• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why is it?

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,578
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Why is it that we have tons of these PSAs showing the danger of certain dangerous and irresponsible activities, many of which are put on by the very companies selling products people use irresponsibly, but we do not have gun safety PSAs?

For instance, I have seen advertisements by verizon and AT&T telling people to stop texting and driving.
Every Alcohol advertisement I see on TV ends with drink responsibly and I have seen a ton of just straight up ads telling people not to drink and drive from alcohol distributors.
Yet do we see gun manufacturers saying do not play with guns. Do not point a firearm at people you are not threatening. make sure your gun is not loaded and ready to fire when you are not using it? Or even just make sure to shoot safely?

Why it is that in certain things I am forced to watch the unfortunate aftermath of other people's mistakes before i can do something?
In NY you have to take a driving class where they show the great blood on the highway movies. You need to go through this to get your license.
If you want an abortion you have to listen to the baby's heartbeat and have a time out to think about it.
again the cell phone companies and other organizations love to show the aftermath of accidents.
We have tons of these tobacco ads with people with amputations, cancer, and voiceboxes telling us to stop smoking.
I used to go to this place called action park and they had an alpine slide and right where you get on it were pictures of people horribly burned because they fell off their cart for acting stupid.

It seems that we cannot show the dangers firearms pose every day and show the aftermath of irresponsible behavior and mistakes with firearms. Is it because the gun lobby and industruy does not want to admit these things happen? Are they afraid of an honest representation of how mistakes with firearms shatter lives? If these PSAs and advertisements promoting responsibility have an effect why do we not see them plastered all over the place reminding people to take their firearms seriously? Why is it that i can purchase a gun without seeing some guy who shot his kid in the face come on and tell me not to screw up because i can never take it back like they do with so many other things? Shouldn't6 a person who uses guns be the first to want these things because they are the ones most in danger from a mistake from someone else? Shouldn't they be the ones insisting on these warnings because it might make their recreations safer and lower incidents which ruin their reputation and lives?
 

opendebate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
2,926
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Why is it that we have tons of these PSAs showing the danger of certain dangerous and irresponsible activities, many of which are put on by the very companies selling products people use irresponsibly, but we do not have gun safety PSAs?

It has to become trendy. Then you will see them. It would be smart for people who are pro-gun to advocate for these because it would promote the notion that guns are safe if used responsibly. Smart idea.
 

Starbuck

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
881
Reaction score
255
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Yet do we see gun manufacturers saying do not play with guns. Do not point a firearm at people you are not threatening. make sure your gun is not loaded and ready to fire when you are not using it? Or even just make sure to shoot safely?

Granted we haven't been connected to cable/ television for the past five years and didn't watch it much prior to then, but I'm quite sure the reason that you don't see many gun safety PSA's is because most gun manufactures don't advertise their products on television.

I've seen plenty of Ford commercials, but never once have I seen a Glock commercial.

However, I do know that most gun manufactures actually fund gun safety classes and provide lots of gun safety literature when you purchase a firearm. I own a Glock 27, and when I purchased it I was also provided a Gun-lock and lots of safety information. Beyond that, I was also subjected to a background check.

The last time I purchased cigarettes for a friend, who was well over 18, all I needed to do was look at the warning on the side of the carton.
 

opendebate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
2,926
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Granted we haven't been connected to cable/ television for the past five years and didn't watch it much prior to then, but I'm quite sure the reason that you don't see many gun safety PSA's is because most gun manufactures don't advertise their products on television.

I've seen plenty of Ford commercials, but never once have I seen a Glock commercial.

However, I do know that most gun manufactures actually fund gun safety classes and provide lots of gun safety literature when you purchase a firearm. I own a Glock 27, and when I purchased it I was also provided a Gun-lock and lots of safety information. Beyond that, I was also subjected to a background check.

The last time I purchased cigarettes for a friend, who was well over 18, all I needed to do was look at the warning on the side of the carton.

Don't think this addresses the question. Not to be a dick, but .....
 

Starbuck

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
881
Reaction score
255
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Every Alcohol advertisement I see on TV ends with drink responsibly and I have seen a ton of just straight up ads telling people not to drink and drive from alcohol distributors.

I get the whole PSA idea, but I don't know if any of them are actually effective. . . how many people have seen this sign:

CaliforniaProp65signsandlabels-CAWE-9800.jpg

And said- "Gee, I better put this drink down" ?
 

Starbuck

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
881
Reaction score
255
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Don't think this addresses the question. Not to be a dick, but .....

If I'm not mistaken, the general question was:

"I see lots of PSA's for phones, driving and alcohol, but why don't I see lots of PSA's for gun safety?"

To that end, I simply stated that firearm manufactures don't generally have any advertisements, so why would they have PSA's on Television? I also stated that most, if not all, firearm manufactures not only provide safety equipment (i.e. gunlocks) with their merchandise, but also fund gun safety/ awareness training.
 

opendebate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
2,926
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
If I'm not mistaken, the general question was:

"I see lots of PSA's for phones, driving and alcohol, but why don't I see lots of PSA's for gun safety?"

To that end, I simply stated that firearm manufactures don't generally have any advertisements, so why would they have PSA's on Television? I also stated that most, if not all, firearm manufactures not only provide safety equipment (i.e. gunlocks) with their merchandise, but also fund gun safety/ awareness training.

I guess I did not make the assumption that PSAs are linked only to products that advertise on television. I thought the question was would this product benefit by PSAs, because it also has a negative public image that works against product sales. ( or potentially at least) The behind the scenes efforts don't really work to alter that public image because non gun enthusiasts don't know about them.
 

Cyrylek

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
3,467
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Boston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
It seems that we cannot show the dangers firearms pose every day and show the aftermath of irresponsible behavior and mistakes with firearms. Is it because the gun lobby and industruy does not want to admit these things happen?

As a lifetime NRA member (the very first organization I have joined in America, actually - even before getting naturalized in 1988), I think I am allowed to let you in on a great secret - just don't tell anyone - your "liberal" friends will not believe you anyway: preventing "irresponsible behavior" and "mistakes" is the core mission of those awful, awful "gun lobbies". If you are an adult American (or a Swiss, or a Finn), I bet you have heard "the drill": "Always assume all guns are loaded", "Never point a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy", etc, etc. What do you think all that is about?
 

Starbuck

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
881
Reaction score
255
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I guess I did not make the assumption that PSAs are linked only to products that advertise on television. I thought the question was would this product benefit by PSAs, because it also has a negative public image that works against product sales. ( or potentially at least) The behind the scenes efforts don't really work to alter that public image because non gun enthusiasts don't know about them.

That's a good point, from the OP I was taking it as a discussion about the absence of firearm PSA's in advertising.

In relation to you're question, I don't actually think additional PSA's regarding firearm safety would provide any real benefit. The manufactures do provide lots of training and safety related material/ equipment, and the media paints a pretty grim portrait gun violence.

I'm a realist and think that most PSA's have limited effect, including the tobacco, alcohol and texting ones. Actual training is pretty effective, along with education and improved safety mechanisms. The gunlock provided with all Glock products is pretty decent and a good step in the way of preventing the wrong people from using a firearm.
 

opendebate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
2,926
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
That's a good point, from the OP I was taking it as a discussion about the absence of firearm PSA's in advertising.

In relation to you're question, I don't actually think additional PSA's regarding firearm safety would provide any real benefit. The manufactures do provide lots of training and safety related material/ equipment, and the media paints a pretty grim portrait gun violence.

I'm a realist and think that most PSA's have limited effect, including the tobacco, alcohol and texting ones. Actual training is pretty effective, along with education and improved safety mechanisms. The gunlock provided with all Glock products is pretty decent and a good step in the way of preventing the wrong people from using a firearm.

I can understand that perspective. I think PSAs are inherently disingenuous though. I think they are mostly damage control, which is why I think they would serve the pro-gun community and the gun industry.
 

Starbuck

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
881
Reaction score
255
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The behind the scenes efforts don't really work to alter that public image because non gun enthusiasts don't know about them.

I don't know that anything is really going to change the public image of guns/ gun safety, including additional PSA's.

We've got several wars, a handful of mass shootings and countless stories of children getting into their parents gun closets to illustrate the dangers of firearms. I think most people are already keenly aware of the potential danger surrounding firearms.

Besides, anyone who purchases a firearm is barraged with safety information.
 

opendebate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
2,926
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
I don't know that anything is really going to change the public image of guns/ gun safety, including additional PSA's.

We've got several wars, a handful of mass shootings and countless stories of children getting into their parents gun closets to illustrate the dangers of firearms. I think most people are already keenly aware of the potential danger surrounding firearms.

Besides, anyone who purchases a firearm is barraged with safety information.


May I ask your position? I think you are progun...am I right? If so, let's say you were faced with irrefutable evidence that more guns owned = more deaths by guns ....would you care? It seems like most people on the progun side are more concerned with protecting their right to own a gun then anything else. This is an honest question.
 

Starbuck

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
881
Reaction score
255
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I can understand that perspective. I think PSAs are inherently disingenuous though. I think they are mostly damage control, which is why I think they would serve the pro-gun community and the gun industry.

I agree with you on this, and would go a step further. A lot of anything on television, or otherwise displayed is disingenuous.

However, what we really need is a cultural shift away from violence. To that end, it might not hurt to have more PSA's although I think they'd have limited value. What we really need is more people to get out there and stop promoting wanton violence. Whether it's video games, movies or advertisements, we continually promote violence.

It's funny my kids don't think twice about seeing someone get their head cut-off, but bad words or nudity and it's bad. None of this is influence from their parents, but rather stuff they receive from society.
 

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,578
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Granted we haven't been connected to cable/ television for the past five years and didn't watch it much prior to then, but I'm quite sure the reason that you don't see many gun safety PSA's is because most gun manufactures don't advertise their products on television.

I've seen plenty of Ford commercials, but never once have I seen a Glock commercial.

However, I do know that most gun manufactures actually fund gun safety classes and provide lots of gun safety literature when you purchase a firearm. I own a Glock 27, and when I purchased it I was also provided a Gun-lock and lots of safety information. Beyond that, I was also subjected to a background check.

The last time I purchased cigarettes for a friend, who was well over 18, all I needed to do was look at the warning on the side of the carton.

There actually is a network that seems to put on quite a few commercials for guns. They have commercials for pistols, assault rifles, shotguns, and mods on it all the time. Not to mention they do have a sort of PSA that runs pretty regularly telling you all about your second amendment rights and the constitution. I have yet to see a safety commercial run on the network. It is the outdoor channel and I am pretty sure it is the firearm channel. They are pretty heavy on guns and ads there. Still from a public relations perspective it is one of those things other companies have taken to doing for whatever effect it has on public safety and to at least say they are doing something. At the very least they could do is run something that reminds parents to tell their kids if they ever come across a gun to not play with it and tell an adult about it on a regular network. That would even help out non-gun owners whop might not think to tell their kids to watch out around people who use guns stupidly.
 

opendebate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
2,926
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
I agree with you on this, and would go a step further. A lot of anything on television, or otherwise displayed is disingenuous.

However, what we really need is a cultural shift away from violence. To that end, it might not hurt to have more PSA's although I think they'd have limited value. What we really need is more people to get out there and stop promoting wanton violence. Whether it's video games, movies or advertisements, we continually promote violence.

It's funny my kids don't think twice about seeing someone get their head cut-off, but bad words or nudity and it's bad. None of this is influence from their parents, but rather stuff they receive from society.

I think that is an very very valid point. How would we make such a shift though. Violence is so deeply embedded in american culture. We glorify criminals and people who do "whatever it takes" to succeed. We crush and humiliate "weaker" people to the glory of the crowds. We condemn those who are gentler by nature as weak, intellectuals as weak, women as weak because they can't or won't bash your skull in if they deem it necessary (in other words if you threaten their power)
 

Threegoofs

In mourning for Turtledude
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
59,755
Reaction score
24,814
Location
We had a bad fire in 1871
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why don't you see gun PSAs?

Simple.

Because gun manufacturers are protected from liability by Congress.

Why do you think basic safety measures don't exist on guns? A light that indicates a bullet in the chamber? A safety that doesn't allow firing when a magazine is removed? Trigger locks built in, or fingerprint activated?
 

Starbuck

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
881
Reaction score
255
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
May I ask your position? I think you are progun...am I right? If so, let's say you were faced with irrefutable evidence that more guns owned = more deaths by guns ....would you care? It seems like most people on the progun side are more concerned with protecting their right to own a gun then anything else. This is an honest question.

Personally, I am pro-gun. Although, I'd argue that I'm not so much pro-gun as pro "let people do what they want, regardless of the topic."

As far as the irrefutable evidence that more guns owned = more deaths by guns, I completely agree. That is an irrefutable truth, much like cars or pogo-sticks. Like I've already said though, I'm a realist before anything.

America is a land where gun-ownership is wildly popular, and for a variety of reasons. I'm not 100% sure, but I think there is almost 1 gun for every person living in the country, which is quite astounding. That being the case, trying to change it is going to be a tough sell.
 

Starbuck

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
881
Reaction score
255
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There actually is a network that seems to put on quite a few commercials for guns. . . It is the outdoor channel and I am pretty sure it is the firearm channel.

Fair enough, I can't argue with that. Like I've said, we don't have television/ cable and haven't had it for some years. And from what I have heard, the History Channel might be something along those same lines.

Anyway, television is designed to rope as many people into sitting in front of it as possible, generally for the sole purpose of selling things. It's wholly disheartening and generally the programming is disingenuous at best. Thing is, even on those channels I think the message of PSA's would be lost.

To my knowledge only two distinct groups of people watch stuff like that on TV:

  1. People who own guns.
  2. People who hate guns.


In either case, I don't see the value of a PSA, most gun owners (believe it or not) are very responsible with their firearms. I've known plenty of "gun fanatics" and with hardly any exception, they are very adamant about gun safety. As far as the people who hate guns, that should be self evident as to why the PSA message would be lost.


They are pretty heavy on guns and ads there. Still from a public relations perspective it is one of those things other companies have taken to doing for whatever effect it has on public safety and to at least say they are doing something.

Honestly, I've never been a big promoter of the idea that people should "doe something just to say they are at least doing something." Generally that results in things getting worse. . . ACA anyone?

At the very least they could do is run something that reminds parents to tell their kids if they ever come across a gun to not play with it and tell an adult about it on a regular network. That would even help out non-gun owners whop might not think to tell their kids to watch out around people who use guns stupidly.

Thing is, most legal gun owners are very safe. Leastwise there would be much more incidents involving guns in the United States.

That being the case, throwing up more pictures of guns on otherwise "non-violent" networks for the children of non-gun owners to see, isn't going to help much. Thing is, the overwhelming majority of kids already know not to play with guns, just like the overwhelming majority of gun-owners know not to leave them where kids can find them.

Certainly there are exceptions and people have been hurt, but putting up a gun on a television and telling kids not to touch it is only going to spark their curiosity ("why can't I play with that?").

It's like a teaching telling kids not to swear, while providing examples. We don't want our kids to use foul language so we don't swear. . . it's that simple.
 

Starbuck

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
881
Reaction score
255
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Because gun manufacturers are protected from liability by Congress.

That may be slightly true, but the same is also true of petroleum companies and the music industry.

Congressional protection is a powerful thing.

Why do you think basic safety measures don't exist on guns? A light that indicates a bullet in the chamber? A safety that doesn't allow firing when a magazine is removed? Trigger locks built in, or fingerprint activated?

First of all, there are some very practical reasons why firing is possible while a magazine is removed.

Second of all, a light indicating that a round is in the chamber would not only be distracting to the operator, but generally extraneous.

Third of all. . . fingerprint activated trigger-locks? really?
 

AngryOldGuy

double secret probation
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Messages
2,917
Reaction score
658
Location
Phx,Az
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
That's the great thing about false ideas, contrary to popular belief
the vast majority of Americans have not committed assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm and never will.

The PSA's are for product liability, did you know that if you aspirate even a small quantity of Johnson's Baby Oil
(i.e. mineral oil) it is basically a death sentence?
 

Starbuck

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
881
Reaction score
255
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I think that is an very very valid point. How would we make such a shift though.

Honestly, I wish I knew how to make the shift.

For our part, we just don't really glorify violence in our household, although we don't vilify it either. It's just not something that we talk about much with the kids, similar to consumerism. We don't want to have our kids become obsessed with "stuff" any more than we want them to glorify violence.

On a national scale however, I am at a loss for how to change things.

We glorify criminals and people who do "whatever it takes" to succeed. We crush and humiliate "weaker" people to the glory of the crowds. We condemn those who are gentler by nature as weak, intellectuals as weak, women as weak because they can't or won't bash your skull in if they deem it necessary (in other words if you threaten their power)

That's actually very well written and at some point I might have to steal (with credit) your statement.

Me and my wife are both veterans, and each come from a long line of veterans. However, with each passing year we find more and more that we are disgusted with how our country portrays exactly what you posted. I like to think that we are semi-insignificant living proof that someone can be a "tough guy/ girl" while still being intellectually inclined and also non-violent and hopefully this rubs off on our children.

As much as I'd like to see sweeping change, I'm (as previously stated) a realist. For me, I'll settle for hopefully influencing a small circle of people in a positive manner, at least for the moment. . . who knows what'll happen in the future.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
May I ask your position? I think you are progun...am I right? If so, let's say you were faced with irrefutable evidence that more guns owned = more deaths by guns ....would you care? It seems like most people on the progun side are more concerned with protecting their right to own a gun then anything else. This is an honest question.

that's the problem-the irrationality of the anti gun side that doesn't believe that guns can be used safely. THe more one smokes or drinks, the more likely one is to be harmed by cigarettes or booze. The more one shoots lawfully, no such risk. I think most on the anti gun side pretend they are about public safety but since the vast majority of them identify as being socialist, progressive or liberal, its about political attack, not public safety
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Why don't you see gun PSAs?

Simple.

Because gun manufacturers are protected from liability by Congress.

Why do you think basic safety measures don't exist on guns? A light that indicates a bullet in the chamber? A safety that doesn't allow firing when a magazine is removed? Trigger locks built in, or fingerprint activated?

what stupidity. Fingerprint activated, LOL, a light that indicates there is a bullet in the chamber

this sort of inane arguments are why we see gun "safety" advocates as people not to be taken seriously since they have no clue and their goal is to make almost every existing gun illegal. Guns are very safe if used properly. They can take all sorts of abuse and not blow up etc.
 

Tigger

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
12,879
Reaction score
2,707
Location
New England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
A large part of the reason that you don't see PSA's for firearms related topics is that for the most part they're not necessary. When one compares the number of legal gun owners in the United States with the number of firearms-related deaths in the US, the percentage is incredibly small. The vast majority of legal and legitimate gun owners already know and follow the four rules of gun safety:

1. Always treat a firearm as if it is loaded.
2. Never point a firearm at anything you're not willing to destroy.
3. Always know what is behind your target.
4. Never put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to fire.

The alcohol and tobacco PSA's you see are a means for those companies to avoid (or attempt to avoid) liability for the use of their product. In many states firearms manufacturers are already exempt from prosecution for the use of their product after its sale.
 

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,344
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I can only imagine the backlash against a net work that aired them.
If it isnt "see a gun, run" the networks wont air it.
By the time I was 12 I knew how to handle a weapon, clear it in a safe direction and not shoot myself or anyone else.
 
Top Bottom