“A study set for publication in the December issue of Pediatrics confirms what some of Hollywood’s sharpest critics have suspected,” nytimes.com reports. “The level of gun violence in the top-selling PG-13 movies has been rising, and it now exceeds that in the most popular R-rated films.” So G now stands for “gun-related gore-fest”? “Violent encounters with guns occur, on average, more than twice an hour in the best sellers in both ratings categories, according to researchers.” Here it comes . . . “In announcing the study, its authors called for changes to the ratings system, which, according to some of its critics, is tougher on sex than on violence.” As Ellen Foley sang STOP RIGHT THERE! Turns out the Times got this one completely wrong . . .
This appeared at the bottom of the NY times piece [forcing me to re-write this blog post]:
Correction: November 11, 2013
An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to the type of violence the researchers were looking for when they examined 945 films made from 1950 until 2012. It was for violence in general, not just gun violence.
WTH? How does a journalist get a study THAT wrong? Could it be something to do with a bias against guns? I dunno, but the study IS about gun violence in movies. It’s called “Gun Violence Trends in Movies.” And here’s a surprise (i.e. not): the study was co-authored by a gentleman employed by one of the most virulent anti-gun organizations: annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org.
It’s disturbing that PG-13 movies are filled with so much gun violence,” said Dan Romer, director of the Adolescent Communication Institute of the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) and a co-author of the study. “We know that movies teach children how adults behave, and they make gun use appear exciting and attractive.”
I’m so confused! Why would the Times highlight the study as BIG NEWS then retract the bit about the methodology, which undermines the entire study, which makes the Times report on the study pretty much null and void? I mean talk about an agenda. [Click here for the full press release.] Annenberg again:
The dramatic growth of gun violence in movies aimed at younger viewers is especially troubling, the researchers said, because of the “weapons effect,” a finding that just the sight or depiction of a gun can make people behave more aggressively. “Because of the increasing popularity of PG-13 films, youth are exposed to considerable gun violence in movie scripts,” the researchers said in the study. “The mere presence of guns in these films may increase the aggressive behavior of youth.”
May? What “weapons effect”? Oh wait. I think I got it. The study sucks so the reporting sucks so I suck for not figuring that out before. Right. Carry on.
Damn. If I was a WEE bit older and could own a friggin’ handgun I’d be emailing Robert a Mini-14 review (REALLY surprised there isn’t one)
Eh, I might do it anyway~
not impressed?..watch the movie No country for old men…the bad guy had one of these…
One of her spells must have backfired.
As somebody who has used the M-79 in Afghanistan, I can say it is probably the most point and shoot grenade launcher ever made. A good shot is able to reliably hit center mass on a man size target at 100 yards and a great shot should be able to at 150 with his first shot. The ladder sites are pretty much useless once you have put more than 10 rounds through the thing, it is just that easy to shoot.
So by there logic Bambi should be rated R because of gun violence, but Showgirls should be rated G because sex and nudity is harmless to children. Typical.
The new RoboCop isn’t R-rated? Now I know it’s gonna suck…
A remake of the first Robocop. Looks like it would be a good movie. But there is no way that is G rated.
Bearing out the thrust of this article, there’s no question that Elmer Fudd’s shotgun violence toward Bugs Bunny led Glenn Close to boil Michael Douglas’ rabbit in “Fatal Attraction.” It’s a proven fact.
I delighht in, lead to I fund exactly what I was looking
for. You’ve ended my 4 day long hunt! God Bless you man.
Have a nice day. Bye
I will follow this with interest, mainly because MAC is the real deal.
My dad slipped on a rock covered in a foot of snow and broke his leg.
My buddy fell out of his stand and broke his back.
This is odd. I read an article about this subject on my local news station yesterday, and it said:
“Researchers examined a total of 945 films, drawing from the 30 top-grossing movies from 1950 through 2012. It focuses on sequences involving ‘the firing of hand-held guns with the intent to harm or kill a living being.'”
I thought that was strange, as a lot of old movies and TV shows contained plenty of shooting but no bloodshed. And I always thought that it was the bloodshed that determined the rating. This reminds me of the push, a few years ago, to assign an R rating to any movie that shows smoking.
The article has not been “corrected” and is located here: http://www.komonews.com/news/entertainment/Study-PG-13-gun-violence-rivals-that-of-R-movies-231503821.html
I can’t think of any possible way that PG-13 movies of today could top the 1980s. You’d be hard-pressed to find even an animated Disney film that didn’t have at least one MAC-10 or MP5 in it.
The “Battle of Britain” movie from the 1960’s garnered a G rating. Though the violence depicted was a bit dated in terms of special effects and was meant to be loosely historical, it did have its fair share of guns, blood, and burned flesh to warrant a rating for more mature audiences.
Might I humbly recommend a slight name change to American Citizens Legally United. The pitch line could be, “This ACLU can count to 2!”
curious as to how it compares to say a centerfire rifle design. i applaud their efforts, but that is a fairly antequated baffle design (the mp5sd i have fired wasnt quiet at all. would have prefered a p5k with a modern take apart can), heavy, and the bore size is very large. interested in seeing how it does though. has to be better than the RJF cans…
ha ha, I actually did that with my Mustang last year when my truck was broke down, used a tarp and the processor was only five miles down a Texas Farm to Market so no one batted an eye.
I could have brought a bag of marshmallows to the party.
Libtards are NOT for freedom.
I’m joining (once my budget is in order) the NRA and the MCRGO. That covers me nationally and locally. I don’t think we need another alphabet soup org, I think the NRA and the local orgs need to stop waging a defensive war and go on offense. The movement toward shall issue has shown that we can make gains, not just cut our losses. So let’s make that part of our mission!