You're failing to grasp the concept - they haven't ignored a key paper, they've completely ignored something that is tantamount to understanding the motion picture industry. The influence of the "Hays Code" was something I was taught in Journalism 101 almost 30 years ago. Understanding the effect of censorship upon the motion picture industry and the influences the removal of those guidelines had is integral to understanding the current state of the motion picture industry - simply put, you can't know where you are if you don't know where you've been. You may understand econometrics Reiver, but when you start discussing mass media and journalism, you're moving into my field of knowledge. As I stated earlier - any paper that purports to examine the relationship between the motion picture industry and the suggestive sales of firearms without mentioning the "Hays Code" is as flawed as a paper attempting to discuss American monetary policy without mentioning the Federal Reserve system. Quite frankly Reiver, the paper you originally referenced reminds me of the old Indian parable about the six blind men and the elephant - they see a little portion of the issue, and are convinced of the correctness of their conclusion. I suggest you walk over to the Journalism / Mass Media department of the university and engage one of the professors in a discussion of the "Hays Code" and its influence on the American motion picture industry and the cultural norms in the United States. Get back to me when you do.
Your strategy continues to be inane. Applying it to gun culture, they have correctly referred to the available theory and embedded it in other studies that have also looked at gun culture. Your splatter gun attempt, where you refer to anything connected to the media (as illustrated by the book you've googled and the use of Hays) won't work. We both know that you cannot refer to any of the aspects that I've asked for, aspects required to critique the paper. I am, however, surprised you haven't said "they didn't mentioned Grand Theft Auto and the sequels either"
Strategy? There is no strategy, merely an attempt to illustrate that you're using flawed research - something that any journalism teacher at a community college could easily explain to you if you'd take the time to climb down from Mount Olympus and actually understand the topic, rather than prattle on about the "more guns = more crime" hypothesis or sidetrack the discussion into some arcane debate about the the higher incidence of juvenile crime in gun-owning households in Johannesburg, South Africa. Frankly Reiver, your reticence to comprehend the influence of censorship and the removal of same upon the motion picture industry is surprising! What's next - a discussion of how Page 3 girls are causing an increase in teen pregnancy in England?
I was about to remark that I was similarly surprised that you haven't mentioned the increase in magnitude and multitude of women's breasts. That's the problem with your strategt, its terribly predictable. Shame that you can't keep on topic though
Does the study in question even look at the time period prior to 1968? Is that relevant? Your argument might have more validity if you answered those questions.......perhaps.
I presume you're referring to my argument, not Reivers. No, the study cited in the OP does NOT refer to the time period before 1968 - it merely tries to prove the hypothesis that the desire to own a firearm is based upon the images seen in the movies of Clint Eastwood, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, and Sylvester Stallone. The study fails to mention in the least how young urban black males are influenced by these motion pictures - or if they are even influenced at all. It also fails to mention anything prior to the abolishment of the "Hays Code" in 1968, and what, if any, influence the increased depiction of graphic violence has upon firearm buyers. Their premise is that the desire of a male to own a 9mm semi-automatic pistol is because they have been subconsciously influenced by John McLane, men buy .44 caliber Smith & Wesson revolvers because they've seen movie posters of Clint Eastwood as Inspector Harry Callahan. That's why there are so many people walking around carrying LAWS rocket launchers and talking in Austrian accents! This study cited would be comical to read, except for the fact that it was probably funded by my tax dollars. Failure to discuss the removal of limitations of the depiction of graphic images, failure to discuss the concepts of subliminal advertising, failure to discuss product placement, and failure to discuss the inclusion of said firearms in the dialogue, make this study - for lack of a better term - half-assed. Meanwhile, Reiver, as usual, fails to acknowledge the flawed premise of the original post, and vainly continues to sidetrack the discussion with the usual "more guns = more crime" hypothesis that s/he continually posts ad nauseum. Sales of the Pontiac Trans-Am skyrocketed after it's depiction in the movie Smokey and The Bandit - I'd be interested in reading a study that shows the effect firearm violence in the motion pictures has had upon guy-buying preferences of people, and if there is any correlation between the depiction of a firearm in a popular movie (say a .40 caliber Glock) and the subsequent increase in sales of that particular firearm. Sadly to say though - the original study cited wasn't it.
Mere reference to the evidence. As I said, the key is understanding the link. The paper in the OP offers one means. You're yet to discount it as all you have is 'they could have said some stuff from a book that wasn't about guns'. Strange notion, but you can put it right!
Yes, that's correct. OK. Then I'm not sure why they should have brought something into their study that was outside of their purview. Your complaint would be better suited for another study, perhaps, but not this one.
