Here we go again...

[Kungfu_Teddybear]

Well here we go, according to this article [http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2012/12/19/1360371/newtown-video-games-rockefeller/?mobile=nc] video game legislation has beat gun control bills to congress after the Connecticut shooting as the title says.

In the article it says Jay Rockefeller introduced legislation in the Senate ?to arrange for the National Academy of Sciences to study the impact of violent video games and violent programming on children.?

So yeah, this is just getting ridiculous now. What are your thoughts?

EDIT: I linked the wrong thing at first. So if anyone clicked it and thought "what...?", it's now fixed.

 

[DoPo]

Few more biased studies from both sides of the fence. Pool of inconclusive results grows. People debate it back and forth for a while. Another event triggers more studies. people on forums also debate it, with gamers generally scoffing at the notion.

As for this particular case, I suppose the pattern would be repeated.

 

[Erja_Perttu]

Knowing nothing other than these two facts:

Give an unstable person in the wrong condition access to a firearm = very bad times
Give an unstable person in the wrong condition access to a video game = unless they sharpen it and use it to stab people, pretty hard to cause any kind of damage

it seems ridiculous. But as I understand it, there's a lot of other factors to consider, or so I'm told.

 

[krazykidd]

Okay so why is " arranging for the national academy of science" to study the effect of violent videogames on children a bad thing exactly ? I mean isn't the point of science to study different things?

Also are they only studying children?

Another thing . You know it's POSSIBLE that it does have an effect . Now that " effect" doesn't mean someone is going to kill someone else . But every action has a reaction .

My point is you are jumping the gun . The study could ALSO prove that there is no connection . See to me , studying anything is a good way to actually understand it.

 

[ohnoitsabear]

Okay so why is " arranging for the national academy of science" to study the effect of violent videogames on children a bad thing exactly ? I mean isn't the point of science to study different things?

Also are they only studying children?

Another thing . You know it's POSSIBLE that it does have an effect . Now that " effect" doesn't mean someone is going to kill someone else . But every action has a reaction .

My point is you are jumping the gun . The study could ALSO prove that there is no connection . See to me , studying anything is a good way to actually understand it.

I have to agree with this, assuming that the study is actually done well. Actually, I think that we need more good studies about the long-term effects of playing video games in general (violent, or nonviolent ones). Studying the effects of something that is a major part of many people's lives is only a good thing.

 

[JoJo]

I agree with krazykidd, there's no harm in doing a study to find out what is still a debated topic in science. I get the feeling a lot of people on this site are going to reject any anti-video game findings automatically because it threatens their favourite hobby, but we should try to look at this objectively. If they come up negative findings won't mean video games must be banned forever, maybe just controlled a bit tighter.

 

[Asita]

Okay so why is " arranging for the national academy of science" to study the effect of violent videogames on children a bad thing exactly ? I mean isn't the point of science to study different things?

Also are they only studying children?

Another thing . You know it's POSSIBLE that it does have an effect . Now that " effect" doesn't mean someone is going to kill someone else . But every action has a reaction .

My point is you are jumping the gun . The study could ALSO prove that there is no connection . See to me , studying anything is a good way to actually understand it.

Hypothetically? Nothing wrong at all. Precidence, however, tends to make it seem a fruitless gesture[footnote]due to methodology historically used for this topic generally encouraging confirmation bias and the fact that prior studies have tended to be very short term and long term studies involving people are rather difficult to pull off even with more quantifiable things such as the effect of diet[/footnote]. If it's done well, there's no issue with the study itself, but the results would likely remain questionable due to the sheer volume of variables that could affect the results[footnote]Off the top of my head, such variables would include: upbringing, size and/or closeness of family, exposure to other media, the specific content of the media in question (Dare to compare Modern Warfare to Rise of Nightmares?), personality, feelings of inclusion/isolation, mental stability...etc.[/footnote]. What's concerning is the timing of this bill and the fact that it beat out gun control legislation, which hints at a desire for a scapegoat. It doesn't help that, as noted by the article, such a study has already been mandated and carried out in accordance with prior legislation (the Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children Protection Act of 1999).

 

[Vault101]

you know why this is?

its easyer to ban videogames than it is to ban guns or fix your fucking mental health systm

 

[thesilentman]

you know why this is?

its easyer to ban videogames than it is to ban guns or fix your fucking mental health systm

So it accounts down to people being lazy twats. Good to know. Now I have a compelling reason to give the finger to government.

OT- DON'T BAN VIDEO GAMES, Congress! Study them all you want WITHOUT BIAS, but don't ban them. Please.

 

[Stryc9]

To start with, banning things isn't gonna fix shit. A good overhaul of the mental health system would be a good place to start. All of the legislation that you're about to see proposed in congress in the next few months is going to be nothing more than an excuse to waste more taxpayer money that we don't fucking have so some congressmen can line their own pockets and feel better about themselves thinking they're doing something to fix society.

Also, the media needs to lay the fuck off this scare-mongering shit they're doing right now, really it needs to fucking stop.

 

[chstens]

Let them study. They won't find anything tangible.

CAPTCHA: Big Kahuna Burger. "Mmm! This IS a tasty burger!"

 

[sir neillios]

I love how nearly every article like this points out that children are "trained to shoot for the head".

Dear dear dear, does nobody know that this is videogame nonsense? Professional marksmen target the torso...

 

[DoPo]

Okay so why is " arranging for the national academy of science" to study the effect of violent videogames on children a bad thing exactly ? I mean isn't the point of science to study different things?

Erm...nobody says it's a bad thing? Where did you get that idea from? The thing is, we've had dozens, if not hundreds of studies so far, and they've ranged from horribly biased to very inconclusive. I see no way why any new study that comes from this to suddenly not fall into that range. If you swing by any of the threads about the latest study, you'll notice lots of people that have no idea about anything make statements, too. All in all, the studies have proved nothing, and have convinced absolutely nobody to change their opinion.

So, while new study won't be bad it would almost certainly be as meaningful as the last fifty studies. Sort of pointless to do it, in that case.

 

[Twilight_guy]

I'd appreciate it if they did actually do some good studies on the issue. It'd prove that the whole idea is as stupid as the idea that movies make kids violent, or comics make kids violent, or TV makes kids violent, or books make kids violent, or... well you get the picture. This whole thing is silly and more then likely will blow up in there face and help video games rather then harm them.

 

[Lt._nefarious]

Why don't they hand someone who plays videogames professionally a gun. Y'know what the professional gamer would do? Nothing, maybe hand the gun back but not go on a killing spree. Hand a homicidally insane person a gun and y'know what happens? They shoot people.

Seriously, haven't people realise that virtually shooting someone in the face is to killing some in real life what masturbating to Mad Moxxi is to being in a committed relationship?

 

[Canadamus Prime]

In the article it says Jay Rockefeller introduced legislation in the Senate ?to arrange for the National Academy of Sciences to study the impact of violent video games and violent programming on children.?

You mean the children that aren't supposed to be playing the excessively violent video games anyway? Oh yeah sure that's a brilliant idea.
/sarcasm

 

[Sylveria]

Okay so why is " arranging for the national academy of science" to study the effect of violent videogames on children a bad thing exactly ? I mean isn't the point of science to study different things?

Also are they only studying children?

Another thing . You know it's POSSIBLE that it does have an effect . Now that " effect" doesn't mean someone is going to kill someone else . But every action has a reaction .

My point is you are jumping the gun . The study could ALSO prove that there is no connection . See to me , studying anything is a good way to actually understand it.

Most studies show that competitive (read violent) games stimulate aggressive brain activity, probably no more than watching a really heated football game but we don't want to introduce common sense in to this, which people then people make a giant leap of logic to say that means it causes these kids to become serial killers.

And, as always, people ignore that atrocities happened long before guns were invented and gun violence existed long before video games. Heck, according to the Bible, which I'm sure that senator fondles inappropriately every night, there was a grizzly murder before there were enough people on the planet to count with both hands.

 

[Sylveria]

Why don't they hand someone who plays videogames professionally a gun. Y'know what the professional gamer would do? Nothing, maybe hand the gun back but not go on a killing spree. Hand a homicidally insane person a gun and y'know what happens? They shoot people.

Seriously, haven't people realise that virtually shooting someone in the face is to killing some in real life what masturbating to Mad Moxxi is to being in a committed relationship?

Penn and Teller's Bullshit already did that - gave a gun to a 10ish year old who played CoD or something all day long. The kid fired one shot at a target, missed, then started sobbing cause the gun-fire scared the living hell out of him.

 

[Fenra]

This is a bit of an aside but what irks me is people rage against violent video games and how they are harming our children and "oh plese wont someone think of the children" mentality when at the same time I try to play anthing 18 rated on xbox live, what do I hear, kids.

Hell just yesterday I was playing Black Ops 2 (yes dont judge me) online and I got a wonderful overhear of someone who didnt mute thier mic of a parent telling his 13 year old (as she specifically said his age in a "your 13 you shouldnt be up this late" line) to turn the game off at 10pm latest, its a school night etc.

And yet they have the gall to blame video games, you know what blame your parenting first, dont buy 18 rated games for people under that age damn it! its just fucking common sense

As for the article, nothing to say as I'm not surprised in the least

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Okay so why is " arranging for the national academy of science" to study the effect of violent videogames on children a bad thing exactly ? I mean isn't the point of science to study different things?

Also are they only studying children?

Another thing . You know it's POSSIBLE that it does have an effect . Now that " effect" doesn't mean someone is going to kill someone else . But every action has a reaction .

My point is you are jumping the gun . The study could ALSO prove that there is no connection . See to me , studying anything is a good way to actually understand it.

I have to agree with this, assuming that the study is actually done well. Actually, I think that we need more good studies about the long-term effects of playing video games in general (violent, or nonviolent ones). Studying the effects of something that is a major part of many people's lives is only a good thing.

Studies are always going to be met with a certain amount of scorn and incredulity because we know that there are forces of censorship out there that don't give a damn about any opinion other than their own. We also know that studies can be wrong, and that studies can be bought.

Why stop(or start) at videogames? Why not launch a study into the effects of advertising that is designed to make us feel insecure and inadequate? Or the dehumanising effect of working for companies with increasingly unreasonable and embarassing expectations of us? Or maybe taking a close look at whether our educational systems are having a detrimental effect on the mental-health of our young people. Basically, just assessing the state of our lives, rather than looking for an easy scapegoat.

It's funny how the UK is obsessed with CoD too, but there's a suspicious lack of massacres. Isn't that weird? You'd think there would be some massacres if it was the games that make this shit happen.

Actually, I bet it is the games. I heard Mengele was obsessed with chess. Sure, he had to imagine the violence, but that only made it all the more sordid and graphic. There's no censorship in the mind!