Gun violence promoted by movies? That's right, a study!

Discussions on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Post Reply
User avatar
timmy
Old Timer
Old Timer
Posts: 2922
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:03 am
Location: home on the range

Gun violence promoted by movies? That's right, a study!

Post by timmy » Fri Dec 13, 2013 11:37 am

A very interesting article from the BBC a few days ago. Just as I had always thought, people who make money from glorifying gun violence and who then blame gun owners for that same violence, when it occurs, are finally being faced with hard data obtained by scientific research.

Pay attention to famous director Quentin Tarantino's arrogant remark:
Director Quentin Tarantino made his views very clear in a widely-reported interview broadcast by NPR in the US earlier this year. He’s adamant that violence on screen doesn’t affect violence in the real world. “Obviously the issue is gun control and mental health,” he says.
My first question, to such people who start a sentence with an adverb: If it's obvious, why do you have to say it's obvious? He's all for denying others their constitutional rights, but oh, how he squeals like a stuck pig when he isn't allowed to make money with his glorification of gun violence!

This second gentleman then points out the obvious:
Although there is no proven link between what happens on screen and whether it may prompt people to kill, Brad Bushman deploys a common sense argument. “We know that kids who see movie characters smoking think those characters are cool − and they’re more likely to smoke themselves” he says. “So it’s not far-fetched to believe that many of the characters who have guns are pretty cool − and it’s not far-fetched to believe that kids might be influenced.”
Here's the article:
BBC Culture

THE REEL WORLD| 11 December 2013
Sandy Hook and on-screen violence
Tom Brook

This week marks the first anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut in which 26 people died after Adam Lanza went on a rampage. As often happens in the wake of bloody shootings involving young gunmen, a finger was pointed at the entertainment industry: in Lanza’s case it was claimed he was influenced by the violent video games he owned.

Five months before Sandy Hook another mass shooting took place at a cinema in Aurora, Colorado during a midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises. In that slaughter 12 people were killed and 70 injured: this time Hollywood was held responsible. But since those two shocking events little has changed when it comes to screen violence.

Michael Morgan, a psychology professor at the University of Massachusetts who has examined media violence, has noted a ritual emerges after every bloody massacre in the US involving firearms. “There’s a period of hand-wringing and finger pointing − but the industry just waits for it to blow over and just continues as it’s been doing,” he says.

Actor Isaiah Washington, currently starring in the picture Blue Caprice in which he plays a sniper, also sees the audience as complicit in this cycle of inaction. “Violence happens and then we all lock our doors” he says, “and then two weeks later we unlock our doors and think we’re okay, but yet we go see another film that is violent beyond measure and people eat their popcorn and look at it and go: ‘Oh that’s just the way it is’.”

Some big Hollywood stars are also concerned. Jim Carrey refused to promote the film Kick-Ass 2 because he was bothered by the violence. He tweeted: “I did Kickass a month b4 Sandy Hook and now in all good conscience I cannot support that level of violence ... my apologies to others involve [sic] with the film. I am not ashamed of it but recent events have caused a change in my heart.” Following that statement, Carrey was accused of hypocrisy for pulling out of promoting the film after he’d gone ahead and made the movie − and pocketed his paycheck. Other actors appear to have few concerns when it comes to screen violence. Elizabeth Olsen, who stars in Spike Lee’s very bloody remake of Oldboy, says: “Maybe I’m just a product of my generation. I don’t find it that disturbing to watch. It’s almost comedic in a way.”

Lethal weapons

One tangible outcome of the Sandy Hook killings is a comprehensive study of gun violence in Hollywood movies published this month in the American journal Pediatrics. Brad Bushman, professor of communication and psychology at Ohio State University, who worked on the study, says researchers “found that the amount of gun violence in PG-13 films, those are films for thirteen or older, had more than quadrupled since the rating was introduced in 1985.” In addition the investigation revealed that PG-13 films had more gun violence than films rated R, which are for ages 17 and over. To some parents − and moviegoers − these are alarming statistics, but many studio executives and directors take the view that there is no hard evidence that gun violence on screen leads people to go on shooting rampages.

Director Quentin Tarantino made his views very clear in a widely-reported interview broadcast by NPR in the US earlier this year. He’s adamant that violence on screen doesn’t affect violence in the real world. “Obviously the issue is gun control and mental health,” he says.

Although there is no proven link between what happens on screen and whether it may prompt people to kill, Brad Bushman deploys a common sense argument. “We know that kids who see movie characters smoking think those characters are cool − and they’re more likely to smoke themselves” he says. “So it’s not far-fetched to believe that many of the characters who have guns are pretty cool − and it’s not far-fetched to believe that kids might be influenced.”

Michael Morgan points out that the increased presence of gun violence in movies does have an impact in desensitising people. “Violence becomes globalised and you don’t even notice it. It also generates a sense of the world as more dangerous and scary than it really is.”

Hidden agendas

Those directors who peddle reality in their films, like documentary director Morgan Spurlock, suggest that responsible filmmakers need to ask questions: “How much insane violence are you putting in a film? Is it senseless or does it make sense? Does it feed a story, or is it just to sell tickets?” But Spurlock, like many in the film industry, thinks parents have a responsibility too. “I think a lot of it still comes down to what conversations parents are having with their kids” he says. “Are you raising them in a home where they understand that this is entertainment, that this is a film that isn’t the real world.”

Gun violence in movies in the US and the impact it has is a complicated issue. To many the availability of lethal weaponry and the lack of sufficient mental health counseling are considered significant factors in any debate. Also key is to understand the underlying agendas in the arguments put forward by the different players.

Studio executives will cry censorship when the possibility of regulations are proposed to curb screen violence − but many think that freedom of expression is not their real concern. “They’re protecting their bottom line,” says Michael Morgan, who believes Hollywood wants guns on screen because it brings in the young male audience that the industry really covets.

Pro-gun groups also have their own agenda. In the wake of a Sandy Hook-style shooting they will cite Hollywood as the culprit because they want to shift the focus away from groups lobbying for gun control – which they maintain would infringe on their constitutional rights. With opinions so entrenched it’s hard for the debate to move forward.

Brad Bushman thinks productive change could come about through the ratings system. “I would change the ratings system to 18 plus. I would not want to see any gun violence shown to children. Adults can watch whatever they want.” Michael Morgan takes a more radical view − he’d like to see the media conglomerates controlling the Hollywood studios broken up − so less violence-oriented storytellers could emerge. “It would just diversify the product” he says. “It would allow more types of stories to be told. Instead of the monopoly by a small number of studios.”

But neither of these proposals is likely to be implemented because of strong vested interests. A year after Sandy Hook, America’s ongoing debate over gun violence in movies is no closer to being resolved − far from it.

Perhaps some bigger questions need to be addressed before progress can be made: Why are we all so invested in screen violence, what does it say about our culture and ourselves that our entertainment is so saturated with violence − and that we so eagerly and often unthinkingly embrace it?
Source: http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/201312 ... ns-on-film

You can download the pdf of the academic journal article here: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... l.pdf+html
“There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know”

Harry S. Truman

For Advertising mail webmaster
User avatar
nagarifle
Old Timer
Old Timer
Posts: 3404
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:43 pm
Location: The Land of the Nagas

Re: Gun violence promoted by movies? That's right, a study!

Post by nagarifle » Fri Dec 13, 2013 12:41 pm

Thanks Timmy

found it an interesting concept of blaming everyone else. violence is in human fallen nature. movies or no movies,
i watched romantic movies and it did noting for the missus as i did not go out and buy her a bunch or roses or box of carbury.

so , so much for professional learned opinion. [maybe i am tight fisted ROTFL ]

those who want to will, those who do not will not.
Nagarifle

if you say it can not be done, then you are right, for you, it can not be done.

bennedose
Shooting true
Shooting true
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:30 pm

Re: Gun violence promoted by movies? That's right, a study!

Post by bennedose » Fri Dec 13, 2013 10:06 pm

People who watch porn do it for titlliation - so the link between what happens in the movie and actions that one might want to emulate are there. No one wants to admit it when it comes to violence.

User avatar
xl_target
Old Timer
Old Timer
Posts: 3488
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 7:47 am
Location: USA

Re: Gun violence promoted by movies? That's right, a study!

Post by xl_target » Fri Dec 13, 2013 11:06 pm

When I was a child, I watched what are considered :roll: very violent cartoons today. My favorite cartoon character were Woody Woodpecker, The Coyote and the Road Runner, Bugs Bunny, etc. In all these cartoons, the antagonist, usually met with several violent and messy "deaths". They always came back for more as if those falls off the cliffs or being squashed by falling anvils and pianos didn't hurt them. Even as a young child, I knew, quite well, that it was make believe. I knew that if I were to subject myself, or anyone else, to the same kind of treatment that it would hurt them badly. However, I was more afraid of disappointing my parents than scared of the police.
I also read a lot of westerns, the famous "Commando" comics, etc. All these books detailed violent encounters between the hero and the villain. I read my first full length book (something by Enid Blyton) at the age of seven and many more after that. I was reading through the Harold Robbins and James Hadley Chase series at thirteen. So I have been reading books and novels from a young age. Never once did I mix up fantasy and reality. I clearly knew the difference. Most of my friends who had similar reading habits also knew the difference. I believe that I knew the difference between right and wrong. This was emphasized by my parents, grandparents and in school.

Therefore this statement below, in my opinion, is complete BS.
Although there is no proven link between what happens on screen and whether it may prompt people to kill, Brad Bushman deploys a common sense argument. “We know that kids who see movie characters smoking think those characters are cool − and they’re more likely to smoke themselves” he says. “So it’s not far-fetched to believe that many of the characters who have guns are pretty cool − and it’s not far-fetched to believe that kids might be influenced.”
What kind of parents did the author of this article have? What kind of crappy school did he go to?
I was trained as an Engineer. I believe in Science. In India, when I went through school, every one had to take Physics, Chemistry and Biology (at least through 10th std).
If you can't "prove" a theory, support it with facts and do so repeatedly, you shouldn't be advocating it as gospel. I also forget that many western journalists today have little or no exposure to science and scientific methods today and consequently do not see anything wrong with not being able to back up their assertions with any kind of factual evidence. I really do not think that many people think; "that's the way it is".

..and all I can say about a statement like this is WTF?
Actor Isaiah Washington, currently starring in the picture Blue Caprice in which he plays a sniper, also sees the audience as complicit in this cycle of inaction. “Violence happens and then we all lock our doors” he says, “and then two weeks later we unlock our doors and think we’re okay, but yet we go see another film that is violent beyond measure and people eat their popcorn and look at it and go: ‘Oh that’s just the way it is’.”
Apparently playing a sniper in a movie makes you an expert sniper, and an expert in psychology and an expert in human behavior too.
Many western journalists also think their audiences are stupid and feel that the BS they are spouting will not be challenged.
“Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense” — Winston Churchill, Oct 29, 1941

User avatar
nagarifle
Old Timer
Old Timer
Posts: 3404
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:43 pm
Location: The Land of the Nagas

Re: Gun violence promoted by movies? That's right, a study!

Post by nagarifle » Sat Dec 14, 2013 5:48 am

xl , it looks like you and me both watched same cartoon and read the same type of comics books and coyboy books, how come i turn out normal? and you did not? ROTFL
Nagarifle

if you say it can not be done, then you are right, for you, it can not be done.

User avatar
xl_target
Old Timer
Old Timer
Posts: 3488
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 7:47 am
Location: USA

Re: Gun violence promoted by movies? That's right, a study!

Post by xl_target » Sat Dec 14, 2013 6:34 am

Maybe I didn't eat as much chili?
:D
“Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense” — Winston Churchill, Oct 29, 1941

User avatar
timmy
Old Timer
Old Timer
Posts: 2922
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:03 am
Location: home on the range

Re: Gun violence promoted by movies? That's right, a study!

Post by timmy » Sat Dec 14, 2013 6:37 am

I think the thing that alerted me to this phenomenon was my kids watching the move "El Cid" with Charlton Heston and Sophia Loren. My kids were raised without TV, so TV was a treat for them and quite influential. Anyway, with all of the sword fighting in the El Cid movie, for several months afterwards, they got sticks and used the garbage can lids and had sword fights. We were worried one of them would lose an eye!

I found this curious, since that movie had the same effect on me, as well as Errol Flynn "swashbuckler" movies. Also, back in the early 60s, having a play James Bond 007 attache kit, complete with pistol and what-have-you was something we all wanted. This trend tended to overshadow the earlier one, where we had die cast Colt Single Action Armys with plastic stag horn grips, along with the inevitable Daisy Red Ryder BB gun.

I can't imagine there could be doubt, that movies did not have an impact on people, especially impressionable children. If they did not, why would anyone watch them?

XL, I think you have hit upon a key thing when you observe this:
Never once did I mix up fantasy and reality. I clearly knew the difference. Most of my friends who had similar reading habits also knew the difference. I believe that I knew the difference between right and wrong. This was emphasized by my parents, grandparents and in school.
I would point out a few things in connection with this observation.

1. If knowing reality from fantasy depends partly on one's upbringing and family (which I wholeheartedly agree with), it must be admitted that not everyone has been raised by our parents. Not everyone has been blessed with our families' influences. This is quite plain, just in noticing even the little things going on about us. People are much more rude than they were when I was a kid. When I was a kid, if I cut up, any adult felt free to issue correction of some type. Doing that now is an invitation to a law suit.

2. People do not tell reality from fantasy today. Go to a "trekkie" convention, or similar to-dos having to do with Star Wars or some other movie. What do we see? Wannabes -- some of these folks are totally immersed in these stories. This was the case of the Aurora shooter, for instance.

3. Speaking of wannabes, we must note that the Sandy Hook killer was very influenced by the Columbine shooting, and even today, there was a wannabe shooter in a high school just down the road from Columbine. Here again, there is a severe disconnect between reality and fantasy in these people's minds.

4. Similar to movies, how about the wing nut arrested today in Wichita Kansas, trying to drive a truck full of explosives into the airport. He did so, subscribing to a notorious Middle East-based group, saying he was following those teachings.

I note here, none of this stuff happened when I was a kid, either. Something has changed in our societies. It is not because of the proliferation of guns. There always were many guns in the USA, but there were not mass killers.

I will also note, as someone with an affinity for movies, there is a big difference between the "show" presented in the old days, where the bad guy often received that most fatal of sword thrusts: the one under the arm, or the cowboy being shot several times, but where no "holes" appear on his shirt.

One of the milestone movies that introduced a realism to movies was Sam Peckinpah's "The Wild Bunch" (a big favorite of mine). It introduced graphic, slow-motion shooting scenes with bullets tearing through bodies and trails of entrails leaving the backs of those shot. After this, movies have striven to be more "realistic" about these kinds of things. That is different.

If movies don't play a role, how does one explain that, in the past, little boys (like me) wanted guns resembling Colt Single Action Armys and Lever Action Winchesters. During the James Bond era, it was a Walther PPK. During the Vietnam era, there was the AK 47. Now, it is a "9" (a high capacity 9mm semi auto) and an M16/M4. Where does this influence come from? Movies, largely, I believe is the answer.

But going further, what about the irresponsible use of guns portrayed in so many movies and every night on TV? Can this be said to have no effect on the watchers, particularly ones where the family is weak or non-existent in influencing responsibility and discipline? I know so many people who have never personally seen a cow, have no idea of the farm, have never personally handled a gun -- these people are ripe for all sorts of influences about these subjects -- why else would so many demonize a certain kind of gun, claiming that evil deeds are fostered by them? Is that not a fantasy rooted in ignorance, too?

I have no doubt that lucrative entertainment does play a significant role in influencing people wrongly when it comes to guns and how they might be used. I welcome scientific research, such as the pdf I attached to this thread, that explores this subject -- otherwise, we are all speculating about what is actually going on in the minds of too many of our citizens.

A very positive way forward is pointed out in the article I posted here: http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=21421
“There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know”

Harry S. Truman

User avatar
timmy
Old Timer
Old Timer
Posts: 2922
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:03 am
Location: home on the range

Re: Gun violence promoted by movies? That's right, a study!

Post by timmy » Sat Dec 14, 2013 6:39 am

xl_target wrote:Maybe I didn't eat as much chili?
:D
Comment: "other people" eat something they call "chili" that has kidney beans, or whatever, in it. I agree, the effects of that could be extreme. In New Mexico, we eat "chile." :-)
“There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know”

Harry S. Truman

User avatar
nagarifle
Old Timer
Old Timer
Posts: 3404
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:43 pm
Location: The Land of the Nagas

Re: Gun violence promoted by movies? That's right, a study!

Post by nagarifle » Sat Dec 14, 2013 7:30 am

Timmy

i do agree that media does have some responsibility on crime violence, which like you said does influence us to some degree. on the other hand if someone wants to do violence like Mr. Hitler, pol pot etc for them i am sure they did not watch Hollywood or Bollywood moves to make them do what they did. some people are more sicker then the rest. to show off, to be idolized, to be mightier then the rest, to hold power over others, to rule over other through fear and violence, all these and much more is part of the human nature to some degree or the other, some have no sense of right or wrongs. All part of the fallen human nature.

to wholly blame the media or the society at large for their action is downright stupid. how can media make me do something which i don't want to do? yes it may influence me if i am inclined to be a bed boy then i might get the idea from the media.

it time to talk about the opposite side of the media,

now show me when has the media done something positive? that is you went to see a movie and came out with heart full of gold and went about doing good to all those who came across your way?

Timmy the Indian scientist developed naga chilly spray for crowd control , however it does not work in our part of the sticks as we eat em whole so when they come to spray us we say "can i have some more please sir" ROTFL ROTFL

it is the lust of the eye that we want 007 pistol gadgets etc. before we saw them we did not want them as we had no idea that they exited. how can i lust after what i do not know about? my half penny worth
Nagarifle

if you say it can not be done, then you are right, for you, it can not be done.

User avatar
timmy
Old Timer
Old Timer
Posts: 2922
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:03 am
Location: home on the range

Re: Gun violence promoted by movies? That's right, a study!

Post by timmy » Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:09 am

nagarifle wrote:Timmy

i do agree that media does have some responsibility on crime violence, which like you said does influence us to some degree. on the other hand if someone wants to do violence like Mr. Hitler, pol pot etc for them i am sure they did not watch Hollywood or Bollywood moves to make them do what they did. some people are more sicker then the rest. to show off, to be idolized, to be mightier then the rest, to hold power over others, to rule over other through fear and violence, all these and much more is part of the human nature to some degree or the other, some have no sense of right or wrongs. All part of the fallen human nature.
Naga, true enough, and you know enough about me to know that I agree totally with the last sentence above. It's not going to be perfect, ever. But I do feel we should strive to make things better in this world.
nagarifle wrote:to wholly blame the media or the society at large for their action is downright stupid. how can media make me do something which i don't want to do? yes it may influence me if i am inclined to be a bed boy then i might get the idea from the media.
You are right again, and this is exactly what I'm not trying to do. The anti-gun crowd, often centered in Hollywood, wants to portray US, the gun owner, and our "evil guns," as responsible for all of the ills, murders, and shootings in the world. They are hypocrites, in my view, because they make money portraying guns and those who use them in a negative light, but then decry guns and gun ownership. I feel that the truth is, their movies and what they portray DO contribute to the problem; they do play a significant part, but they just want to demonize us.

I think that the studies show, so far, that gun control in the way that the anti-gun crowd presents it is not effective

I think that studies will show, as this one tends to indicate, that there is a reason to suspect and conduct research on how movies and TV shows do affect the viewing audiences.

These people are very quick to suggest that the right to keep and bear arms is outmoded and should be omitted from our Constitution, but I believe that studies will show that they should be looking to their own house, and that other right in the Bill of Rights that permits them to bray irresponsibly, as part of the problem.

In fact, as I have noted before and will note here again, since you bring up Hitler: He tried and failed to take over Germany with guns, and wound up in prison. He came out of prison with a different method: to use free speech to take over Germany legally. So, which was more dangerous in this case, gun rights, or free speech?
nagarifle wrote:it time to talk about the opposite side of the media,

now show me when has the media done something positive? that is you went to see a movie and came out with heart full of gold and went about doing good to all those who came across your way?
The media, or at least some of it, has revealed some good and interesting things. Often times, it is not what people want to hear. The media often tends to tell people what they want to hear, which is why the "news" is all full of celebrity scandals and other such trash. This is true of media commonly thought of as both right and left, as well as center, in this country, at least. At least 80% or more of it is bilge.

To answer your question, I feel as if the movies Taare Zameen Par and 3 Idiots were uplifting, at least to me. I took my Wife and 14 year old granddaughter to see Ram Leela and liked it, except that I felt that the sensuality part was overdone. But that is just my taste. I showed her Rajinikanth's Chandramukhi and she liked it, too (as I do), so I cannot say that all media and entertainment is a waste.
nagarifle wrote:Timmy the Indian scientist developed naga chilly spray for crowd control , however it does not work in our part of the sticks as we eat em whole so when they come to spray us we say "can i have some more please sir" ROTFL ROTFL

it is the lust of the eye that we want 007 pistol gadgets etc. before we saw them we did not want them as we had no idea that they exited. how can i lust after what i do not know about? my half penny worth
OK, OK! But just remember, many cultures around the world love to flavor their food with that wonder fruit, the Chile, and the capsaicin it contains! And where did such a wonder fruit originate? The Spanish brought it back from the New World, calling it "peppers," since it resembled the effect of that Indian product, the peppercorn.

Where I come from in New Mexico, some of those Native Americans gobble chile with gusto and live to be ancient! It is good for you! :-)
“There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know”

Harry S. Truman

bennedose
Shooting true
Shooting true
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:30 pm

Re: Gun violence promoted by movies? That's right, a study!

Post by bennedose » Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:34 am

If you watch Wile E Coyote getting shot in the face with a shotgun and left with a sooty face, returning to normal in the next frame, you soon understand that this is not reality.

If you watch a violent movie telling the story (true or fiction) of a man who takes revenge against some people who have wronged him, and it shows a scene of the avenger shooting a baddie and red hole appears on the baddie's forehead, the man falling dead and a spreading red stain, it appears realistic. You may know that it is only a movie and that it is not reality, but assuming that every single person who watches the scene is continuously telling himself it's not real and that this cannot happen or must not be done is an act of cognitive blindness. There will inevitably be a percentage of the population of movie watchers who are sufficiently convinced that the movie reflects reality, perhaps of their own circumstances, that they want to replicate the scene on someone. This is different from watching Wile E Coyote or Tom and Jerry.

There are a million things on earth that do not have proof. "Proof" is often a matter of something being true for a significant precentage of events. What is the proof that a single blade 6" razor that flips open is worse than a four blade safety razor? There is a marketing incentive to prove that the latter is safer. There is no marketing incentive for people to agree that violence in the media can be harmful. Any half assed researcher with the funding and permission can easily set up a study to show that there is a link between media violence and violent acts, and many such studies exist.

Of course none of us needs to beleive this. We are free to make our own choices.

User avatar
timmy
Old Timer
Old Timer
Posts: 2922
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:03 am
Location: home on the range

Re: Gun violence promoted by movies? That's right, a study!

Post by timmy » Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:22 am

bennedose wrote:Any half assed researcher with the funding and permission can easily set up a study to show that there is a link between media violence and violent acts, and many such studies exist.

Of course none of us needs to beleive this. We are free to make our own choices.
This is tangential to the points you are making ( which I agree with), but I would point out that peer-reviewed academic papers are not in the same category with a lot of the rubbish that passes for "facts" and "proof." Anyone conversant with the Scientific Method knows that no research paper "proves" anything at all -- in fact, such claims are often a large neon warning sign that one is being prepared for swallowing a whopper.

I would recommend that anyone interested in true, real facts is best off learning what research published in a reputable peer-reviewed academic journal is actually saying and what it is not saying. The peer-reviewed academic journal system of research and dissemination of findings is not foolproof, just like judicial systems are not foolproof, but in both cases, they have and do serve reasonably well for the purpose of discovery in their intended fields.

It is a dangerous thing to dismiss good research on a subject, especially if the chief or real concern is that the findings don't agree with one' s preconceived notions on a matter. In some fields of study, this represents the difference between exegesis and isegesis. Not bothering to test the idea that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones, because it is so intuitively obvious that they would do so is a great example of relying on preconceived notions. This is not a profitable way to approach an issue.
“There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know”

Harry S. Truman

User avatar
nagarifle
Old Timer
Old Timer
Posts: 3404
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:43 pm
Location: The Land of the Nagas

Re: Gun violence promoted by movies? That's right, a study!

Post by nagarifle » Sat Dec 14, 2013 4:17 pm

Timmy
i tend to agree with the points you brought out.
thanks for sharing i learn t something today,

but the naga chilly is not americano chilly, one needs to be warned to put the loo paper in the fridge and gallon of cold milk is needed at hand.
ROTFL
Nagarifle

if you say it can not be done, then you are right, for you, it can not be done.

Amit357
One of Us (Nirvana)
One of Us (Nirvana)
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 1:17 pm
Location: Chandigarh

Re: Gun violence promoted by movies? That's right, a study!

Post by Amit357 » Sat Dec 14, 2013 7:47 pm

Its like blaming Cutlery for people being Fat/Obese,hell i wont even blame KFC/Macdee/etc,etc for the same.

Post Reply