[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.

 

[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.