- Messages
- 4,091
- Reactions
- 13,284
Guns are a Virus?... Science Channel says so.
I just watched an episode of Through the worm hole with Morgan Freeman on the science channel called "Is gun crime a virus". If you have On Demand, watch it, but prepare to yell at the TV like you did when Pete Carroll called the goal line slant pass. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but I gotta get this out. Sorry...it's a little lengthy. Read at your own risk.
The show starts out OK... They try to look at gun violence as a medical issue rather than a social issue, blaming the spread off mass shootings on the media. They find evidence that the media coverage of a mass shooting will trigger a similar event within 13 days. They say that the gun crime clusters and spreads through social media like a disease. Social media has caused its fair share of violence.. I can buy that, with the caveat that the gun was just a tool, not the villain. Had they stoped there or gone further into those theories I'd have been fine with it. From that point however, the show takes a nasty turn to the left. Anti gun BS disguised as scientific research. The worst kind, because more people are going to believe it if there is scientific "evidence" attached. How are they to know that the data is incomplete or misinterpreted?
They talk about what they are doing in Chicago, which we all know struggles with gun crime because of their ridiculous gun control laws. It has a network of 29,000 cameras with Microphones to record and triangulate where and when a gun is fired. Then they run all the data through an algorithm to create their controversial "heat list"... The 400 people most likely to commit a violent crime. Then by using forensic social analysis (risk due to association)... They can accurately predict who is going to be a victim of a violent crime. they find that 4% of the population is responsible for majority of these crimes.... So the other 96% be damned. Your privacy and right to carry a gun or even a locking pocket knife forfeit because 1 in 25 might hurt somebody... But hey, at least by unconstitutionally sticking their noses into peoples lives, they can tell you wether or not you need something to protect yourself. You still can't have it though.
I wonder how many other cities use the same tech without public knowledge. How powerful are these microphones? I wonder how much this might play into the continued restrictions on suppressors.
There are 5 shootings a day in Philadelphia. They did a "Study" there Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault and concluded that you are 4.5x more likely to get shot if you are carrying a gun. Data was collected by random phone interviews conducted soon after a shooting, targeting people that were close to the same age, race, gender etc. as the victim. I don't see how the information they collected could be very accurate. The questions were very much like an interrogation. E.G.. How old are you?, Do you own a gun? Where were you at 10pm last night? Were you in possession of a firearm at that time? Have you been involved in any fights in your neighborhood lately?... I would certainly be suspicious of who was actually asking the questions and why. How would a young black male from the ghetto answer? There are questions that would change everything... Do you have a CPL?, do you train to use your firearm? They did not ask these questions! Also they admit the majority of their subjects they interviewed were unemployed... making the data incomplete. They also say that the results were specific to Philly, and urban environments. They boo Santa for crying out loud. Environmental factors apply! West coast rural communities could/would have vastly different results. The show didn't mention any of that though. I had to read the study(click link in red above) to get that very important info.
They even go so far as to try to prove scientifically that guns do in fact kill people. That they are the cause, not the people shooting them... and the trigger is pulling the finger.
Mr. Freeman said..."holding a gun or seeing one triggers the urge to commit more violence."
Thier supporting evidence?.. They put a gun on the passenger seat of a driving simulator and found people drove more aggressively with the gun visable than the baseline(a tennis racquet on the seat). Of course they will... you basically just put them into a Grand Theft Auto video game with no consequences for their actions. In another "experiment " they concluded If your blocking an intersection people are more likely to honk if you have a gun visible in the back window!? I call BS. If you hold people up in traffic, you're gunna get a honk regardless. Even if it was unbiased, aplicable data... its still the person reacting to the sight of the gun.
They ended up trying to prove that guns are a disease, which is ridiculous. Saying gun violence is a disease is a little better, but I believe, and facts support, it's a symptom of a greater disease... The breakdown of the traditional family unit, and/or lazy poor parenting. The Real Root Causes of Violent Crime: The Breakdown of Marriage, Family, and Community It is a social issue, but it's a mental health issue as well. In Europe where nudity and sex are not censored or considered taboo, teen pregnancy and STDs are a non issue. Curiosity and the excitement of forbidden fruit will make young people do stupid things. If you're raised around guns the right way, you see them as a common tool. Dangerous, but so is a chainsaw, or a lawnmower. My kids love to shoot, but they associate the fun with being out together and getting praise for good marksmanship from dad. Like a basketball... no fun unless you have a hoop and somebody to play HORSE with. One of their favorites is the "battleship" targets. we play indoors with a CO2 pistol, but at distance with the .22 rifles is a blast!
In a vast majority of cases, shooters are young men. A young man, full of piss and vinegar, is like a buck in rut. It wasn't long ago that I was I young man... I remember after watching a good game my brothers and I would go outside and throw the ball around and act out our favorite plays, or we would get up and and spar after a kung fu movie (usually ending with one of us crying and the others in trouble). Perfectly normal, innocent reactions. Never have I walked out of an action movie with the desire to shoot somebody. Unfortunately, a young man with social issues, with(and likely because of) the lack of decent support system at home to keep him grounded, can react much differently to the same stimuli. There's your problem...
I read a quote once. I'm not sure who said it, but I couldn't agree more
"The problem is not with guns. It's hearts without God, homes without discipline, schools without prayer, and courts without justice."
This show is a serious attack on gun ownership and concealed carry. I'm torn because I like the Science Channel's programs for the most part and who doesn't like Morgan Freeman? Do I stop watching both because of this, or just agree to disagree like I do with my libtard friends?
I just watched an episode of Through the worm hole with Morgan Freeman on the science channel called "Is gun crime a virus". If you have On Demand, watch it, but prepare to yell at the TV like you did when Pete Carroll called the goal line slant pass. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but I gotta get this out. Sorry...it's a little lengthy. Read at your own risk.
The show starts out OK... They try to look at gun violence as a medical issue rather than a social issue, blaming the spread off mass shootings on the media. They find evidence that the media coverage of a mass shooting will trigger a similar event within 13 days. They say that the gun crime clusters and spreads through social media like a disease. Social media has caused its fair share of violence.. I can buy that, with the caveat that the gun was just a tool, not the villain. Had they stoped there or gone further into those theories I'd have been fine with it. From that point however, the show takes a nasty turn to the left. Anti gun BS disguised as scientific research. The worst kind, because more people are going to believe it if there is scientific "evidence" attached. How are they to know that the data is incomplete or misinterpreted?
They talk about what they are doing in Chicago, which we all know struggles with gun crime because of their ridiculous gun control laws. It has a network of 29,000 cameras with Microphones to record and triangulate where and when a gun is fired. Then they run all the data through an algorithm to create their controversial "heat list"... The 400 people most likely to commit a violent crime. Then by using forensic social analysis (risk due to association)... They can accurately predict who is going to be a victim of a violent crime. they find that 4% of the population is responsible for majority of these crimes.... So the other 96% be damned. Your privacy and right to carry a gun or even a locking pocket knife forfeit because 1 in 25 might hurt somebody... But hey, at least by unconstitutionally sticking their noses into peoples lives, they can tell you wether or not you need something to protect yourself. You still can't have it though.
I wonder how many other cities use the same tech without public knowledge. How powerful are these microphones? I wonder how much this might play into the continued restrictions on suppressors.
There are 5 shootings a day in Philadelphia. They did a "Study" there Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault and concluded that you are 4.5x more likely to get shot if you are carrying a gun. Data was collected by random phone interviews conducted soon after a shooting, targeting people that were close to the same age, race, gender etc. as the victim. I don't see how the information they collected could be very accurate. The questions were very much like an interrogation. E.G.. How old are you?, Do you own a gun? Where were you at 10pm last night? Were you in possession of a firearm at that time? Have you been involved in any fights in your neighborhood lately?... I would certainly be suspicious of who was actually asking the questions and why. How would a young black male from the ghetto answer? There are questions that would change everything... Do you have a CPL?, do you train to use your firearm? They did not ask these questions! Also they admit the majority of their subjects they interviewed were unemployed... making the data incomplete. They also say that the results were specific to Philly, and urban environments. They boo Santa for crying out loud. Environmental factors apply! West coast rural communities could/would have vastly different results. The show didn't mention any of that though. I had to read the study(click link in red above) to get that very important info.
They even go so far as to try to prove scientifically that guns do in fact kill people. That they are the cause, not the people shooting them... and the trigger is pulling the finger.
Mr. Freeman said..."holding a gun or seeing one triggers the urge to commit more violence."
Thier supporting evidence?.. They put a gun on the passenger seat of a driving simulator and found people drove more aggressively with the gun visable than the baseline(a tennis racquet on the seat). Of course they will... you basically just put them into a Grand Theft Auto video game with no consequences for their actions. In another "experiment " they concluded If your blocking an intersection people are more likely to honk if you have a gun visible in the back window!? I call BS. If you hold people up in traffic, you're gunna get a honk regardless. Even if it was unbiased, aplicable data... its still the person reacting to the sight of the gun.
They ended up trying to prove that guns are a disease, which is ridiculous. Saying gun violence is a disease is a little better, but I believe, and facts support, it's a symptom of a greater disease... The breakdown of the traditional family unit, and/or lazy poor parenting. The Real Root Causes of Violent Crime: The Breakdown of Marriage, Family, and Community It is a social issue, but it's a mental health issue as well. In Europe where nudity and sex are not censored or considered taboo, teen pregnancy and STDs are a non issue. Curiosity and the excitement of forbidden fruit will make young people do stupid things. If you're raised around guns the right way, you see them as a common tool. Dangerous, but so is a chainsaw, or a lawnmower. My kids love to shoot, but they associate the fun with being out together and getting praise for good marksmanship from dad. Like a basketball... no fun unless you have a hoop and somebody to play HORSE with. One of their favorites is the "battleship" targets. we play indoors with a CO2 pistol, but at distance with the .22 rifles is a blast!
In a vast majority of cases, shooters are young men. A young man, full of piss and vinegar, is like a buck in rut. It wasn't long ago that I was I young man... I remember after watching a good game my brothers and I would go outside and throw the ball around and act out our favorite plays, or we would get up and and spar after a kung fu movie (usually ending with one of us crying and the others in trouble). Perfectly normal, innocent reactions. Never have I walked out of an action movie with the desire to shoot somebody. Unfortunately, a young man with social issues, with(and likely because of) the lack of decent support system at home to keep him grounded, can react much differently to the same stimuli. There's your problem...
I read a quote once. I'm not sure who said it, but I couldn't agree more
"The problem is not with guns. It's hearts without God, homes without discipline, schools without prayer, and courts without justice."
This show is a serious attack on gun ownership and concealed carry. I'm torn because I like the Science Channel's programs for the most part and who doesn't like Morgan Freeman? Do I stop watching both because of this, or just agree to disagree like I do with my libtard friends?
Last Edited:
