I've gone through EE materials. To say it's nothing but "stop, don't touch, call an adult" is akin to saying the bible is about religion.
ReplyDeleteIOW, the gunloons aren't telling the whole story.
EE also makes it clear that guns are fun and that kids should get involved in shooting. How's that for a mixed message?
Not a fan of the VPC? Fine, the American Association of Pediatrics also calls baloney on EE. They say, at best, it doesn't work and, at worst, may encourage children to experiment with firearms.
The similarities between EE and Joe Camel are too great to be ignored.
--JadeGold
From the NRA's website, re: The Eddie Eagle Program.
ReplyDelete"If the children are not familiar with guns, it may be necessary to explain or show graphically what a gun is."
If they're serious, they should also show the youngsters what can happen when an "accidental discharge" meets the flesh.
Marion Hammer, the creator of the program is, like, all for freedom of expression; unless her teen-aged grandson's passions might be inflamed by the "sexy" ads in a drivers' ed handbook (source: http://www.postonpolitics.com/2010/03/marion-hammer-aims-to-kill-driver-handbook-deal-black-flag-dead/). Yep, that Marion Hammer.
Jadegold: “They say, at best, it doesn't work and, at worst, may encourage children to experiment with firearms.”
ReplyDeleteHey, I’m all for getting rid of things that prove to be ineffectual. Are you?
Nevermind that the NRA is not in anyway affiliated with manufacturers and/or product advertising.
ReplyDeleteRepeating this falsehood doesn't make it any less false.
--JadeGold
Well you are a habitual liar so I guess you'd be an expert on repeating falsehoods.
ReplyDeleteYou're like the Terminator Jade. It's what you do, it's all you do.
RuffRidr said, "Gun safety is now not being taught in a lot of schools, solely because of certain group's blind hatred of the NRA."
ReplyDeleteI don't think that's the reason people oppose this. Some of us feel that to expose kids to guns in any way is to encourage them to like guns and want to have them, which we feel is a problem. It's not a "blind hatred" of anything.
It's similar to the sex education argument in which people feel that teaching the proper use of condoms is tantamount to encouraging their use. If you feel that the use of condoms is wrong, then you have to oppose sex education.
I personally feel sex is OK but guns are not.
I don't think that's the reason people oppose this. Some of us feel that to expose kids to guns in any way is to encourage them to like guns and want to have them, which we feel is a problem. It's not a "blind hatred" of anything.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I don't think you have even seen the literature, so I don't think you've educated yourself enough on it to make an informed decision. There are no guns shown in the literature. It simply conveys the message that if you find a gun don't touch, get away, and tell an adult. That is objectionable to you?!? Fine. Next time you report on a kid shooting himself or a friend on here, don't be telling me it's all our fault for not supporting more gun control. I think head in the sand types like yourself deserve the lion's share of the blame.
MikeB: “It's similar to the sex education argument in which people feel that teaching the proper use of condoms is tantamount to encouraging their use. If you feel that the use of condoms is wrong, then you have to oppose sex education.
ReplyDeleteI personally feel sex is OK but guns are not.”
So you are saying that the conservative anti-sex education approach is the right way to go about it if you are opposed to teenagers having sex.
Again, I doubt many of you have had or remember sex ed class. Guess what? It's not all about condoms. Probably 90% of the class is about male and female reproduction with a lot of diagrams depicting cut-away views of various organs.
ReplyDeleteIt's also about hygiene and subjects like puberty. So, unless you get excited about things like acne and growing hair and changes in your voice--it's pretty dull fare.
IOW, a real gun safety course would have to cover things such as the costs of gun violence both in terms of the human costs but economic costs.
I find it rather disingenuos the gunloons are all excited about teaching EE in schools yet no gunloon will support mandating that gun owners demonstrate any competency in safe gun handling.
--JadeGold
If one had to demonstrate competency and safe handling prior to exercising Constitutional rights then Jadegold wouldn't be allowed anywhere near a computer, much less a bullhorn, pen & paper, or parchment & a quill.
ReplyDeleteJadegold: “I find it rather disingenuos the gunloons are all excited about teaching EE in schools yet no gunloon will support mandating that gun owners demonstrate any competency in safe gun handling.”
ReplyDeleteAnd I find it disingenuous that when gun owners do seek training you call them domestic terrorists.
JadeGold: "a real gun safety course would have to cover things such as the costs of gun violence both in terms of the human costs but economic costs."
ReplyDeleteSo JadeGold claims that Eddie Eagle is be ineffective, but thinks that teaching children about the "economic costs" of "gun violence" would teach them "real gun safety"?
Who thinks that THAT's going to work?
TS asks, I think seriously, "So you are saying that the conservative anti-sex education approach is the right way to go about it if you are opposed to teenagers having sex."
ReplyDeleteWhat I actually said was this:
"If you feel that the use of condoms is wrong, then you have to oppose sex education."
Then I went on to say this:
"I personally feel sex is OK but guns are not."
Is that not clear?