The Obscure Peril of Chocolate Eggs Between a firearm and a toy inside a chocolate egg, the U.S. government decided that the chocolate egg was a greater threat. In this print advertisement created by Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, this organization questions a somewhat ironic state in this country. If chocolate eggs are too dangerous for children, why are firearms still allowed in so many public areas, including places with children? By controlling the lighting of the photo, the placement of the children, and the objects in comparison, Moms Demand Action efficaciously calls for stricter control on firearms to improve the safety of children, and to prevent any more incidents involving firearms.
This print ad consists of two young …show more content…
With the use of words such as child and protect, the ad tries to make mothers be aware and cautious about the information given in the ad. These sensitive words are chosen to catch the attention of mothers, and make them find out more about the current gun laws. By applying a sense of fear that their children could be endangered because firearms are allowed in areas with children, while Kinder Eggs are banned everywhere, the ad attempts to convey the idea that some rights must be taken away to protect more important rights, such as the right to …show more content…
for so long, thus making the organization’s argument of irony in “protecting the children” invalid or weak. “The 1938 Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act is the law most cited to justify the embargo on Kinder Eggs” (Beiting). This act prevents companies from including toys and other non-edible items inside food. Although this act has a valid point, it loses some validity since “Mars [promoted] civil action to prevent the marketing of this product” (Beiting). Considering the amount of choking hazards in foods currently such as hotdogs or popcorn, banning only the Kinder Eggs seems like an extreme measure. Hence the ban seems to be more of an economical statement by a company rather than an actual health concern. The banning of Kinder Eggs seem like an extreme measure “to protect the children” but almost no measures are taken to prevent gun violence, which can have more severe
This print ad consists of two young …show more content…
With the use of words such as child and protect, the ad tries to make mothers be aware and cautious about the information given in the ad. These sensitive words are chosen to catch the attention of mothers, and make them find out more about the current gun laws. By applying a sense of fear that their children could be endangered because firearms are allowed in areas with children, while Kinder Eggs are banned everywhere, the ad attempts to convey the idea that some rights must be taken away to protect more important rights, such as the right to …show more content…
for so long, thus making the organization’s argument of irony in “protecting the children” invalid or weak. “The 1938 Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act is the law most cited to justify the embargo on Kinder Eggs” (Beiting). This act prevents companies from including toys and other non-edible items inside food. Although this act has a valid point, it loses some validity since “Mars [promoted] civil action to prevent the marketing of this product” (Beiting). Considering the amount of choking hazards in foods currently such as hotdogs or popcorn, banning only the Kinder Eggs seems like an extreme measure. Hence the ban seems to be more of an economical statement by a company rather than an actual health concern. The banning of Kinder Eggs seem like an extreme measure “to protect the children” but almost no measures are taken to prevent gun violence, which can have more severe