TiVo Community Forum banner
1 - 2 of 2 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,279 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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? :p

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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,279 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Idearat said:
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.
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top