VIOLENT SHOWS THAT INFLUENCE CHILDREN?

D

David Wright

New member
I thought that title might get your attention.

I have been noticing lately that some of the most aggressively violence laden kids shows on T.V. are from Canada and Japan. Well now, isn't that interesting....

Isn't Canada and Japan endlessly (along with Britain) pushing their opinions on the U.S. about gun control?

I check the international news frequently, and folks, surprise, Canada seems to be a breeding ground for serial killers and child molesters, Britain attracts bombers and gentle folks who like to bludgeon others, and Japan, well they have fathers who murder their kids and wives, then themselves with plain 'ole kitchen knives. (Ginsu brand?)

Oh, I think I stay here in the good 'ole U.S. of A. were it's relatively safe!

Whadda ya think?



------------------
David H. Wright
Bring this man a
goat and a bowl of fruit
 
I don't think they do a bit. My favourite show South Park, just about every cartoon when I was a kid was violent, even the goodies could be violent. Of course you can go too far but I don't think any of the current tv shows are that violent that they will make someone kill someone. Unless your name is kenny of course.
I think the biggest danger is the media making a big deal over the shootings and making the killers famous. It's exactly what they want, the Port Arthur murderer wanted to get the most kills and be famous and he got his wish, which happened just after the media gave the killer in britain publicity.


Just thinking again, maybe tv shows do influenece people after all has skippy ever made anyone kill ? well maybe neighbours oe]r home and away has but anyone who watches them are brain dead anyway.

------------------
Drop by and visit at www.gun-center.com
 
sorry, I know who tony Pitt is, that is the biggest load of crap I've ever seen. An insult to the people who died. I know people who were there on the day and even suggesting that load of crap is true is dumb.
What happened wasn't a conspiracy but plain stupidity that the police hadn't locked him up before.
I'll believe stupidity over conspiracy just about every time.
If your from America I'll forgive you, as the distance can cloud judgement, and i assume az is for Arizona and since I was there a bit over a year ago and I want to go back I'll be nice.
But tony pitt is the biggest asset to the anti-gun lobby in Australia. He makes us look stupid.


------------------
Drop by and visit at www.gun-center.com
 
when I was a kid they had a bunch of hags
who swore that the THREE STOOGES were going
to show kids how to bash each others brains in or poke a eye out, they tried to get stooges off tv, I don't know how many lifes were lost because of the stooges, but I
don't remember ever hitting anyone with a hammer, or racking a saw across a friends head, never even poked a eye out, maybe even
tho I was a kid I figured it was all fake
and ya can't really do those things or you'd
hurt someone, theres more to it when kids
take guns and start killing, its not a movie
they watched, its THEM , I don't know the parents, I can't say if parents raised them well or not, but I know from experience that once a kid reaches 16 their minds have a good idea of what they want out of life,
Bundy was evil, for evils sake alone, if these kids hadn't shot someone they'd of
probably killed someone some other way,
 
Take a look at some of the cartoons most of us grew up on. Bugs Bunny, Tom and Jerry etc. They rely on slapstick and sight gags that are extremely violent. Characters get squashed, shot, blown up, cut in half, etc. constantly. But it never made me want to do any of these things to anybody. I just thought it was funny. However, there are some do-gooders out there that are trying to get them off TV. I guess kids aren't supposed to laugh anymore. What a shame, I always did like watching the Coyote make that long fall to the canyon floor.
 
Greyfox,

It must be taken as a fact that in general "do gooders" have no sense of humor. In fact they cannot understand humor. And, they are afraid when they hear others laughing since they don't know what laughter is as they don't do it themselves (except perhaps behind closed doors when they review the crap they have pulled off on the rest of us).

I have always thought that as a class do gooders live such boring and constricted lives that they must make everyone else's lives just as boring.

Jim in IN



------------------
-- TANSTAAFL
 
David - living in the USA is one of the most dangerous places you can think of. In the USA the risk to be killed by another person is about 10 times higher than in Britain and at least 20 times higher than in Japan, comparing the number of killed to the population. These are just facts from the statistics. There are of course more dangerous places than the USA, like many of the ex-Eastern Block countries. I remember hearing from the news that last year the murder rate was the highest in Estonia (a small former Baltic state of the USSR). If I remember correctly, the figure for Estonia was more then 20 killed per year for every 100.000 people. In the USA that number is around 10, and in most of the Western Europe about one, in Japan even less. In my country (Finland) that figure is around tree so our country is more violent than most other European Union countries, but three times less than the USA.

About violent shows influence to children, many researchers seem to say that there is no direct connection between seeing violence and acting violently among "normal" population. It depends. If the violence shown has bad concequences and leads to punishment to the violent figure, seeing violence does not increase much the violent behavior of the children. On the other hand, if violence is shown to be "cool" and not leading to punishment, possibly even shown to be rewarded, that does increase the probability of violent behavior among children. So it is more about the morality of the shows, and I think that is going to the wrong direction. There are more and more film makers who say showing violence has "artistic value" (or it just sells better), and they don't care about the moral issues.

The influence of seeing violence is greatest among children who already have a tendency to violent behavior. They often copy the violence they see in their own behavior. Those children are often not very "creative" in their violent behavior, but take example of what they see and try to do the same. So the violent shows do have an influence on the copycats with violent behavior tendencies, and they should not be shown that kind of programs. The problem is that just these children (and adults) with violent behavior tendencies like violent shows and watch them more than children in general. So don't be surprised if there always is some lunatic who duplicates even the worst horrors shown on TV and the movies.

Ossi
 
I think that, obviously, there are some things on television that kids shouldnt watch. But rather than say its all programing's fault, I think its a lack of parental authority giving lil Johnny a good smack when he hits his brother/sister after watching power rangers. I also believe its escalative(is that a word? :) If lil Johnny isnt disciplined for smacking his sybling, he'll start smacking kids at school, smacking pets and animals, killing pets and animals, killing people. Also, lets face it. Evil exsists, even in America. Some kids are just plain old evil, and need nothing but a little nudge to put them right over the edge into psycho-land. Do violent tv shows push them over the edge? I'm skeptical. I think that the taunting from fellow classmates probably did more to make them snap than any game they played or any show they watched. Just my opinion, for what its worth, 01paw
 
To add a few points: If TV does not influence behavior, why do all those corporations spend so much money on advertising?

You can't have it both ways: TV is either a powerful teaching tool, as claimed by many, or it is not. If the advertisers are correct, then there must, absolutely must, be some effects on the watchers.

The murder rates of western European countries generally run about 6 per hundred thousand. In the US, 22 per hundred thousand. The sad thing of these numbers is that the black-on-black murder rate comprises around 12 to 15 per hundred thousand of the total population. I got these numbers from an article by a black writer, in Buckley's "National Review".

Add in video violence, and the violence of arcade games, including one which is a direct copy of the US Military, FLETC, and SWAT--a plastic gun is used on pop-up people-targets. This last from this AM's "Meet the Press", and commented on to me by a pen-pal who'd seen it on "60 Minutes".

My final point is that the "Bugs Bunny", et al, violence was known to even us little guys as make-believe. There was nowhere the realism as into today's "cartoons", nor were the targets of deadly violence remotely like "real people".

FWIW, Art
 
Yes, Rabbit, I am from the states. However, before I believe you I need to know if there are other TFL members from Australia that feel the same way you do. There was quite a thread on this shooting a while back, and the general concensus was that given the man's physical abilities, among other things, this type of shooting could not have been pulled off by him.

Call me what you want, but there are forces greater than stupidity that desire power and control and will not hesitate to do whatever it takes to obtain them.

------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."

www.countdown9199.com
 
To all. Evidently, from viewing some of the responses, my original message was lost.

My original intent was to discuss the hypocrisy of countries that feel an uncontrollable urge to control our lives here complete with unsolicited opinions and, yet, at the same time, offer violent shows for our young children. Interesting. What kind of people do that?

As for "statistics" and "facts", as they were, it is abundantly evident that the law enforcement contacts I enjoy, and the sources that the London Times, et al, seem content to make do with, are not giving the same information. It's the same situation here.

Hmmmm.... Do I listen to newspapers and swear by ever word, as some of you are wont to do, or do I listen to the people who see it every day on the street, and in candid moments never ever revealed in the daily rags that pass for news here and abroad, tell us what is really happening? We both know what the better source is, don't we?

If I told you what my LEO contacts (including Scotland Yard) have relayed to me regarding what is happening over there, you would either dismiss it altogether, or come up with more, all too convieniently supplied statistics to refute what the "bobby" on the beat says. Hmmm... Do I listen to the cops,(not the politically ambitious ones that are quoted in the rags) or do I listen to someone unknown, quoting statistics on the internet? Very interesting....I guess if it is in print, it must be true. Yeah, right, sure. And the queen is offering rooms at Buckingham Palace for a weekend stay to the highest bidder. :)

So, when an armed intruder(gun, club, sharpened screwdriver, knife, pint of bitters, whatever) attacks in England, as happened to me once, I chose to bluff him by telling him I was an armed American.(I wasn't armed of course, because it's not necessary over their, right?) He left, without my money. What do the locals do, when the robber wants to rob and injure? Oh, well, so be it.
Sometimes, even if crime-free England, ;) criminals do seriously injure, cripple or kill compliant vitims.

Try to take this the right way, but, an unarmed victim is truly a victim. There are armed criminals everywhere, and the ones I've spoken with, absolutely love unarmed victims. Why do you think that some of our older armed gangs from U.S.A. are moving over to Europe and Japan? They have been interviewed and tell us in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that they like to have the upper hand, especially in Japan. They tell us that it's better for their business "over there" because they can break-in when the homeowner is home, because the homeowner can more quickly tell the robbers were the loot is! I'd love to see the London Times inteview those folks, but it will probably never happen. Oh yes! An unarmed society is a safe society. Hmmmm. ;)

I consider the United States safe because I have self defense options that are not offered to others abroad. It's strange, but considering how relatively "docile" and peaceable the people of Canada, Britain and Japan are, why do their governments not trust them with firearms(or weapons) in general to protect themselves when necessary. Those people can handle such serious matters safely, if given a chance, IMHO.

The above was a bit of a rant(!?), but I don't expect other countries to be like us, and I sure as h*ll don't want my country to be as passive and fear driven as some of the other countries I frequent. Bless their hearts, but I wonder if some of those countries could actually defend themselves on their home turf if something happened. From what I've seen on the internet, I have doubts they could even protect themselves, let alone their loved ones or their homes. Sorry, that's just one man's opinion. An able bodied man that can't effectively protect himself and his loved ones, is no man, but a boy.
Ask yourself, were do you fit in? Hmmmmm.....


Have a great week! :)
 
David: What's the difference between Japan's video violence (have you ever read just how anti-female some of THEIR violent-video is?) and our own high-dollar Hollywooders who take roles glorifying violence while denigrating firearms? Your point is well taken, but I note that Clinton reversed his '92 Demo Convention speech about keeping Gummint out of bedrooms, and discovered family values in '96. And Monica in '97...

The only real problem with TFL is that we're preaching to the choir. My personal problem is that when I go to such as Dejanews, the folks with whom I'd like to discuss issues (based on their postings) aren't capable of discussion...

Nighty-bye, Art
 
Stamp out violence on TV. Abolish the evening news.

Seriously though, I think TV does go a long way in promoting violence. I read a while back that a remote Canadian village had never had TV. The village had little or no violence. Then some enterprising individual brought in a satellite dish, and provided cable TV to these people. In three years, the rate of violent acts increased dramatically. The only change in their lifestyle was the addition of TV.
With all the TV, movie, and video game violence we have access to in this country, I seriously wonder it hasn't gotten worse than it has.
I think the average American has enough sense to realize that it is just a movie, TV show, or a game. But. there are individuals who because of circumstances, like being picked on in school as the "Trenchcoat Mafia" were, being weaker than the norm, snap and go on a killing spree. Remember, when wronged, Mel, Slyvester, Arnold, Clint et al, pick up their 44 Mag, M-60, Glock, or whatever and do the bad guys the dirty deed. According to what they see on the screen, this is an acceptable way of handling things.
You know? That was one of the good things about the A-team. They never shot anybody. And here I though they were just lousy shots.
Paul B.
COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!
 
Art, amen to that!

It's funny how some of these stars and directors make money from on-screen slaughter, then coyly condemn guns and violence.

I don't remember his name, but the producer/director of the "Lethal Weapons"
series of movies is a prime example.
Gratuitous (literally!) violence, dangerous and/or nonexistent safe gun handling practices, NRA bashing, and on it goes, yet this coward of a man has become a millionaire
from his movies.

My original rant was the T.V. shows that are aimed at the "little ones", not not teenagers
per say. It's almost as if there is no cartoon that my 3 1/2 year old can watch.

Paul, as I recall, on the T.V. show "Vengeance Unlimited", the protagonist never used handguns. Alas, the scenes were convieniently set-up to make handguns unnecessary. Not real life stuff at all.

While we are talking about violence, my mom had/has an interesting perspective I would like to share.

She is well up into her years now, and she commented the other day how violent movies were in her day, and Bonnie and Clyde were running around the Dallas area, complete with those in the media that would try to glamorize their exploits. She said she believed the reason kids didn't do that sort of thing was that most kids were taught a stong sense of right and wrong(!). She mentioned "Public Enemy #1" and other violent movies of here day, and she's right. I saw one of the movies recently, and, even by today's standards, it was ROUGH!

Heck, we watched Sam Peckinpaw movies, Clockwork Orange and others, and we never considered going nuts and murdering people. (except maybe the proper movie villain)

Something to think about, eh?
 
Gwinny,
No way they'll bring back McGuyver. Heck, next thing you know we'll have kids "packin'" swiss army knives and duct tape! ;)
 
I hardly ever watch the news, but I did last night and it was the most depressing thing! After all the accidents and killings and the sappy interviews of the friends and family of the deceased they had one message of someone successfully overcoming some physical challenge (accident related, of course!).

It was a good reminder of why I quit watching this excrement in the first place.

------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."

www.countdown9199.com
 
I don't know, maybe I'm just more intelligent, but I was never influenced to go pyshco by the violence I saw on TV. I'm 21 now, so I grew up with much of the same influences that the shooters in Littleton grew up with. Hell I was unpopular in for the most part in middle school and high school, but TV has not made me a criminal. I find it real hard to blame anything but the mentally unstable students.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top