CT Senator: Games a Factor in Sandy Hook Shootings

[Mitsozuka]

Sighs.

"But we do see a trend where some of these shooters do have exposure to these video games."

I suspect he also ate food, drank liquids, slept in a bed and wore clothes. It's this wonderful thing called "cause and effect" Mr Murphy. Something being common in all of these cases does not mean that they actually had any relevance. Until we invent time travel so we can see if removing gaming from these peoples lives would have changed anything, it is nothing more than pointless speculation.

Pointless speculation AND hatemongering sensationalism! It's the bread and butter of yellow politics laid as bare as a peeled banana!

 

[Eggsnham]

In his defense: At least he admitted that there was no evidence to back it up and is supposedly attempting to find some.

That's better than what most anti-gaming advocates bring forth.

But yeah, it's still stupid. Is there no end to the baseless scapegoating of gamer culture?

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Road Rage - People get angry while driving and attack. BAN CARS.
Spree kills - Man angry at work, kills people in job. BAN WORKING.
Partner kills - Man angry at wife, cheating etc kills her. BAN RELATIONSHIPS.
Sports kills - Man kills opposite fans cos his team lost. BAN SPORTS.
Religion - Good one this, terrorism and murder with links to religion. BAN RELIGION.
Drink - Man gets drunk, kills person by accident. BAN ALCOHAL.

But this never happens even though all these things have obvious links to violence. Emotion, anger issues or mental health. A game has never been linked to death and violence, and the only times it has, its because of anger issues. As in anger as was beaten in a game (same happens in sports) or mum stops kid playing console as punishment - kid kills parent (again anger). Again adults that kill and are violent and dont play games. So how do they explain that? What game was Hitler playing? Hell, we train young men and women to kill as soldiers. Also i think its takes more than a game to make you gun down a bunch of 6 year olds.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

"What we know is that this young man, deeply mentally ill..."

Noooooo shit. In the words of Chris Rock: "Why can't they just be crazy?"

Because that's scary. And people are already scared. People forgot how to protect themselves or to even admit when there's a problem.

Not everyone can be saved. It's a realization that Mrs. Lanza came by too late. She tried and tried, she gave her son chances, as any loving mother would... But love does blind. Who wants to admit their child could be broken beyond repair? Who wants to associate their unconditional love to a monster. No, it's better in their minds to hope and pray that it will all sort its self out.

Meanwhile, No one wants to admit that our children can cause fear. That anything that we consider so harmless and innocent can be different than what we want to believe. It's impossible. If that were so, any one of the hundred of people we see can be a ticking time bomb. Any one! Not just the big loud men, the minorities, and the like. We have to open our field of vision to make EVERYONE a potential threat. And in our lives, we can't handle that idea any more. We're out of the woods, out of the jungle... we're 'civilized'. We shouldn't fear.

But we do. We have to. It's out there and it is hunting us. And we can't turn a blind eye to it fast enough. Think about it, when it was inner city youths, these people were happy. It's not us. It's not at our door step.We avoid that and we're safe. But now that it is at their doorstep... where is there left to run?

I remember Columbine well. Mainly because my parents moved my brother and I out of the inner city to escape the violence that was accepted there. At that point, I felt more vulnerable than any drive bys I was ever in. My mom, my brother, my dad... we wouldn't be safe any where. Violence isn't a location, it isn't a illness or a one off event... It was life. you couldn't escape it no matter how you tried.

That's why people can't be crazy. Crazy can't be controlled. It can't always be spotted. It is random and it is deadly. Games are easily controlled, therefore people feel they have power over it. They went from music, to D&D to mvies, to games. Instead of realizing it's human nature to be this messed up, they rather just point the figures and hope a crusade against this will distract people from the awful truth.

 

[BarkBarker]

Heyyyy, games are more mainstream now, which means more people play them and are exposed to them, which means they are a great scapegoat for any and all actions of violence, it's not like his mental illness is a HUGE ENORMOUS factor, hell if a unstable person kills the president because he said he thought the president was secretly working for the KitKats, we should ban all the treacherous KitKats and KitKat supporters out there, KitKats are going to go into your candy store and oppress your children!

 

[1337mokro]

It should also be noted that these killings tend to happen in gun free zones. Literally, the only places a person can be guaranteed that no one else will have a gun.

It's a complex issue.

No really it isn't. The fact school shootings happen in schools, which are gun free for a VERY good reason, namely stupid children being stupid children, is because most of the times it's a kid who hates the other kids in school and wants to shoot them up.

If we simply compare nations with and without guns we quickly see the real problem.

The Netherlands, 1 school shootings in the past 10 years, just one victim.
Australia, 2 school shootings, both resulted in 0 dead. Heck really it was just one school shooting, because only one used a gun.

America? They are #1!!! In fact they are so good at em that Wikipedia has a SEPARATE page devoted to just American school shootings. The year is barely half round and we already have about 13 school shootings, with 14 dead.

You can pretend it is a complex difficult issue, but it's not. It's a very simple issue. The gun culture is the source of the violence. This HAS actually been studied and guns ended up above videogames in the list of causes for aggression. Easy access to a gun and the ability to freely learn how to use one creates a gigantic hazard where a kid who is pissed off or mentally unstable can just take his parents guns, which is what happened, and then go to the school and start shooting.

In countries without guns school shootings almost never happen. Worst case scenario a kid gets a gun through illegal means or because his stupid dad actually told his son where he stored it.

Here is the review article, it provides links to other articles should you be interested.

http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=honors_et

PS: Before you start about the second amendment, oh how you people love to TALK about it, I want you in the streets fighting the government over how they are violating the fourth, the first and basically creating legal corruption. The second amendment is not a gun collectors or self defense clause, it's supposed to be there to ensure that the people are able to defend themselves against the government, so unless you start marching on DC right this instance any arguments you bring in using this one are null and void.

 

[RJ 17]

Conversely there is absolutely no link between violent video games and violent crime, there is always going to be violent crime regardless of whether there is any media that reflects it or not. People have been killing each other for centuries, well before there were FPSes to scapegoat.

You mean kinda like how there will always be violent crimes whether or not there's guns around? Or the fact that people have been killing each other for centuries, well before guns were around to scapegoat?

Edit: I'm not saying that guns don't make acts of violence easier, I'm arguing against the point "guns cause violence". They don't "cause" violence any more than games do.

Guns are a tool created, refined and manufactured expressly for the purpose of killing people/things. Yes, they don't 'cause' violence any more than games do, but given that a gun is a tool of violence and games are not (Games are created expressly to entertain, or in some cases to rip off paying consumers under the pretence of entertainment), I would say that guns are a much better target for political aggression than video games are. It just so happens that the American government is one of, if not the, most corrupt political systems in the world and the NRA has the biggest stranglehold on them.

And that's another discussion for another day and I really don't feel like delving into that at the moment. My entire point, as expressed before, was in contension to the concept "guns cause violence". Guns can be used for violence, just like knives, hammers, cars, shoes, 2 liter bottles of soda, and damn near anything else. But guns can also be used for things such as hunting and self defense.

My entire point is that the person is the one who makes the decision to use a gun for violence Edit:(that is, to commit a violent crime)End Edit, just as it's the person who makes the choice to use all of the other things I listed for violence. But that person can also make the choice to NOT us the gun for what would be considered "violence". By that I mean such things as school shootings vs home defense. A bad use vs a legitimate use.

 

[Anathrax]

The guy makes a point. I mean, did you not see all the kids who tried piloting aircrafts after watching Top Gun, or the teens who had murdered their families through song after a Justin Beiber concert?

Let's not forgot what the Bible/Quran/Treasure Island says:[footnote] NO OFFENCE MEANT HERE, PLEASE DON'T KILL ME[/footnote]

Thou shall not address an enemy as a ******, lest a camper smite thee.
Thou shall not 360 no scope nor noobtube.
Thou shall not play vidya garmes, lest you be tainted by the heretic icons such as Italian Plumber or Hairy Sorceress and follow in their murderous footsteps.
May your new dog models lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the destructible terrain.

...I'm starting to think these guys have no clue what a video game is.

 

[Amir Kondori]

91 percent of kids aged 2?17 play games in North America. Thats begs a question and a response. The question is why aren't those other 90.99% of kids shooting up their schools? The response to this senator's allegations (how the hell did this guy get elected to the senate?) is you know what else all these shooters used? Toothpaste. Now there is not enough research to say for certain, but maybe we need to look into regulating toothpaste.
This is pandering at its worst, this is lowest common denominator stuff, this is why Americans have no faith in the congress.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

Sighs.

"But we do see a trend where some of these shooters do have exposure to these video games."

I suspect he also ate food, drank liquids, slept in a bed and wore clothes. It's this wonderful thing called "cause and effect" Mr Murphy. Something being common in all of these cases does not mean that they actually had any relevance. Until we invent time travel so we can see if removing gaming from these peoples lives would have changed anything, it is nothing more than pointless speculation.

Linking consumption of meat, or veganism for that matter, cannot be linked to violent behaviour in any setting that claims to be in the slightest 'scientific' or wants to be taken seriously. Hatin' on games has a history, because it's still a fringe phenomenon for various members and slices of society.

I'm pretty down to earth most of the time when off forums, so I would probably want to start solving problems with the family situation, the mental illness, the storage and handling of guns, the general handling of the situation by his mother, father, teacher, whatever person that came in contact with him and just had to realize that young Adam had issues. I'd also like to see some more of that cause-and-effect for the folks beating up Adam Lanza on what seems to have been a regular basis.

Just scapegoating around isn't going to solve any single problem or issue at hand - and yet, scapegoating and battle rhetoric are major perks in politics. They can get you votes, but not the understanding, insight and power to actually solve problems. Too bad, that.

 

[DiamanteGeeza]

"Now, nobody can sit here for certain and say that without any one of those things, without the powerful weapons..."
Is this guy fucking high?

You made me LOL. Succinctly put, well done.

 

[DiamanteGeeza]

I just don't understand why we keep electing Morons into the house and senate. Surely there are intelligent people in the country who would be willing to help run the place, you know, for the good of the country. Instead we get a constant stream of dipshits who completely ignore science and spout whatever bullshit pops into their heads. What the hell? Good god, I am sick of it.

Maybe we ought to enact a "minimum IQ" requirement to be allowed to serve in the senate/house. Sort of the same deal as now with the age requirement. "You must be at least THIS smart to ride this ride" kind of deal. Who's with me?

I'll second that. One of the questions ought to be:

Q: Will you readily go before the world's media and state that you believe in god, believe that the world is 6,000 years old, Adam and Eve really existed, heaven and hell really does exist, evolution is a myth, and god built the entire world and every creature on it?

True or False

If they answer true, then they should never, ever be allowed in charge of anything ever, and certainly never put in front of news cameras.

 

[gibby124]

This reminds me of the PMRC and all the BS they brought.

 

[Reyold]

I just don't understand why we keep electing Morons into the house and senate. Surely there are intelligent people in the country who would be willing to help run the place, you know, for the good of the country. Instead we get a constant stream of dipshits who completely ignore science and spout whatever bullshit pops into their heads. What the hell? Good god, I am sick of it.

Maybe we ought to enact a "minimum IQ" requirement to be allowed to serve in the senate/house. Sort of the same deal as now with the age requirement. "You must be at least THIS smart to ride this ride" kind of deal. Who's with me?

I'm completely behind this. The only problem is, how many people would actually pass?

 

[Leg End]

"What we know is that this young man, deeply mentally ill walking the school with an assault weapon armed with 30-round magazines. \

Not even tackling the rest, just going to pick here.
The rifle stayed in the trunk of the car, he walked in with two handguns.

We also know that no one, barring cleanup crews, have been allowed to see the aftermath of the shootings, or even the bodies of the children, which the parents were denied seeing.

Lets tackle that first before we even discuss games, eh Senator?