I was disturbed by Bob Greene`s column of Monday, Jan. 12, because of his focus on a particular new product: a telephone which has as its receiver/mouthpiece an authentic handgun that has been altered so that it cannot fire bullets. This is meant to appeal to firearms enthusiasts, and to be ”educational” for children.
Does the marketer of this product consider it educational to blur the distinction between a dangerous, often deadly, weapon and something as familiar and relatively harmless as a telephone? Does the marketer of this product think it impossible that a child would pick up an actual loaded pistol after equating it with a telephone, with tragic consequences?
Exposure in a column like Mr. Greene`s can generate tremendous interest
(witness the sudden success of a certain diet fudge soda in 1985), and, in this case, I wonder if children will pay the price for an ill-conceived product.
