In a country with such crazy gun laws as America, it is probably not a good thing that that gun violence in PG-13 films has tripled since 1985.
I am a firm believer that what people see on their TV and movie screens influences how they act in real life and if 13 year olds are seeing guns being used so casually in their films, it encourages them to act it out in real life and in a country where you can buy a gun with your cornflakes, that's a recipe for disaster.
Ohio State University and researchers from the Annenberg Public Policy Centre studied the top 30 films since 1950 and then since 1985 and found that gun violence in PG-13–rated films has more than tripled since 1985, when the rating was introduced to advise that material may be unsuitable for children younger than 13.
Study author, Bush Bradman explained 'There has been a long line of research showing that continued exposure to screen violence among children, mainly on TV, predicts the emergence of later aggressive behaviour. 'We don't know if seeing gun violence on the screen has a unique effect, but it is concerning considering that we have seen a rise in the use of guns in schools and other settings in recent years'.
In an earlier study, Brad Bushman, professor of psychology at Ohio State University discovered that college students who played violent video games for 20 minutes at a time for three days showed more aggressive behaviour each day they played.
'The argument I hear most often is that video games can't be dangerous because millions of people play these games without becoming violent'. That's because they come from good homes, aren't victims of bullying, don't have mental health issues and don't have many of the other risk factors for violence. But what about players who are already predisposed to violence?'
Indeed Mr Bradman but in a country where the right to own a gun outweighs everything else, i think this will be filed under 'left wing nonsense'.
When the bodies of 22 children last year can't generate a change in gun laws and the reaction to yet another mass shooting is to suggest that more people own guns, you are whistling in the wind my friend. The madness of the Second Amendment will always trump sense it seems.
17 comments:
”gun violence in PG-13–rated films has more than tripled since 1985”
While, at the same time (or at least from the early 1990s to now), the overall rate of violent crime in the USA has approximately halved.
In that context, I think that drawing a direct parallel between violence on screen and violence in real life is a bit of a stretch. There are a huge number of other considerations to take into account when trying to explain either rising or falling crime.
yeah, for instance we have 10% of our population in prison - since we couldn't export them to a remote continent.
hmmmm, the moon is vacant...
q
Opening it out to 'violent crime' when this is about gun crime is a good way of avoiding the point.
Gun deaths in US by year:
2011: 32,16312
2010: 31,67213
2009: 31,347
2008: 31,593
2007: 31,224
2006: 30,896
2005: 30,694
2004: 29,569
2003: 30,136
2002: 30,242
2001: 29,573
2000: 28,663
1999: 28,874
Non fatal firearm injuries:
2011: 73,88346 47
2010: 73,50546 48 47
2009: 66,76946 49 47
2008: 78,62246 47
2007: 69,863
2006: 71,417
2005: 69,825
2004: 64,389
2003: 65,834
2002: 58,841
2001: 63,012
yeah Cheezy you sly devil you, stop diverting us...
rapes, burglaries and assults don't matter to lucy
it is her job to protect americans from themselves
q
Rapes, burglaries and assaults don't count in a post about the possible detrimental effect of guns in films on gun crime in society.
exactly what i said. You only posted about guns in America, so your post was clearly about gun deaths - not other crime.
Let me recap:
- brit gun crime is 40% of US gun crime because guns are highly restricted in the UK.
- if we didn’t have guns in the US we would have less gun crime to. that is important to Lucy who lives in the UK.
- crime in the UK is irrelevant, this is about the US.
- It is irrelevant that UK crime is higher than US crime in all other categories.
- It is irrelevant that UK rapes are 3x that of the US as rape is an inconvenience compared to death.
- Guns in the US don’t help prevent other crimes.
Good recap right lucy?
q
Lucy: And I looked up the gun deaths figure for 1985 and found that about 30,000 people died in that year too. So we've got 1985, (when there was, by your own words, one third of the gun violence in movies compared to today), when 30,000 people died from guns... and 2011 (with 3 x the gun violence in movies compared to 1985) when 32,000 people died from guns.
(...and meanwhile, other kinds of violent crime have decreased...)
Hmmmm... Are you sure that violent videos are making that much of a difference?
And presumably these same violent films are being seen in many other parts of the world too? Does gun crime in those places tally with your theory?
I'd restate my main point then. Things are pretty complicated and, with respect, pointing at just one cause as the main offender is a little myopic, in my opinion.
Q: I'm curious to see your rape data. My research has revealed similar figures for the US (27.3 per 100,000 in 2010) and the UK (28.8 per 100,000 in 2010)... and in fact, 2010 was the first year of the noughties in which the UK figure was higher than the US one...
Granted that rapes are viewed different ways in our different jurisdictions. In English/Welsh law, rape is something that can only be committed by a penis; whereas the US counts other objects. So some small percentage of the US total may be made up of these cases. However I can't find any sign of this "3x" the number that you speak of. I'm keen to see your figures though.
It's also incorrect to say that "UK crime is higher than US crime in all other categories". It's higher in some and lower in others.
No q, the point of the post is not about your mad gun laws at all, it is about the influence of guns in movies on society, not other violent crime or rapes or if the UK or US is more violent, it's guns in movies so it isn't relevant at all if there are more rapes in the UK. When i wriote the post about how there are more rapes now in movies than there was in 1985 then it would be relevant.
Cheezy, as Bradman said 'There has been a long line of research showing that continued exposure to screen violence among children, mainly on TV, predicts the emergence of later aggressive behaviour'.
Some people are influenced by what they see on screen, that has been proved again and again and again. The large scale massacres are in Finland and USA, not by accident they are also the 2 places with high gun ownership and poor gun laws. Movies are in the mix when it comes to working out why along with mental health, gun availability and other issues. To ignore the influence of the increase of guns in popular culture is very ignorant and short sighted.
Cheesy I've seen multiple reports that backed my statements but they may be old
Q
Cheezy,
Source http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes
In the past I used UN reports. The source above shows the US having 2x gross crime events of the UK, but the US has 5x the population, so per capita US is lower than UK. It also shows:
- UK has 2x the assaults of US
- UK has 2x the rape of US
- UK has slightly higher auto theft than US
- doesn’t UK report burglaries, but the US has lower rate than Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland
q
Q: Yes, I suspected you were a bit out.
Lucy: I'm not saying your man Bradman is wrong (or right), I'm just saying that if you're undertaking to show that an increase in screen violence has caused an increase in real violence, then you first need to provide data that reveals the aforementioned increase in real violence. Then we can start to discuss causes (which will be a much more complex/contentious matter, I would say).
cheeze,
why does lucy need data or facts to have an opinion?
q
She doesn't. But she provided some data anyway. I merely pointed out that it didn't tally with the opinion.
The data showed an increase in gun death and injuries, tallying completely with the opinion. It may not tally with violent crime but then the post and Bush's study wasn't about violent crime, it was about one aspect of violent crime. To broaden it out to include all violent crimes makes the poll and the opinion redundant.
I must be missing something. I thought you were proposing:
(1) a (greater than) 300% increase in gun violence on film since 1985, and
(2) a 10.23% increase in gun deaths between 1999 and 2011, and a 14.8% increase in firearm injuries between 2001 and 2011.
Is this the data that you suggest implies a definite cause & effect between the former and the latter?
I don't know what you are missing but either you are missing something or i'm not explaining it very well.
Stepping around the bits i put in to have another poke at America's gun laws, Bush's study found that gun violence in PG13 films has tripled since 1985. He then pondered if seeing casual gun violence on the screen so much at a young age is a consideration in increased levels of gun violence because there has been a rise in the use of guns in schools and other settings in recent years.
I say it should be a consideration in America especially because of easy access to a gun.
The important point is are kids who see more gun violence on screen influenced by it? I say it must be a consideration and especially in America where lax gun laws and a gun culture already make it seem guns are acceptable and deaths and injuries by guns are not only high but increasing but this will be shouted down by the second amenders meaning that this idea won't even be given the time of day.
That's all fair enough. I share your opinion that screen violence may form some part of the equation, but I also suspect that it's dwarfed by other factors like economic hopelessness, educational failings, easy access to guns, family breakdown, poor diet, lack of feelings of 'belonging' to society, and a criminal justice system that's too soft to provide a deterrent to transgressors at an early enough age).
Post a Comment