Guns in Boston with ‘Boston Legal’
by John LottGuns have figured frequently in “Boston Legal,” with Denny Crane (William Shatner) using them defensively from time to time. Recently, in episode 3 of season 5 (”Dances with Wolves“), Denny fired a gun to defend himself from a robber who also had a gun. The robber was not really threatening, and as Denny’s friend and fellow partner Alan Shore (James Spader) asked him: ”Did you absolutely have to shoot [the robber]? Three times? In both feet?” Obviously the answer to all three questions was, “No.”
I don’t mind the humor in these shows. In fact, I laugh along with everyone else, but it would be interesting if those on the anti-gun side of this television firm (which is everyone else) would have similar fun poked at their own gun control views. Is it just not possible to think of similar jokes?
Right after Denny is shown using the gun defensively, there’s a segment showing him accidentally firing a gun into the ceiling. After that we learn Denny’s been carrying around eight guns and a “blow torch,” which was hidden on him in a place I won’t describe, though I’ll admit that was also amusing.
What was most disturbing about the episode was that it was filled with facts and numbers about the problems with guns but not one fact or number on the use of guns defensively. We are treated to numbers on how many people are killed with guns or commit suicide or are accidentally killed, but no numbers on defensive gun use. Contrast that to the show’s other segment regarding a child custody case where the mother is employed as a sex surrogate. Both sides in that discussion cited studies and statistics to make their point.
While the Brady Bill Campaign could have written the prosecution’s closing argument on the danger of guns, Denny Crane’s closing defense brought up pro-control arguments that weren’t even offered by the prosecution. To the defense, the question is whether the jurors are concerned about something as “trivial as human life.” The defense further argues that the Supreme Court decision in the Heller case was a joke and that they just inserted their own political views, not caring what the Constitution really meant to protect — we are told that is the right of the military to have guns. No mention of all the research provided here, here or here about concealed handguns saving lives and preventing other violent crimes.
Alan Shore ends the show with a small speech about how he’s shot guns but can’t understand why people don’t get together and agree on common sense gun control laws like “background checks and bans on assault weapons.” He also notes: “I see a lot wrong with an assault weapon and people like you walking around with guns.” Unfortunately, Denny is reduced to an unrelated response about how surprising it is that a liberal like Shore would own a gun.
Back in 1999, the show’s creator David Kelly, was among 200 celebrities who signed an open letter to the NRA, that appeared in ”USA Today,” advocating a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons, ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds, a minimum three-day waiting periods, safety locks sold on all guns, one-gun-a-month restrictions, and the restricting of minors from firearm access. The letter was sponsored by Handgun Control.
The problem is that there’s not a single study by criminologists or economists that finds assault weapons bans reduce crime (see here and here). Similarly, there are no academic studies by criminologists or economists that find any other laws reduce violent crime (here and here), but there is some evidence indicating that laws requiring people lock their guns lead to more deaths.
Possibly, it’s just inherently easier to make fun of those that use guns than those who have irrational fears of them, but can’t one make fun of anti-gun people being forced to fruitlessly plead with criminals to be reasonable with their victims?
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
36 Comments
David Kelley, the producer of Boston Legal, should have focused his safety propaganda on his son, who, when a college student, slaughtered quite a number of innocent people with a car, a weapon much more misused in our society than guns. It was ruled a multiple homicide, not an accident, and the young man is locked up for a very long time.-Jitney
Given the legal systems obvious inability to protect the average American, the call to remove our ability to do it ourselves seems almost laughable. Almost as funny as accepting the Global Warming theory.
Yes, it makes no sense but all these “big brains” are arguing for it!
On the other hand, the gang members who kill and maim are all for gun control. Think how much easier their lives will be.
Shouldn’t we spend more time discussing WHY gun bans are being propagandized? WHY does the government want a monopoly on the tools they use for coercion? Has the holocaust of over 120 million in Marxist nations gone down the memory hole? What exactly will “the New World Order” control and surveillance society be like for those of us on the bottom? Is it gun control or PEOPLE CONTROL that is the goal?
I couldn’t watch BL without being hit with their obvious liberal bias/agenda in each episode, so I gave up after just a few episodes. Shatner as Crane is interesting, but Spade as Allen Whathisname didn’t even have the realism of an actor working in community theater. Whether the issue was guns, abortion, homosexuality, etc., I could count on BL to take the extreme leftist liberal position on each…and make Al Sharpton out to be some sort of saint of the people! Geez.
John, my experience with most liberals is that they don’t have a sense of humor unless it is mean-spirited, moronic, and, of course, aimed at anyone who does not agree with them, particularly conservatives.
I thought a funny joke about gun restraint was made in ‘Lakeview Terrace.’ An abusive boyfriend takes two shots at Able Turner and his partner before he turned the gun on himself. Able puts down his pistol to calm the situation, or so you think. Then he grabs the gun and threatens to blow the guy’s head off for him. When Internal Affairs gets brought in on the incident, Able explains that the guy had just taken two shots at him and his partner, to which the IA agent responds, “You were verbally abusive!”
LOL, I laughed like a mad man at that one. Not exactly a joke about the gun control lobby, but against the joke that is the whole basis of guns, protection. Criminals have a right to shoot at you, but when they have cowered into their inevitable fetal position, don’t fire on them and be polite. Afterall, they’re just misunderstood.
I meant to say the whole joke against the whole basis of guns, protection. Kind of sounded like I was saying the guns themselves were a joke.
As an attorney, in a world run by attorneys (some of whom call themselves Congressmen) Denny Crane should have known that three shots would comprise execessive force, putting him into the defendants seat. A hurried shot to the gut to slow the assault followed by an aimed shot to the perp’s head the head to end it, and subsequent litigation would have been defensible. Likewise, Rodney King’s televised beating was not defensible; unlike, say, a televised order to “stop or I’ll shoot,” where everyone can tie actions to consequences.
On balance though, I chuckled to think that the left would prefer that you rely on the legal system for self protection, only to have a Hollywood left production portray a legal icon whipping out a handgun for self defense rather than a restraining order.
One does not need to watch Boston Legal to enjoy Denny Crane; you just have to watch the YouTube clips of the best parts. We gun-owners all passed around the “Gun! Knee! Left foot, right foot” clip of Denny shooting an armed robber.
And our conclusion was, respectfully, different than yours, Mr. Lott. The burglar pointed a loaded pistol at a man’s head and showed complete disregard for the human lives he was threatening. That was the ultimate dangerous homocidal criminal situation.
Second, no self-respecting gun owner would have shot an armed robber in the feet. If you’ve had any training at all, you know to take a chest shot and keep firing until you are out of bullets and the would-be killer is deader than the proverbial doornail. (And then reload.)
I know I’m taking a jocular tone but this is serious. I have kids who are being trained in firearms safety as they grow up. They already know that if you point a gun at someone, you are intending to kill them. If you teach someone any differently, you are making a deadly mistake.
Bonnie, you’re exactly right. In the clip that was mentioned, the bad guy pulled a gun and pointed it at Denny, demanded his wallet, and then threatened to blow his brains out. If that’s not sufficient to form a basis for return fire, I don’t know what is. What assurances does Denny have that the bad guy would not complete the robbery and kill the two men, thereby eliminating them from becoming witnesses? None. Two JHP’s to center mass, and then follow up shots to confirm that the threat has ceased.
Thanks for your observations and analysis.
“Basically, if a criminal comes into my house and I shoot him, whether or not I kill him, he says that there will very likely be a lawsuit.”
I don’t buy in to this nonsense hand-wringing. It is usually just a bunch of people repeating same old BS and believing what they are saying with nothing to back it up because they think pouting about this somehow connects them to the human condition or whatever. Actually, these kinds of lawsuits are relatively rare.
“Even though I am in my own home, and being threatened, I will surely be sued.”
Since we are talking about courts, I call this “hearsay evidence.” Provide something to back this up, please.
“He says that in EVERY SINGLE instance of a cop using his gun, they are sued, and the MINIMUM cost of this litigation is $250,000!”
Well, that can be solved easily. ALL public servants used to provide a bond THEMSELVES. That was what would be at stake. Sue to cop, sure. The tax payers shouldn’t be on the hook. They changed all this and had the TAX PAYERS provide the bond – probably so they could hire more welfare-types to work within the system.
“Another tidbit of information I will share. If I defend anyone OTHER than myself, I am opened up to a lawsuit. For example, if I am at a store and a gunman comes in and starts shooting people, and I take him out, if he wasn’t directly threatening me, I am in the wrong.”
I’m getting the impression this “instructor” of yours didn’t know is a$$ from his elbow.
“This is another thing Liberals don’t understand about Conceal/Carry permits. The classes one has to take to get one’s permit are extremely educational, and greatly reduce the chances that a permit holder will ever actually use the gun.”
The very fact you are applying for a “permit” to exercise your RIGHT means you have lost.
Magazine, not Clip!
I stopped watching Boston Legal way back, as every episode portrays the “Conservative” Denny Crane as a fool. Meanwhile, every case that the James Spader character takes on insults Republicans, Christians and anyone who favors a traditionally moral position. While I basically like Shatner, he should have walked away from this liberal propaganda sitcom a long time back.
Once upon a time there were clip fed weapons. The only one I recall is the venerable and highly revered M1 rifle of WWII and Korea. Today, everything except revolvers is fed by a BOX MAGAZINE, not a “clip”, of one design or another. Please bring your terminology up to date.
If an armed intruder or thief is confronting me, last thing in the world I really care about is a lawsuit.
I want to remain alive. If I have the means to do this at my disposal and that leaves the assailant, well, I am fine about it.
Life is somethimes challenging. Buck it up and do what is necessary. Deal with the liberals later.
“Basically, if a criminal comes into my house and I shoot him, whether or not I kill him, he says that there will very likely be a lawsuit. Even though I am in my own home, and being threatened, I will surely be sued. If not by the criminal, by his family.”
that’s why you be sure to put the butcher knife in the perp’s cold dead hand BEFORE callin’ 911…
LOL
Whoever Jitney (1st post) is talking about, it is not David E. Kelley.
One more reason for me never to bother watching Boston Legal.
John, the BL Director Dan Attias, has a son that plowed into students at UCSB
http://archives.dailyuw.com/2001/022601/N7.wireforpag.html
and is now serving time.
That was a good read thanks for the info
.
You must be logged in to post a comment.