U.S. Senator Seeks New Study of Violent Videogames

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

littlewisp:
Or, you know, we could also criticize the media for sensationalizing massacres and bloodshed

I'm pretty sure that's what he just did.

Oh, wait, no, he criticized the wrong kind of media, that we like!

Entitled:

littlewisp:
Or, you know, we could also criticize the media for sensationalizing massacres and bloodshed

I'm pretty sure that's what he just did.

Oh, wait, no, he criticized the wrong kind of media, that we like!

I did like the line about if the effect of violent games is similar to that of violent media. I even like the idea of having studies done, so long as they are properly controlled and don't try to skew their findings one way or another (and yeah, I question more studies than just ones done on violent video games. There's a lot of bad research out there). What I don't like is playing ball solely because you're trying to garner more support. What he's doing now? Yeah, that's a pop political move.

I didn't go to the actual source, so if he did go into how news programs go out of their way to turn shooters into tragic heroes, then I do owe the man an apology. My original post was vague though. . .I did mean news programs.

To me the order goes like this:

parenting > advertising > news > fictional violent media that encourages children to act like little punks > fictional violent media with a greater purpose in mind

So cherry picking one thing over the other thing (my mom is a sixth grade teacher and tv shows her kids are allowed to watch frustrate her as much as the games they're allowed to play), attacking something just because it's in a spot of convenience to make you look good. . .yeah, it pisses me off. And yeah, from the very specific quotes I'm not giving the guy a chance, but I'm not objective right now so I'm not going to try.

Scars Unseen:

Gilhelmi:

jetriot:

Reacting to this with gun legislation is no different than what he really wants to do. Limit liberty by putting up unneeded safeguards. Just like after 9-11 with airport security. We learn to live with less liberty for an illusion of more security. Reactionary politics are wrong no matter your political beliefs.

Amen

Also, who is talking about limiting video game YET. He is just proposing a study, The study will be denounce by the Pro-Game side if it shows a link. It will also be denounced by the "anti-game" side if it does not show a link. I feel bad for those researchers.

I don't. They'll be getting paid good money to rehash the same tired arguments that have been made time and again, ultimately taking the side of whoever is holding the purse strings. I guess it might suck if they wanted to do anything significant with their education, but I'm guessing most of these guys already have PRO and ANTI templates ready to go so that they can have more time to play Minecraft or beer pong or whatever it is that researchers do when the government asks them to research bullshit and spit out politically convenient responses.

It is not complete BS, There is some evidence from real world events. Sadly, I cannot link books (also, I doubt that you want to read the whole book).

All research needs to be funded (scientist got to eat). So there really is no way to get an "unbiased" study done, ever. I use quotes because I honestly believe that a lot of evidence is dismissed without actually getting into "How" the research.

Power went out. I will try to be on later to finish the discussion.

What does he think this one will find? Those court decisions are based partly on the fact that no conclusive links have been found by previous studies.

But of course, parents know best I suppose.

Ronack:
First legislation to be proposed. This man gets zero points from me. ZERO. YOU FAIL. No matter how eloquently he managed to put it, he still proposed THIS first instead of anything related to guns.

Or anything related to mental health. When you come down to it, guns make it easier, and make the carnage worst, but gun control wouldn't really prevent attacks. They need to work on mental health system and on giving the sensationalist media a sharp kick in the balls.

Theminimanx:
On one hand, this guy is clearly biased against games.
On the other hand, at least he has the decency to ask for a proper study instead of immediately trying to ban stuff, which is more than I can say for most politicians.

Right, a study conducted by people he knows personally who will give him the answers he wants and also kick back a share of the huge wad of tax money they're going to get to do this study. Like every other politician this guy is out to pad his own retirement fund while harping on his own political agenda feeding off of the fear created by the media coverage of this event.

LordLundar:
This article could be renamed "U.S. Senator gives a textbook example at how to kill a career" and it would be no less accurate.

One can only hope. He already lost my vote from here on out (makes me feel bad I've voted for him in the past).

Ronack:
First legislation to be proposed. This man gets zero points from me. ZERO. YOU FAIL. No matter how eloquently he managed to put it, he still proposed THIS first instead of anything related to guns.

A WV Senator is never going to propose anti-gun legislation. Strong NRA presence + strong presence of target shooters and hunters. An unfortunate number who'll be all for the "let's blame them vidya games -- we didn't have vidya games when I was a kid and we didn't have these kinds of things happen back then" are out there, though.

Blablahb:
Gun bans work. Scapegoating videogames doesn't.

A gunman without videogames still shoots people.
A gamer without guns doesn't.
A deranged lunatic without guns doesn't either.

Instead a deranged lunatic grabs a knife if he wants to kill a few specific people, or some fertilizer and diesel fuel if he wants to kill a whole bunch. You still haven't solved the "deranged lunatic" problem.

Entitled:

And it's not that some occasional "deranged lunatic" got a gun and shot two dozen kids, but that HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF AVERAGE AMERICANS, are perfectly fine with the idea of everyone owning guns, so every year, several thousands of petty thieves, jealous lovers, angsty teenagers, and overexcited neighbours end up shooting each other, where in a sane country, they wouldn't.

Instead they'd be stabbing or bludgeoning each other, more likely. Unless we want to ban all things that are sharp or have a hard surface and are able to be effectively swung, along with anything that could potentially be used to manufacture an improvised explosive or incendiary device... Should be good for the Greens, they'd like banning gasoline and diesel fuel, I'm sure.

Theminimanx:
On one hand, this guy is clearly biased against games.
On the other hand, at least he has the decency to ask for a proper study instead of immediately trying to ban stuff, which is more than I can say for most politicians.

To be honest, I think I'd rather have the crazies who just try to ban stuff without proof, because then those people get their arses laughed off of them by anyone with a shed of common sense. This guy is going to call for a study, cherry-pick and twist the results of his study to suit his agenda, and then try to ban stuff. That's far more dangerous.

Blablahb:

jetriot:
Reacting to this with gun legislation is no different than what he really wants to do.

Gun bans work. Scapegoating videogames doesn't.

A gunman without videogames still shoots people.
A gamer without guns doesn't.
A deranged lunatic without guns doesn't either.

jetriot:
Limit liberty by putting up unneeded safeguards

30.000 people die every year in the US due to firearms, and its murder rate is comparable to that of the average third world warzone. Come again with that 'unneeded' bit?

Non-alcohol related car accidents claim around 34,000 lives each year. We better ban cars. Everyone's walking everywhere from now on cause it's safer for them.

There's about 50,00 deaths each year attributed to the lack of health insurance. But universal healthcare is dirty socialism, can't have that.

And alcohol is linked to around 75,000 deaths a year in the US. Let's ban that. It worked so well the last time.

443,000 Deaths each year due to cigarette smoking. Let's definitely ban cigarettes, they've got guns beat yearly by nearly 1500%

But nah, we cant address larger social and health problems. They aren't as dramatic.

Well here we go again, I personally don't care when I see this stuff anymore. Just got to wait about 15 years for all these 65 year old men to die out and the world will be a better place.

Schadrach:

Instead they'd be stabbing or bludgeoning each other, more likely. Unless we want to ban all things that are sharp or have a hard surface and are able to be effectively swung, along with anything that could potentially be used to manufacture an improvised explosive or incendiary device... Should be good for the Greens, they'd like banning gasoline and diesel fuel, I'm sure.

Do you really think that killer in Connecticut (for instance) would have managed to take as many lifes as he did if he was beating people to death with a large stick instead of a semi-automatic rifle? Even if he had a knife someone could have potentially took him down, If he set fire to the school its unlikely that anyone would have died at all.

The fact is America does have extremely high rates of murder and 67.5% of those murders are carried out with a firearm, If those 67.5% of murderers didn't have firearms many of those cases would undeniably be non-existent or would end up as 'Attemped Murders'

More research is always welcome. Research, in many fields, is what drives us forward. The problem with much of the research I've seen - both the ones that argue for and against an adverse effect on people who play violent video games - is their methods have often been quite iffy. I think if you really want to get a clear idea on this issue, you'll need two things that are often lacking: A relatively large sample size and a long time of study.

Unfortunately, I think the Senator will want fast results done by researchers who have a goal of correlating antisocial behavior with video game playing. And this study will likely have all the credibility of those studies on hygiene funded by Procter & Gamble.

snowfi6916:
The usual "video games cause violence" BS.

Sorry, but I play violent video games, and I've never shot an entire classroom of 6 year old children.

When are we gonna stop blaming video games and other stuff (like how it was the fact that the shooter had Asperger's), and put the blame where it belongs: on the shooter themselves?

What really bothers me is how the previous generations (most fiftysomethings and above) seem convinced that there's some kind of decline in moral values taking place. As if Torture Porn, and video games had turned all of us twentysomethings and young thirtysomethings into utterly depraved sickos just waiting for an outlet. My mother, for instance, is firmly convinced that if preventing sane and stable me from having access to games like FarCry 3 dampens access for those more readily affected or influenced, then it's a win-win situation. I don't waste my time playing what she honestly considers to be brain-rotting BS, and the more susceptible ones can't play it either.

I retort that this kind of logic is unfair for the stable folks around, and she says there's just no other way to solve the issue.

I just don't think it *can* be solved. Even if the US ever came to beat Germany in terms of games legislation, there'd be ways to access objectionable material. The games industry is too big for the Big Three to accept to just kneel down, seeing as some folks will seriously fight for their right to see blood and guts spilled if they're mature enough.

This issue just makes me mad overall. It feels like a circle-jerk that'll never get fixed. You've got hypocritical White Knights on one end, so-called champions of family values who enjoy the occasional BDSM porn flick for all we know; and the mindless gits who go and poison the medium for everyone else for getting the insane idea that reproducing a game's shooting sprees is going to fix things or give them some measure of appreciable notability.

Oh, killing kids gets you remembered, alright. Just not in the sort of way you would've liked.

I almost forgot - Adam Lanza's mother was supposedly a pretty convinced Doomsday advocate, hence the motherlode of registered ordnance. "THE WORLD'S ENDIN', GOSH DARN IT TO HECK! I GOTTA HAVE M'GUNS TO SAVE M'LAND FROM THEM NON-CHRISTIANS!"

Yeah. Or something of the sort. It's just sad, honestly.

Well, this should be a fairly simple affair: If video games, which are becoming increasingly prevalent, cause violence, the first sign would likely be an increase in the level of violent crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Violent_Crime_Rates_in_the_United_States.svg

...

Okay, Wikipedia COULD be wrong, but the source on that is the Bureau of Judicial Statistics in the US which seems like a pretty good source.

Sure, video games aren't the only thing that has changed, but if they were so critical we'd be seeing a significantly greater number of murders I would think. At the very least you'd think if a link existed that the millions of copies of Call of Duty and friends sold would merit at least SOME increase.

I'd like to see a independent study on the anti-psychotic medication Adam Lanza was on which is known (in pharma circles) to have side effects causing violent behavior.

Yes kids, I read more than headlines and I research what I've read.

Oh what's that you say?

Big Pharma pours too much money into Washington for such a study to ever happen?

Oh well, better find a scapegoat then.

>.>

Preacher zer0:
I'd like to see a independent study on the anti-psychotic medication Adam Lanza was on which is known (in pharma circles) to have side effects causing violent behavior.

Yes kids, I read more than headlines and I research what I've read.

Oh what's that you say?

Big Pharma pours too much money into Washington for such a study to ever happen?

Oh well, better find a scapegoat then.

>.>

Agreed. Every mass killing during the lifetime of anyone reading this post (or so i assume) has been predicated by the use of this class of drugs. These aren't miracle "make you happy" drugs. They cause an imbalance of serotonin in the brain, making people erratic, and often violent. From Columbine to James Holmes to Sandy Hook these are the real constant factor behind mass killings.

And FYI you are more than 9,000 times more likely to be killed by your idiot doctor/pill-pusher than by firearms of any kind. That includes murders/mass-shootings/accidents/suicides.

Now go and take your Prozac. You dangerous psychopaths.

Entitled:

Rights are contradicting each other all the time, neither of them are absolute. Your right to life and freedom can be limited if you violate laws, your right to bear arms can be limited from certain types of arms, Your right to free seech can be limited by copyright laws, slander laws, hate speech laws, etc.

To look at only one Right as if it would be absolute, always leads to extremism. If you want to say that a publisher's right to sell copies of a game to children under any condition, originates from "free speech", that's so indirect, that you could as well explain that you have an inherent right to own any drugs as your property, or otherwise your "right to property" is violated.

The US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Dictionary.com:

a·bridge
verb (used with object), a·bridged, a·bridg·ing.
1.to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book.
2.to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one's freedom.
3.to deprive; cut off.

Yeah, the constitution makes it quite clear that speech and anything that can be adequately defined as speech cannot be censored as such; speech is wholly protected. The right to property, however, is never explicitly stated as such, and was more of a guideline as the the mentality behind the constitution than actual law. I find it funny that the first thing of property that everyone always goes for is drugs (libertarianism, ho!), ignoring the fact that anything that could be evidence of a crime can also be taken permanently without compensation. If someone stole my care and ran someone over with it, for example, even if it's still in working condition, I may never get it back, as it is evidence of a crime that may need reinvestigating later. And plenty of other things fall into that category as well.

In short, the right to speech IS in fact a guaranteed absolute, whereas the right to property is not, and much like separation of Church and State, was more of a behind-the-scenes mentality of the founders than actually put into law.

The right to keep and bear arms is more iffy; militias are (currently) definable by the state. My state's militia is defined as any able-bodied male. Because I'm fat and asperger's, I may not fit into this model, and therefore my right to keep and bear arms isn't absolutely guaranteed, but plenty of my friends' right to do so is. Likewise, "arms" is a roughly definable term. If I took it to mean I could wield any sort of gun because "arms", then I could take it to mean a butterfly knife, brass knuckles, or other weapons that are commonly illegal and excluded from 2nd amendment rights, because they are "arms". So "arms" is not absolute, but it is guaranteed.

And please remember that if the rights DO overlap somewhere, you're misinterpreting the rights (at least in America, this shit was well thought-out before put into law, hence why it's lasted so long). Absolute speech for example, I'm allowed to say anything I want, but you don't have any right to not be offended. Likewise, I don't have the right to have an audience. Therefore, you are allowed to be offended and that does nothing to me, but you can of course walk away without infringing on my rights. Absolute guns is another; I'm allowed to own a gun if I want, but it doesn't affect you in any way. In no place am I guaranteed the right to SHOOT a gun, which may in certain circumstances infringe on rights, even though owning does not.

When will people learn that video games aren't the problem? This is not a video game issue. The massacre that took place is due to issues of Mental Illness and the way the televised media sensationalizes these tragedies.

Theminimanx:
On one hand, this guy is clearly biased against games.
On the other hand, at least he has the decency to ask for a proper study instead of immediately trying to ban stuff, which is more than I can say for most politicians.

Not only that; asking for a national dialog on Mental Health as opposed to simply saying "banning games will fix everything". It's irritating that he has some decent ideas and yet still comes out with "Parents, pediatricians, and psychologists know better."

Only people who fear the truth should fear science. Unless you think the National Academy of Sciences is corrupt, this can only end well. Either your pre-concieved notions will be confirmed, in which case after this effort the matter can be dropped, or you will discover there is more to video games than you knew.

i was watching a neighbor's kid as a favor tonight, and when they came back, there was a news spot about the recent shooting. seeing this, the neighbor made a comment about how video games were causing all this violence. then, without irony, while saying this, said neighbor changed the channel to some asinine crime drama where a man put a sack over a restrained man's head and lit him on fire. the child was still there, watching the whole thing

needless to say, i was supremely unimpressed.

wake up america, we are just violent. not the games, not the movies. we are just violent, horrible people, and nothing is going to change that. we love war, we love blood, we love suffering.

anyone who says this is limited to games is a damn fool.

Andy Chalk:
"Parents, pediatricians, and psychologists know better.

That made me fucking laugh. Parent's are part of your "problem" because they buy their children these violent games simply because their child wants them.

I'm not saying violent games turn people into psychotic killers, just that his view on things as they are really are skewed.

I look forward to the inevitable confirmation bias.

bloodmage2:
i was watching a neighbor's kid as a favor tonight, and when they came back, there was a news spot about the recent shooting. seeing this, the neighbor made a comment about how video games were causing all this violence. then, without irony, while saying this, said neighbor changed the channel to some asinine crime drama where a man put a sack over a restrained man's head and lit him on fire. the child was still there, watching the whole thing

needless to say, i was supremely unimpressed.

wake up America, we are just violent. not the games, not the movies. we are just violent, horrible people, and nothing is going to change that. we love war, we love blood, we love suffering.

anyone who says this is limited to games is a damn fool.

Holy crap! You're back!

OT: Blame the video games, for they are just murder simulators!

How bout no, and focus on the mound of other problems that need to be worked on to clean up our social ills. Sadly to get anything truly done we need to clean up DC. To much damn corruption and stupidity in that hell hole.

Article:
In the wake of last week's devastating attack on Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller has introduced a bill calling for new research into the impact of violent videogames and other media on children.

That last part is what I never understand about all these studies. If they take a bunch of kids and have them play violent games (and even if they don't actually use the Call of Duties and Grand Theft Autos for the actual study, you know those are what they're really talking about anyway) and they conclusively prove something, what does that even mean? They still can't typically purchase those games on their own. Though my experience is anecdotal, I've never not been carded for an M rated game, from Georgia to California, from GameStop to Best Buy. So even if they figure something out, it's still down to parents to actually, ya know, be parents.

But I'm neither a psychologist nor a politician, so I'm probably wrong.

At least he's looking at EVERYTHING, like... Mental Health Issues in the US and a possible Assault Weapons Ban...

Schadrach:

LordLundar:
This article could be renamed "U.S. Senator gives a textbook example at how to kill a career" and it would be no less accurate.

One can only hope. He already lost my vote from here on out (makes me feel bad I've voted for him in the past).

Ronack:
First legislation to be proposed. This man gets zero points from me. ZERO. YOU FAIL. No matter how eloquently he managed to put it, he still proposed THIS first instead of anything related to guns.

A WV Senator is never going to propose anti-gun legislation. Strong NRA presence + strong presence of target shooters and hunters. An unfortunate number who'll be all for the "let's blame them vidya games -- we didn't have vidya games when I was a kid and we didn't have these kinds of things happen back then" are out there, though.

Blablahb:
Gun bans work. Scapegoating videogames doesn't.

A gunman without videogames still shoots people.
A gamer without guns doesn't.
A deranged lunatic without guns doesn't either.

Instead a deranged lunatic grabs a knife if he wants to kill a few specific people, or some fertilizer and diesel fuel if he wants to kill a whole bunch. You still haven't solved the "deranged lunatic" problem.

Entitled:

And it's not that some occasional "deranged lunatic" got a gun and shot two dozen kids, but that HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF AVERAGE AMERICANS, are perfectly fine with the idea of everyone owning guns, so every year, several thousands of petty thieves, jealous lovers, angsty teenagers, and overexcited neighbours end up shooting each other, where in a sane country, they wouldn't.

Instead they'd be stabbing or bludgeoning each other, more likely. Unless we want to ban all things that are sharp or have a hard surface and are able to be effectively swung, along with anything that could potentially be used to manufacture an improvised explosive or incendiary device... Should be good for the Greens, they'd like banning gasoline and diesel fuel, I'm sure.

The fallacious argument that making civilian ownership of firearms illegal would lead to increased crime because criminals don't care about the laws and that they'd find another way to kill people is pretty pro-gun people such as yourself just parroting yourselves for the millionth time. Our constitution isn't some holy text that should be rigidly adhered to because everyone in this country has patriotism crammed down their throat. I'll address the issues in an order.

#1: Criminals gaining access to firearms isn't the concern as criminals actually have some degree of intelligence, they use it for malevolent reasons, yes, but they know if they cause too many problems they're going to get themselves arrested or killed. The issue here is how irresponsible your average gun owner is; roughly 1 out of the 10 people I know who own firearms in West Virginia actually keeps his guns in a secure safe in his room, while the rest have them in inconvenient locations where they've nothing keeping someone from opening the cabinet and just grabbing one plus some ammo.

#2: If the government ever does become fascist than civilians armed with firearms isn't exactly going to deter a force armed with helicopters, tanks, unmanned kill drones, and various other death machines that even rifle rounds wouldn't do well against. The most you'd do is get yourself killed, worse is get your house blown up because I think the government would drop all pretense of caring the moment they started acting like an actual police state - the moment you harassed the troops coming to your home to disarm you they'd probably just blow it up with a drone because you weren't worth risking manpower on.

#3: The idea that people are just going to keep killing each other regardless of if you have guns or not is a weak argument at best and a strawman to squash any meaningful dialogue about gun control at worse. The point is to make killing someone more difficult; making a bomb isn't as easy as you think it is and when some psychotic attempts to they normally just blow themselves up, public knifings or bludgeonings are also easier to handle than a lone gunman. Gun bans won't eliminate crime or homicides but they'll drastically reduce them. If you sight me the stabbings in China I will respond that no one died from that so you're purposefully missing the point.

#4: This is more a gripe that I have personally about things but please state clear reasons as to why pro-gun or anti-gun are bad instead of abusing the tragic deaths of people to support your arguments. I'm pretty sure the families of the 56 million people who died from 'gun control' would be pretty disgusted at how some Americans were using this to justify their fetishistic gun culture, likewise the victims of the Connecticut massacre are probably sick of people politicizing the tragedy for their own personal agendas - left or right.

With all this said I'm actually pro-gun ownership but it's less about some misguided belief in the constitution mattering and more pragmatism. The arms industry is one of the few things keeping our economy afloat and I'm a different kind of paranoid: I'm not worried about the government coming to get me if they make guns illegal for civilians, I'm worried about normal people with guns trying to set themselves up as tiny dictators in the event that the government collapses.

Is 18 months really long enough for a proper study? It seems like it isnt

I don't really mind a politician asking for a scientific study about violence, it's fine as long as it's done well. I'd just rather the government assign mental health as the focal point rather than a side-note, effects of violent video games could be studied or diminished later as a side-note under that umbrella.

How many studies of this have been done already?

But yeah, can't see the forest for the trees; a study on the effect of videogames on already mentally ill people would perhaps be of some value, but as long as people in positions of responsibility continue to be ignorant of the real causes (if there are any), nothing will be gained.

What exactly do people HAVE against videogames anyway?

Gilhelmi:
I use to believe there was nothing to the video game and violence link until I read "On Combat" (see link below). OK, Here we go. I did not want to do this, I fear yall. But the truth needs saying...

Video Games will not make you into a murder, they take a person (predisposed to murder) and make them a MASS murder.

You see, it is the same technique the Military uses to train soldiers, except they program in a "safety switch". Treating all controllers as real weapons, drilling in Laws of War, Shoot/No-Shoot scenarios, These are safety switches to teach the soldier to Stop Firing when the enemy is neutralized.

In Video Games, You shoot everything and if you want to just start over.

In the Army, You get one chance at the Shoot/No-Shoot and Law of War trainers. If you fail, you are disciplined (usually by having a long boring class).

In Video Games, You rarely have "Noncombatants". In the Army, Most of the scenarios have noncombatants, again you are punished for shooting.

http://www.amazon.com/Combat-Psychology-Physiology-Deadly-Conflict/dp/0964920549/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1355960395&sr=1-1&keywords=on+combat

PS: Remember Civility.

I can understand where your coming from, but your point doesn't hold up when you consider the fact that a controller cannot prepare you to handle an actual firearm. I've been playing shooters for years, but aside from the basics of gun safety, I wouldn't have a clue as to how to properly use a gun. Along with that, what your saying just seems like a generalization of human psychology. Yes, the military does train soldiers to form a mindset for combat, but it's never anything as simple as a "safety switch". Even a soldier who's seen combat will still hesitate. I agree with the notion that humans have a natural inclination to violence, but actual killing isn't something that comes easy to anyone.

As for the book you linked to, I don't see the connection between real life violence and combat, and games with violent content. If a person is predisposed to murder as you propose, then chances are they were going to commit murder regardless of what media or entertainment they consume. From what I can glean from the summary for "On Combat", it's contents only relate to those prepared to go into actual combat. Then there are the difficulties of actually obtaining a weapon. A person with a predisposition towards violence of such a caliber that they would actively seek out to do harm to those around them would likely have a noted history of violence, meaning they'd never pass the background checks necessary so they could actually get their hands on a gun. Yes, a person can be violent without having a history of it, but if they were really set on "mass murder", it's doubtful they'd have the patience to go through the whole process, and just use a bladed weapon, which is much easier to obtain.

Then there's everyone who's ever played a violent game. Again, most people just don't possess the capacity to make the conscious decision to kill other people. With all due respect, the point your trying to make has just about every flaw as the "murder simulator" argument. Pressing a button to fire a virtual firearm to elimenate a virtual enemy will never prepare you to use an actual firearm to kill another living person, and it never will. I know cynicism is the name of the game here on the Escapist, but I really don't think you're giving people enough credit.

I understand what you're saying, and I respect where you're coming from, but there's so much more to consider on the subject and you simplify things far too much.

The same old same old. VIDEOGAMES RATHER THAN OUR ENTIRE CULTURE ARE TO BLAME FOR RECENT TRAGEDIES.

Please, spare me.

Gilhelmi:
I use to believe there was nothing to the video game and violence link until I read "On Combat" (see link below). OK, Here we go. I did not want to do this, I fear yall. But the truth needs saying...

Video Games will not make you into a murder, they take a person (predisposed to murder) and make them a MASS murder.

You see, it is the same technique the Military uses to train soldiers, except they program in a "safety switch". Treating all controllers as real weapons, drilling in Laws of War, Shoot/No-Shoot scenarios, These are safety switches to teach the soldier to Stop Firing when the enemy is neutralized.

In Video Games, You shoot everything and if you want to just start over.

In the Army, You get one chance at the Shoot/No-Shoot and Law of War trainers. If you fail, you are disciplined (usually by having a long boring class).

In Video Games, You rarely have "Noncombatants". In the Army, Most of the scenarios have noncombatants, again you are punished for shooting.

http://www.amazon.com/Combat-Psychology-Physiology-Deadly-Conflict/dp/0964920549/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1355960395&sr=1-1&keywords=on+combat

PS: Remember Civility.

The problem with this reasoning is that, while games very well might serve in training technical skills, ie how to properly operate a firearm, shot accuracy, etc (and it is important to remember that the military uses highly realistic simulations, different from games designed for entertainment which are likely less effective for this purpose), this is not the same thing as activating a desire to kill others.

Similarly, whenever someone references one of those studies that DOES show a correlation between games and aggression, they merely demonstrate an elevated response shortly after the game ends. To say they cause some form of insanity from this is a rather bold and foolish leap.

I don't mind a study because perhaps science will show there isn't a link or perhaps it is only something about certain types of video games that can be changed. If nothing else perhaps we need to change how violence is measured as part of the rating of video games.

But what bothers me about these media studies is that video games are labeled as something foul and evil while Hollywood seems to get a free pass. A film like Transformers Dark of the Moon can get by with a rating of PG-13, but if you put the same amount of violence, death, and destruction into a video game people would be screaming how we must keep it out of the hands of children. It's like it's okay to make movies as violent as the ratings will allow and market violent films towards kids but video games are the evil industry.

At some point, we have to defend our right to not be used as a political footstool every damn time this situation comes up.

Studies - good.
Predisposed opinion about the results - bad.
Opinion that everyone think we should ban games - even worse.
This thread turning into a gun ban discussion - what did you expect?

Capcha: more chocolate. it expected more chocolate.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 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
Register for a free account here