The Brady Campaign to Prevent Violence doesn’t like Eddy the Eagle. Neither do I; the bird’s eyebrow work creeps me out. But the Brady Bunch have a different beef. They agree with The Violence Policy Center that “The primary goal of the National Rifle Association’s Eddie Eagle program is not to safeguard children, but to protect the interests of the NRA and the firearms industry by making guns more acceptable to children and youth . . . The hoped-for result is new customers for the industry and new members for the NRA.” In case you missed that, the NRA is “Joe Camel with feathers.” Brady Prez Paul Helmke’s latest blog asserts that “the cartoon bird provides a kid-friendly excuse to oppose stronger laws that would keep guns away from children — laws requiring adults to safely store their firearms out of the reach of children, for example . . .
By promoting Eddie Eagle as its answer to gun safety, the NRA places the burden on children to stay away from guns . . .
When you consider the heart-ripping tragedies that mount every day in the form of accidental gun deaths, gun suicides, and the alleged gun homicide of a three-year-old by his sibling, one has to ask why. Why does the NRA continue to stand in the way of adult education and child safety laws that could stem the carnage?
Why does the Brady Campaign continue to define itself as anti-NRA, instead of anti-gun violence? Has anyone in their organization ever considered the idea that the two organizations could find common ground and work together (gasp!) help prevent gun violence?
Why are they classifying gun accidents as "violence"? The term violence implies some intent behind the action (meaning the person pulling the trigger wanted to inflict harm). Without the intent there is no violence. Accidents, pain and suffering, deaths, but not necessarily violence.
And "gun" violence? No inanimate object can initiate violence. They should be against "people" violence. Such as the Chinese hacking children with meat cleavers. The whole language issue is Orwellian.