You know, one could surmise that since American children watch far more television than children in other countries that television is responsible for the differences in violence in the U.S. vs. the rest of the world. I don't know that it's true, but it's just as valid a theory as the gun availability one. Now I would sit here and say, "But I watched all sorts of crap growing up, and I am not at all violent." Of course, I could also say that I was picked on a lot as a child, and my father had several guns in the household, but I never shot anyone. My experience is anecdotal. Studies apparently show different. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Hey Achebe if you want to misquote me and make jokes around the subject then feel free to take up the subject with someone else. Incidentally, when was the last time you saw Smith & Wesson advertising their newest hand gun to children on prime time television? Like I mentioned before, the ratings system is a joke. Your movie analogy is poor. ------------------ There's not enough laughter in this world!
According to some studies, more people are positively affected by the second amendment every year than are negatively affected by it. Florida State Law School did a study that said 2.4 million people successfully deter a criminal act with a firearm every year. That number dwarfs the 811,400 or so violent crimes using firearms committed in the U.S. per year. And it's not actually laws that prevent kids from seeing R-rated movies. The ratings system is still voluntary last I heard. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Mr Paige...Sydney has a low gun ownership figure because their is precisely ZERO need for a gun in Sydney. The amount of illegal guns is becomeing a problem...it would take me an hour to get one in some area's. Having said that, we have nowhere near the problem that you guys have in the USA. I can't even imagine sending a kid off to school knowing other kids their have access to guns. It's insane. I got in enought fights at school to know that people lose their temper. You hit someone and give them a black eye...or they do the same to you...and you laugh about it ten years later. You shoot someone and that's it...game over. Crazy. ------------------
I just saw that stat as I was surfing around and mentioned it for no particular reason. The site I saw it on was trying to make the point that Sydney has the lowest gun ownership rate and highest crime rate in Australia and trying to connect the two things together. Personally, I would expect Sydney to have the highest crime rate in Australia as it is the largest Metroplitan area, I believe (and Metro areas tend to have more crime per capita than rural areas). This particular site claimed that the crime rate in Sydney was comparable to that of Washington, D.C., but they didn't have any stats to back that up or anything. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
My wife and I homeschool our children. Each year, at the end of the school year, we evaluate how the year went and decide whether or not to continue doing so, or enroll our kids in school. After what happened yesterday, I don't see us ever sending our kids to public school. ------------------ NUTHOAC
how would someone even come up with that ridiculous statisitic? do they ask all the criminals about their TV viewing habits? anyway, this is from the FBI, Uniform Crime Reports. it's the homocide rate in the US. it peaked in 1980 with 10.2, 1999 had a 5.7 http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/welcome.html ------------------
They should NEVER have access to them, but they should at least be shown how to use them. Sure, you are going to say that only incites more violence, but hopefully you can teach the kids how to respect a gun. When a kid is 5 or 6, take him out to the back yard. Show him the gun and ask him what it is. Once S/he identifies it, allow them to shoot the gun, of course well supervised. Its going to scare the living **** out of the kid and they will respect it and not treat it as a toy. Forget the criminals and adults for a moment. They only use guns because its the most convinent way to kill someone. If they want to kill, they will find some means to do it. How many children that have killed with guns have actually had a history around guns? Most of them have obsessions. How often do you have kids who say, 'All i wanted to do was scare them?' If they knew what that gun would actually do, they would have found some other means. Sure you are going to have your Jonesburrow where the kid has actual hunting skills and was out to kill and you most likely are not going to stop them, as they will eventually kill. As a society, we need to prevent the problem, not fix them. ------------------ Nice guys finish last ... and im surely not going to finish last!
mrpaige, I asked some questions in the gun control thread about your studies. Timing, Again, where did I misquote you? Oh, analogy, that's what it's called. I never misquoted you. Let me explain again why I don't believe the analogy is weak. Gun rights advocates insist that the responsibility lies on the user not the gun. When age is entered into the picture, the gun rights advocates insist that the parents must be responsible. The parents must keep the guns away from the kids. Before I continue... is this not the case? If it isn't then gun rights advocates have no leg to stand on for any reason whatsoever. Kids will get guns, period. I did. Are parents supposed to be mildly responsible in this scenario? Why abandon parental responsibility when the tele comes into play? Because parents are lazy? No... you brought up the single parent issue. If a single parent is too busy to find out what their kids are watching, or too passive to take part in their child's lives involving the midparent television, I seriously doubt that they're going to be able to restrict access to a gun. By the way, where does this fit into my analogy: when was the last time you saw Smith & Wesson advertising their newest hand gun to children on prime time television? If anything your quote confuses me. Perhaps I need coffee, but aren't you the one yelling about gun violence on television? Aren't you the one yelling for censorship? If anything it seems like you'd argue that though gun manufacturers don't advertise, they have pretty good product placement. Again, you can't have it both ways. You can't run and yell to ignore the first Amendment in one case that suits you and then use the 2nd Amendment to hide behind. That's silly. That's all I'll write on the subject until I get my coffee. outlaw, nice chart. Though we're a violent bunch, if you keep us employed it looks like we settle down a bit. ------------------ I'd rather be boinking my wife. [This message has been edited by Achebe (edited March 06, 2001).] [This message has been edited by Achebe (edited March 06, 2001).]
Actually, the study I mentioned from the AMA Journal looked at historical crime rates before and after television was introduced into the country in large numbers. The study claims that the crime rate doubled in every country in the 15 years following the introduction of television. Sounds pretty dubious to me, but that's what they said. There was also a a bit about exposing one group of children to violent programming (including things like cartoons) and a control group to non-voilent programming. The study claimed the kids who watched the violent programs were immediately violent (punching, hitting, etc., though probably in a playful manner). The study also claimed kids who watched television were less likely to help someone in need, more likely to act up in class (how would they know, what kids don't watch television? I'd like to see the method ology on that one) and some other things I don't remember. If you do a web search on that doctor's name you can probably find more information. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
outlaw, The FBI are really just agents of Satan that are trying to bamboozle us into thinking that crime is going down. They are the PiedPiper -- leading us to Hell with a smile on our face. Stats such as those (that show decline) hae been around for some time in the last 8 or so years...no matter who conduts the survey -- same results. ------------------ Whitey will pay.
I agree about parental responsibility in both gun ownership and in access to television or movies that we may deem harmful. I have two sons (aged 12 and 7), and I make sure I know what they are watching, what they are doing, etc. I'm sure that there are things they don't tell me, but to the best of my ability, their mother and I take as much precaution as we can to keep certain things away from them. Of course, our parental responsibility started much earlier. Teaching them manners when they were very little, teaching them discipline, paying attention to them, etc., etc. Both of my kids are far better adjusted than I was at the same age. They don't have bottled up anger and they deal with adversity even better than I do now. Granted, they haven't entered their teen years yet, but I don't expect their anger management or ability to adjust will change. If you ask me (and you didn't), one of the most important things a parent can do is take an active interest in their kids lives. My parents never did that for me, and I think that's part of the reason that I had some of the adjustment problems growing up. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
