I will not let subject changing word vomit change the subject just yet. I didn't miss anything. You just refuse to admit the point is valid.
Its such an obvious point too. The real issue is how these effects are accentuated by 'gun culture'. However, by ignoring both issues, the pro-gunners are advertising a desperately simplistic sense of righteousness that is independent of reality and the complexity of human behaviour
Your premise is flawed - this country was "pistolised" long before it ever became glorified on film. I think this is where you fail to understand what makes the United States what it is - this country was founded on a gun culture. We literally began this country as a result of firearms - defeating the Redcoats with firearms. American history is interwoven with the use and possession of firearms. Firearms play a significant role in the settlement of the West - the Earp brothers, Bat Masterson, and "Doc" Holliday didn't use firearms to enforce the law in Torquey or Norwich. Indians didn't kill settlers in Stoke-on-Trent. The "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral" didn't occur in Wolverhampton. Billy the Kid wasn't in Liverpool, while Santa Ana and his men didn't attack Cardiff. American popular culture reflects an American perspective. The "Western" is a film genre that is uniquely American, and the use of firearms is almost a stock part of those films. Gangster films, war movies, cops-and-robbers movies... since Hollywood began making movies, almost all of these genres have included the use of firearms in some shape, form, or fashion.
The term is being used as part of understanding gun culture. That gun culture has clearly been affected by television and film (see, for example, how gun ownership is affected by watching cop shows). However, of course there are aspects that pre-dates modern media. I've already referred to that with reference to how handguns were painted as a gentleman alternative to the sword.
From Sex and Violence in Advertising: How Commodifying and Sexualizing Women Leads to Gender Violence It would seem that a propensity to commit a violent act is influenced by the culture inherent to the average NFL broadcast on television.
Both of the studies/textbooks you've cited tend to focus on the media in general, and movies in particular - for example, page 8 of the Cukier and Sheptycki article states: "The media reinforcement of masculinity and guns owes much more to armed white underclass heroes like Clint Eastwood, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Bruce Willis, or Sylvester Stallone." I find it interesting how they can come to this conclusion without mentioning the "Hays Code" and the relaxation of it that led to this supposed glorification of the "gun culture".
It mentions numerous aspects, such as "studies of the construction of violent white masculinity in advertising also reinforce the cultural links between men and guns". Your content factor isn't high
The "violent white masculinity" that is cited also refers to uniformed football players, boxers, and the Marlboro man, as well as recruiting advertising for the US military. If this study had any merit, it would also seek to explain the link between this supposed "violent white masculinity", and the violence that exists in modern black culture - you know, the OG homiez that gonna bust a cap in yo' ass! No mention of the "Hays Code", no data on how this white culture of violence affects black urban youth - this study was flawed from the opening sentence. I'll give you credit Reiver, you've posted some pretty conclusive data over the years. But this... let's just say this is far from your usual quality work. I hope this isn't indicative of a downward spiral on your part!
To maximise its merit it would refer to both theory, history and cross-country comparison. Guess what? Tick the boxes! One can't use quantitative approaches to isolate gun culture effects. Be serious! Still low on the content! You've essentially said "it can be used in non-gun analysis" and made an error over quantitative and qualitative approaches.
Did you even read the study you referenced? How does "The media reinforcement of masculinity and guns owes much more to armed white underclass heroes like Clint Eastwood, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Bruce Willis, or Sylvester Stallone" influence the urban black youth? NWA sang "(*)(*)(*)(*) The Police" because they watched Die Hard, or The Terminator? Gangsta rap came about because of "The Man with No Name" in the Sergio Leone spaghetti westerns? Armed white underclass heroes were the reason 50 Cent bought and carried a gun when he dealt heroin? His decision to do so was influenced by the mass media glorification of guns? Reiver, if I were you, I'd send a PM to the moderators and ask them to delete this entire thread. To paraphrase Winston - "If this forum should last a thousand years, men will not look back and say 'This was your finest hour'."
Yep, that allowed me to discount your posts for the lack of content. You're continuing to offer nothing of value. There's certainly no critique of the paper. I'm happy for you to carry on offering no content. I'd prefer for a debate, but everything has value
I'm sorry, but I can't offer a valid critique of a paper that is so fundamentally flawed! Any research paper that purports to link the glorification of guns in American society to the mass media, and the influence of Clint, Arnold, Bruce, and Sylvester in popular culture. without mentioning the effect of John Wayne, Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, et al. and also without mentioning the impact that the relaxing of the "Hays Code" in the 60's had upon this alleged glorification, is so inherently flawed that it is preposterous to presume to comment upon it. If you are genuinely interested in this field, I suggest you read "Children, Adolescents, and Media Violence - A Critical Look at the Research" by Stephen Kirsh.
You haven't referred to any flaws. You'd have to refer to the theory used, the historical output, the review of the previous literature and the global comparisons made. You've made no such references. You've merely blubbered on about Hays and made some vague reference to black culture (forgetting of course to make some reference to the South African analysis) Great to see you try and refer to the literature. Let's see if we can get any content from you. Does Kirsh, for example, provide any explanation for the higher juvenile criminality rate in gun owning households?
Any paper that tries to link the prevalence of firearms in America to the images portrayed in movies without mentioning the "Hays Code" is flawed. Sorry if you can't accept that. Read it and see...
Still no content! I've called your bluff. Come now, such a simple question: Does Kirsh, for example, provide any explanation for the higher juvenile criminality rate in gun owning households? I appreciate you can't answer, but let's keep it going
I don't know what you want for "content". This paper you've cited is as fundamentally flawed as a paper purporting to discuss American monetary policy without mentioning the Federal Reserve system - failing to mention the elephant in the room doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There's no bluff, merely a lack of desire to do the research for you. You repeatedly encourage people to read the papers and data you cite - turnabout is fair play! BTW - We're not discussing the higher juvenile criminality rate in gun owning households, we're discussing the influence of popular media upon the gun culture in the United States. Let's try to stay on-topic, without wandering off into the hinterland, shall we?
Strange, I've made it very clear: theory used, the historical output, the review of the previous literature and the global comparisons made. A poor blagging effort. I've set you an easy task: Does Kirsh, for example, provide any explanation for the higher juvenile criminality rate in gun owning households? A yes/no and page number will suffice. Of course you can't, but I do like to call your bluff
Didn't I already answer this concern months ago? Didn't I already establish that the "study" that "examined" this issue failed to use proper controls? Didn't I also point out that the study utterly failed to compare the effect on juveniles living in lax-gun-control states with juveniles living in strict-gun-control states? Also, didn't I establish that the crimes under question were nearly entirely misdemeanors that had nothing to do with the firearm? Hence, unless your belief is that guns have a black-magic or vodoo power over juveniles that compels them to comit acts of vandalism and petty theft, then neither you nor the "study" that you refer to have any salient points to be made here.
Nope. Perhaps you can answer it for him (rather than just give your repetition). Does Kirsh, for example, provide any explanation for the higher juvenile criminality rate in gun owning households? No you didn't. Why are you making stuff up? The paper I'm using includes state (and county) dummies. The important issue is whether there are behavioural changes. Looking at the likes of burglary, theft and robbery, the paper finds that access to guns does indeed increase juvenile crime. A nasty result!
A similar example is people who read Marixist material believe they are intellectual but they are really murderous thugs.
Odd. You didn't think it irrelevant when you chimed in here in support of the other member's argument by slogan fallacy. It's only now when I exposed the weakness of that argument that you now choose to call it "subject changing word vomit". Sorta like sour grapes, no? Sorry, but your response above confirms the fact that you did indeed miss my argument, because I had actually explained with logic why the point was NOT valid. It would appear that the only one who is refusing to admit anything would be yourself.
And I, in return, have made my position clear - any "research" paper that attempts to examine the influence of the media - specifically, the motion picture industry - upon the gun buying preferences of the general public and does not mention the "Hays Code" is flawed from the get-go. Perhaps you do not understand the vast cultural shift that took place in American motion pictures as a result of the abolishment of that particular set of industry guidelines and practices, and that is why you continue to believe this paper you've cited is accurate. Trust me on this - it's not. Removing the "Hays Code" allowed the motion picture industry a lot more latitude in what they could present to the general public. As this pertains to our topic, violence was allowed to become far more graphic in nature than had been previously allowed, and no longer did the "good guy" have to win. During the "Hays Code" era, as Wikipedia states: "All criminal action had to be punished, and neither the crime nor the criminal could elicit sympathy from the audience. Or, the audience must at least be aware that such behavior is wrong. Usually through "compensating moral value". Authority figures had to be treated with respect, and the clergy could not be portrayed as comic characters or villains." By 1968 when the original MPAA Code took effect (G, M, R, and X ratings), Hollywood had progressed (or regressed, depending) considerably and was showing movies with more violence than had been previously permitted. As I've said repeatedly, any paper that claims to lay the glorification of firearms at the feet of movies with Clint, Arnold, Bruce, and Sylvester, and doesn't even look into the cultural changes that took place as a result of the removal of the guidelines that allowed their movies to be made, is making a fundamental error - one that IMHO makes the paper virtually useless. Probably not. Kirsh discusses the overall effect of television and cinematic violence upon the youth - everything from Cowboys and Indians movies, cop shows, Saturday-morning cartoons, as well as The Three Stooges. I don't remember him specifically discussing an obscure topic like you've referenced. But, I could be wrong. Perhaps you should read it and see... BTW - If you want to continue this discussion, feel free. Be advised I'm going to stick to the topic of the motion picture industry and the suggestive selling of firearms, and NOT be sidetracked with some arcane discussion about the "...higher juvenile criminality rate in gun owning households", unless it pertains to this topic.
"Yeah but, I can refer to something in the media it didn't mention" won't work. Its a poor strategy (and I'm being dead kind). Think again! Now at least try: Have they, for example, misrepresented any theory? Have they ignored a key paper? (then provide the reference, making sure it actually it refers to guns in the text!). Is there a weakness in their global comparisons? Get it right this time! Of course! No need to say the obvious. I realised you chose it randomly, as shown by your inability to embed it into the forum's topic.
