Jimquisition: Desensitized to Violence

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

Not so much shocked as kind of angry. Comes with the line of work.

Not only did the camera man keep rolling to make SURE he got it all on tape, we also have this man who wanted to make his death as public, dramatic and traumatizing as possible.

Disgusting is the only word I have for it quite simply. A disgusting act made more disgusting by the attention it eventually got.

abell:
-sic

All the evidence you've seen hu? Meaning which evidence?

It's an easy thing to say you have evidence it's a difference to show it. Anecdotal retelling doesn't count. Quotes, links, sources that is evidence.

I take particular problems with the statement about games being murder training simulators. Mostly because off an evidence-less post and the complete discontinuation between game and actual use of firearms. There is a reason why soldiers don't get sent out to war after playing 80 hours of COD.

I wholly advice you to get someone you know who has never fired a gun, but loves shooters/violent games and take em out to a gunrange somewhere, observe the absolute lack of knowledge and utter inexperience of the person who according to you has spent long hours training for this.

erttheking:
And to those who say that video games desensitize people, I give you, Geoff Lazer (That' actually his middle name) Ramsey. One of the original founding members of the company known as Roosterteeth, one of the heads of the website Achievement hunter, and a very big fan of Halo, video games in general, and a husband and FATHER! Now, watch this video of him trying to watch the Dead Island trailer.

he was also in the army

...just saying

Stryc9:

Why should I as a civilian be scared of guns? If ANY person is properly trained in the handling and use of a gun there is nothing to be scared of. The military isn't the only place to receive such training, you can sign up for a gun safety course through you local sheriff's department or at any store with a sporting goods department.

So don't tell me, a responsible gun owner, who has done no military service but did take a class that I should be scared of my legally obtained and responsibly handled guns.

As a responsible gun owner, perhaps you can tell me, for what purpose a civilian would need a military grade assault weapon?
And no hunting isn't one of them. I've argued before the point of gun control isn't to limit the civilians and collectors with legitimate interest, but to prevent the unsuitable candidates from getting them; a common misconception in the UK is that you can't get a gun, but the truth is, it's very easy to get one, there are plenty of shooting clubs and the licence and application cost is £50 for 5 years. So we have nothing stopping anyone from getting a gun, yet we have laws and restrictions in place, whatever you may say about our violent crime rate, the number of those crimes committed with firearms is low and low for a reason.

That bit was depressing but I wouldn't say it made me horrified or sick to my stomach; but than again I have grown to hate my fellow man over the years so that could be why.

Well... There's my video for when the argument about how "violent" video games "cause" violence. That footage really does hit the point home with a sledgehammer.

I've seen the footage before, but watching it again in this context really does drive the point home in a visceral way. Thanks, Jim, for having the balls to put it this starkly.

Thank GOD for Jim, for saying what I could never get across to either my parents or co-workers (both of which are CONVINCED that violent video games are the root cause of all the problems with violence in society).

I've played all manner of violent video games, from shooters to RPGs, and I've sliced, shot, bashed, cut, and torn through enemies of various shapes and sizes.

And yet there are still some movies I can't sit through, because the gore feels too real for me. I've managed to watch some of the Saw movies (though I was very squimish throughout) mostly because (as Jim eloquently puts it) the gore is so vastly overblown that I know in my head it's not real. And yet it STILL bothers me.

As for the shooting itself? I remember hearing about the shooting on the radio as I was driving home from my teaching job, and I was actually in tears listening to the radio coverage, outright crying over the deaths of people I never knew in my entire life because I couldn't bear the thought of innocent little children being brutally murdered for no reason. I had to shut off the radio to calm myself down, because just listening to that was enough to bother me at such a core level. I'm actually tearing up as I type this, even, it still bothers me THIS much.

Anyone trying to tell me that playing violent video games has "desensitized me to violence" doesn't know what the hell they're talking about, and frankly, I feel incredibly insulted that people still try to pitch this baloney.

Rellik San:

As a responsible gun owner, perhaps you can tell me, for what purpose a civilian would need a military grade assault weapon?
And no hunting isn't one of them. I've argued before the point of gun control isn't to limit the civilians and collectors with legitimate interest, but to prevent the unsuitable candidates from getting them; a common misconception in the UK is that you can't get a gun, but the truth is, it's very easy to get one, there are plenty of shooting clubs and the licence and application cost is £50 for 5 years. So we have nothing stopping anyone from getting a gun, yet we have laws and restrictions in place, whatever you may say about our violent crime rate, the number of those crimes committed with firearms is low and low for a reason.

Apparently, it's that time. The AR-15 is not an M-16. An AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon, the M-16 is select fire, which means that it fires semi-auto, and full-auto. It is very difficult to own a full-auto weapon in this country and has been since the 30's. They're considered Class 3 weapons, they're tightly regulated by the ATF and there's a crap ton of hoops to jump through to get one. The AR-15 and the M-16 are similar in a lot of their design, but, the elements that make it full-auto makes it a different weapon. Think of them as cousins, at best. So, almost no one owns a military grade assault weapon. The best you can argue is that they're military style, but, that just means it looks like a military gun, not that it is one. As for why you'd want an AR-15? They're very versatile, you can easily add a whole bunch of gadgets to it (they've been described as a barbie doll for men), ammunition for it is relatively cheap, it has very minimal recoil, due to the small size of the round, it's enjoyable to shoot, and, should you find yourself in the middle of a riot, like Korean storeowners during the LA riots, you could probably due a decent job of dissuading people from harming you and yours, and your property. However, the AR would be no more effective at that than a Ruger Mini-14. Of course, we could get into conversations of piston operated vs direct impingement, or styles of extractor and breaches, but, I highly doubt that's what you mean. Unless, you're actually upset about semi-auto weapons entirely?

http://ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/models.html

And thank you, I will say what I like about the UK's violent crime problem. If I remember correctly, it's worse than the US and all of the EU? What difference does it make if you're robbed at gunpoint, or at bat point? Is rape less terrible at knifepoint, than with a gun at your back? There is no moral argument that the method used to commit a crime makes the crime worse. Where is your moral superiority coming from there?

Stryc9:

Why should I as a civilian be scared of guns? If ANY person is properly trained in the handling and use of a gun there is nothing to be scared of. The military isn't the only place to receive such training, you can sign up for a gun safety course through you local sheriff's department or at any store with a sporting goods department.

They teach you to treat every gun as if it's loaded, not to point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot, to keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to fire, all the same rules they taught your dad in the military. The average civilian can handle a gun safely with a little education. Guns are not something everyone except the police and military should be afraid of and saying so is just plain stupid. Responsible gun owners are not crazy people who like to have guns because 'Murrica Fuck Yeah! that want to go out kill everything in sight. Responsible gun owners buy and collect guns for a number of reasons. Some people just like to go out and do a little target practice, some people like to hunt, some people even collect certain guns because they see them as works of art and just like to look at them.

So don't tell me, a responsible gun owner, who has done no military service but did take a class that I should be scared of my legally obtained and responsibly handled guns.

I didn't (and I suspect Jim didn't either) mean scared as in "when you see a gun you shit your pants, scream and run away", more as in "you would never do something like this because you understand that guns should be handled with care".

Rellik San:
As a responsible gun owner, perhaps you can tell me, for what purpose a civilian would need a military grade assault weapon? And no hunting isn't one of them.

"Assault weapon" is a term made up by the gun control lobby to confuse the public into banning "scary-looking" firearms:

From Josh Sugarmann, one of the gun-ban lobbyists: The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons-anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

The legal definition of "assault weapons" covers certain semi-auto firearms based on cosmetic or ergonomic features like adjustable stocks and pistol grips, and have nothing to do with the lethality of the firearm.

Semi-auto rifles are incredibly useful for defense; it's possible to buy a semi-auto rifle that operates just like a pistol, and use pistol magazines and ammo, but has a long barrel and a stock, so that it's more stable. I'd love to get one; this would mean I'm less likely to miss my intended target and hit something else. However, these rifles would be classified as "assault weapons", so I would only be allowed to buy a much more powerful "hunting rifle".

I've argued before the point of gun control isn't to limit the civilians and collectors with legitimate interest, but to prevent the unsuitable candidates from getting them; a common misconception in the UK is that you can't get a gun, but the truth is, it's very easy to get one, there are plenty of shooting clubs and the licence and application cost is £50 for 5 years. So we have nothing stopping anyone from getting a gun, yet we have laws and restrictions in place, whatever you may say about our violent crime rate, the number of those crimes committed with firearms is low and low for a reason.

My firearms are not for hunting; they're for defense of myself and my family. So while you may be able to go down to a shooting club and use a number of different firearms, how many can you actually keep in your home? Will you be arrested and prosecuted if you use them in defense of your family?

Jimothy Sterling:
snip

Ya, 9 hours and 250 odd posts later... here I am.

There is a well known researcher named Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman. He agrees with you about everything, especially the part on the idiots in the media.

He believe that videogames cause violence but not because of "desensitizing" to it. But rather because (and this is the important part) in the hands of a person already likely to commit murder, they can train said psychopath in to a Mass Murder.

So I agree with you. But I still believe videogames can be dangerous, in the wrong hands. Just like anything else really.

The first time I saw the Budd Dwyer video a few years ago I found it hard to watch. Now, not so much, although I suspect that is mainly because I know what's coming. So I guess that means that real violence has desensitized me to violence?

Gilhelmi:

There is a well known researcher named Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman. He agrees with you about everything, especially the part on the idiots in the media.

He believe that videogames cause violence but not because of "desensitizing" to it. But rather because (and this is the important part) in the hands of a person already likely to commit murder, they can train said psychopath in to a Mass Murder.

So I agree with you. But I still believe videogames can be dangerous, in the wrong hands. Just like anything else really.

I've never understood the argument that video games can 'train' a killer. Exactly what kind of training do they provide? I've never used a gun, but I'm fairly certain that games don't prepare you in any practical way when it comes to the operation of firearms. The AI of enemies in games is still scripted and rather rudimentary, so the tactical training that these games can offer is dubious at best.

You'll notice that the man's last words were, if I heard correctly, "No, no, no, don't don't [come closer]. Look, it'll hurt someone. Just chill out, I-"

It's very clear to me that he died an honorable death. Remember, also, that he did this so that his wife would continue receiving benefits, as they would have been revoked had he been impeached. If he was truly innocent, I don't really blame him for doing it. If he wasn't innocent, I still don't blame him, though it cuts on the "honorable" bit a bit.

I feel as if this video hit me particularly hard today because of my current troubles (being screwed by, ironically, the court system myself just this very day). That said, this video has always been rather eye-opening to me. Between this and the suicide video of the Mexican man who killed himself while in custody, this sort of suicide is rather sickening, and extremely effective at showing just how fragile we are.

I've seen multiple death videos, usually as a sort of "train-wreck that you can't look away from once you see the start of it"-type thing. I've been close to puking several times, and I really don't see a single drop in disgust from my millions of video game kills.

Having also personally mercy-killed several animals, having my childhood dog die in my arms, and even saying goodbye to my best friend a mere hour before his heart finally gave out, I can attest that death is no trivial matter to me. I can joke about death all day long and enjoy the sickest of jokes, but at the end of the day, when it's time to get serious, I'm as cautious and caring as they come.

As a side note, I'm a large fan of firearms, and I liked that you noted that the standard person should be terrified of them. I agree to an extent: I enjoy firing guns and all, but I respect them just as much as I take pleasure in them. I would even say that I admire their strength, like a Jedi admires his blade. I understand their power and the fact that they could end a life in under a second, and, as most gun-owners will attest, this is a very shared feeling. Nearly anyone that has fired a gun before, I imagine, will say as much.

DataSnake:
No, a civilian should DEFINITELY be scared of guns. My dad grew up on an Army base, and one of the first things they taught him was the rules for handling guns:
1. It's always loaded, even when you're sure it isn't
2. Don't point a gun at someone unless you intend to shoot them
This was, I remind you, an ARMY BASE. The MILITARY recognizes that guns aren't toys and should be handled with caution, and frankly I'd expect them to know as much on the subject as anyone.

It is really sad that He grew up on an ARMY BASE and failed to teach you the difference between FEARING a gun and RESPECTING one. You shouldn't FEAR A gun any more than you FEAR a car or knife. But you should RESPECT those things and what they can do to an individual. And I know sure as shit they dont ever teach you to fear a gun in the military.

Tank207:
Yeah I had to turn my head away from the actual footage there. I learned my lesson when I saw the raw footage of the little girl in China who got run over twice a few years ago. I was shaking for a good hour after that, and was in a very gloomy mood for the next two days. Even now I've got a pit in my stomach and I didn't even watch the actual suicide... I just listened.

It always amazes me how sensitive some people can be to these things. It is a completely alien concept to me, I watch this and feel nothing, I watched that other video earlier in the thread where the carjacker shot himself, the only reaction I had was humor at the news anchor freaking right the fuck out that they didn't cut the video soon enough.

I just fail to grasp the concept of feeling squeamish or even reacting to these kinds of things.

1337mokro:

All the evidence you've seen hu? Meaning which evidence?

It's an easy thing to say you have evidence it's a difference to show it. Anecdotal retelling doesn't count. Quotes, links, sources that is evidence.

I take particular problems with the statement about games being murder training simulators. Mostly because off an evidence-less post and the complete discontinuation between game and actual use of firearms. There is a reason why soldiers don't get sent out to war after playing 80 hours of COD.

I wholly advice you to get someone you know who has never fired a gun, but loves shooters/violent games and take em out to a gunrange somewhere, observe the absolute lack of knowledge and utter inexperience of the person who according to you has spent long hours training for this.

Wait, what? I specifically referred to a published book, On Killing, by Lt. Col. Grossman USAF (ret.), a book that is considered the seminal work on the psychology of killing, a book that was nominated for a Pulitzer, and I am citing that. That book is a full psych text and has all of the studies cited, etc. There's other studies that support that, but, that's the most accessible for a non psych reader, hence why I referred readers to it. Also, the theory that I was referencing is about repetition being used to overcome the psychological barriers to killing another human being, not about the proper use of a firearm. At no point did I say that it was, even going so far as to add my own opinion that these shooters seem to lack proper training evidenced by the reports of shooters discarding weapons that jam. I think you read a very different post than the one I wrote.

Thank you Jim. Thank you so much...
You've changed the argument, and given us a clear succinct specimen that proves the point that games don't desensitize us to violence. But now I can't watch this video ever again. I like to rewatch videos, but I can't do it for this one. For the same reason why I can no longer watch Breaking Bad. The season 4 finale and, specifically, Gus' death. Fuck, I hadn't even gotten up to that point in the series, I was just in season 2. I was just in the room when my mother and brother were watching the finale. That almost made me throw up. As did the clip of Budd Dwyer.

Also, my sister honestly believes that not only video games but all forms of violent media will make you more likely to cause violent acts. She's doing a PhD in psychology. Now I can propose to her an experiment to show her that the human brain can in fact discern between fictitious violence and real violence. Gamers React will be a parody of the incredibly popular Fine Bros. series of similar names wherein 20-somethings who have played or are fans of violent video games are shown the clip of Budd Dwyer and are shown reacting. This can then be shown as proof that games do *not* desensitize you to violence.

The clip is awful and my brain can discern that because it knows what's real and what's fake.

FelixG:
It is really sad that He grew up on an ARMY BASE and failed to teach you the difference between FEARING a gun and RESPECTING one. You shouldn't FEAR A gun any more than you FEAR a car or knife. But you should RESPECT those things and what they can do to an individual. And I know sure as shit they dont ever teach you to fear a gun in the military.

Maybe it's just a quirk of speaking, but I frequently use the word "fear" to indicate treating something with caution. I would, for example, say that you should fear a large dog or caustic chemicals, by which I would just mean "don't kick rottweilers or drink bleach", not necessarily "dogs and clorox are absolutely terrifying".

RC1138:
Speaking as someone who, through military deployments, has been aparty to and responsible for Jim's quote en quote "real violence," I have a comment I've held for awhile now about desensitization to violence from media in general. I does and it doesn't. It doesn't prepare or desensitize you to what you see when it's right there in front of you. In the same regard to a flight sim trainer for pilots. I doesn't, and isn't trying, to make the action of ACTUALLY flying the plane indistinguishable from the flight sim, but it makes the fear, apprehension, and hesitation from getting into a real cockpit less fearful. Violence in media is the same thing. I don't care how many SAW's you've seen or other gore flicks, when you see a real head blown off someone, it gets to you. But what seeing those movies or playing games like them DOES do is make you far less likely to recoil BEFORE you see it.

Granted it's anecdotal but I have to go on my own experience, I saw this in action in my own unit. I had a guy that was from the classic, SUPER classic "Brady bunch" family who didnt watch TV growing up, never had video games, didnt read or see violent things. Sheltered in all regards. Then you had me, growing up playing anything and everything, watching everything and anything, doing anything and everything, and "desensitized" to violence in a manner of speaking. When we both, on our first deployment, came across our fist bodies torn by bullets, we both recoiled at the sight. The difference was I didn't hesitate to walk over to look, it took coaxing to get him to come over. I was, more or less, just as bothered by it (but not as long as he was which I'm sure is another factor) but I more readily approached it. That's something I am sure that violent media does do. It takes the COMPLETELY unknown, and gives a person a toehold. Is that inherently a bad thing? No, I don't suppose it is, but does take SOME mystery away from the air of true violence and by definition that would desensitize the fear away from it (fear stemming from the unknown).

Well said. To a degree I don't think death should necessarily be feared, but that sense of revulsion and trepidation when faced with real violence is important. As a 20th century historian I've spent a ridiculous amount of time reading through memoirs and seeing pictures of some of the most horrific events of the last century. Every time I see those pictures or videos I feel that revulsion, but I feel it is important that those deaths be remembered. To a degree I think my consumption of violent media has given me the an edge at approaching that media than some of my colleagues lack.

That said I still skipped the clip. Just because I can watch death doesn't mean I generally want to.

When I was (a lot) younger and first encountered this here Internet thing, I saw a lot of gruesome material. I spent an inordinate amount of time on rotten.com and sites like it, looking at pictures of dismembered corpses smeared on tarmac. I didn't see the events taking place moments before the photographs were taken but I saw the aftermath in those pictures, and much of my late twenties was spent finding ever more disturbing pictures. I guess I had a stronger stomach back then.

But that supposedly stronger stomach didn't last forever. I also saw the footage of the murder of Daniel Pearl. To this day I wish I hadn't.

A few weeks ago, I watched someone die while I was eating my lunch. The cafeteria television was tuned to BBC News 24, which was showing some airborne footage of a missile striking a moving vehicle. There was lots of smoke and fire and the explosion looked very cool, well, as cool as some infra-red footage can... until I remembered that someone died in that explosion. Whether or not the occupants of the vehicle were terrorists, enemy combatants, or even allies wrongly targeted yet again, was immaterial. Footage of someone dying was considered by the BBC's programmers to be acceptable lunchtime viewing. No, we didn't see a close-up of the charred, dismembered corpses in the smoking remains of the vehicle, but they died all the same.

I thought I'd be able to watch this week's Jimquisition all the way through, but I couldn't do it. I got all the way to 1:20 before I changed my mind. I skipped forward to 1:49, because I simply didn't want to watch someone die again. I'm aware that people die, have seen people die, and one day I'll die too, but I don't want to watch the moment of death. And I especially don't want to watch the moment of death if it's in as brutal a manner as Dwyer's or Pearl's.

Far from being desensitised to violence, my own reaction has swung the other way over the years. It still won't stop me racking up the headshots in whatever blood-spattered game takes my fancy this week but, as Sterling has already point out, I can tell the difference. Bring on the cartoon violence, but I really don't want to watch the real thing.

None of this should be taken as a plea for censorship, though. The only censor whose opinion is worth anything is me. If I don't want to watch something then there's an Off button, and Jim Sterling and The Escapist should be commended for presenting the Dwyer footage in the way they did: "If you continue to watch this, you will see someone commit suicide. Skip to 1:49 to avoid seeing it." or words to that effect. No sugar coating, no coy adverts-disguised-as-warnings such as the legendary red triangles shown before "adult" programmes back when I was a kid, just the bare, unvarnished truth, just like (I assume; I didn't watch it) the footage itself. It's horrible, and should remain so; if we trivialise real violence then that might be what desensitises us.

I think that that footage of the video game violence could have been portrayed much much better to be honest. Obviously it's not going to seem disturbing when it's mere short clips of explosions and people falling down layered into some wacky music in the background. If you used some gruesome Gears of War footage or God of War footage or Manhunt or other games of that nature with their accompanied sound then it wouldn't be clearly fake violence.

If you sped up the footage of the real suicide video and added some wacky music it wouldn't be nearly as disturbing as it was either.

I totally agree with all you said though. Screen violence is obviously fake. Real violence is obviously real. Our brain can differentiate between the two.

And the points about the media glorifying these mass murders is true too, and I wish things would change. I stopped watching the news a while ago because the internet is better, but in hindsight I'm so glad I stopped watching because those fuckers' ratings will go down.

abell:

Abandon4093:

abell:
snip

What you're talking about isn't so much the reinforced behaviour making it easier for people to take a life, but for them to get into a state where they disassociate themselves from reality.

Sure, I'm willing to agree with that. After all, how you phrase it doesn't matter if someone ends up dead. It actually works better when considering the dissociative state that those mass killers that actually survive police, or their own weapons, seem to be in. And I agree that a videogame is no substitute for real world training. I said as much in a followup post. But, less effective than actual training does not mean not effective. And it's more available than a gun is for a lot of these individuals.

I suppose the way you'd have to look at it, is that someone would have to be treating the game like training for it to have any of the sort of effects you're talking about.

I'm actually surprised that so many people here are saying the footage didn't affect them much. I've been playing violent video games since I was nine and I had to look away as soon as he put the gun in his mouth.

abell:

snip

Well I certainly don't see the need for any good honest citizen of any country to own any semi-auto or automatic weapons, it just strikes me as over kill and completely unnecessary. The one thing both Brits and Americans seem to forget in these discussions (as from your slightly flippant attitude you did), both of us ave grown up in countries with very differing attitudes to fire arms. So of course I'm not going to know as much or see the reason for the deep seated desire to own one, it's not culturally ingrained in me. However I've also yet to see a single purpose where a small arm couldn't cope (with the obvious exception of hunting). Can you genuinely give me a reason that isn't an "extreme" scenario where you would need anything more than a pistol for home defence?

abell:

http://ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/models.html

And thank you, I will say what I like about the UK's violent crime problem. If I remember correctly, it's worse than the US and all of the EU? What difference does it make if you're robbed at gunpoint, or at bat point? Is rape less terrible at knifepoint, than with a gun at your back? There is no moral argument that the method used to commit a crime makes the crime worse. Where is your moral superiority coming from there?

Actually I can come up from a hit with a bat, I'm not getting up from a gunshot wound, even if the criminal did pull a gun on me, what would pulling my own do other then escalate the situation. Sure the crime if committed is terrible no matter what, but my point is, you can stab a heel through some ones foot and run, with a bat, you can get to safety, with a gun, you're shot in the back. The point is, the chances of successfully defending yourself from violent attack greatly improve, when the putting just a few feet between you can drastically lower the rate of you being harmed.

UNHchabo:

snip

As I say I'm not against good honest Americans or Brits or anyone owning a gun, but the point of gun control isn't to limit those people, it's not the boogey man here to remove your 2nd amendment rights, those are yours and yours alone and I or anyone else isn't planning on denying you them.

UNHchabo:

My firearms are not for hunting; they're for defense of myself and my family. So while you may be able to go down to a shooting club and use a number of different firearms, how many can you actually keep in your home? Will you be arrested and prosecuted if you use them in defense of your family?

Well it works via weapons class, a gun license allows you to indeed keep several firearms of your licensed class at home for defensive purposes, and as for prosecution, it entirely depends, typically the rule of thumb is if they come upstairs or it's a flat, they are intending harm and an action to wound or incapacitate is considered reasonable force. (of course you will now post about Tony Martin, but given the general public opinion on that debacle in this country, it isn't a good argument to make).

I've seen much more graphic stuff in my forensics classes, but this was much more disturbing than any of it. The dialogue leading up to the suicide was really, really depressing.
Good episode though!

abell:

And thank you, I will say what I like about the UK's violent crime problem. If I remember correctly, it's worse than the US and all of the EU? What difference does it make if you're robbed at gunpoint, or at bat point? Is rape less terrible at knifepoint, than with a gun at your back? There is no moral argument that the method used to commit a crime makes the crime worse. Where is your moral superiority coming from there?

Well then would you say there's a middleman there somewhere, perhaps? After all, UK has four times as many violent crimes per capita than the US, but the US also has 4 times the homicides of the UK per capita. It's a bit stupid to compare violent crime to murder at all, but I suppose that's where we have to go with this. Here's a hint, you SURVIVE a violent crime.

And no, banning guns isn't the answer... don't get me wrong there. It wouldn't solve the problem... there's almost a gun for every person in America right now. Regulate, register, restrict... that would do wonders. Putting some actual money into our mental health system would also help a lot. I'm not worried about people who have a few guns for hunting and self defense, I'm worried about the ones that stockpile them like canned peaches, ready for that magical day when society collapses.

I'm not scared of a gun, I'm scared of whatever nutball has access to them, or ends up pointing one towards me.

Hazzard:
Do you reckon you could edit it what the graphic content is in the description so people know what it is?

Can someone explain to me what the purpose of what happened in the content was? As in why the person did it?

there is a documentry that can clear things up for you
http://vodo.net/honestman

or you know, use google in the internet.*mind blown'

the most disturbing thing is the lines he did not read out.

On January 22, 1987, the day before his sentencing, Dwyer called a press conference. Appearing agitated and nervous, he professed his innocence and declared that he would not resign as state treasurer. Those attending heard his final words:[10]

I thank the Good Lord for giving me 47 years of exciting challenges, stimulating experiences, many happy occasions, and, most of all, the finest wife and children a man could ever desire. Now my life has changed, for no apparent reason.

People who call and write are exasperated and feel helpless. They know I'm innocent and want to help. But in this nation, the world's greatest democracy, there is nothing they can do to prevent me from being punished for a crime they know I did not commit. Some who have called have said that I am a modern-day Job. Judge Muir is also noted for his medieval sentences. I face a maximum sentence of 55 years in prison and a $300,000 fine for being innocent. Judge Demiria has already told the press that he, quote, 'felt invigorated' when we were found guilty, and that he plans to imprison me as a deterrent to other public officials.

But it wouldn't be a deterrent because every public official who knows me knows that I am innocent; it wouldn't be a legitimate punishment because I've done nothing wrong. Since I'm a victim of political persecution, my prison would simply be an American gulag. I ask those that believe in me to continue to extend friendship and prayer to my family, to work untiringly for the creation of a true justice system here in the United States, and to press on with the efforts to vindicate me, so that my family and their future families are not tainted by this injustice that has been perpetrated on me. We were confident that right and truth would prevail, and I would be acquitted and we would devote the rest of our lives working to create a justice system here in the United States.

The guilty verdict has strengthened that resolve. But as we discuss our plans to expose the warps of our legal system, people have said, 'Why bother, no one cares.' 'You look foolish.' '60 Minutes, 20/20, the ACLU, Jack Anderson, and others have been publicizing cases like yours for years and it doesn't bother anyone.'

At this point, Dwyer stopped reading his prepared text. The part he did not read follows:

I've repeatedly said that I'm not going to resign as State Treasurer. After many hours of thought and meditation I've made a decision that should not be an example to anyone because it is unique to my situation. Last May I told you that after the trial, I would give you the story of the decade. To those of you who are shallow, the events of this morning will be that story. But to those of you with depth and concern the real story will be what I hope and pray results from this morning--in the coming months and years, the development of a true Justice System here in the United States. I am going to die in office in an effort to ...see if the shame[-ful] facts, spread out in all their shame, will not burn through our civic shamelessness and set fire to American pride. Please tell my story on every radio and television station and in every newspaper and magazine in the U.S. Please leave immediately if you have a weak stomach or mind since I don't want to cause physical or mental distress. Joanne, Rob, DeeDee - I love you! Thank you for making my life so happy. Good bye to you all on the count of 3. Please make sure that the sacrifice of my life is not in vain.

I can not express how much the continual blame for video games being the cause of violence pisses me off, i am a gamer and also an ex royal green jacket. i have served in some of the most god forsaken hell holes this planet has to offer and not once of all the horrors i have seen has it ever been due to violent video games, the simple fact is that as human beings when push comes to shove we are all capable of performing horrible atrocity's. Putting the blame on video games rather than our own failings as human beings is not only a cheep cop out it also stops us from accepting our true nature and doing some thing constructive about changing it.

I don't think I can write much that hasn't been written already. I read the first couple of pages of comments and pretty much anything that would have been "new" in my entry was already said. But I do have to say when Jim described the video, I didn't want to see it. What I ended up doing was taking off my headset, shielding my eyes, so I could barely see through my fingers (and I took off my glasses so the image would be blurry) and watched it. It still doesn't get any better... I've seen some violent things in my life (although nothing as severe as seeing people get shot or disemboweled or anything), and it still unnerves me.

The thing about video game violence is you can separate between "I'm killing a pixel" and "I'm killing a person". I know that when I shoot someone (or something) in a game, there's no real world repercussions for that act. I can do it because I know that if I run over that old lady going 120 MPH in a game, there's no one who's going to miss her and no one is going to care (except for maybe the fictitious police) because in another 1000 feet, she's going to be deleted from the game's cache. If I accidentally hit someone while driving in real life, I would probably stop, panic, throw up, and then call for help. There's nothing that could prepare you for that kind of situation, even if you see it in games.

There are people who cannot separate pixel from person, but it is not the video game that causes that. It's their mental state. Either they have not developed mentally enough (as may be the case in children) or perhaps they've lost touch with reality. I'm not a psychiatrist/psychologist/neurologist/etc. But blaming something that's completely unrelated to the act at hand is never constructive. Yahtzee once said in one of his videos (I can't remember which one...) that pretty much if someone goes on a shooting rampage and someone ends up finding ONE video game in their house and it's remotely violent, that MUST have been the trigger for their sociopathic behavior. As we gamers all know, clicking on thousands of demons in Diablo surely prepares you to go out and kill people.

Quiotu:

abell:

And thank you, I will say what I like about the UK's violent crime problem. If I remember correctly, it's worse than the US and all of the EU? What difference does it make if you're robbed at gunpoint, or at bat point? Is rape less terrible at knifepoint, than with a gun at your back? There is no moral argument that the method used to commit a crime makes the crime worse. Where is your moral superiority coming from there?

Well then would you say there's a middleman there somewhere, perhaps? After all, UK has four times as many violent crimes per capita than the US, but the US also has 4 times the homicides of the UK per capita. It's a bit stupid to compare violent crime to murder at all, but I suppose that's where we have to go with this. Here's a hint, you SURVIVE a violent crime.

And no, banning guns isn't the answer... don't get me wrong there. It wouldn't solve the problem... there's almost a gun for every person in America right now. Regulate, register, restrict... that would do wonders. Putting some actual money into our mental health system would also help a lot. I'm not worried about people who have a few guns for hunting and self defense, I'm worried about the ones that stockpile them like canned peaches, ready for that magical day when society collapses.

I'm not scared of a gun, I'm scared of whatever nutball has access to them, or ends up pointing one towards me.

You sir, have said what I was trying to say much better then I have. Kudos to you.

I Max95:

erttheking:
And to those who say that video games desensitize people, I give you, Geoff Lazer (That' actually his middle name) Ramsey. One of the original founding members of the company known as Roosterteeth, one of the heads of the website Achievement hunter, and a very big fan of Halo, video games in general, and a husband and FATHER! Now, watch this video of him trying to watch the Dead Island trailer.

he was also in the army

...just saying

I had a good laugh at that film. "Do the Polish just not have hearts?!" hahaha

I'm generally not a big fan, but this was your best video I've seen Jim. Spot on in every way. Well done!

I'm going to play devils advocate to this argument, just because I can.

So we tend to be disgusted by real violence because it's so much more, well, real then the exaggerated portrayals games and movies and such. Thats fair. But what if those, admittedly already mentally unstable, kids/adolescents see these depictions and think thats what real life is going to be like. They see call of duty or whatever shooter and think that real life will be just like that, minus the icons and health bars and such. And its only AFTER they commit their acts that the reality of it all, of their actions and the difference between fiction and reality sets in? It would make sense when you look at the fact that the killer in sandyhook had enough ammunition to keep going for quite a while, but after a very short spree stopped and took his own life. This pattern is found throughout mass shootings, with only the most deranged or cold individuals continuing beyond that first magazine, beyond that first pause to look at what they did.

Admittedly, it's still their own mental illness that made the action possible, but didn't the unrealistic and flippant portrayals of violence from media, be it movie, game, tv or whatever, play some part in allowing them to justify their actions to themselves?

I ask this because someone else will ask this eventually, and they won't be as friendly about it.

That was surreal. Seen gore vids and such before, mostly as a kid (16+), but that made me look away in...I think it was horror. It felt more personal somehow, up close and all that. *shudder*

Anyways...Sterling being God as usual. Can't complain.

Great video Jim. That footage was disturbing, I didn't even realize the guy had shot himself for a second.

Hey! That's my Party Flower animation! :D

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here