[jeff125va]

It was nice to see Walt, I almost felt like I got my Lost fix. Poor kid though, hasn't he been through enough? Anyone else waiting for him to talk backwards to warn his mom she was about to get shot?

I got the feeling they were trying to make a political point with that "study," but what was it exactly? Maybe I'm a little biased in that I'm disinclined to blame crimes on inanimate objects, but were we supposed to overlook the weakness in the methodology just because the "NGA" lawyer who pointed it out was a big meanie who represented the dirty old man who killed Walt's mom? (nice to see Medavoy too) I do think the conclusions might stand to reason, but what's their point? Using a gun, or any weapon for that matter, to kill or maim another person is already illegal, if I'm not mistaken. And do they think their audience is so swayed by emotion and unable to apply critical thinking that simply having the prosecutor, the defense attorney, and the judge all team up against the big bad "NGA" lawyer to get the lovable little orphan kid off is a substitute for scientific validity?

 

[JYoung]

Not a bad story but they were very heavy handed in their anti gun bit.

The point that they were trying to make was guns bad. Gun companies, evil.

 

[slydog75]

I just do not understand people who think banning guns will solve anything. If you ban guns, yes this is a cliche, but it's true, then only the criminals will have them! Sure in an ideal world this would work, although then we'd have wild beasts to contend with, but that's besides the point. If you think gun control/banning is the answer, do a search on Australia's gun ban and see how that catastrophy is going for them!

 

[busyba]

When the NRA lawyer got all up in the kid's face during his direct, the kid should have just popped him right in the face.

 

[ncsercs]

When the NRA lawyer got all up in the kid's face during his direct, the kid should have just popped him right in the face.

4 or 5 times.....

 

[msgtgumby]

There's only one episode of Law and Order I remember seeing where I thought a gun company was somewhat accountable. Was original L&O, I think Abbie was the ADA at the time. Some story about a weapon that was easily modified to automatic and the company knew it was being done. The DA's office found an internal company document stating that they knew that was the reason people bought the weapon and that was why they didn't "fix" the part that made the conversion easy, they'd loose profit if their weapon couldn't be illegally converted (the document got thrown out of evidience of course).

As to this episode. Did this kind of creep anyone else out: Benson sitting in a room with the boy, after taking a gun out of his hand, and saying she'd be proud to have him as a son while the man he just killed was bleeding everywhere behind her? What the hell...

 

[Zevida]

I've not been very happy with SVU this year. Seems like they are tackling too many issues, making everything a little too political and trying for too many twists and moral quandries.

 

[scottykempf]

"waaaaaallllllltttttt. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt!!!!!!"

:d

 

[sketcher]

I just do not understand people who think banning guns will solve anything. If you ban guns, yes this is a cliche, but it's true, then only the criminals will have them! Sure in an ideal world this would work, although then we'd have wild beasts to contend with, but that's besides the point. If you think gun control/banning is the answer, do a search on Australia's gun ban and see how that catastrophy is going for them!

England's experiment with this isn't going too well either.

 

[Idearat]

The whole banning guns thing is another of those things best left to TV and movies ( where they can write in a happy ending if they want ).
As I heard the arguments, I kept waiting for real questions to be asked:
-- Was anything other than "gun violence" examined, such as knives or other types of assaults? If so, what the the percentages of violence involving the subsequent generations after witnessing stabbings or beatings?
-- In households where there was no previous violence, what was the incidence of violence in ones with and without guns?

Basically, did the studies show anything other than violence begets violence? Based on what they said on the show it seemed like any intelligent person hearing the "statistics" would figure out that it was an anti-gun study, not true research.

There are places where guns have been successfully banned, with only law enforcement having access to the guns: Prisons. I guess it might be argued that the lack of guns there means less violence than if there were guns.

 

[jeff125va]

The whole banning guns thing is another of those things best left to TV and movies ( where they can write in a happy ending if they want ).
As I heard the arguments, I kept waiting for real questions to be asked:
-- Was anything other than "gun violence" examined, such as knives or other types of assaults? If so, what the the percentages of violence involving the subsequent generations after witnessing stabbings or beatings?
-- In households where there was no previous violence, what was the incidence of violence in ones with and without guns?

Basically, did the studies show anything other than violence begets violence? Based on what they said on the show it seemed like any intelligent person hearing the "statistics" would figure out that it was an anti-gun study, not true research.

There are places where guns have been successfully banned, with only law enforcement having access to the guns: Prisons. I guess it might be argued that the lack of guns there means less violence than if there were guns.

I was asking the same questions, too, particularly why they distinguished gun violence from any other sort of violence. The statistics really aren't that surprising, but neither would they be for stabbings, or assaults with candlesticks, lead pipes, or what have you. And in the end, they're still just statistics, not evidence.

In any case, I wasn't trying to provoke a debate on the issue, but to discuss the show's presentation of it. Like you said, any intelligent person could figure out that those statistics weren't real research, but they made the character who pointed that out such a big meanie. What is the point of that if they want to be taken seriously? Is that really the writers' attempt to be "fair" to the other side of the issue, and do they really think that the viewers will overlook the substance of what he said just because he wasn't a nice guy? And while his questioning refuted any assertion of cause and effect, the questions you pointed out were also so obvious, yet he didn't ask those.

As to your point on prisons, I think there's still plenty of violence. Knives and sharp objects are banned there too, but they're able to improvise. And considering the measures that have to be taken to enforce the bans, it says a lot about how inapplicable such an example is to society at large.

 

[newsposter]

I love it when a plan comes together Murdock

well played. This is why i watch. For the legal gotchas and the judge smirking all the way at the (insert bad words here) defense atty

 

[busyba]

It's obviously difficult to discuss the merits of a study that's totally fictional, but from what we were presented in the episode, it seems that the authors did a thorough examination of the data and came up with a statistical correlation between witnessing gun violence and then committing gun violence, which is fine, but then just arbitrarily leapt to the conclusion that the statistical correlation between the two meant that there was a causal relationship between the two.

Novak should have been able to rip the study to shreds just based on that.

 

[Idearat]

It's obviously difficult to discuss the merits of a study that's totally fictional, but from what we were presented in the episode, it seems that the authors did a thorough examination of the data and came up with a statistical correlation between witnessing gun violence and then committing gun violence, which is fine, but then just arbitrarily leapt to the conclusion that the statistical correlation between the two meant that there was a causal relationship between the two.

Novak should have been able to rip the study to shreds just based on that.

The fictional study didn't appear to be a thorough examination though. It was obviously anti-gun first and foremost, blaming the guns for the problems without addressing any other violence. It would be like doing a study of hereditary liver problems but never taking alcoholism into account.

The arbitrary "gun violence" rather than just "violence" would greatly diminish it's usefullness. Are children exposed to gun violence more likely to commit gun violence? We can't tell from what was shown since there was never a reasonable accounting for the "more likely" part. More likely than what? More likely than kids never exposed to ANY violence? More likely than kids exposed to non-gun violence? For all we know, kids exposed to stabbings and beatings are more likely to emulate that behaviour than kids exposed to gun violence. If that were true some whacko could argue that gun violence reduced the likelyhood that it would spread.